Talk:Ismaili/Archive 1

General

All info prior to 2 Aug 2003 has been completely replaced on 16 Aug 2003 by 171.67.88.19. I don't know how to merge them. --Menchi 01:28, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That version was a copy from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/i/ismaili.htm, so I reverted to the 2 Aug version. RickK 01:31, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

//ANyway, the whole information is more or less wrong. There really was an alamut, and there really was Hassan ibn Sabbahs rule, and afterwards a large stronghold-empire more or less on the same basis as Al QUaida. doh. SInan was the leader in the syrian region, approx. 100 years after Sabbah. Alamut got wiped out by Hulegu as he came smashing down the mountains. There is a professor from a university in Syria that wrote the serious book. Cant remember his name. Good egghunt. robin_lefay

There is a factual error. Ali was the cousin of Muhammad not his nephew. The later part is corect that Ali was married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima

Be bold and correct! :-) --Menchi 06:26, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All info prior to 2 Aug 2003 has been completely replaced on 16 Aug 2003 by171.67.88.19. I don't know how to merge them. --Menchi 01:28, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That version was a copy from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/i/ismaili.htm, so I reverted to the 2 Aug version. RickK 01:31, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is a factual error. Ali was the cousin of Muhammad not his nephew. The later part is corect that Ali was married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima

Be bold and correct! :-) --Menchi 06:26, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--- With respect to the Nizari Ismaili portion, who are the followers of the Aga Khan, would it not make sense simply to request an authentification check by the Institute of Ismaili Studies in London?

I would also recommend using the crux from following links: http://www.akdn.org/imamat/imamat.html http://www.akdn.org/imamat/community_history.html http://www.akdn.org/imamat/community_20th.html

I would also highly recommend bringing in the AKDN's Ethical Framework document, which talks about the core ethics of Nizari Ismailism (it's a very good five pages): http://www.iis.ac.uk/learning/life_long_learning/akdn_ethical_framework/akdn_ethical_framework.htm

\AW

History of the Nizari Ismaili Community in the 20th Century

I don't know if this info is right or wrong but I know PR bumf when I read it. This is hagiography, not description and should be deleted. I've got nothing against Ismailis, but this clearly is not written from a neutral point of view.

I do know that the Aga Khan was a member of the jet set, very wealthy and socially prominent. His son was quite the playboy. For all I know there's nothing wrong with that. But it deserves mention.

Both leaders of the Isma'ili have contributed to the welafare and unity of their reletive communities, ::I think discussing schisms, and the reasons behind them is entirly valid, however the jet set, high :::life would be better suited to the tabloids and Hello, then Wiki.--Water Stirs 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Ismailis

When is somebody going to write an article on the other Sever group, the Daoodi Bohras, who split Ismailism when they rejected Nizar in favor of his brother Al-Musta'li during the Egyptian Fatimid dynasty?

It's not that I care personally, I'm not Muslim let alone Dawoodi, it's just that it doesn't seem fair to talk only of the Aga Khan's Khojas when discussing Ismailis. It's a bit like discussing Protestantism without mentioning the Baptists.

One interesting angle is that, from what I've read about the Bohras they're far closer to "traditional" Islam in their outward practice than the Agakhanids; I remember very dimly one reference saying that except for their Muharram observance (which the Khojas don't bother with much) they're closer in practice to the Sunnis than the other Shi'ites -- including the Twelvers.

But no, I respectfully decline to write it myself. I'm just too damn disorganized in the head to make an adequate Encyclopedist, however much I'd love the prestige. (But I will be happy to go to Mumbai to do research if somebody will take up a collection for my plane ticket!)

Anyway. Their official web site (AFAICT) is www.bohra.net; you'd also get oodles of hits off Google.

www.bohra.net is NOT the official website for the Dawoodi Bohras, nor is it actively maintained anymore. Its last update was in June 2001.

Aebrahim 25 Jun 2005

The official website for the Dawoodi Bohra's is www.mumineen.org.

