From left to right: Mrs Heather Procopio (the bride’s sister), Mr Andrew Embiricos, Mrs White, Miss Frances Reed (the groom’s nanny), Princess Yasmin Aga Khan, Prince Amyn Aga Khan, Princess Khaliya, Prince Hussain, Princess Catherine Aga Khan, His Highness the Aga Khan, Princess Zahra Aga Khan, Prince Rahim Aga Khan, Prince Aly Muhammad Aga Khan, Sara Boyden, Iliyan Boyden.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Technorati
I'm not Shia or Ismaili but I know some. As far as I know, the Aga Khan is their imam and they're simply bound to veneration and support of him.
I have a very hard time understanding it myself, especially when it looks as though the generations of Aga Khans have been (in my opinion) exorbitantly rich and while most of his followers are in the "third world", I believe they still have to "pay" him. So I hope an Ismaili can explain it better.
Aga Khan's promotion of moderate Islam is a very positive thing for the world. :-)
GustavoMustafa, do you find something uncomfortable or confusing about the Aga Khan?
Yes, we should pay him. As long as we make money and/or gain on trades we should pay our Zahkat. Zahkat is farz on all Muslim. If you read quran, Imam/Nabi/Ambia are the representative of God and we have to pay zahkat through them. Cause you can't decide wut u should do with the money that is for Zahkat. What Allah does with Zahkat? Give it away to his ppl and help the needy. You should give it needy that thats donations not zahkat; hence, it should be given to the representative of Lord who was appointed by Lord and Nabhi Mohmmad (P.B.U.H). Thanks
His family is "white" due to intermarriage with women of European descent.
That is what I find interesting, the first Aga Khan was given the title "Great Commander" in 1818 by the shah of Iran, the first Aga Khan revolted against his successor, and was forced to leave Iran for India.
The third Aga Khan was influential in the creation of Pakistan or the "Muslim Indian commonwealth" after the British departed and partitioned the subcontinent. However, Ismailis are now subject to periodic persecution in Pakistan, subject to some of the same hostility that faced Sikhs, Jews, and Hindus who are now largely non-existent in Pakistan.
I'm anti-royalist, my family being originally from Afghanistan originally, as Shia they were persecuted by the Pushtun Sunni monarchy there.
So I have a distrust of all Muslim royals. They make me feel uncomfortable, even if they promote a more moderate image of Islam.
Ismailis are Shia Muslims, but in Shia Islam, the majority are Twelver Shia, which is the majority sect practiced in Iran.
Salaams
Well, the Aga Khan University does lots of interesting things Muslim wise: http://www.aku.edu/index.asp . You can do an MA in Muslim Cultures... http://www.aku.edu/ismc/academic.shtml ...an award validated by the prestiguious School of Oriental and African Studies, and looking at the curriculum, I'd say it's a pretty damned impressive course - very broad, incorporating contemporary academic methodologies as well demonstrating a deep respect for Muslim cultures.
So whatever the Aga Khan's religious credentials, he certainly seems to use at least some of his mucho dosh for the benefit of humankind in the broadest sense, and not simply to promote his own partisan perspective. Surely, an example to other Muslims and unless I hear evidence to the contrary, he'll be getting the Julaybib gorgeous human award for being an top notch dude.
As a recent convert to Ismailism from Twelver Shia Islam, I can explain the veneration of the Aga Khan by the Ismaili Community. The Aga Khan is a direct descendant of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) through Hazrat Ali and Bibi Fatima. He is the 49th hereditary Imam to the 20 million Ismaili Muslims dispersed across 25 countries of the world. As you know, Shia Islam believes the Imam has Divine Knowledge passed on from the Prophet and is the appointed spiritual leader of the Ummah. As a note, Ismailis are not "required to pay" the Imam. Our 12% zakat can be paid to the non-profit institutions of the Ismaili Imamat (www.akdn.org) which accomplish all those ethical goals delineated in the Qu'ran (respecting intellect, upholding human dignity, and empowering the poor through community level development to rise and fulfill their duties as vicigerents of God on Earth). If you'd like to know more, please visit the official Ismaili website: www.theismaili.org.
