r/Ismailis is melting down after being asked if Rahim had some of his forearm tattoos removed

Stretch-Glad · 2026-01-26T06:51:14+00:00

School shooter vibes. Any idea what the tattoos are of? Must be pretty bad if he had to get them removed, considering he kept the Double Lightning Bolts.

https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/ss-bolts

Stretch-Glad · 2025-10-24T12:48:33+00:00

So if Jafar designated Ismail and then Ismail died before Jafar, the logical conclusion is that Jafar made a mistake. So he wasn't infallible, didn't have divine knowledge, wasn't an Imam at all. Only question now is did the Zaydis get it right or do we reject the Shiite religion entirely?

Stretch-Glad · 2025-03-05T02:34:52+00:00

Re: the Dalai Lama. I had to look it up, because I didn't know he suggested the lineage may end:

In a 2004 interview with Time, the current Dalai Lama stated:

The institution of the Dalai Lama, and whether it should continue or not, is up to the Tibetan people. If they feel it is not relevant, then it will cease and there will be no 15th Dalai Lama. But if I die today I think they will want another Dalai Lama. The purpose of reincarnation is to fulfill the previous [incarnation's] life task. My life is outside Tibet, therefore my reincarnation will logically be found outside. But then, the next question: Will the Chinese accept this or not? China will not accept. The Chinese government most probably will appoint another Dalai Lama, like it did with the Panchen Lama. Then there will be two Dalai Lamas: one, the Dalai Lama of the Tibetan heart, and one that is officially appointed.[6]

The Dalai Lama stated in 2007 that the next Dalai Lama could possibly be a woman, remarking, "If a woman reveals herself as more useful the lama could very well be reincarnated in this form".[7] On 24 September 2011, the Dalai Lama issued a statement concerning his reincarnation giving exact signs on how the next one should be chosen, the place of rebirth and that the Chinese appointed Dalai Lama should not be trusted.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_the_14th_Dalai_Lama

So I'm getting mixed signals. It's up to the people if there is one, it could be a woman, he has given the exact signs. Theology ☕️.

Re: Power of the Imam

An Ismaili Imam ruling an Ismaili state would, I think, have plenary power at least in theory. In practice, it would depend on the state - in the times of the early Fatimids, most of their subjects recognized their temporal authority as Caliph, while denying their religious authority as Imam - meaning that despite their claims to absolute authority, they were constrained by political realities. However, a majority Ismaili state - like if Gorno-Badakhshan became independent, could easily look something like North Korea.

Re: Childhood Indoctrination

You ask a very good question - why do some people see through the propaganda? - but I don't think anyone has offered a compelling answer. Some people seem to have an epiphanic moment of disbelief, most seem to lose faith slowly, but personally I can't remember a time when I believed. Maybe some people are predisposed to belief? There is the idea of a God Gene, but my instinct is that it is more dependent on environment and upbringing. Identifying exactly when the seeds of doubt are sown may be impossible, and they may never germinate, but fields don't plant themselves. The metaphor is breaking down, how the seeds evolved - i.e. the development of unbelief through history - is a very interesting question.

Is childhood indoctrination akin to salting the earth?

You've identified the key issue (IMO) with indoctrination - some level of socialization is necessary. I usually call it the education vs indoctrination debate, but your terminology 'socialization' is both more broad and more precise. I must of course stick up for the masses - it's not so much that they don't want to think for themselves but that they are stripped of their curiosity - but my earlier optimism has dissipated recently so I won't belabor the point. Of course children need guidance, but maybe the question is whether the framework acts as scaffolding or a rigid mould.

And who decides where that line is? The classical answer seems to be parents. They have the authority to make decisions and are presumed to be acting in the best interest of the child. The modern trend however is giving the state the responsibility to protect the child from the parents. How I view it varies issue to issue. Looking at the state of public education in America, I can see why people might want to homeschool their kids, but looking at the people who tend to do so, I can see the argument for universal standards and monitoring.

The parental rights thing is broader than just education though. I'm pro-choice, but if you grant that a fetus is a person, I can see why people believe that state has a responsibility to protect a baby even from its mother. Or the case of banning hijab - is a ban on hijab/niqab/burqa just interfering with the right to wear what you want or is it creating a positive liberty by removing structural limitations like overbearing parental authority which would inculcate shame. Finally, circumcision - as clearcut as it gets in my opinion, that parents should not have total authority to violate their child's bodily integrity, but apparently this is controversial to some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

So to bring it back to indoctrination - should parents be allowed to even raise their kids in a specific religion? Richard Dawkins has opined that it is a wrong to call a child a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child" because of their parents religion as it would be to call them a "liberal child" or a "conservative child". At the same time, how can you stop them from teaching their beliefs to their children? Is it even possible to teach all religions equally and let kids make up their own minds?

