The text recounts historical events surrounding the assassination of Hazrat Usman, the third Caliph of Islam, blaming Abdullah ibn Saba and his followers. It alleges ibn Saba’s propaganda portrayed Ali as divine, creating sectarian divisions. The passage further discusses the Ismaili sect, highlighting their belief in the Imam’s authority to alter religious law, drawing parallels to historical figures and questioning their practices. The narrative weaves together historical accounts, theological debates, and accusations of manipulation to explain the origins of Sunni-Shia divisions and Ismaili beliefs. Finally, the text emphasizes the enduring impact of these historical events and theological disputes.

Islamic History Study Guide: Key Figures, Events, and Beliefs

Quiz

1. According to the text, what actions did Abdullah ibn Saba take that contributed to conflict within the early Muslim community?
2. What is the significance of the “Trojan Horse” analogy in the context of the text?
3. How did the text characterize the relationship between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya?
4. Why, according to the text, was Hazrat Usman eventually killed?
5. According to the text, what are some of the beliefs and practices associated with the Ismaili sect?
6. How does the text describe Hazrat Ali’s reaction to Abdullah Ibn Saba’s teachings about Ali’s divinity?
7. What does the text claim about Hazrat Usman’s policies regarding his relatives?
8. How does the text explain the origin of the Sunni and Shia division in Islam?
9. What role does the concept of “Imam Masoom” play in Ismaili beliefs, according to the text?
10. What does the author mean by the “backlash of the Jews” in the context of the text?

Answer Key

1. Abdullah ibn Saba is described as glorifying the massacre of Hazrat Usman, stirring up old rivalries between families, and promoting the idea that Ali should have been the rightful successor to the Prophet.
2. The “Trojan Horse” analogy is used to describe how Abdullah ibn Saba, like the soldiers hidden inside the horse, secretly infiltrated the Muslim community and spread his divisive message.
3. The text describes the relationship between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya as a deeply rooted rivalry that had been “raised inside their bones,” contributing to the tensions during the early caliphate.
4. According to the text, Hazrat Usman was killed because of the widespread dissent created by Abdullah ibn Saba’s teachings and because of his perceived favoritism towards his relatives, even though he refused to take action against the rebels without proof of a crime.
5. The text describes Ismailis as believing that their present Imam is infallible and can change religious laws at will, and that they may have incorporated elements from earlier religions, such as ideas about incarnation.
6. Hazrat Ali, according to the text, opposed Abdullah Ibn Saba’s teachings, viewed them as blasphemous, and ultimately executed Abdullah along with 40 of his followers by burning them alive.
7. The text claims that Hazrat Usman favored his relatives by granting them wealth and positions, which was one of the major reasons why people were resentful of his rule and led to the rise of opposition against him.
8. The text explains that the division between Sunni and Shia Islam started from the conspiracies and beliefs spread by Abdullah ibn Saba, ultimately resulting in the formation of these different schools of thought.
9. The concept of “Imam Masoom” implies the Imam is infallible and without the possibility of any mistake, that the Imam can make impure things pure by touching them, and has the authority to make changes to religious law, as the Imam has full knowledge of the Sharia.
10. The author attributes the killing of Hazrat Usman to a conspiracy that is part of “the backlash of the Jews”, with an implication that the Jews are experts in conspiracy.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the role of Abdullah ibn Saba in the events described in the text. How does the text portray his actions and their impact on the early Muslim community?
2. Compare and contrast the characters of Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Ali as depicted in the text. What are their strengths and weaknesses according to the author, and what impact did their actions have on the development of the Islamic community?
3. Discuss the author’s use of historical and religious analogies, such as the story of the Trojan Horse, to explain the complex events of this period. What effect do these analogies have on the reader’s understanding of the text?
4. Explore the text’s characterization of the Ismaili sect, and compare it to the broader history of Islam. How does the author link the sect to the historical events they describe?
5. Evaluate the author’s perspective and potential biases when examining historical events and characters. What are the main claims, and how are they supported?

