Explaination needed of Koran Ayat.

[tret]

Brother tret:
This topic, though related to our discussion, is a completely complex topic and perhaps requires a greater and thought provoking discussion. However, InshAllah I will deal with this in simplest possible words:
Prophet of Allah Muhammad (SAAS) was the final prophet of Allah as claimed by glorious Quran. Hazrat Ali was considered from among the Ahl-e-Bait (people of the house) and he needs to be loved like the prophet of Allah and that is the reason why we offer Durud on Ahl-e-Bait in every Salat. Now, what you are trying to say is that, that was proclamation of another system of hidayat.

This topic is very simple and straight forward. If you try to deny it, it certainly gets complex, because providing evidence and reasoning to refuse it, would become complex. So, from your stand point, I agree, it is complex; however, from where we (Imamiah) see, it is very simple and straight forward.

There are many issues about what you are trying to say.

a) No one denies that the Prophet Mohammad is the seal of the Prophets and final Prophet.
b) I am not sure how versed are you about the history of Islam, but every major prophet [also referred as Natiq] had a legatee [aka Wasi], who were doing the Tah'wil of the exoteric revelation at each cycle. i.e. H Adam's wasi was Shes; H Abrahim's wasi was Ismail; H Musa's wasi was Aron [Haroon]; H Isa's [Jesus] wasi was simon peter. And Prophet Mohammad's legatee is H Ali. This doctrine of Tah'wil has existed since the history of the humanity and shall always continue. Prophet Mohammad has said that Ali is to me, as Aron [Haroon] was to Musa.

b) In spiritual matters and matters of faith, personal relationship is of not importance! it's rather the spiritual status is of importance. H Yaqub had more than 10 sons; but only H Yusuf was the successor the Prophet. So, according to your analogy, should we obey, praise other brothers of H Yusuf too? Therefore, what Prophet Mohammad said at Ghadir-e-Khum, actually has a very deeper significance and meaning than simply say, be friend with him, whoever is friend with me. Please refer to complete even of the Ghadir-e-Khum, the setting, the context. Because, at that historical moment, it would very silly to simply say Ali is my friend.

c) There is no other system. There was never any other system. As I mentioned in my previous post. The exoteric revelation is different at each cycle of the prophets; however, the tah'wil of the revealed message of God is the same. The doctrine of Tah'wil continues with H Ali; those who denies it are on their own. like a sheep who has gone away from the shepherd. I'd strongly advise you to -- without preconceived notion -- study the event of Ghadir-e-Khum, from a shia perspective. Because sunni analysis, apparently give false evidence. I am not saying shia perspective is not subjective; however, that is the truth.

Case study:
When you get a notice from Income Tax Office: “This is the Final Notice for payment of your tax. If you fail to comply with this a legal recourse will be followed.”

Do you take:

1) This is the final notice and I must comply if I have to avoid any legal recourse, or
2) This is the notice that confirms that there will be another set of different kinds of notices that will be served on to me

My take is option 1 above, because:
• If there had to be another system of hidayat, apparently, there was no need to proclaim that Rasool Allah was the FINAL messenger instead the message perhaps could have been like he is the last prophet and after him there will be Imams…. Something like this. But this is not the case glorious Quran does not say anything about another system after stating that Rasool Allah (SAAS) is the Khatim-un-Nabiyeen.

• Now, if that proclamation was THAT important that it would supersede any existing instructions, and Quran (as we understand – the Mushaf) perhaps it would (rather should) have been clearer so that there was no chance that anyone would miss that.

About your case study. There are a number of issues again.

The Qur'an is apparently the final message of God, revealed to the Prophet. And the Prophet was the final messenger of God. Again I repeat, no one is denying that. Engrave this in your mind, please! The doctrine of Tah'wil shall continue which is the Tah'wil of the final revealed message of God. Final Prophet means that there will not be any other revelation. I hope you understand the difference between tah'wil and revelation.

God has send the messengers to guide the people to right direction [sirat-ul-mustaim]. Therefore, advise and guidance of the Prophet must be followed. No advise of the Prophet goes against the Qur'an. That's the fact! Ghadir-e-khum's event was a guidance of the Prophet to ummah to give their allegiance to H Ali. How this supersede any existing instructions? Therefore, omar [who became the second khalif] was the first one who gave his 'allegiance' to H Ali [Pay attention to quotes]. So, are you saying that the event of Ghadir-e-Khum is not significant and the message was not delivered clearly? Or do you not accept the message of the Prophet at ghadir-i-khum, and try to confirm what Prophet says from the Qur'an? Well that doesn't show any trust or obedience to the Prophet from ahle-sunnah, does it? Again, please some study about ghadir-e-khum is needed.

• On Allegiance, as I have read the history, in addition to the prophet, other sahaba(s) also converted many non-Muslims to Islam. The Allegiance(s) that the prophet took were with respect to specific purposes/expeditions (like Bait-e-Rizwan, bait-e-Uqba, Bait-e-Uqba Thani etc.) while to convert any non-Muslim, the prophet would only ask him to say Shahadah and once that was done he would ask sahaba to teach him the religion (the practice(s)). That is how the initial phase went on. I stand corrected and if you know of another version, I would be keen to learn.
I stop here….I know your take….and now you know my take…..I respect your views and leave it onto Allah who is THE JUDGE.

I guess you are missing the point. I am not talking about the technicalities here, but rather I am talking about the essence! You are describing the technicalities as any ahl-e-sunnah would do. Let me break it down.

Do you know what allegiance signifies? It is an spiritual bond between the Master [The Prophet at his time] and the murid [the person who becomes murid or muslim, in this case]. It's a very special bond that one should submit with heart and soul [not simply says the shahada like parot, without affirming it wholeheartedly]. Today, if a non-muslim wants to become muslim, then who would take his allegiance? Who is qualified to take his allegiance on behalf of the Prophet? Do you consider yourself qualified? Do you consider me qualified? do you consider the mawlawi of sunni qualified? who? how do you if one is qualified to take allegiance on behalf of the Prophet?

At the time of the Prophet when sahaba's were taking allegiance, that's because they were instructed by the Prophet to take allegiance. They were not taking any allegiance on their own. This is a very serious matter, if ahl-e-sunnah truly and understands the implications of 'no guide is necessary after the prophet'. Please ponder upon this, you'll get your answers.

Brother tret:
The above system of Dawah that you have described was devised a long time ago at the time of Fatimid Khilafat. I am afraid, this system is not followed as is in the dawah in Indian subcontinent and hence students (some 30 years ago or more) were not taught about this systems in Religious Education Centre (in Pakistan, at least). Therefore brother Nuseri when says he does not care what Tusi said, there is a history to that. I stand corrected. Indian subcontinent is famous for Bhagats/Guptis who were firm adherents of the faith (which apparently is different to different people in Ismailism) and would never ask for any physical or philosophical proof for believing in what they believed. I think it would be pertinent to ask you if you are also from Indian subcontinent?

I don't think it would be pertinent at all where I am from. I believe your origination [background, tradition] should not affect your belief system. It is part of your culture and tradition, but should not affect your belief system. This is why knowing our history [Islam in general, and in our case Ismaili history in particular] is important. IF some members disagree with the teaching of our previous Dai's and Pirs, must not be generalized and expounded, for that would be only this individuals POV and belief system and does not necessarily represent the whole Ismaili belief system.

You are again incorrect, dear friend about the concept of Tah'wil [Not Dah'wa]! We are talking about Tah'lim [Master and disciple]. You are disciple of your Master if you obey your master. Where as Dah'wa is inviting others into your tariqa. I hope this is clear to you! Now, the doctrine of Tah'lim was revitilized and reinforced by Hasan-e-Sabah during the Alamut era, which is the core value and doctrine of the Ismaili tariqa, which revolves around Master and disciple. Even if you look back to the human history, man was never left alone without a guide [Master] at each era. There has always been a Prophet a Messenger to guide.

What do you think people would have understood from these words when they were revealed, in the time when they were with Raool Allah (SAAS)?
Was there another Perfect Man present in the time of Rasool Allah (SAAS), if you say Hazrat Ali (RA), would you through some light on; if this statement would not put in question the proclamation at Ghadir-e-Khum? Another related question is if Hazrat Ali’s (RA) rank/status (whatever you like to call it) was higher than Rasool Allah (SAAS)?

I assumed you would know these basic concepts, since a) you said you were born in an Ismaili family. b) you said you studied enough Ismailism to turn away from it.
Apparently my assumption was wrong. So, allow me to provide my POV:

Yes, definitely the Perfect Man was there. And that Perfect Man was non other than the Prophet. Therefore, every guidance of the Prophet must be understood first, then followed. H Ali was performing the Tah'wil of the revealed message. As I said these are the two offices, that have existed since the beginning of human history. 'The Master' and 'The Hujjat' [The proof]. Also known to us Ismailies [The Imamate and the Hujjatship]. While the Master is responsible for the exoteric revelation of the message of God, the Hujjat is responsible of the Tah'wil and esoteric meaning of the message of God.

There's an anecdote: Once in a gathering when Prophet Mohammad was giving away stuff to people, one person was shouting and screaming among everyone to the Prophet to give him more stuff, because he has done so and so. The prophet finally said to H Ali take this man and cut his toung [So he doesn't shout again]. H Ali took this person in the back away from other people and gave him what he was asking the Prophet. H Ali knew the esoteric meaning of what Prophet said. The Prophet didn't mean to literally cut his toung; but to give him what he is asking for, so he doesn't shout any more.

