Aga Khan vents his hatred by misleading

[Guest]

In 1899, the petit prince, who was now twenty- two, got his first opportunity to address his Jama'at in Africa. He was no longer “held on the chain.” His childhood hatred was now vented in Zanzibar on 13 July in the following Farman: <p> Within ten, twenty or thirty years, the Ithna'ashri religion will be worn out. After 100 years the Ithna'ashri religion will not exist at all. It will not exist in Iran either because that religion's base is not on Aq'l [the power of reasoning]. Our religion's base is on Aq'l.<br> Every night during his childhood, Aga Khan would join his mother in prayer, which was an Ithna'ashri Salah (Namaz). Elderly Ismailis who had seen the young Aga Khan, accompanied by his mother and uncles, attend Majlises of Muharram that were held in the Mughal (Ithna'ashri) Imambaras of Bombay and Poona were surprised to hear this Farman denouncing the faith of this parents and grand-parents. Below is an anecdote often related by Ismaili missionaries in their sermons. <br>“Hum Husayn” not “Hai Husayn” <p> An elderly Ismaili requested Aga Khan to explain the reasoning behind his participation, during the early years of his Imamate, in the rituals of Matam (passion play), wherein the participants raise their hands, one after another, and beat their chests in a frenzy, yelling “Hai Husayn, Hai Husayn,” when according to his own Farmans, made a few years later, he was a living Husayn and his followers should not mourn or wear black dresses during the month of Muharram. <p> In the words of the missionaries, the Aga Khan replied: “When I was lowering my hand to my chest, I was pointing it at my chest and saying 'Hum Husayn, Hum Husayn' instead of 'Hai Husayn, Hai Husayn.'” “Hai Husayn” is an expression of grief very similar to “Oh! Husayn.” The phrase “Hum Husayn” translates to “I am Husayn.” <p> Such a remark would reflect adversely on the purity and straightforwardness of the claimant, to fulfil his parental responsibilities as a “spiritual” Father and Mother, was never thought of by the missionaries, who were more desperate to defend the action of their Imam during the early years of his Imamate. <p> Accepted it was a facade, as claimed by the Aga Khan, but the above narrative clearly shows that his family members who participated routinely in these ceremonies were Ithna'ashries. In other words the Imamate of Ismail and his descendants was not recognized, even by these immediate family members of the Aga Khan, well into the first few decades of the twentieth century.

[Guest]

It seems Aga Khan is taking his flock for a ride !