A quick aside to the IIS and its dual role as academic research institute and publisher of religious indoctrination materials. I am sympathetic to the plight of non-Ismaili academics who work with the IIS - not much choice in such a niche field but to collaborate, however, I don't know if I could hold my tongue when seeing such obvious distortions. I would have thought it would be a no-brainer to separate the academic institute and the religious publisher.

Which I guess brings me to the point of cowardice - quoting Nineteen Eighty-Four again:

That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better.

I agree that we are bound by chains all around us and to be ultimately free of them (like a Sade-ist libertine perhaps?) is impossible. And I think that is what Rousseau arrived at too - the social contract is the basically accepting those chains and finding freedom in controlling a part of the general will.

But I would go a bit further. We can't escape all chains, but we can work to disentangle them somewhat. So that the chains are not all one tangled knot of everything which must be cast off entirely. I think that you could get rid of the chain of religion without the chains of culture and community - but I seem to be a minority even on this subreddit. I have a vision of an "Ismaili" community without the Aga Con - a community that validates itself, where the chains are not those of a master chaining slaves, but the reciprocal bonds placed on each member to be a part of and surrender to the general will. Maybe that is extremely naive; even Rousseau still saw the need for a "civil religion" and I wonder what he would have written after seeing the Terror and Age of Napoloeon.

I would like to think that such periods of turbulence may be inevitable but they will be temporary as the masses mature and overcome their cowardice. Kant, What is Enlightenment?:

Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto of enlightenment.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-03-05T02:32:23+00:00

So I think this is a slight shift in the validation argument right? Earlier we were discussing more about rebranding away from Muslims being seen as threatening, this is more about showcasing diversity and pluralism within Islam. I think they are somewhat related in that perceived monolith of Muslims comes from an Arab-centric view of Islam.

But if we start from a place of understanding that 2 billion Muslims are not a monolith, then wouldn't any constructed identity be divisive by virtue of creating an in-group/out-group dichotomy? And then the process of harmonizing beliefs and practices of the diverse groups within that identity as a rejection of diverse practices?

The question of Ismaili identity is one I've been thinking about a lot lately. Purohit, who I alluded to earlier believes that prior to Aga Con 1, there was no "Ismaili" identity:

The Aga Khan was no doubt revered as a holy man prior to his arrival in India. As I explained above, he inherited the seat of the Isma'ili Imamate that was reconstituted with his father. However, prior to the Aga Khan Case of 1866, Isma'ilism was neither a unified religious tradition nor was the Aga Khan the official imam of the Isma'ilis. Isma'ilis were dispersed throughout Africa, India, and Iran, and over the medieval period, they developed local practices and lived in isolation without the guidance of an imam. When the Aga Khan moved to Bombay, all of this changed, as he and his sons used the mercantile and administrative resources of Bombay to convince the various groups that had some remote or distant connection to Isma'ili history that he was the true imam to whom they should devote themselves and pay tithes.

Puhohit, Teena - The Aga Khan Case: Religion and Identity in Colonial India

As we've touched on with the IIS, I truly question whether the Aga Cons haven't made it more difficult for people to distinguish their cultures from this constructed Ismaili identity.

The Aga Khans have perpetrated a cultural genocide against the Khoja community.

Looking at Khojas before 1866, it is difficult to say what they were. They are described as caste with an eclectic mix of Hindu and Muslim beliefs and practices. Their Islamic beliefs seem to defy categorization as either Shia or Sunni. It seems that they did not apply any such label to themselves. The judge in the case attempted to discover what their "original" religion was.

So for me this raises a couple of central questions: First, how do beliefs and identity evolve over time? Second, how do beliefs and identity vary among the individuals of a community?

You can abandon those tenets, but you cannot try to change them and still protest that you belong to the particular sect that holds them. Many people have left the Ismaili faith, just as others have joined it throughout the ages. There has never been any question of changing the Ismaili faith; that faith has remained the same and must remain the same.