Similarly, when people were stealing, it was said to cut his hands. But, the esoterically this means to provide another means for the stealer, so he doesn't steal again. This is what MHI do in the third world countries, by enabling them to create a sustainable life and move away from poverty. This is esoterically cutting the hands from stealing.

I hope you get the point.

Prophet Mohammad said about Ali:
- Ali and I are from the same Noor.
- I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate.
- Ali is to me, as Aron was to Musa.

These are some of them that comes to mind now; these are btw, recorded and very widely accepted. So, what do you think Ali means to Mohammad? There's no question of comparing one or putting one's status above the other. Apparently, Prophet is the Messenger, and according to Shia doctrine, H Ali is his successor to continue the Tah'wil of the revealed message. However, you want to put this.

Do you agree, it would have solved all problems, if Rasool Allah (SAAS) had explained to them what was the meaning of Ulil Amr and why do you think he did not explicitly explained such FUNDAMENTALLY significant issue of the Deen? To me it was not that FUNDAMENTAL and the people understood it to the satisfaction of Rasool Allah (SAAS)

In my opinion Raool Allah (SAAS) had sent the message complete and clear and according to the duty that was assigned to him by Allah. The message was the glorious Quran which is also considered the rope of Allah.

As I said, the Tah'wil of the revealed message was duty of H Ali. As I indicated the previous Prophets had wasi or legatee who were doing the tah'wil of the revealed message. Similarly, H Ali was responsible for the Tah'wil of the message of God. So, if you do not accept H Ali as wasi of the Prophet, then I am not sure what else would you accept?

Hazrat Ali (RA), for instance, was a great champion of following the Deen the way Rasool Allah (SAAS) had followed. If you see the history, none of these two glorious personalities have ever stayed away from fulfilling the Zahiri Deen along with its Batin. Hazrat Ali (RA) was martyred when he was offering Salat, who do you think he was praying to in Salat, if not Allah?

H Ali was more than a champion. Read Nahj-ul-balagha to know more about H Ali and his status. H Ali's duty is/was to lead ummah towards God and do the Tah'wil of the revealed message.

And according to Quran (as I have understood) Rasool Allah (SAAS) never instructed people of anything from himself but he had only conveyed to them what was asked to him by Allah. This implies that Rasool Allah (SAAS) was not provided with the AUTHORITY to determine how the Deen would be practiced rather he was a messenger who taught the people what was taught to him by Allah through HIS Angel. If you need reference from Quran I can provide that but I believe you must be aware. When you say Raool Allah (SAAS) proclaimed that famous hadith you have referred to, how can someone transfer something to his successor which he himself does not possess, one can only transfer something that he possesses.

So, my take is what Raool Allah (SAAS) gave us was a complete Deen (his way of life) and the Quran which is a manual for every Muslim (in fact every human being).

First of all, pleas clarify what do you mean by the statement that I highlighted? If you say, God specifically instructed Mohammad to tell people how to stand, how to sit how to say prayers, even every little details, was come from god by instructions, well first of all that sounds rather silly, second, it must have been mentioned in the Qur'an, wouldn't it? Since -- according to you -- it's the instructions of God. Please show me, where in the Qur'an says pray 5 times? Show me where in the Qur'an says stand up, sit down, hold your hands together [how ahl-e-sunnah performs] or leave your hads aside [how isna ashria do]. So, are you implying that all these details are mentioned in the Qur'an?

So, basically you are saying that whatever Prophet Mohammad did or said, everything and everything must be mentioned in the Qur'an, is that correct? then please show me at least what I have asked you.

I have not provided this piece to back up my argument; I just wanted to learn about your take on this, because you seem to be following a different line then many on this forum and you seem to have studied the initial Ismaili philosophy which was the base of Ismaili faith during Fatimid Khilafat, so I wanted to learn about your take on this. BTW I have not yet really put my arguments on Shirk.

I was actually referring to Tusi's statement that you provided to other participant to backup your position on the oneness of God.
So, let me ask you; do you agree with Ismaili's position on how [concept of] God must be defined, with his unconditional absoluteness with no attributes whatsoever?

Let me tell you my understanding of Shirk in simple words:

"Bringing Allah down to someone’s status or raising someone to Allah’s status is Shirk – be it in zahiri or batini aspect, Zaati or Sifaati level, physical or spiritual realms."

Having said what I said above, I fully acknowledge, as per Quran, that the ‘Ruh’ is from Allah. Allah clearly uses the word “Ruhi” in Quran, which translates “My Rooh” when he talks about creating Hazrat Adam (AS). Even after having made the statement on Rooh, I still, believe on the above definition of Shirk.

Now, can I ask for your view on Shirk?

I already gave you the definition of shirk. Any attribution to God would be considered as shirk. And I agree with your definition too.

Okay so now we agree on shirk, then let me ask you a question of my own about shirk.


- Why do you say, God is most merciful? is merciful not an attribute of a human?
- Why do you say, God is most kind? Is kind not an attribute of a human?
- Why do you say, God is most forgiving? Is forgivess an attribute of a human?

I can go on and on, but you get the point? So, on the one hand we say don't attribute anything to God, because you commit shirk, on the other hand you keep attributing to him these a sifat? Do you have any explanation? I know, I do without committing any shirk.

Please ...

[zznoor]

Tret wrote

Please show me, where in the Qur'an says pray 5 times? Show me where in the Qur'an says stand up, sit down, hold your hands together [how ahl-e-sunnah performs] or leave your hads aside [how isna ashria do]. So, are you implying that all these details are mentioned in the Qur'an?

Brother tret
ASAK
I have posted Quranic Ayas listing 5 prayer times. Somehow Ismailis do not want to see it. I have also posted Farman by Imam Ali about prayer times but Ismailis say Naj ul balega is not reliable.

Have you heard "Established Sunnah"?. It is something Hz Ali has seen prophet do and his sons have seen Hz Ali do it. Muslim Umma have seen prophet do it. It has been transmitted from father to son. And it will be passed on from generation to generation.
Salat is such established Sunna. Manner of praying, times of praying, number of Rakats in Fird, Sunnaat, Nawafil, Tahajjud, Eid and Zanaza salat is established Sunna.

Your imams from Hz Ali to Imam SMS prayed Salat. Your Hazir Imam led salat when he was young (there is photograph of it).
Your Hazir Imam has expressed desire to introduce Uniform Namaaz for His Murids.

Why do you question Salat?

For your information here are Quranic Ayas regarding Salat

[Yusufali 20:14] "Verily, I am Allah: There is no god but I: So serve thou Me (only), and establish regular prayer for celebrating My praise.

[6:162-163] "Say, "My Salat, my worship practices, my life and my death, are all devoted absolutely to God alone, the Lord of the universe. He has no partner. This is what I am commanded to believe, and I am the first to submit."

[Yusufali 2:238] Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).

[Yusufali 2:43] And be steadfast in prayer; practice regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down (in worship).

[Yusufali 15:98] But celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and be of those who prostrate themselves in adoration

[Yusufali 48:29] Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration.

[Yusufali 5:6] O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye may be grateful.

[2:150] "Wherever you go, you shall turn your face (during Salat) towards the Sacred Masjid; wherever you might be, you shall turn your faces (during Salat) towards it."

The Salat (Prayer) verses in the holy Quran

[2:3-5] , [2:43] ,[2:45] ,[2:153] ,[29:45], [15:98-99] ,[2:3-5] ,[2:43] [2:45] ,[2:153] ,[29:45],[15:98-99], [35:29-30] ,[29:45] ,[20:14] ,[4:43] ,[5:6] ,[6:162-163], [23:2] ,[2:43] ,[2:150] ,[2:238] ,[3:39] ,[4:102], [22:26] , [48:29] , [29:45] , [3:113] ,[16:98] , [4:102] ,[2:239] ,[18:27] ,[56:74] , [87:1] , [73:20] , [50:40] ,[11:114] ,[17:78] , [62:9-10], [2:143],
[2:149] , [2:144] , [17:110] , [7:31] , [4:43] , [4:101] , [4:103] ,[4:142] , [5:6] , [5:55] , [5:91] , [5:106] , [6:72] ,[7:170] , [9:18] , [9:54] , [9:71] , [10:87] , [14:31] , [19:59] ,[20:132] , [21:73] , [22:35] , [22:41] , [24:37] , [29:45] , [30:31] , [35:29] , [42:38] , [74:41-44] , [74:1-7] , [98:5] , [10:9-10], [6:114] , [16:89] , [6:114]


I hope you own copy of Quran and will look up all of them

Salaam

[Admin]

Please do not restart the debate on 5 prayers, this has been discussed previously at length and there is no verse of 5 prayers in the Quran that have been referred neither then nor now so please let people continue on their discussion and do not try to derail the discussion. Thanks zznoor and all others to cooperate!

Admin

[Valani]

Fayyaz006 wrote:
Valani we are arguing about how we percieve God. As a scientist I understand some of the laws of "Nature" (God). Ie Gravity, Em forces etc etc. Point i am trying to make is every thing that you see or perceive with your senses is bound by some "Natural Law" or "God's Law". A simple example would be the earth will never take more than 366 days to rotate around the sun. Both bodies are bound by laws that they must obey. The celestial stars will die once they start producing heavy metals, it is a law that the smallest of the stars and the largest of the stars must obey. They have no choice. This kind of order for me and other people is a proof of God. As per the Quran those proofs are every where around you and Quran asks you to perceive them.

