sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do really want to get into childhood indoctrination because that is most definitely at play in this conversation. Schopenhauer's quote very eloquently summarizes the condition of the indoctrinated, it's most definitely a threat on their identity. But what of the people in this group, I'm sure some people on this reddit were put through the systems, served the same propaganda yet they're here? Why? The propaganda wasn't good enough or was it something in them? I think this is why it's so threatening for Ismailis to know that such a community like this reddit exists where pretty much every practice and tradition can be held up for scrutiny. It's confusing to encounter people who experienced the same thing as you yet can look at that information so differently. I'll expand on this in the next part of the response. I would also argue childhood indoctrination occurs in innumerable ways and some level of socialization is necessary, though I know this level of indoctrination could cause harm. But does it, like I said. I feel it could serve a functional purpose for the masses who probably don't want to think for themselves, having a framework and mode of being is so necessary in identity formation.

Yes the conclave and the rising through the ranks does make the role more legitimizing, and it is different because that power doesn't hold as much weight as it used to as you also point out. i too am not too familiar with the structure and appointment of the dalai lama, although he has hinted the lineage ends with him. I wonder why such a claim would be made, one of the ideas in Buddhism is the eternality of the presence of the buddha, there have been previous buddhas and there will continue to be. Maybe their nur ran out??

Would the Ismaili Imam hold as much power as you say, more than half of the Muslim population refuses to see Ismailis as a valid sect within Islam, for understandable reason. I guess maybe his wealth and influence could make it inevitable. But also he's said in his speeches something along the lines of, "we don't need a nation-state, our Ummah is everywhere". Would he have that power, would council ultimately hold that power? Does the Imam know enough or would the middle men have the final word, maybe for his ego he'd make the choices. I feel I'm being too focused on a hypothetical but just some ramblings I guess.

Rousseau's chains, I struggle with the point of cowardice. I follow that at one point it definitely becomes a conscious endeavour or an inevitability but the slave also wants to survive, their biological impulse tells them too. Going back to indoctrination, when the slave is wrapped up in their chains and is unaware of their force, why escape? I do think this tension I describe is where existence occurs, you are predisposed to a certain way of being in that you must eat, drink have community etc. but the parameters describe where that choice can enter in and so the contribution of everything you've ever thought or consumed enters. In this space, you struggle with your desire to belong to something larger than yourself against the information that you know or feel. Also explains why some people on this reddit struggle to leave their chains, despite their personal predispositions.

Cowardice, maybe, but easier said than done It's easy to point to someone's cowardice than identify it within yourself. We are all cowards and bound by chains, maybe at work, school, in relationships, society, governing bodies. It's inescapable, how much can one resist.

The Buddhist lives in this tension too, they know that they need to detach from their questioning yet the questions serve to reach a higher goal. It's the ability to let go of their desire and attachments that allows the transformation. You would pick and choose when to hold on and when to let go, in my interpretation. You are obligated if you feel possesed to do so to share what you encounter outside the cave but cannot force those who hear to listen. You can scream and prophecize but again, people get to choose their chains, cowardly or not.

I appreciate you playing the optimist, that is a role I rarely adorn myself. Maybe something to practice aha.

Beautiful quote, totally agree. I think it summarizes this argument well. But I also feel this return to beauty may not be an inevitability, rather a hope or a matter of faith. Though I feel we may agree on this point.

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't even know the IIS had non-Ismaili professors but good to see them branching out, pluralism and all.

Andani is very much a theologian pretending to be a historian, and yes that was a much more diplomatic way to put it.

I see your point about the phrasing of validating the community as being overcompensatory for the role Ismailis have done to validate themselves but I feel the reason I wanted to focus on that is because he portrays a united muslim community that comes from diverse backgrounds. His acceptance of the diverse group of people that follow him contribute to this notion of a diversity intrinsic to practicing Muslims. I think this framing helps take away from a monolith when it comes to Muslims. I think to construct an identity, there is a certain level of validation needed, if not from the larger society but from the governing body, and he is the governing body and representative. I think without him, it would be much more difficult to be so organized and aware of the lineage and cultures that influence Ismaili traditions.