Thanks for your response.
The Ismailis seem to espouse some rather progressive forms of Islam, it is unfortunate, that some Muslims are so tied up with the concept of doctrinal purity, that they dismiss the Progressive Nature nature of Shia Islam in all its various manifestations be it Twelver, Ismaili, or Ahmadiyya.
To a person who understands what the phrase "Twelver Shia" means, i would explain it like this:
Aga Khanis are Nizari Ismaili Shia, just as you are Ashna Ashari. [Not all Ismaili are Nizari, and not all Nizari accept the Aga Khan; there is another branch all together, the Musta'iliya, of which the commonest group is the Bohris.] The Ismailis branched off after a disagreement on who the right Seventh Imam was.
The Aga Khanis just happen to think that the line of Imams was not broken and continued first through Ismail and then through Nizar and on down to Prime Kareem Al Hussaini, who is the current holder of the post/title/position.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aga_Khan
[and, if you care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizari and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustaali]
What we think of the current holder of the position (the community calls him "Hazar Imam", or "Present Imam") and his policies are another story.
iFaqeer
http://iFaqeer.blogspot.com
I dislike when any branch of Islam seems too much like a cult of personality around a central figure, especially based on heredity. This is true with a lot of Sufi orders, Natiopn of Islam, the Shia veneration for (alleged) members of the ahul-l-bayt, or the Ulemocracy so prevalent in some areas of the Sunni world, etc etc. As far as a benign guru type, the Aga Khan seems alright, but I don't really put much stock in that. I have no real problem with the Ismailis, Ahmadiyya, etc but it's not my bag.
Well certainly I can understand when one doesn't like centralized authority. Especially in todays day and age where we all like freedom and democracy, and we all want to have a say in who the leader should be. But this practice doesn't work when religion comes into equation. If you look at the history, this is how the concept of Caliphat came about.
Caliphs were elected by the people of the time (though their authority was limited to worldly matters only)--As to the concept of Imamat, Imam was more through an appointment rather than election.
Ismailis believe that Hazrat Ali (a.s) was appointed by Allah through Prophet Mohammad (sawa)
Also, doesn't having a single authority solve the problem what the rest of the Muslim Umma is facing now a days. Any one can twist and turn the words of Quran and issue a so-called Fatwa, be it against their own Muslim brother of different school of thought. (This is another topic on its own)
As an Ismaili, this is solely my take:
Islam started from the day one, hence Hazrat Adam being the first prophet. Allah didn’t reveal the whole Quran on to him. Allah guided Adam based on Adams needs. You think Adam would’ve benefited from what Allah had to say in Holy Quran about scientific breakdown of an atom? Or the seven layers of Earth’s core? I think not. Allah guided his creatures according to the time/place/etc. As humans matured and became more complex so did their needs and ability to comprehend. Humans were thought Islam from the time of Adam, just like a student being educated grade by grade to become an engineer/doctor/etc at the end.
You don’t start reading/writing, unless you learn your a b c’s first.
In my understanding Allah’s first 3 Books were just the stepping stones to what was Islam to be. Allah declared the Holy Quran and Prophet Mohammad (sawa) the final book and prophet. Not to say that the books and the teachings of the all the prophets prior Prophet Mohammad (sawa) were wrong. They were just part of the whole curriculum. All rightful and legit in their own time.
Allah completed the Islam only after the “Event of Ghadir Khumm”, and as an Ismaili I believe that an Imam (The chosen one -- not elected like the Imam of the neighborhood mosque) is what any prophet was to their own time. A leader, a guide, chosen by Allah not the people. One who can guide the people according to Holy Quran. Please don't mis-quote me; I am by no means trying to say that an Imam is a prophet. No. Like all the rest of the Muslims, Ismailis believe whole heartily on the Shahada (Oneness of God, and Prophet Mohammad (sawa) being the last Prophet.). Ismailis are Muslims first and Ismaili second.
So why the need of an Imam?
