I fully agree with this - the presence of God is a feeling, a mental state, a belief - if it was a physical or even a supernatural experience then there would not be so many different religions. Everyone would be able to see or supernaturally experience God and everyone would share those same vision or experiences thereby believing in the same deity. The Imam's reference to "the search" is what leads us to that feeling, mental state, belief, understanding of God.FreeLancer wrote: In my opinion it is sensation, feeling, mental state.
Allah and the Nur of Allah
-
FreeLancer
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:20 pm
For explanation, go to:FreeLancer wrote:Is Noor property, or quality, or power, or authority, or farman, or blood of universe? Allah is Noor then what is Noorun ala Noor ( Noor on Noor)?
Sura An-Nur
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... vens+earth
-
FreeLancer
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:20 pm
Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah was fond of Hafiz Shirazi's poetry. Imam used to entertain his European friends with Hafiz's poetry. He had memorized hundreds of couplets from Diwan e Hafiz. Let me quote one couplet of Shirazi on Noor.
SAQI BI NOOR BADA'H BER AFROZ JAAM E MA
MUTREB BIGO KAAR E JAHAN SHUD BIKAAM E MA (HAFIZ SHIRAZI)
Trans: Beloved fill my cup of wine with NOOR so that my goblet of wine enlightened.
Mutreb (singer) sing that all happening in universe is going according to my desire.
SAQI BI NOOR BADA'H BER AFROZ JAAM E MA
MUTREB BIGO KAAR E JAHAN SHUD BIKAAM E MA (HAFIZ SHIRAZI)
Trans: Beloved fill my cup of wine with NOOR so that my goblet of wine enlightened.
Mutreb (singer) sing that all happening in universe is going according to my desire.
-
FreeLancer
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:20 pm
Here is one more couplet on Noor in poetry of Hafiz Shirazi;
DAR KHARABAAT MUGHAN NOOR E KHUDA MI BINEM
EE(N) AJAB BEIN KE CHI NOORI ZA KUJA MI BINEM (HAFIZ SHIRAZI)
Trans; In tavern (bar, mai khana, sharab khana) I see Noor e Khuda. It is strange what kind of this Noor is which I am seeing in such place.
DAR KHARABAAT MUGHAN NOOR E KHUDA MI BINEM
EE(N) AJAB BEIN KE CHI NOORI ZA KUJA MI BINEM (HAFIZ SHIRAZI)
Trans; In tavern (bar, mai khana, sharab khana) I see Noor e Khuda. It is strange what kind of this Noor is which I am seeing in such place.
-
FreeLancer
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:20 pm
kmaherali wrote:Good, I hope Hafiz has made you understand the strange and incomprehensible nature of Noor.FreeLancer wrote: Trans; In tavern (bar, mai khana, sharab khana) I see Noor e Khuda. It is strange what kind of this Noor is which I am seeing in such place.
Good of course, look, Haziz found Noor in wine, in cup, in goblet, in beautiful Saqi, in beautiful Mutreb. Hafiz was fortunate found Noor in Sharab khana and not in Jamait khana.
RUKH E ROSHAN KE AGEY NOOR KA PIYALA REKH KAR WOH KAHTEY HAI(N)
DEKHE(N) UDHAR JAATA HAI PARWANA YA IDHAR AATA HAI PARWANA
I hope you are not understanding wine, goblet and sharab khana in a literal sense, otherwise Hafiz would have been called a Kafir by the Muslims!FreeLancer wrote: Good of course, look, Haziz found Noor in wine, in cup, in goblet, in beautiful Saqi, in beautiful Mutreb. Hafiz was fortunate found Noor in Sharab khana and not in Jamait khana.
RUKH E ROSHAN KE AGEY NOOR KA PIYALA REKH KAR WOH KAHTEY HAI(N)
DEKHE(N) UDHAR JAATA HAI PARWANA YA IDHAR AATA HAI PARWANA
-
FreeLancer
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:20 pm
Hafiz was dubbed as Kafir because of his poetry. Look at the couplet which I mentioned earlier;kmaherali wrote:I hope you are not understanding wine, goblet and sharab khana in a literal sense, otherwise Hafiz would have been called a Kafir by the Muslims!FreeLancer wrote: Good of course, look, Haziz found Noor in wine, in cup, in goblet, in beautiful Saqi, in beautiful Mutreb. Hafiz was fortunate found Noor in Sharab khana and not in Jamait khana.
