Talk:Musha'sha'

untitled comments

Why you have reverted my edits. Let's argue point by point - i don't want to start revert war - but..

1) Translation - Musha'sha is most commonly present english transliteration as present in Moojan Momen "Shia Islam" and several other studies. You will find that search on Msha'sha leads only the present article

2) Early Safavids and Musha'sha are in fact similarly heterodox. Not only Khata'i verses testify to this and the concept of anthropomorphism. It is well documented. Both of the sects grow less radical through time and by time of Tahmasp their eschatology changes. abdulnr 23:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think References section is important to redirect people to actual source of information, so I am adding it back in - see this article for exemplary approach to references: Fuzuli. When supplying Britannica reference please supply the page and the title of the article.

Also what specifically you have against the rulers of the Musha'sha. Do you think it is not correct (this comes from Rulers of Iran site) , or you can supply a different list. See here for example Quba Khanate abdulnr 23:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I deleted the listing of Momen's book. The problem with the list of rulers is that it's not from a verifiable source - see WP:V, meaning that the website does not identify where they have received their information. I have a couple of books which provide detailed information concerning the dynasties of the Msha'sha'iya, but unfortunately I will never be able to add this information. SouthernComfort 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)