Talk:Aga Khan

message: This article is pretty one-sided, really, and seems to have been written to promote the Agas Khan. The absence of Prince Aly Khan was particularly surprising: I have added a very brief explanation of his situation and a link to his article. Obviously it is not necessary to go on about him or his scandals at length here, but it is relevant to mention that the succession was changed to avoid his becoming Aga Khan IV. This fact is constitutionally important with regard to the Aga Khan's role as well as being indicative of the social and cultural history of the position. -- TinaSparkle 14:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I am curious why there is no discussion of Hasan bin Sabah (or Hassan as-Sabba or Hasan-i_Sabbah) and the order of the Hashishin on this page? 
I do see some linkage to pages on the Ismaili branch of Islam, (Nizari Ismaili), but no real discussion of the connection. 
Thanks. 
estéban 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection to the Nizari Ismaili not prominent

message: I see that Sadruddhin Aga Khan was once listed on this page, but that he was removed because he was not one of the Ismaili Aga Khans.
Since we do have more Aga Khans than just the ones listed here, as well as other topics which bear the name (such as the Ismaili-related Aga Khan Award for Architecture), I think a disambiguation page for Aga Khan is in order.
I propose the following:
* Content currently on Aga Khan be moved to a newly-created page called Aga Khan (Ismaili Islam).
* The current Aga Kahn page be restructured into a disambiguation page for all of the forms of Aga Khan, Ismaili and non-Ismaili.
Kevyn 08:16, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a racehorse named Aga Khan.. --simo 11:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aga Khan Disambiguation page needed 

message: In the first sentence, I think "Mogol" should read "Mongol". At least we strongly supsect this, but please tell what Mogol means if our guess is wrong.
:Actually it is one of several forms in western languages of Mughal, the name of India's imperial dynasty (originally Sultans of Delhi, later styled Padshah i-Hind), which was however thus called because it was descended from the Mongol dynasty of Genghis Khan Fastifex 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Timur - aka Tamerlame - aka "Timur the Lame" - was a Turk, through and through.  The claim of Mongol descent was common to all central Asian rulers of the period to give themselves a puffed-up heritage.  The Mughals took their name from "Mongols" but, of course, they were not Mongols by blood - they were central Asian stock. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mo(n)gol

message: The way the 765 'split' is described is not fair.  The suggestion is that the Ismailis split from the Itna Asharis, but fact is there was no group called the Ismailis and no group called the Itna Asharis at the time.  It was simply that some followed Jafar Sadiq's elder son Ismail who later became known as Ismailis, and others followed a younger son Musaqazim who later became known as Itna Asharis.  The Ismailis did NOT split from the Itna Asharis, and nor did the Itna Asharis split from the Ismailis.  There needs to be mutual respect and honesty in the way this is expressed.
:Please remove this statement since it is false -> Abdullah Jafar bin Muhammad As-Sadiq's sons, Ismail bin Jaffar and Abul Hassan Musa bin Jaffar, are followed by Twelver Shiites. The twelver Shias follow a different line of Imam, Musa al-Kadhim.Xareen (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'SPLIT'

message: I would add that this article has an air of fantasy to it as does almost everything written about the Ismailis in this piece. An alternate version of their history which one of theirs told me, was that the Ismailis were formed from members of the untouchable class in India in the 1800's and that their leader made a story for himself that he should be descended from Mohammed. If one looks at the ethnic composition of Ismailis it seems like a pretty strong case. There no known Ismailis of any ethnic-linguistic group other than those emanating from Pakistan and India. This apparently is hush-hush in the community. Another factor which is never mentioned is that Sunnis and Shias do not even consider the Ismailis as muslims, but rather see them as a bizarre, renegade sect, sort of  like the Mormons are to mainstream Christians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.7.77 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untouchable origins of the Ismailis

message: All Agha Khanis are not shia muslims they might be sunnis as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.228.150 (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahmed

message: The title His Highness was granted by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in 1936? Great, little Princess Elizabeth granted him the title... Kowalmistrz (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT?? 

message: "Highness" granted by HM The Queen in 1957, "Royal Highness" by the late Shah of Iran in 1959.  Facts readily available on the Ismaili websites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJWittenberg (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Details Now Corrected 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aga Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512113401/http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_person.asp?ID=8&type=auth to http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_person.asp?ID=8&type=auth
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article should add his real last name, Malahaty, as was a few years back.
It provides them a false air rank and regency, which they are cultivating for respect and monies.
The issue of monies and non accounting of tithes and early attached monies should, it seeems to me, be mentioned in main article and in the top paragraphs.
The fact that there is an air of dishonesty around them right from the start should also be right there up front and center. 47.46.213.210 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Name