#29
Unread post
by Humsafar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:52 pm
Birader,
I confess I know little of Fatimid literature and philosophy, but I'll not hesitate to join you and wallow in its glories till the end of time, when Qaim al Qiam will come, as promised by the said literature, and set this world right. Until such time what are we supposed to do? The Old Testament quote, "man does not live by bread alone" can very well be put on it's head, "man does not live by glories alone". It is a common defence mechanism to revert to the past and its greatness when the present fails to live up to the promise.
The greatness of Fatimid philosophy is all fine and dandy, and I appreciate it as I do other intellectual and creative achievements of mankind as part of our common heritage. But all this begs the question, what has all this great Fatimid doctrine and philosophy resulted in? In Mufaddal Saifuddin? Isn't that a tragedy? Doesn't that call that boast of greatness into question? On the face of it, it would seem that SMS does not invalidate the Fatimid doctrine any more than ISIS invalidates the Quran. But if you give it a moment's thought, it actually does.
Imamat is central to Shia/Isamili beliefs. Let's accept that the necessity of divine guidance through the Imam can be traced to the Quran. Let us also accept that the Imam is infallible, and also accept other secondary attributes the Imam is supposed to have. Let's accept all that. Much in religious theology is purely at the level of beliefs, meaning it does not have practical implications in real life: like the belief in one god, or the holy trinity or ahlul bayt or Brahman the creator etc.
But the concept of Imamat and the role of Imam is not a matter of pure, abstract belief. The Imam is the divine guide, right? His job is to guide? (Maula Ali and Imam Hussain stand out as sterling examples.) In present time would it be too impolite to ask where is the divine guide? Just believing in the existence of the Imam is not enough, because the more important belief attached to the Imam is that he is a guide, and divine to boot. So the believers who believe in the Imam but are contented with that Imam not divinely guiding them are not true to their beliefs. Are they? If the Imam exist then he must guide. If he exists and is not guiding then he is not doing his job. Of course, the Shias and Ismailis have thought out the answers to this dilemma by such devices as occultation, taqqiya etc. But one cursory look at their history will reveal that these explanation do not hold much water.
The other belief in Fatimid doctrine is that there can be only one Imam at any given time, and that he his divinely appointed. Again, one look at history and this belief - which has practical implications - also falls apart. The succession dispute right after Imam Jaffar us Sadiq (or was it after Imam Zain ul Abideen?) the belief in divine appointment of the Imam comes into question. Even if we were to ignore this discrepancy, we still have to deal with multiple Imams? That puts paid to the belief of one divine guide at any one given time. By rough count there are might be six or seven Imams in existence today and all claiming to be divinely appointed and divinely guided, and most of them are in hiding and not guiding, not doing the only job they are supposed to do.
As for Bohra dais and their succession drama down the ages, the less said the better.
I point all this out not to mock Fatimid beliefs, but to show the dichotomy between belief and reality, between faith and praxis. The two Bohra Dais are wrangling it out in broad daylight and the Imam is blissfully absent. Isn't it the Imam according to our Bohra beliefs who should be appointing the dai? Then why is there a dispute? Why was there a dispute so many other times in the past? Obviously some "Dais" don't listen to the Imam, and the infallible and divinely guided Imam can do nothing about it. If that is the case, then the Imam and the belief in Imamat once again comes into question. Does it not cause Bohras today to wonder, where is their (Bohra) Imam? Doesn't it make you wonder? Why is their Imam allowing the community, once again, to go to pieces? Of course, we are told, there is some hikma in it. And that hikma will be revealed to us, if ever, when Qaim al Qiam comes. But by then it might be too late and that hikma would have no practical use, at least in the here and now where the likes of Mufaddal Saifuddin reign freely, (and where the likes of some pedantic, hyper-analytical, hair-splitting atheist will support their right to do so as long as they do not break the law).
Given the mess we have inherited and are now openly witnessing, what is stopping you and other faithfuls from questioning the Imam and the belief in Imamat? This is not a trick question, I genuinely want to know. However. there are many who have already started questioning although not publicly for they fear being dubbed as heretic and wahabbi and what not. I do not discount that there are motivated anti-shia elements who have found an open wound here to turn the knife. Still, the stock reaction to call anyone who questions Imamat as anti-Bohra or wahabbi is to evade the issue. I see that you too have fallen into the trap of false categories and have started calling people anti-bohras and such.
Anyway, this post has turned out to be much longer than I intended, but before I end I want to stress that questioning the belief in Imamat does not amount to questioning the greatness of Fatimid literature and philosophy. You know much of that philosophy is not only abstract and esoteric but also outdated - and most of it today is confined to scholarly research and academia. Of course it has its value and place in the history of human development and it must be preserved and celebrated. But let us not forget that crooks like Mufaddal Saifuddin or a lesser culprit like Khuzema Qutbuddin are using the great Fatimid doctrine to prop up their nefarious regimes. The belief in Imamat cannot co-exist with what that belief has entailed: Mufaddal Saifuddin. The disconnect is too glaring to be ignored. And when this is pointed out, and no matter who is doing the pointing out, we can do better than get defensive.