www.ismaili.net

Lets come back to Shiva. Ali is Allah can be further discussed in the appropriate thread. In any case, in few years the whole discussion will be moot when research in previous 49 Imam's farmans will advance to that level.

Admin wrote: Now ask yourself this question, in the year 1,900 did your forefather do the Namaz and the Roza? Only the faith of your forefathers will unable you to live in peace in this world and in the next.

I am surprised to see this coming from you, Admin!

How can the faith of someone else [your forefathers] determine your faith? I have always thought that faith [belief] is a personal relationship between murid and murish.

Now let me ask you this question now: lets go back even further than the year 1900. what did your forefather did ??? would that count too?






Bottom line is here:

Those who say Ali is Allah, apparently have a different notion and concept of Allah! i.e. some members believe that Universal Soul is Allah. Some other thinks that Allah can be a cow and so on and so forth.... So, until unless we agree in the concept of Allah, we can never settle down the disagreement of Ali is Allah or Ali is Mazhar of Allah.

kmaherali wrote:...the 1964 statement of the Imam

So when a Farmaan doesn't suit your convenience, then it's a statement, but when it does, then it's a Farmaan? Wow, I'd have to say, I am amazed by your conviction!

tret wrote:
Bottom line is here:

Those who say Ali is Allah, apparently have a different notion and concept of Allah! i.e. some members believe that Universal Soul is Allah. Some other thinks that Allah can be a cow and so on and so forth.... So, until unless we agree in the concept of Allah, we can never settle down the disagreement of Ali is Allah or Ali is Mazhar of Allah.

That would be the 46th, 47th Imam for sure because I have read the Farmans myself, the Ginans of Pir Sadardin which have been equated to the Quran by Imam SMS, again i have read those farrmans my self. This is the first time somebody has mentioned a farman on Aliullah which i have never heard before. I have also read about the Imam's reference to himself as Mazhar - e - Dhat - Illahi, which tends to settle the matter for me.

This is not the appropriate thread for it but why would a manifestation be different than the source of manifestation. The manifestation would have the same attributes as the source would it not?

tret wrote:

Admin wrote: Now ask yourself this question, in the year 1,900 did your forefather do the Namaz and the Roza? Only the faith of your forefathers will unable you to live in peace in this world and in the next.

I am surprised to see this coming from you, Admin!

How can the faith of someone else [your forefathers] determine your faith?

If you were Ismaili, you would know that I was quoting one of the very first Farmans of the present Imam which is very very well know in the Ismaili Community, read frequently in JK and quoted by Ismailis all over the world.

So one question: How come you do not know about this? Who are you really?

You registered with an account on the @myself.com which is known to be used by bulk maillers, spammers and mostly people who do not want to be identified. Am I wrong?

Ali Allah subject is discussed on the following thread,:

http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... pic&t=7379


please do not mix up in this thread.

tret wrote:

kmaherali wrote:...the 1964 statement of the Imam

So when a Farmaan doesn't suit your convenience, then it's a statement, but when it does, then it's a Farmaan? Wow, I'd have to say, I am amazed by your conviction!

First of all, a Farman is always a statement, of course the converse is not true. So technically I am not inconsistent.

Regarding my conviction, if I know for certain that the Imam is the Mazhar-i- dhat - I -illahi, how could I bring myself to accept the statement that Ali is from Allah especially in a ritual context wherein you are reinforcing your fundamental beliefs?

Wasn't Yazid from Allah as well, so what is the difference between him and Ali?

We may publish the meaning Ali is from Allah for external reasons but we should consider him as Ali Allah.

Admin wrote: If you were Ismaili, you would know that I was quoting one of the very first Farmans of the present Imam which is very very well know in the Ismaili Community, read frequently in JK and quoted by Ismailis all over the world

It is sometimes easy to quote the exact Farman especially if it is printed and published.
"Only the Faith of your forefathers can sustain you to live in peace here in this world and the next."( Nairobi, 22nd October, 1957)

tret wrote: Is 'Ali Allah' our esoteric philosophy?

It is the quint essence of the esoteric philosophy. There is nothing more in the esoteric philosophy apart from it, unless you can tell us.

nuseri wrote:Ya Ali Madad:

What has the word 'shiva' to do with ismailism of today?.