RUKH E ROSHAN KE AGEY NOOR KA PIYALA REKH KAR WOH KAHTEY HAI(N)
DEKHE(N) UDHAR JAATA HAI PARWANA YA IDHAR AATA HAI PARWANA
DAR KHARABAAT MUGHAN NOOR E KHUDA MI BINEM
EE(N) AJAB BEIN KE CHI NOORI ZA KUJA MI BINEM (HAFIZ SHIRAZI)
Hafiz is admitting DAR KHARABAAT E MUGHAN......
You can say it has a inner meaning but other will say he is taunting Noor, or some other will interpret cup of wine as Noor Na Piyala!!!
Book Review
Walāyah in the Fātimid Ismā'īlī Tradition
Elizabeth R. Alexandrin
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press , September 2017. 376 pages.
$85.00. Hardcover. ISBN 9781438466279. For other formats: Link to Publisher's Website.
Review
The Fāṭimid caliphate was the apogee of Shīʿī Ismaili political successes. Among the dynasty’s most illustrious dāʿīs, or “inviters,” was al-Muʾayyad fi’l-Dīn Shīrāzī (d. 470/1078), whose writings are a milestone in Islamic intellectual history. His poetry and autobiography were both edited in 1949 and the first few volumes of his eight hundred lectures at the Ismaili “sessions of wisdom” began to be published in 1974 by various editors.
Verena Klemm’s Die Mission des fāṭimidischen Agenten al-Muʾayyad fī d-dīn in Šīrāz (Peter Lang, 1989) and Memoirs of a Mission (I.B. Tauris, 2003) shed much light on the biography of this talented personality, and Tahera Qutbuddin’s al-Muʾayyad al-Shīrāzī and Fatimid Daʿwa Poetry (Brill, 2005) is a penetrating study of his poetic omnibus. Though a small handful of scholars, including Henry Corbin, Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, and this reviewer have previously written about selections of al-Muʾayyad’s lectures, Elizabeth R. Alexandrin’s Walāyah in the Fāṭimid Ismāʿīlī Tradition is the first book-length study dedicated to this major collection of Islamic esoteric thought. Based in part on her 2006 doctoral dissertation, the volume specifically focuses on al-Muʾayyad’s understanding of walāyah, the concept of divine authority and leadership. It includes an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion, along with extensive notes, a list of works cited, and three indices.
The first chapter, “Walāyah in Practice,” sets the stage by examining the works of two Ismaili predecessors, Abū Yaʿqūb Sijistānī (d. after 361/971) and al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān (d. 363/974), as well as the writing of Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d. ca. 300/912), sometimes considered a “proto-Sufi.” The second chapter, “The Majālis al-Muʾayyadiyyah,” discusses the composition of al-Muʾayyad’s lectures, along with the Ismaili mode of spiritual interpretation, or taʾwīl, particularly of the Quran’s “Light Verse.” The third chapter, “The Sphere of Walāyah,” discusses typologies of the Imam, and al-Muʾayyad’s anthropology. The final chapter, “Sealing Walāyah and Spiritual Resurrection,” goes into more nuanced details about the concept of divine authority, including the roles of the Prophet Muḥammad and his legatee ʿAlī, God’s names, the esoteric interpretation of the month of Ramaḍān, and al-Muʾayyad’s doctrine of the Imam of the Resurrection.
Alexandrin’s book is an important intervention in the field. Walāyah, considered one of the “Pillars of Islam” in Ismaili Shiism , is extensively explored in the writings of Ismaili authors. However, academic studies of walāyah rarely consult these texts. Alexandrin is to be commended for her solid grasp of the primary and secondary sources. Her arguments are well documented, she provides improved readings of some primary texts (e.g., 278 n106), and copious notes occupy over eighty pages of the volume.
With its level of detail and style of presentation, the study is clearly intended for specialists. As a concomitant to this choice of audience, certain difficult concepts (such as the ḥudūd, or spiritual hierarchy) are not separately introduced. Similarly, Arabic terms are often left untranslated.
For the most part, Alexandrin’s translations are faithful, though there are occasional lapses. For example, a hadith rendered as, “I am and you are, oh ʿAlī, the Father of the Believers” (165, 209 (fathers), 273, 292) is actually in the dual not the singular, and should be “parents of the believers.” Similarly, on page 197, “the totality of the amount is divided into four sections” is better understood as four different “place values” in mathematics: the ones, tens, hundreds, and thousands (cf. Nāṣir-i Khusraw, Wajh-i Dīn, guftār 33). Occasionally, infelicities exist in Romanization (sifliyyah/siflī (44, 51), yadd (51) and zajājah (102, 105), for example,should be sufliyyah/suflī, yad and zujājah). The author’s adopted transliteration system requires tā marbūṭah to be rendered as at in construct state (x), but this is rarely followed (e.g., daʿwah al-ḥaqq (4), ṭurfah [sic, ṭarfah] al-ʿayn (28), shajarah al-khuld (104), and so forth.