Prophets were the messenger, who brought Allah's message to human kind in the form of Holy book Quran. Quran is Allah's word. It was good in the past, it is good in present, and it will be good in future. No doubt about that. Obviously to understand and make sense of such a complex book, it's not possible by ordinary person. Heck, it's not even possible to truly understand the writings of mortal writer William Shakespeare without any external help!!! How can one ordinary mind understand the words of Allah, the Almighty. Therefore when Allah's message was completed(Holy Quran), there was a need for someone capable who can guide Allah's mankind onto the straight path on on-going bases.
Simply put; if you believe in the Ghadir Khumm events and surahs that were reviled upon Prophet Mohammad (sawa) (which I think above link does a good job of explaining) then you can see why ismailis give so much importance to their Imam and the concept of Imamat.
The Agha Khan is for us Ali, he is not deified in Isma’ilism. Instead he is seen as proof of God’s continued belief in humanity, we refer to him as "Hazar Imam" the present Imam, who offers interpretation of Islam for the challenges that face us today.
He is also on a more theological level viewed as the link between humanity and the ultimate reality which exists beyond the Great Hijab (veil) which acts to separate our faulse perception of reality, from the true divine reality that is vastly beyond the limitations of the human mind to comprehend, yet draws us.
There is a beautiful saying “the Love of a women, is in reality the Love of God”.
Thru Ali we believe that we move toward comprehending God in our own reality, at his core is the primordial spark; "the Noor Din Muhammad", the Noor (light) has always linked humanity to God, and has been carried by every prophet, interpreter, and conveyor of revelation as long as humans have walked the earth.
Isma'ili see the essence of the noble prophet alive and speaking in the world, providing guidance, justice, and provoking thought within those who have given him their bayah the containers change yet the essence remains, as long as we remain.
Hope this helps,
Zahra
Aga khan in a Fraud. Ismali is a cult created by the british during colonial times for the benefits.
The Ahmadiyya are Shia? Excuse me?
Salam,
Looking back upon the history of the Aga Khan's family, it is clear that he and his family did not earn their billions themselves. History clearly shows that when the first Aga Khan in India escaped to Colonial India after a failed mutiny, he was employed by the British as a liason (ahem spy) for them and put on a pension. He did not have wealth or lordship over a people at that time. A group of recent khoja converts to Sunni islam were put under his rule and converted to Aga Khani or Nizari Ismailism.
A court case by some members of this khoja clan who protested that their people were Sunni Muslim was ruled against their favour by the British in India. This case was monumental in securing a following for the aga khan because he now had the funds and support from the British to secure it.
The present aga khan inherited his wealth from his grandfather (money that came from the original ismailis in india) and his foundation received the entire UK foreign aid budget as well as billions from other governments and organizations. His 'philanthropy' has made a huge splash for himself and Ismailis, yet none of the money has come from him. He has however gained a foothold in several countries where he has countless investments. (Much like the free masons have charities in many countries).
As his brand of Islam is one where he gets to make (or change as he has recently done concerning their form of prayer) rules, he has great control over his followers: they follow his political, social and religious opinions. This is therefore attractive to some western leaders who assist the aga khan in gaining a foothold in countries such as tajikistan, khazakstan that have new religious freedom after years under the red curtain.
As for his tithes being called 'zakat' or charity in Islam, it is well known that the Prophet's family was not allowed to accept this charity. And in regards to him marrrying only european or western women, because he can't marry 'his spiritual children' it is interesting that the lofty people he claims he is descended from, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did marry into his own people and Ali (ra) married Fatima (ra).
Removing defining parts of Islam such as prayer (5 times a day as well as wudhu and washing after impurity), fasting (in Ramadan), Hajj (seeing him is like doing hajj) and even the immense importance of the Quran (the aga khan is believed to be the 'walking talking Quran') is not acceptable in Islam.
Nizari Ismailism = Bidah!
I'm sorry, but the beliefs seem too far-fetch for me.
I don't care how progressive their philosophy is.
Unlike Twelver Shi'ism, which also has a progressive strand of thought, the veneration for their leader reminds me of Scientologists.