Have just started a page for the Dawoodi Bohras but it is in fact nothing more than a stub at present. am currently reading some history on the Bohras and should end up adding more material. Anyone else wishing to contribute is more than welcome.

Hulleye 11:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

www.mumineen.org is NOT the official website for the Dawoodi Bohras. More info on this in their disclaimer. It is however the most comprehensive source of information related to Dawoodi Bohras on the internet.

Aebrahim 25 Jun 2005

Nizari Ismailis do not refer to themselves as Aga Khanis, the title of Aga Khan has been present for four generations while the Ismaili faith consists of over 1300 years of Imamat.

I concur as someone who is a follower of the Agha Khan. The Bohra represent Fatimid Isma'ili practice and their article needs to be expanded upon, both Dawoodi, and Sulaymani branches. I also corrected the link to the Nizari page.

Planning the overhaul

Well Nizari muslims are reffred more in terms of shias' as it is one of the most integrated community and I must say AgaKanis is not they refer themselves but Nizari Ismaili Muslim is the correct name.

Let's start addressing each point. Here are my thoughts (and I will keep adding more):

It seems odd to say, on the one hand, that "the majority of the Mustaalid Ismailis are known as Dawoodi Bohras" and, on the other, that "The Nizari Ismaili community are today headed by their 49th imam" [sic]. Shouldn't we go, in both cases, to saying something like "the largest <Mustali/Nizari> community is ...>

As for whether it is appropriate to refer to Isma'ilis generally as "Seveners", that's how they are referred to, to differentiate them from other Shia schools—the reference is to their branch being formed because of a disagreement on the seventh imam—as opposed to the Zaidiyya, who disagreed on the fifth.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 05:09, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have made a change to the introduction of the followers of the Aga Khani.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 21:26, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that there is another possible explanation of the word "Assassin": derived from the Arabic "Assass" (Alef, sin,sin) with the principal meaning to found, to establish. To some scholars this root is a more likely source for the term since the early puritanism of the sect establsihed by Hassan As-Sabah was rigorous in the extreme and the use of drugs appears unlikely in the climate reigning in Assiout at the time. In addition, the root derivation of "hashish" is not specifically related to the drug cannabis but can refer to grass in general and even, in some bedouin dialects, to all plant matter. I do not think a definite decision can be made between the two possible derivations since the explanation of drug use as a reason for the fanatacism of the Assassins has such widespread currency. However I do think that the other explanation has enough plausibility for it to be mentioned.Wildbe 06:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The etymology of "assassin" has nothing to do with hashish

I won't mess with the page, but as a long-time etymology buff I can assure you that there is almost certainly no truth to the legend of the old man on the mountain drugging people with hashish and that then morphing into the word "hashashin", etc. etc. - this story is retold more often than any other etymology legend I have ever come across. Probably because it combines illicit and disparate elements such as drugs, violence and religion, but I digress.

This all originated in a spurious account by Marco Polo, which is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin

Most likely it came from "follower of Hassan" and never had even a remote connection to hashish. The popularity of that Marco Polo account, however, has all but buried the facts in fanciful legend.

Be that as it may, the fact that a lot of people mention it and some believe and/or promote it is worth mentioning. Of course, with the explanation of what the most likely origin of this "explanation" is. Besides everything else, it is a way of showing how people have viewed, mythologised, and/or demonised the group.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:52, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I do think it is worth mentioning. However the link between Hashashin and the drug, and it ought to be made clearer.--Water Stirs 16:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the-!