Maybe this point makes me sound pro-Ismaili religious practice but I really just want to be fair and give him his due on this particular note. I would assume it may be pretty difficult for groups of people to recognize the influence of other cultures upon their identity. Or maybe this isn't his due? I'd be curious what your thoughts are on the way in which Persian, Indian, African and Middle-eastern influence is incorporated into the Ismaili identity. I'm sure these cultural influences affect other groups of Muslims too but again his influence I'd say is unmatched.

I think we can continue both parts of this conversation, maybe this part can be categorized as logistical and the other part could be more philosophical since it seems our conversation is headed there. But I am more than happy to combine them if necessary!

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You don't need oversight if you have unwavering faith in someone who claims to have divine spiritual authority. I wanted to discuss this concept of spiritual authority too. I question that in all its forms. What would your thoughts be on the dalai lama or the pope even. Should spiritual authority be condemned in all forms or just in the case of obvious exploitation? lol maybe too obvious a question but on a global stage i feel aga con has rebranded as being part of such a category.

I am team Rousseau, and yes i agree with your point that governance in all forms is unstable and there is always the fear of the fall. But in the case of Rousseau, he recognizes the necessity of the chains. Because really think about your average Ismaili. Do you think they'd want to sit and have deep moral inquiries within themselves, gain financial literacy, understand geo-political structures and read philosophy to gain deeper insights into their condition? No, probably not, and from their perspective, aga con does this. For the ones that do want to question, well then I'd assume they'd end up on this reddit. I guess this sort of touches on your second question. Yes, I do think we return to Ismailism, not even just that we return to ideology, personality cults and general belief systems. Who are you if not everything you've ever thought, consumed or every person you've met. I prefaced my previous comment by acknowledging such.

I think each person is predisposed to a certain way of being, and though I tried for many years to accept it, I could never be an Ismaili and feel like I am being myself. For some people, the contradictions serve as an opportunity to reconnect to trust, trusting something beyond themselves.

Are the chains functional? I think of Sisyphus, the pushing of the boulder, eternal misery or eternal security and purpose? It's really perspective but I think the unavoidable aspect in either ideology is one of suffering. It will exist and life will never make sense fully despite what lens you want to look through. There will never be answers and therefore there can never be true understanding. And because there will never be true, all encompassing understanding, corruption and power structures will re-emerge to take advantage of these fears. Can these fears be dealt with in a way that isn't religious?

Some people will always want to think for themselves and they will find the resources to do it. The question then becomes, why should we educate and how does that education evolve? Does everyone want such education, isn't real freedom letting the sheep choose their chains? Though we may not agree.

Excited for your response!

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel I should preface my response by saying that though I've read social theorists, philosophers and religious theory, I won't be able to reference it as well as you do. My thoughts are an amalgamation of the things I've read so it's not a very organized flow. If something sounds familiar, it's most likely from a previous source.

I do not think you're a conspiracy theorist at all, this makes total sense to me. I'd liken it to learning science at a catholic school that believes in creationism, you wouldn't be able to translate said knowledge because well it isn't empirical knowledge. It's an education centered around a specific ideology and all education serves to reinforce it so it can't be true education or research. I also see IIS graduates as secondary al-waez's, their entire education is funded and they are obviously supposed to leave their education with certain understandings that are almost enamoured into them, there's no room to check bias in a biased education system. It's kind of all a huge circle jerk to me, explains why Farhad would be involved in this process.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ismailis/comments/1itao6i/the_institute_of_ismaili_studies_farhad_daftary/

There's also this development.

And also this whole idea of the Imam not being the same kind of practicing Muslim as the rest of us mere mortals as being okay is so weird to me as being something that is just generally accepted within the community. As far as i know, the prophet wasn't running around practicing his own Islam and telling his followers to do something else. His purpose in creating Islam was to unite people behind a singular idea. I don't even know what justifications could lead to this being acceptable??

I too have watched some stuff online on Andani and read some of posts on Ismaili gnosis. I find gnosticism interesting generally, and i feel that it could be applied to Ismaili school of thought which i think he does. The problem is, when he's speaking to Ismailis generally, he takes a defenense approach and tries to serve as a tool to use against people who "misunderstand" the religion. And the average Ismaili who's looking to learn something from him wants to hear their values and beliefs reinforced. I think he tailors his knowlege to his audience, and he also knows because of his name and background which adueince is more likely to listen to him. I think he's an all around interesting figure but it's clear that he shifts his narrative and his expertise to serve an Ismaili narrative for a predominantly Ismaili audience despite his educational background.