Glossary of Key Terms

• Halal: Permitted or lawful according to Islamic law.
• Haram: Forbidden or unlawful according to Islamic law.
• Banu Hashim: A prominent clan within the larger Quraysh tribe to which the Prophet Muhammad belonged.
• Banu Umayya (Bani Umayya): Another influential clan within the Quraysh tribe, known for their rivalry with Banu Hashim.
• Quraysh: The dominant tribe in Mecca during the time of Prophet Muhammad, from which many prominent Muslim leaders came.
• Caliph: The political and religious successor to the Prophet Muhammad and leader of the Muslim community.
• Abdullah ibn Saba: A figure who, according to the text, was of Jewish origin and converted to Islam. The text describes him as a divisive figure who caused political upheaval and promoted ideas that led to the Sunni/Shia split.
• Hazrat Usman: The third Caliph of Islam. The text describes him as a figure accused of favoritism and corruption, eventually assassinated, and a victim of the machinations of Abdullah ibn Saba.
• Hazrat Ali: The fourth Caliph of Islam, cousin, and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, seen by the Shias as his rightful successor.
• Shariat: Islamic law, derived from the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.
• Imam Masoom: The Ismaili concept of an infallible Imam, who is without error and has complete knowledge of religious law. The text implies that the Imam can abrogate the sharia.
• Sunni/Shia: The two major branches of Islam. According to the text, their division has roots in the events after the death of the Prophet and the caliphate’s succession.
• Fitna: A term that generally refers to strife or dissension, in this context, it refers to the civil strife that was caused by Abdullah Ibn Saba.

A Historical Analysis of Islamic Schisms

Okay, here’s a briefing document summarizing the key themes and ideas from the provided text excerpt:

Briefing Document: Analysis of “Pasted Text”

Date: October 26, 2023 Subject: Analysis of a Religious and Historical Narrative

Summary:

This document analyzes a narrative presented as a historical explanation of religious and political schisms within Islam. The speaker uses historical events, anecdotes, and interpretations to trace the roots of conflict and divergent beliefs. The text presents a highly opinionated and polemical view of early Islamic history, particularly the events surrounding the caliphate and the emergence of different Islamic sects.

Key Themes and Ideas:

1. The Authority to Alter Religious Law:

• The speaker criticizes certain groups (referred to as “Ismails”) for believing their Imam has the authority to change religious laws (“Change the date, make the haram halal, make the halal haram”).
• This challenges the concept of a fixed and unchangeable Sharia law, suggesting a belief in a living, evolving religious authority embodied in the Imam.
• The speaker draws a parallel to a “Pope” figure, indicating a critique of hierarchical religious structures and the perceived arbitrary power of religious leaders.
• The speaker states “he is innocent and he can make anything halal, anything haram he wants,” highlighting a view that the Imam has near absolute power and is infallible.

1. The “Trojan Horse” Analogy and Conspiracy:

• The speaker uses the Trojan Horse story as an analogy to describe the introduction of divisive elements into Islam. The speaker states, “in that war, their biggest Greek [music] people are seeing, the army is going, they left by sitting in the ships, then after some time he came back, he secretly made a horse, very big, and filled its stomach with his soldiers, now the people saw that later, it is the horse of Troy, they took it inside, they are celebrating, on the night of victory, when they were drunk, they took out something from its stomach.”
• This narrative framework suggests that internal discord and conflict are the result of a carefully orchestrated plot by enemies of Islam.
• This implies the existence of hidden enemies and deceptive tactics used to weaken the Islamic community.

1. Historical Revisionism and the Role of Abdullah ibn Saba:

• A significant portion of the text focuses on Abdullah ibn Saba, a figure the speaker portrays as a Jewish convert to Islam who deliberately sowed discord.
• The speaker accuses ibn Saba of exploiting pre-existing rivalries between the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya clans.
• The speaker claims, “Abdullah in-Saba was a Jew from Yemen. He came to Islam after taking the oath of Islam. He came to Medina. He did a great job of glorifying that massacre.”
• This interpretation casts ibn Saba as the mastermind behind the unrest that led to the death of Caliph Uthman. The text continues, “He has exaggerated the matter to this extent that Hazrat Ali is God, he is an incarnation of God, all these things even today, the slogan of Ali madad that is being raised, the effects of the same signs, he spread all these things and he invented Finab and its special technique.”
• The text notes that, “First of all he went and established his ground in the Kafa.”