This article was again starting to sound like all Ismailis are Nizari followers of the Aga Khan. We need to make this more general and cover other Islamilis; like the Dawoodi Bohras and Sulaymanis, I am reverting to the version before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ismaili&diff=9789752&oldid=9712025 . Please don't be angry; let's start again there and present the whole picture. Let us either create a separate page (like Dawoodi Bohras) or Sulaymanis for the folks that believe that the Aga Khan is the Hazar Imam. Or put the material about that belief in a subheading on the Ismaili page. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

History section is over-the-top

The "history" section is pure myth. There's a page on Ali ibn Abi Talib (over which Shi'a and Sunni are sparring right now) and that page doesn't have any of this hagiography. This section is a serious embarrassment to Wikipedia. I don't have time to rewrite it at the moment, alas. Zora 04:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although the info in it is right (according to my believes), but the way some of it is worded is wrong, it gives the wrong impression of what Shia think about Imam Ali; e.g: "The Holy Prophet said that to look at Ali's face was the worship of Allah". ...the Allah I am removing from the end, as it gives impressions that Shia's believe Ali was God. --Khalid! 21:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History section clearly needs editing

Quite frankly the history section would be better deleted than staying in its sorry state. Would someone with some knowledge on the matter, knowledge that is academic, objective, rational and above all historical (IE not what’s in the history section right now) edit the page? It’s a real embarrassment.

Another point, the history section is also badly written. Almost as if it’s in bullet form. It has no flow, and frequently refers to non academic terms.

Disputed

Due to the history sections inaccuracy, I have flagged it. Please see discussion above

Taqiyya

I believe that Ismailis practice obligatory Taqiyya. It is no wonder that information on their practices is sparse. Should this be included in the article? Zain 04:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are most of you guy's nuts? Before blaberring about the Ismaili's you should understand that with the diffrent splits and sects in Islam, there well be diffrent ways of practicing their faiths. The Itna Shari beat their chest on the day of the Imam's death (he was killed because they ditched him, and guess what, DO SOME REASEARCH ON ISMAILI'S AND AGA KHAN (SEE AND READ THIS BOOK MAY BE JUST MAY BE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE ORIGIN OF ISMAILIS "The ISMSILIS Their History and Doctrines",[{Adnan Azizuddin}]

Some research? Perhaps some "research" would tell you that there were no Shia divisions at the time of Hussain. There were no Ismailis or Ithna Ashris. Zain 04:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, there were no sects at the time Hazrat Hussain was Martyred, but the Itna Sharis (later developed) are the ones that punish themselves for this , on the 10th of Muharram

It is not a form of punishment. It is a form of mourning. 68.37.44.48 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too right! Maatam is a common Irani practice they were doing it even before Islam, which demonstrates mourning, hence the word "Maatam" which means "Grief." Christians and Jews of middle eastern ethnicity also practice it. Beating oneself with weapons is NOT however Maatam according to Ithna'ashari Shari'a and it should be noted that this practice (only found in Iran and Pakistan) is considered Haraam by all other Shi'a Ulema and also Ismailis but in recent days Dawoodi's started doing Maatam contarary to their core belif. [{Adnan Azizuddin}].

Cleanup

This article must be cleaned up, especially the story about Ali, as it doesn't really fit in, plus it is clearly a violation of NPOV. DigiBullet 19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaili

There are two distinct sects within Ismaili: Nizari and Mustali. Mustali are subidiveded into Alavi, Dawoodi and Sulaimani Bohras. While the Nizari are united under Aga Khan. The each subsect of Mustali Ismailis have their own pages. I think Nizari page should have detailed information about Nizari sect. Presently, the Ismaili page also acts as the main page for Nizari sect.

Siddiqui 20:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't forget the Druze Ismailis - they split at / after the 16th Imam. That being said, fact of the matter is that when people use the term Ismaili in today's venacular, they are referring to the Nizari Ismailis. The other Ismailis go by their own different names - be it Alavi Bohras, Dawoodi Bohras, Sulaimani Bohras and the Druze.

