Talk:Dawoodi Bohra/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ongoing Succession Crisis

I suggest that editors pay careful attention to this article in the coming weeks and watch for changes regarding the current succession crises. Replace biased sources with neutral sources whenever possible so as to not involve Wikipedia in partisan propaganda. It's my understanding that a lot of the dispute is taking place over e-mail so we should expect that some editors will be more informed than others. Please keep alert for any activity that violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.39.138 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The previous user's changes were removed without reason and replaced with partisan political commentary. I have largely reverted these changes. Any further substantial changes to this section of the article that are not first recommended on the Talk page will be removed and replaced. Don't make an edit war where there's opportunity for peaceful resolution. -Catfax 19:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

‘Syedna Burhanuddin passed away on 17 Jan, 2014. Dawoodi Bohra all over the world mourned his death and world leaders has sent condolences. He is succeded by his nominated successor Syedna Muffadal as 53rd Dai’.

This very important information(reviewed) on Dawoodi Bohra community quoted by genuine reference given of international repute has been deleted by above editor.

'The previous user' comment : ’Currently there is a succession crisis as Khuzaima Bhaisaheb Qutbuddin and his followers dispute the claim of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin to the position of Dāʿī.'

refered above and reverted back by the editor was based on a newspaper blog .

The blog itself was quoting the proof for real nass taken place in 2011 in favour of Muffadal and acceptance of Muffadal as 53rd Dai by lakhs of Bohra. The blog not stating about any proof/ witness for private nass it is quoting on behalf of statement of Qutbuddin who himself is beneficiary.

Still giving importance to this single blog of national paper agency,

remark :There is claim by late Syedna's half brother Khojema Kutbuddin that ‘Syedna had performed nass on him in private nearly 49 years ago’ and dispute Muffadal. . There is tradition that for the nass there is always some witness/proof which is missing in this claim.)'

was included by me( further reviewed) to keep Wikepedia a clear platform with all nonpartisan view.

Somebody has removed this inclusion earlier , I am restoring back this as well as above information removed by above editor)

All users and editors are requested to support above and be aware of the partisan politics played by new editors who has intentionally joined this international free and fare platform now to create unfair edit war for specifically this topic.--Md iet (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your raise a few important issues that should be discussed. The first thing to mention though is that you should re-read the community guidelines for Wikipedia. You allege that I (at least) am participating in partisan politics. Your evidence for this is slim, especially considering that I was the first to suggest talking about changes and avoiding an editing war. More importantly, your claim violates Wikipedia's good faith policy. Revisit this policy before making further accusations.

To the issues: you first mention a section of the article that was removed. This text was removed because it was inappropriate for its position in the article. If you look at the more extensively revised pages for other major faiths you'll notice that they're usually organized according to a format that this page loosely tracks. Information about the faith comes in the lead, information about how the religion is organized comes in the second paragraph, and preliminary remarks about the people who comprise the faith come before stand-alone sections. The deleted remark - though very-well cited - does not fit into this format. It muddies and already top-heavy article with information that is more appropriate to either Syedna Burhanuddin's personal page or a later section. The proposed edit was unsuitable for its place in the article and so was removed.

The current phrasing of the crisis seems to meet your criteria in a suitable way. The introduction states that the current leader was tapped by the past leader as successor in 2011. It also provides insight into the controversy because it states the fact that the claimant disputes the current leader's claim. Additional commentary (including any claims about the legitimacy of either candidates claims) is unfounded and speculative. We don't have reliable insight into the mind of the dead leader, or the events that led to the crisis. As Wikipedia editors we're obliged to provide the facts in a non-partisan way, and the facts are there. If you want to design an additional page that covers the succession crisis specifically (or merely another section to the article) then be my guest. I welcome co-editors and will be happy to help you revise the article. Catfax 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs)

Deleted remark is very important happening of the community well accepted all over media justify it's place. As there is no other objection, the fact is being restored. Regarding additional commentary it is deleted as per editor suggestion.--Md iet (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition but I won't revise it for the moment. You still have not justified its position within the article. I agreed that the facts were important but disagreed about their placement within the article. Until you justify this I consider those statements low priority for the intro. I made a minor edit to revise your grammar and formatting. Catfax 06:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs)

The editor is insisting for the inclusion of the information he desires and same time deleting the further report added by me which is published in the same source he has quoted. This smell something wrong, please restore the information.--Md iet (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your word choice appears partisan. My edits are made in the interest of maintaining a NPOV. "Succession crisis" is completely accurate to the fact that, according to most sources, an unofficial sect has formed as the result of the competing succession claims. This crisis has caused "controversy" (rather than "discussion") because the crisis is grounded on controversial allegations: that the former leader was coerced into naming a successor, that the dead leader's son is subverting the will of his late father, etc. This is not to mention the fact that some articles report that some Bohras have been excommunicated (or threatened with the same) for contacting or supporting the late leader's brother. You also included the language that "There is report that 'unilateral claim has not gone down well..." which is not appropriate for the lead of a Wikipedia entry. This is not a page about the succession crisis. This is a page about the Dawoodi Bohra community. This is not the place to cherry-pick just a few out of many reports about the ongoing controversy, especially if they're as uninformative as this. Wikipedia is not the place for vague commentary - it is a place for facts. Catfax 05:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs)

Commentary as above is now written about the incident and termed as crisis. The facts reported by reliable sources are denied. The facts are last Syedna passed away , new syedna has taken over officially as per his public will and well reported all over the world. There is another claim by last syedna's half brother as per private verbal will, no proof available, no reliable source other then self statement of claimant himself. Reliable sources has confirmed that Dawoodi bohra has not accepted this new claim, there is no affect on official position/ working in Dawoodi Bohra on this issue hence no crisis.

The story is now created by this editor that 'the dead leader's son is subverting the will of his late father'. When there is no such will exist or narrated anywhere in any source how come any crisis only additional claim.

