Title: A Comment on 'The Beliefs & the Practices of the Aga Khanis ' Question/Comments: I find it interesting that if someone claims to be a descendant of the most holy prophet Mohammed that Muslims the world over would not care about that. The Ismaelis claim that the Aga Khan is a true descendant of Mohammed and that in spite of Mohammed only having daughters, they followed his descendants as their "spiritual" leader. Spiritual leaders do not have to be confused with the reverence of Allah/God. In the old days of Mohammed, I am sure that his children were perceived as special. This would not be unusual. Maybe it didn't catch on in a hereditary lineage because they were females. The Ismaelis didn't see this as a problem. If Allah/God sent females to Mohammed, they accept that as His will. The Aga Khan appears to guide the spiritual lives by connecting old religion to modern day life. Why is this seen as a problem? It is unbelievable to imagine that other Muslims don't think Ismaelis are Muslims. Answer: In my previous response to a related question, which probably you have in front of you while writing the above comment , I had stated that the descent of a person does not hold any significance in Islam. I did not, as you would agree, refute that the descent of a person may or may not hold varying degrees of significance in the eyes and hearts of Muslims. However, this significance is not a part of the Muslim faith, it is purely based on the bent of mind of a particular Muslim. In other words, the fact that some Muslims are likely to hold a person's descent of any importance is not evidence, by itself, that such descent is given any significance in Islam. For a thing to hold any significance in Islam, such significance should be based on a clear directive of the Qur'an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). You write: I find it interesting that if someone claims to be a descendant of the most holy prophet Mohammed that Muslims the world over would not care about that. As I have stated earlier, the individual Muslims may or may not care about such descent of the said person, depending upon their personal bent of mind. Islam, on the other hand, does not give any importance to a person's descent, lineage or connections. You write: The Ismaelis claim that the Aga Khan is a true descendant of Mohammed and that in spite of Mohammed only having daughters, they followed his descendants as their "spiritual" leader. Even if we assume the stated Ismaili claim to be correct, the point remains that what is the basis of holding the descendant of the Prophet (pbuh) as a "spiritual" leader. A person can be held a "spiritual" leader either on the basis of his knowledge, or by default. If a person is considered a "spiritual" leader (by a group of individuals) on the basis of his knowledge, then his descent holds no importance. People will continue to give him the stated position irrespective of whether he is a descendant of Mohammed (pbuh) or that of a completely unknown person, as long as they have confidence in his knowledge and trust his honesty. On the other hand, if a person is given the position of a "spiritual" leader by default - i.e. on the basis of some natural reasons, including descent - then to be considered as an Islamic belief such a consideration must be supported by the teachings of the Shari`ah . Had the Qur'an wanted to grant the descendants of Mohammed (pbuh) any special position of "spiritual" leaders, it would have clearly directed the Muslims to the effect. In the clear absence of such a directive in the Qur'an, I am of the opinion, that no such belief can be considered a part of the Islamic Belief System. You write: In the old days of Mohammed, I am sure that his children were perceived as special. This would not be unusual. Maybe it didn't catch on in a hereditary lineage because they were females. The Ismaelis didn't see this as a problem. If Allah/God sent females to Mohammed, they accept that as His will. The issue should not be thrown into confusion by relating it to any gender biases. The fact is that there is no evidence to support the claim that the progeny of the Prophet (pbuh) was considered "spiritually" special even during his own times. The reason: Islam does not entail any directives to the effect. I do submit that under normal circumstances, the progeny of a beloved leader is likely to attract a lot of attention, especially among the followers of that leader. Nevertheless, the case of the Prophet (pbuh) was a clear exception, insofar as according to the very teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) himself, true love and respect for the Prophet (pbuh) should translate not in holding the progeny of the Prophet (pbuh) at an elevated position, but in sincerely and completely adhering to those teachings, which the Prophet (pbuh) propagated. You write: The Aga Khan appears to guide the spiritual lives by connecting old religion to modern day life. Why is this seen as a problem? It is unbelievable to imagine that other Muslims don't think Ismaelis are Muslims. Whether it be Aga Khan or any one else, if the "spiritual" guidance provided by the person is considered to be in accordance with the directives of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and, where the Shari`ah is silent, is perceived to be in consonance with the spirit of the directives of the Shari`ah , then such guidance should be followed - not because of the source of such guidance [1] , but because of it being in accordance with the directives of the Qur'an and the Sunnah . The point that the Aga Khan guides people according to his understanding (which may or may not be accurate [2] ) of the directives of the Qur'an and the Sunnah is not seen as a problem by any one in the Muslim community. This is precisely what all the other Muslim scholars are doing. August 26, 2000 [1] Which in the stated case may be the Aga Khan. [2] The decision, in this regard, would obviously be taken in the light of the arguments presented for the validity and substantiation of the propounded points.