User:anonymous 29 March 2006

There needs to be some clarification on the use of the word Ismailis by academics, by lay people and by Ismailis themselves as well as a thrust to be more inclusive of non-Khoja Ismaili history. I know from my own experience being a Khoja Nizari Ismaili that we normally refer to ourselves simply as Ismaili, especially in places where South Asians are a minority and where non-Khoja Nizari Ismailis live, since it is the most inclusive term. A generation ago I believe that Khoja Nizari Ismailis referred to themselves only as Khoja (at least in the sub-continent) and maybe East Africa where there were other South Asians so the distinction was important, because Khoja is an ethnic/place designation. Nizari Ismailis also call themselves Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims. I don't think they use the term Nizari in general discussions. There are also terms used within the community to refer to each other such as the Gujrati term "dīn bhai". Khoja Nizari Ismailis never refer to themselves as Seveners or anything else that I am aware of. People outside the community will often call Khoja Nizari Ismailis "Aga Khanī" since they are followers of the Aga Khan (are there Khoja that are not Aga Khanī?) and the term is only used by Khoja Nizari Ismailis when identifying themselves to someone outside the community as a clarification of identity. There are also non-Khoja Nizari Ismailis in Central Asia and the Middle East. I do not have information about what they call themselves other than Ismaili but it would be important to note. There is a bias within the community toward Khoja Nizari Ismailis due to their status in the West and the fact that the Central Asian community has been isolated from the rest of the community (and the world) due to the political situation in the region. Central Asian Ismailis in fact outnumber Khoja Ismailis in the world but their former isolation and lower socio-economic status meant that they did not wield the influence that Khoja Ismailis did. The Central Asian community has only recently been reunited with the rest of the community and hopefully this will change things for the better in the future.

Until I started reading about Shia Islam in my twenties, I was unaware that there were other non-Khoja Nizari Ismaili communities that were referred to as Ismaili, for example the Bohra. Do the Bohra refer to themselves as Ismaili? What are the terms Bohra use to describe themselves?

In any case, I feel that the naming convention used for Ismailis are confusing to outsiders (and often to insiders as well) because they are context dependent and refer to place of origin, ethnicity and religion. They are also controlled by the majority and are not necessarily inclusive. The history of the community is also not inclusive. The article is a good start but I feel it needs major reworking (and perhaps fragmentation) to make it comprehensible and accurate. A diagram that accurately lists the names of all the Imāms in each branch along with dates and showing where splits occurred would be a great resource as I don't believe there's any place where you could find such a list.

I wish I could write and not just suggest but hopefully someone can take up my ideas and run with them. Any comments?

Alnoor 18:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khoja is a cultural term, not referring to a religion. There are numerous Nizari Ismailis who are non-Khoja, such as those of Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China and Tajikistan (just to name a few).

User:anonymous 25 April 2006

I think that it would be too confusing to bring up "Khoja" on this page. Khoja is just what the various converts to Nizari Ismailism were called by the Pirs that converted them- mainly a word referring to the geographical area in which the conversion took place. That is why there are also Nizari Ismailis who call themselves "Momnas" and other names that I may not know. If you believe in the rope of Imammat up to the point of the present 49th Imam- the Aga Khan- then you are united under an umbrella of "Nizari Ismaili" despite whether your family was converted by the Pirs or not or whether you are ethnically Middle Eastern or Indian. Ideologically there is not a difference even though some of us have different rites and rituals and others of us look different.

As someone already commented, a non-Nizari Ismailis could also be called Khoja. The conversions of certain groups to Nizari Ismaili took place over many years- sometimes even generations. This led to some people adopting a religion that is a hybrid of Ismailism/Sufism/Hinduism. There are people that live in the Indian Subcontinent who may refer to themselves as Khoja or Momna (because that is what the Pirs called their forefathers) but who do not presently believe in the Aga Khan.

As someone already commented, the 3 different types of Bohras, are a sub-sect that fall under the Bohra sect.

Finally, an Ismaili is (in true name form) someone who believed in Imam Ismail, not Musa Kazim. Truly there are 3 branches of Shias that are "Ismailis"-

1. The Nizari Ismailis- those who during the Nizar/Musta'Ali split believed in Nizar as the successor to Mustansirbillah and currently believe in the Aga Khan as the 49th Imam. It is also important to note, that unlike the other Shia sects, Nizari Ismailis do NOT consider Hasan (the son of Imam Ali and brother or Imam Hussein) to be an Imam. Imam Ali was 1st, Imam Hussein was 2nd, Imam Zayn-al-Abidin was 3rd...etc.