1. The Caliphate and Succession Issues:

• The speaker critiques the selection of the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman), arguing that the succession should have remained within the Prophet’s family (Banu Hashim) and specifically with Ali.
• The speaker states, “Now the strange thing is that the first Caliph was neither from Banumayya nor from Banu Hashim. It was a matter of Banu Hashim and Banumayya. Quresh is everyone, so Quresh was a big tribe. That family was Banumayya Banu Hashim Hazrat Abu Bakr was neither from Banu Hashim nor from Banu Maiya he was from Banu Teim, it was a small tribe Hazrat Umar was also neither from Banu Hashim nor from Banu Maiya he was from Banu Adi now this was Hazrat Usman who was from Banumayya…”
• The speaker states that ibn Saba said, “see how is this possible that our Prophet is buried in the ground and Isa is sitting in the sky and Isa will come again, our Prophet will not come, he will also come and every prophet has a successor, Mohammed’s successor is Ali, he should be the Caliph and from among Banu Hashim, the rest whoever became the Caliph is Abu Bakr Qasim Umar Gass now the biggest successor is him.”
• The speaker suggests that Uthman, from the Banu Umayya, further inflamed the situation by favoring his relatives. “About Hazrat Usman, he nurtured a lot of his relatives, he gave all his relatives and gave them wealth, he does it lavishly.”
• This perspective reflects a Shi’a view of Islamic history.

1. The Martyrdom of Caliph Uthman:

• The speaker presents the assassination of Caliph Uthman as a culmination of the conspiracy led by Abdullah ibn Saba and as the result of his leniency and unwillingness to deal harshly with the “rebels”.
• The speaker says, “so till the last moment this is what happened that both the sons of Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Hasan, Hazrat Hussain were standing and guarding Hazrat Usman’s door, Abdullah and Zubair were guarding, but those who were rebellious, went from the back by jumping over the wall and martyred Hazrat Usman, Rajla, this is actually the backlash of the Jews, the revenge of the Jews, and the intelligence that Allah has given them, there is no doubt that it is extreme, but the one whom we call evil genius, his world is a field of conspiracy and he is so expert in it that he has wounded Islam.”
• The speaker argues that Uthman’s reluctance to use force shows his greatness (“I say that there can be no greater greatness than this, he said I am not ready to take the life of any Kalma singer until some crime is proved against him”), rather than weakness.

1. The Origins of Sunni and Shia Divisions:

• The speaker explicitly states that the “darkness of Sunniism and Shayat” stemmed from the events surrounding Uthman’s assassination and the machinations of ibn Saba, “from where did this darkness of Sunniism and Shayat start, that is the end from there.”
• This presents a highly partisan view of sectarian divisions, attributing them to a deliberate plot rather than organic theological differences.
• The speaker states that even Ali himself condemned ibn Saba and executed him, proving that his beliefs were heretical. “Hazrat Ali himself, according to his own books, burnt Abdullah Ibn Sawa and his 40 companions alive, you are the God, you are testing us, just test us in that way, anyway this is the scene behind the martyrdom of Hazrat Usman.”

1. Critique of “Ismaili” Beliefs:

• The speaker criticizes the Ismaili sect for its belief in the Imam’s authority to alter religious law and for associating the Imam with divinity, drawing parallels with Hindu concepts of incarnation.
• The speaker also attacks the Aga Khan, the current Imam of the Ismailis, “their Imam at this time was Aga Khan, the grandson of Aga Khan is their Imam now, Karim Aga Khan is close to them.”
• The speaker also claims the Imam is believed to be infallible, “Imam Masoom is there is no possibility of any mistake from him, Sir Sultan Mohammad Khan who was Aga Khan has also quoted these words that when I drink wine, then when the wine makes my lips happy then they become pure i.e. this Imam Masoom is that thing that if any impure thing touches it, then it will become pure like he.”

Conclusion:

The text presents a highly biased and historically contentious account of Islamic history. It frames historical events through the lens of conspiracy and attempts to explain sectarian divisions as the result of the actions of a malevolent individual (Abdullah ibn Saba) and the misguided beliefs of certain groups. It is important to approach this narrative critically, recognizing its clear agenda and potential inaccuracies.

This document serves to provide context and analysis of the text and should not be taken as an endorsement of the viewpoints expressed.

This should be a good starting point. If you have additional information or want to explore a particular aspect further, please let me know.