Alexandrin’s study is based primarily on three published volumes of al-Muʾayyad’s Majālis. To her credit, she also refers to manuscripts of several of the unpublished volumes. She provides a useful overview of the existing editions (81-82), indicating her preference (with which I concur) for Ḥamīd al-Dīn’s critical edition. She writes that she will provide “a more thorough review of the aforementioned available editions … as a separate section” (82), but I was unable to locate the promised critique.
There are a few oversights that should be addressed. The author regularly uses expressions such as “similarities between Shīʿī and Ismāʿīlī doctrines of walāyah exist,” (15), though Ismailis are very much Shia themselves (cf. 10 where Ithnā ʿAsharī Shī'ism is specified). Referring to Qutbuddin’s aforementioned decade-old study as “recently published” (323) is unusual, as is the omission of any reference to Mohamad Adra’s 2011 translation of al-Muʾayyad’s Dīwān.
In referring to the endnotes, I often had difficulty correlating them with the text of the work. Later, I discovered that in chapter 1, the notes have been incorrectly numbered, as there are 251 in the text, but only 250 in the notes section, something the copy editor might have addressed. This disconnect occurs in other chapters as well, though the numbering appears correct. In chapter 3, on page 133, for example, the phrases “seal of the cycles” (khātam al-adwār) and “seal of the imāms” (khātam al-aʾimmah) are followed by an endnote. Neither of the two expressions occur on the pages cited, and the page number of one of the citations is not from the majlis mentioned. Similarly, “the interpretation of the ‘elite’” (tafsīr al-khāssah, sic, al-khāṣṣah) is referred to on page 138. However, the corresponding reference, while having the word tafsīr, doesn’t mention the tafsīr al-khāṣṣah.
These concerns, of course, are minor in the context of Alexandrin’s excellent, thoroughly researched contribution to the field of Islamic intellectual history. Hers is the most extensive study to date of the concept of walāyah in the writings of al-Muʾayyad. The work is a must-read for scholars seeking to understand the nature of divine authority and leadership in Islam, particularly in Shia and Sufi contexts.
About the Reviewer(s):
Shafique N. Virani is Distinguished Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Toronto.
Date of Review:
September 6, 2018
About the Author(s)/Editor(s)/Translator(s):
Elizabeth R. Alexandrin is associate professor of Islamic studies and senior fellow at St. John’s College, the University of Manitoba, Canada.
Categories: politics 1000-1500 CE religious leaders Islam
Keywords: esoteric, messianism, Fātimid caliphate, al'Mu'ayyad fi al-Dīn Shīrāzī, walāyah
http://readingreligion.org/books/wal%C4 ... -tradition
Walāyah in the Fātimid Ismā'īlī Tradition
Elizabeth R. Alexandrin
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press , September 2017. 376 pages.
$85.00. Hardcover. ISBN 9781438466279. For other formats: Link to Publisher's Website.
Review
The Fāṭimid caliphate was the apogee of Shīʿī Ismaili political successes. Among the dynasty’s most illustrious dāʿīs, or “inviters,” was al-Muʾayyad fi’l-Dīn Shīrāzī (d. 470/1078), whose writings are a milestone in Islamic intellectual history. His poetry and autobiography were both edited in 1949 and the first few volumes of his eight hundred lectures at the Ismaili “sessions of wisdom” began to be published in 1974 by various editors.
Verena Klemm’s Die Mission des fāṭimidischen Agenten al-Muʾayyad fī d-dīn in Šīrāz (Peter Lang, 1989) and Memoirs of a Mission (I.B. Tauris, 2003) shed much light on the biography of this talented personality, and Tahera Qutbuddin’s al-Muʾayyad al-Shīrāzī and Fatimid Daʿwa Poetry (Brill, 2005) is a penetrating study of his poetic omnibus. Though a small handful of scholars, including Henry Corbin, Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, and this reviewer have previously written about selections of al-Muʾayyad’s lectures, Elizabeth R. Alexandrin’s Walāyah in the Fāṭimid Ismāʿīlī Tradition is the first book-length study dedicated to this major collection of Islamic esoteric thought. Based in part on her 2006 doctoral dissertation, the volume specifically focuses on al-Muʾayyad’s understanding of walāyah, the concept of divine authority and leadership. It includes an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion, along with extensive notes, a list of works cited, and three indices.