Ya Ali Madad,
If you read my earlier post Kali attached to Shiva provides a very portent symbolism in our present circumstances. If a momin is attached to the Imam through spiritual elevation, no power of the delusiory Maya can tempt him away from the Right Path.

tret wrote: So, until unless we agree in the concept of Allah, we can never settle down the disagreement of Ali is Allah or Ali is Mazhar of Allah.

According to the Paris Conference resolution, the concept of God is clearly established together with the concept of Imamate as the Mazhar. There is no ambiguity and room for disagreement unless you want to create one.

tret wrote:So, the way you guys saying it, i.e. "Ali is Allah" is in no way inline with "Ali is the Manifestation of Allah".

I have reposted the explanation of why Mazhar of God is the same as God from a practical point of view at least four times.

If you are saying that it is different please explain how it is different from the practical point of view of a practicing murid.

Admin wrote:

tret wrote:

Admin wrote: Now ask yourself this question, in the year 1,900 did your forefather do the Namaz and the Roza? Only the faith of your forefathers will unable you to live in peace in this world and in the next.

I am surprised to see this coming from you, Admin!

How can the faith of someone else [your forefathers] determine your faith?

If you were Ismaili, you would know that I was quoting one of the very first Farmans of the present Imam which is very very well know in the Ismaili Community, read frequently in JK and quoted by Ismailis all over the world.

So one question: How come you do not know about this? Who are you really?

You registered with an account on the @myself.com which is known to be used by bulk maillers, spammers and mostly people who do not want to be identified. Am I wrong?

Talking always about posterity, and which kind of value this post would add for posterity?

Thank you for telling me that I am a spammer, I had no idea. You know what? You'd do me a favor, should you delete my account, because I will stop coming to this site. I have my own reasons. At least I make few people happy in this space.

So long.

tret wrote:

kmaherali wrote:

fayaz006 wrote:Gents can somebody confirm what Mazhar wrote? Because if that is the case than the farman changes several things

Fayaz,
Don't you read the posts. There have been printed and published farmans of the present Imam about Ali is Allah!

kmaherali -

don't get too excited!!

Keep in mind, being "Mazhar of Allah" [or even Mazhar-e-dhat-e-elahi" doesn't mean Imam is exactly Allah!

You can do your own research to find out exactly what Mazhar means. Most common and accepted meaning of Mazhar would be manifestation. So, the way you guys saying it, i.e. "Ali is Allah" is in no way inline with "Ali is the Manifestation of Allah".

Tret,

Manifestatation of Allah, or Mazhar e zaat e illahi. In urdu Mazhar means Zaahir which means KNOWN. Allah was hidden and get known as the Imam. Which means Imam is Allah.

Tret,
I will request you please do not quit this forum even though we both have many conflicts and clashes in thinking, in thought and believes: but yours many posts are valuable to me, be honest with you I have learned many things from many scholars from this website and you are one from them.
Admin,
Please do not delete his account as he mentioned above.

fayaz006 wrote: Hello KM
Ill be honest i have not read those posts could you post a link?

I will repost the last one I made on this subject here.

kmaherali wrote:

tret wrote: Can you please repost the two farmaans of 1966?
How can you conclude from Paris conference resolution that "Mazhar of Allah" [locus of Manifestation of God] is Allah?
If Mazhar of Allah was indeed Allah, then why the use of Mazhar?

You have asked me to post the Farmans twice! I wonder if you read them at all. Here we go again….

tret wrote: Please put it here. I can't find'em!

I am reposting what I mentioned in my previous post to Mazhar.

As you are a staunch Ismaili and who follows the Farman of the Imam, consider the following Farmans:

"I would like any spiritual child who is here present, who attends religious night school, to answer to Me what is the meaning of Malikin naas. You know the Sura which says Kul A 'uzu bir Rabin naas,Elahin naas. What does Malikin naas mean? Which is the spiritual child here who can tell Me the meaning of Malikin naas?

(One spiritual child gave the meaning of "Malikin naas Master of the People The Imam "; Hazar Imam was very pleased )

Good, very good."

If the Imam himself says that he is Malikin naas, does it not imply from the Quranic Ayat that he is also Rabin naas (the Lord of the People) and Elahin naas (God of the People)?

In another Farman explaining the notion of Esoteric Islam (Sufism) MHI said:

"Do you know who was Al Hallaj? Which is the spiritual child here who can tell Me who was Al Hallaj?
(One spiritual child answered, Mansoor Al Hallaj ) Hazar Imam asked
"What was his main aim in life?"