When person in position of Dai accepted by community and the second person claiming the position was excommunicated from community on non acceptance of his verbal proof and the same facts are narrated by all reliable sources then there is no controversy left. The facts reported in reliable sources will prevail on Wiki, creating unnecessary confusion by self motivated new editors may not be tolerated.--Md iet (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You're fabricating. Your claim that "Reliable sources has confirmed that Dawoodi bohra has not accepted this new claim..." is utterly partisan. You don't distinguish between "some" Bohras and "all" Bohras. The fact is that high-ranking Bohras appear to have excommunicated the second claimant. This does not mean that all Bohras share this opinion of the crisis. If you read the cited sources you'll find quotations by people who think that the current leader is acting unjustly and that the dispute should be taken to a human rights tribunal. This is far from a community consensus and your phrasing on this page does not reflect this nuance. The situation remains a crisis because an "unofficial faction" (some sources report) has formed behind the claimant. The manifest possibility of a religious schism at the highest levels of authority is a quintessential example of a crisis for a religious community. I removed the addition that "As reported the claim has been put down by Dawoodi Bohra mass isolating Kutbuddin" because it does not make sense in English. A revised version of this statement may be appropriate, but only if it conforms to the analysis that I've provided above.

I've said repeatedly that your edits appear partisan because of additions like your last one. The considerable chance that the Bohra community will be split along faction lines due to a succession crisis should be reflected in the lead. Comments about who the "real leader" is are inappropriate, and if you disagree then I suggest you reread Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Catfactory,
You wanted me to clarify the intent of the edit, so here.
The intent of the article "Dawoodi Bohra" is to give the reader a fair idea of the community, it's ideals, it's culture and the identity of it's people.
I made an edit in which I removed materiel which I deemed to be irrelevant to the core topic. I also gave the edit summery as:"Irrelevant passage, references in consideration of the page."
The data in question is a speculatory passage over spiritual succession of one community leader over another. Frankly, this matter of speculation is a current issue, and, as such, is mired in conspiracy. hardly fit to be in the lead section of the page of a community with a history of centuries.
It is annoying therefore that you want to put an edit summary as "clarification of succession claims with citation". What do you mean? Don't use this place as a means to put forth your personal inclinations.
I hope that you make an effort to keep Wikipedia the good encyclopedia it is. And I see no reason for you to revert the aforementioned changes. Thanks.DistributorScientiae (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification. I think that the recent succession crisis is important to mention in the lead for two reasons. The first has to do with the Dawoodi Bohra community's structure: the community is very hierarchical. Every religious leader is subordinate to at least one other, except for the supreme leader. The supreme leader is a holy man with immense influence within the community, as well as being the public face for Dawoodi Bohras generally. Thus, mentioning the current leader is essential in giving an accurate (albeit brief) introduction to the community. The succession crisis is unique in that it's currently unclear who leads the Bohra community. A not-insignificant group of people think that it's the claimant, while a great many disagree. This crisis is not yet resolved (i.e. the disagreement is not settled, and the claimant's followers have not yet declared themselves to be a splinter group, an amicable solution has not been found, etc.). So since an accurate account of the community should include a mention of the leader, and the leader's position is unclear relative to historical precedent (one article even called the crisis the most significant event in the community's history since the faith was founded), a mention of the crisis is due. The second reason for mentioning the crisis is more political. It's likely that the crisis will lead to strife, and perhaps violence. A cursory look at message boards or comments on articles on the crisis says one thing very clearly: recent events are very important to the Bohra community and the dust has not yet settled. I think that this opportunity for widespread conflict is enough to warrant at least a passing mention, but there's a further consideration to keep in mind here. There aren't many Wikipedia articles about the status of the Dawoodi Bohra community. There are pages for some leaders, and some events, but none for the present succession crisis. This page is, as a result, crucial to the public understanding of the crisis. But it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides or become a proxy newspaper. So what should we do as Wikipedia editors? It seems obvious to me: mention that there is a crisis. Provide citations to articles that are informative about the crisis. Point out that one leader is the acting head of the faith but that his title is disputed by a claimant and his followers. This solution covers all the bases: it's informative about the faith, informative about a present conflict, reflects the most important facts without partisanship (e.g. no details on why the crisis arose or who's "in the wrong"), and provides resources to the public with which to learn about what's going on.

I don't see the proposed revisions as 'speculatory'. There is no comment on who should be leader, or what claim they have to be the leader. As I've mentioned above, please discuss any proposed edits here before making contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 January 2014

Come to talk reg: Difference between Dawoodi Bohra and other Islamic sects

The major difference in any of the Shia sects is the succession issue, New Shia sects are formed after the demise of their respective Imam or a representative with each party claiming that they have the correct Imam and perform ex communication on the other sects with different set of Imams [1]. The title of the 53rd Da'i of Dawoodi Bohra faces the same succession issue where there are two claimants for the title [2]. Doctrinal differences between the mainstream 12er Shias and Bohras are that the Bohras belive in an esoteric interpretation of Quran and Islam , wherein individual verses and words of the Quran can be given completely different meanings under their scheme of Taweel. Most of the mainstream scholars have declared them to be disbelievers due to their ardent worship of their leader who is called Daae , the Daee of this sect calls for his devotees to prostrate to him and there is frequently sung poetry in their Majlis dedicated to the Daee:

“ Sajda tujhe wajib hai, tu masjid e azam hai,

hajj hai teri pabosi, tu kaaba- e- alam hai

dum tera bharunga main, tausif karoonga main,

ae shah-e-zaman jab tak, ye dum mein, mera dum hain

”

Following are some typical activities that differentiate them from other Islamic sects:

• Prostrating other than Allah

• Women kissing their leader's hands and feet and those of his family

• The leader of Bohras claims to be the overall controller of the soul and faith

• The leader of Bohras claiming he exclusively owns all Waqf properties

• The leader of Bohras claiming he has the right to socially boycott those who object to him

The Milli Gazette a widely read Muslim news source in an article “The Wizard of Gujarat” the writer has said that “Bohras do not represent the mainstream Muslim community”. In other words, Dawoodi Bohras have separated themselves from the mainstream Islam.

The sect is infamously known for harsh religious persecution of its own followers to the extend they have again split into this issue alone forming the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra Sect.

