Talk:Musta'li Ismailism

message: I took some of the information in this article from the Encyclopaedia of Islam three years ago, but I forgot to write down which article. AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: source

message: In an edit I changed some word forms introducing the cult to the Arabic nisba form in addition to the distorted (singular ad'j. ?) form loaned into English.
However AnonMoos reversed my edit citing "the words in article now are individual adjectives, while the other wordas are abstract nouns. I'm not sure either is preferred, but any change should be done consistently (including name of ar)"
I'm not sure I understood what you meant, AnonMoos, but the current used forms, e.g. Musta‘lī مستعلي is in the singular adjective form. It is my opinion that this form doesn't denote the sect/cult but rather an individual person of it. In this particular case it is also the personal name of the individual from whom the cult got its name, i.e. AlMusta'ly (in other words to whom the cult is related). I see this as probably confusing. This is why the sing. adj. would not normally be used in Arabic to denote a member of the cult, but they would rather say the equivalent "of the Musta‘liyya", using the nisba form which is also mentioned in the article. 
I understand of course that, as loanwords, these changes are probable and that it is unlikely that proper conjugation will be used in every instance, but I argue that mentioning the correct Arabic nisba form in the head of the article is useful to the reader.
--A. Gharbeia (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I seem to have somehow missed your comments before, but if the article title is Mustaali, and the article uses Musta`li as an adjective, I don't know that it makes much sense to change مستعلي to مستعلية in the Arabic, while leaving the English unchanged; it would seem to introduce an inconsistency... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: word forms

message: I tagged the article because it is too technical and requires a complete rewrite. It may also be biased. I recommend deleting everything and starting fresh.  Davtra  (talk)  04:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't "delete everything"; the article down to and including Image:BohrasDiv01.JPG is basically sound, and can be salvaged with a little rewriting.  The rest of the article contains raw data dumps added by User:Md_iet, probably with the best of intentions, but which do not end up strengthening the article in their current form... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2010 

message: : The article gives no information about the people of that community, most part details only the priesthood side. I think this is not correct. The origin of Bohra community is in the Nagar Brahmin from Gujarat,according to my findings they are followers of Madhavdas Nagar, deposted prime minister of Gujarat king. He went to Allauddin Khilji for help and there he accepted Islam with his followers. Later on He preferred Shia sect and then after many years the followers were divided in many divisions. More research is required. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of Bohra community

message: I've attempted to do some major copyediting, move some chunks around, clarify section titles, etc.  Also removed a bunch of fluffier content, mostly strong POV praise of the sect.  There still seems to be a lot of history missing, as even after reading the full article I'm not totally clear on the Fatimid connexion it keeps hammering.  Further, minor concerns that the article keeps pushing the Dawoodi Bohra subsect (even the diagram appears to imply all others are offshoots, but the Dawoodis the direct inheritors).  The chart is still a formatting disaster that could easily be done many other ways, and probably needs to be footnoted or checked against an authoritative source.  There are also far too many technical terms used in the article;  with some basic Arabic and Persian knowledge I can hazard a guess at most of them, but they're nowhere near intelligible for a casual reader.  The terms probably need to be, at minimum, explained at their first usage, and only used in the original Arabic if there's a particular technical reason.  Overall though, I hope it's more intelligible than when I started. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wading in for cleanup 

message: I do understand that the Hafizi are defunct, however this article is still too much about the Tayyibi vice the original Mustaali.  I submit that the bulk of content occurring after the Tayyibi-Hafizi split be cut out to a new article Tayyibi (currently a redirect).  Further, the portions on the kalema and azaan appeaar to apply to Ismailis overall, not just Mustaali; by all means correct me if they are unique to the Mustaali.  If they are not unique to them, the content should be pushed back to Ismailism, in the same way that not every Christian denomination needs to go into detail about the Nicene creed, when it's enough to just mention that their sect follows it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to splice out new article [[Tayyibi]] 

message: There is a edit-fighting going on!! between Qutbi Bohra & Dawoodi Bohra in these days. But their articles are disasterous!!! I think the representatives of Qutbi Bohra & Dawoodi Bohra should explain their doctrines of Mustaali'yyah in the Taiyabi section for public, forms of namaz, zakat, hajj and other principles especially their conviction which are missing!!! Nizari pages are excellent!!!
Thanks.
68.100.168.97 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodology and prayers should be explained in [[Taiyabi]] section....