Talk:Nizari Isma'ilism

articles

I created articles on Imam Jafar Al-Saddiq's theology, expanded on the schism, and also added expanded *the Fatimid, and created an Alamut article and expanded on the Agha Khans...I finished off adding an **edited line of recognised Imams. --Water Stirs 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Imamat

The Imamat section listed (Mowlana) Qāsim Shāh
(29) to (Mowlana) Shāh Khalīlullāh III
(45) twice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.190.3 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Noted, and well spotted. it would be helpful if we could expand beliefs section, and add more photographs to break up the text.(Water Stirs (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

edits

I edited out the articls on each of the Agha Khans as I believe they create an overly long article, but kept Aga Khan IV, I would like to add more about the contribution of the previous Aga Khans so i created "Aga Khans" in the history section and made a brief start, I have also added more to that section on Ghadir I khum, and Imami shia, the split between Imami twelver and Imami Isma'ili. (Water Stirs (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Wonderful. Make sure you put updates on the bottom of this page, and not the top. I primarily edit the Ismaili article and Template:Ismailism, so coordinate anything you would like by clicking on my name and adding your ideas to my talk page. --Enzuru 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Updates

The list of the Agha Khans formed the proto-history section of the article, I felt that the page required a history beyond that of merely the recent Aga Khans, since creating that section and adding to it sporadically, along with two other section "philosophy" and Community", I decided to move the long histories of the previous Aga Khans to their relevant pages, and kept the current Imam on this one. But it now seems it is worth discussing if his section should move elsewhere on the page.

Also I have not yet added anything regarding the Assassins actual practice of assassination yet to Alamut, so its incomplete. (Water Stirs (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

As I stated on your talk page, everything seems perfect. My suggestion is to move the Aga Khan IV portion after history and rename it "Contemporary times" or something similiar to that. --Enzuru 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a template "Nizari".--Water Stirs (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

History

I'm considering moving the History and Contemporary Isma'ili sections to two new pages, replacing them with 3 brief paragraphs. --86.168.176.170 (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Template

I'm considering adding my orignal template as the generic Ism'aili one appears overly complex to navigate. Water Stirs (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested can look at my work: "Template:Nizārī" Water Stirs (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Citations or References for Information Presented

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.

Alysomji (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fatimids

I deleted two sentences:

1) "The Nizāriyyah are the spiritual descendants of the Fatimid Caliphate (909–1094 CE) and the subsequent "Assassins" of Alamūt under Dā'ī Hassan aṣ-Ṣabbaḥ"

• The first statement re Fatimid Caliphate is simply incorrect - the Nizaris split from the Fatimids in 1094-5, but the Fatimid Caliphate continued for another 100 years (see Hafizis). Although the Hafizi's are extinct, the Mustaalis followed more Fatimid Caliphs than the Nizaris
• Re Hassan-i Sabbah and Alamut, whilst that is perhaps correct, I'm not sure what is means to be a "spiritual decendent" of the Hashshashin. If we want to mention them in the lead, we should just state that when the Nizari-Mustaali split occurred in 1095, the Ismailis at Alamut chose the Nizari path and the early propagation of the Nizarī doctrine was headquartered at Alamut under Hassan-i Sabbah

2) Their history includes the establishment of two states governed by their Imams, including the first Shia Empire, the Fatimid Empire, a considerable feat considering they are small minority of the Shia, who are in turn a minority within Islam, and the Nizari Ismaili state of Alamut.

• Neither of these are true
• The Fatimid State was never Nizari
• The State of Alamut was founded in 1088, seven years before the creation of the Nizari sect. So Nizaris did not "establish" Alamut.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

unclear comment

User:Salim e-a ebrahim|Salim e-a ebrahim]] (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqa → Nizari – Per WP:Commonname, search resutls overwhelmingly in favour of "Nizari" and the page has been moved recently from that name without discussion.[1]. Also, the rationale provided for another recent move (to the current title) seems to be contrary to Wikipedia naming guidelines according to Wikipedia:Official names Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Tachfin (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

While Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqa is the name of the Aqa Khan Imamate Nizaris, not all Nizaris are followers of the Aqa Khan as al-Imam al-Hadhir. We should not replace the description of Nizarism with that of a single sect of Nizaris. I myself am a Nizari of the Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqa but I do not think it is wise to write off all Nizaris who don't follow my Imam. The page should be rewritten to emphasise the centrality of the Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqa in Nizari thought and practice but the Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqa should not displace all Ismailis of the Nizari persuasion by default. We should move the page back to Nizari and merely highlight the role of the majority sect rather than erasing all others. Ogress _smash! 14:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ogress because the Nizaris themselves split into two streams about 500 years ago when the succession to the Nizari Imam Shamsidin Muhammad was disputed by the two sons of the said Imam Shamsidin Muhammad when he had passed away. Many of those Nizaris who were left without an Imam have rejoined the Nizari mainstream that went on under Imam Qasim Shah (son of Imam Shamsidin Muhammad) after the progeny of his claimant brother had come to an end.Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference to what I stated above about the split in the Nizaris about 500 years ago is in the book Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The current title as of this post is Shia Imami Ismaili Nizaris and I think it fits the article perfectly since it details the sub-sect of each branch. It seems tho that the Muhammad-Qasim Shahi split will be presented under its own subheading.Monorealism (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No such page exists nor has it appeared in the last month. Let's return the page to Nizari, as it is awkward, incorrect, and deletes the entire Qasim Shahi branch. Indeed, the very name is ungrammatical: It should be Nizari Ismaili Imami Shia - but that's like listing the entire taxonomy of the branch in the name. We don't call the Twelver branch the Ithna'ashari Imami Shia. Nor, do I hurry to add, should we. Twelver is what people use and it's sensible to boot. Ogress _smash!