• (Reply) Your view for dawoodi bohra seems to be extremely prejudiced. There is nothing to prove here. let this article state facts with proper references.Defaming any religion is not proper conduct of reliable editor. please refrain from imposing. What written above is biased summery of what is already described in chronological order in this article.Verses written are in foreign language written in english text.I dont think that is according to wikipedia guideline. Further the references you have cited are from forums. Mufaddalqn (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Reply)You have made lot of assumptions above.what do you consider to be main stream islam?Mufaddalqn (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest user:Summichum to sign his commentsMufaddalqn (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• If user:Summichum had taken pains to READ the article before doing any editing, he would clearly know the Difference between Dawoodi Bohra and other Islamic sects Mufaddalqn (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Since there are so many sects in Islam, the fatwa of one group doesn't mean, that group is speaking for all others. There are already major disputes going on between different sects,Like Shia, Sunni, Wahhabi.This is not the place to put that. It has always being the policy of Dawoodi Bohra's with guidance of Dai al Mutlaq to respect all the religions. Your edits doesn't prove any purpose, but instill animosity among others. therefore it doesn't help this article.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Mufaddalqn Thats just blind accusations , I have provided links to the fatwas of major scholars like the Most recognized fatwaas of KSA permanent committe . The dawoodi bohras have seperted them from Islam as cited in Milli gazette. Dont remove that.

Summichum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Recognized by whom? certainly not india. KSA stands for saudi arabia and it is under control of Wahhabism. Is wikipedia now honoring Fatwaas?!!! Pathetic.Mufaddalqn (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufaddalqn (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • The Milli gazette article is a good secondary source which is published by third party, moreover the fatwa are authoritative and they were just quoted as views of mainstream scholars , you are not required to accept it. But this is a significant information about dawoodi bohras which should not be hidden. If you try to only represent your own opinion about dawoodi bohra then it violates Wikipedia:NPOV . The policy states that all significant views whether negative or positive should be written.Summichum (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Claimant dispute!

Hello everybody, I'm Anup. I was invited to check POV, unreliable sources and contents based on the same (specially claimant issue in the lead). I've earlier been engaged into a similar article Qutbi Bohra, which ended up me re-writing the article as a whole. I admit, I'm not interested on this particular subject, but as I've been partially familiar with the subject, an editor approached me on my talk page to interfere into this article to maintain POV. I've not analyzed all contents and sources yet, but the lead. I found it interesting, as it is the only published source which declares, Saifuddin as the 53rd Da'i (an original research). Well, I've been boldy removed that particular claim and re-written it accordingly available reliable sources with no personal opinion. I've little expanded the lead and arranged few images randomly floating in the article. I'm writing here on talk page to invite editors to discuss the change I made to the article and some more changes (must be made) to improve the article and remove multiple ugly maintenance tags. I've removed {{primary source}} tag, as the article doesn't heavily depends on primary sources and changed the reason of {{cleanup}} template from "[..]red links[..]" to "original research". People here, new to editing, are advised to read, good faith and no personal attacks before making comments not related to the subject and neutral point of view, related to the subject. And, please wait at least 24hrs before assuming self-consensus. Thank you! Anupmehra (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Anup. I trust you would help prevent this article from becoming a means to propaganda. and maintain NPOV. simultaneously prevent BLP violation. Since you are familiar with dawoodi bohra, I trust you know they are peace loving community and respect all other religion. and expect same from others.Mufaddalqn (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Anup for your positive value addition to the topic. I have rewritten your one para :

"Mohammed Burhanuddin (6 March 1915 – 17 January 2014) was the last and 52nd Dā‘ī l-Muṭlaq. The succession of Da'i al-Mutlaq is disputed between his son Mufaddal Saifuddin and his half-brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin. It is said that, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin had declared his son Muffadal Saifuddin as his successor in the London in 2011. While Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Burhanuddin's half-brother claimed that his half-brother appointed him heir around 50 years ago while conferring on him the title of 'mazoon' and also published a public notice on his website declaring the same. "

as below:

"Mohammed Burhanuddin (6 March 1915 – 17 January 2014) was the last and 52nd Dā‘ī l-Muṭlaq. His son Mufaddal Saifuddin and his half-brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin are two claimants for the post. It is said that Burhanuddin proclaimed succession on Mufaddal Bhaisaheb Saifuddin on June 4, 2011 in London. Burhanuddin was in the hospital at the time , and the Dawoodi Bohra community had welcomed Mufaddal Saifuddin as his successor.

After demise of late Syedna, Mufaddal Saifuddin took charge officially as 53rd Dai . and most Bohras believed him to be their Dai.While Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Burhanuddin's half-brother claimed that his half-brother appointed him heir around 50 years ago while conferring on him the title of 'mazoon' and also published a public notice on his website declaring the same ."

making the reports further match with facts and having proper reliable third party source.

Hope you, other editors and administrators would further evaluate and edit the article accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. For me it seems a little biased towards Saifuddin. Perhaps we need attention of some more editors or a third opinion. Can you please copy present contents of this submission in your user space and re-write it as a whole making it in compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, concentrating more on the subject (Dawoodi Bohra) and less on the controversy? The article is over-winded with original research. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In the the above para all the material is well cited and quoted word by word. These are facts narrated in national news paper. This is article on Mufaddal and he deserve full coverage including mention of controversial reports published with references given such that people can decide and know about the facts. Question of biasness come when we are hiding facts. How can you judge the content 'a little biased', when we are reporting the matter in sequence, point by point, word by word, as per reports published. Succession is not a small issue, it is directly related with basic priciples and faith of Fatimid, for which Imam Husain has sacrificed his family. It is direct impact on basic faith. For protection of this faith many Dai of Yemen faced very tragic life and Dai Qutbuddin Shahid sacrificed his head to Mughal ruler Aurangzeb in Ahmedabad. We can skip some facts which are not yet covered in well reputed sources but well sourced reports covered above on the matter is to be included in the media such as of Wiki, which is respected for free and fare democratic presentation. We will work together as desired by you. You are very correct that there are material, looks like original research, as we have limitation on public literature and we have to work hard to come up to the expectations of Wiki, same time educate people to the all facts, showing both side of coins.--Md iet (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 March 2014

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community is called Da'i al-Mutlaq (Arabic: داعي المطلق), which serves as the representative of the Imam. The role of Da'i was created by Queen Arwa bint Ahmed (also known as Al-Hurra Al-Malika) of Yemen. It was initially created as a subordinate role to support other roles as such Hujja, Dai-ad-Du'at and Dai Balagh. Following the hiding of 21st Imam Al-Tayyeb and (unavailability of the successor), Queen appointed Syedna Zueb bin Musa as the first Dai-al-Mutlaq to rule the whole D'awa.Ali Asghar Enginner (1993). The Bohras (Revised ed.). Mumbai.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), Abdullah Hamdani. Comprehensive Genealogy of Islamic Societies. Abdullah Hamdani (2003)., "Royal tussle over successor" (PDF). Retrieved 26 March 2014..