Plus, their claim to being descendants of the Prophet, I have suspicions of anyone who claims Prophetic lineage and uses this as means to claim legitimate political power. This is the Muslim version of "Divine Right of Kings" which seems fishy to me, I'm not your typical Shia who venerates the lineage of the Prophet.
The most pious is the the righteous among us. This was what the Prophet said, therefore, blood pedigree should have no importance in Islam.
I am an Ismaili, Gustavo, and the Agha Khan declares no political power. The beliefs of the Twelvers seem more radical to me: they contradict the principles of `aql laid down by the Shi'ah Imam al-Baqir and they require belief that the 12th Imam lives in secret and talks to the Ayatullahs through some courier system. This would make him like a thousand years old. ... Uh, awkward.
Agha Khan is only a man. We look to him for guidance, same as any other school looks to scholars. The only difference is that the Imam-e Zamaan teaches the fiqh appropriate to each age. As a matter of fact, as part of a long period of reaquaintance of the many Ismaili groups to the living Imam, a wide range of practices that had been developed in solitude have been accepted, but the Imam is slowly reintroducing the Ismaili Imami fiqh. Our own fiqh for namaaz will be introduced in the next farman in the next few months.
Rather than declaring the satpanthi groups bid`ah and dumping wahhabi-like demands on them, the Imam has brought them into the fold of Islam slowly, respecting their cultural heritage. It has enriched the Ismaili faith and provided a wide range of acceptable prayers.
Cypress, no disrespect.
All and all, most major strands of Islam have some aspects that I disagree with.
Even certain Sunni practices commonly accepted by the majority of Muslims I disagree with.
I do admire Ismailis for their flexibility in their understanding and implementation of Islam, to reflect today's world, and not some imagined neo-purist path/"Golden Age fantasy of the Umayyid/Abbasid caliphate."
We should refrain from using the term "Wahhabi" and call those who follow the Saudi version of Islam Salafi, that is the term they dub themselves.
I do not feel that those who follow Nizari Ismailism should be ostracized by other Muslims though or persecuted in the case of Pakistan.
Shia were persecuted in Afghanistan prior to American occupation, and still face social prejudices by the Sunni Pushtun.
ismailis think the aga khan is a 'manifestation of God on Earth." it is absolutely false that they believe he is simply a spiritual guide. they actually believe he can hear their prayers and offer them blessings and forgive them. the more they pay him the more he forgives them.
http://www.islamawareness.net/Deviant/Ismailis/dua-one.html
www.mostmerciful.com
Then he would be the Muslim version of the "vicar of Christ" (one of the many titles of the Pope)?
@GustavoMustifa
No his seen as the Imam as defined by Imami Shi'ism. The major theological differences between Twelver and Isma'ili Imami schools are that Isma'ilis view Imamat as a continuous linage, second we do not proscribe supernatural abilities to our Imams.
The Imamate has for the last century been undertaking a a monumental task in attempting to reunite under the single umbrella the desperate and dwindling remnants of the Jamaat across the globe since the demise of the Persian Isma'ili State in the 14th century. You can see that in the highly complex and innovative development programmes implemented by the Imams; the development networks are studied in every prestigious western university MA "International Development" programme. The NYT did an article recently on how much more successful the Aga Khans development programmes were than that by US AID. You only need to travel to Northern Pakistan to see the tremendous impact in Isma'ili towns in terms of the standard of living compared to their neighbouring cities and villages. It's not just material compare the attitude to education and self improvement particularly but not limited to women as a spiritual obligation.
@Harris
I'm afraid your history is rather poor. It may fit conspiracy theories to label Agha Khan I as some kind of 007 "spy" figure but he was certainly far too inconspicuous to qualify for a profession that by its very nature requires anonymity and who pray tell was he supposed to be spying on?
As to your preposterous claim that the Khoja were Sunni, defies well documented history, literature and archaeology. The very notion that the British could manipulate an entire caste of pious Sunni into believing that not only were they in fact Shia but Isma'ili without anyone noticing for several years is absurd! And speaks more to the irrational conspiratorial mind of those who make the claim then the claim itself.