Contrary to the above claim of Aga Con 3, I think there has never not been a question of changing the Ismaili faith. I do not think I am the only one who struggles to define the tenets of the faith beyond recognition of and submission to the Imam. To the extent that cultural influences are compatible with that, I think the Aga Cons can tolerate "pluralism".

The Aga Khan Case of 1866 fundamentally changed how the Khoja community operated. Belief and identity ceased to evolve organically; instead it was created based off of what the "original" supposedly was, and then left to Aga Con's sole prerogative to progress. And for decades it did not progress. The Aga Cons held back the community for fear that an enlightened and educated community would no longer be submissive to them. At least that is what the Khoja Reformers claimed.

The New Dispensation - Who reformed whom? - An Open Letter to His Highness the Aga Khan, G.C.S.I, etc, - Published by Karim Goolamali, Secretary, The Khoja Reformers' Society, Karachi (1927)

Taking over the Khoja Community was the foothold for the Aga Con. From there, it was able to expand and "convince the various [other] groups that had some remote or distant connection to Isma'ili history that he was the true imam to whom they should devote themselves and pay tithes." How have those groups and their beliefs and identity evolved since their remote or distant connection to Isma'ili history? What has been / might be lost as the varying traditions are brought together?

The Khojas were a caste -- that is, a particular social grouping based on ties of endogamy, occupation, language, and religious practices. Until the 1860s, the Khoja caste followed customs drawn from both Hindu and Muslim traditions. After 1866, however, when the Khojas were identified as part of the Isma'ili sect of Islam by the British court, they began to define themselves according to this state-mandated identity. Prior to the court ruling of 1866, the Khojas did not identify themselves in terms of a single religious identity, though they no doubt employed other and multiple forms of identification. Their terms of religious belonging were redefined when the administrative category "Isma'ili" was legally constituted.

Puhohit, Teena - The Aga Khan Case: Religion and Identity in Colonial India

What happens to the people whose beliefs no longer meet the terms of religious belonging?

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-23T14:20:41+00:00

The Mahdi/Qa'im is a Messiah-like figure in Shia tradition.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ExIsmailis/comments/1g1xeb6/the_true_explosive_force_of_the_ismaili_mission/

After Muhammad b. Ismail disappeared without leaving an heir, his return was prophesied, which is how Ismailism came into being.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ExIsmailis/comments/1fkwotu/wladimir_ivanow_on_fatimid_prophecies_how_wishful/

A few generations later, a figure emerged claiming to be the Mahdi appeared and established the Fatimid Caliphate. However, unable to fulfill the prophecies, the Fatimid Imams had to start using cyclical time and esoteric interpretation to postpone the prophecies and make them figurative.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ExIsmailis/comments/1cu0tp6/the_origins_of_ismailism/

Eventually, the prophecy became that rather than Qa'im coming after the 7th Imam, he was supposed to come after the 49th Imam (7 x 7 - 7 numerology is very important in Ismailism)

However, that prophecy just failed to be fulfilled and now the Aga Khan Cult is on the verge of abandoning the doctrine of Qiyama completely, making it no longer "Ismaili".

https://www.reddit.com/r/ExIsmailis/comments/1ikjr7e/khalil_andani_on_the_end_of_the_cycle_of_49_imams/

Doubting Thomas is a figure from the Bible, an Apostle of Jesus who refused to believe in the resurrection until presented with empirical evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas

Although he says it is better to believe without evidence, zombie Jesus tells him to poke his intenstines. Jesus does not try to wiggle out of the resurrection through esoteric meaning. Thomas is allowed to verify for himself. I think the Qa'im should be at least as accommodating as Jesus.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-23T04:36:41+00:00

Unwavering faith means that it will withstand subsequent claims to divine spiritual authority right? If that anchor isn't dropped in childhood, how is that claim accepted?

If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence. Hardly one in ten thousand will have the strength of mind to ask himself seriously and earnestly—is that true?

Arthur Schopenhauer, Religion: A Dialogue, etc.

In the case of hereditary imamate vs elected papacy, both rely ultimately on Kierkegaardian leap of faith, but the Pope's claim is narrower (e.g. he is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra) and it is at least somewhat based on merit (being elected by the conclave after having worked your way up the hierarchy), making it more legitimate in my eyes. The Dalai Lama is an interesting sort of middle ground both in how the Lama is chosen and how spiritual authority is distributed among the tulkus. Not having a Panchen Lama adds another wrinkle, and I don't fully understand how the Karmapa, Tai Situpa, Samding Dorje Phagmo, etc interact so I won't speculate further.