(The same spiritual child replied, To be one with Allah and further added that Mansoor achieved the status of Fanna fillah and said An al Haq )

My beloved spiritual children,

The question I asked was difficult. It was a very difficult question because it did not concern our history, but it concerned a concept. A concept of the practice of Islam which is close to our concept, which is the concept of spirituality and Al Hallaj became a martyr because he believed that he had elevated his soul, that he had sufficiently eliminated all worldly matters, so that his soul should be identified with the Oneness with the Universal Unity, and he claimed publicly, An al Haq which means I am the Truth, and the Muslims of the time treated him as a heretic and he was put to death as a heretic. The reason I asked this question is that I want My spiritual children in the years ahead to understand the two concepts of Islam; the spiritual concept which is ours, and those of certain other branches of Islam, namely those who say no, there is no esoteric form to Islam, there is but an exoteric form. This is why I asked who was Al Hallaj, and I am very happy and I congratulate the spiritual child who knew who was Al Hallaj. Khanavadan"

If Mansur could elevate himself and become one with Allah, don't you think that the Imam whom we consider as the Pure in our Dua would not be one with Allah as well? Try to understand Sufism, then you will realize the status of the Imam.

Below is the discussion wherein I explained how the Mazhar of Allah is Allah from a practical point of view.

kmaherali wrote:

tret wrote:Then how do you come to conclusion that Imam is Allah/The Transcendent?

If we say that 'Mr X has skills and knowledge of a teacher manifest in him' and if we say 'Mr X is a teacher'. From a practical standpoint what would be the difference?

Similarly if we say the ''qualities' of God (Essence) are manifested in the Imam' and if we say 'Imam is God (Essence)'. Is there any difference?

Nasir Khusraw has said in Kalame Pir: "The Imam is the Hujjat or Proof of God and it is for this reason some Imams have said, "What is said about God refers also to us.".

I hope the notion of Mazhar is now clarified. [/quote]
Mazhar is used because Imam has a physical form. That is the acknowledgement of his physical aspect. We as humans are all mazhars of our souls depending upon the level of advancement. The Imam being the mazhar of the highest attainment is the Mazhar of God as per constitution.
The other reason would be that if we called Imam Allah, then we would be offending other Muslims, but if we called him the Mazhar of Allah then it would sound reasonable at least.

tret wrote:

kmaherali wrote: The Pir intercedes and prays for his murids who are alive and who are also in the spiritual domain after death.

Please elaborate. This is interesting. ?

Before elaborating on this, I would like to know whether you read my recent post about consoling the bereaved at: http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... 1&start=30
If yes then I will elaborate on it if needed. If not then I insist that you read it because it does explain the role of the Pir in both worlds.

tret wrote:

kmaherali wrote: Sometimes the presence of an elevated soul is enough to bring about changes in the world and the community without uttering a word.

So, in other words you are saying that status of Pir is also by nass and is heredity, same as Imam?

It does not necessarily imply that. You can have an elevated soul who is not appointed through nass. MSMS says in his Memoirs:
“Roumi and Hafiz, the great Persian poets, have told us, each in his different way, that some men are born with such natural spiritual capacities and possibilities of development that they have direct experience of that great love, that all-embracing, all-consuming love, which direct contact with reality gives to the human soul.”
Of course in the case of Pirs, they are nurtured and trained for the position of Piratan being born as Ahl al-Bayt.

tret wrote: the story of Jesus is not relevant to Pirs. Jesus was one of the Prophets of Ulul-Azm [Natiq]. Pirs are appointed by Imam, they are not pre-distant to be Pir by birth. It's the sole prerogative of the Imam of the time who to appoint as His Hujjat and if to appoint HIS Hujjat.

The story of Jesus is relevant as an illustration of the possibility of spiritual elevation right from birth. The Pirs are required to function as intercessors and therefore they are required to be ‘qualified’ for that role, they are the Murshids of our Tariqah. Of course it is up to the Imam to determine who is the most qualified for the role. In this case the Imam determined that the infant was most qualified for the role.

tret wrote: I read what you said, all right. From philosophical point of view, then please explain your understanding of creation? The metaphysical hierarchy, from Supreme God/The Transcendent form the sublime realm to this dense and physical realm... I'd like to know your framework of belief system to which school of thought do you subscribe? Please...