The reference below was given by me to show that one of the VERY BEST of the modern historians on the subject of "Nizari Ismailis" i.e. the "Nizaris", cites the name "Nizaris" in the index of his famous book (referenced below) BUT there is no citation/reference whatsoever for the name "Shia Imamis". In other words, the name "Nizari Ismailis" should be retained and not replaced by any other name, whether legit (as in "Shia Imami Ismailis") or false (as in "Hashishins", "Assasins", etc.) for the people known to the world as "Nizaris", the short form for the "Nizari Ismailis", when talking about the Ismailis in general.Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference given below was given by me to show that one of the VERY BEST of the modern historians on the subject of "Nizari Ismailis" i.e. the "Nizaris", cites the name "Nizaris" in the index of his famous book (referenced below) BUT there is no citation/reference whatsoever for the name "Shia Imamis". In other words, the name "Nizari Ismailis" should be retained and not replaced by any other name, whether legit (as in "Shia Imami Ismailis") or false (as in "Hashishins", "Assasins", etc.) for the people known to the world as "Nizaris", the short form for the "Nizari Ismailis", when talking about the Ismailis in general. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:CONCISE Red Slash 23:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Best title selection choices from the root word "Nizari"

I suggest the new title should be "Nizari Ismailism". This will inform the reader that it is the Ismailism that is believed in and practiced by NIZARI Ismailis. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Further to my last suggestion on the appropriate title, please note that the word "Nizari" is not by itself an appropriate title. At the minimum it should be "The Nizaris" or "Nizari Ismailism". Best regards to all. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, as it is a subgrouping just as Twelver isn't Twelver Shi'i Imami Islam so Nizari is not Nizari Isma'ili Imami Shi'i Islam nor are the Mustaali as Musta'li Ismaili Imami Shi'i Islam. Ogress _smash! 22:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ogress: I think you are behind the times. i have no idea what you are talking about NOW. Whatever you said above has all been taken care of by the moved page and it was something I even agreed to with you at the time but now you are just spinning the wheels for no reason at all! THINK: I'm talking about a title that makes SENSE! Nizari by itself means NOTHING!

Here is another possibility for a title: "Nizari Ismailis". Does it make better sense to you, Ogress? Kind regards Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple more interesting observations: 1. The original title was Imamah (Nizari Ismaili doctrine) so that the suggested title Nizari Ismailis is really what Danny (the editor involved with this page move) should have named the new title! 2. The term "Nizari" by itself is an adjective and qualifies the nouns "Ismaili", "Ismailis", "Ismailism", etc. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "behind the times" or 'spinning [my] wheels], Nizari, Mustaali and the Druze are the three Ismaili groups still living today. Nizari does mean something, it means "of the Imamate lineage descended from Nizar" as opposed to "of the Imamate lineage descended from Al-Musta'li" or "of the religious order founded following al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah". It's a solid scholarly term and there's no need to specify that a Nizari is an Ismaili in the page name -- there's no other kind of Nizari, just the Ismaili kind. And yes, we already dealt with this with the page move! Ogress _smash! 11:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is misleading when you say: Nizari ... means "of the Imamate lineage descended from the Fatimid Imam Nizar." As I have explained above that the term "Nizari" is used more as an adjective than a noun. Thus, if you had said "A Nizari IMAM" than your sentence could have been accepted as true. However, the term "Nizari" or "Nizariyya" is for an individual who follows Imam Nizar's lineage. Moreover, we are talking here about the TITLE "Nizari" and not about IMAM NIZAR anyway! Again at the risk of repetition, we are talking here about the Nizari individual who follows Nizar's lineage and we are not talking about the Fatimid Imam Nizar's lineage at all.

Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To Ogress-SMASH: You seem to be taking false pride in your ability to delete thinking that your nickname SMASH

entitles you to act like a hooligan. In fact I find you are mostly ignorant of Nizari history, beliefs and theology but are simply asserting yourself on the Nizari article site with the delete button with appalling hubris. YOU ARE BASICALLY BEING A VANDAL. If you are so intelligent and competent as you pride yourself to be in writing encyclopedic articles in a NPOV manner then please make the attempt to rewrite what I have written if you are at all competent. ANYONE CAN USE THE DELETE BUTTON AND THEN PRETEND TO BE AN INTELLECTUAL. You are not only full of pretense but an actual VANDAL! If you do not desist from recklessly deleting hard work written with care and style then I'll report you as a vandal, a VINDICTIVE VANDAL involved in a revert war.Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is more than just ONE monolithic Islam in this world

Let me clarify on this talk page a few very simple points about Islamic philosophy and Islamic theology that escape most, if not the majority of, Muslims in the world.

1. Islam: Islam is not just ONE Islam which all Muslims follow. There are many Islams. The Quran informs clearly about the pluralism in religion(paraphrased): Each to his own religion and if We (God) had wanted uniformity in belief then We (God) would have done so. Clearly this has also to be true of the pluralism in Islam i.e. Muslims can follow the path (tariqa) of their choice without fear of persecution. This is because there is more than just ONE monolithic Islam in this world.

Therefore, humankind is told BLUNTLY by the Quran to mind its own business as individuals and not criticize or condemn other religions, and by default, the "other" Islams (Islamic paths, ways, creeds, etc.) existing in the world. But no, the Muslims all over the world interfere and fight tooth and nail with everyone else's religions (especially if it is another Islam) but their own as if the believer has committed apostasy (more below) punishable by death! The Wahabi-Taliban Islam is so amazingly arrogant that it even asserts that it will subjugate the entire world to bring it into Islam - with guns and bullets if need be. Talk about pride! Even Satan did not exhibit so much pride when refusing to bow before Adam.

2. Apostasy: Apostasy is not an ethic of Islam. It is a human vice - a communal vice. It was created by the First Rashidun Caliph Abu Bakr and has since been upheld as the "hadith" of Caliph Abu Bakr. This hadith has no value in Islam as do those of Prophet Mohammad. This is a vice generated by the veryfirst Muslim Government after the death of the Prophet out of sheer political expediency.

If you as a Muslim find this fact offensive then it does not mean that you close your eyes and pretend that it is not true.

3. Blasphemy: Blasphemy was never an issue in the Classical Age of Islam. As Muslims lost their dominance in knowledge and reverted back to ignorance, the ignorant Muslim Ullama pretending to be very erudite about Islamic ethics simply brought the repugnancy of blasphemy into being once again. It is simply a custom in some of the Islams of the world (unfortunately most) but it is NOT - repeat NOT - an ethic of Islam.

4. Honor Killings: Honor Killings are not at all a part of Islam! When even the killing of animals for no valid reason is forbidden in Islam then how can killing of human beings be a part of Islam? Even the killing of a single human being is looked upon (by the Quran) as the killing of the entire human race. Therefore, this is just a sick, repulsive cultural custom turned into a so-called "Islamic custom" by the a society's leaders: stupid at best and wicked at worst.

5. Rape: Rape is a violent assault with battery mostly perpetrated by men on women (the weaker gender). The Western world, as licentious as it is, is more intelligent and ethical to note this fact and enact it into their legal systems and yet this simple legal truth about rape seems to escape almost the entire Muslim world! How can a raped woman be punished for adultery? It baffles the mind to think that Islams all over the world punish the raped woman even to the extent of publicly whipping even young retarded girls brutally raped by “Muslim” men. It makes me cringe as a Muslim when these types of examples are repeatedly shown by the media of the world to demo the "justice" of the so-called "Islamic" Sharia. Whose Sharia belonging to which Islam? Most certainly it is NOT the "Prophet's Sharia" wherein the fellow would have ended up with the death or had his balls removed as an example to every other rapist to think twice before ruining the entire life of a woman. There are societies that even condone kidnapping and raping a woman by a man and then praising the man when he offers to marry the raped woman as if he is doing the woman and society a great favor. Clearly the party that befits from this type of a grotesque custom will bring religion into it and call it "Islamic" i.e. men targeting women as potential wives without having to engage in the prenuptial arrangements required by the real Islam in terms of engaging the women's families and providing certain financial guarantees in case of divorce.

Have you ever asked that question instead of jumping to the conclusion that it is the one and only Islam that asserts this revolting injustice on raped women? Islam (the Prophet's Islam) freed women 1400 years before the Western world by giving women the right to divorce, to have custody over their young children, to have the right to pursue knowledge and education, to have the right to hold money and property and do business in their own name. All of this IS the "Prophet's Islam" because it is known as "the traditions of the Prophet" in Islam, a Prophet who engaged himself thoroughly in the affairs of his very, very backward society so as to civilize them - and which he did! So, when we deny all these rights to Muslim women in the 21st Century (after 1400 years!) it is because the Muslims have reverted back to the pre-Islamic era of the jahilliya, the age of total ignorance before the coming of Prophet Mohammad in Arabia.

In the Wikipedia proper, information is often presented by me to illustrate the beliefs of the Islam as practiced by Nizari Ismailism versus e.g. Wahabism under Nizari beliefs. That does not make my article an essay and nor is it polemic because it does not attack Wahabism but only illustrates its beliefs versus the beliefs of NIzari Ismailism.

 Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a Nizari Muslima, and also, don't attack me in personal edits. Ogress _smash! 14:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have simply explained and countered here what you, in fact, publicly accused and attacked me (of being unschooled in the art of writing for Wikipedia) and asserted yourself as the Guru of Gurus. You again vandalized a joint effort article by COMPLETELY DELETING TWO WHOLE SECTIONS and you have then the temerity to assert that I am attacking you!Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

There is a disagreement between myself and another editor, User:Salim e-a ebrahim, about a large section of text that editor has inserted into the page. Ogress _smash! 04:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I object to the material as WP:OR, uncited (with some unreliable citation), and polemical. The other editor has objected to my edits with some vituperative language, not assuming good faith (for example, claiming I am anti-Ismaili when in fact I am myself a Nizari) and by rolling back constructive edits I have done subsequent to removing his content (grammar and the like). I firmly think this material does not belong; instead, cited supplements should be added to existing sections, which cover most of the material. Ogress _smash! 04:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To JPJORDAN, Admin: Here is Ogress back to her bag of tricks: you will note that she is trying to frighten me into doing nothing AFTER DELETING MATERIAL THAT HAS REFERENCES on the Nizari page without making any effort to EDIT or TALK about the material that has been there FOR MONTHS. I had done nothing more than to take her to task for telling me in public what she herself did not want to be told i.e. that she was herself not a competent writer instead of telling me that! But I made the mistake of using a couple of angry words in response to her COMPLETELY DISTORTED COMMENT on my Talk Page which caused me to react (EXCELLENT BAIT by Ogress) and I got nabbed for that by you. Now, when I have asked her to tell me THE EXACT WORDS that offended her, she is least bothered to tell me where I had offended her INITIALLY because she knows that I'll expose her by showing that I had used the exact same words that Ogress had used to tell me off publicly.

She is now posing FALSELY as an ADMINISTRATOR and using language that only Admin use i.e. giving warnings: so here she is "giving me a SECOND warning" as if her warning has the same weight as that of an ADMINISTRATOR. So Ogress is being untruthful when she says it is a SECOND warning and trying to FREEZE ME from doing anything to the Nizari page. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not at all relevant to this RFC, but it is indicative of the problem being faced here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Ogress purposely does minimal cleanup work but removes huge amounts of hard work because she has an opinion of her own on Nizari Ismailism regardless of HEAVYWEIGHT REFERENCES given like Henry Corbin, Daftary, etc. She then makes very offensive comments on my talk page so that I react with anger because she "warns" me not to change any content under pain of being banned not clarifying that she is saying so not as an admin who can IMMEDIATELY block an editor but simply threatening to REPORT the matter to an Admin. This is a half-truth and half-truths in effect is simply lying in a cunning manner. So then a person like me has to go to the grinding board and reinsert all the wiped out data or else to a revert. If a revert is done then Ogress cries foul because some of her miniscule cleanup work gets erased. So. the HONEST way for her would be to do the minimal cleanup work and then make a separate edit in which she just does the deleting and she can then say that it is an essay or the references are outdated and useless etc etc as she is want to do. It would still be OK because then the aggrieved person does a simple revert. THAT OGRESS IS NOT GOING TO DO but does the very opposite. ADD TO THIS THE PROBLEM OF MY BEING STATIONED IN PAKISTAN AT PRESENT WHERE THE ELECTRICITY SIMPLY GOES UNANNOUNCED - I am praying right now that it does not go because I can lose all this detailed explanation! And so plse forgive any typos here.