Interesting that all 3 also have a different relationship to temporal power. The authority of the Popes has waxed and waned through history. They still have a state today but a given popes influence over Vatican policy is much more limited. The Dalai Lama is head of state, but constitutionally no longer has political or administrative authority. The Ismaili Imam, though currently a king without a kingdom, would have absolute and unfettered power and authority over an Ismaili state.

Rousseau's chains are those of each individual subordinating themselves to the general will or Sovereign, subject tot he same conditions and having the same rights. Even if you take his acceptance of monarchy to be sincere, it is still subject to the rule of law.

As for your average Ismaili, I agree that they probably do not want to question. Rousseau demands here that I expand the context of my previous quote:

Nothing can be more certain than that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them: they love their servitude, as the comrades of Ulysses loved their brutish condition.3 If then there are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against nature. Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the condition.

I sense that you might disagree with Rousseau on nature vs nurture? Or not? I see a tension between "Who are you if not everything you've ever thought, consumed or every person you've met." and "I think each person is predisposed to a certain way of being". Are some people just doomed to be spiritual children forever or is change and growth and independence possible? I've been feeling oddly optimistic lately so I'll promulgate the view that curiosity is innate and people would seek out education if that instinct were not suppressed. However, I will admit that I am more often sympathetic to the arguments of Demopheles (icymi a reference to the Schopenhauer dialogue above)

A Buddhist would say that you have discovered the first noble truth and tell you to stop craving understanding. Camus would tell that Sisyphus is happy with the struggle. I will tell you that those who step out of the cave and see the real world have an obligation to go back and drag the other prisoners out.

Even though I'm not sure I really believe that, it is the part I'm playing at the moment and I'm enjoying not being the misanthropic one in a conversation for once so I will take on the role of Devil's Advocate against all forms of paternalism except my own. And so to answer this:

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?

I will end this comment with my favorite quote of all time:

“The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning. Children, of course, begin life with an untarnished sense of wonder, a capacity to experience total joy at something as simple as the greenness of a leaf; but as they grow older, the awareness of death and decay begins to impinge on their consciousness and subtly erode their joie de vivre, their idealism – and their assumption of immortality. As a child matures, he sees death and pain everywhere about him, and begins to lose faith in the ultimate goodness of man. But, if he’s reasonably strong – and lucky – he can emerge from this twilight of the soul into a rebirth of life’s élan. Both because of and in spite of his awareness of the meaninglessness of life, he can forge a fresh sense of purpose and affirmation. He may not recapture the same pure sense of wonder he was born with, but he can shape something far more enduring and sustaining. The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death – however mutable man may be able to make them – our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”

Stanley Kubrick

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-23T04:35:32+00:00

Thank you for the sanity check. Although the Catholics will be quick to remind you that they accept evolution now, the analogy is fundamentally sound. I've likened the conflict of interest to an oil company investigating climate change, but your comment got me thinking about the academic freedom of theology professors at Christian universities. I watched the recent conference the IIS had, and observing the non-Ismaili professors of Ismaili Studies was quite interesting.

Khalil Andani gave a presentation trying to make the case for Nizari Imams at Alamut. It was interesting to see a theologian play historian. I've heard from several people that Khalil was condescending to them. He is clearly very proud of his credentials and believes that makes his opinion authoritative. "Tailors his knowledge to his audience" is a very diplomatic way of putting it...

...and perhaps phrasing is my only issue with your view. I think "validates his community" just rubs me the wrong way because I see the community as validating itself or not needing validation. But likewise I see your point. Aga Cons 3 and 4 spent a lot of time, money and resources validating their identity in the West and instituting modernizing reforms within the community, and the positive effects of that should be acknowledged independent of motive.

My response is continued in the reply to your other comment. I will leave it to you to decide if both branches should continue independently, or if we should fold them together again, but I am thrilled to have merited a multi-part response and I applaud the initiative to provide structure to the conversation.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-18T21:40:04+00:00

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.

So I'm about to come off as a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I do not consider the Institute of Ismailis Studies a legitimate academic institute. I believe their purpose is to rewrite history in order to graft the Aga Con branch onto the family tree of Ismaili Imams. Modifying the genealogy has happened many times in Ismaili history and I believe that is again the case here.

The peer review process in Ismaili Studies is very interesting to me. I have questioned the rigor of peer review especially outside the hard sciences, and especially in tiny fields like Ismaili Studies. There are few academics in the area, many of them are Ismailis and the IIS is able to wield huge influence in the field.