I don’t subscribe to any philosophical/metaphysical systems. I derive my understanding from the statements of the Imams and Pirs. In my framework, there are three metaphysical concepts – the Essence, the Divine Intellect and Creation.
Allah creates and sustains his creation continuously through the application of his will and thought as reflected in the Divine Intellect.

tret wrote: So is Universal Soul the creation? That's it? What about the physical realm? What about cause and effect? What's the cause and what's the effect, in this context? Is The supreme God the cause of all things? These are some important questions you need to wrap your head around, if you want to contradict the doctrine of ismailies that elite theologians, Hujjats and Dais of ismialis crystallized, which are being research and studied not only within our own community but also world wide by other communities.

As I said before according to the current sciences there is no division between matter and spirit. Hence there is no distinction between the physical and spiritual aspects of creation. As I said, I pay more attention to what the current Imams says. I don’t pay much attention to the Hujjats and Dais of the past regardless of whether they are regarded or not. Generally I do not like idle speculation of philosophers. Rumi hated it!
Metaphysics is in flux. It is not static. One system may reflect a particular outlook and time and can be irrelevant for another context and time.

tret wrote:

kmaherali wrote: The Universe that the Imam mentions here is equivalent to Universal Soul that he mentions in the statement that you provided. The Universe is the form of the Universal Soul just as our bodies are the forms of our souls as per the Farman of the present Imam.

I entirely agree with your interpretation!

So, the Universal Soul creates individual soul.

Actually I would like to revise my above views. I had a re-read of the Memoirs. MSMS made two statements below.
“Once man has thus comprehended the essence of existence, there remains for him the duty, since he knows the absolute value of his own soul, of making for himself a direct path which will constantly lead his individual soul to and bind it with the universal Soul of which the Universe as much of it as we perceive with our limited visions one of the infinite manifestations.”
“Every individual, every molecule, every atom has its own spiritual relationship with the All-Powerful Soul of God.”
The statements above imply that the Universal Soul is an expression of Divine Essence as the universe is one of its infinite manifestations and everything has a relationship to it.
So in this respect the Universal Soul creates the individual soul but itself it is not created, it is the Creator.

tret wrote: So, if we agree that in the presence of Imam Mustaqar --When Imam being the Pir, as our current MHI-- there's no need of Imam Mustawda, then tell me why do we need an entrusted Imam when the office of Pirship is delegated to a person other than the Imam of the time?? Imam of the time [Imam-e-Mustaqar] is still present and fully functioning and has the command of the office of the Imamate. That's the logical conclusion that in the presence of the Imam Mustaqar, there's no need for Imam-e-Mustawda.

The Imam Mustaqar is not fully functioning after the delegation. He does not perform the role of piratan. It is the Imam Mustawda who does it. Hence for example the Imam Mustaqar will not be responsible for making Farmans. It would be the role of the Pir (Imam Mustawda) to perform it.

tret wrote:
http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/10407

The author makes a clear distinction about the role of Imam Mustawda, but yet regards it as a permanent office. I guess it can be still agreed upon, if by "Office of Imam mustawda" is referenced to office of Pirship [Hujjatship]; but, I it should be rather referenced as such, instaed of using the term "Mustawda", as you can wee from the explanation he gives about entrusting of the office of the Imamate temporarily.

Yes it becomes a permanent office once the appointment is made. The Pir remains in the office for the rest of his life. Perhaps then Mustawda may not be appropriate as per your suggestion which is reasonable.

tret wrote: This is a risky assumption you are making. You assume that because it's hard to find information in this forum, therefore, for a non-regular visitor it would be impossible to find anything in this forum.

If one really wants to find information, then of course he will find it. However as I said the information in the forum is difficult to find. Generally for the public at large it is hidden. It is a matter of weighing the risks against the benefit of promoting understanding. In today’s world even what is said in the private space of a JK does not remain confidential. So how are we going to articulate and understand the batini side of the faith?[/quote]

Admin wrote:Mazhar I am still waiting for your reference on where did our Imam of the Ismailis said Aliyullah means Ali comes from Allah. if you do not have any Farman to show, state so now!

In Dua I receite Rassulillah and Aliyulah and they means Prophet of Allah and Ali (Highest) of Allah

I am waiting for the farman.

Reply to Admin.