2. The Bohra Ismailis- those who during the Nizar/Musta'Ali split believed in Musta'Ali as the successor to Mustansirbillah

3. The Druzes- Those who believed in Imam Ismail and did not name a successor to Imam Hakim Bi Amrullah

It is true that since the Nizari Ismailis are the largest group of the 3 branches above, when generally calling someone an "Ismaili" people refer to the Nizari Ismailis...that is nothing personal, it is just that they are the largest in number and it is shorter than saying Nizari Ismaili (hence the reason some use the term Aga Khani instead which clarifies it). Regardless, I think that all 3 branches should be mentioned on this page and that maybe we should use the 3 terms above to differentiate. How people colloquialize "Ismaili" is just a reflection of the fact that maybe they do not know the cvomplexities behind the way the tree has branched. But we are all rooted in the same lovely shade of Islam- beginning with Allah's revelation to the final prophet- Muhammed (may peace be upon him).

Deleted section for copyvio

I deleted:

Since the 12th century fantastical tales of the Assassins, their mysterious leader and their remote mountain strongholds in Syria and northern Iran have captured the European imagination. These legends first emerged when European Crusaders in the Levant came into contact with the Syrian branch of the Nizari Ismā'īliyyūn, who at the behest of their leader were sent on dangerous missions to kill their enemies. Elaborated over the years, the legends culminated in Marco Polo’s account according to which the Nizari leader, described as the ‘Old Man of the Mountain’, was said to have controlled the behaviour of his devotees through the use of hashish and a secret garden of paradise. So influential were these tales that the word ‘assassin’ entered European languages as a common noun for murderer, and the Nizari Ismā'īliyya were depicted not only in popular mythology but also in Western scholarship as a sinister order of "assassins".

In recent decades new scholarship on the history of the Ismā'īliyyūn has established the extent to which older Western accounts have confused fact and fantasy. In view of the very different picture of Ismaili history that has now emerged, Farhad Daftary’s book considers the origins of the mediaeval Assassin legends and explores the historical context in which they were fabricated and transmitted. How did they persist for so long, and in what form did they come to exert such a profound influence on European scholarship? Daftary’s fascinating account ultimately reveals the extent to which the emergence of such legends was symptomatic of both the complex political and cultural structures of the mediaeval Muslim world and of Europeans’ ignorance of that world. The book will be of great interest to all those concerned with Ismā'īlī studies, the history of Islām and the Middle East, as well as the mediaeval history of Europe. Also included as an appendix is the first English translation of the French orientalist Silvestre de Sacy’s famous early 19th century “Memoir on the Assassins and the Etymology of their Name”.

.. since it's copied from here. Flammifer 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasond

I'd like to see information on how Aga Khan and the imams got their money and how the Aga Khan remains as one of the richest men in the world. It should also be noted that Ismailies are advised to give 1/8 of their income in the form of Dasond. This 12.5% "tax" goes towards the Ismaili community. Also, there is a special title for those that give 1/4 of their income and are part of the "one fourth committee." This Dasond, while not mandatory, brings in millions of dollars for the Ismaili community. This money is given to a "Mukhi Saheb" (kind of like a priest, a leader in the services) in the Jamat Khana (the name of the church) while reciting a prayer asking to be blessed of impurity. This prayer asks for forgiveness through Allah, Mohammad and the current Imam. The Mukhi Saheb blesses the giver of Dasond with blessings from the Imam.

Another form of purification is through the drinking of Niaz. Niaz is water that has been touched or blessed by Aga Khan. The Ismaili follower drinks this Niaz after reciting a prayer to cleanse themselves of evil.

