Talk:Isma'ilism/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Isma'ilism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
[Khoja]
why are khojas not included in classification? they are an essential subdivision, much numerous in indo-pak and other parts of south asia. see [khoja] for details. Najafhaider (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Khojas are Nizari. --Enzuru 05:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
ok, point taken. Najafhaider (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Aga Khan
What's the deal with Aga Khan III being the grandfather of Aga Khan IV. Was his son Aga Khan III.5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.52.183 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Aga Khan is a title that is given to the Imam, not to just a son. Since Aga Khan III's son, who is Aga Khan IV's father, was not an Imam, he never inherited the title. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Largest branch
Under the Fatimids, the Ismaili were the largest living denomination of the Shi'ah. This is even cited. Yet there is a "dubious" tag appended... I'm going to delete this tag unless there is some further objection noted here. Ogress smash! 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I object, Klakky is right, I don't think the Aga Khan III is a reliable source, even if he knows all the secrets of the heavens and the Earth and is the manifestation of reality itself, we should have a secular source. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this response. I think "citation needed" is more appropriate than "dubious"... Ogress smash! 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Progressive Bohras
shouldn't Progressive Bohras be considered a sect?(Water Stirs (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
- I'm not sure. They identify as Dawoodi Bohras, they are just trying to renew the faith, which they see as overgrown with nepotism and dictatorship. We could check what Ali Asghar Engineer & co. have to say on the subject... Ogress smash! 11:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Your right they are Dawoodi, as they recognise the spiritual authority of the Dawoodi line. However they differ theologically in so far as they deny edicts such as the misaq (oath of allegiance) and maintain their own mosques, overseen by their own clerics. They are in no way in "communion" with the Da'i. I propose both their mention here and the a creation of a stub page regarding them. Water Stirs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC).