How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Guest · #1

Mustali had no right to succedd Nizar as the Imam. It was the vizier, Al-Afdal who wanted to seize power and put in Mustali as a puppet to gain control of the Fatimid empire.De Lacy O'Leary writes in "A Short History of the Fatimid Khalifate" (London, 1923, p. 209) that, "At the time, it appears, the court was divided into two factions over the question of the succession, the one party holding to the Khalif's elder son Nizar, the other to a younger son named Musta'li. In one place Nasir-i Khusaro says that the Khalif told him that his elder son Nizar was to be his heir, and the succession of the older son would be in accordance with the doctrines of the sect as already proved by their adherence to Ismail, the son of Jafar as-Sadiq. But Badr and the chief officials were on the side of the younger son Musta'li." Mustali was never the true successor and ample proof of that is the fact that the Bohra line of Imamat is extinct.

Guest · #2

Nice try,Let look at what is written: "In one place Nasir-i Khusaro says that the Khalif told him that his elder son Nizar was to be his heir, and the succession of the older son would be in accordance with the doctrines of the sect as already proved by their adherence to Ismail, the son of Jafar as-Sadiq."---Firstly, Nasir Khusraw died twenty years before Imam Mustansir. The Imam wouldn't have announced the future Imam that far in advance to the public.To add, those closest to the Imam Mustansir..the qadi al'qudat and the dai al'duat supported Imam Musta'Ali.Secondly, according to this statement, it would be the practice to select the older son (as stated above). Imam Ismail was the second son of Imam Jafar Sadiq...Abdullah being first and Musa Khadim being third. To add..Imam Husayn was Maulana Ali's second son.So if we take all the issues...this statement and the entire passage is a crock of #@$%!!!

Guest · #3

Oh by the way...Karim Agha isn't the first son of Imam either...in fact is not a son of an Imam at all!So even by your own Nizari criteria...your HI isn't an Imam.Call the doctor..you've just shot yourself in the foot!!!

Guest · #4

Qiyam,your argument holds no water. The point is that Imam Al-Mustansir APPOINTED NIZAR as his successor - and that is all it comes down to.And it is a historical fact that Imam al-Mustansir announced before the courts, well before his death that Nizar would be his successor.Nasir Kusaro in his writings also points out that Nizar was the true successor.As for the succession of the older son, we dont say it is always the older son. The similarity in the case of Ismail is that the nass for held in favour of Ismail and later Nizar. However, certain hypocrites fabricated a "second nass" in favour of the elder son.Ismail was the oldest son of Jafar-Sadiq, not Abdulla.

Guest · #5

According to "Religion in the Middle East" (London, 1969, 2nd vol., p. 321) ed. by A.J. Arberry, "Both Ibn al-Athir and Ibn Khaldun agree that Nizar was the duly appointed heir apparent whose claims were overlooked by the energy and diplomacy of al-Afdal." By the way Qiyam, you havent quoted a singel source in trying to prove your fallacy... thus re-affirming your ZERO CREDIBILITY on this board.

Guest · #6

Dear Nizari, Firstly...what court and from what document? Is this the same source that you quoted that incorrect passage from. Were the leader of the Qadis and Dais wrong as well when they followed Imam Mustali. The only ones that supported Nizar was Hassan Sabbah who, while not being a Dai, controlled much of Persia Ismaili because of the rebellion he was leading against the Saljuqs.What book of Nasir Khusraw says that Nizar was the successor?"The similarity in the case of Ismail is that the nass for held in favour of Ismail and later Nizar. However, certain hypocrites fabricated a "second nass" in favour of the elder son. Ismail was the oldest son of Jafar-Sadiq, not Abdulla"---This make no sense. Ismail was the second son of Imam Jafar Sadiq (Abdullah being the eldest)..get your facts straight. And Nizar was the elder son that certain hypocrites went with.

Guest · #7

Try reading the Ismaili historian Farhad Daftary's "Mediaevil Ismaili History"

Guest · #8

Yes, the Dais and the Qadi's were wrong when they went with Mustali.Only the really enlightened ppl who knew the Imam in his true essence could recognize the true Imam Nizar.Hasan bin Sabba was one of them.De Lacy O'Leary writes in "A Short History of the Fatimid Khalifate" that Nasir Kushraw supported the claim of Nizar.And once again, you quote nothing. ZERO CREDIBILITY!!!!It is an established fact that Mustali and later imams after him were puppet rulers.Read "A Short History of the Ismailis" - Farhad Daftary

Guest · #9

I thought Imamat was from God and puppet rulers could not become Imams. If they could then I would say that the HI is the biggest puppeteer of them all. Man, these Ismailis are one bunch of twisted twinkies.

Guest · #10

This is cute Nizari, You quoted De Lacy O'Leary as stating Nasir Khusraw believed something...when the first passage you quoted regarding selection of Imamate is totally false. Even you admitted this. So why should anyone trust anything else he write.None of Nasir Khusraw's published books support knowing any Imam except the Imam of his time..Imam Mustansir.And to say the head Qadi and Dai were wrong..as well as the entire court of Imam Mustansir...just because it doesn't suit your agenda, is just stupid. "It is an established fact that Mustali and later imams after him were puppet rulers."---based on what. Your illucid opinion again. Remember, I was parapharasing from the book I listed above. And I can quote directly..see page 193 under "Hassan bin Sabah and the origins of the Nizari Movement".

Guest · #11

Qiyam,If mustalli was the designated imam then there would have been no need to massacre Imam Nizar and family members.It was desperation & deceit that made him and his clique behave in this way. And, it is SHEER ignorance & arrogance to keep harping that: "Tayyeb is the true Imam" along the lines of the Kothars.BELIEF in Imam Tayib is a belief in saffai Chitti, mithaq, barrat, taxes, raza, FGM; there is ZERO difference.Just like the Fatimi Imammate rose upon the ashes of the 12'ers; similarly, the Nizari Imammate ROSE yet again upon the ashes of the Mutallians.

Guest · #12

Again Hafeez, Please first learn the actual history.Nizar was imprisoned after he began a revolt in Alexandria against Imam Musta'ali...not massacred. According to Nizari history...Nizar son's escape to the Persia where Hasan bin Sabah had taken over the Ismailis...Hasan bin Sabah not even being a Dai."Just like the Fatimi Imammate rose upon the ashes of the 12'ers; similarly, the Nizari Imammate ROSE yet again upon the ashes of the Mutallians."---This statement again show how little you know about history. The Twelvers actually expanded because the Safavid leader accepted the Twelver doctrine...and is now the largest Shiah sect. The Nizaris rose because of Hasan bin Sabah influence with the Saljuqs..not dawah or true knowledge...but with the ties with the enemies of the Fatimis.

Guest · #13

Excuse me Qiyam, Do us all a FAVOUR and kindly stop with this rather "REPEAT of your trademark" that nobody knows anything but yourself. Nobody should be this Desperate!This, on top of your regular charade of saying one thing and then backtracking and then coming back and saying the same thing agin when convenient.The point that was made was: 1)Imam Nizar was executed by the Mustallians to eliminate the threat.2)The Fatimid rose to power right about when the 12'ers Imammate was going into Ghaib or hiding! I am SORRY - how does the Safavid come into the picture here and at this juncture of History?Tell me when did the Safavid come into prominence?3)SIMILARLY, the mustallians did not last very long and at their demise ROSE the Nizari Imammate.Obviously, after 900 years, you are still out of touch with the above reality. That is why belief in "your Imam Tayib" is an endorsement of the KOTHARI repression and for all ETERNITY.

Guest · #14

Dear Hafeez, I reference my info. from Daftary's Medievil Ismaili History, page 193...published by the Ismaili Institute...sponsored by your HI. What more do you what to leave your ignorance.Who is confused here...me or you.1)Imam Nizar was executed by the Mustallians to eliminate the threat.---According to Agha Khanni historian..this is false.2)The Fatimid rose to power right about when the 12'ers Imammate was going into Ghaib or hiding! I am SORRY - how does the Safavid come into the picture here and at this juncture of History?----The Twelvers never receded from society for the Fatimis to rise to power. The Twelvers were still in power in Iraq and Iran...and actually increased in populas because of the Safavid accepted the Twelver doctrine. So to did the Nizari increase in Persia because Hasan Sabah made a pact with the Saljuqs! This is from the same book published by your HI.3)SIMILARLY, the mustallians did not last very long and at their demise ROSE the Nizari Imammate.---Yes, very much like when the Twelvers separated from Imam Ismail...so Imam Muhammad bin Ismail went into hiding..while the Twelver Imams ROSE!