Reply: Dasond and Niaz are private practices in the Aga Khani tradition. If you want to learn more about dasond or the money that is given to the Imams, read about the "Haj Bibi Case" or maybe it should be a separate Wikipedia entry. It clearly settles any question into that matter. Niaz is something that should not even be brought up- simply stated it is holy water. It is a ritual that has immense significance for Aga Khanis and has immense meaning for them. What the meaning is and what is symbolizes is private and personal to each individual. All anyone knows on an objective level is that it is the equivalent of holy water.

what's this one-fourth commitee? BadCRC 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comment in article

An unsigned comment was left in the article by User talk:213.42.2.28 by the following edit. I'm not sure what the editor meant and I've removed his comment from the article, though I mention it here for posterity. --Bluerain (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan as Imam?

I'm fairly certain that the 2nd Imam in the Nizari tradition is Hussain ibn Ali, and not his brother Hasan. Can anyone clarify if this view is shared by the other Ismaili sub-sects? --Bluerain (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)No other Ismaili sects bleive in this, but Dawoodi and Sulayimani do not include Ali as their first Imam but concider him to be Wassi the first Imam in their list is Hussan ibn Ali,{ please try to read "the Ismailis Their History and Doctrines" by Farhad Daftary {[Adnan Azizuddin}].[reply]

Syncretic ?

I see the category "syncretic faiths" has been added. What reasoning lies behind this ?--Vindheim 14:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost entirely rewritten and absorbed old content

I know I should have said this months ago, but simply for the archives... I've rewritten almost the entire thing, while incorporating lots of the old information. This is just so when people look at the talk page they know what happened. --Enzuru 06:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Druze

At several times in the article the Druze are referred to as a contemporary branch of Isma'ili Shi'ism. I would be hesitant to go so far; Druze do not associate with either Shiite Islam or Ismailism and are extremely different.

History ends in 1258 AD?

Writing as a person who just now came to this article to see who Ismailis are, since a new Ismaili Center has opened in my community, I must say the article is pretty difficult to follow. What really surprises me though is that the History section ends in the year 1258 AD! It makes it sound like Genghis Khan wiped out all the Ismailis, and that was the end of that. I'm sure there must be more history that someone could add, to bring readers up to speed on what's happened over the past 800 years. My questions before reading the article were: Why do most Ismailis seem to be from Pakistan or India? Who is Aga Khan (I, II, III, IV)? Why do some Muslims (e.g. a Sunni acquaintance of mine) say that Ismailis aren't "real" Muslims? Yes, this statement of his is a slam, but what lies behind it? What are the aspects of Ismaili belief and practice that are so different from Sunni (or mainstreams Shia) belief/practice? Ideally, Wikipedia would be a good place for clueless outsiders to get answers to these questions, with an overview and comparison/contrast with other groups, and a history of how this group has impacted society and interacted with other groups. If someone with expertise on this subject can look at the article again with fresh eyes, maybe the article could be reworked to answer some of these questions for people looking for a basic understanding of the Ismailis. Just some thoughts. Timotheos 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I rewrote most of the Ismaili article as it is in its present form. So, the question comes about, why does it end so shortly? First off, let me answer your other questions.

The identity of Aga Khan IV is talked about in the Nizari section of the article, because he leads the branch of the faith. As for why Ismailis aren't real Muslims, I failed here in assuming that everyone knew that mainstream Islam hates groups like Ismailis that do not follow shariah. This was a bias of mine not to point out since it's so obvious to me, so I think I'll try to get that fixed soon (I'm on vacation right now!)

As for the difference in general between Ismailis and mainstream Shi'ahs, that is gone over a bit, but not enough. I'll try to add new sections helping people understand what's going on.

So, now as to why I didn't write the history any further. There are basically two reasons. First off, after the general history I wrote the three groups (Nizari, Druze, and Mustaali) split so far apart in their exterior theological development as well as history and environment that those particular histories should rather be confined to those articles with a synopsis of them in their respective sections on the main Ismaili article. However, so far no one has stepped up to really complete that task (with exception to the Druze community, whom I applaud). So, for example, it would be like if I put the entire history of Catholicism in the Christianity article. Typically, the bulk of the Christian history article should go up to maybe from 50 BC to 300 AD in my opinion, discluding much of the Church of Rome's history and development. I haven't really been observing what they've been doing there, though.