Now let me give you an idea of how the actual wordplay can be excruciatingly difficult to write as per the example below which took me 30 MINUTES TO REWRITE in order to make it easy for Westerners like you to understand the HUGE differences between the different Islams in this world: "The Nizari Ismaili tradition is unique in that it is the only tradition that bears witness to the continuity of the hereditary divine authority vested in the Imamim-Mubeen. In all the Sunni traditions, the Imamim-Mubeen is interpreted as the Quran itself; and in all the Shia traditions except the Shia Nizari tradition it is interpreted as the last Imam of a dynasty who went into occultation. However, in Nizari Ismailism, it is interpreted as a living human Imam who is never ever in occultation and who will never ever be absent from this world but will always be perpetually present and physically alive designated as the inheritor of the Imamat from father to son. This tradition has continued over 1400 years from Ali to the present Imam-of-the-Time, Prince Karim al-Hussaini Aga Khan, the 49th hereditary Imam and direct descendant of Mohammad through Ali and Zahra."

Compare this version with the previous one by going to the edited versions shown side by side JUST for this ONE paragraph which I have edited and saved and you will see that there is a huge difference in the way you will understand this matter as opposed to the way edited by Ogress who EVEN removed the word NIZARI before Ismailism which I had placed originally, and she did this in spite of this webpage being a Nizari Ismailism page. By putting in her own term "Ismailism" she CONFUSES EVERYONE INCLUDING HERSELF if she is really a Nizari as she claims to be! "Ismailism" in the generic sense DOES NOT EXIST but Ogress keeps claiming it does by mentioning the Mustaali Ismailism, the Druze and the Nizari Ismailism. BUT EACH ONE OF THEM IS DIFFERENT AS DIFFERENT CAN BE FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. One reason you saw is in the understanding of the "Imamim-Mubeen" which differs in a bewildering manner in Islam and is the IDENTIFYING MARK of the Nizari Ismaili. So how come Ogress REMOVED the word IMAMIM_MUBEEN and replaced it with the simple word "Imam"? Because she is either a non-Nizari or does not know the importance of the concept in Nizari Ismailism. If it is general Ismailism being discussed then OK but if it is NIZARI Ismailism being talked about then it is NOT OK AT ALL, AT ALL, AT ALL!

As you will see from the 2 versions the difference is like the earth and the sky!! Please take the trouble to see this difference and then you will understand that I no longer look to Ogress as acting in GOOD FAITH because she NEVER accepted my goodwill when I even posted my email (now removed - I think) in case of problems between us in the future as a possible method to rectify them amicably (at least it would have been nice of her to say hello in order to remove any tensions between us but instead she has bent over backwards to create the greatest tension between us). I did this because I was pleased with the page MOVE but the name "Nizari" by itself leaves much to be desired. I appealed to her sense of the English Language which she takes great pride in (by telling me openly that my English more or less stinks) and explained (as seen in the discussion on that above) that "Nizari" by itself is a loose term and even the addition of the definite article "The" would make it a better sounding title. But no! If you look at her arguments above you will gasp at her rigidity and then the unbelievable lack of logic in the way she countered my plea - and that's when I realized that Ogress' motivations in this whole project are very questionable. Not fair to say this? Well then check out the matter of the Imamim-Mubeen and the matter of the title on the section for some extra word for the Nizari Title as started by me above.

I better go now before any sudden blackout! Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. One way to resolve it is both to back away. Another is to move it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard It is not a Request for Comment matter, really. Fiddle Faddle 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Changed my mind on venue. But, seriously, why not both start to find points you agree on and work from there? Islamic scholars spend their lives disagreeing, why not set them an example of how opposing viewpoints can work in harmony? Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello hello hello there! Muslims have not agreed on this or a 1000 other issues for a millennium and more and it is not going to happen now! As you have seen from reading that one single paragraph that it is a very complex matter when the concerned person (the Aga Khan) is actually alive and living in the world. Many of his ancestors were killed for this very reason as heretics posing as God incarnated on earth because that is an abominable belief to every Muslim under the sun except the Nizaris - and they are not going to tell you this to your face. So now please tell me was it not interesting for you to get to know the secret inside story of the Nizari belief system wherein an incarnated God is living on this very earth posing as an individual human being?! Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this matter of content dispute is being encouraged by the Admin jpgordon to take place as RFC as created by Ogress who considers herself to be an expert on Wiki matters. jpgordon is a diifcult Admin as you will see from the reply I wrote (see below) on his Talk Page in reply to his comment made by him to me there. Here is my understanding on how jpgordon and Ogress tango together on this RFC matter and perhaps you Timtrent can make jpgordon see sense as an Admin to another Admin:

I'm not going to help you with your content dispute with Ogress; I have no idea whatsoever who is wrong and who is right, and I don't care. ----jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You told me that since I was warned by Ogress not to revert her change then that had made it a second warning to me. She implied that the first warning was from you. Had I reverted her edit then you would have blocked me for sure. Am I correct? So by your threat to me to block me and her threat to me to block me you both together make a team of two and thus have won the day and got me to freeze up from reverting on the Nizari Wiki Page. So then where is the Admin impartiality in the matter? But as you so eloquently say, "... and I don't care."

