Talk:Nizari Isma'ilism

message: 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)
thread_title: articles

message: 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)
thread_title: Imamat

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Updates

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: Template

message: 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)
thread_title: Lack of Citations or References for Information Presented

message: 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)
thread_title: Fatimids

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Best title selection choices from the root word "Nizari" 

message: :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)
replies: text: I am a Nizari Muslima, and also, don't attack me in personal edits. Ogress smash! 14:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: There is more than just ONE monolithic Islam in this world

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are women treated equally?   

message: Substituted at 01:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jihad