Second reason is I don't have enough details to complete their histories myself (except perhaps Nizari). So, me doing it may be out of the question, but we'll see. Thanks again for your comment. --Enzuru 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical terminology in the article

May I suggest that editors of this article try to use more (for lack of a better word) "everyday English" in the article, for the sake of readers who aren't very familiar with Islam or the Arabic language? There are a lot of English-speaking people who really want to come to a better understanding of Islam and its various branches, but they (we) may be quickly off-put by the use of too much technical (or foreign) language without explanation. For example, here's a sentence taken from the text of the article; in the first bullet is the original text; in the second bullet is a "simplified" text aimed at less informed readers.

With the eventual development of Twelverism into the zahir oriented Akhbari and later Usooli schools of thought, Shiasm developed into two separate directions: the Ismaili aspect focusing on the mystical nature of the Imam and the mystical path to Allah, and the Twelver aspect focusing on sharia and the Sunnah of the Ahl al-Bayt.
(simplified version): With the eventual development of Twelverism into the more literalist (zahir) Akhbari and later Usooli schools of thought, Shiaism developed into two separate directions: the Ismaili branch focusing on the mystical nature of divinely appointed leaders (Imams) and the mystical path to Allah, and the Twelver aspect focusing on Islamic law (sharia) and the deeds and sayings (sunnah) of Muhammad and his successors (Ahl al-Bayt).

I understand that many times there's not a simple way to express the exact meaning of a technical term, but in an introductory article like this, I think it would be better to render the approximate meanings of terms, rather than leave readers so confused that they give up and quit reading. Just some food for thought. Timotheos 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Jihad

Seems to me as though the writer of this article wishes to promote the more extremist interpretation of "Jihad". While it is undisputed that this extremist interpretation was and still is indeed quite common (i.e that "Jihad" is about physical warfare and conquest of unbelievers), one should nevertheless keep in mind when dealing with such religious sects and orders like the Ismailis, that for such sects the spiritual-mystical-occult side is also very dominant. This is also true as regards Ismaili doctrine.

Therefore, saying that the interpretation of Jihad as personal struggle, is "minor and based on an obscure hadith", seems a somewhat biased and unjustified remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Hearts81 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit late in saying this, but the problem has been fixed. Thanks for your help. --Enzuru 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

There are several points in this article, which, from what little I do know about Ismailism, don't seem to be true. I really dont know enough about the subject to flag the article as factually disputed, but I'd like it if someone could at least cite some of these points. I speak specifically about the points in the article on reincarnation, pantheism, as well as a few others. Its all nice and good to state these things, but they have to be backed up... The article has plenty of citations, but not on some crucial points... I'll read up on it, and in a few weeks come up with some concrete suggestions.

Thanks so much, I would appreciate it. The facts about reincarnation and panentheism are true. Both are mentioned in the Nizari Ginans, and the reincarnation for the Druze is a well known fact about the religion. I'll cite them in time, along with other things that need to be cited, once you create your list. Thank you once again. --Enzuru 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Ismaili Doctrine?

What is 'Old Ismaili Doctrine' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikandros (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means Sevener. I changed it. --Enzuru 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion Reigns

This article may be authoritative, but for an outsider it is confusing and seemingly self-contradictory. 1) Druze do not consider themselves to be Ismaili and Ismaili don't consider them to be Ismaili, though their historical origin may justify this term. 2) The Seveners section states that Seveners believe that Ismail was the Seventh Imam, but evidently all Ismaili believe that (stated elsewhere) so what makes them different? 3) It is not necessary, or even a good idea, to recapitulate so much of the history of Shi'ism in this article, and better to refer to the Shia article for that purpose IMO. An introductory paragraph is needed that would give the different definitions of Ismaili that are extant in various places. These may all exist in the article, but right now they are buried in an avalanche of prose, perhaps due to all the revisions. [[Mewnews (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

