The problem is that people often understand Islam through right-wing Western media narratives that portray all Muslims as the same. For the vast majority, whether a woman wears a scarf or no is a personal choice, not a political statement. The zionist media frames them as Islamist as if it is a derogatory term. Islam’s spiritual meaning of submission is surrender to the Divine who is not up there in the skies but within oneself. It is the light of intellect which guides towards happy, meaningful and satisfied life in this world. This submission is not obedience to governments or other human beings. God’s light is an inner spiritual reality, not a political command.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The Universal or First Intellect is a metaphysical/spiritual reality. Its universality does not mean that every contingent property of the material world must literally exist in every human manifestation of it. The manifestation of Universal Intellect can possess universal guidance without possessing every language, culture, technology or historical fact as a literal human skill. Otherwise, one would have to demonstrate that every Imam and prophet from the beginning of history possessed every language of their own and future worlds which neither follows philosophically nor is established historically. There is no evidence that omnilingualism is a necessary attribute of even Twelver Imams nor is it the logical definition of Imamat. There is a useful Quranic point here messengers as being sent “in the language of their people” so they could make the message clear. This fits the idea that revelation and guidance are universal while their expression is contextual. The Imams function is not to be a human database of every contingent form but to actualize nd communicate the eternal principle of guidance according to the conditions of his particular age.

Pakistan doesn’t hate Hindus or any other minority. Don’t look at things from Media lenses again. They frame the news in a way that it creates hatred and division which is apparent from your comment. But I will try to change your mind if it has the capacity to adapt to new knowledge and not blinded by preconceived ideas. If you want to discuss the demographics honestly, you have to compare the same territory and understand the history, not reduce everything to black and white “12% became 2%.” For present-day Pakistan, the 1941 figure was about 4 million Hindus (14.6%), but Partition caused a massive population exchange, with migration continuing into the early 1950s. So 1941 census and today are not a straightforward comparison. The first post-Partition census in 1951 recorded about 531,000 Hindus (1.58%). By the 2023 census, that figure was about 5.22 million (2.17%). So since 1951, the Hindu population grew almost tenfold. For comparison, in India the Hindu share fell from 84.1% in 1951 to 79.8% in 2011, even though the absolute Hindu population more than tripled. So after Partition, the Hindus in West Pakistan grew substantially. Understand that Muslim fertility has historically been higher than Hindu fertility in India, while Hindu fertility in Pakistan has also been higher than among Hindus in India. Fertility and population growth therefore matter when interpreting these percentages. Don’t be blind to the truth. God has given you intellect for a reason. Use it to study, understand and then draw your conclusion.

If you are looking for ascetics among the Muslim tradition, look at the Ismaili Pirs and Sufi traditions that came to India. Many lived lives of spiritual devotion and service, and the Indian/pakistani/africsnIsmailis we have today grew largely through the peaceful work of Pirs who inspired Hindu communities to embrace the faith through love, teaching and spiritual connection, not force. Spirituality is not measured by how little you possess, but by how you use what you possess materially or spiritually and how much good you bring into the world. Having said that i also do not like the show off of wealth that todays arab culture has. It lacks the depth of soul.

There’s a little more context behind some of these points for the readers especially when looking at Ismaili history and the role of the Imamat: You said “They give about 10–12% of their income to Aga Khan.” This is essentially zakat, not simply a payment to a religious leader. In the Ismaili understanding, zakat is entrusted to the Imam of the Time, in the direct lineage of the Prophet, as part of Islam’s principle of social justice and purification of wealth. It supports healthcare, education, infrastructure, Jamatkhanas and Ismaili centres, poverty alleviation and humanitarian work. The emphasis is on sustainable development rather than simply giving temporary relief that can create dependency. You said “Nizaris had origin in Persia and were Hashashins (assassins).” The Assassin chapter is not the origin of Ismailism. It came after the schism between those who followed Nizar and those who followed Mustali, from whom the Bohras descend. Before this, they were one community and had established the great first Shia Fatimid Caliphate, which ruled North Africa, Egypt, the Levant, the Holy Cities in Arabia &Sicily, with Cairo as its capital. After the schism, the Imam and his descendants had to be protected while the community was vulnerable. Hasan bin Sabbah preserved the community through his network of Persian fortresses, while Rashid al-Din Sinan played a similar role in Syria. The later “Assassin” legends are therefore only one chapter in a much larger history. Many sensational stories were popularised in Europe, particularly through Marco Polo. Many historians have called him the biggest liar of history. He never actually met the Nizaris and relied on stories he heard from others and enemies of the progeny of Prophet. There is much more depth to this history than the popular legend suggests. “Nizaris are closer to Hinduism than Islam in practices and rituals.” Ismailis are a global community of Arab, Persian, Central Asian, Tajik, Afghan, Pakistani, Indian and East African origins. Their religious practices are Islamic with subtle their own cultural influences and guided by the Ismaili Tariqah. The confusion comes from culture versus religion. Indian Gujarati, Kutchi and Sindhi Ismailis have retained aspects of their cultural heritage. “They do a lot of philanthropy.” The word philanthropy actually reduces the depth of the Ismaili Imamat’s responsibility. For the Imamat, improving the quality of life of humanity is a duty of the office, not simply charity. This is why the work focuses on long-term development, education, healthcare, infrastructure and poverty reduction. “Aga Khan III was one of the reasons behind the two-nation theory.” Aga Khan III was certainly active in Indian politics and helped establish the Muslim League, but reducing his political legacy to the two-nation theory is historically simplistic. His major political involvement was before 1940, while Partition unfolded much later. He largely worked to politically and educationally empower Indian Muslims to be compatible with the modern times and facilitate dialogue between the British, Congress & the Muslim League as the head of round table conferences. His memoirs also speak extensively about Gandhi, more than Jinnah. He later gifted the Aga Khan Palace in Pune, where Gandhi had been held under house arrest, to the Government of India, where it became a memorial. Finally, on the modern outlook of Ismailis: This is central to the Ismaili understanding of the Imamat. The Imam of the Time has the prerogative to interpret the faith and guide the community according to the changing circumstances of each age, while preserving its essential spiritual meaning. The forms may evolve with time, but the essence remains. Thank you 🙏🏼