Request Removal of unavailability of the successor as it contradicts the very basic faith of Dawoodi Bohra and The reference of Asqar Engineer as the source is baised and he is founder of Progressive dawoodi bohra, the minority faction. I would Like to source more neutral source such as The Author of Mullah on Mainframe,http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/056767in.html Mr Jonah Blank. He clearly states in his book that the belief of Dawoodi Bohra is that the Imam is present in seclusion and is appointed from father to son until the time come to reveal themselves.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=uDVHN6xkdiMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bohras&lr=&as_brr=0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Bohras&f=false

Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mufaddalqn, this is a basic contradiction on faith, request immediate edit of the para considering below;

"The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community is called Da'i al-Mutlaq (Arabic: داعي المطلق), which serves as the representative of the Imam. The role of Da'i al-Mutlaq was created by Queen Arwa bint Ahmed (also known as Al-Hurra Al-Malika) of Yemen. The term Dā'ī al-Mutlaq (Arabic: الداعي المطلق‎) literally means "the absolute or unrestricted missionary". Following the seclusion of 21st Imam Al-Tayyeb ,Queen appointed Syedna Zueb bin Musa as the first Dai-al-Mutlaq to rule the whole D'awa as absolute or unrestricted missionary on behalf of Imam. This post has given him additional responsibility and not same as of simple earlier Dai, who were their when Imam were not in seclusion and publicly present”. --Md iet (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

More appropriate wold be as given in At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim. (According to "Ṭāyyibī Mustā‘līd" tradition, before Ṭāyyib went into seclusion his father al-Amir instructed Queen al-Hurrah Arwa al-Sulayhi in Yemen to anoint a vicegerent after the seclusion. The vicegerent, or Da'i al-Mutlaq, would have full authority to govern the community in all matters both spiritual and temporal. She appointed Da'i Zoeb bin musa as First Dai in Yemen.)Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The content being asked to be removed partially or total, was added by me. I've never been interested on topics related to the subject, therefore fairly unknown regarding, biased and unbiased sources. Above content was added by me is based on, "Royal tussle over successor" (PDF). p. 4. Retrieved 27 March 2014., the source beside "Ali Asghar Engineer. The Bohras." also mentions, "Comprehensive Geneology of Islamic Socieities. Abdullah Hamdani.". A consensus must be established to make changes in a fully protected article, to improve the article and to prevent edit war. I'd opine to wait 48 hrs to draw attention of other related editors to this edit request and further comments from experts on this subject. I'd request to editors to keep their POV out of Wikipedia. Editors engaged in the edit war primarily seems to me, followers of Saifuddin and Qutbuddin. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr Anupmehra -Let's talk! Wether followers of Saifuddin or Qutbuddin, I think both would agree to my request above. because it is the most basic element of faith for dawoodi bohra.I have cited the reference above.Mufaddalqn (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like for your reference totally independent source the author of Mullah on Mainframehttp://books.google.co.in/books?id=r_FExBRnC3YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref> Mr.Jonah Blank http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/056767.html Mufaddalqn (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Mufaddalqn- As you've not cited a particular page but a whole book and I'm unintentionally involved here, I need some time go through the sources to perform a check to the claim. I just want the article to be accurate and neutral. There are tons of sources available for this purpose. I've earlier worked on "Qutbi Bohra" and now working on "Muffadal Saifuddin". Dawoodi Bohra is a related subject but comparatively deep. I need some time. You seem to be a good faith editor. I'd request you to contribute your knowledge and experience in this purpose. This article needs to be reviewed against reliable sources, original research and some other wiki standards, perhaps a re-writing as a whole. If you could, then copy the contents of the article in your userspace and check contents against sources, if needed google for new ones, delete original research and unreliable sources. Regarding this edit-request, I'm waiting for some earlier involved editors comments. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr User:Anupmehra I will do the needful. I too believe in maintaining integrity of wikipedia because of its impact as well researched source of encyclopedic information accessed by the world.Mufaddalqn (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unavailability of the successor phrase in context of Imam/Dai

My proposal is for :

Removal of unavailability of the successor word as it contradicts the very basic faith of Fatimid/Dawoodi Bohra. As per Fatimid faith Imam would always be present on earth, whether visible to public or not. According to Fatimid/Ṭāyyibī/ Mustā‘lī tradition, before Ṭāyyib went into seclusion his father al-Amir instructed Queen al-Hurrah Arwa al-Sulayhi in Yemen to anoint a vicegerent after the seclusion. The vicegerent, or Da'i al-Mutlaq, would have full authority to govern the community in all matters both spiritual and temporal. One Imam cannot die before doing Nass (appointing his successor), and when Imam is in seclusion, his dai al-mutlaq cannot die before appointing his successor. In Fatimid faith there is not at all possibility of position like "unavailability of the successor". Successor is well appointed whether he is in seclusion on publically present.

To explain the case further, as evidence of the continuity of the Imamate, the Dawoodi cite the example of the 3rd Imam, Ali ibn Husayn, who was not killed by the army of Yezid in the Battle of Karbala, claiming that even Yezid could not kill the only surviving male of the Imamate line when even six month child of Imam Husain was killed. Similarly, the Dawoodi cite the miraculous survival of their 33rd Dai, Syedna Feerkhan Shujauddin, who was arrested by a Mughul ruler Shah Jahan taken to Lahore, and imprisoned in a stable. When a fire broke out in the area, the particular area of stable was miraculously spared and the Dai survived. The Moghul ruler was impressed, and believed this was testament to the Dai's holy status, and released him and sent him to Ahmedabad with full honors.