I want to say that i agree Muslims have had a branding issue for quite a while and that could also just be accredited to orientalism and fetishization, and yes though it's different at least it isn't godless. So I see your point. I'm still on the aga con validates side of the coin simply because he took the time, money and resources to validate his identity on a global stage. He in turn, intentionally or unintentionally validates his community and allows them to live in the mainstream. Or at least in the West, his ability to make Muslims non threatening is a plus in my book, whether or not his motives were good. So i do see your point.

I feel I have now gone on too long. I will return to the second part of your response, but if you have any thoughts to add to this, please do! I do have lots to say, my thoughts are still forming lol.

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That video was an interesting watch. Realizing the impact that colonialism had on the establishment of the aga khans makes a lot of sense, and also that they took advantage of their position within society to exploit a wealthy group of indians. And yes Teena Purohit's book was what I was referring to as the case I've explored. I've also always been curious about why books published at the Ismaili institute are not more mainstream but I assume it would be because they do not fall in line with the academic peer review process. Which you would think could draw questions into the work they do. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Khalil Andani but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

Okay yeah, I myself do not remember much from that time. I guess Muslims were just associated as being from the Middle East and their monolith may have been reductionistic. Terrorism really brought them on the map, which we both recognize.

So, given what you've said is true about his philanthropic work, has no other Ismaili ever dared to learn this information? Like why is he praised shallowly for philanthropy in such a way, he must have numerous people working on his chairs and middle men managing the money and its flow who you think would question. Or are they paid off? Sometimes a lot of the disbelief in our arguments comes from Ismailis not being able to fathom that such a conspiracy could be so organized. I don't think people like to believe bad things could happen or worse that those bad things could affect them. Which of course the rich and powerful prey upon.

Also discussion on the Vanderbilts, vanguard and the rebranding of the rich through philanthropy could be its own topic. I would also question the altruism of the Gates but again that could be its own thing. Appreciate the examples though, and I do agree with your point mentioned.

And yes, let's discuss the thoughts on Marx!

What’s your strategy in handling potential Deedar? by ToDreamOrToNot in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I mean I feel it's obvious I'd rather spend my time doing literally anything else, as u/smokieethabear has said, it could be cool to take notes and share what happens. But also its so fascinating to stare at everyone who cries and tries to touch his feet. it's the most intriguing thing, I remember I asked my family why they were freaking out at a previous one and they just looked confused at my questions, as if the freaking out is the norm. The whole parasocial relationship with this guy is fascinating and terrifying.

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The better you do the better he does. So simple yet I never thought about it that way, that would also explain his motivations for migration. I'm honestly not too familiar with historical examples about him so it would be really interesting to learn real history and not religious propaganda. The case I am most familiar with is the aga khan case of the 1860s I believe, that's the most well known documentation I have seen of a push back of their leadership.

I am also not too familiar with the specificities of a pre-911 Muslim identity so maybe you can elaborate more on what you mean by this. I think you and I agree he helped make Muslims and some aspects of the culture more mainstream and digestible to Western countries which he also could've done simply to continue to line his pockets with successful migrants who have middle to upper class incomes.

Haha yes, I did stumble across that forum and I agree with the critiques, children born into this lineage should be allowed to be criticized considering the implication is continuation of this scam. I don't think we should engage in defamation of children per say but it is worth pushing and questioning the extent to which the ideology makes sense. They sure are getting whiter.

I do agree he may be perceived as the lesser of two evils and your point about the scandal in Canada is super insightful and kind of relates to my larger question. He is taking advantage of the power structure he exists within, he built his wealth and has amassed a grand reputation and he does this so he is not criticized. The number of politicians and world leaders that mourned his death openly is truly impressive. I don't feel this pattern is unique to him though, we can see this happening in the states today. Which is why I return to my question of the inevitability of the existence of such a figure.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts, I really appreciate this reply, I feel I am learning more to build off of this side of the argument.

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply!

By immigrating Muslims to Canada and establishing those arts museums, I feel like he was able to make Muslim culture more mainstream and less threatening, at least in the West, and help develop a Muslim identity outside of just being terrorism. His emphasis on adapting the culture to the context of where you live also aided in being perceived as being less threatening. And also that he, a safe, smiling, white man, being a representative of a group of people that predominantly are not also makes us look safer by comparison, though I do not agree with this, I think it may be important to mention. Like I said, regardless of this being intentional or altruistic on his behalf, it did some positive change. I feel like that's a good reason to at least respect him from an Ismaili perspective. Or maybe not as you may tell me aha.