Guest · #15

Say Qiyam I am not sure what you are quoting from Daftary and what you are misconstruing!For Example: 1)Why are you mixing up Hassan bin Sabbah with the advent of the Fatimids? He was not even borne.Hassan bin Sabah came about during the later/final stage of the fatimids and was crucial in opening the nizari dawah in Persia. 2)The shias were never a power base during the times of the Fatimid and they WERE called buyyids at that time. And, EXCUSE me - the Safavids came about much much MUCH later. OKAY!It appears that now you are KNOCKING the Fatimid when previously you were RIDICULING the imamate. All for what? To uphold the illegitemacy of a line that should have never claimed Imammate and even if he did - look where he is now? And, look at his legacy - the friggin Kothars.

Guest · #16

I stated that Imam Nizar was executed by the Mustallians and Qiyam refutes it and says this is untrue - based on Daftary. Here's the quote from Daftary which clearly states that Imam Nizar was executed by the Mustalians.The arrogance of this chap - He keeps mixing up hassan bin sabah with the establishment of the Fatimid caliphaye and the Safavids in comparing the shia 12'ers with the Fatimids and then tels me that I do not know my history. _____ Al-Mustansir's eldest surviving son and heir designate, Nizar, was deprived of his succession rights by the scheming and ambitious al-Afdal, who a few months earlier had succeeded his own father Badr al-Jamali (d. 487/1094) as the all-powerful Fatimid vizier and "commander of the armies" (amir al-juyush). Al-Afdal installed Nizar's much younger half-brother Ahmad to the Fatimid caliphate with the title of al-Musta' li bi'llah, and he immediately obtained for him the allegiance of the da'wa leaders in Cairo. In protest, Nizar rose in revolt in Alexandria, but was defeated and executed soon afterwards in 488/1095. These events permanently split the Ismaili da'wa and community. _____Folks - take heed, I do not have to live with the kinds of Qiyam, you - the bohras have to and please be fore-WARNED about the lack of INTEGRITY of this representative of Kothars.

Guest · #17

All that can be gathered from this thread so far is that the history of Ismaili Imamat is very murky. Neither side can make a good case.Bohras are in a better position because they do not follow the Imam but his proxy who is very much alive and is the de facto Imam. He exhibits piety and guides his flock in what is recognizably Muslim way.The Nizari Imam is a joke. He does not even pretend to be a Muslim except in some lectures. We all pay lip-service to him and call him a great Muslim but, in our hearts, we know that he is a disgrace to Islam.

Guest · #18

"Bohras are in a better position because they do not follow the Imam but his proxy who is very much alive and is the de facto Imam. He exhibits piety and guides his flock in what is recognizably Muslim way."*** And exactly how is that a better position? The fact of the matter is that THERE IS NO BOHRA IMAM. And this so called "proxy exhibits his piety" through the pracitices of: saffai Chitti, mithaq, barrat, taxes, raza, FGMMeanwhile the Nizari Ismaili follow the Present and Living Imam of the Age - who has been recognized as the ambassador for liberal, intellectual Islam.Despite your slandering of our Imam, you will never prevail, for it is written:Fain would they put out the Light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will not allow save that He shall perfect His Light, however much the disbelievers are averse. It is He who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.HOLY QURAN 9:32-33

Guest · #19

I agree with Porus. Nizaris are drowning in self-contradiction and lies on this message board. Nizarism has nothing to do with Islam and their so-called imam is a fake. The sooner they realise this the better for them.I am starting a collection. Please donate $1 each so that we can buy the mentally-challenged Nizaris their own message board where they can hurl insults and scream like kids, because apparently Karim cannot afford such a thing out of his billions.

Guest · #20

There is no contradiction that: MUSTALLIANS EXECUTED IMAM NIZAR(sa)Speaking of contradictions - there are none in the nizari tariqa except when VIEWED in context with the LITERAL sunnah of the 7th century.