The Sunni-Shia Schism: A Conspiracy Theory

FAQ: Key Themes from the Provided Text

• What is the central claim regarding the origins of Sunni-Shia divisions according to this text?
• The text attributes the origins of the Sunni-Shia split to the machinations of a Jewish convert named Abdullah ibn Saba, who it claims, intentionally sowed discord and exaggerated the virtues of Ali to create conflict and ultimately destabilize Islam. The text presents this theory as the source of “the darkness of Sunniism and Shayat.”
• Who is Abdullah ibn Saba, and what is his alleged role?
• According to the text, Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jew from Yemen who converted to Islam and came to Medina. It claims he was instrumental in creating a false narrative of conflict between the clans of Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya, and that he exaggerated the status of Ali, eventually leading some to believe that Ali was divine and an incarnation of God. He is also blamed for influencing the martyrdom of Usman.
• How does the text portray the events surrounding the assassination of Hazrat Usman?
• The text frames Usman’s assassination as a result of Abdullah ibn Saba’s manipulations and a Jewish conspiracy to avenge their defeat in the Battle of Khaybar. It highlights Usman’s refusal to violently suppress dissent, interpreting it as an act of greatness rather than weakness, and contrasts this with the actions of his attackers who are seen as rebels influenced by Ibn Saba. The author notes that Ali’s sons Hasan and Hussein were guarding Usman’s door, but the assailants jumped a wall to enter.
• What is the text’s view on the concept of Imam Masoom (infallible Imam)?
• The text is highly critical of the idea of an Imam Masoom, particularly within the Ismaili tradition. It describes this belief as allowing the Imam to change religious laws and doctrines, declaring halal things haram and vice versa. It suggests that this authority is treated as if the Imam is divine, likening it to worshiping God’s incarnations and citing the Aga Khan as an example. It quotes Sir Sultan Mohammad Khan, who stated that when he drinks wine, and the wine makes his lips happy, then it makes them pure.
• How does the text draw parallels between Islamic and Christian figures and beliefs?
• The text draws parallels between the Ismailis’ actions and the changes introduced by St. Paul in Christianity. It claims that both St. Paul and Ismaili preachers altered or abrogated religious laws, and it claims Ismaili preachers drew a parallel between their belief in imams with the Hindu belief in multiple incarnations of God, making Ali the tenth incarnation. It implies that these actions corrupt true religion. It criticizes the belief that Jesus will return, but Muhammad will not.
• What is the significance of the “Trojan Horse” analogy in this context?
• The “Trojan Horse” analogy is used to illustrate how a seemingly innocuous idea or person can infiltrate a society and cause its downfall. In this context, the text is suggesting that Abdullah ibn Saba and his ideas acted like the Trojan Horse, entering the Muslim community and sowing the seeds of division and conflict, ultimately leading to the Sunni-Shia schism.
• What does the text say about the concept of “halal” and “haram”?
• The text argues that the Ismailis misuse the concept of “halal” and “haram”. They believe their Imam, as an infallible figure, can change what is lawful or unlawful according to their own desires. This is criticized as a fundamental deviation from the original principles of Islam.
• What is the text’s tone towards the figures and historical events it describes?
• The text has a highly accusatory and conspiratorial tone towards Abdullah ibn Saba and the Ismailis. It views them as the driving forces behind the divisions and challenges within Islam. It expresses reverence for figures such as Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Ali, particularly in their perceived restraint and tolerance, while criticizing those who are seen as their detractors or those who exploited their authority.

Early Caliphate Succession Crises

The sources discuss the succession of the Caliphate, particularly focusing on the conflicts and controversies that arose after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• Rivalry between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya: There was an existing rivalry between these two powerful families of the Quresh tribe. This rivalry played a role in the succession disputes.
• Initial Caliphs:The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, was neither from Banu Hashim nor Banu Umayya, but from Banu Teim.
• The second Caliph, Umar, was also not from Banu Hashim or Banu Umayya, but from Banu Adi.
• Caliphate of Usman:Usman was from Banu Umayya. His appointment is where the issue of succession became contentious.
• Usman was accused of favoring his relatives and giving them wealth.
• It was argued by some that the Caliphate should belong to Banu Hashim, the family of the Prophet Muhammad.
• Claims of Ali’s Right to Caliphate:Some believed that Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, was the rightful successor. This view was based on the idea that every prophet has a successor, and Muhammad’s successor should be from his family, Banu Hashim.
• It was even claimed by some that Ali was an incarnation of God.
• Abdullah ibn Saba and the Fitna:Abdullah ibn Saba, a Jew from Yemen who converted to Islam, is portrayed as a key figure in instigating conflict.
• He is said to have exploited the existing tensions between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya.
• He spread the idea that Ali was the rightful successor and exaggerated his status to the point of claiming Ali was God.
• He is also accused of nurturing resentment against Usman, and this spread “like a forest fire”.
• Usman’s Assassination:
• Despite advice to quell the unrest, Usman refused to take action against those who were criticizing him until they committed an actual crime under the law.
• Usman was ultimately killed by rebels who jumped over the wall of his house.
• This is depicted as a “backlash of the Jews” and revenge, facilitated by their intelligence and conspiracy.
• Aftermath and Shia/Sunni Division:The events surrounding Usman’s assassination and the succession dispute led to the division between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
• The source claims that the “darkness of Sunniism and Shayat” started from this point.
• Ismaili Imam: The text also mentions that the Ismaili sect has their own view of succession, with a living Imam who is believed to be infallible. This Imam can change religious laws at will.

Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya Rivalry

The sources describe a significant rivalry between the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya families, which played a crucial role in the conflicts surrounding the Caliphate succession. Here’s a breakdown of their rivalry:

• Pre-existing tensions: The rivalry between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya was not a new phenomenon; it was described as an old rivalry ingrained in their “bones”. These two families were both prominent within the larger Quresh tribe.
• Impact on Caliphate Succession: The rivalry between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya became a major factor in the dispute over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad as Caliph. Some believed the Caliphate should stay within the Prophet’s family, Banu Hashim. This was in conflict with the fact that the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, was from neither of those two families.
• Usman’s Caliphate: The appointment of Usman, who was from Banu Umayya, as the third Caliph reignited tensions. Usman was accused of favoring his relatives from Banu Umayya, further fueling the conflict with Banu Hashim.
• Abdullah ibn Saba’s Role: Abdullah ibn Saba, a convert to Islam, is described as exploiting the rivalry between the two families. He allegedly used the existing tensions to promote the idea that Ali, from Banu Hashim, was the rightful successor and that Usman had unjustly taken the Caliphate.
• Claims about Ali: Abdullah ibn Saba is said to have exaggerated Ali’s status to the point of claiming he was an incarnation of God, further emphasizing the conflict between Banu Hashim and the other families and adding religious dimensions to the political rivalry.
• Consequences: The rivalry contributed significantly to the unrest and conflicts that led to the assassination of Usman. According to the source, this period of conflict, fueled by the rivalry between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya, also led to the division between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Abdullah ibn Saba and the Early Muslim Schism

Abdullah ibn Saba is depicted in the sources as a key figure who instigated conflict and exploited existing tensions within the early Muslim community. Here’s a breakdown of his role, according to the sources:

• Background: Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jew from Yemen who converted to Islam and came to Medina.
• Exploitation of Rivalries: He is described as having recognized and capitalized on the existing rivalry between the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya families. This rivalry was a long-standing issue within the Quresh tribe.
• Promotion of Ali’s Claim: He is said to have promoted the idea that Ali, from Banu Hashim, was the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad, and that the Caliphate should remain within the Prophet’s family. This contrasted with the fact that the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, and the second Caliph, Umar, were not from either of these families.
• Exaggeration of Ali’s Status: Abdullah ibn Saba is accused of exaggerating Ali’s status to the point of claiming that Ali was an incarnation of God. This claim went against mainstream Islamic beliefs.
• Nurturing Resentment against Usman: He also allegedly fostered resentment against Usman, who was from Banu Umayya, by pointing out that Usman favored his relatives and gave them wealth. This contributed to the growing unrest against Usman’s rule.
• Spread of Fitna: Abdullah ibn Saba’s actions are described as spreading “like a forest fire” and causing significant unrest. He is depicted as someone who strategically traveled to different locations, including Kufa, Sham, and Misr, to spread his ideas and build support.
• Accusation of being a Jewish Instigator: The source suggests that Abdullah ibn Saba’s actions were part of a larger Jewish plot, describing the unrest and the assassination of Usman as a “backlash of the Jews” and revenge facilitated by their intelligence and conspiracy.
• Punishment by Ali: According to the source, Ali confronted Abdullah ibn Saba for claiming that he was God, and when Abdullah ibn Saba refused to repent, Ali burned him and 40 of his followers alive. The source also notes that this is written in Shia books, and that unfortunately, these days people think that if something is said against Abdullah ibn Saba, it is like being said against the Shia.
• Impact: The source indicates that Abdullah ibn Saba’s actions significantly contributed to the conflict and divisions within the Muslim community, ultimately contributing to the Sunni/Shia split.

In summary, the sources portray Abdullah ibn Saba as a manipulative figure who exploited existing tensions to sow discord, promote his own agenda, and contribute to the events that led to the assassination of Usman and the subsequent division within the Muslim community. He is described as an “evil genius” skilled in conspiracy, whose actions had lasting negative consequences on Islam.