To have the citation please refer article:

Lifelong Learning: Articles, Ismailis, by Dr Farhad Daftary (This is an edited version of an article that was originally published in Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 403-406, ed. Josef W. Meri, Routledge (New York-London, 2006). “The Tayyibis believe that their imams have remained in concealment since the time of al-Tayyib himself, who disappeared under mysterious circumstances. In the absence of their imams, the affairs of the Tayyibi da‘wa and community have been administered by da‘i mutlaqs, that is, supreme da‘is with full authority.”[3]

I hope there will be no doubts left on my above reasonings, and request consensus for following:

Replace para:

"The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community is called Da'i al-Mutlaq (Arabic: داعي المطلق‎), which serves as the representative of the Imam. The role of Da'i was created by Queen Arwa bint Ahmed (also known as Al-Hurra Al-Malika) of Yemen. It was initially created as a subordinate role to support other roles as such Hujja, Dai-ad-Du'at and Dai Balagh. Following the hiding of 21st Imam Al-Tayyeb and unavailability of the successor, Queen appointed Syedna Zueb bin Musa as the first Dai-al-Mutlaq to rule the whole D'awa.[2][3][4]"

With

"The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community is called Da'i al-Mutlaq (Arabic: داعي المطلق)(Unrestricted Missionary), which serves as the representative of the Imam. The role of Da'i al-Mutlaq was created by Queen Arwa bint Ahmed (also known as Al-Hurra Al-Malika) of Yemen. The term Dā'ī al-Mutlaq (Arabic: الداعي المطلق‎) literally means "the absolute or unrestricted missionary". Following the seclusion of 21st Imam Al-Tayyeb ,Queen appointed Syedna Zueb bin Musa as the first Dai-al-Mutlaq to rule the whole D'awa as absolute or unrestricted missionary on behalf of Imam.”[4]--Md iet (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Md iet.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Any editors wants to do value addition is welcome. As the present wordings are not at all true and if there is no further change suggested, we may proceed with change proposed above.--Md iet (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd provide to my input here. First, I'm glad to see, people are working together to improve the article. And, I'm agree with the changes suggested above. I'll request Md iet to join me and Mufaddalqn, where we are attempting to re-write the article from a new end as a whole to comply with wiki standards (once in compliance with wiki standards, it'd be acceptable by everyone, therefore no edit-war). I've earlier opined somewhere that, the subject of the article is an ideal subject and taking into consideration no lack of reliable sources, if written well, it'd a good or featured article, what it deserves to be. It has a history of more than thousand years, it'd be an amazing experience to read a thousand year history of the subject rather than recent over-rated "succession controversy". Just 2-3 days and we're going to have it. There's something else, more interesting stuffs still awaiting to be covered into this article. I can help to the extent I could. So, what do you people say? Join hands and give Wikipedia an another Good/Featured article! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely yes, I have already appreciated and agreed for your suggestion and remarked somewhere. I have seen your draft and working for the same.--Md iet (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hope there is no opposition to my request above , I request Callanecc to act in favour of change if he think so.

• • CallaneccI oppose the change as its common in the history of Ismaili religion to not have an available successor , this has happened many times in the past , even now the current successor of dawoodi bohra is disputed. All the shia sects are results of succession disputes. It is said that the Ismaili leader acquires so much wealth , power and luxury in Ismaili religion that he fears declaring a successor and only gives gestures to interested parties to put them in false hopes of promotion ,thereby acquiring support from both the opponents and remaining in center stage . And there are about 70+ known , extinct, current shia sects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• There are lack of faith, bad luck, and grid which allow evils forces to override. The sect are extinct because they are result of those evil forces. Evil/false can't survive but truth will prevail. Fatimid are truth and they are prevailing since creation of Islam as they have Iman (faith) which cannot be purchased at any cost. Who says that there is "unavailability of successor", real successor has already taken over, got the blessings of his master Imam Husain, and visited three countries as Dawoodi Bohra head, with grand welcome as state guests "His Holiness Syedna Mufaddal SaifuddinTUS was received as a State Guest in all the countries he visited, enhancing India’s efforts to strengthen its ties with those nations and its people. During his visit, His Holiness met with senior members of the establishment including the President of Yemen.". In fact there is 'availability of even an additional feck successor', which will also extinct one day as described above.--Md iet (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2014

As per discussion above[5] request Removal of para

"The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community is called Da'i al-Mutlaq (Arabic: داعي المطلق‎), which serves as the representative of the Imam. The role of Da'i was created by Queen Arwa bint Ahmed (also known as Al-Hurra Al-Malika) of Yemen. It was initially created as a subordinate role to support other roles as such Hujja, Dai-ad-Du'at and Dai Balagh. Following the hiding of 21st Imam Al-Tayyeb and unavailability of the successor, Queen appointed Syedna Zueb bin Musa as the first Dai-al-Mutlaq to rule the whole D'awa.[2][3][4]"

to be replaced with:

"The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community is called Da'i al-Mutlaq (Arabic: داعي المطلق)(Unrestricted Missionary), which serves as the representative of the Imam. The role of Da'i al-Mutlaq was created by Queen Arwa bint Ahmed (also known as Al-Hurra Al-Malika) of Yemen. The term Dā'ī al-Mutlaq (Arabic: الداعي المطلق‎) literally means "the absolute or unrestricted missionary". Following the seclusion of 21st Imam Al-Tayyeb ,Queen appointed Syedna Zueb bin Musa as the first Dai-al-Mutlaq to rule the whole D'awa as absolute or unrestricted missionary on behalf of Imam.”[6]." --Md iet (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I oppose the change as its common in the history of Ismaili religion to not have an available successor , this has happened many times in the past , even now the current successor of dawoodi bohra is disputed. All the shia sects are results of succession disputes.And there are about 70+ known , extinct, current shia sects Summichum (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• There are lack of faith, bad luck, and grid which allow evils forces to override. The sect are extinct because they are result of those evil forces. Evil/false can't survive and truth will prevail. Fatimid are truth and they are prevailing since creation of Islam as they have Iman (faith) which cannot be purchased at any cost. Who says that there is "unavailability of successor", real successor has already taken over, got the blessings of his master Imam Husain, and visited three countries as Dawoodi Bohra head, with grand welcome as state guests "His Holiness Syedna Mufaddal SaifuddinTUS was received as a State Guest in all the countries he visited, enhancing India’s efforts to strengthen its ties with those nations and its people. During his visit, His Holiness met with senior members of the establishment including the President of Yemen.". In fact there is 'availability of even an additional feck successor', which will also extinct one day as described above.

This is article on Fatimid Dawoodi Bohra sect and Fatima knows that there will not be position of unavailability ever.--Md iet (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Due to Md iet's objection, I can't fulfil this request now. Please discuss this together to try and find a version that you can both be happy with. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any objection, but Mr. SUMCHuM has an objection, which I explained in detail. ‘ unavailability’ term, is forcibly put into the statement. This is totally false and seems to be purely own research. Statement may pleas be replaced immediately as supported by two another editors User:Anupmehra and Mufaddalqn as above [7]. --Md iet (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Again, sorry, I don't see a consensus to make the edit here. You need to actually discuss this with Summichum and to come to an agreement before I can carry out this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr. SUMCHUm accepted that he is outside of our society and cannot be expert on the subject on Fatimid tradition. There may be many minority shia sect of their own which do not have availability of Imam/Dai, like so called progressive Bohra, they don't have any Dai because they don't accept Fatimid principle itself, and there generation is on that ground only. You can't force anybody to remain in particular religion as India is secular democratic country. It is difficult to convince SUMCHUM, as it seems he has on special task and he is searching the matter from all the source which are controversial or meant to publish that type of propaganda or free for all type publication without any prestige.