Guest · #21

There are no contradictions in the Nizari tariqa when viewed through the Nizari tariqa.Of course! Now, why don't they all get it?Nizaris claim to be modern and their Imam is of the atomic age. What they mean is that they want to be like the westerners. Unfortunately, only Aga Khan is white. His followers are almost all non-white. In Africa, they overnight changed their dresses to look like european. The fact they cannot look white like their mentors is an endless source of inferiority for Aga Khan's followers. Aga himself is ok! He is white and all his issues will henceforth be white, even if he has to marry himself and others of his family to non-Nizaris.Aga Khan claims to be a modern Imam. Imam needs to be aware that an enlightened person is aware of the eternity and not swayed by passing fashions. Westerners may be "modern" today. They may be passe tomorrow. Aga Khan has no sense of history. His tariqa will last as long as the West is in ascendance.And his tariqa is not Islamic.

Guest · #22

I am sure we can all agree that Islam is an eternal faith. The biggest reason for Islam's success in the earlier times was that it appealed to people in that day and age.The Present and Living Imam interprets the faith for the present time thus keeping it current and appealing for any day and age.The Bohras are waiting for an Imam, but the fact of the matter is that if their Imam (if he exists that is) were to go public, he would be a 21st centruy Imam, eating 21st century food and living 21st century style. But the Bohras think their Imam will be 7th century, because 7th century is Islamic while everything else is not.

Guest · #23

You know butthead, your statement makes so much sense to me. 21st century Imam eating 21st century food - I mean who would want to eat food from the 7th century - wouldn't it be stale and like really stale. And since they did not have refrigerators back then how would they have been able to preserve it. Consider this, bread was available then and is available now, but who would want to eat stale bread from the 7th century. Halal meat was available in the 7th century and is even available today, then only an idiot would even consider eating meat which is 14 centuries old.Houses - let us see, people used to do other things in houses back in the 7th century, other than living in the houses. I don't know what else. In the 21st century also we live in houses - I don't know maybe Ismailis do other things in houses too that were not done in the 7th century. And where will the Imam find an architect who would construct a 7th century house and believe me it would cost a lot too.You have a point there butthead. Keep it up. I now know the intellectual level of Ismailis. They are a class apart. WOW!!

Guest · #24

Nizari posted 04-27-2002 01:20 PM ET (US) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The biggest reason for Islam's success in the earlier times was that it appealed to people in that day and age. Islam is still as appealing as it was 1400 years ago. It was perfected 1400 years ago. When something is perfect you don’t need to add/delete/improve anything.

Guest · #25

Dear Hafeez, You should really take heed of your ignorance.1)Why are you mixing up Hassan bin Sabbah with the advent of the Fatimids? He was not even borne. ---Hassan bin Sabbah was born in 1050's in Qum (Iran) from a prominent Twelver family. At the age of seventeen he learn the Ismaili doctrine and gave bayah to Imam Mustansir. He later went to Cairo in the 1076-77, when Sayedna Shirazi was dai al'duat. He arrive in Cairo and then Alexandria in 1078. Alexandria is where Nizar went after saying he was heir-designate to Imam Musta'Ali. During the three years there he took up the Nizari mission and went against Badr Jam'ali, the now Fatimi vizier,leader of army, and the thing you forget to mention...the dai al'duat (succeding Sayedna Shirazi). Hasan never saw Imam Mustansir..this according to Nizari sources. It is however ibn Athir's recordings that Agha Khannis promote that Hasan was told by Imam Mustansir that Nizar is the heir-designate. So again, the pick and choose their sources for the agenda. 2) The shias were never a power base during the times of the Fatimid and they WERE called buyyids at that time.---The Buyids were based in Baghdad, a Twelver or Zaidi shia power base of Adud al'Dawla, who has overtook the Abbasid caliphate there in 945. The Twelvers didn't receded...in fact they increase even when the Fatimi were in power. 400 yrs. the became the state religion of the Safavid covering all of Persia.see the following for more info. http://www.iis.ac.uk/research/academic_ ... p> "the Safavids came about much much MUCH later. OKAY!"--The Safavids were of turkish origin and came to Iran in 1502. The leader accepted the Twelver doctrine..thus making the official religion. It was the Buyid power base in Baghdad and in Isfahan that the Twelver gain strength over a land of sunnis."It appears that now you are KNOCKING the Fatimid when previously you were RIDICULING the imamate. All for what?"---I have never mocked the Fatimi let alone the Imamate...in fact I have promoted both all along. I would expect better of you...but then again you know little about your own HI. I again ask you to at least read your history...before mocking others.

