Br. Khadim
Regarding book of Sulaym
Proof that Shk Saduq didn't think the book of Sulaym was valid? That hadith has been mentioned by many scholars by the way that claim that they have found this hadith present in old manuscripts of the book.
-Actually, you have not responded to the actual issues. You cite a hadith that is in the book itself as proof. How valid is the hadith, when the entire book is questionable according to twelver shiah scholars (old and current).
What's the proof that Shk Saduq didn't think that the book of Sualym was Valid? Answer the question.
Which hadith are you referring to? Hadith no. 10 that I mentioned or the one from Imam sadiq (as)? Hadith number 10 is the one narrated via several giant scholars. In addition, the holy imams (as) from Imam Ali (as) to Imam baqir (as) too have authenticated it! It's been narrated in many classical hadith collections through various chains as well!
-Next you cite a hadith by Imam Jafar clarifying its importance. The hadith is from Bihar Anwar of Allamah Majalisi, and is not a reliable hadith itself.
Oh how rich of you; now you're just giving your own opinions without any reasoning or proof. I guess its not a problem then when Ismailis love to quote from Bihar about Hazrat Ismail but yet can hardly come up with anything substantial from the primary sources of hadith.
-You say Shk Saduq cited the imams names in his book "Itiqadat" which is similar to the hadith that appears in the kitab of Sulaym. This does not prove the hadith or the book is authentic.
I said Said Al-mufid has confirmed the content of the narration which al-sadooq has narrated in I'tiqad (i.e. hadith 10, which explicitly mentions the coming and names the of 12 imams).
So according to you who is holding onto Al-Mufid's authority, you can't just pick and choose what you like. If you accept that he's said there are some distortions in the book, fine ok, but atleast be consistent with your stance when the same person verifies a narration from the book!
There are 98 narrations in Kitab Sulaym so which one did he have a problem with?
First, the hadith doesn't say the names of the imams after imam baqir.
Ok this is a lie because it clearly does.
Second, shk saduq does not reference the book of Sulaym or the hadith as a source in his book.
Oh and he indeed does! He narrates from Sulaym himself and the exact same hadith.
-You have not given any rebuttal to the validity to Shk Mufid or Shk Saduq opinion of the book of Sulaym. Citing other scholars opinion does not rebut Shk Mufid opinion.
I've already answered the general objection of al-mufid in previous posts. You've not even presented what the specific objections that Al-Mufid has and nor are we bound by Al-Mufid's opinions either. You are just going in a roundabout manner without giving any specific details.
Let me point out some obvious discrepancies in the book of Sulaym:
1. Aban received the book of hadiths written by Sulaym of his own experiences or memory. So why are there many hadiths that have other people transmitting from Sulaym, it shouldn't have any?
Can you clarify what you mean please?
2. Why is Aban listed in the transmitter of hadiths if the book was written by Sulaym? It shouldn't have anyone's name but Sulaym as the transmitter.
The book we have from him today is a mixed collection of Sulaym's book and his individual narrations to Aban which were not part of the book. Back then books were narrated like normal narrations meaning they used to include the chain, if you look all the books thats Sheikh Al-Kulayni narrates from, he doesn't mention that he has taken it from such and such book, he rather includes his entire chain to the author.
3. The reference hadith 10 you cited has some flaws in itself.
I've answered this in some detail.
IF again, the book was written by Sulaym, the majority of the hadith is written from Aban, where he verifies Sulaym's hadith of the number of imams.. How is this so?
Already answered above to point 2
You cited a hadith by Shk Mufid in a book called "Al-Kafiha Fi Ibtaal Tawbatil Khatiha". This is not listed as a book by him.
I don't think it's available in English, but it was a brother who sent me the scan of the book and hadith in Arabic.
Sheikh Al-Mufid has mentioned it in his other books, Sheikh Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi have mentioned it among the books of Sheikh Al-Mufid, later also mentioned by Ibn Shahr Ashoub, Al-Majlisi quotes from it in Bihar, and Sheikh Noori Al-Tabarsi had two manuscripts of it. the current printed book is a collection of the book from a few books like Ibn Shahr Ashoub, Al-Majlisi, Al-Tabarsi etc.
