|WikiProject Islam / Shi'a Islam||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
To remain impartial this entry should also include information regarding the Aga Khan's dissumulation from Islam and his self-proclaimed lineage.
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)
^^ the 'scandals' suggested do not exist. The wiki page is about the Aga Khans IE the leaders of the Ismaili community and as such, they are the ones being discussed. The transition from Aga Khan III to Aga Khan IV was completely within the age-old rules regarding designation, and there was absolutely no debate about it. To suggest that the article is one-sided is to suggest that there was a dispute of some sort, but there simply was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Connection to the Nizari Ismaili not prominent
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.
estéban 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Aga Khan Disambiguation page needed
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)
- There's also a racehorse named Aga Khan.. --simo 11:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
--- Regarding the above comments from Kevyn ...
Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan is HH the Aga Khan's uncle, and son of Aga Khan III. Though there is Aga Khan in his title, it is because he is son of an "Aga Khan" and does not remain hereditary for him, if he had children. Any article on "The Aga Khan" needs to be on HH Karim al Husseini Aga Khan (ie Aga Khan IV). Articles on others with "Aga Khan" in their titles are the ones that need to have the disclaimer, and not the other way around. These would include Prince Amyn Aga Khan (AK IV's brother), Prince Saddrudin Aga Khan (AK IV's uncle), Princes Yasmin Aga Khan (AK IV's sister), Prince Rahim Aga Khan (AK IV's son), Princes Zahra Aga Khan (AK IV's daughter), Prince Hussein Aga Khan (AK IV's son), and Prince Ali Mohamed Aga Khan (AK IV's son). Of course, one of the Aga Khan's children (or grand-children) will become Aga Khan V - but that is sometime in the future. Lastly, saying Aga Khan (Ismaili Islam) remains ambiguous even by your logic, as all the ones listed are still of the family and are all important figures for Ismailis (though not the same as the Aga Khan himself).
I agree with some or all of the others deserve their own pages. Prince Sadruddin was the longest serving UNHCR in its history, and served during some tricky times. He started his UN service in 1958, and worked with them till his passing. His Bellereve foundation is an important legacy, as is his collection of Islamic art, particularly an unparralled collection of historic Persian miniatures. The others have similar things to their list of achievements.
Lastly, the items that bear the name Aga Khan, such as the Aga Khan Award for Architecture, were all created by the Aga Khan, and not others who have Aga Khan in their names. The Aga Khan Award for Architecture is one such example. The idea, the funds, the continued guidance, among other things, all come from him. There are other things also that should / could be listed, such as the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard and MIT. Once again, both via his endowments (Something like $70-$90M I believe, but would need to be confirmed). Then there are other significant items, such as Archnet, etcetera. I don't know if people really realize all what the Aga Khan has done in context of positive impact in a global sense. Al-Azhar park was a $30-$40M gift to the city of Cairo, a city his ancestors founded in 969. I believe just the programs he's initiating in Canada are in the order of $250M, and don't forget the $400M he and his partners have already put into Afghanistan (not promissed, rather already spent). Recently, he commited $50M for rebuilding from the earthquake in Pakistan.
When I have time, I'll have to go back into this one and add some of these other significant items.
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)
Actually Mughal, although used for Mongol, is not the ancestory of the Indian royal dynasty. In fact they were the decsendents of Taimur/Tamerlane who was a Tartar therefore, Mughals should be properly known as Tartars or tartaris. it is true that Taimur was a Mongol from his mother's side. A seeker of Truth, 20.12.2007, 13:41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
Untouchable origins of the Ismailis
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
^^ this type of myth doesn't fit in wikipedia given that real scholarship exist making the direct connection all the way up to the start of Islam. There are vast numbers of Ismailis from various traditions, including in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Syria and so on. The city of Cairo was founded by the Ismaili Imamat in 969 CE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue of their origin has to be re-considered in light of the hajji bibi(1905) case and the Agakhans assumming financial control of the assets of converted hindu business tribes (Even if not untouchables). The issue of non accouunting of monies collected as tiths for the last 100 years also points to a murky character, past and present. There are some authors who have assosciated them them the Assasins of persia (and Hasan bin Sabah) and thugs of India. Oppertunistic shaisters at best.
The article states that the Aga Khan was given the title Highness in 1936 by Queen Elisabeth II of England, since she was not Queen until 1952 this clearly false. Since I am no expert in the area I'm afraid I cannot supply a correct date.
Title Details Now Corrected
"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)