You admitted in above post that you recite Rasulullah and Aliullah in Du'a and quoted meaning as Prophet of Allah and Ali as highest of Allah.
According to Arabic grammer rule of Mudhaf and Mudhafun ilehi is applied here.
When you say Rasulluah means Rasul of Allah it does not imply that Prophet is Allah. Now same rule applies to Aliullah, means Ali is not Allah. Let me give another example, say Kitabullah means Kitab of Allah, it does not imply that Kitab itself is Allah but Kitab belongs to Allah.
You mentioned the meaning in your own way that Ali is highest of Allah, so you mentioned the quality or Attribute of Allah, means you are not talking of historical Ali but Attribute of Allah, in this sense you are right because ALI IS ONE OF 99 ATTRIBUTAL NAMES OF ALLAH.
Admin. you deleted my previous posts to Nuseri and yourself Don't you realise that it takes time to draft,type and post. I asked you to post your mailing address or any one of yours umedwars so or p o box address so I can mail you hard copy of Farman mentioning Ali is from Allah. Why are you hesitating or shying! Don't delete this post, be honest.

kmaherali wrote:

tret wrote: So, until unless we agree in the concept of Allah, we can never settle down the disagreement of Ali is Allah or Ali is Mazhar of Allah.

According to the Paris Conference resolution, the concept of God is clearly established together with the concept of Imamate as the Mazhar. There is no ambiguity and room for disagreement unless you want to create one.

Dear Kmaherali,

With ref. to Paris conference, it is established that Imam is Mazharulllah or Mazharul haqq. In my couple of posts I asked you question Mazhar of who? You manipulated the question in other way. km, I am sure you know Arabic, as you say Du'a in Arabic along with eid namaz and janaza namaz or ziarat etc. You recite in Du'a Rasulullah and same way Aliullah.
Rasulullah means Rasul of Allah and same is Aliullah. When we say Rasulluah it does not imply that Rasul is Allah and same way will be meaning of Aliullah. When you say Kitabullah, it means Kitab of Allah, it does not establish that Kitab it self is Allah.
In 80's, during a religious conference, this same topic was discussed.
The conclusion came from a late Famous Al waiz, he said the following couplet in Urdu,

ADAM KO KHUDA MAT KAHO ADAM KHUDA NAHEI
LEKIN KHUDA KEY NOOR SEY ADAM JUDA NAHEI.

mazhar wrote:

Admin wrote:Mazhar I am still waiting for your reference on where did our Imam of the Ismailis said Aliyullah means Ali comes from Allah. if you do not have any Farman to show, state so now!

In Dua I receite Rassulillah and Aliyulah and they means Prophet of Allah and Ali (Highest) of Allah

I am waiting for the Farman.

Reply to Admin.


You mentioned the meaning in your own way that Ali is highest of Allah, so you mentioned the quality or Attribute of Allah, means you are not talking of historical Ali but Attribute of Allah, in this sense you are right because ALI IS ONE OF 99 ATTRIBUTAL NAMES OF ALLAH.

Yes Professor Corbin also said that according to many ismaili Dai , Ali (Essence) is higher than Allah (attributes). Professor Corbin has contributed to Ismailism for 50 years especially unearthing previously unknown manuscripts of Ismaili Dais.

Do not try to escape the issue. My question is clear: Where is the Farman?

I am waiting for the Farman, scan and send to heritage@ismaili.net

If it is from a book, scan also the title page of the book. If it is from personal notes I am not interested.

mazhar wrote:Dear Kmaherali,

With ref. to Paris conference, it is established that Imam is Mazharulllah or Mazharul haqq. In my couple of posts I asked you question Mazhar of who? You manipulated the question in other way. km, I am sure you know Arabic, as you say Du'a in Arabic along with eid namaz and janaza namaz or ziarat etc. You recite in Du'a Rasulullah and same way Aliullah.
Rasulullah means Rasul of Allah and same is Aliullah. When we say Rasulluah it does not imply that Rasul is Allah and same way will be meaning of Aliullah. When you say Kitabullah, it means Kitab of Allah, it does not establish that Kitab it self is Allah.
In 80's, during a religious conference, this same topic was discussed.
The conclusion came from a late Famous Al waiz, he said the following couplet in Urdu,

ADAM KO KHUDA MAT KAHO ADAM KHUDA NAHEI
LEKIN KHUDA KEY NOOR SEY ADAM JUDA NAHEI.