Still I request him to study Fatimid principles, and don't go to the extent attacking a religious faith. I have explained the case in detail above by giving example of miraculous escape of one Dai. Anybody can verify Fatimid history.

I don't expect any favorable response from SUMCHUM, we already have consensus of three vs one. Any body who wants to do further value addition is welcome please.--Md iet (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Although I dont belong to the community nor was born in it, yet I have significantly read about it from primary sources which I guess even Md_iet might have not. I can vouch for the fact that there were many times when successor was unavailable like the last one Tayyab. It was a face saving measure to invent the theory of hidden Imam to hide this fact. Actually from what I read there is no succession to prophet hood in Islam. Muhammad died without nominating a successor. As he was the final prophet. The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet , and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims[8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of a chat platform [9], where anybody can say anything, all fatwa and whatever anybody likes are discussed, is the source selected by Summichum for making blatant allegation that 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims'. This is not just a original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline., this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. DB are on real sunnat of Muhammad and follow the deeds of their Imams as principles of working, on the basis of Al-Qadi al-Nu'man's most prominent work, the Daim al-Islam[10].--Md iet (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • Mr.SUMCHUM, if you don't belong to the community, please don't comment on faith matters and Wiki do not recognize primary sources. You seems to be amongst non believer and you don't know, what is difference between just Islam and 'Islam with Iman(faith)'. So please god sake don't interfere in the matter of faith, by just reading some books. From the comments you have, we can guess, what faith you have. Being introduced yourself after Khuzaima incident, doing selective editing, we can guess your motives, and want to appeal to all who are involved not to tarnish Fatimid faith, whatever motive you have. Your perception of Ali, Ghadir khum and Tayyeb along with Abu Bakr make us presume what you have in mind. Compare people of faith like Husain against cruel Yezid and similarly lateral Imam like Abdullah against cruelity of Umayyad/Abbasid Caliph. Your philosophy seems to be with those group, people with power, non believer and who can't imagine what does Faith means. Just a minority group, invented own religion and so on. If you don't have faith then why you are pocking your nose here on minority. Why you are behind the people who believe in philosophy for which Imam Husain has sacrificed his full family even a six month child. If main stream Muslim does not recognize them then what interest you have here. We are not asking non believer to believe our faith, they are free to do whatever they want. By forcing comments which is basically against faith of the community in the article of that community is not at all justified. It is immaterial what is it's size and who recognize them. So called progressive bohra's are doing whatever they find good, nobody has any objection but they can't have both advantage want to do their own, don't follow religion guidelines and simultaneously claims to be Dawoodi Bohra and tarnish /distort their faith and image.

Imam Tayyeb was just 4 years old when his father Imam Amir was killed under conspiracy by Nizari group. There was institution of Dai already established in Yemen from the time of Imam Mustansir coordinating the matter from Cairo to Yemen under Sulayhid dynasty queen. As Imam Amir was in trouble and he suspected that Fatimid faith can be in trouble, he appointed his 4 year son as Imam and instructed queen for appointing make Dai an independent authority to take care Fatimid priciples representing Imam. On Imam's instructions Dai post was converted in to Dai-al- Mutlaq ( unrestricted/ independent), which was independent of political interference. On the same principle of Fatimid these Dai-al Mutlaq worked and Fatimid faith could survive in spite of change of rule in Yemen of Zaydis and rule of Salladin in Egypt. When Dai of Fatimid found that they can't survive their faith in Yemen they have shifted Dawat in India from Dai Yusuf/ Jalal shamsuddin onward.

On the same cause Dai Qutbuddin sacrificed his life, his head was cutoff, but never agreed to false allegation of being ravjy(non believer of Islam) of Aurangjeb and argued that he is on real sunnat (principles) of Nabi Muhammad.

Mr. Sumchum, I am really sorry for using harsh language here, but it is matter of faith, pinching me most, please forgive me. I request Anup and all fellow editors to please take care of above and do value addition whatever you can for making Wiki really a free and fare platform.--Md iet (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For the editors knowledge I quote the para of 'caliphate Vs. Imamat' used to exist in this article in 2010-12:

"On the view of Caliphate, Dawoodi Bohras strongly believe in the Imamate principle (as do other Shi'a groups) of nass as done by earlier Imams mentioned above, and think that the Imam need not be ruler, and he serves only to safeguard divine authority of God the religion from the politics of the world (duniya, the "external World"). As evidence of the continuity of the Imamate, the Dawoodi cite the example of the 3rd Imam, Ali ibn Husayn, who was not killed by the army of Yezid in the Battle of Karbala, claiming that even Yezid could not kill the only surviving male of the Imamate line.[citation needed]

Similarly, the Dawoodi cite the miraculous survival of their 33rd Dai, Syedna Feerkhan Shujauddin, who was arrested by a Mughul ruler Shah Jahan taken to Lahore, and imprisoned in a stable. When a fire broke out in the area, the stable was miraculously spared and the Dai survived. The Moghul ruler was impressed, and believed this was testament to the Dai's holy status, and released him and sent him to Ahmedabad with full honors.[16][17]

Dawoodi Bohra believe that the office of Dai al-Mutlaq was instituted as the Imam is in occultation, and imamate principle is to be followed in his absence to hand over the imamate to Imam Tayyab’s heir who will again reappear as Imam. They cite as precedent the case of the 11th Imam Abdillah, who appeared 150 years after the death of the 6th Imam Ismail, while the intervening imams were "hidden".