The Martyrdom of Usman: A Confluence of Conflict

The sources describe the martyrdom of Usman as a culmination of the tensions and conflicts that had been brewing within the early Muslim community, particularly due to the rivalry between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya, and the actions of individuals like Abdullah ibn Saba. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• Growing unrest against Usman: The sources indicate that there was increasing resentment and opposition against Usman’s rule. This was fueled by several factors, including accusations that Usman favored his relatives from Banu Umayya by giving them wealth and important positions, which was seen as unjust.
• Abdullah ibn Saba’s Role: Abdullah ibn Saba is presented as a major instigator of this unrest. He allegedly exploited the existing rivalry between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya, and he spread the idea that Ali, from Banu Hashim, was the rightful successor to the Prophet, while also fostering resentment against Usman. He also exaggerated Ali’s status to the point of claiming he was an incarnation of God.
• Usman’s Response to the Unrest: Despite the growing unrest and advice to take action against the dissenters, Usman refused to use force or take preemptive measures. He insisted that he would not take action against anyone unless they committed a crime that was clearly against the law.
• Guardians at Usman’s Door: At the time of the attack, Usman was being guarded by the sons of Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Hasan and Hazrat Hussain, as well as Abdullah and Zubair. These individuals were trying to protect him.
• The Attack: The source says that the rebels did not attack through the front door; they jumped over the back wall to gain entry. This suggests that they were aware of the security measures being taken and tried to circumvent them.
• Martyrdom: The rebels were able to enter and martyred Usman. The source describes this as a “backlash of the Jews” and revenge for their defeat, suggesting that the events were part of a larger conspiracy.
• Aftermath: The assassination of Usman is presented as a turning point that further intensified the conflicts and divisions within the Muslim community. The source explicitly states that the division between Sunni and Shia Muslims emerged from this period of conflict.
• Usman’s Stance: The source emphasizes Usman’s refusal to take action against those who were against him until they committed a crime, arguing that this was a display of greatness, not weakness. This is in contrast with the perspective of some, who may have viewed his inaction as a sign of vulnerability.

In summary, the martyrdom of Usman is depicted as a consequence of escalating tensions and political rivalries within the early Muslim community, with Abdullah ibn Saba’s actions playing a significant role in the events leading up to his death. The source emphasizes the complex interplay of political, religious, and personal factors that contributed to the assassination and the subsequent division within Islam.

Ismaili Doctrine and the Authority of the Imam

The sources discuss Ismaili doctrines, particularly in relation to their views on religious authority and law. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• Living Imam: Ismailis believe in a living Imam who is considered innocent and infallible. This Imam is seen as the ultimate religious authority.
• Changing Religious Laws: A key tenet of Ismaili doctrine, according to the source, is that their Imam can change religious laws at will. This includes making what is considered “haram” (forbidden) into “halal” (permissible), and vice versa. The source says that this is how the Ismailis follow Sharia.
• Sharia: The source notes that the Ismailis do follow the Sharia but it is not the same as other groups.
• Comparison to St. Paul: The source compares the actions of the Ismaili preacher Ismail I, to St. Paul who “made the Shariat known”.
• Reinterpretation of Religious Figures: According to the source, Ismailis have incorporated elements of other religions into their belief system. For example, in Gujarat, when Ismail I preached, he connected the Hindu belief of nine incarnations of God to the Islamic faith, by stating that Hazrat Ali was the tenth incarnation. The Imam who is present is said to have full knowledge of Shariat and has the power to abrogate and prohibit anything, which is to say, that their Imam has been made equal to God.
• Current Imam: The source mentions that at the time of writing, the Ismaili Imam was the grandson of Aga Khan, named Karim Aga Khan.
• Purity of the Imam: The source also quotes Sir Sultan Mohammad Khan, who was Aga Khan, as stating that “when I drink wine, then when the wine makes my lips happy then they become pure,” suggesting that the Imam’s person is so pure that anything that touches him becomes pure, even something considered impure like wine.
• Rejection of “La ilaha illalla”: The source claims that Ismailis worship their Imam, and “ask Messiah Maryam”, instead of worshipping Allah as “La ilaha illalla” commands.

In summary, the source describes Ismaili doctrine as centered around the authority of a living, infallible Imam who can alter religious law and that the Imam is considered to be either God or like God. It also claims that they reinterpreted religious figures in their faith and integrated aspects of other religious beliefs.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!