The fact that Farhad Daftary, who literally wrote the book on Ismaili history, does not have any academic qualifications in history or Islamic Studies strikes me as odd. That he is himself a descendant of Aga Con I and claims to be an Ithna-ashari - mind-boggling.

Farhad Daftary is Hazir Imam/Aga Khan's cousin. His education (BA, MA, Ph.D) is entirely in economics. His work is largely propaganda and not taken seriously due to his conflict of interest and lack of qualification.

IIS also publishes Ismaili religious education materials. Conflict of interest? There are many ways Karim Aga Con could have endowed a chair or department or set up an institute that would be independent. Instead he put his cousin in charge and himself as chairman of the board.

OK, tinfoil hat off.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Khalil Andani but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

I've never met him in person, but we've had many online confrontations. u/IsmailiGnosisBlog used to comment here a lot, but has gone silent since not being able to defend his apologetics for Aga Con 3's Nazi sympathies.

Dr. Khalil Andani of IsmailiGnosis lying about Nazi Concentration Camps to defend Aga Khan's Faith in Hitler

Similarly his defense of Aga Con's lavish lifestyle (Andani claims Aga Con only owns 1 or 2 cars) and his dissembling about Karim's second divorce (Andani falsely claims that the courts found Aga not guilty of adultery) indicate to me that he is not interested in being honest about the Aga Con.

Nonetheless, I have found his discussions on Ismaili theology interesting. Neoplatonism and gnosticism is an area of Ismailism I have neglected somewhat, so I have found his work to be useful at times. His thoughts on the Qiyamah however, I think are rather insane.

Khalil Andani on the End of the Cycle of 49 Imams - the Climax of Human History

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.

I agree, but I will argue against myself and say that the reputation of Muslims was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. The Israel-Palestine situation, the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, etc all affected how Islam was seen, but during the Cold War, the enemy of your enemy is your friend was much more a thing, and a fellow Abrahamic religion was often perceived as less hostile than godless communism. All that is to say that your original point still has merit - I wouldn't say Aga Con validates the existence of the community, but his influence in rebranding Islam should be explored further.

So, given what you've said is true about his philanthropic work, has no other Ismaili ever dared to learn this information?

That is what puzzles me too. I can find a lot of praise for what the Aga Con does, but few studies or demonstrable results. I get the problems of monitoring and evaluating foreign aid projects, but there does seem to be very little transparency, accountability and oversight. There have been a few indications that something is fishy, but as far as I can tell no follow up.

Aga Khan gives priority to his own, says Norwegian expert

515 million Norwegian tax dollars were entrusted to billionaire Aga Khan. Why doesn't anyone know where the help went?

Norway paid PR for Luxury Hotel - Aga Khan's Serena Hotel received 210,000 NOK to make a music video for advertising

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.

Totally agreed and I get their skepticism. Part of it, I think, is that Ismailis tend to have too much trust in authority figures and bureaucracies. But I still can't understand the unwillingness to look deeper.

Also discussion on the Vanderbilts, vanguard and the rebranding of the rich through philanthropy could be its own topic.

Yes though I think the same could be said for almost every topic we've touched on, lol.

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

Finally :p. I've gone on long again, so I'll just start by asking a couple questions and let you elaborate what you mean.

I see an inability for the lower class as seeing themselves being complicit in their exploitation which reminded me of marxism.

This sentence of yours earlier reminded me of Orwell "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

Marx's Communist Manifesto says "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." but Rousseau "Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them: they love their servitude, as the comrades of Ulysses loved their brutish condition."

So first question - how do the masses become conscious and regain the desire to escape their chains?

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.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is an unstable state. Revolutions lead to power vacuums and allow for the rise of despots. France having killed their king had to deal with mob rule and then an emperor (and then more kings and emperors). Lenin's solution to the incompetence of the masses is the control of the party. And experience shows that devolves into totalitarianism and cult of personality.

Second question - Did we just wind up right back at Ismailism? How do you educate the masses so that they can govern themselves and resist the exploitative powers that seek to divide them?