Guest · #26

Dear Nizari,"I am sure we can all agree that Islam is an eternal faith."---Islam, which consists of the Quran and its doctrines, are eternal. Get it."The biggest reason for Islam's success in the earlier times was that it appealed to people in that day and age. The Present and Living Imam interprets the faith for the present time thus keeping it current and appealing for any day and age."---Islam had appeal based on itself...not changed so it would be appealing to people. Big difference."The Bohras are waiting for an Imam, but the fact of the matter is that if their Imam (if he exists that is) were to go public, he would be a 21st centruy Imam, eating 21st century food and living 21st century style."But the Bohras think their Imam will be 7th century, because 7th century is Islamic while everything else is not. "---This is just stupid...what does that have to do with anything. You do realized were both using computers..were both driving cars, etc. These things are halal thought. But you see the Prophet did not accept the ways of the 7th century..he expressed the ways of Islam. Islam is not reflective of the 7th or 21st century. Remember, a majority of Arabs were pagans, killed their daughters, were unclean, had little manners, gambled, drank, smoked hashish, etc..the Prophet went against these...which the customs of the 7th century. Why would the customs of the 21st century, accepted by the Agha Khannis, be accepted by the Prophet today. Allah didn't want us to be "up to date" with the century...if He did..we would still be burying our daughters alive, drinking, gambling, smoking, etc. Get it.

Guest · #27

Qiyam I'll REPEAT again:1)The Mustallians EXECUTED Imam Nizar(sa). You have rejected this.2) The Fatimids rose to power on the ashes on the 12'er Imammate; Just like the Nizari Imammate rose to POWER on the ashes on the Mustallians. You have rejected this.3) The shias had power base during the time of the Fatimids, notably the buyids who had gained CONTROL of the Abbassid(sunnis) who were in the decline. They were no MATCH for the Fatinids . You have rejected this!4) The Safavids came about in the 16 century. Had nothing to do with the buyids(shia) during the time of the FATIMIDS. You have rejected this.5) PLS READ the above again! ( I am sure you will REJECT this advise).This is what you had to say about the SAFAVIDS and it is IGNORANT: "The Twelvers never receded from society for the Fatimis to rise to power. The Twelvers were still in power in Iraq and Iran...and actually increased in populas because of the Safavid accepted the Twelver doctrine. So to did the Nizari increase in Persia because Hasan Sabah made a pact with the Saljuqs! This is from the same book published by your HI."QIYAM: The Safavids came into prominence "much much later" actually they came about in the 16th century when the fatimids were long gone by almost 450 years. In the above statement & arguements you seem to be suggesting that the Safavids had linked up with the shias - the BUYIDS at the time of the Fatimids to create an even larger power.This, as I said, has ERRORS but you have come about and re-stated your fallacy /errors in a different way instead of just accepting that you made an error.LOOK - the Buyids were not in power; they had a power-base in the WANING/DECLING abassids who were sunnis; and if you read from the link that you have provided from i.i.s; it is clear that the abassids were on the wane/decline while the Fatimids were on the upsurge. The link says this - DOES it not?The link also says that the buyids who were either zayids or 12'ers were wiped away by the Turks. Correct?6)ADVENT means the inception and in this case the inception of the Fatimid caliphate which was sometimes in 900. Now was hassan bin sabbah around at that time? Case Closed!Here's the excerpt AGAIN re: Imam Nizar revolt against the conspiracy of the Mustallians: ___ Al-Mustansir's eldest surviving son and heir designate, Nizar, was deprived of his succession rights by the scheming and ambitious al-Afdal, who a few months earlier had succeeded his own father Badr al-Jamali (d. 487/1094) as the all-powerful Fatimid vizier and "commander of the armies" (amir al-juyush). Al-Afdal installed Nizar's much younger half-brother Ahmad to the Fatimid caliphate with the title of al-Musta' li bi'llah, and he immediately obtained for him the allegiance of the da'wa leaders in Cairo. In protest, Nizar rose in revolt in Alexandria, but was defeated and executed soon afterwards in 488/1095. These events permanently split the Ismaili da'wa and community. _____After 900 years of the demise of the mustallians, you are still in a fog - there is no imam tayib; there are Kothars - the usurpers.DO ME A favour - Don't raise this topic again. I do not have further time to waste with you. CASE CLOSED!