Though this was just an example. Another example him quoting from Kitab Sulaym is in his fiqh book, Al-Muqni'a:
Aban ibn Abi Ayyash has narrated from Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilali who said: I heard the Commander of the Faithful (a.s) saying: "We are by Allah (swt), what Allah (swt) has mentioned as 'the near of kins' and puts them in the same line of Himself and His Prophet (saw), He says: 'Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer' {59:7}, it is about us in particular and He did not specify a share in the charity, Allah Almighty has honored His Prophet (saw) and honored us by denying us the impure that is in the hand of people."
So far, your references are wrong, your argument have no basis, and your reasoning is flawed.
Rich coming from you who doesn't even know the basic difference between a book of hadith, a book of history or a book of sciences & philosophy.
But anyways, getting into a debate on the Ilm-e-rijaal side of things for Kitaab sulaym is really getting away from the main point.
The book of Sulaym was also presented to the 4th and 6th Imams (asws) so both of them have approved it's ahadith - This is our base. Ilm-e-rijaal is a man made method. If it's totally reliable then the same method should also be applied to the Holy Qur'an because the one we have today it was compiled and issued by Uthman over 15 years after the departure of the Prophet (Saws). Though on the basis of Ilm-e-rijaal it would certainly reject it, but we accept it simply because the Imams (as) have commanded us to take it, So why can't the same be applied to the book of Sulaym?
If we're going to start doubting ahadith then we might as well doubt the Holy Qur'an too.
The only reason you try to cast doubts on the book is because it contains narrations which goes against your aqeeda, yet you will happily take books such Sahifa Sajjadiyya and Nahjul Balagha.
Regarding ilm-e-rijaal
Based on what you have written, you do not understand it. Ilm-e-rijaal is the analysis of the capabilities and reliability of the transmitter (rijaal).
The literal definition of Ilm e rijaal is 'The knowledge of men' and is also referred to as the 'science of narration'. The 'science' is a founding pillar of Ijtihad and thus the system of Taqleed. This science is used to grade and filter hadith by evaluating the biographies of the narrators instead of by examining the content (text). It is a sunni invention that was invented by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and is not something the classical scholars of tashayyu' depended upon.
Regarding the book of Sulaym, the only transmitter is Sulaym as he wrote the book. Ashab ijma do not apply as transmitters.
Sulaym is the author, some of the as'haab al-'ijma are among the sub-narrators of his book.
Regarding my opinion of Shk Saduq and shk Mufid, I reference their statements because to twelver shia, they are preeminent scholars. Shk Saduq has written the second most revered book to twelver shia.
Who says we take everything that Sheikh Saduq and Sheikh Mufid says to be 100% accurate? They were not ma'soom. I've already replied in regards to the statement of Al-Mufid. Please read above.
Regarding ismaili books
Where are you getting all this from? Iftitah dawa was completed in 346 A.H. which corresponds to 957 C.E. You mention all these things, yet none of these are considered to be books of hadith or atleast considered the main books of hadith. The main book of hadith for Ismailis today is Da'im al-Islam which Nu'man himself has to rely upon books of other sects!!
I referenced them because the books these individuals, were written along side the imam of their time and were either historical and theological accounts of the teachings of that Imam. This is what a definition of what hadith collection are for. This is exactly what the book of Sulaym, except it relates to event of Maulana Ali.
Iftitah Dawa was started in 295 AH/907 CE and completed in 346 AH/957 CE. It is a historical recording of events (a diary) that occurred where he is a first hand witness. That is the definition of hadith. He is the first transmitter of what was happening to the imam (whether Mahdi, Qaim, Mansur, or Muiz).
So according to your statement, it's a book of tareekh then, not hadith.
The Sira of Ibn Hawshab was written by Ibn Hawshab (ie father of Jafar al Mansur) during the time of Imams Husain and Madhi and records the first hand events (a diary) he witness during the Imams Husain and Madhi to Syria and Imam Madhi in Yemen to Afrikiya.
Well that's not suprising is it, being an Isma'ili propagator under the time of the Fatimids.
Sira of Syedna Shirazi was written by Syedna Muyuhiddin Shirazi during the time of Imam Muizz and again records the first hand events of the life of Imam Muizz during his lifetime.