We can go on and on about this topic but i dont believe this is the proper thread for it. Islam demands rationality from its followers not blind faith.
Read Surat al Nahi (Bee) about the physical proofs of God. Faith cannot be blind otherwise it fails. Just like yours did in Ismailism, If your faith was not grounded in facts about Ismailism, it had to fail sooner or later

Brother Fayyaz006:
I respect your opinion and will not argue any further. I believe you agree that I am right to some extent…. And let me agree that you are also right to some extent. Although to a majority of us faith (Imaan) comes in heritage, but yes I agree that the faith may not survive where there are doubts (the same is the case with love I guess). You rightly concluded that my faith in Ismailism could not survive because I was not able to find the answers that could clear my doubts. However, I am happy that I am a Muslim, an Ummati of Rasool Allah (SAAS) and am trying to follow Islam the way Rasool Allah (SAAS), in my opinion, did.

The life, for us humans, is a perpetual thing, though it had a beginning but it has no end – we, being in this world, are perhaps going through a rather tough phase of our lives, hopefully the next phase (after Hashar) will be the ultimate phase and inshAllah all who accepted and obeyed Allah’s message to the best of their understanding and capabilities will be in a good state in that phase.

I wish I could talk to you in person on this topic….. Nevertheless it was a learning experience for me.

tret wrote:

b) I am not sure how versed are you about the history of Islam, but every major prophet [also referred as Natiq] had a legatee [aka Wasi], who were doing the Tah'wil of the exoteric revelation at each cycle. i.e. H Adam's wasi was Shes; H Abrahim's wasi was Ismail; H Musa's wasi was Aron [Haroon]; H Isa's [Jesus] wasi was simon peter. And Prophet Mohammad's legatee is H Ali. This doctrine of Tah'wil has existed since the history of the humanity and shall always continue. Prophet Mohammad has said that Ali is to me, as Aron [Haroon] was to Musa.

Brother tret:
I have read about this ‘Wasi’ concept but am not really well aware of this, can you kindly explain:
• how it was established (and proven) that there was a Wasi with all major prophets (I am sure you mean Rusul who brought a new law)

• and those were precisely the persons named in your argument

• was there a continuous chain of successors of Wasi(s) in each case until the next major prophet

• do you know the names of those successors precisely

• who was the current successor of Wasi of Hazrar Isa (AS) at the time when prophet Muhammad (SAAS) was granted Nubuwat

• do historical account (be they Shia sources or any other sources) attest to the existence of any such community who were following that current successor of Wasi at the time of Holy Prophet (SAAS) and can you quote a few familiar names from that community who later accepted Islam with Rasool Allah (SAAS)

• how does this concept of Wasi reconcile with the concept of Das Avtaar (officially accepted in Indian subcontinent)

tret wrote:
c) There is no other system. There was never any other system. As I mentioned in my previous post. The exoteric revelation is different at each cycle of the prophets; however, the tah'wil of the revealed message of God is the same. The doctrine of Tah'wil continues with H Ali; those who denies it are on their own. like a sheep who has gone away from the shepherd. I'd strongly advise you to -- without preconceived notion -- study the event of Ghadir-e-Khum, from a shia perspective. Because sunni analysis, apparently give false evidence. I am not saying shia perspective is not subjective; however, that is the truth.

brother tret:

• the problem with the history, I am sure you would agree, is that it is never unbiased. It is always subject to arguments and counter arguments, opinions, points of views, understandings and many other human factors – that is why faith established on historical accounts is always questioned. History and all historical accounts IMO cause divide. Now the question is: what is the uniting factory – the answer that automatically comes to mind is the glorious QURAN.

• You may argue that the uniting factor is IMAMAT – but the concept of Imamat is based on a historical account and has been and is being and IMO will always be questioned. And as history (though not entirely reliable for establishing belief but is there to learn and avoid repeating past mistakes) suggests Imamt has caused divide and further divide and further divide among Muslims and Shias. Therefore IMO we are left with only QURAN as being a uniting factor among Muslims – the Rope of Allah… do you agree?

• Quran IMO serves as a “litmus test”, the concept/idea/theory that Quran attests to is to be accepted, rest rejected. Now, the question (as per your POV) is that only Imam can interpret the real meaning of Quran – this does not go along the messages in these Quranic verses Chapter 3 (Sura All-e-Imran) Verse 7, Chapter 12 (Sura Yousuf) Verse 2, Chapter 54 (Sura Qamar) Verse 17.

What I understand from these messages is that Quran has two kinds of Ayaats the Mohkamaat (clear) and the Mutashabihaat (allegorical) and the Mohkamaat are the Umm-ul-Kitaab (main/crux) and that the meaning of allegorical Ayaat is only known to Allah and those whose hearts have (Zaigun – doubt) pursue the Mutashabihaat. Quran is in Arabic and easy to understand /remember so is there anyone who would understand / remember. The question “is there anyone who would understand / remember” is to the entire humanity IMO, if this is agreed upon than we can say everyone can understand the Quran wrt his/her own capacity and receive Hidayat from Allah who guides to his Noor whomsoever he wishes….Do you agree?

IMO the Muslim Ummah can unite on the Mohkamaat mentioned in the Quran, at least…. Do you agree? or do you think that even the Mohkamaat require interpretation?

• how can you say with certainty that the Shia version of Ghadir-e-Khum is the truth, is this statement coming without preconceived notion?

tret wrote:
About your case study. There are a number of issues again.

The Qur'an is apparently the final message of God, revealed to the Prophet. And the Prophet was the final messenger of God. Again I repeat, no one is denying that. Engrave this in your mind, please! The doctrine of Tah'wil shall continue which is the Tah'wil of the final revealed message of God. Final Prophet means that there will not be any other revelation. I hope you understand the difference between tah'wil and revelation.

God has send the messengers to guide the people to right direction [sirat-ul-mustaim]. Therefore, advise and guidance of the Prophet must be followed. No advise of the Prophet goes against the Qur'an. That's the fact! Ghadir-e-khum's event was a guidance of the Prophet to ummah to give their allegiance to H Ali. How this supersede any existing instructions? Therefore, omar [who became the second khalif] was the first one who gave his 'allegiance' to H Ali [Pay attention to quotes]. So, are you saying that the event of Ghadir-e-Khum is not significant and the message was not delivered clearly? Or do you not accept the message of the Prophet at ghadir-i-khum, and try to confirm what Prophet says from the Qur'an? Well that doesn't show any trust or obedience to the Prophet from ahle-sunnah, does it? Again, please some study about ghadir-e-khum is needed.

Brother tret:
I believe I have responded to these queries in my responses above

tret wrote:
I guess you are missing the point. I am not talking about the technicalities here, but rather I am talking about the essence! You are describing the technicalities as any ahl-e-sunnah would do. Let me break it down.

Do you know what allegiance signifies? It is an spiritual bond between the Master [The Prophet at his time] and the murid [the person who becomes murid or muslim, in this case]. It's a very special bond that one should submit with heart and soul [not simply says the shahada like parot, without affirming it wholeheartedly]. Today, if a non-muslim wants to become muslim, then who would take his allegiance? Who is qualified to take his allegiance on behalf of the Prophet? Do you consider yourself qualified? Do you consider me qualified? do you consider the mawlawi of sunni qualified? who? how do you if one is qualified to take allegiance on behalf of the Prophet?

At the time of the Prophet when sahaba's were taking allegiance, that's because they were instructed by the Prophet to take allegiance. They were not taking any allegiance on their own. This is a very serious matter, if ahl-e-sunnah truly and understands the implications of 'no guide is necessary after the prophet'. Please ponder upon this, you'll get your answers.

Brother tret:
This is a sensitive topic, I will share only my understanding without questioning yours InshAllah:

Quran speaks about obeying Rasool Allah (SAAS) at 12 places at least, at one place out of these 12 places it also speaks about obeying Ulil Amr and that too with a qualification that if you disagree with Ulil Amr refer back to Allah and his Rasool (SAAS) (I can provide references if required). To me this reflects the emphasis and puts the things in perspective. What I understand and believe is that: Once you accept Islam you have to obey Allah and Obey Rasool unconditionally and absolutely and you have to obey Ulil Amr from among you to the extent their orders are in line with Allah’s and Rasool’s orders.

To me, that draws a line between Rasool Allah (SAAS) and rest and therefore a Baiyath taken at the hand of Rasool Allah (SAAS) was absolute but after him Baiyath taken at the hand of any Ulil Amr is conditional and will count until the Ulil Amr’s conduct and instructions are in line with Allah and Rasool’s instructions. Therefore if Ulil Amr is following the footprints of Rasool Allah (SAAS) a Baiyath taken at his hand will count as if taken at the hand of Rasool Allah (SAAS) and hence at the hand of Allah (“at the hand of Allah” is allegorical so I will not try to interpret this) but if you see the Ulil Amr on whose hand you have taken Baiyath is going away to what is instructed by Allah and his Rasool you may exercise your right of difference of opinion. Having said that IMO there can be more than one Ulil Amr as the word (being plural) itself implies.

And perhaps that is the reason why people took Baiyath at the hand of Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA), Hazrat Umar (RA), Hazrat Usman (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA) and after him other Khalifa(s).

tret wrote:
You are again incorrect, dear friend about the concept of Tah'wil [Not Dah'wa]! We are talking about Tah'lim [Master and disciple]. You are disciple of your Master if you obey your master. Where as Dah'wa is inviting others into your tariqa. I hope this is clear to you! Now, the doctrine of Tah'lim was revitilized and reinforced by Hasan-e-Sabah during the Alamut era, which is the core value and doctrine of the Ismaili tariqa, which revolves around Master and disciple. Even if you look back to the human history, man was never left alone without a guide [Master] at each era. There has always been a Prophet a Messenger to guide.