The first chapter, “Walāyah in Practice,” sets the stage by examining the works of two Ismaili predecessors, Abū Yaʿqūb Sijistānī (d. after 361/971) and al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān (d. 363/974), as well as the writing of Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d. ca. 300/912), sometimes considered a “proto-Sufi.” The second chapter, “The Majālis al-Muʾayyadiyyah,” discusses the composition of al-Muʾayyad’s lectures, along with the Ismaili mode of spiritual interpretation, or taʾwīl, particularly of the Quran’s “Light Verse.” The third chapter, “The Sphere of Walāyah,” discusses typologies of the Imam, and al-Muʾayyad’s anthropology. The final chapter, “Sealing Walāyah and Spiritual Resurrection,” goes into more nuanced details about the concept of divine authority, including the roles of the Prophet Muḥammad and his legatee ʿAlī, God’s names, the esoteric interpretation of the month of Ramaḍān, and al-Muʾayyad’s doctrine of the Imam of the Resurrection.
Alexandrin’s book is an important intervention in the field. Walāyah, considered one of the “Pillars of Islam” in Ismaili Shiism , is extensively explored in the writings of Ismaili authors. However, academic studies of walāyah rarely consult these texts. Alexandrin is to be commended for her solid grasp of the primary and secondary sources. Her arguments are well documented, she provides improved readings of some primary texts (e.g., 278 n106), and copious notes occupy over eighty pages of the volume.
With its level of detail and style of presentation, the study is clearly intended for specialists. As a concomitant to this choice of audience, certain difficult concepts (such as the ḥudūd, or spiritual hierarchy) are not separately introduced. Similarly, Arabic terms are often left untranslated.
For the most part, Alexandrin’s translations are faithful, though there are occasional lapses. For example, a hadith rendered as, “I am and you are, oh ʿAlī, the Father of the Believers” (165, 209 (fathers), 273, 292) is actually in the dual not the singular, and should be “parents of the believers.” Similarly, on page 197, “the totality of the amount is divided into four sections” is better understood as four different “place values” in mathematics: the ones, tens, hundreds, and thousands (cf. Nāṣir-i Khusraw, Wajh-i Dīn, guftār 33). Occasionally, infelicities exist in Romanization (sifliyyah/siflī (44, 51), yadd (51) and zajājah (102, 105), for example,should be sufliyyah/suflī, yad and zujājah). The author’s adopted transliteration system requires tā marbūṭah to be rendered as at in construct state (x), but this is rarely followed (e.g., daʿwah al-ḥaqq (4), ṭurfah [sic, ṭarfah] al-ʿayn (28), shajarah al-khuld (104), and so forth.
Alexandrin’s study is based primarily on three published volumes of al-Muʾayyad’s Majālis. To her credit, she also refers to manuscripts of several of the unpublished volumes. She provides a useful overview of the existing editions (81-82), indicating her preference (with which I concur) for Ḥamīd al-Dīn’s critical edition. She writes that she will provide “a more thorough review of the aforementioned available editions … as a separate section” (82), but I was unable to locate the promised critique.
There are a few oversights that should be addressed. The author regularly uses expressions such as “similarities between Shīʿī and Ismāʿīlī doctrines of walāyah exist,” (15), though Ismailis are very much Shia themselves (cf. 10 where Ithnā ʿAsharī Shī'ism is specified). Referring to Qutbuddin’s aforementioned decade-old study as “recently published” (323) is unusual, as is the omission of any reference to Mohamad Adra’s 2011 translation of al-Muʾayyad’s Dīwān.
In referring to the endnotes, I often had difficulty correlating them with the text of the work. Later, I discovered that in chapter 1, the notes have been incorrectly numbered, as there are 251 in the text, but only 250 in the notes section, something the copy editor might have addressed. This disconnect occurs in other chapters as well, though the numbering appears correct. In chapter 3, on page 133, for example, the phrases “seal of the cycles” (khātam al-adwār) and “seal of the imāms” (khātam al-aʾimmah) are followed by an endnote. Neither of the two expressions occur on the pages cited, and the page number of one of the citations is not from the majlis mentioned. Similarly, “the interpretation of the ‘elite’” (tafsīr al-khāssah, sic, al-khāṣṣah) is referred to on page 138. However, the corresponding reference, while having the word tafsīr, doesn’t mention the tafsīr al-khāṣṣah.
