Talk:Isma'ilism/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Khoja]

why are khojas not included in classification? they are an essential subdivision, much numerous in indo-pak and other parts of south asia. see [khoja] for details. Najafhaider (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Khojas are Nizari. --Enzuru 05:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, point taken. Najafhaider (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Aga Khan

What's the deal with Aga Khan III being the grandfather of Aga Khan IV. Was his son Aga Khan III.5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.52.183 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aga Khan is a title that is given to the Imam, not to just a son. Since Aga Khan III's son, who is Aga Khan IV's father, was not an Imam, he never inherited the title. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Largest branch

Under the Fatimids, the Ismaili were the largest living denomination of the Shi'ah. This is even cited. Yet there is a "dubious" tag appended... I'm going to delete this tag unless there is some further objection noted here. Ogress _smash! 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I object, Klakky is right, I don't think the Aga Khan III is a reliable source, even if he knows all the secrets of the heavens and the Earth and is the manifestation of reality itself, we should have a secular source. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this response. I think "citation needed" is more appropriate than "dubious"... Ogress _smash! 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Bohras

shouldn't Progressive Bohras be considered a sect?(Water Stirs (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure. They identify as Dawoodi Bohras, they are just trying to renew the faith, which they see as overgrown with nepotism and dictatorship. We could check what Ali Asghar Engineer & co. have to say on the subject... Ogress _smash! 11:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your right they are Dawoodi, as they recognise the spiritual authority of the Dawoodi line. However they differ theologically in so far as they deny edicts such as the misaq (oath of allegiance) and maintain their own mosques, overseen by their own clerics. They are in no way in "communion" with the Da'i. I propose both their mention here and the a creation of a stub page regarding them. Water Stirs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC).

Do mustaalis believe in reincarnation?

Wikipedia articles point all ismailis believing in reincarnation,but curiously omits if the mustaali(bohras) believe or not in reincarnation. I think it should be clarified if they do or not.

Lack of Citations or References for Information Presented (July, 2012)

There is a very large lack of citable factual information presented. I believe any information that cannot be cited should be removed. Otherwise, it is difficult to trust what is presented - especially if it sounds biased.

69.165.248.173 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are the Ismaili communities located ?

A section of the article should give an overview of the geography of Ismailism--Kimdime (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There's little demographic information. How many are there overall? How many in different countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.189.117 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ASLAMALIKUM, I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT ISMALISM, ISMALISM SECTION ALLOWED THE ISMALI WOMEN TO MERRY OTHER SECTION LIKE SUNI, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.57.14 (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality

Come on, decide how you want to write names and stuff. Either write Ali with or without 'ain and the same goes for all the other words. Pleas ebe more consistent. This article is unreadable. Zorro^z Msgs 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. The diacritics are spoiling the article. I might accept Ismāʿīlism once at the top, but elsewhere in English it should be

Ismaili not Ismāʿīlī

Ismail bin Jafar not Ismāʿīl ibn Jaʿfar

Jafar al-Sadiq not Jaʿfar aṣ-Ṣādiq

Musa al-Kazim not Mūsà al-Kāżim

Muhammad not Muḥammad

Ali not ‘Alī

etc. Otherwise much of this is difficult to read on some browsers and very difficult to edit. The Ali article does it better. --Rumping (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, you did NOT just cite Facebook as a reference source for Ismailism. I am going to pretend that I didn't see that. --Gamma Draconis

The Amman Message

Previous copy indicated that the Amman Message included Ismailis, but did not source this claim and only pointed to refences that refer to them as a subset of Jafaris. Although a similar statement is made within the Amman Message by Aga Khan, the actual message only includes Zaydis and Jafaris explicitly. Furthermore, the statements of HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad appear to maintain the distinction between these groups, even though he goes on to say they claim loyalty to the Jafari group. Given his role in organizing the edict his definitions should take priority unless someone can source anything within the documents or those using it demonstrating that Ismailis are included to clarify this ambiguity. MrOakes (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Isma'ili are Jafari, there is of course a distinction between Isma'ili and Twelvers. That is based on the differing approaches to theology. Isma'ilism's preference for Kalam (Philosophy) and Twelvers adoption of the Mutzalite school. Water Stirs (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A subset means a set contained within another set. Therefore, the reason why "Ismailism" was not listed but "Jafari" was listed as a school of jurisprudence is because Ismailism cannot be listed within a primary list which is listing only the sets as a first list should. If a secondary list had been provided then Ismailism would have appeared along with the different Shia sects under the Jafari School i.e. the Twelver, the Bohra, the Druze, and the Ismaili sects. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

bin or ibn

We say ibn- but in writing its abbreviated to 'bin-___' because its a connecting word.