1) Ismaili do consider them to be Ismaili, the Aga Khan III states this in his memoirs, saying they did not follow his ancestors from where they previously were. 2) I am sorry if this isn't clear, but Sevener believe that either Ismail or his son Muhammad was the last Imam, and either him or his son went into the Occultation (I haven't been able to figure out which). 3) Maybe you are correct about moving this into the Shi'a section and taking out some obviously original research in it. --Enzuru 08:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The followers of the Aga Khan define Ismaili as the community that follows the Aga Khan and nobody else, the memoirs of the Khan to the contrary notwithstanding. That excludes not only Druze, but a lot of other Ismaili. See http://www.theismaili.org/ if you do not believe it! Part of the confusion may be intrinsic in the subject therefore, but this should be explained or sorted out somehow for the poor reader. The definition given by the largest Ismaili sect cannot be ignored in defining Ismaili.

This logic isn't right. Just because they call or define the term Ismaili as someone who follows the Agakhan does not mean they do not believe that other groups cannot use the term Ismaili. Go to www.ismaili.net to read the memoirs of the infallible Aga Khan III or ask people on the forum regarding it. Now the term Nizari is becoming more prominent among Ismaili who follow the Aga Khans. --Enzuru 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone already commented there is a lot of obscure terminology and some very problematic references here. There is little continuity. The story begins in the middle, as though everyone knows all about Muslim history, but then provides a lot of details that belong elsewhere. Terms are floated but never explained, or linked to the wrong places. For example, Occultation is mentioned, but I think the link is to a disambiguation page evidently and not to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation. Likewise "Dai" is mentioned many times, but never explained, and the link is to a disambiguation page which doesn't really provide a choice that is explanatory. The part about Hassan-i-Sabbah implies that he was sent by the Fatimids, whereas in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin it states

If you feel this is an issue, then I would suggest you go ahead and start re-organizing and writing. I would prefer if you moved content to other articles rather than deleted it. --Enzuru 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" . After a quarrel about the succession of leadership in the ruling Fatimide dynasty in Cairo around the year 1090, the losing Nizāriyya faction were driven from Egypt. They established a number of fortified settlements in present day Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon under rule of the charismatic Iranian leader Hasan-i Sabbah."

It seems to me that both cannot be true. Left to the readers' imagination is how the Nizarriyah faction was called Nizzariyah after Hassan-i-Sabah's son who was not born yet evidently when they had been expelled from Cairo. [[Mewnews (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)]].[reply]

That last point is easy: Nizar was the Caliphal candidate that faction backed - different guy than the son of Hassan-e Sabah. They fled to an existing Isma'ili area (an area that the Fatimids had sent their da'is to) and seized control. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 11:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is as you say, then it is easy to clarify exactly what happened in the revision rather than leaving it as it is, contradicting other articles. There is more info missing, such as origin of Musta'ali in a subsequent dynastic quarrel. The fact that Ismaili established Al Azhar is probably also significant and should be mentioned. There are other places where the article directly contradicts other Wikipedia articles (the Seveners for example) or seems to do so, and I do not have the resources, background or interest to find out which one is right, but Wikipedia should avoid absurdities of that sort. Others can do it much more easily. It is better if people who know about these issues and who have been devotedly caring for this article handle it. Presenting theological issues is not easy. The way to make a disorganized article more disorganized is to have 10 people working on it. [[Mewnews (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

I understand if you feel you don't have the ability because of your knowledge to settle this yourself. Why don't you make a condensed to-do list for us and we'll take care of it from there? --Enzuru 12:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer accepting converts

I think we need to get a source for the "no conversions accepted" because I actually believe it is true. The Druze definitely do not take converts (not since about 1150 AD) and I have been informed the Nizari do not accept converts. However, it does need a cite... anyone know a Nizari? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 04:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote that line, but I feel it is original research on my part and took it out, after all, very few books include Nizari, Mustaali, and Druze in the same sentence, or combining of these three groups is a little artificial in itself. It is true for the Druze. For the Nizari, it is only partially true, you have to go through a long lengthy process of conversion, but you can do it. As for the Mustaali, I have no clue. --Enzuru 21:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]