These concerns, of course, are minor in the context of Alexandrin’s excellent, thoroughly researched contribution to the field of Islamic intellectual history. Hers is the most extensive study to date of the concept of walāyah in the writings of al-Muʾayyad. The work is a must-read for scholars seeking to understand the nature of divine authority and leadership in Islam, particularly in Shia and Sufi contexts.
About the Reviewer(s):
Shafique N. Virani is Distinguished Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Toronto.
Date of Review:
September 6, 2018
About the Author(s)/Editor(s)/Translator(s):
Elizabeth R. Alexandrin is associate professor of Islamic studies and senior fellow at St. John’s College, the University of Manitoba, Canada.
Categories: politics 1000-1500 CE religious leaders Islam
Keywords: esoteric, messianism, Fātimid caliphate, al'Mu'ayyad fi al-Dīn Shīrāzī, walāyah
http://readingreligion.org/books/wal%C4 ... -tradition
kmaherali wrote:Book Review
Walāyah in the Fātimid Ismā'īlī Tradition
Walaya in the Fatimid Ismaili Tradition
http://readingreligion.org/books/wal%C4 ... -tradition
I think it is important to note that the book: Code of Conduct is a public (Zaheri) book meant for everyone, not only for Ismailis and hence in a Zaheri context no one will proclaim the Imam as God. The connection between divinity and the Imam is a Batini notion.swamidada wrote: Punishment and Reward.
This particular article goes against the basic Tenet of Satpunth philosophy that Imam is god. Let me quote couple of paragraphs;
"The Imams understand them the best. For they see things by the Noor of Allah and issue orders according to His INSTRUCTIONS".
"And He has made them (Imams) His Vice Regents on earth after the Prophet". (there are many such quotations in the book Code of Conduct).
The last paragraph which discusses the punishment and rewards reads," O Momins, you must know Allah does not inflict punishment through Imams".
It clearly shows Imam is not authorized to impose punishment on any one.
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
Your notion is wrong that the book Code of Conduct was meant for everyone. Please look at the title of book, in Arabic it is; KITAB UL HIMMA FI AADABI AL A'IMMAH, The translation is; Code of Conduct for the Followers of Imams.kmaherali wrote:I think it is important to note that the book: Code of Conduct is a public (Zaheri) book meant for everyone, not only for Ismailis and hence in a Zaheri context no one will proclaim the Imam as God. The connection between divinity and the Imam is a Batini notion.swamidada wrote: Punishment and Reward.
This particular article goes against the basic Tenet of Satpunth philosophy that Imam is god. Let me quote couple of paragraphs;
"The Imams understand them the best. For they see things by the Noor of Allah and issue orders according to His INSTRUCTIONS".
"And He has made them (Imams) His Vice Regents on earth after the Prophet". (there are many such quotations in the book Code of Conduct).
The last paragraph which discusses the punishment and rewards reads," O Momins, you must know Allah does not inflict punishment through Imams".
It clearly shows Imam is not authorized to impose punishment on any one.
The title name mentions the book was written for Ismailis, as Malikis and other denomination of Egypt did not consider Imam Muiz as their Imam.
Regarding divinity let me quote a paragraph as mentioned in an article from Ismaili gnosis.
ISMAILI GNOSTIC
April 22, 2016 at 8:19 pm
The current Imam was asked in the Man Alive interview whether “is this some kind of divine authority” and his response was to not confuse religious authority with divinity. He added that the Quran was the only miracle in Islam.
This response is true based on what’s explained the article. The divine means uncaused and self-sufficient. The historical Imam is not divine. He’s the mazhar – the mirror of the Eternal Imam and the Eternal Imam is the first manifestation of the Divine, it is not God Himself. So the mazhar is not divine; the mazhar is ontologically like an empty mirror.
The Mazhar is not an empty mirror, it is the Epiphany. We can debate up to hell freezes.swamidada wrote:So the mazhar is not divine; the mazhar is ontologically like an empty mirror.
Yes I have heard your argument from some detracted people following a self appointed guru from Northern Pakistan but this is not Ismailism in its batini component and definitely we are not going to restart the Ali Allah debate in this thread.