Dear Mazhar,
The Paris Conference is quite clear, it is the Mazhar of God. The document says that God is considered to be the transcendant (Essence - Dhat). Hence he is the Mazhar of the dhati illahi. This MHI confirmed to his scholars ate the IIS. So I have not manipulated anything.

Look at at from another point of view. You believe in the Farmans of the present Imam and you have knowledge of the Quran and Arabic. So let us consider the 1966 printed aand published Farman.

"I would like any spiritual child who is here present, who attends religious night school, to answer to Me what is the meaning of Malikin naas. You know the Sura which says Kul A 'uzu bir Rabin naas,Elahin naas. What does Malikin naas mean? Which is the spiritual child here who can tell Me the meaning of Malikin naas?

(One spiritual child gave the meaning of "Malikin naas Master of the People The Imam "; Hazar Imam was very pleased )

Good, very good."

If the Imam says he is malikin naas, does this not imply that he is also Rabin Nass and Elahin Naas? This is pure reason and logic. There is no manipulation. Allah says in the Quran Majeed that he is the King, the Lord and God of mankind all at once.

I hope this clarifies once and for all.

kmaherali wrote:

mazhar wrote:Mowlana Hazar Imam said," Yes, Firman on that was very clear from my grandfather. It was not Aly Allah, it was Aly-ullah, which has different meaning, which means that Aly is from Allah. Don't confuse it. This means that the spirit of Aly and the Noor of Aly is from Allah, and this is the belief which the jamat has; this is the true conception of Noor."

Karachi - 1964.
I have typed the exact wordings. You are resourceful, can verify with ITREB karachi.

Nagib, do not delete this post. Thanx again for your threat or warning what ever you call it.[/b]

Mazhar,
Why do you keep quoting this questionable Farman which has never been recited in JKs. We have [/b]printed and published Farmans of our present Imam which point to the Imam being illahi nass (God of mankind). Paris conference documents state that the Imam is the Mazhar of Allah. The Imam has also said at the IIS that he is the Mazhar-i-dhat-Allah.

When you know all this why do you keep mentioning the 1964 statement of the Imam? This is intellectual dishonesty. There is no intention to understand.

Reply to Km,

I have already e- maied the copy of 1964 Farman to Admin as a proof.
It is up to them, when to post.

mazhar wrote:Reply to Km,
I have already e- maied the copy of 1964 Farman to Admin as a proof.
It is up to them, when to post.

OK I have seen the copy which you have sent. It is not clear about the context in which this statement was made. Were there any non-Ismili scholars present in the audience? If so then that kind of statement would make sense. Or is that the Hidayat to be used for the sake of producing official translations of Dua which are readable by non-Ismailis as well? If that is the case, then it is understandable.

However it is totally different to consider "Ali from Allah" as an Ismaili belief. The Ismaili belief has been stated in the 1966 Farman, in the Paris Conference documents and the Imams guidance to the scholars at the IIS. There is no ambiguity about that. Ali is the Mazhar of the Divine Essence or he is illahi Naas according to the Qur'an Majeed.

kmaherali wrote:

mazhar wrote:Reply to Km,
I have already e- maied the copy of 1964 Farman to Admin as a proof.
It is up to them, when to post.

OK I have seen the copy which you have sent. It is not clear about the context in which this statement was made. Were there any non-Ismili scholars present in the audience? If so then that kind of statement would make sense. Or is that the Hidayat to be used for the sake of producing official translations of Dua which are readable by non-Ismailis as well? If that is the case, then it is understandable.

However it is totally different to consider "Ali from Allah" as an Ismaili belief. The Ismaili belief has been stated in the 1966 Farman, in the Paris Conference documents and the Imams guidance to the scholars at the IIS. There is no ambiguity about that. Ali is the Mazhar of the Divine Essence or he is illahi Naas according to the Qur'an Majeed.

kbhai, please allow me to correct you.
There is not one single Aya in Quran Majeed which says ALI is illahi Naas, translated God of Mankind.

HZ Ali was human being, he was physically born in this world, he had father, mother, multiple wives and children and died as human being.
You and like minded Ismailies are free to believe that Ali and his Progeny are God but please do not ascribe this lie to Qur'an Majeed
Salaam

HZ Ali was human being, he was physically born in this world, he had father, mother, multiple wives and children and died as human being.