Brother tret:
There are many Sufi tariqa(s) that go along the lines that you have described as Tah’lim (Murshid and Murid) and despite a few heretics (that are almost negligible as compared to the main stream) IMO no tariqa has abandoned the established principles and practices of the Deen. As I understand, the Baiyath that you are referring to is in relation to spiritual advancement / enlightenment and this is not a Rukun of Deen. If you take the example of Ismailism, for instance, the Farz are Dua, Dasond etc. and not Bandagi. Bandagi is considered optional although it is highly encouraged but not considered a Farz. So, with the same token, IMO anyone is free to pursue that personal search and he is free to have spiritual Baiyath with any Murshid he feels confident of – to me there are no compulsions in that. My emphases here is; Allah guides to whomsoever he wishes to his Noor and not a man – I put my bet on Allah that if I am sincere in my search he will guide me to the right path a man will be only a connecting factor and not the deciding factor.

As I understand, there is no Perfect Man that exists, the most possibly perfect man was Rasool Allah (SAAS) who himself required guidance and instructions from Allah (SWT) but it is our belief that he was under constant guidance and instructions of Allah therefore he was somewhat perfect as you like to call it.

Let me explain how I conceive Deen and its essentials, the crux of my belief is “La Ilaha IllAllah, Muhammad-ur-RasoolAllah” .We, in this life, are in a physical sphere, therefore, the physical (Zahiri) aspect of our Deen is equally important, if not more, as the Internal (Batini) that is why Islam (Shahadah) comes first and Imaan (attestation with heart) comes next. To me problems start when we try to focus more on either Zahiri or Batini sphere in doing which the emphases on the other gets lessened and hence the balance gets disturbed – Islam to me requires (as you have also pointed in your posts) us to have a balance of Zahiri and Batini aspects of the Deen. The Deen was completed by Allah during the lifetime of Rasool Allah (SAAS) (as mentioned in the glorious Quran) and hence the Zahiri part of Deen cannot (should not) change by time. To me Deen can be learnt from the life of Rasool Allah (SAAS) which comes to us through unbroken traditions and is largely undisputable (I guess).

I agree Quran does not give you minute details of everything – but that was not the purpose of Quran which is A Hidayat, A Noor, A Law, it is not a document that describes procedures or minute detail of everything, for procedure we have life of Rasool Allah (SAAS) (as per Quran Rasool Allah (SAAS) is the best example for believers). We offer Salat (Quran asks us to), how we offer it; it was taught to us by Rasool Allah (SAAS), how many times; it was taught by Rasool Allah (SAAS) – we believe: Quran asks us to take what Rasool Allah (SAAS) gives us and stay away from what he instructs to and we have faith that Rasool Allah (SAAS), although a man, was under direct guidance and supervision of Allah and that is the reason why he could not err or even if he erred he was corrected by Allah.

tret wrote:
Okay so now we agree on shirk, then let me ask you a question of my own about shirk.
- Why do you say, God is most merciful? is merciful not an attribute of a human?
- Why do you say, God is most kind? Is kind not an attribute of a human?
- Why do you say, God is most forgiving? Is forgivess an attribute of a human?

I can go on and on, but you get the point? So, on the one hand we say don't attribute anything to God, because you commit shirk, on the other hand you keep attributing to him these a sifat? Do you have any explanation? I know, I do without committing any shirk.

Brother tret:
I think I had agreed that whatever Sifati names we ascribe to Allah are the limits of our own imagination (fikr) and Allah is beyond our imagination and intellect and since HE is beyond our imagination and intellect we, despite of our best effort are and will always be unable to describe Allah rightly.

I did not say attributing Sifati names to Allah is Shirk, I have provided precisely the definition of Shirk as I have understood. We ascribe these names to Allah because Allah has used these names for himself in glorious Quran and he has also said that all the good names are for him and he should be remembered by these names. Accepting that “Haq to yaih hai kay haq ada na hua” we try our bit to spend our lives (actually these are not our lives these are given by Allah therefore HE is our Master) in a manner that Allah get pleased (Razi) with us – we try to obey Allah’s commands because they are HIS commands, I guess that’s it we in fact are in no need of any other reason to obey HIS commands.

Brother Zznoor:
I agree with Admin on this, there is no Ayat in Quran that speaks explicitly of 5-time Salat and that was not the purpose of Quran IMO as I explained above – Quran is a Hidayat, a Noor, a Law, in this case it is the Law that we have to establish Salat. How and how many times is taught to us by Rasool Allah (SAAS) and that is what he was sent for, to pass on the message of Allah to the humanity and to teach us the Deen in its totality. Nevertheless, when one admits that he is following the esoteric aspect of the revealed message, the literal meaning does not matter much to him but the esoteric (or actual by his definition) meaning.

The crux of the argument we are having here, as I have understood, is the AUTHORITY. If this can be established without doubt that Rasool Allah (SAAS) had absolute AUTHORITY on how the Deen would be practiced and that Hazrat Ali (RA) was designated by him as his successor in that AUTHORITY then no question remains, at least at my end – but my argument is that the AUTHORITY has always remained and will always remain, if there is a future with Allah (SWT) and this is what Shahadah means to me.

Brother Admin and Brother tret:
I am waiting for your responses to my query on Das Avtaar and the statement of Imam in the Khoja case. IMO that is precisely related to the discussion we are having here. I would really appreciate your response for learning of everyone.

[zznoor]

Br Valani
I have sent you PM

[fayaz006]

Valani wrote
Brother Fayyaz006:
I respect your opinion and will not argue any further. I believe you agree that I am right to some extent…. And let me agree that you are also right to some extent. Although to a majority of us faith (Imaan) comes in heritage, but yes I agree that the faith may not survive where there are doubts (the same is the case with love I guess). You rightly concluded that my faith in Ismailism could not survive because I was not able to find the answers that could clear my doubts. However, I am happy that I am a Muslim, an Ummati of Rasool Allah (SAAS) and am trying to follow Islam the way Rasool Allah (SAAS), in my opinion, did.

The life, for us humans, is a perpetual thing, though it had a beginning but it has no end – we, being in this world, are perhaps going through a rather tough phase of our lives, hopefully the next phase (after Hashar) will be the ultimate phase and inshAllah all who accepted and obeyed Allah’s message to the best of their understanding and capabilities will be in a good state in that phase.

I wish I could talk to you in person on this topic….. Nevertheless it was a learning experience for me.

Valani i was in your spot a while back but unfortunately for me i did not have Ismaili.net to help me along. I had to find answers on my own. I would like to chime in with your's and tret's discussion. I want you to understand that i respect the path you are on because you chose the path based on rational thought of the brain rather then blind ritualistic fervor. The comments that i am about to write are in no way meant to imply that you are on the wrong path, as you rightly pointed, that's for each individual to decide. I just wish to share with you my journey. The concept of Authority bothered me to a great extent but i did my own research on the topic.

First for me the first proof of Imamat was in the following verse

2-124. (You refuse to believe in and follow Muhammad chiefly because Prophethood was not retained with you, and so he did not appear amongst you. Now, you surely do admit Abraham's Prophethood, so)104 remember that his Lord tested Abraham with commands and ordeals (such as his being thrown into a fire, the destruction of the people of his kinsman, Lot, and his being ordered to sacrifice his son, Ishmael), and he fulfilled them thoroughly. He said: "Indeed I will make you an imām for all people." He (Abraham) pleaded: "(Will You appoint imāms) also from my offspring?" He (his Lord) answered: "(I will appoint from among those who merit it. But) My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."105


The above ayat specifically mentions Imams coming from the progeny of Abraham, and Prophet Mohammad was descendant of Abraham. For other Wasis you would have to research the Psalms, Torah and Bible and you will find your links. The Imams as per the Quran, have the office of Guidance and leadership, the messenger's office is to give the revealed message. In the past these offices were combined with Abraham, Adam, Jesus, Moses etc.

The second question for me was that the Quran that I read today, is it the same copy the Prophet Mohammad recited from? The answer to that is no. Quran during prophets time was an oral tradition. When it was compiled ,30 years after the Prophet's death ,in to a written tradition, you must ask yourself, was Quran changed ever so slightly. Once you put something down in writing, you bound whatever you have written to a certain context within a historical time. The argument that you made about history is correct, history is bound by context and therefore it is always biased. Often times when we are arguing with Christians in the USA about some of the violent verses in Quran, we mention the context of certain Ayat.


But if Quran is "The Guide", it should never need a context, it shouldn't be bound by time, where we are arguing about the validity of the verses in the current era. So that leaves a question. The Quran that exists today in the written form, is it the absolute uncorrupted version that was recited and read from by prophet Mohammad? Also the native language of the Quran that is written is Arabic, so how is it supposed to guide you or me who speak Urdu? Well you can make an argument that we could transliterate the Quran in English or Urdu, but that act would further change the Book.

So for me at least the question was who had the absolute message that was revealed by God to his Messengers, not just Mohammed, but to all of them. The answer for me was Sura 36 ayat 12

12. Surely it is We Who will bring the dead to life; and We record what they send ahead (to the Hereafter) and what they leave behind (of good and evil). Everything, We have recorded down everything in a Manifest Imam.

The Quran describes Imam as a Leader, Guide, a Record and the Quran that you and I both read mentions that the Imam is appointed by God through the line of Abraham and his descendants.