Although the book may have been meant for Ismailis, nevertheless it was accessible to others. Just like published Farmans, they are accessible to others although meant for Ismailis.swamidada wrote: Your notion is wrong that the book Code of Conduct was meant for everyone. Please look at the title of book, in Arabic it is; KITAB UL HIMMA FI AADABI AL A'IMMAH, The translation is; Code of Conduct for the Followers of Imams.
The title name mentions the book was written for Ismailis, as Malikis and other denomination of Egypt did not consider Imam Muiz as their Imam.
We have been through this before. The television interview is a Zaheri context accessible to the public. Batini dimensions of faith cannot be revealed in that context.swamidada wrote: Regarding divinity let me quote a paragraph as mentioned in an article from Ismaili gnosis.
ISMAILI GNOSTIC
April 22, 2016 at 8:19 pm
The current Imam was asked in the Man Alive interview whether “is this some kind of divine authority” and his response was to not confuse religious authority with divinity. He added that the Quran was the only miracle in Islam.
This response is true based on what’s explained the article. The divine means uncaused and self-sufficient. The historical Imam is not divine. He’s the mazhar – the mirror of the Eternal Imam and the Eternal Imam is the first manifestation of the Divine, it is not God Himself. So the mazhar is not divine; the mazhar is ontologically like an empty mirror.
The notion of the Imam being God is not only a Satpanthi idea. It is shared by all Ismaiils.
Just go through the recitation with meanings of the Qasidas at:
https://www.jollygul.com/qasidas/
For example, in one of the Qasidas of Imam Nizar II, it is mentioned:
Har chand ki mandar nazar-i khaalq Nizaaram
In the eyes of people, I am only a person by the name of Nizar
Sad shukr ki dar aalami taahqeeq nazaaram
but in reality I am the one who sees everything in the world of reality
Gar pastam-u gar raay haqeeram na chuna nam
Unless an oyster is ready for the pearl, I do not cause a drop
Kaz raahi jalaali nasab-akbar zi kibaaram
unless the garden is worthy of a flower, I do not provide it with moisture
Dar mansab-i farmaan dihi-u jaahu najaabat
People with their physical eyes see nothing except my body
Baa aanke ba tablu aalam-u izzu waqaaram
I am the soul which is seen, only by one in thousands, I appear to be a drop
Ta neest sadaf qaabil-i dur qatr na-rizam
but in reality I am both the encompassing ocean and the source of vision
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
kmaherali wrote:Although the book may have been meant for Ismailis, nevertheless it was accessible to others. Just like published Farmans, they are accessible to others although meant for Ismailis.swamidada wrote: Your notion is wrong that the book Code of Conduct was meant for everyone. Please look at the title of book, in Arabic it is; KITAB UL HIMMA FI AADABI AL A'IMMAH, The translation is; Code of Conduct for the Followers of Imams.
The title name mentions the book was written for Ismailis, as Malikis and other denomination of Egypt did not consider Imam Muiz as their Imam.
Reply:
You wrote,"Although the book MAY have been meant for Ismailis....", your writing 'may have been' means you are not sure, you are assuming.
Obviously code of conduct was written for Ismailis to follow and was not intended for general public, because they did not believe Fatimi Caliph as their Imam e Zamaan.
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
I just gave passing remarks from the article you posted i e majlis 10 by Qadi No'man. You dragged it in thread Noorullah and Admin is loosing his mind.kmaherali wrote:Although the book may have been meant for Ismailis, nevertheless it was accessible to others. Just like published Farmans, they are accessible to others although meant for Ismailis.swamidada wrote: Your notion is wrong that the book Code of Conduct was meant for everyone. Please look at the title of book, in Arabic it is; KITAB UL HIMMA FI AADABI AL A'IMMAH, The translation is; Code of Conduct for the Followers of Imams.
The title name mentions the book was written for Ismailis, as Malikis and other denomination of Egypt did not consider Imam Muiz as their Imam.We have been through this before. The television interview is a Zaheri context accessible to the public. Batini dimensions of faith cannot be revealed in that context.swamidada wrote: Regarding divinity let me quote a paragraph as mentioned in an article from Ismaili gnosis.
ISMAILI GNOSTIC
April 22, 2016 at 8:19 pm
The current Imam was asked in the Man Alive interview whether “is this some kind of divine authority” and his response was to not confuse religious authority with divinity. He added that the Quran was the only miracle in Islam.
This response is true based on what’s explained the article. The divine means uncaused and self-sufficient. The historical Imam is not divine. He’s the mazhar – the mirror of the Eternal Imam and the Eternal Imam is the first manifestation of the Divine, it is not God Himself. So the mazhar is not divine; the mazhar is ontologically like an empty mirror.