Cool. An Ismaili Da'i recording the events of the Fatimids; no suprises there.
In fact there is a book of khutbas by the Fatimi Imams called "Orations of the Fatimid Caliphs" by Paul Walker...read it.
Insha'Allah I'm planning to order some books on Ismailism so will include that one in my list too.
Infact Kirmani himself presented an idea on a new cosmological system. He was himself acquainted with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophies as well as the metaphysical systems of the Muslim philosophers and drew up his own elaborate metaphysical system in Rahat al-'aql.
Again do you know what neoplatonic philosophy teaches? Do you know what is written in Rahat al'Aql? Again your reading snippits of internet garbage without doing you own research. Neoplatonist believe in the following key items:
1. The One - the source of all things and all things eminent from it to lesser beings [Does that sound like Allah? Not to me]
2. Emanations - the transmitter of the image of the One and is considered a creator [this is used as the "BE" or kun and is compares to intellect; the problem is we and our universe are not an image or emation of Allah]
3. Celestial hierarchy - belief in lower gods, angels, demons that work as mediators [we absolutely don't believe in this]
4. Evil - their is no evil, just the absence of good [we do not believe in this]
5. Return to the One - perfection to be achieved and to return to the One [we do not believe we are a part of Allah and we do not return to become part of Him afterward]
I'm not sure where you got the above from but there's many forms of neoplatonism actually which the Ismaili Da'is incorporated. The earlier concepts were quite close to tawhid because the Iranian Da'is tried largely to link Neoplatonic concepts into Islamic perspective, but then as they started borrowing more neoplatonic ideas, they incorporated into ismailism which was then even approved by the likes of Al-Muizz In order to integrate the Da'is from the east like Abu Ya'qoob al-Sijistaani, al-Mu'izz integrated the neo-Platonic concepts which by then had become popular amongst the eastern Qarmati Da'wa.
Prior to al-Mu'izz, the "official" Da'wa had used largely gnostic symbols and ideas to frame their esoteric beliefs. Post al-Mu'izz, we see a pseudo philosophical neo-Platonism becoming central to ideas expressed by the Da'wa.
Again, refer to Daftary's work as he discusses this in quite some detail.
Even there is a book available called 'The Isma'ili Neoplatonism of Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistani' By Paul walker which I'm looking to order.
You act like you are a revelation of the Ismailis/Bohras or something. Again, majority of scholars find the authorship of the Ikhwan al-safa to be dubious at the very least and most scholars believe it was compiled by some learned men in Basra.
I am not even a trained student...but I can do my own research. All of this information is readily available if you actually look. Your again snipping from the web for you research. I have read some of epistles and they are Ismaili. They are shiah by fact that salwat and praise for Ali and the ahlul bayt. However, they are not twelver because it considers those waiting for the hidden imam as erroneous. For me, the only question is if the epistles are written by dais of the Imams as'mastur or directly by the Imams.
Well there you have it, you yourself aren't sure either so what is an average Muslim from another school of thought supposed to think? Yes it's most likely that the authors were Shia/Ismaili. Whether they were the Da'is or not is another question.
One thing for sure though is that the authors didn't recognise the Imamate of the Fatimid caliphs. It was written in Basra at the time when most of Southern Iraq was under the influence of the Qaramatis of Bahrain. The ikhwan al-safa actually places their teachings under the auspices of the hidden seventh imam of the Ismailis, the same Muh.ammad b. Ismail whose emergence was at the time expected by the Qarmatis of Bahrayn.
There's no where that mentions Ikhan al-safa is considered a major book of hadith. Even amongst the Fatimids; they never took their inspiration from the Ikhwan al-Safa. It was infact later on that one of the Bohra Da'is who then first re-introduced the ikhwan safa into the literature of the Bohras
Again, please learn what a hadith is and what it is for. A hadith (saying) transmits historical or belief information from a sources. The source for us is back to the Imams teachings. The epistles were written by either Ismaili dais or the Imams themselves. And the epistles are definitely about historical and belief understanding.