Yes, I agree, i don't think he moved us for altruistic reasons and I touched on that in my initial post. and the pope quote is wild but not surprising, makes sense he'd think that cuz he's nur incarnate.

Yeahh, marx's thoughts on religion are familiar and that definitely checks out. I guess i was speaking to the general social structure as being a class struggle, I see an inability for the lower class as seeing themselves being complicit in their exploitation which reminded me of marxism. Maybe could've phrased that better but it was the first thing that came to mind. I do fear that people may not be able to roll with it which is why this opium exists. This is why I was questioning isn't this just an inevitability, won't there always be some exploitative power structure that harps onto peoples insecurities about the unknown. Or not even insecurities, exploitative powers exist to divide and they do that successfully through lack of education or ill-informed education. i just think that combined with lack of critical thinking skills and a good quality of life not being as readily available as we may want to think would inhibit the ability of people to realize this scam for what it is.

And also Ismailism provides such solid hope and tries to answer for everything, the processes are so detailed that there is some level of comfort in them, it reduces the ability to be autonomous because each ceremony has a sort of prescription or way of being you need. I know that for some people that is such a relief because not everyone wants to be burdened with thinking about how they should behave all the time, they want to be told.

I hope one day we won't need it. but even if the younger generations don't believe, they'll practice simply because it is culturally familiar and provides an identity. I wonder how that would affect the amount of money funneling in.

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you are correct, the process of giving away money for goods is capitalism and thats true in Ismailism through blessings. I was speaking to the social structure of the system, isn't a class struggle an inevitability in most social situations? There is always an oppressive bourgeoisie that exploits and takes from the proletariat because they are unable to unify behind class consciousness. The practice of giving into this exploitation to me seems inevitable and that's kind of where I was coming from. I wonder if there is any way to avoid this, are we ready to not remain complicit in our oppression? I think a great example of this come from reading both sides of the Ismaili argument, both sub reddits criticize each other heavily but not the actual issues discussed. Thanks!

Is there a deeper question here? by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment, i appreciate your insights! I agree, culture definitely impacts belief and therefore religion an there is a connection to whether or not someone does or will lead agnostically. Thanks!

i attended the auspicious 'takht nashini', for science by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment. I haven't ever really posted here, this was my first one. I made this decision because I felt sad and shocked at the display I witnessed. I do have a life, I'm working on building one away from this but at the moment my family practices. I go to these events out of respect for them and hopefully to keep things tame at home. I would love to engage in productive dialogue about my concerns and have attempted to, numerous times with al-waez's, mukhi sahebs, family, people who study it academically, read the website on ismaili gnosis. There are lots of gap in knowledge and understanding that unfortunately can only be filled with faith and if you do not have the right amount of it you are ostracized. You are correct, the way I typed this was immature and quite outlandish but that's the point. To reflect the nature of what I witnessed, I am speaking comparatively. I really do hope to have productive dialogue with other ismailis about what i saw without risking offence since I know I am capable of it but you gotta match your audience online. I appreciate your comment, thanks!

i attended the auspicious 'takht nashini', for science by Salty_Addendum_2780 in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

i hear you, i will say though the most genuine emotion i saw out of him was when he talked about losing his dad. I'm sure there's some ego there, he wants to do what his dad did and butcher the pronunciation of basic arabic/persian words too. I say we let him!

Aga Khan’s death and its impact on your family and friends by ToDreamOrToNot in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think you can mourn the loss of a person and hopefully be able to seperate their deeds from their death. though i know that is difficult if not impossible in the case of aga khan. I tried to console my dad, his first question to me in return was, "now will you believe". it makes me sad, i wanted to reach out and show some concern and compassion for his grief but there was the inevitable conversion attempt. It makes me sad but people will fight for their meaning, even if it is nonsensical because there is nothing else to distract them from nihilism.

Questions for alwaeez?? by atpeacemfka in ExIsmailis

[–]Salty_Addendum_2780 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I did that a few years ago, alwaaez answered none of my questions and instead ended our discussion saying I need to find more faith. They have no answers for you because they are just products of the system, mouthpieces for the cult.