Next you say I am trying to add too much material at one go by reverting Ogress' deletion of two entire articles that had been there for months. But you have conveniently ignored the fact that Ogress had removed at a single click all that much material that was already existing there in the first place! She had simply removed it all including the references! So I am wrong when I try to add back all that was removed by her but Ogress is doing no wrong by deleting in that reckless if not vicious, manner? And then you actually say you don't care as to why it was all removed in the first place by Ogress even tho I tell you why!

Next, Panda comes along and tells me that my edit-summaries are completely unacceptable. But how can he not have read Ogress' edit-summaries which makes me respond to her in like manner? I say, okay, please tell me what and where you found it so terrible even if it is just a couple out of the many edits he says he has actually seen. As you can see, Panda has not bothered to reply. Clearly, I would have simply asked him to look at Ogress' edit-summaries a step before mine and then tell me whether they are, as he puts it, "They aren't even acceptable for one human to say to another." I tell you that Ogress lied to you when she reported that I had abused her in some manner and that's why I blew up and used a couple strong words at her hypocrisy and lying. But you simply said on the Nizari talk page that it was not relevant! Clearly, Admin Panda had thought it to be relevant! But now he too has conveniently disappeared from the scene.

Isn't best practice relevant to Wiki Admin? After all Wiki goes out of its way on the RFC (Request foe Comments) page to say so to the extent that if it finds out that the commentators have been brought in by any one party to influence the outcome then those comments will be voided. But you are Ogress' best ally on the Nizari Talk Page and you are extremely rude in the way you speak to me by saying "... and I don't care". So may I ask you why you are monitoring the RFC for the Nizari Page and why you will be giving the resulting decision at the end of the discussion? So what do you care about if all you care is to make sure that not only does Ogress have her way on the editing side of the Nizari Page during the discussion and after it you will make sure she gets her way in your decision that will follow. Don't you care that you are so obviously biased in her favor and completely prejudiced against me? I'll put this on the Nizari RFC to see what others think about all this.

Next point: I tell Ogress on her Talk Page to tell me the exact words I had used that had initially made her tell me so rudely and brazenly on my User Talk Page that I had abused her. Of course she ignored this request because it would show that she had used the same type of commenting in the same public place!

Next point: I give you an example of how an old edit had been changed by Ogress because of her lack of understanding of the word "Imamim-Mubeen" and that I had replaced that paragraph with a new one because I realized that if Muslims like Ogress did not know &/or understand that concept then what to say of everyone else? So I edited a new paragraph in its place and put the word back in. Ogress seems to have accepted it so far - but that's only because her attempt to edit out the aforesaid word (Mubeen) as a useless appendage that it had alerted me to the need for an explanatory type of paragraph to explain its meaning. But these types of paragraphs are extremely hard to source.

Next: when I told you on your Talk Page why such information from oral sources (hymns and epistles) is extremely difficult to source [which Ogress makes a point to emphasize every time she deletes something by calling it either unsourced, or "outdated references" (what the heck does "outdated references" mean?) or "essay writing"] you rudely told me not to bother you on your Talk Page. Can't you be polite when you are supposed to be a mentor on Wiki? Here below is the concerned paragraph so that now you will hopefully see that it is very relevant indeed to the RFC and the way Ogress works to remove things (which is easier to do) and the way I work to add things (which is much, much harder to do): The Nizari Ismaili tradition is unique in that it is the only tradition that bears witness to the continuity of the hereditary divine authority vested in the Imamim-Mubeen. In all the Sunni traditions, the Imamim-Mubeen is interpreted as the Quran itself; and in all the Shia traditions except the Shia Nizari tradition it is interpreted as the last Imam of a dynasty who went into occultation. However, in Nizari Ismailism, it is interpreted as a living human Imam who is never ever in occultation and who will never ever be absent from this world but will always be perpetually present and physically alive designated as the inheritor of the Imamat from father to son. This tradition has continued over 1400 years from Ali to the present Imam-of-the-Time, Prince Karim al-Hussaini Aga Khan, the 49th hereditary Imam and direct descendant of Mohammad through Ali and Zahra.

Next you tell me off that I yell at you even tho it was about 7 words in 500 used as emphasis. Couldn't you have simply said, "Hey Salim, don't use the upper case at all because it is considered yelling," and I would have been mentored in the etiquette of the letters usage. Instead you behaved as if a red flag had been shown to a bull and after that nothing else in my post to you mattered except the red that was now before your eyes because of a simple error in the use of the caps. Do you at all realize that your own behavior is unforgivable?

Last point: I looked up Panda's Talk Page and lo and behold, I saw that Panda also behaves in the same way you do because there is a post there from a person (I think it was "Mindy" or some such name) and she actually told Panda that altho he had supported her in her contention with another person, it was wrong to block him because in fact she had realized from the man's appeal to her that the fault had been hers to begin with. My goodness! Panda had blocked a poor fellow from the page in question and was least bothered to look into the matter when appealed to (just like you!) and it took the woman called Mindy to reverse Panda's decision and unblock the fellow by accepting her own mistake without anyone's pressure on her! What a great person and what a poor showing of Admin ability to monitor best practice on Wiki.

Therefore, may I ask you (jpgordon) what do you care about and what is it you are monitoring on the Nizari Talk Page? Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mostly for what first brought me to your attention: posts like "You are a vindictive, offensive, obnoxious, arrogant and foolish person". I scan your remarks to make sure that your personal attacks on other Wikipedia volunteers do not resume. Other editors brought here by the RFC hopefully will make substantive comments about the disputed content, if your long screeds don't drive them away. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

jpGordon, fair reply and it is now for me to show you that what looks so damning about my explosive outburst at Ogress has substance behind altho that is not an excuse for my harsh denigration of her for outrightly deleting without replacing any material in its stead - thus leaving the reader without any info, essay or not. If she is a good writer then we are all waiting for someone like that to help us write in a better NPOV style. But to remove info by the ton and then sit back and gloat is not amusing to anyone who has put in scores of hours.