The above argument to me was enough to believe that there has to be a Manifest Imam in every time. Now there are several ayas that describes the prophets role as the intercessor. God even ascribes some values that are reserved for God such as merciful to the prophet. So is God committing Shirk. Ie following Ayat 9:128. God commands you take the prophet's name in the Quran for zikar, would that be Shirk?. For me though the following ayat sealed my faith in Ismailism.

And We did not send any (Prophetic) Messenger but that he should be obeyed by the permission of Allah. And if, when they were unjust to themselves, they had but come to you and asked forgiveness of Allah, and the (Prophetic) Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Forgiving, Merciful. (4:64)

The above ayat specifically mentions that sins of "Muslims" were not forgiven unless the Prophet forgave them first. This was the authority that the prophet had of intercession. How ever the prophet has been dead for 1400 years. He cannot intercede on my behalf since he was never responsibly for my guidance. Who is my intercessor for today. For me, that is the Imam e Mubeen, the Imam of the Time, the direct descendant of Mohammad and of Abraham. By the version of the Quran you and I read then he shall have to answer for my guidance as per the following ayat.


17.71. On the Day when We will call every human community with its Imam: whoever (has followed the Imam towards true faith and righteousness and accountability in the Hereafter) is given his Record (of his life) in his right hand – those will read their book with contentment, and they will not be wronged by even so much as a tiny hair.

The understanding of those ayats for me took a year and this phase of my journey was complete. Therefore as per my belief in Ismailism, the Imam of the Time has the right of intercession, when we ask forgiveness from the Imam we are asking forgiveness from God. Ahle Sunna use Mohammad as the intercessor, for Ismailis intercessors are all the prophets and all the appointed Imam's including the present Imam. So to admins words, in Ismailism there is no Shirk. I have no knowledge of the quotes that you have presented on the Haji Bibi case so i cannot comment on it.

Hope this helps Valani.

[Admin]

I wish more people would share how they found their path and the search and reasoning that guided them. I hope they do that in such a clear and articulated way as above.

It is fascinating to see that for some it has been an intellectual search and for other an internal search but still both search could lead to the same conclusions.

[zznoor]

Ahle Sunna use Mohammad as the intercessor,

Are u sure?
When I pray or need help I do not invoke Prophets name. I ask Allah directly.
Remember he is as close to u as your jugular vain.

Yes there is Hadith that Prophet may intercede on behalf of Muslims.

[tret]

Brother tret:
I have read about this ‘Wasi’ concept but am not really well aware of this, can you kindly explain:
• how it was established (and proven) that there was a Wasi with all major prophets (I am sure you mean Rusul who brought a new law)

• and those were precisely the persons named in your argument

• was there a continuous chain of successors of Wasi(s) in each case until the next major prophet

• do you know the names of those successors precisely

• who was the current successor of Wasi of Hazrar Isa (AS) at the time when prophet Muhammad (SAAS) was granted Nubuwat

• do historical account (be they Shia sources or any other sources) attest to the existence of any such community who were following that current successor of Wasi at the time of Holy Prophet (SAAS) and can you quote a few familiar names from that community who later accepted Islam with Rasool Allah (SAAS)

• how does this concept of Wasi reconcile with the concept of Das Avtaar (officially accepted in Indian subcontinent)

These Wasis that I named are widely accepted. Please do search. A clear reference of Aron[Haroon] is mentioned in the Qur'an [don't remmeber the exact verse, but I am sure you should be able to find it].

I am asking for Qur'an scolars to provide any reference of Wasis if any. Also, note that not every details are mentioned in the Qur'an. That's why the Prophets are sent to guide humankind. Honestly, from my personal POV, das avatar was a notion that later on integrated to ismaili tariqa after the conversion of Indian jama'at. This concept is still hostile to me, personally and I have very limited [to no] understanding of this. But that's a whole different topic.

brother tret:

• the problem with the history, I am sure you would agree, is that it is never unbiased. It is always subject to arguments and counter arguments, opinions, points of views, understandings and many other human factors – that is why faith established on historical accounts is always questioned. History and all historical accounts IMO cause divide. Now the question is: what is the uniting factory – the answer that automatically comes to mind is the glorious QURAN.

I beg to differ on this. I think our [Islam] history is crucial to know. The history doesn't divide but mis-understanding does. True that Qur'an is the uniting factor. More important than that is the principals of Islam, which preaches ethical contact, serving humanity and believe in the oneness of God is even more important and uniting factor, and the core message of the Qur'an.

But the very important question is, since Qur'an is not easy to understand and interpret, mankind will always have different interpretation and view point of various verse in Qur'an. The question is whose interpretation is correct? As we see today sunnies have different interpretations than Shias. I believe there should be an authority who's interpretation should be correct, according to time and space. It's for us to decide and realize who that authority is. I stop here, and let you contemplate on that.

• You may argue that the uniting factor is IMAMAT – but the concept of Imamat is based on a historical account and has been and is being and IMO will always be questioned. And as history (though not entirely reliable for establishing belief but is there to learn and avoid repeating past mistakes) suggests Imamt has caused divide and further divide and further divide among Muslims and Shias. Therefore IMO we are left with only QURAN as being a uniting factor among Muslims – the Rope of Allah… do you agree?

Well, that's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. Again, I am afraid you are wrong. Imam [or Imamat] doesn't divide, but rather mis-understanding does. I am sure you are referring to the division of Sunni and Shia at the time of Prophet [or rather after Prophet]. Well, again I'd suggest you study the history [not only from a sunni perspective, but also from Shia perspective] to understand what caused the division. The divide was purely on temporal power and greed. I don't want to go into details, but I'd like you to do your research on who was the rightful successor after the Prophet? was it abubakr? or omar? or usman? or was the Ali? Who would have been the most qualified? and why? I think the core of the major divide is in related to this.

Every time there's a divide, the cause of it, is temporal power, not the Imam.

Just look around, Ismailis are the only tariqa who traces back the Imam to Prophet Mohammad and H Ali. Which other sect does that? If something is based on falsehood, doesn't last. Imamat is not, and shall continue till the haws of kawsar.

• Quran IMO serves as a “litmus test”, the concept/idea/theory that Quran attests to is to be accepted, rest rejected. Now, the question (as per your POV) is that only Imam can interpret the real meaning of Quran – this does not go along the messages in these Quranic verses Chapter 3 (Sura All-e-Imran) Verse 7, Chapter 12 (Sura Yousuf) Verse 2, Chapter 54 (Sura Qamar) Verse 17.

Just think about it, if the God only knows the true meaning of Qur'an, then mankind has no chance of understanding the message of God. It is mentioned several times, those who are vested with the knowledge. Those who are understanding, and similar references. This is clear reference to authoritative instructor who truly understand the correct interpretation of it. You see, you are interpreting this verse one way, and I am doing it differently. If you ask 10 other people, you might get 10 different ways. So, question is who's right? If you are welling to accept a mawlawi's version of interpretation, then it's up to you, as long as your intellect accept it and you are spiritually satisfied. I will not, for example.

What I understand from these messages is that Quran has two kinds of Ayaats the Mohkamaat (clear) and the Mutashabihaat (allegorical) and the Mohkamaat are the Umm-ul-Kitaab (main/crux) and that the meaning of allegorical Ayaat is only known to Allah and those whose hearts have (Zaigun – doubt) pursue the Mutashabihaat. Quran is in Arabic and easy to understand /remember so is there anyone who would understand / remember. The question “is there anyone who would understand / remember” is to the entire humanity IMO, if this is agreed upon than we can say everyone can understand the Quran wrt his/her own capacity and receive Hidayat from Allah who guides to his Noor whomsoever he wishes….Do you agree?

I partially agree. However, here's what I understand.

Qur'an has actually 4 categories of Ayats.
- Declarative [ebarat]: this is for common men or [awama] [like you and I], such as do good deeds, be kind to humankind, help poor, etc...
- Hints [esharat]: This is for elite [khawasa], who can decode these messages properly and correctly.
- Parables [Lataif]: This is for friends of God [awlia], who can interpret the true meaning behind an anecdote or a parable. such as story of Prophet Moses that encounters Khizr.
- Truth [Aqaiq]" This is only for Prophets and Imams, who truly understand the precise meaning and needs to be interpreted to humankind according to time and space.

You say Qur'an is simple to understand, and yet every single muslim has different views and interpretation. You seem a little inconsistent in your debate. When you interpret something, either you are getting it right or wrong. There's no understanding according to your capacity. That's why most radical muslims pretend that they follow Qur'an, but they don't realize that they are going against the teaching of Qur'an.

IMO the Muslim Ummah can unite on the Mohkamaat mentioned in the Quran, at least…. Do you agree? or do you think that even the Mohkamaat require interpretation?

• how can you say with certainty that the Shia version of Ghadir-e-Khum is the truth, is this statement coming without preconceived notion?

a) by mohkamat, if you mean [ebarat] or declarative, that I gave some examples, then for sure. I think every muslim [or even non-muslim] would agree that doing good deed, helping poor, ethical conduct are the foundation of every society and we must agree.

b) Regarding to event of Ghadir-e-Khum, I provided you the widely accepted hadis of the Prophet [you have to read the entire even to get the context and setting to conclude], that Prophet said, whoever I am Master to, Ali is their Master. While ahl-e-sunnah agrees with the hadis and the event, but they disagree with the grammer and usage of word "Mauwla". According to the context and setting of Ghadir-e-Khum, it would seriously not have been necessary for the Prophet to tell thausands of people in that hot desert, while coming back from the last pilgrimage just to tell them Ali is my friend. Before that the Ayat of "Ya hayu-arrassulu balegh ma unzilla..." was revealed. So what was this important message that the Prophet had to deliver to ummah, or else he would have not fulfilled his Prophithood? was the message to tell ummah that Ali is my friend? or the word Mauwla has a deeper significance? Please ponder upon this. This is really crucial, and I am sure you will realize it, since you already have a shia background, and you are very smart and have a good analytical knowledge.