It is small timeframe from your perspective. From my perspective it transcends all religions to the very beginning of all creation. If you go deeper into the Ismaili faith, it goes beyond the historical coming of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism or Hinduism. The belief is that the world is never left empty of a perfect, living manifestation of divine guidance. The vedic teachings are also the same. You can call it Vishnu we call it universal soul. The world can never be empty of his manifestation. Ultimately the destination is the merging of the individual soul (Jivatman) with the supreme absolute reality (Brahman or God) In the Ismaili understanding, the Imam as the living Guru guides the soul toward truth. As the circumstances and times in world changes, the eternal truth requires living guidance for each age. This is the significance of the continuous Imamat. To become a jogi, sanyasi or sadhu is easy by escaping life for liberation. The purpose is not to abandon the world in search of oneness, but to discover it while fully engaging with the world and leave it in a better condition than received. So, the Reality is one, the journey is inward, and the purpose of the guide is to lead the soul back to its ultimate source.

Root is the Living Guru. We remain one with that root, growing and flourishing from it through every generation.

He carries the strength of Jalal in his presence, yet there is the gentleness of Rahma in his soul. He is commanding in his dignity, but graceful in his humility. A light that makes power feel compassionate.

It looks absurd because people take God literally. If everything is taken literally, people of reason will become atheist and laugh at religion as a scam. There are layers of meanings in the scriptures of all religions. If poets, philosophers, and scientists use symbols and parables to express truths beyond ordinary language, imagine how much more God would use them to reveal deeper realities through His messengers. Why assume His words must always be understood only literally?

Yes, the Prophet was a Sufi. At its essence, it is the understanding that the Divine is found within, not simply pursued outside, and that faith has layers upon layers of meaning. The deeper one journeys inward, the greater the spiritual experience becomes until the seeker ultimately realizes unity with the Truth. So Prophet Muhammed was a Sufi Gautama Buddha was a Sufi. Lao Tzu was a Sufi. Zarathustra was a sufi. Socrates was a sufi Jesus was a sufi Plotinus was a sufi Guru Nanak was a sufi Kabir was a sufi Rumi was a sufi Krishna & Rama were sufi. Adam was a sufi. Sufism, in its deepest sense, is not confined to one time, culture, or religion. It is the inward journey toward Truth.

The Sunnah comes from reports written down generations after the Prophet died. Those reports passed through political rivalries , legal arguments, and word-of-mouth stories that even the classical scholars admitted were full of made-up and unreliable material. Treating these as arc of noah turns faith into just copying the lifestyle of one small group of people in Arabia 1400 years ago. That locks spirituality into one old culture and makes it hard for the faith to stay meaningful and grow for people living in different times and places.

When people try to blame today's Muslims for what the Mughals or past invaders did centuries ago, it's important to remind them that civilizations naturally evolve, grow, and move forward and we simply can't build a better future if we choose to stay stuck in the resentment, pain, and hatred of the distant past. just like with anything else in life, we should focus on the good things and leave the bad stuff behind. We picked some useful things from the British and in that exact same way, the Mughals and early Muslims brought beautiful art, architecture, and culture, spirituality that we embraced and naturally wove into the fabric of who we are today.

In the 2013 NDTV Walk the Talk interview with the Aga Khan, Shekhar Gupta appeared to frame Muslims, particularly Pakistanis, as disproportionately angry and associated with terrorism, asking why so many of those described as “angry Muslims” came from Pakistan. He showed him what an educated mind looks like - thoughtful & nuanced Shekher Gupta still has not learned it. Shekher Gupta: “Why do we find that the angriest Muslims in the world come from Pakistan?… how come so many of them come from Pakistan…?” The Aga Khan: “I wouldn’t agree with that. I wouldn’t agree with that. I think there is anger that is in many, many Muslim countries today because I think the Ummah feels targeted and targeted essentially for 9/11.” “And the Ummah as a body of millions and millions of people around the world has nothing to do with that. So I don’t think that comment is, if I may say so, is fair.” “Many of the conflicts we see today have got nothing to do with faith. They are the children of political mismanagement or worse.