Please consider what Admin Timtrent who helps develop articles said about the matter deleted by Ogress: that it is a matter for Content Dispute and not a matter of RFC. That's exactly what I kept telling Ogress but in so many words by asking her to rectify whatever she found unacceptable and to work together with us the old block who have been at it for a couple of years I think; to help make a fine article in the same manner everyone has to work with the original writers.

When I first came into the picture I did not step in like Ogress is doing at the present time: deleting work at one sweep and asserting her superiority as if to say "only I am fit to write articles in line with the Wiki standards and if and when I do, everyone can wait." Instead, I recognized the existing writers'input and interest and the fact that they had started the whole thing when I was not even there. Therefore, I worked with them to slowly get it to the place where it was now. Along comes Ogress and at one swipe removes 2 whole sections completely without putting anything in its place! That's terrible hubris!

Just to write one paragraph I have often to read a couple of books by searching in their indexes and the reading effort can take up to even 90 to 120 minutes! So, naturally I finally exploded when Ogress attacked me with her own vituperation on my talk page but couched in careful so as to be not blamed for abuse in language altho she abused all the Wiki principles of working with harmony and goodwill and respect for the work already existing as at least a good faith effort of those who had tried their best. Just a little bit of goodwill on her part would have gone a long way when twice I had to revert those 2 sections on a blank screen.

I am a resident of the state of WA and a graduate from a US univ. Does my English have grammar errors in this write up? Then why does Ogress write such stuff as this publicly: "... (opposed editor is) rolling back constructive edits I have done subsequent to removing his content (grammar and the like)."

Here is the subtle trickery: she is saying she did, "constructive edits I have done subsequent to removing his content (grammar and the like)" meaning that the existing article was first deleted and THEN she did constructive editing to improve the English (grammar and the like). She is lying thru her teeth! Every time she would in the same edit delete (the 2 aforesaid lengthy sections with references) and do a MINIMAL amount of so-called "constructive" editing so that when I rolled the edit back her minimal cleanup work in only a couple of paragraphs would get wiped out. Then she was able to cry "foul!" because I was wiping out her cleanup work done by my revert because she had lied and not separated the delete from the editing. When she kept on doing this sly mischief again and again I started calling these deletes "vandalism" etc. instead of getting an editor like you to stop her from creating a revert war. When she was herself ready having provoked me 3 to 4 times by a revert war, she got a complaint filed and then left me with just the right amount of vituperation on my talk page that would substantiate her point to a watching editor. I exploded at her lies and hypocrisy with, "You are a vindictive, offensive, obnoxious, arrogant and foolish person" because some of her editing is distorting (like I pointed out above i.e. about the meaning of "Imamim-Mubeen" to simplistic "Imam"). And naturally I got into bad trouble for my language. OK - lesson learnt.

In the deleted sections there was a lot of material which was rebutting info from other Wiki sites equating the Nizaris with Hashishins, Assassins, etc. and the fact that the famous Italian explorer/traveler Marco Polo was the biggest offender of them all for imaginary story-telling about the ancient Nizaris to get fans for his travelogues (I had rephrased and scaled down the attack on Marco Polo altho I had provided a reference to this when challenged by another editor about Marco Polo - and he challenged it in a wonderfully cooperative way). Therefore, Ogress removing all the references along with her deleting entire sections was criminal, even if it were not intentional - because one does not simply delete a thousand words and not be called an offensive person even if it were muttered under one's breath.

She admits to her wrongdoing but you'd never guess that it was an admission when she says: "I firmly think this material does not belong; instead, cited supplements should be added to existing sections, which cover most of the material." Very sophisticated way of making monkeys out of everyone to get her way as if the entire article was hogwash. Yes, I have no doubt at all that Ogress is not at all acting in Good Faith - not at all!

If she found that the section "Origins (of the Nizaris)" was reading improperly e.g. not reading in the NPOV style then her duty was to help by rewriting to enhance the article, by researching for references. Nizari Ismailism Studies is a very new field of study at American, Canadian and European universities as opposed to Jewish or Christian or even Islamic Studies. So researching can yield wonderful results because all kinds of books, original manuscripts (in translation), and research papers are coming out all the time now about the Nizari Muslims. Thus, Ogress had simply to use her sandbox and "experiment" (to use her own words to me) with enhancing the article(s) concerned - slowly and steadily one section or even less (if time did not permit her) at a time - and replace the info there with better info so that the Wiki reader is not left out in the cold with a completely blank page as is now the case in terms of the sections BELIEF and SUCCESSION. Another shorty short paragraph on Nizari beliefs somewhere down the line is saying nothing at all about the deep insider beliefs of the Nizaris!

What I shall do now is to stop these long explanations which take away a lot of time and use all that time to go back to those 2 sections and rewrite them as best as I can because everything cannot be sourced by referring to a sparkling new publication so as to give a very polished appearance to the article as Ogress is proposing to do - or otherwise do away with the article completely including references to handbooks of hymns without named publishers (even the Christian Bible is reproduced from unknown writers like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Books and booklets in Nizari Ismailism exist from centuries ago. Who knows who the writer or the publisher was of those hymns except a generic name like Mark or Luke? Thus in a very secretive religion like Nizari Ismailism with its concepts (like the concept of Imamim-Mubeen as interpreted by the Nizaris as opposed to the entire Sunni Muslim world which interprets it as the "Quran" or the entire world of Shia Islam which interprets it as the Imam in occultation) is not going to be easy to source - and yet I had done it in the section on BELIEF! Needless to say, Ogress removed all that intriguing information and very demanding translation of the hymn as well as the source of the hymn in an ancient Indian language. Therefore, the reader and researcher who comes to find answers in Wikipedia to difficult questions about Nizari Ismailism goes away empty handed instead of being fulfilled with amazingly enticing and mystifying information.