Brother tret:
This is a sensitive topic, I will share only my understanding without questioning yours InshAllah:

Quran speaks about obeying Rasool Allah (SAAS) at 12 places at least, at one place out of these 12 places it also speaks about obeying Ulil Amr and that too with a qualification that if you disagree with Ulil Amr refer back to Allah and his Rasool (SAAS) (I can provide references if required). To me this reflects the emphasis and puts the things in perspective. What I understand and believe is that: Once you accept Islam you have to obey Allah and Obey Rasool unconditionally and absolutely and you have to obey Ulil Amr from among you to the extent their orders are in line with Allah’s and Rasool’s orders.

Very good. Now tell me who Ulil Amr is, according to you? What are His qualifications?

To me, that draws a line between Rasool Allah (SAAS) and rest and therefore a Baiyath taken at the hand of Rasool Allah (SAAS) was absolute but after him Baiyath taken at the hand of any Ulil Amr is conditional and will count until the Ulil Amr’s conduct and instructions are in line with Allah and Rasool’s instructions. Therefore if Ulil Amr is following the footprints of Rasool Allah (SAAS) a Baiyath taken at his hand will count as if taken at the hand of Rasool Allah (SAAS) and hence at the hand of Allah (“at the hand of Allah” is allegorical so I will not try to interpret this) but if you see the Ulil Amr on whose hand you have taken Baiyath is going away to what is instructed by Allah and his Rasool you may exercise your right of difference of opinion. Having said that IMO there can be more than one Ulil Amr as the word (being plural) itself implies.

And perhaps that is the reason why people took Baiyath at the hand of Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA), Hazrat Umar (RA), Hazrat Usman (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA) and after him other Khalifa(s).

I don't think your argument is logical. So basically you are hoping that the ulil amr that you are giving your bay'ha is true ulil amr, if not, then you are on your own. Like I said, the true significance of bay'ah is very important, because I repeat, it is a very special and spiritual bond between you and Mursheed to submit unconditionally. I don't think I would feel submitting if there's even a small chance that the ulil amr is not the right one. Therefore, it's not my fault [or someone else's who try to become muslim] that we are not born in the time of the Prophet to give bay'ha to the true Ulil Amr. This would be unjust, and God is never unjust. Therefore, the True Ulil Amr, that Hand to give your bay'ha must always exist in every time and era. It is for us and our duty to find it.

I said it before, and I repeat once more. The reason why other sahabas, like Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Mauwla Ali took bay'ah is solely because they were instructed by the Prophet. There could very well be others who took bay'ha on behalf of the Prophet, based on the Prophet's instruction, and that is absolutely correct. You don't have to take only The Prophet's hand to give your bay'ha, you can take anybody's hand, so long as it is instructed by the Prophet.

Brother tret:
There are many Sufi tariqa(s) that go along the lines that you have described as Tah’lim (Murshid and Murid) and despite a few heretics (that are almost negligible as compared to the main stream) IMO no tariqa has abandoned the established principles and practices of the Deen. As I understand, the Baiyath that you are referring to is in relation to spiritual advancement / enlightenment and this is not a Rukun of Deen. If you take the example of Ismailism, for instance, the Farz are Dua, Dasond etc. and not Bandagi. Bandagi is considered optional although it is highly encouraged but not considered a Farz. So, with the same token, IMO anyone is free to pursue that personal search and he is free to have spiritual Baiyath with any Murshid he feels confident of – to me there are no compulsions in that. My emphases here is; Allah guides to whomsoever he wishes to his Noor and not a man – I put my bet on Allah that if I am sincere in my search he will guide me to the right path a man will be only a connecting factor and not the deciding factor.

I think you are mixing things up here. Bay'ha is the special bond that you accept and submit unconditional your Master and his guidance. You are referring to sufi concept of accepting teacher's hand; however, in Islam it is the bay'ah and acceptance of the Faith of Islam. Bandagi is personal soul searching journey and it is apparently encouraged for everyone. But, I don't understand what is the connection you are trying to make between Du'a, Rukn and bay'ah?

What do you mean by "man will be only a connecting factor and not the deciding factor" ? Can you clarify?

As I understand, there is no Perfect Man that exists, the most possibly perfect man was Rasool Allah (SAAS) who himself required guidance and instructions from Allah (SWT) but it is our belief that he was under constant guidance and instructions of Allah therefore he was somewhat perfect as you like to call it.

Well, that's your opinion again, and you are definitely entitled to it. Philosophically, Tusi has proved it that there must be a Perfect Man to lead humankind to salvation and purify individual soul. The reason is that humankind is never capable of realizing God through God Himself, simply because God transcends human capacity in every dimension. Therefore, the need for a Perfect Man is there for man to realize God through Him [The Perfect Man]. Imam knows God through God; man only knows God through Imam. I know and understand that ahl-e-sunnah doesn't agree with this. Again, I go back to the philosophical analogy:

Anything that has a potential to become actualized, must be intervened by an external entity. If the potential to become perfect existed in the essence of things, then the process of coming to existence and becoming actualized would have been simultaneous. In this case, individual soul -- you may already know this -- has the potentiality to become perfect. Now this potentiality is not in man's essence. Individual souls must be assisted through an intermediary to become actualized. This intermediary must be in itself perfect, otherwise it can not actualize individual souls. The individual souls must have access to this intermediary. You think man are capable of actualizing their soul themselves with no assistance, is not correct. Look back at history, every man who reached higher sphere, such as Maulana and many more, at some point met someone who inspired them and elevated their souls. No individual by themselves are capable of doing so. True that God gives guidance to whomsoever He wishes, but that comes through an intermediary. It doesn't mean that you sleep and wake up tomorrow a whole new person. The Prophets are the Perfect Man, you see clearly they manifest the names of God [The most merciful, the most kind, the most knowledgeable, etc... etc...] They are perfect, if you truly recognize them, even though you may thing they are not.

Let me explain how I conceive Deen and its essentials, the crux of my belief is “La Ilaha IllAllah, Muhammad-ur-RasoolAllah” .We, in this life, are in a physical sphere, therefore, the physical (Zahiri) aspect of our Deen is equally important, if not more, as the Internal (Batini) that is why Islam (Shahadah) comes first and Imaan (attestation with heart) comes next. To me problems start when we try to focus more on either Zahiri or Batini sphere in doing which the emphases on the other gets lessened and hence the balance gets disturbed – Islam to me requires (as you have also pointed in your posts) us to have a balance of Zahiri and Batini aspects of the Deen. The Deen was completed by Allah during the lifetime of Rasool Allah (SAAS) (as mentioned in the glorious Quran) and hence the Zahiri part of Deen cannot (should not) change by time. To me Deen can be learnt from the life of Rasool Allah (SAAS) which comes to us through unbroken traditions and is largely undisputable (I guess).

I agree with you with certain parts of your argument, such as there must be a balance between Din and Dunya [Very very important]. However, here's what I don't agree.

You said shahada comes first, then Iman. I would say it is completely the opposite. You must believe in something before you attest it. I give you an example. When you guys something, say a car and the dear asks you to sign the purchase order or contract. Do you first try understand what the contract says? or do you sing first, and then try to understand the content of the contract?

Second, what Prophet was doing at His time, was perfect. Time essentially means change. If the Prophet was alive today, He wouldn't have used maswak, he would certainly use car for transportation. He would probably shaved. Remember, the essence of deen shall never change. How you practice need to change according to time and space. This is what ahl-e-sunnah have hard time to understand. If you use your intellect [and Islam certainly wants us to use], you realize this.

I agree Quran does not give you minute details of everything – but that was not the purpose of Quran which is A Hidayat, A Noor, A Law, it is not a document that describes procedures or minute detail of everything, for procedure we have life of Rasool Allah (SAAS) (as per Quran Rasool Allah (SAAS) is the best example for believers). We offer Salat (Quran asks us to), how we offer it; it was taught to us by Rasool Allah (SAAS), how many times; it was taught by Rasool Allah (SAAS) – we believe: Quran asks us to take what Rasool Allah (SAAS) gives us and stay away from what he instructs to and we have faith that Rasool Allah (SAAS), although a man, was under direct guidance and supervision of Allah and that is the reason why he could not err or even if he erred he was corrected by Allah.

Very nice. The reason why I asked you to tell me the timing, how and when was to make a point and you clarified it. So, you agree that the Prophet had the authority to prescribe how and when these arkaan should be practices, right? So, please correct yourself and don't say that whatever the Prophet said or did was through instructions. The Prophet received the knowledge of God through ta'yid, and then revealed it to ummah. He certainly had the authority and knowledge to instruct people, even though those instructions are not mentioned in the Qur'an. Therefore, if the Prophet had the authority to prescribe the practice of deen and had complete knowledge, then what makes you believe that He didn't have any authority to appoint a successor? I completely agree that the Prophet is a perfect example to follow hid Guidance [not life style], and that's what we Ismailies do. It's very hard for ahl-e-sunnah to understand, but in essence Ismaili follows the true message of God and Islam.