Ismailism is not a part of Shia Islam

Shia Islam does not consider ismailism as their part, then why have this placed in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.123.60 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Shia and Ismailism are different branches of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.137.196 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Offcourse it is . Read the Shiasm Page and you will get the Idea. The people who are popoulary known as Shia are infact Twelvers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husainalisaifee (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ismaili Lion?

Is the calligraphic lion really an Ismaili religious symbol? If yes, can someone please provide a reference for it? --کاشف عقیل (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Druze are not Ismaili

As the article rightly says at the end, "While on one view there is a historical nexus between the Druze and Ismāʿīlīs, any such links are purely historical and do not entail any modern similarities". (Isma'ilis pray in mosques, for a starter, as any other Muslim does, Druze do not). So I think Druze beliefs should definitely not be mentioned in this article as if they were just a part of Ismailism, which they are definitely not. They should be mentioned as a historical offspring with an own article, but a section about Reincarnation citing Druze beliefs makes absolutely no sense here, UNLESS it can be said that other Ismaili groups also belief in reincarnation, for which I have no source. I hope somebody can arrange this, or I might try myself in a few days. Any opinions welcome. Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ismaili pronunciation

As an Ismaili and a religious scholar, in my entire 41 years of life I have never once heard a human being utter the pronunciation originally given in this article. In fact, the a and the i belong to different syllables and in no language spoken by Ismailis does this get reduced to /eɪ/ (as does happen with actual Arabic diphthongs in languages like Persian). It's the same with the name Aisha, which literally nowhere is said "eysha". Seriously. In 41 years of life. Here's the Oxford Dictionary pronunciation. Ogress 09:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that the Oxford printed pronunciation "ˌismāˈilē", and the audio pronunciation indicate a long (American English) "a" in the second syllable, which is shown differently in IPA, by "e" which equates to the vowel in "Spanish fe; French clé" (the IPA "ɪ" being the equivalent of the "i" in "sit", i.e. very brief and short). Thus the former IPA pronunciation seems closer to the pronunciation in your source. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds strange and wrong. I am literally a native English-speaker and an Isma'ili and 41 years of age and a student of religion and I literally have never ever heard this pronunciation in my entire life, I do not understand this. Imagine if you were Jewish and the pronunciation guide on Wikipedia said Zheewish. That's what it sounds like to me. It's bizarre and wrong. I am not a Zheew. People say ɪsma'ili or, more often, ɪsmaɪli. If they are Arabicising I hear ɪsmæːʔiːli or even ɪsmæːʕiːli. Ogress 02:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I suppose I'm just Zheewish now, wtf Ogress 23:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The old pronunciation at the article seems more in line, as detailed in my previous post, and per my edit summary, with the spellings and audio files at both sources being used (only keeping the Dictionary.com one for now, as they both seem to give virtually identical pronunciations). I'm restoring per BRD, etc. If you're hearing it differently, and it's not just a misunderstanding regarding the phonetic spellings, then you should be able to come up with a source that supports a variant pronunciation. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Isma'ilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106113929/http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan to http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428055134/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/shia/qarma.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/shia/qarma.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106113929/http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan to http://www.theismaili.org/cms/14/The-Aga-Khan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010306094659/http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.98/features.htm to http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.98/features.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Italic markup error from lang-ku template in lead

Since this edit there has been the error message "error: {{lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)", in place of {{lang-ku}}, which apparently wasn't changed during that edit, the relevant text reading "Kurdish: Ismaili; Esmāʿiliyān" before and after. I tried substituting Îsmaîlîtî, the title of the equivalent article at Kurdish Wikipedia, to no avail. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isma'ilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303042803/http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/asia-south-central/badakshan-ismaili/ to http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/asia-south-central/badakshan-ismaili/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)