This delegation system is structured so that in the absence of their Imam, the Dai guides the community on his behalf, and further appointed his nominee right up to grass root level.[clarification needed] An amil[clarification needed] (usually a graduate of the order's institution of higher learning, Al Jamea tus Saifiyah) who leads a local congregation in religious, social, and communal affairs, is sent to each town where a sizable Dawoodi population exists all over the world. Even for a village with just a few Bohra families nominees can be appointed from amongst themselves. This is to ensure that the Dai's message reaches each individual, and a direct link to God. Each town normally has a mosque complex or a smaller 'markaz' where socio-religious functions are held. The local organizations which manage these properties and administer the social and religious activities of the local Bohras report directly to the central administration of the Da'i based in Bombay, called al-Dawah al-Hadiyah and close links are maintained for all Bohra all over the world. There is clear cut delegation directly available to any person of the community. This help inculcate a universal brotherhood amongst them, a same culture, same habits of living, togetherness for the cause of Islam and same time dedication to the land they live[10](may like to see a web article in reference list below '...being a dawoodi bohra'[11] describing Bohra themselves."--Md iet (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging @Qwertyus:, comment on the suggested changes? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Md_iet I am extremely dissapointed by your persistent addition of personal opinions without citations , what you have written seems to be a fringe view which is not supported by any reliable citations from authoritative third parties. Your responses are full of claims, accusations, yet no evidence for the same. There are enough books written on Bohras by western orientalist scholars which can be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Reply given above is repeated again please:

On the basis of a chat platform [12], where anybody can say anything, all fatwa and whatever anybody likes are discussed, is the source selected by Summichum for making blatant allegation that 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims'. This is not just a original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline., this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. DB are on real sunnat of Muhammad and follow the deeds of their Imams as principles of working, on the basis of Al-Qadi al-Nu'man's most prominent work, the Daim al-Islam[13].--Md iet (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)--Md iet (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Passage about Mufaddal Saifuddin as 53rd Dai should be deleted

Hello, This passage should be deleted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra#Religion ):

Mohammed Burhanuddin appointed his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin to the office of Dā'ī al-Mutlaq during his London stay after his 100th birthday celebrations in Mumbai, in June, 2011[31]

As we all know, the office of 53rd Dai is disputed by two claimants. Thanks, Ftutocdg (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The wiki reports the things which reliable sources declares considering NPOV, not hiding other reported facts.

The latest reports in newspaper announce: ['Know more about Dawoodi Bohra chief Mufaddal Saifuddin', India TV news desk, New Delhi, 19 Mar 2014, http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/know-more-about-dawoodi-bohra-chief-mufaddal-saifuddin--34490.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk0, "Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin now leads the Dawoodi Bohra community following the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who passed away in Mumbai on January 17, 2014 at the age of 102 after a cardiac arrest."].

["Dawoodi Bohra Leader Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin Receives Warm Welcome from Thousands of his Followers on his Return from Historic First Pilgrimage as 53rd Dai Al-Mutlaq ", http://businesswireindia.com/news/news-details/dawoodi-bohra-leader-syedna-mufaddal-saifuddin-receives-warm-welcome-f/38705ome, Mumbai, March 22,2014].

The above latest reports declare Mufaddal as 53rd Dai, and June 2011 incident is well reported and supported by reliable sources. Regarding another claimant, Wiki has already made the position quite clear in lead Para only.--Md iet (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If Certain users like summichum intends to push his POV I am afraid there will not be an end to this edit.My good friend Anupmehra too was frustrated in trying to find solution. Why this user so intend in suppressing the well sourced and referenced edits and push his POV instead.Let controversy be addressed my Media and let this article stand for what it is, maintain BLPMufaddalqn (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 April 2014

This passage should be deleted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra#Religion ): Mufaddal is still a claimant as can be seen in Mufaddal Saifuddin

Mohammed Burhanuddin appointed his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin to the office of Dā'ī al-Mutlaq during his London stay after his 100th birthday celebrations in Mumbai, in June, 2011[31]

As we all know, the office of 53rd Dai is disputed by two claimants.

Also all other statements in abovce section which say that Mufaddal is the dai should be removed ,User:AnupmehraUser:Callanecc knows about this issue.

Summichum (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that it should not be deleted entirely but add some words

It is reported that Mohammed Burhanuddin appointed his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin to the office of Dā'ī al-Mutlaq during his London stay after his 100th birthday celebrations in Mumbai, in June, 2011[31]

which is the fact as represented by the media.Rukn950 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:- Yes, the existing claim is a hoax! It is better to re-write accordingly sources available rather than deleting. I'm modifying a little above suggested modification by User:Rukn950. Edit-request should be as follow,

Please replace,

Mohammed Burhanuddin appointed his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin to the office of Dā'ī al-Mutlaq during his London stay after his 100th birthday celebrations in Mumbai, in June, 2011

with

It is said that, Syedna Burhanuddin has performed "nass" (succession) on his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin in London on June 4, 2011.

Reason: Fails verification. Personal opinion embedded by some POV editor. Succession issue has not yet been resolved. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What User:Anupmehra suggest seems appropriate. Rukn950 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Anupmehra This is better as it covers all 3 POV:

The succession issue of Burhanuddin is shrouded in dispute with one claimant saying that It is claimed that, Syedna Burhanuddin has performed "nass" (succession) on his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin in London on June 4, 2011. Whereas the Mazoon or second in command also claims that nass was performed on him 49 years back , the central board of dawoodi bohra rejects both claimants and accuses both for fighting over wealth.

Summichum (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree summichum statement is more inclined to his POV. cannot be considered neutral.Rukn950 (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC) User:Anupmehra suggestion seems to be appropriate. I also disagree with Summichum statement.--Md iet (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• • No, it reflects all 3 POV , whereas yours reflects only one hence its more nuetralSummichum (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

user summichum dont be childish this is not war about POV but to present facts in fair manner. maintaining NPOV. Rukn950 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And speaking about POV just one glance at your article #REDIRECT 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) would show where you stand.Rukn950 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You also need to discuss and agree upon a change, for example propose the change then have discussion about that change, propose another in a new sub-section and discuss that proposal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal right to excommunicate

Here's an interesting piece of legal history that could be added to this article: in 1962, the leader of the Bohra challenged an act that prohibited excommunication and won. The source for this, Introduction to the Constitution of India, adds that "the right [to excommunicate] has been often used to curb criticism and reform and to deny freedom of speech to the Bohra community". The case was apparently reconsidered in 2005, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, but the outcome was not yet known when the book was written. I'm not an expert on Indian law, so I can't vouch for the book's authority. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've read the same somewhere. I just made a google search and found these links, [14], [15], [16]. These links might be unreliable but could be attributed to official government websites. I'm an Indian but did not knew any of these stuffs until I was not randomly involved. I need sometime to go deed into this regard. As an another external editor related to these bohra topics, I'd request to watchlist following related articles as well, Taher Saifuddin, Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Mufaddal Saifuddin. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I'd like propose the following addition to the history section, in the bit that discusses the last century:

Since the middle of the twentieth century CE, the Dawoodi Bohra community has seen a process of combined modernization and Islamic revival that includes, in the words of anthopologist Jonah Blank, "greater gender equality than most communities of the subcontinent" and has made the Bohras "internet pioneers". -- Jonah Blank (2001). Mullahs on the Mainframe. University of Chicago Press.