Brother tret:
I think I had agreed that whatever Sifati names we ascribe to Allah are the limits of our own imagination (fikr) and Allah is beyond our imagination and intellect and since HE is beyond our imagination and intellect we, despite of our best effort are and will always be unable to describe Allah rightly.

I did not say attributing Sifati names to Allah is Shirk, I have provided precisely the definition of Shirk as I have understood. We ascribe these names to Allah because Allah has used these names for himself in glorious Quran and he has also said that all the good names are for him and he should be remembered by these names. Accepting that “Haq to yaih hai kay haq ada na hua” we try our bit to spend our lives (actually these are not our lives these are given by Allah therefore HE is our Master) in a manner that Allah get pleased (Razi) with us – we try to obey Allah’s commands because they are HIS commands, I guess that’s it we in fact are in no need of any other reason to obey HIS commands.

You say attributing sifat to Good is not shirk. This is what it means.

God is most merciful. A person is merciful, God is most merciful. A person can be merciful, God is most merciful; therefore, God must have human quality. How this is not attributing human quality to God? On the one hand you say God is beyond our comprehension, on the other hand we say God is most merciful. I think this is unknowing shrik.

Here's my take.

These names of God [as you rightfully stated that are mentioned in the glorious Qur'an] are actually referred to the secondary reality, other than God. The Command of God that is the cause of all causes and effects. The origination of the creation the first and the last. The Prophets [at their time, and Imams at their time] are Perfect in every aspects and we can certainly attribute these sifats to them. Prophet is the most merciful, comparing to every human being in the world. Therefore He is the most merciful. On this topic, I'd suggest you do some readings about the creation from Islamic philosophical point of view such as [Knowledge and Liberation, Paradise of Submission, even Ibn Arabi and Avicenna (or Ibn Sina)]. They are have somewhat closely related point of view about what I mentioned.

As I said in my previous post, whatever comes from our estimation, even in its precise measure, is turned away from HIM [God], and returned to us[Man] and created by us and fabricated by us. So even when God says "Most Merciful" is actually one of the names of God, which is referred to the Prophet [Imam at his time], not God Himself, because God is beyond comprehension and as such beyond any human attributes.

Brother Admin and Brother tret:
I am waiting for your responses to my query on Das Avtaar and the statement of Imam in the Khoja case. IMO that is precisely related to the discussion we are having here. I would really appreciate your response for learning of everyone.

What you quoted in your previous post, can not be Imams statement. I think I responded your query -- from my stand point -- about das avatar.

[agakhani]

Remember he is as close to u as your jugular vain.

That means Allah is only closer to you to your jugular vain but not the prophet Mohammad!!!??

BTW:- For me 3 persons are much closer than my jugular vain and even heart and they are Allah, Mohammad and H. Ali = in form of current MHI.

How about me, how close am I to you?

[Valani]

Brothers Fayyaz006 and tret:

I believe I have a lot to say in response to your posts but somehow I am not finding enough time, I will get back soon inshAllah.

Brother Zznoor:

I have not received your PM please use my email address to send me the message i.e. [email protected]

Brother Admin:

I would appreciate your words on my requests

[zznoor]

Br Valani
Check your PM in box.
It should be there. It has not been deleted.
Salaam

[nuseri]

To tret:Ya Ali Madad.
You and Fayaz are doing very fair point of view. Valani is a lowend Khoja 12er burning his ass like zznoor ,as they are jealous of Ismailis.hey are now
talking of their intensity of heat n pain below.

Remember Imam SMS farman to IGNORE the braying n barking of zahiris,who may never be blessed with Baatin.

You mentioned twice about recently opened Museum in Toronto.
What is it you wish to tell me on/of it?

[zznoor]

Br fayaz wrote

The above argument to me was enough to believe that there has to be a Manifest Imam in every time. Now there are several ayas that describes the prophets role as the intercessor. God even ascribes some values that are reserved for God such as merciful to the prophet. So is God committing Shirk. Ie following Ayat 9:128. God commands you take the prophet's name in the Quran for zikar, would that be Shirk?. For me though the following ayat sealed my faith in Ismailism.

Can you quote Aya which commands us to take Prophets or other auliyas name in Zikr?

Here is what 9:128 says ( from Asad)

9:128 transliteration
Laqad jaakum rasoolun min anfusikum AAazeezun AAalayhi ma AAanittum hareesun AAalaykum bialmumineena raoofun raheemun

Topics discussed in this Verse:
[Allah's attributes:Exalted in Power and Might] [Allah's attributes:full of kindness] [Muhammad:most kind and merciful to the Believers]

Translation 9:128 (Asad)

INDEED, there has come unto you [O mankind] an Apostle from among yourselves: [170] heavily weighs -upon him [the thought] that you might suffer [in the life to come]; full of concern for you [is he, and] full of compassion and mercy towards the believers.

Note [170]: "a human being like yourselves, not endowed with any supernatural powers, but only chosen by God to convey His message to you".

This Aya does not say you take anybody's name in Zikar

[tret]

You mentioned twice about recently opened Museum in Toronto.
What is it you wish to tell me on/of it?

Dear nuseri - The Ismaili Center and the Museum not only show case Islamic art and architecture, but also represents our history. MHI emphasize on understanding our [Ismaili and Islamic] History. So, to say our Pirs or Dais are so and so, I think would be against the wishes of MHI. The work of our Pirs and Dais [be it ginan, qasida, poems, munajat, manqabat, madh, books, articles etc...] are a great treasure and must be preserved for this and future generations to come. I believe, by no means teaching of Pirs and Dais are against Ismaili tariqa and must not be against our belief. If we don't understand the meaning of them; that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong. The fault is on us, that we don't understand it. My humble request to you is not to insult our Pirs and Dais, especially you being an Ismaili. The following are what MHI says about the Museum.

They [The Ismaili Center, The Aga Khan Museum] call for translating concepts that have a context in our faith and our history, yet stride boldly and confidently ahead, into modernity; for expressing both the exoteric and the esoteric."
- Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan VI, Ottawa, Canada June 6, 2005

This new Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat, like the Is,maili Center and the Aga Khan Museum to be built in Toronto, reflects our conviction that buildings can do more than simply house people and programs. They can also reflect our deepest values, ans great architecture captures esoteric thought in physical form.
- Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan VI, Ottawa, Canada December 6, 2008

[agakhani]

But if Quran is "The Guide", it should never need a context, it shouldn't be bound by time, where we are arguing about the validity of the verses in the current era. So that leaves a question. The Quran that exists today in the written form, is it the absolute uncorrupted version that was recited and read from by prophet Mohammad?

Un-corrupted!??

Brother,
Quran has been edited, changed, omitted many times in past and this kind changing were continued till the Abbasi caliph Haroon Al Rashid, read the Shia history and you will find this fact so, nobody ( at least Shia't point of view) can tell that Quran is not corrupted, or unchanged! it is corrupted and changed according many Shia scholars.

To me: Quran is just a book "SIRF DEKH KAR AOUR PADH KAR KHUSH HO"

[agakhani]

The above argument to me was enough to believe that there has to be a Manifest Imam in every time. Now there are several ayas that describes the prophets role as the intercessor.

Here we go!! CHALO DER SE AAYE LEKIN DOORAST AAYE"
There are more than 2 dozen of Quranic ayas which directly or indirectly telling about the Imamat and successors after prophet Mohammad (PBUH) BUT BIRADARAN OF AHLE SUNNAH has always misinterpreted those ayas . this kind wrong interpretation is not new! it has been coming since the death of prophet and I, do not know when this will end!!?

[zznoor]

But if Quran is "The Guide", it should never need a context, it shouldn't be bound by time, where we are arguing about the validity of the verses in the current era. So that leaves a question. The Quran that exists today in the written form, is it the absolute uncorrupted version that was recited and read from by prophet Mohammad?

Un-corrupted!??

Brother,
Quran has been edited, changed, omitted many times in past and this kind changing were continued till the Abbasi caliph Haroon Al Rashid, read the Shia history and you will find this fact so, nobody ( at least Shia't point of view) can tell that Quran is not corrupted, or unchanged! it is corrupted and changed according many Shia scholars.

To me: Quran is just a book "SIRF DEKH KAR AOUR PADH KAR KHUSH HO"

I wish somebody showed this to your MHI. I can't imagine what would he say!

[tret]

I wish somebody showed this to your MHI. I can't imagine what would he say!

He would be seriously upset. Now, you know whatever you hear/read in this website, not necessarily reflect Ismaili doctrine, but rather each individuals opinion and belief.

[fayaz006]

zznoor wrote
Can you quote Aya which commands us to take Prophets or other auliyas name in Zikr?


You are correct that 9-128 is not about zikr. That ayat is where God ascribes one of His values to Mohammad (pbuh) which is mercy. The following ayat would be for zikr of Mohammad (PBUH)

And exalted for you your zikr (remembrence). 94:4

So do you think remembering Mohammad would be Shirk? But even more than the previous ayat, the following ayat should raise eyebrows for people that are concerned about Shirk.

And in some part of the night rise from sleep and observe vigil therein (through Prayer and recital of the Qur’an) as additional worship for you; your Lord may well raise you to a glorious, praised station (of nearness to Him and give you leave to intercede with Him, as He wills, on behalf of His servants, in the Hereafter)

So how come a person could be raised to a station of Praise and Glory. Wouldnt that be Shirk?