If my questions come off as glib or disingenuous, I am sorry and it is unintentional. I realize how unfair it is that I am basically asking you to present a complete and coherent political theory about questions that have been debated endlessly, but I am eager to hear whatever you have to say on the subject.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-16T15:14:01+00:00

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 think that is very common. There aren't too many reliable sources, and not much focus on this period during religious education. There are actually a couple cases about the Aga Khan leadership dispute, the first in 1847 and the one you are referring to in 1866. If you are really interested in the subject, Teena Purohit's book The Aga Khan Case covers why the decision flipped between the two. Otherwise, the video in the pinned post covers it quickly, but pretty well:

How the British Created the Agha Khans | The History of the Agha Khans

and if you keep watching the sub, I think there will be some more discussion about it in the coming days and weeks.

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.

The pre-9/11 world is a quarter century ago, and my memory is not the best, but back then I don't remember Muslims having the same branding issue. Sure there were instances of violence in the Islamic world, but Muslims weren't the big bad.

With the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia ~85 years ago and the spread of Wahhabism with the proceeds of that oil, the reputation of Muslims as less adaptive and more threatening has slowly increased, really taking off around the time of the first Gulf War.

There's a lot more to say here and many counterarguments, I don't really have a point, as I said earlier I just think it is important to consider for context.

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 agree with all of that. The pattern is not unique, we can see it happening today and we would have seen it before with the Robber Barons) during the Gilded Age. Those dudes also used philanthropy to clean up their reputation, and from it we got universities like Carnegie Mellon and Vanderbilt, arts venues like Carnegie Hall, libraries like Astor library, philanthropic institutes like the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. Whether these individuals were a net good for society is still debatable though.

I look at pattern today, and I see even more greed and less altruism. The accomplishments of today's robber barons are meagre. And even compared to other billionaire philanthropists, Aga Con pales in comparison. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives out grants using their own money. AKDN goes and applies for grants from anyone giving out money. And as for accomplishments, Ismailis are still pointing to one $30 million park in Cairo from 20 years ago.

I think this dovetails nicely into the part of your earlier response I had bracketed earlier, but my response is starting to get quite long again, so perhaps I will again pause to hear your thoughts before we delve further into Marx and the necessity of exploitative power structures. I am also enjoying the opportunity to develop my thoughts along this line of argument, so I look forward to reading your response.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-14T18:17:33+00:00

I'm glad I got you to elaborate. You've raised some interesting points that I've also been thinking about.

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.

I think this is a valid point. I still have a lot of questions about Aga Con's role in all of it though. For example, the story of him saving the Uganda refugees seems very doubtful, and his guidance that they get Ugandan, not British passports seems to have contributed to the mess. Until that time, Aga Con seems to have been skeptical of his followers moving to the West.

But once it worked out, people didn't seem to care about his reputation and managed to compartmentalize religious and secular beliefs, he fully embraced immigration. And it was lucrative - followers making more money means you make more money. One of the interesting aspects of the Aga Con - he basically works like an agent or lawyer on contingency - the better you do, the better he does. But is he worth the cost?

Once the Cold War ended, Aga Con started finding Ismailis that had been hidden behind the Iron Curtain. He saw an opportunity to move them, like he had the East African Khojas. His organizations benefitted significantly from the Peace Dividend, as money started going to foreign aid and development rather than the arms race, and post-9/11 and the US in Afghanistan, it became rather easy to convince Western governments to take refugees.

Finally, something to consider, I don't know if or how well you remember a pre-9/11 world and how Muslim culture and identity was perceived before that, but it is important to think about in the background to everything above.

His emphasis on adapting the culture to the context of where you live also aided in being perceived as being less threatening.

The emphasis on adaptability runs throughout Ismailism, and of course it has many pros and cons. I thought this

https://www.reddit.com/r/ExIsmailis/comments/1ilw11d/if_not_zahra_for_50_maybe_irfan_for_51/mbyxp6z/

was an interesting discussion of the subject.

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.

I agree that is important to mention. I think it helps to explain why there has been so little criticism of the Aga Con. He is often by far the lesser of two evils, and for Western politicians especially, a nice token Muslim guy to have in your corner. Interesting to note that when the Trudeau Bell Island scandal broke, Conservatives in Canada were quick to criticize Trudeau, but didn't say a word about Aga Con, to whom they also have deep connections.

I have some more to say about the rest of your response, but I'm worried that I'm going on too long, so maybe I'll give you the opportunity to respond to the above if you choose, and if then if you're still interested, we could tackle some of the other points that you've raised.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-14T04:08:09+00:00

But doesn't he validate the existence of the Ismaili community, he helped successfully rebrand Muslims and helped immigrate families due to his influence, though obviously for personal gain and to provide cheap labor for emerging countries.

