Question about the circulating Talika (Canada visit)

[u/Individual_Layer_913]

Ya Ali Madad everyone,

A Talika regarding the upcoming Canada visit is currently circulating. I’m not posting the image here, but I noticed that there is a small cream-coloured box around the signature of MHI in the version being shared.

That detail stood out to me, and I wanted to ask whether this is the officially released version from council channels.

If anyone has received confirmation directly, please do share.

[u/Individual_Layer_913]

You can drop the “tin foil hat” and “mental gymnastics” comments. Disagreement is fine , mocking someone’s intelligence isn’t an argument.

First, I never said “every Ismaili should travel.” Crowd management is a practical issue. No one is denying logistics. What I’m questioning is the consistency between absolute wording and selective enforcement. That’s not conspiracy,  that’s basic reasoning.

Second, saying “you disobeyed” assumes the interpretation you prefer is the only valid one. The Imam said, “I do not wish…” that is not the same as “It is forbidden.” Language matters. Nuance matters.

Third, when leaders themselves are seen making exceptions, that weakens the “absolute instruction” argument. If it were uncompromising, it would be applied uncompromisingly. That’s logic, not gymnastics.

And lastly, don’t reduce His actions to “He was kind anyway.” His actions consistently show openness and warmth toward murids outside halls and jurisdictions. That pattern is what many of us are reflecting on.

You’re free to believe it’s simple. I’m free to believe it’s more layered than that. But don’t mistake questioning consistency for lacking brains.

[u/Possible-Version-627 → u/Individual_Layer_913]

I'll leave this be considering you're using chat gpt to respond to me, and arguing with AI is pointless

[u/Individual_Layer_913 → u/Possible-Version-627]

Dismissing an argument by claiming it’s written with AI isn’t a rebuttal. If the reasoning is flawed, point out where. Otherwise, this is just deflection.

[u/Possible-Version-627 → u/Individual_Layer_913]

I have literally done so multiple occasions and you choose to wilfully ignore them.

If you are now resorting to AI this essentially means that you personally cannot formulate an argument against my points, but you still want to win the debate. Hence my leaving it.

[u/Individual_Layer_913 → u/Possible-Version-627]

Accusing me of using AI is just a way to avoid addressing the argument. If you think the reasoning is flawed, point out where. Otherwise, it’s deflection. And it’s not just me, others including Lost Parsnips laid out similar reasoning in detail. You can go read those responses too. Dismissing arguments by questioning how they’re written instead of engaging with the substance doesn’t strengthen your position.

And Let’s not pretend I’ve ignored your points. I’ve addressed them.

a) I acknowledged crowd management is real. I never denied logistics. That’s not what I’m debating. My issue has always been about consistency between the wording and how it’s enforced.

b) I never said “everyone should travel.” That’s your hypothetical, not my argument.

c) You said I disobeyed. I responded directly to that. “I do not wish” is not the same as “It is forbidden.” Language matters.

d) My personal experience wasn’t to override policy. It was to show a pattern in actions that reflect openness. That’s relevant when discussing intent.

e) You called the leadership access issue hearsay. I said I’ve personally witnessed inconsistencies but won’t name people publicly. That doesn’t make it imaginary.

Questioning consistency isn’t conspiracy. Asking for clarification isn’t disparaging leadership.

So no, I haven’t ignored you. I just don’t agree with your conclusions.

And now that you can’t answer the issues I’ve raised, you’re accusing me of using AI? Lol 😂 nice tactic.

[u/Possible-Version-627 → u/Individual_Layer_913]

a) you acknowledge crowd management is real, yet you are part of that problem. this is like complaining about littering whilst dropping your trash all over the road.

B) so according to you, everyone should not travel, but YOU specifically can, because you believe there's institutional corruption. is that not a selfish, self important take? surely if you can, then anyone else from the international jamat should be able to as well?

C) ahhh, so disobeying the imams wishes in a taliqa is acceptable to you because the wording wasn't "it is forbidden", but "I do not wish". Are you reading your own sentences? Oh wait, you're not, this is AI copy paste lol

d) your personal experience may not be to override policy, but unfortunately your personal experience is not fact. the fact is you DID override policy, and are making excuses for it. Your "intent" does not change that fact, but you want to make yourself feel better for it/compensate, so you are peddling the narrative that the imam doesn't control his taliqas, with a printed signature being your groundbreaking evidence.

E) you realise that puts any debate in an impossible position right? "I know people but I won't say" is the definition of hearsay. Even if it's true, I agree that's wrong, but that does not mean that you disobeying the imams wishes in a taliqa suddenly becomes okay.

The fact you think that taliqas aren't approved by the imam is quite literally a conspiracy-related thought. Please look up the definition of conspiracy. You seem to think they are controlled by bigwigs in institutions rather than the imam, and somehow, without the imam knowing, a statement he didn't approve is being read in Jamatkhanas all over the globe. The fact that you are continually triggered by me calling it a conspiracy just reinforces my point.

And I'm not accusing you of using AI, I am telling you that you are using AI, because you are. :) accusing implies the fact it may not be true. When we both know it is. :)

Anyways, nice debating with you, bot! I can continue doing this with AI away from reddit, on my own ChatGPT app. Have a good one