Guest · #28

This post has been DIRECTED at Nizari but allow me to comment on just one line:NIZARI had earlier stated the following: "I am sure we can all agree that Islam is an eternal faith."This is Qiyam's RESPONSE: ---Islam, which consists of the Quran and its doctrines, are eternal. Get it---So, the KITABS are superior to the Imams. Previously, you had said the same thing on different occasions then all of a sudden made a U-turn and claimed you never said that; you even called me a LIAR!The Kitabs as written by the Fatimi scholars, as per you, are based on Quran & sunnah and thus all Imams had to agree & follow it - your understanding.The Nizari Imams RULE over the quran and ALL other kitabs.We do not have time to accept from the Quran that: the Earth is Flat the mountains are pegs holding the earth the sun goes down to sleep in muddy marshes the stars are lamps. for example.I am not interested in the rest of your drivel. For the one who believes that Islam is only ETERNAL if FROZEN in the image of the 7th century will also believe that the Earth is Flat.I am sure you will find a lot of support here and elsewhere in your 'kaput' position. GOOD LUCK!

Guest · #29

Hafeez..stop this..you suck at it.1)The Mustallians EXECUTED Imam Nizar(sa). You have rejected this.---I reject it because Nizari historian reject it!2) The Fatimids rose to power on the ashes on the 12'er Imammate; Just like the Nizari Imammate rose to POWER on the ashes on the Mustallians. You have rejected this.----I reject it because the Fatimi rose in roughly 930-950. The Buyid (Twelver/Zaidi) took over Baghdad from the Abbasids in 950. Where is the decline?"3) The shias had power base during the time of the Fatimids, notably the buyids who had gained CONTROL of the Abbassid(sunnis) who were in the decline. They were no MATCH for the Fatinids . You have rejected this!"----NO, you idiot..I state this!!!!!!"4) The Safavids came about in the 16 century. Had nothing to do with the buyids(shia) during the time of the FATIMIDS. You have rejected this.----Duhh...I state this you idiot..and the 16th century is the 1500's...I said 1507...and it was the Safavids that took over what the Buyids controlled...however the Safavids accepted the Twelver doctrine. "This is what you had to say about the SAFAVIDS and it is IGNORANT: "The Twelvers never receded from society for the Fatimis to rise to power. The Twelvers were still in power in Iraq and Iran...and actually increased in populas because of the Safavid accepted the Twelver doctrine. So to did the Nizari increase in Persia because Hasan Sabah made a pact with the Saljuqs! This is from the same book published by your HI."---What does this have to do withQIYAM: The Safavids came into prominence "much much later" actually they came about in the 16th century when the fatimids were long gone by almost 450 years. In the above statement & arguements you seem to be suggesting that the Safavids had linked up with the shias - the BUYIDS at the time of the Fatimids to create an even larger power."LOOK - the Buyids were not in power; they had a power-base in the WANING/DECLING abassids who were sunnis; and if you read from the link that you have provided from i.i.s; it is clear that the abassids were on the wane/decline while the Fatimids were on the upsurge. The link says this - DOES it not?" ----Yes, but the Abbasids were sunni not Twelver shia!!! The Buyid who took over the Abbasids were Twelver Shia!!! So when the Fatimi Imamate rose in about 930-950..so to did the Twelver Buyids take over the lands of the Abbasids. So where is the decline of the Twelvers?????The link also says that the buyids who were either zayids or 12'ers were wiped away by the Turks. Correct?----Yes, the TURKS were the SAFAVIDS!!! get it. 6)ADVENT means the inception and in this case the inception of the Fatimid caliphate which was sometimes in 900. Now was hassan bin sabbah around at that time? Case Closed!---What is to do with advent or inception? Hasan Sabah came to Cairo in 1078 during the last years of Imam Mustansir. Do you know any history of the Fatimi?Hafeez..your have begun to state my writing as your writing...that scary!I think you need to break from this. You know little about history...as well as being in a dicussion of this sort.

Guest · #30

Dear Hafeez,You wrote: This is Qiyam's RESPONSE: ---Islam, which consists of the Quran and its doctrines, are eternal. Get it---So, the KITABS are superior to the Imams."---did I write the last statement..NO!!!! This something you infered in your ignorance. Who isn't that helps us understand the Quran and its doctrine...Imams. They don't change them!!!

Dawoodi Bohra Forum

How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar

Re: How Mustali and Al-Afdal usurped the rule from Nizar