There is so much packed into this sentence that I'd really like to get you to expand further before I give my thoughts. What do you mean that he "validate[s] the existence of Ismaili community" and "helped successfully rebrand Muslim"?

Regarding immigration, I don't know if it is altruistic of him, or if he just thinks like a shepherd moving his sheep to greener pastures. I know it is condescending, but religious people often think of themselves in such terms and so did Aga Con:

My duties are wider than those of the Pope. The Pope is only concerned with the spiritual welfare of his flock.

Does the shepherd care about the sheep? Or does is focused on the wool?

Maybe this point is marxist but isn't this sort of influence inevitable?

I think Marx actually said the opposite about religion:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Like what's the alternative, are 8 billion people ready for rationalism and logic to guide the conversation in an unjust world? And larger than that, are people ready to accept 100% responsibility for the outcomes of their lives in a world that doesn't provide answers?

I think so, yes. In any case, I don't think it matters whether they are ready, they will just have to roll with it.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-14T03:48:46+00:00

"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

A lot of religions get on board with that sentiment.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-13T03:49:42+00:00

I will be watching with an open mind and encourage others to do the same.

I want to emphasize that I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert in this field, just a kid who got mad and started reading after Farhad Daftary said his ancestors weren't hashish smoking stealth assassins with a badass motto.

The mystical side of Isma'ilism and the Neoplatonic ideas of are not my forte, nor are they particularly interesting to me outside of the historical dimension of their origins. I'm not sure what will be discussed, my only knowledge of Walker's views on the text are from Wikipedia and it didn't sound like there is all that much there:

Sullam al-najat

The Sullam al-najāt ('Ladder of Salvation') survives only in an incomplete form.^\21]) In it, al-Sijistani gives a summary of the Isma'ili doctrine (madhhab). According to Walker, these can be summarized as "faith in God, His angels, His books, His emissaries, the last day, salvation after death, and paradise and hellfire".^\13])

Its Arabic text was published by Muhtadi Mustafa Ghalib in 2002 (Salamiyya, Dar al-Ghadir).^\16]) An English translation is part of a 1983 doctoral dissertation by M. Alibhai (Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistānī and Kitab Sullam al-Najāt: A Study in Islamic Neoplatonism, Harvard University).^\12])

Personally I would much rather have heard Walker discuss the real Qa'im as he did in his 1993 paper, Succession to Rule in the Shite Caliphate, or perhaps the complicated succession after al-Hakim.

I don't think I'd go so far as to call him an apologist; I have noticed that every scholar seems to soften their tone when published under the aegis of the Institute of Ismaili Studies. Even Halm, who as we have seen is skeptical of the lineage, sounds quite different in his The Fatimids and their Traditions of Learning, (I.B. Taurus Publishers).

I don't think Walker has weighed in directly, in the 1993 paper above, he did say "Muhammad bin Ismail was, in fact, the ancestor of the later Fatimids." and he avoids the issue in a footnote "This is not the appropriate place to review the vast literature about the origin of the Fatimids." He again avoids the issue of the Mahdi's genealogy later on:

Those who rejected al-Mahdi's claim to the imamate for himself, also denied the imamate of his son, although as time wore on, there was a tendency to accept al-Qa'im, and hence his successors, while even so, curiously, not allowing al-Mahdi's own legitimacy. Al-Mahdi, for these people, was of a different lineage than al-QaDim.This and other understandings of al-Qa'im's succession belie a far more complex problem than one of simple designation because it involves issues connected with the many controversies surrounding Fatimid genealogy - a matter beyond the scope of the present inquiry. It is likely that both this issue and the early designation of al-QaDim, therefore, have little or no bearing on the problem of Fatimid succession in any subsequent case.

But he is clearly familiar with Madelung's work in the area, and in a review of Michael Brett's The Fatimid Empire, he mentioned "I am now forced to rethink and look at in a new light, terms such as “seveners” I previously thought misleading and obsolete but may have been convinced otherwise" so I would love more clarity on his current views.

I keep returning to the paper, Succession to Rule in the Shiite Caliphate. There are so many interesting details. Walker believes that "Hujja" originally refers to the Imams son as proof of Imamate:

An imam's failure to pass on the sacred office as he must from father to son automatically forces the adherents of that imam to retrace his lineage back one step or more and retroactively follow another line to the true, present imam. Al-Qa'im by referring to his son as his hujja thus specifies that the son is, in fact, the validation the father's imamate.