So then answer my question, where is it written that Ikhwan al-safa was considered a main book of hadith? Let's say even at the time of Nu'man when he began collecting hadith materiaL
The Rasail ikhwan as-safa, numbering fifty-two epistles, are divided into four books or sections, dealing with mathematical sciences (geometry, astronomy, music, logic, etc.), bodily and natural sciences, psychical and intellectual sciences(cosmology, eschatology, etc.), and theological sciences. Doesn't seem like a book of ahadith to me...
That's funny, because it is referenced by Ibn Hawshab in his Sira Hawshab (9-10 CE) and in Uyun al'akbar by Syedna Idris (14-15 CE).
Do you have the quotation what he says? Referencing is one thing, but having major significance is another. The Rasa'il ikhwan safa really didn't have a major significance at the time of the Fatimids. Neither were they adopted or endorsed, in any significant sense by the Fatimid Ismaili dawa. It was only when one of the Bohra Da'is, Ibrahim b. Al-Husayn, who re-introduced it into the literature of the tayyebis when they started taking it more seriously.
Talk of a ma’sum includes his writings and sign (Isharah) also. If a ma’sum abstains from a work or thing, then this abstaining also is counted as an ‘action’ (in the above definition). But also part of the hadith includes the sanad (chain of narrators) which are absent in almost all Fatimid legal literature! But it has always been the practice of Ulama to include the chain of narrators as commanded by our Imams. Seems like most of the compilations of Ismaili books went against this basic principle.
You do realize in twelver hadith books, majority of hadiths don't have the chain of transmitter....right?
As far as I'm aware, Most of the primary Imami books of hadith, i.e those books compiled before the occultation of the Twelfth Imam (as) do contain the sanad. There are few books like Tafseer al qummi that has no isnad but most of the ahadith books do have it.
And hope you do realize most of the writers of Ismail books are direct dais or companions of the Imam. Other than the author to the Imam...there is not chain of transmission. Most of the official books (such as Daimul Islam) are approved or dictated by the Imam.
I realise that, but then it means that this is going against the recommendation of our Imams (as), Although it was not technically not obligatory, for the most part atleast the main books should contain the sanad.
I haven't assumed anything. I'm just writing what I see and don't see - I have the book of Da'im al-islam in front of me and I don't see the beautiful narrations of these so-called Fatimid 'Imams' teaching me about Islam. Well according to you, Mansur is on the same level as Imam Baqir (as), so Mansur should also have the authority to narrate hadith himself! He was in charge of a Fatimid state for crying out loud so there was definitely no need for taqiyya either
The fact that you have the Daimul Islam is the miracle. It was commissioned and sealed by Imam Muizz. In addition, it was normal with both twelver and ismail imams to source back to the Prophet or earlier Imams. In al Kafi, Imam Jafar refers to sayings or actions of the Prophet or Maulana Ali most of the time. It should be noted that if you are looking at the English version by Poonawala, in most cases the transmission was shorten to the final imam sourced. This is written in the introduction.
I guess the fact that we have Bukhari and Muslim too is a miracle? The two versions of the Da'im al-islam I do have, one in English and the other in Gujarati & Hindi, the sanad isn't there either.
In addition, the book was written as the offical islamic law of the fatimid empire (including sunni, twelver, sufi, etc)...and an empire what ismaili were a very small minority. So it was written in the manner that the majority sunni would be familiar with.
So what? The Fatimids had nothing to fear. They were chosen by Allah right? If people were willing to accept ahadith from the earlier Imams (as) then surely they wouldn't have a problem with accepting narrations from the later Ismaili Imams? So why try and please the sunnis when as an Imam you should be narrating your own traditions, unless of course there was a severe need for taqiyya (which is highly unlikely).
If you look at the lives of the 12 Imams (as) including Imam kadhim (as), then you'll find that despite being constantly harassed and oppressed by the then ruling authorities, they still managed to disseminate their knowledge and teachings which are present in many books today.
It says bada', but not about the Bada' of Imamate
The whole point of the hadith has the context that the imamate was changed (according to twelvers) from Ismail to Musa just as it changed from muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
[/quote]
You are just implying your own agenda on the hadith...The Imamate did not change at all because there's no other ahadith that say Isma'il was appointed in the first place! Infact if we look at all the bada' narrations that the Ismailis love to cherry pick about Isma'il, the context of them is basically that Allah (swt) knew Isma'il would be taken before Imam Al-Sadiq (as), however, the people did not, so Allah changed the affair (meaning what was written) enacting Bada'.