On the other hand, a person like you as an Admin on RFC will look at the 90% comments and decide that the true interpretation of the above is "Quran". But articles on Wiki are NOT about majority decision i.e. consensus. Timtrent got it right when he thot some more about the problem and said the second time around that it was for sure a matter of "Content Dispute" and not a matter of both editors backing off! Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Three points:

1. I am not an admin, nor will I ever apply to be one.
2. That is not what I said. Do not put words into my mouth.
3. Everything that you say is WP:TLDR And I have not read more than a few words.

I do know enough, though, to know a content dispute when I see one. This is one. It needs to stop being one. You two need to start to get on and work together. Try hard and you may find you can actually do it. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent: I had viewed your talk page before commenting here and seeing the barnstars or some such awards and appreciations given to you I assumed you to be an Admin. I thot to be an Admin was considered to be a powerful individual - my apologies to you for assuming.

Coming back to your point that what I had written (before your comment) was overlong: Well, I went back to my comment to read it like I was you, a busy person who did not want details about the dispute but simply what I (Salim) had to say about what I (Tim) had written. Do you know what? I was pleasantly surprised to find that I had paragraphed my comment in such a way that I (Tim) could tell from reading the first line of a paragraph what I (Salim) was going to say next so that I (Salim) was able to zero in and read what applied to me without having to go thru a lot of details on the nitty gritty of the how and why of the conflict with Ogress.

I finished reading the whole comment in a matter of a few minutes only by having actually read only a fraction of the whole comment! So, it is, in fact, a well written comment because it is meant for a variety of audiences - and that is extremely difficult writing - writing with clarity and good formatting so that people find the meat of what they are looking for by whizzing thru the paragraphs. After all, if you had read some of the info the first time around when you had written your comment then most certainly you did not need to read the detailed stuff of whatever did not apply to you :) Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent: You are very convinced that if Muslims with their different belief systems (e.g. Ogress and I demo a microcosm of the problem), different because of our different Islams, then we would be able to come to a compromise if we just made the effort. Very correct but goodwill, pluralism and open-mindedness are prerequisites.

I am not even sure any more that it is a good idea to present the belief system of the Nizaris vis-a-vis the different customs in Islam as presented by the different Islamic schools of the world (the way I have outlined these in this talk page under the section titled "There is more than just ONE monolithic Islam in this world") as if these are the "Ethics of Islam". Then for sure there would be an avalanche of Muslims objecting to the article as polemic, anti-Islam, blasphemy, etc as Ogress has already said so of my article on Nizari beliefs when it just made a small reference to Wahabi Islam in the matter of Apostasy. So thank you Ogress for alerting me to what would be a 100 times more difficult matter dealing with 1000 people all clamoring I was being polemic and anti-Islamic.

Even saying that there are Islams and not just THE one Islam can get me killed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia among other countries where Wahabism has influence e.g. Pakistan's gifted teenage girl Malala was SHOT by the Taliban in Pakistan for the simple act of asserting women's right to education and criticizing the Taliban for denying this right. Can you imagine that happening in the USA where even Jesus Christ is presented in a questionable manner vis-a-vis his relationships, politics, ad infinitum? When Muslims blow up girls' schools and thus exert their "Islam" with a bomb then good God, I have to be one heck of an idiot to be talking about the questionable cultural customs of Islamic peoples all over the world (not just Pakistan) POSING FALSELY as Islam's ethics (Sharia).

But even if I pursued the matter in spite of the physical danger, I'd have to spend my whole life defending the article from an eternal sea of objectors - so who has the time for that meaningless activity? This experience has taught me that it is more or less a waste of time editing stuff on the Wikipedia on controversial issues because one has to be politically correct.Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins are not powerful individuals. They are the janitors of this place, and are simply those who desire and are trusted with the mop and bucket.

To work together well does not even require you to like each other. Nor does ot require you to believe the same thing. All it requires is the intent to see where you agree and where you disagree, and the recognition of those areas. Then you negotiate what areas you will work in harmony on. That is not hard. At the same time that you agree the places of harmony, you agree the areas where you have the inability ever to agree. Those areas you decide, in harmony, to leave to others.

Wikipedia works by consensus. It does not record the absolute truth of anything. Read WP:TRUTH. Two people in opposition do not make a consensus. Two people ion harmony are the foundation of a consensus (which may be overturned if others in different harmony provide the better arguments)

So make peace, even if you are in the right and have the moral high ground.

This is religion/faith/belief. Why would you be in agreement? Islam is not unique in this. Look at all the people with a belief in some manner of supreme being or power. Either walk away from the article or edit it in harmony with others. Fiddle Faddle 07:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent: YOU ARE ON! I expect you will be part of the consensus nucleus - if not the NEUTRAL team leader. With your experience in Wiki style of writing and with a neutral attitude you would be just the ideal person to help Ogress and me bury the hatchet. I'm willing to start right away with re-editing my work in the sandbox and presenting it here, if you like, with an open attitude to you, Ogress and anybody else interested in joining the CONSENSUS GROUP. :) Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It is exceedingly difficult for me to work with you when you throw massive, insulting essays full of caps at me. You also seem to be immune to my repeated attempts to tell you that I am also a Nizari Ismaili and have no ideological conflicts with you, not that this is relevant to an article on an encyclopedia.

My conflict with you instead revolves around
# your un-wiki material, which is comprised of badly-edited original research and also reads like a personal statement of belief and
# your subsequent inability to interact with other users on this topic in a combination of screed, insults and internet raging.

If you want to write on Wikipedia, you need to accept (sometimes harsh) criticism, rewriting and deletion of your work; it happens to my work all the time. Ogress _smash! 13:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ogress: As for our past behaviors, we've both had enough of it, I think :(

Let's carve out a new path with Timtrent as a bridge between all of us that want the best in output for our Nizari page. I am quite willing to take harsh criticism because when I myself edit screenplays and fiction, I do not flatter the person paying me for the editing because I expect a professional to keep to the standards of their professional expertise. Having said that I hope you will now be gentler in the way you delete work knowing that it takes effort to write anything at all and so you have to make your point as a mentor.