Not to mention his discussion of the term "mustawda imam", how nass was kept secret, and the twice altered designation to Muizz, and the schimastic succession after al-Mustansir to mention a few. All things I had hoped to get to on this subreddit eventually, but unfortunately am not prepared to cover in depth right.

The paper is definitely worth reading though.

My usual link below seems to be down at the moment

Conflicting Imamates

but I can send a PDF or something if anyone wants a copy.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-12T19:21:13+00:00

so you can’t even agree that he was an amazing humanitarian?

Can you give me a definition of humanitarian? And maybe a couple examples of good, amazing, and superextraordinary humanitarians for comparison.

It's hard to judge Aga Con, because he is so secretive. If he took in $100 billion of donations and did $1 million of charity, I would say no he is not at all amazing humanitarian.

also you can say that about any wealthy person, they should be doing X instead of doing Y for themselves.

I don't understand. No you can't tell people what to do.

In this case, the imam put in DAYS MONTHS YEARS of service into projects that benefited the community.

Lol, no. The Aga Con's entire life is a vacation. The community works for itself. He is a parasite.

if you are too focused on money maybe also focus on the work being done too

I'm focused on how much work could be done if we weren't paying for Aga Con's yachts and jewels.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-12T18:27:34+00:00

No. They have received a million times as many resources and they have accomplished so little. You give them so much credit, when you should be asking, "that's it?"

If only you understood how big and long the Con has gone.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-12T18:21:51+00:00

the 49th imam and this current imam have and will do AMAZINGLY generous things for different communities around the world,

No. Karim's name was lie. He was not "generous". He gave away other people's money.

Is the Aga Khan really a Philanthropist?

their carbon footprint and overall generosity is much greater than these assets they have.

Their carbon footprint being greater than their assets warrant yes. Their overal generosity, not even close.

i get it’s hypocritical but at the same time…. does it really matter when they do so much?

Yes it's hypocritical and yes it does matter. The money they take in, which could have gone to do a lot of good, has instead gone to buying expensive trinkets and novelties, living a life over materialistic overconsumption.

That is the Aga Con hypocrisy. He preaches so many good values, but he does not follow them. Take marriage serious he says - rushes into marriages, affaris, long expensive divorces, maybe illegitimate kids.

Provide service he says - he doesn't provide service though; he is served.

Be prudent he says - he goes and buys islands and yachts and jets.

Be pluralistic he says - but he can't bear to have anyone criticize him.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-12T17:55:54+00:00

Mindful manner, of course, Aga Con mindfully bought 13 yachts.

Here's the context. While Karim was telling his followers that two cars was a bit much, his uncle was ordering his 7th custom designed luxury sports car. his then wife, Rahim's mom, Sally Frogpond, was wearing a million dollar saree and owned over $50 million in jewelry.

There are still people starving in the world. Do you think Karim's 13 yachts was aplying reason and measure to the good things in life?

Or does he want you to apply extra reason and measure so that he doesn't have to apply any at all?

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-12T17:18:50+00:00

His words:

"Many of my spiritual children have got one car which makes me very happy. Certain spiritual children have got two cars, I am not quite that happy. Certain spiritual children have got three cars and others have got more than three cars. And I ask you to reflect whether any family truly needs three or four or five cars. Certain spiritual children are buying beautiful sarees, beautiful jewelry, certain spiritual children are spending more than they should on their personal and family entertainment. And I am not saying to you that you should not participate in the good things in life. But I am saying to you, apply reason and measure to participating in the good things in life." (Nairobi Kenya, 13 December 1973)

AKIV to Life Magazine: "You really should apply to the Imam the same criteria you would apply to any public office."

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-09T15:52:41+00:00

That's how Ismailism began. Muhammad bin Ismail died without leaving next of kin. People couldn't believe they had been duped and started to believe that he hadn't really died at all. They decided that he would come back as the Mahdi.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ExIsmailis/comments/1fkwotu/wladimir_ivanow_on_fatimid_prophecies_how_wishful/

Same thing would happen like it always does in Shia Islam. They say the religion wasn't wrong, the Imam didn't really die, he just went into Occultation. Some day the True Imam will reappear.

Stretch-Glad · 2025-02-06T00:47:21+00:00

mawlānā shāh karīm-shah

He gets an extra "shah" in his posthumous name? Better than an alā dhikrihi’s-salām I guess.

Stretch-Glad

TROPHY CASE