Allah does not do Bada' from Jahl (ignorance), it's Haram to say he didn't know or he changed it on regret, as it states in the hadith:
قال الصادق عليه السلام : ( من زعم أن الله تعالى بدا له في شئ بداء ندامة فهو عندنا كافر بالله العظيم )
Al-Sadiq (as): Whoever alleges that Allah the high changed something changing on regret, so he is to us a great disbeliever of Allah.
So the true meaning of the hadith you narrated on Bada' is that Allah exposed something after hiding. That is to say that Allah knew from the very beginning that Musa ibn Ja'far (as) would be the Imam after his father (as) and Allah knew that He would introduce him as the next Imam. Allah knew that initially the Imamate (leadership) of Ismail would be raised and He would expose the truth as per expedience (Yamhullaha ma yashaa wa yosbet … Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases And with Him is the basis of the Book), but the people did not know that.
So Allah exposed (unveiled) the thing that was hidden to them i.e. the Imamat of Musa ibn Ja'far (as) In any case, what the Ismailis say about the Imamate of an individual other than Imam kazim (as) is false because Imam kazim (as) had been appointed as the Imam after him by Allah and he had also been introduced as the Imam by his father (as) during his lifetime since he was a child and by the Holy Prophet (saws)
Yes, what I meant was, why would an Imam (as) appoint someone as his successor but then the same person would die during his (as) own lifetime? How does that even make sense?
It's like a King appointing his son to the throne, but if that son dies during the King's lifetime then the son will not SUCCEED him! Similarly, Isma'il never actually succeeded Imam sadiq (as).
Firstly, Ismail was designated as imamate...the discussion was changing it from Ismail to Musa. Again once Imam Jafar designated Ismail...only Ismail can select his sucessor...not Imam Jafar. Ismail did select Muhammad.
Firstly, there's no ahadith from any books of ahadith whatsoever that state Isma'il was ever chosen as Imam by Imam sadiq (as). Some statements from a fatimid era work saying that such a nass occurred but not actually providing the nass is not proof at all.
For example, When we look at proving the Mastership of Ali ibn abi talib (as), do we usually quote western orientalists? Not really - We go directly to the textual evidences and ahadith of the Prophet (saws) proving that he (saws) did indeed chose Imam Ali (as) on many occasions as his successor after him, not just at Ghadeer.
So the same applies to the appointment of each respective Imam, as that is what is considered hujjah (binding proof) upon us.
The kingship analogy is a false one...because imamate is divinely appointed.
Ok For the sake of argument, I will say the King analology is false. So in the case of Imamate then, If Isma'il passed away during the lifetime of Imam sadiq (as), then you should agree that the actual position of Imamate never got transferred to him.
Can you quote some ahadith from the book? It's a book of mere opinions by Ja'far al mansur. He mentions all the things about Ismail, but what's his evidence? Where are the ahadith about Imam sadiq (as) clearly appointing Ismail as his successor?
Did you read what I wrote. The book was written by Jafar al Mansur while being with the Imam of his time.
This is not something that can be cited as proof against us for his Imamate. After all he was an Isma'ili propagandist who was in the Fatimid court, what else do you expect he'd say?
Though what I find interesting is how the above in fact was somewhat of a reversal of Fatimid doctrine, in that the founder, `Abdullah al-Mahdi aka Sa`id bin. al-Husayn, actually said that he was a descendent of `Abdullah b. Ja`far not Muhammad b. Isma`il (this would have been once he started claiming to be the Imam, which was itself a reversal of the earlier da`wa claims that Muhammad b. Isma`il was the living Imam in ghayba. During that phase, it's not even clear they believed Isma`il had been an Imam himself, rather that the Imamate went from Ja`far as-Sadiq (as) to his grandson Muhammad b. Isma`il b. Ja`far whom they considered the seventh and final Imam).
In fact, he claimed that Isma`il b. Ja`far and Muhammad b. Isma`il were just code names for `Abdullah b. Ja`far and his descendant Imams (though it is not known that `Abdullah had any sons surviving him).