Another interesting item is the matter of references. You had said something like "outdated" sources. In my thinking sources cannot ever get outdated. Sure, they can be shown to be non-legit but that's another story. You had deleted powerful researchers and authors (like Henry Corbin, Farhad Daftary, etc.) who had/have spent their entire lives on Nizari history studying documents in the original languages like Arabic, Persian, the Indo-Pak languages and dialects, etc.

We'll also have to make the best of even the oral traditions so that if we can show a link to a hymn online (with this newfangled technology some of these fabulous hymns are actually transliterated and even sung online) then we must make use of such fabulous sources. I'd like us to venture into these newer areas of referencing sources other than the spick-and-span written works published by university presses so that there is no debate on their authenticity. With a tradition like that of the Nizari that stretches back 14 centuries, we have to be able to make comparisons to the sacred literature like the Gospel and say that if Mark and Luke wrote their books and are quoted then why not the same for the great Nizari poets and philosophers like Nasir Khusrow, Pir Shams, Shams Tabrizi, Pir Sadardin, Hasan Kabirdin, Indra Imam Shah, Imam Begum, and so many, many others. Only a miniscule of their work has been translated into English but we cannot just leave everything out - after all, the Wiki page is on Nizaris and not on any other religion! So, we must try and accommodate these sources because clearly these sources will not have the front pages telling us the publisher, place, year, etc.

Thus, I dare say that as one Nizari to another, it should be comparatively easier for us to see eye-to-eye on this and other matters without us raising storms in a tea cup :) [Did I hear you sigh, "Here we go again!"? I'll try to keep my explanations down to pint-size.] Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Assuming you are both willing to attempt to work in harmony I believe that you should l each be trusted to work without an intermediary. I have no knowledge of nor interest Islam nor any other religion. On that basis I will never discuss points in the article itself. I am only interested in :behaviours.

I suggest you embrace the following behaviours:

1. Discuss, without passion, without insults, without even using adjectives, how you will work together, and agree this between the two of you. Draw a line under the past. But, if it shows signs of reappearing, walk away
2. Agree areas where you cannot work together. Ideally each of you leave these areas alone, unless you build a consensus on the talk page for the edits you believe are required. Both of you will respect that consensus.
3. Never, not ever, not once, insult or abuse the other, not here, and nowhere else.

Now, see if you can do it. Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for the editing protocol for the Nizari page:

1. Edit and do not delete material. Deleting is easy and the hurtful and lazy way out because it is just a click away. Editing takes grueling hours to research and then write to substitute the existing material.

2. Deleting: If you have to delete then be honest and save the delete as a stand alone delete without doing any further editing in the same exercise so that you are giving a chance to the original editor to revert the delete if they are not accepting a simple delete of a 1000 words that had existed for over a year. After the save of the delete you can do any further editing on its own stand alone basis. In other words don't mix deleting huge chunks of information with miniscule editing 200 lines down the page - that is dishonesty and/or insincerity of purpose by hiding behind the typos corrected and explaining it as constructive editing when in fact the motive is to wipe out the 1000 word article.

3.NPOV: this is the required style by Wiki. If an editor forgets half way down and starts to make his own POV then by all means bring that to their attention - but do it by rewriting in the preferred style rather than deleting the material outright unless it is really trash and not useful at all.

4. Polemics and/or anti-Islam writing: To write into the article matter that is controversial is not being polemical as long as it has a reference e.g. the German expert PUIN on Arabic and the Quran has written a book on his experiences in the Yemen find of the huge trove of the Quran documents. His studies showed that the Quran has been changed since its original version was written down so that there were indeed other versions of the Quran before the present Quran that the Muslims consider as always having been the one and the only one. To delete that as a polemic or anti-Islam is absolute ignorance just because it goes against the grain in our Muslim belief system - just like it went against the belief of the Christian world when something similar was scientifically proved thru forensics and literary comparisons that the New Testament has undergone changes in its text and the authorship is a mixed bag of writers. One is acting with great hubris if they think they are doing Islam a favor by removing legitimately referenced information by a single press of the delete button. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have to agree with JPGordon: I'm not going to help you with your content dispute with Ogress; I have no idea whatsoever who is wrong and who is right, and I don't care. Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you are in the picture SW3 5DL. When even Timtrent as a respected writer is not interested in getting into the nitty gritty of the article content then how in heaven's name would an Administrator like gpgordon be able to get into the content of any article with umpteen items calling for his attention except where it is proven prima facie that there is vandalism based insertions in an article? He came into the picture because there was a revert war going on with name calling (between two NIZARI editors at that!) and his job, as he has himself explained it, is to maintain the peace. The rest is up to the editors like us who believe they have something useful to contribute to the article under preview.

I proposed the protocol that you read above for the writing of the article AFTER Timtrent had made the suggestion that we (especially Ogress and I since we were at each other's throats) get down to deciding what will keep all of us united in the production of the article as a team. That, my dear friend and hopefully a future co-editor, is the basis for the writing of the protocol.

But, I see that you as a participant editor are not interested in the editing of my article section (Origin of the Fidai) because no one has yet made an effort to edit my latest input further; but what is more amazing to me is that also no one has made an effort to improve on the aforesaid protocol! So where does that leave us? Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Are women treated equally?

Are women treated equally? In education? During marriage? In divorce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nizari Isma'ilism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article needs improved grammar, expantion on theology and practices, and photographs to help break up text.

Last edited at 18:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://shamsitabriz.blogspot.com/2006_12_31_archive.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jihad

The article says the Nizari believe in seven pillars of Islam, then says there six and lists them.

What's missing is Jihad. Was this removed for political reasons? IAmNitpicking (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

See this edit. It might have been removed because there was a citation-needed template. The next edit adjusted the number of pillars from seven to six, but perhaps not throughout the article. All done without explanation. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)