Ok, then show me Allah? where is he? why he is hiding from us?

Open your blind eyes! if H. Ali was human being!! so what!!? he is Allah for all human kinds including you too, only thing you need to find out that after bandagi and reading quranic ayas carefully.
Christian's Jesus Christ was human being and they believes as a god.
Hindus Rama, krishna and many other devas were also human being and Hindus still believes them as a gods!.

Read Quran with interest and with deep understanding there are still many ayas( I have list of 40 ayas ) in qurans which specially revealed on H. Ali, read that ayas one more time carefully and then after make nonsense comments on H. Ali.

To zznoor:Ya Ali Madad.
I tought you were defending your brother in faith tsarnev in Boston.
first you anwer the ayat where Allah has described himslef n noor in another Ayat.You have left that post without replying.
You follow somebody physically ,who himself was unlearned (ummi).
his intellect was Ali+lah=aLLAH's VOICE.
which has many ayats has given his features .He spoke out in human language
out of prophets.he walked the earth with one prophet earlier.

today 37% of earth population is non religious n atheist,In next 100 years
it can go down as low as 25%.
NO EDUCATED WANT TO BELIEVE IN any god being FORMLESS n OUT OF IMAGINATION=Blank, IDOLS, ANIMALS as god.

They want to see GOD as a mercy n service to humanity.
Where God is perceived and seen in Human form.
It is for a human being 100 times more blessed to follow a living guide( whatever one mAy call or think of HIM. than worship unknown.
I personally cannot think of offering or kneeling to unknown,if a living entity greater than everyone else, surely.

First study deeply only one word/name entity "Allah" from 360% angle view.
Ismailis( 250 million ++)are very learned n wealthy enough to be taken for a ride by any one person.THEY know well what is right n wrong.

If Allah knew the literacy at prophet's time.
Why did he speak in parables n gave very very
tough n difficult lines n word to understand even few pages
of holy book by even highly educated in today's time?
The reason was only n only the author 'ALI' to take over.
Prophet was rehmet on earth (not all prophets were)
because he delivered ALI.
We embrace him,others shunned HIM.
so what was right or wrong cannot be endlessly debated by copy pasting past material but He see who got is right and who are the un blessed who got it wrong TODAY?

zznoor wrote: kbhai, please allow me to correct you.
There is not one single Aya in Quran Majeed which says ALI is illahi Naas, translated God of Mankind.

zznoor,
It is not directly stated in Qur'an Majeed, however, according to the Farman which is the authoritative tafsir,the Imam stated that he is the Malikinaas. Since he is Malikinaas, it implies that he is also the Rabinaas and Illahinaas. The three aspects are linked together in the Quran Majeed.

kmaherali wrote:

zznoor wrote: kbhai, please allow me to correct you.
There is not one single Aya in Quran Majeed which says ALI is illahi Naas, translated God of Mankind.

zznoor,
It is not directly stated in Qur'an Majeed, however, according to the Farman which is the authoritative tafsir,the Imam stated that he is the Malikinaas. Since he is Malikinaas, it implies that he is also the Rabinaas and Illahinaas. The three aspects are linked together in the Quran Majeed.

He has said many things including ithat he was Krishna. Only his Murids can believe it.
If Shah Karim aga khan is Malekinass for Ismailis, good for them. They definitely do not need Allah.

zznoor wrote:He has said many things including ithat he was Krishna. Only his Murids can believe it.
If Shah Karim aga khan is Malekinass for Ismailis, good for them. They definitely do not need Allah.

Exactly, the tafsir is for his murids, not for all Muslims. Yes indeed they don't need Allah, Imam is sufficient! There is a poem of Hafiz which states:
"Come to me for succor and peace, incase Allah is busy doing something else!"

kmaherali wrote:

zznoor wrote:He has said many things including ithat he was Krishna. Only his Murids can believe it.
If Shah Karim aga khan is Malekinass for Ismailis, good for them. They definitely do not need Allah.

Exactly, the tafsir is for his murids, not for all Muslims. Yes indeed they don't need Allah, Imam is sufficient! There is a poem of Hafiz which states:
"Come to me for succor and peace, incase Allah is busy doing something else!"

Please do not turn to Allah in case he is too busy instructing his Jokey about how to run race.

for Muslims it is only Allah. Those who worship human beings or Taguts are not real Muslims.