By the time of Ja`far b. Mansur, the Fatimid caliph al-Muizz was changing the story (yet again) and now claiming that in fact they were descended from the real Muhammad b. Isma`il. Of course, Ja`far b. Mansur being the loyal Fatimid supporter he was, would be reflecting this in his own writings.
Regarding quoting Shahrastani, while we may not agree with his understanding of the islam (sunni vs shiah) as a historical figure quoting a shiah event, why would he lie? Oh, and you quoting web encyclopedias and orientalist for your historical references is ok?
As said before, Sunnis don't believe in Imamate and their purpose for stating such things would only be to make Shiism look bad, and the only place you'll find this about Isma'il is from later heresy writer's books, i.e. books that list out all the sects that are doomed before the day of judgement except themselves.
Also in regards to nass, statements of ulama or historians are not a valid proof nor are we bound by them. What is considered as evidence is the statements of the Imams (as) themselves.
On the contrary, I can give you a list of Sunni scholars who adored Imam Musa (as) even though they had pretty Anti-Shia stances in alot of cases. For example:
Ibn Hajar al-asqalani says:
"Musa b. Ja'far b. Muhammad b. 'Ali b. al-Husayn b. 'Ali, Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi, better known as al-Kazim is very truthful and worshipful; he is of the seventh class.
Ibn al-Jawzi says:
"Musa b. Ja'far was called al-'Abd al-Salih (the righteous servant of Allah). He was clement and generous. When some one harmed him, he sent him money.
Ibn Hajar al-Haythami says:
"Musa al-Kazim inherited his father's sciences, knowledge, perfection, and excellence. He was called al-Kazim due to his too much pardon and clemency. He was well known among the people of Iraq as the Gate through whom Allah grants needs (Baab Qada' al-Hawaa'ijj 'Inda Allah). He was the most worshipful of the people of his time, the most knowledgeable and generous of them.
Tell me where in the history prior to Imam sadiq (as) did an Imam (as) die during his predecessor (as)'s lifetime?
Tell me where in the history an imam designate someone and then change it. Or designated multiple imams like your saying. It apparently happened twice in twelver imamate history...once with ismail to musa and second with muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
Except that Imam sadiq (as) never chose Ismail and you've not given any textual evidence for it. There are no explicit narrations present where Imam Sadiq (as) appointed Isma'il.
LOL your argument is absolute bogus. General statements like 'Most twelver shia scholars al kafi to be only 40-50% authentic at best' really do you no favours. It's like you've just ignored everything I've said near the beginning of our discussion
.
These are not my statements, they are from twelver shia scholars. If you want to choose to ignore them...keep going your merry way.
According to the Imami scholar Zayn al-Din al-`Amili, known (1505-1559 CE) examined the asnad or the chains of transmission of al-Kafi's traditions, 5,072 are considered sahīh (sound); 144 are regarded as hasan (good), second category; 1,118 are held to be muwaththaq (trustworthy), third category; 302 are adjudged to be qawī‘ (strong) and 9,485 traditions which are categorized as da'if (weak).
60% are weak!
Again, you are playing the ilm-e-rijaal game. This is not the criteria for accepting or rejecting a hadith. Even the above quotation mentions 'according to the chain of transmission' and not because the actual texts itself are problematic.
Why can't Imam (as) give nass to both? He is their father and grandfather! Imam (as) has knowledge of what is to come! Just like how RasoolAllah (saws) foretold the coming of 12 successors (as). Of course it was Imam kadhim (as) that gave the actual nass to Imam ridha (as) and introduced him to the people. Imam sadiq (as) just gave the indication.
Yes exactly, they have knowledge of what is to come...and Imam Jafar did select Imam Ismail. If it was changed from Ismail to Musa as per the hadith...then the statement of knowing the future is false.
Allah (swt) knew what is to come. The bada' here was simply to make Isma'il live a bit longer because that's what Imam sadiq (as) but then he was taken away by Allah swt proving he was not the Imam to succeed.
Imams don't give indications. And the imams can't be compared to Rasuallah in hidden knowledge.
Who says they don't? Don't we believe that the Imams of ahlulbayt (as) inherited the knowledge of Rasoolallah (saws) as they are the divinely appointed authorities after him?