The notion of the Imam being God is not only a Satpanthi idea. It is shared by all Ismaiils.
Just go through the recitation with meanings of the Qasidas at:
https://www.jollygul.com/qasidas/
For example, in one of the Qasidas of Imam Nizar II, it is mentioned:
Har chand ki mandar nazar-i khaalq Nizaaram
In the eyes of people, I am only a person by the name of Nizar
Sad shukr ki dar aalami taahqeeq nazaaram
but in reality I am the one who sees everything in the world of reality
Gar pastam-u gar raay haqeeram na chuna nam
Unless an oyster is ready for the pearl, I do not cause a drop
Kaz raahi jalaali nasab-akbar zi kibaaram
unless the garden is worthy of a flower, I do not provide it with moisture
Dar mansab-i farmaan dihi-u jaahu najaabat
People with their physical eyes see nothing except my body
Baa aanke ba tablu aalam-u izzu waqaaram
I am the soul which is seen, only by one in thousands, I appear to be a drop
Ta neest sadaf qaabil-i dur qatr na-rizam
but in reality I am both the encompassing ocean and the source of vision
I believe what Imam says is truth on any plate farm. What others believe it is up to them. Did Imam ever said to even Ismailis I am God in zahir or even in (your ) batin.
You wrote "The notion of the Imam being God is not only a Satpanthi idea. It is shared by all Ismaiils". Excuse me Central Asain Ismailis and even majority of Ismailis from Pakistan do not believe in this notion. Many Godly persons have claimed in sufi poetry what you have mentioned.
Ranjha Ranjha kardey ni mai aap hi Ranjh hoi ( Bhulley Shah )
Punhu(n) thiyas paan(n) susui ta surr hua (Shah Latif)
Sacho so Subhan per man(n)un lekhey aadmi (Sachal Sarmast)
You can find such type of claims in Kulliyat Shams, in poetry of Al Hallaj, Mahmud Shabistari and other sufi poets.
With reference to following couplet you know well as science has proved that rain drop is not causing oyster to produce pearl in his stomach.
Gar pastam-u gar raay haqeeram na chuna nam
Unless an oyster is ready for the pearl, I do not cause a drop
Even if it were meant for Ismailis only, it was nevertheless made available for everyone to read. Remember the Fatimid period was pluralistic. Hence matters they can create misunderstanding if read by others, are avoided.swamidada wrote: Obviously code of conduct was written for Ismailis to follow and was not intended for general public, because they did not believe Fatimi Caliph as their Imam e Zamaan.
I transferred the material to this thread because it dealt with the subject matter of this thread. Islam is pluralistic and hence understanding and capacities vary between peoples of different backgrounds.swamidada wrote: I just gave passing remarks from the article you posted i e majlis 10 by Qadi No'man. You dragged it in thread Noorullah and Admin is loosing his mind.
I believe what Imam says is truth on any plate farm. What others believe it is up to them. Did Imam ever said to even Ismailis I am God in zahir or even in (your ) batin.
A Murshid always speaks according to the capacity of the audience. There is no point in talking about calculus to a kindergarten child. It creates misunderstanding.
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
I think you do not read my posts precisely. I gave you following examples.kmaherali wrote:What does the Qasida that I quoted above say? You have to use your intellect a bit!swamidada wrote:[ Did Imam ever said to even Ismailis I am God in zahir or even in (your ) batin.
Ranjha Ranjha kardey ni mai aap hi Ranjh hoi ( Bhulley Shah )
Punhu(n) thiyas paan(n) susui ta surr hua (Shah Latif)
Sacho so Subhan per man(n)un lekhey aadmi (Sachal Sarmast)
You can find such type of claims in Kulliyat Shams, in poetry of Al Hallaj, Mahmud Shabistari and other sufi poets.
GAR TU KHUDA DANI KHUDAI. I am also a Devta and an Avtar. Guess how?!!
When a hard question is asked you avoid it because you have no answer for that. The following couplet is also said by Imam Nizar according to your post. What justification or explanation you have for production of pearl in an oyster.
Which scientifically proved wrong.
Gar pastam-u gar raay haqeeram na chuna nam
Unless an oyster is ready for the pearl, I do not cause a drop.