How about the following Ayat

O Prophet! When the believing women come to you, taking oath of allegiance to you that they will ascribe nothing as partner to Allah, and will not steal and will not commit adultry and will not kill their children, and will not produce any calumny, forging it between their hands and feet (regarding birth), nor disobey you in what is good, then accept their allegiance and ask forgiveness for them from Allah. Surely, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful! (60:12)

Apparent if you are a believing women you could not be considered a Muslim if you didn't take Baya from the prophet himself. According to the ayat above , since the prophet is no longer with us, from who do you take the baya from noor? Would taking an Oath of Allegiance from anybody but God be considered Shirk for you?

The truth of the matter is the only living being that has the power of intercession on your behalf is the God appointed Imam of the Time. No one else qualifies.

[tret]

Apparent if you are a believing women you could not be considered a Muslim if you didn't take Baya from the prophet himself. According to the ayat above , since the prophet is no longer with us, from who do you take the baya from noor? Would taking an Oath of Allegiance from anybody but God be considered Shirk for you?

The truth of the matter is the only living being that has the power of intercession on your behalf is the God appointed Imam of the Time. No one else qualifies.

Dear Fayaz -

This is a very important point you mentioned, and the exact question I posed to Valani, [and zznoor and while back], and they don't seem to realize the importance of this issue of giving allegiance to someone who can truly take the bay'ha on behalf of the Prophet.

[fayaz006]

Hello Tret my brother from a central asian mother (i am assuming ofcourse)

I don't think for ahle Sunna or for us Ismailis at large its simply a matter of question of Baya. Like Valani pointed out for most folks, their religion is part of their heritage not necessarily part of their heart. Which is why very few people actually follow the ethics of whatever faith they belong to.

I think for religion to realized and internalized, it has to be questioned. We must reconcile all of the doubts we have about our faith. Us ismailis would call that critical thinking. For most, probably most of human kind, these doubts and philosophical questions are swept under the rug. They cannot reconcile their faith with themselves therefore they pick and choose what they would want to believe in. It is quite easy to do that rather than struggle with deeper questions for a long time in your life.

For the Ahle Sunna the question of baya will always be swept under the rug. The question of Baya, would bring into contention 1300 years of Sunni history. That fact alone will cause people to shut their ears and train their brains to not worry about the aspect of bayat.

That my friend is human nature. How many Ismailis do you know that actually understand the significance of the baya given to the Imam of the Time? I am fortunate to find so many of my comrades on this website but other than that you could probably assume the percentage of people who understand their faith would be rather low.

Admin sir or madam thank YOU for the encouragement from the previous post.

[tret]

Dear Fayaz -

Couldn't agree more.
Just a note, though on your remark on 'how many of Ismailies know the significance of Bay'ah' : It is not actually the matter of how many of us realize the importance of it, and how many of us don't. It's rather about the principals of our vs ahle-sunnah's faith. i.e. when ahl-e-sunnah criticize us [Ismailies] -- rightfully or wrongfully or otherwise -- of not offering prayer [which we do apparently], they try to prove us wrong, principally, despite the fact that there are members of Jama'at offering main stream prayers [5 times, for example]. Now, the question Bay'ah is similar. It's not about individuals to know or not; but rather about the principals on which the faith itself if built upon. I hope I could articulate it better.

[zznoor]

To me: Quran is just a book "SIRF DEKH KAR AOUR PADH KAR KHUSH HO"

So what is left in your Islam?
No Quran, no Salat, no Swam, No hajj?

[agakhani]

Forget about our Mowla just for now; meanwhile why don"t you ask your mentor and Mullah who brain washed you from head to toe!
Tell him that one person says that Quran is a nothing else but a currupted book for him? Let me know what he has to say first and then after we will talk about our MHI. I promiss that I will shut his mouth providing as many as evidence he wants to prove Quran is currupted!
Why don"t you set an appointment? Go ahead, and let me know where and when he wants to meet me for debate? But you have to damn there.

[zznoor]

Fayaz wrote

And exalted for you your zikr (remembrence). 94:4

Here is full sura

[Yusufali 94:1-8]
Have We not expanded thee thy breast?-
And removed from thee thy burden
The which did gall thy back?-
And raised high the esteem (in which) thou (art held)?
So, verily, with every difficulty, there is relief:
Verily, with every difficulty there is relief.
Therefore, when thou art free (from thine immediate task), still labour hard,
And to thy Lord turn (all) thy attention.

It does not say anything about Zikra of Prophet. Aya says Allah raised his status to highest esteem.

In fact it tells Prophet not to pay attention to difficulties he was experiencing but to turn to Lord and remember him.
Salaam

[zznoor]

B.T.W.

Here is translation and tafseer of 94:4 by Maudud

(94:4) And did We not exalt your fame? *3

*3 This was said at a time when o one could even conceive how the renown of the one unique individual who had only a few followers confined only to the city of Makkah, would be exalted throughout the world, and what high fame he would achieve. But Allah Almighty gave His Messenger (upon whom be peace) this good news under those very conditions and then fulfilled it in a strange way. In the first place, he took from his enemies themselves the task of exalting his renown. One of the methods that the disbelievers of Makkah adopted to defeat his mission was that in the Hajj season when the pilgrims from every corner of Arabia were attracted to their city, they would visit them at their halting places and would warn them to beware of a dangerous man called Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings), who they alleged, worked such magic on the people that father was separated from son, brother from brother, and husband from wife; therefore, they should keep away from him, The same thing they said to all other people, who visited Makkah on other than Hajj days in connection with pilgrimage or on other business. In this way although they were trying to defame the Holy Prophet, yet the result was that his name reached every nook and comer of Arabia and the enemies themselves. took him out of his seclusion in Makkah and introduced him among all the tribes of the country. After this, it was but natural that .'the people should become curious to know as to who was this man, what he preached, what was his character like and who were the people influenced by his magic and what sort of effect his "magic" had on them. As the propaganda of the Makkan disbelievers spread the people's curiosity also grew. When as a result of this curiosity the people came to know of the Holy Prophet's morals, his character and conduct, when they heard the Qur'an and found what teachings it presented and when the people saw how different the lives of those who had been influenced by what was being described as .magic had become from the lives of the common Arabs, the bad name started being changed into good name. So much so that by the time the Hijrah took place there was perhaps no tribe left anywhere in Arabia from which one or another person, one or another clan had not accepted Islam and in which at least some people had not developed sympathy and interest in the Holy Prophet and his message. This was the first stage of the exaltation of his renown. Then from the Hijrah started the second stage in which on the one hand the hypocrites, the Jews and the prominent polytheists of Arabia were actively engaged in defaming him and on the other the Islamic State of Madinah was presenting such a practical model of God-worship, God consciousness, piety and devotion, purity of morals and community life, justice and equity, equality of man and man, generosity of the rich, care of the poor, fulfilment of pledges and promises and righteousness in dealings, which was conquering the hearts, The enemies tried by resort to war to impede the growing influence of the Holy Prophet, but the party of the believers, trained and developed under his own leadership, proved its superiority by their discipline, their bravery, their fearlessness of death, and their adherence to restrictions of morality even in the state of war; so convincingly that entire Arabia had to recognize it as a power to be reckoned with. Within ten years the Holy Prophet's renown become so exalted that the same land in which the opponents had exerted their utmost to defame him, reverberated with the slogan of Ash hadu anna Muhammad ar-Rasul Allah from one end to the other. Then the third stage commenced with the establishment of the righteous Caliphate when his holy name started eing mentioned and praised everywhere in the world. This process continues till today, nd will continue till Resurrection if Allah so wills. Wherever in the world there exists a settlement of the Muslims, the apostleship of Muhammad (Upon whom be Allah's peace) is being proclaimed aloud in the call to the Prayer five times a day, blessings of Allah are being invoked on him in the Prayers, and his sacred remembrance is being made in the Friday Sermons. There is no moment in the 12 months of the year and in the 24 hours of the day when at one or another place in the world, the oly Prophet's holy name is not being mentioned. This is a clear proof of the truth of the Qur'an that when in the initial stage of the Prophet hood Allah proclaimed wa rafa `na Iaka dhikrak, no one could estimate and imagine with what esteem and to what great extent the Holy Prophet's renown would be exalted. In a Hadith Hadrat Abu Sa`id Khudri has reported that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) said: "Gabriel came to me and said: My Lord and your Lord asks: In what ways have I exalted your renown? I submitted: Allah alone has the best. knowledge. He said: Allah says: Whenever mention 1S made of Me, yon too will be mentioned along with Me." (Ibn Jarir, lbn Abi Hatim, Musnad Abu Ya`la, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hibban Ibn Marduyah, Abu Nu`aim). The whole later history stands witness that this prediction has proved literally true.

No where there is mention of doing Zikar

[fayaz006]

Noor don't know which Quran your reading from but my copy has the word Zikr in it in Arabic. Thank God I can read it. Also there is a great tradition of Naat in Sunni tradition. Don't know what you would call that but that is definitely zikr of the prophet.

[zznoor]

Here is word by word translation of 94:4

(Wa Rafaana) And We raised high - (Laka) for you - (Dhikraka) your esteem.

Search for word by word translation of Quran. I can PM link to you if you cannot find it. Links are not permitted by Admin.

Also (islamawakened.com) more than 40 translations of each Aya by different authors. Study those.

[zznoor]

The triliteral root 'dhal kaf ra' occurs 292 times in the Quran, in 14 derived forms:

In 94:4 it is 'verbal noun'
dhikraka your reputation (esteem)
Reference (http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=*kr)