But you did not verify if the information was correct...which it most definitely was not. That is half information. And again, the Qarmatians were a contingent of ismaili in Bahrain that had autonomy...which was threaten when Imam Mahdi came to Yemen. This is was not the majority of Ismaili. If fact Hamdan Qarmat allied with both the Abbasid and Fatimis Imam as needed. Your pure lack of factual research is deplorable. You say I am in denial...yet I actually have facts and can source them.
Regarding the other sects, and yes I did learn a lot about them. And the more I learned, the more I realized how little they knew about there own actual beliefs and historical references.
In regards to the Qaramita, see above (or better yet see Professor Daftary's work for clarification). Of course I'm not referring to the later stage when they declared a Persian Zoroastrian to be the return of Muhammad b. Isma'il. I mean prior to the Fatimid split and as continued afterwards by the Persian da'is for instance who didn't accept the new teachings of the Fatimid caliphs and their pretensions to the Imamate.
Whilst I agree there's a large amount of people within our school that do not understand their beliefs properly, in comparison to the Bohra community, they are still pretty better off and are generally better practicing. Nowadays the Bohris are too busy squabbling amongst themselves as to whom the rightful Da'i is. At this rate, Bohrism will become extinct as there's no actual growth and alot of them are converting to Sunni/Wahhabi or many are seeking the truth and Coming to the Shia Imami school.
I give you an example...the twelvers believe the burial place of Zainab is in Damascus Syria. All historical accounts say after karbala, and hated life in medina, she retired to Egypt where she died.
As per the records, historians have recorded three burial places of Lady Zainab (as) - Shaam, Cairo and Madina. Madina being the lesser possibility. Some Historians do believe in Cairo and I have visited that shrine but I've also visited the shrine in Damascus too alhamdulillah. We Shias believe Damascus is the strongest possibility. Though, I don't see why we can't revere both places and I know many Imami Shias who've been Egypt will also visit that shrine too.
From having visited both shrine, I feel more spiritually connected at the one in Shaam.
Of course I know it is referring to the founder of the fatimid state. It was the Dais such as Abdullah al-shi'i and his brother Abul Abbas who helped him to power, only to have this pretender 'Imam' stab them in the back and claim the Imamate for himself when he had no right to as he himself was a Da'i of the hidden Imam!!
Do you why they were killed? After they had been in power for a number years using the imam name, they had to give it up when the Imam Madhi came. They conspired to take over control again and kill Imam Mahdi; they even had the plan of attack figured out. So who stabbed who?
Except the fact that Abdullah had no right to the claim of Imamate as he himself was considered a hujjah of the hidden Imam.
But one thing is strange, is why this Ubaydullah called himself as 'Al-Mahdi'? Maybe because there are several ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sawa) and the rightful Imams about Imam Mahdi that he will appear and establish peace and justice in the world.
Firstly, his name is Abdullah, not ubaydullah. and he never claimed the messianic title of Mahdi per the hadith. Madhi is suppose to come shortly before Qiyamah.
Well technically his original name was Sa'id ibn al-Husayn. It's written in the Bohri book called 'Aimmat-tahireen' authored by the 51st Da'i Taher Saifuddin, that this Abdullah did claim to be a Mahdi.
It think you should take your own advice...look at what Fatimis have done (wrote, built, taught) and what Twelvers actually did (you might not have much to talk about though).
I have nothing personal against the Fatimids. Yes the Fatimid period was a golden period no doubt. Egypt was certainly flourishing and great institutions like al-Azhar were built and they invented many things too, but this doesn't mean that the Fatimids were the rightful Imams chosen by Allah (swt). There are many qualities and signs of an Imam and the Fatimids fail to meet these criterias.
I ask you to research into the lives of the 12 imams (as). They were full of knowledge, had the greatest of characters, their noble sayings, their lifestyles and du'as are all things which ultimately lead us closer to the Almighty Allah (swt).
Anyways, I think we should mainly confine our discussion to one aspect rather than many aspects in one thread. This thread is about the supposed imamate of Ismail, therefore we should focus on this matter as it is the key issue of dispute amongst us. Plus it's getting a bit long and I don't get as much free time to do such long responses.