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
When sophisticated questions are discussed your mostly answers revolve around Batin, Pluralism, and type of Audience. Not only in Islam but mostly all countries have pluralistic societies.kmaherali wrote:I transferred the material to this thread because it dealt with the subject matter of this thread. Islam is pluralistic and hence understanding and capacities vary between peoples of different backgrounds.swamidada wrote: I just gave passing remarks from the article you posted i e majlis 10 by Qadi No'man. You dragged it in thread Noorullah and Admin is loosing his mind.
I believe what Imam says is truth on any plate farm. What others believe it is up to them. Did Imam ever said to even Ismailis I am God in zahir or even in (your ) batin.
A Murshid always speaks according to the capacity of the audience. There is no point in talking about calculus to a kindergarten child. It creates misunderstanding.
In BK BOL kindergartens are not allowed, Imam can show his reality and claim he is god. But he never did, because he is not.
What is the problem with that? The drop could be a grain of salt or calcium carbonate as per article at:swamidada wrote: Gar pastam-u gar raay haqeeram na chuna nam
Unless an oyster is ready for the pearl, I do not cause a drop.
When an irritant, such as a grain of sand, gets stuck inside the oyster's body, the animal tries to ease its discomfort by coating the speck in calcium carbonate, which hardens to form a pearl. The pearl is made up of the same luminous, iridescent substance that the oyster lines the inside of its shell with.Nov 15, 2010
In the interview in which he was asked whether he was God or not, the Imam replied: "Mysticism in its essence is difficult." That kind of knowledge is meant for those who are prepared for it and not for a television audience.swamidada wrote: In BK BOL kindergartens are not allowed, Imam can show his reality and claim he is god. But he never did, because he is not.
Remember what happened to Mansoor when he declared "Anal-Haqq" - I am the truth.
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
It was centuries old myth that when an oyster catches drop of rain water and swallow it turned into pearl which is scientifically proved wrong.kmaherali wrote:What is the problem with that? The drop could be a grain of salt or calcium carbonate as per article at:swamidada wrote: Gar pastam-u gar raay haqeeram na chuna nam
Unless an oyster is ready for the pearl, I do not cause a drop.
When an irritant, such as a grain of sand, gets stuck inside the oyster's body, the animal tries to ease its discomfort by coating the speck in calcium carbonate, which hardens to form a pearl. The pearl is made up of the same luminous, iridescent substance that the oyster lines the inside of its shell with.Nov 15, 2010
Now, is a grain of sand be considered a drop of water or calcium carbonate is water, it is H2 O.
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
Rama claimed he was Bhagwan, Krishna claimed he was Bhagwan but today Bhagwan shy to claim Bhagwan. My argument is not about general public or different audience or interview. I gave example of BK where religiously high IQ members are addressed behind closed doors and given BOL, which is selected audience, and even Imam never claimed he is god because he is not, though he mostly said I am link.kmaherali wrote:In the interview in which he was asked whether he was God or not, the Imam replied: "Mysticism in its essence is difficult." That kind of knowledge is meant for those who are prepared for it and not for a television audience.swamidada wrote: In BK BOL kindergartens are not allowed, Imam can show his reality and claim he is god. But he never did, because he is not.
Remember what happened to Mansoor when he declared "Anal-Haqq" - I am the truth.
Please note, Mansoor never said he was Allah, he uttered I am truth. Every one is truth as I am and you are, because we are from HUQQ and will return to HUQQ. Why Mansoor was hanged, historically it was also a political issue as Abbasid government was in turmoil at that time.
Lets take example of BaYazid Bastami, he also declared SUBHAANI MA 'AZAM SHANI, but was not killed. There is other example of Sachal who said, SACHO SO SUBHAN PER MAAN(N)UN LEKHEY AADMI. He was also not killed though criticized.
The Qasida does not specify a drop of water. Drop can signify a small quantity of any substance.swamidada wrote: It was centuries old myth that when an oyster catches drop of rain water and swallow it turned into pearl which is scientifically proved wrong.
Now, is a grain of sand be considered a drop of water or calcium carbonate is water, it is H2 O.
-
swamidada_1
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:21 pm
You wrote,"Drop can signify a small quantity of any substance".kmaherali wrote:The Qasida does not specify a drop of water. Drop can signify a small quantity of any substance.swamidada wrote: It was centuries old myth that when an oyster catches drop of rain water and swallow it turned into pearl which is scientifically proved wrong.
Now, is a grain of sand be considered a drop of water or calcium carbonate is water, it is H2 O.
Substance of what! Cola or Pepsi or Dr.Pepper or any juice. Please read and understand the second line there is mention of moisture.