At the same time, the sect has maintained a strict religious hierarchy, where "central control extends well beyond the realm of theology to encompass all aspects of a believer's life", except for the case of a "small group of dissidents", who still regard the da'i al-mutlaq as the supreme religious authority. -- Jonah Blank (2001). Mullahs on the Mainframe. University of Chicago Press.

One of the methods by which control is asserted over followers is the use of excommunication, which "has often been used to curb criticism and reform". -- Brij Kishore Sharma (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. Prentice Hall of India. p. 105.

In 1962, the Syedna in fact challenged a Mumbai act that prohibited excommunication and won the case; the Indian Supreme Court ruled that excommunication on religious grounds was constitutional. -- Brij Kishore Sharma (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. Prentice Hall of India. p. 105.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... I didn't intend all the references to appear here. Please see the source, I only intend to add two sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Removed <ref></ref> tag! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I approve , do you have the whole book (Mullahs ....), I do have it , if you want some scans do let me know . You can add much more from that book alone? Anyways that book is now highly obsolete and the author himself has accepted that he was not allowed access to many of the bohra literature and doctrines as he was not under the Mithaaq(covenant). Nevertheless a medieval Islamic scholar Gazali has written a lot on fatimid Ismaili doctrinesThe Infamies (Enormities) of the Batinites and the Virtues (Merits) of the Mustazhirites-( Fada'ih al-Batiniyya wa Fada'il al-Mustazhiriyya).Summichum (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Blank states in the introduction that his view has been limited to the very orthodox Dawoodi Bohras. I'm not too interesting in medieval thought right now. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no access to the first source, -- Jonah Blank (2001). Mullahs on the Mainframe. University of Chicago Press. --, this is why unable to verify contents of proposed addition (first two lines).

I can access the second one, as it is online. The source doesn't mention, 1962. Where did it actually come from? Which Syedna challenged the Bombay Act (not Mumbai)? City has been renamed to "Mumbai" from "Bombay", but the high court is not yet, it is still called, "Bombay High Court". However, If confirmed, 1962, It'd be Mohammed Burhanuddin. It is not-clear who said, "the right has been used to curb criticism and reforms and to deny any freedom of speech to the Bohra community". Author of the book? Such an outstanding claim it is, that, it'd be needing more than one citations. The case was further referred to the a constitutional bench, everyone would like to know, what happened thereafter. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I read Blank's book on Google Books.

The year of the lawsuit is given in footnote 154, which cites the exact case: Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 853, also online (at the non-governmental website that you found earlier).

Footnote 155 gives references to criticisms of the ruling by jurists, including this book, which calls attention to "the weakness of failing to convince from doctrinal sources the position of ex-communication as an essentially part of the Dawoodi Bohra community, an anvil on which the other claims of the Hindu sects or Qureshi community were placed" (p. 273).

I can't find a corroborating source for the "freedom of speech" bit, so I suggest we leave that out then. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please give us a link to Google books to that reference as well. So, we could analyze the contents against the source.

The court case was filed in 1962, it must have been resolved to this date. We need to gather some more information to give a complete picture of the scene. Submitting to partial information about something happened decades before might be considered mis-representation. I'm not against the addition, but I want it to be simple, clear and complete. I would admit that, I'm busy these days around, therefore would be less-available to contribute into this regard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mullahs on the Mainframe on GBooks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Spelling variation

This should be uncontroversial: Daudi Bohra is used as an alternative romanization in some sources and should be listed in the first sentence. Daudi Bohra in fact redirects here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)  Question: What do you mean by first sentence, lead? However, the word "Daudi Bohra" is not used any where in the article. What changes are you actually thinking about? Is it like, "Dawoodi Bohra ( Urdu: داؤدی بوہرہ‎) (also known as Daudi Bohra) is a sub-sect of Shia Islam"? Please explain! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, lead, preferably "Dawoodi Bohra ( Urdu: داؤدی بوہرہ‎, also spelled Daudi Bohra)", exactly because it is not used in the article but it is used in sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, okay! Please analyze these changes,

Original- "Dawoodi Bohra ( Urdu: داؤدی بوہرہ‎) are a sub-sect of Shia Islam"

A.- "Dawoodi Bohra ( Urdu: داؤدی بوہرہ‎, also spelled Daudi Bohra) is a sub-sect of Shia Islam"

Or,

B.- "Dawoodi Bohra ( Urdu: داؤدی بوہرہ‎, also spelled Daudi Bohra) is a sub-sect within Mustaali, Ismaili Shia branch of Islam.

I'm agree with, whatever. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've add ", also spelled Daudi Bohra" as uncontroversial, "within Mustaali..." will need to be discussed first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 April 2014

I dont see how still that statement is lingering which says Burhanuddin declared Mufaddal as the 53rd dai, instead replace with:

The succession issue of Burhanuddin is shrouded in dispute with one claimant saying that It is claimed that, Syedna Burhanuddin has performed "nass" (succession) on his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin in London on June 4, 2011. Whereas the Mazoon or second in command also claims that nass was performed on him 49 years back , the central board of dawoodi bohra rejects both claimants and accuses both for fighting over wealth.

Summichum (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Note that: Md_iet Ruqn950 have been reported on COI noticeboard

• Present statement :

"The succession of Da'i al-Mutlaq is disputed between his son Mufaddal Saifuddin and his half-brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin.[5][6] It is said that, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin had declared his son Muffadal Saifuddin as his successor in the London in 2011.[7] [8] While Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Burhanuddin's half-brother claimed that his half-brother appointed him heir around 50 years ago while conferring on him the title of 'mazoon' and also published a public notice on his website declaring the same.[9] [10]'

already coversall the facts reported. The dispute is clearly mentioned describing claim of both the parties.

The statement 'declared his son Muffadal Saifuddin as his successor' carry same meaning as of 'performed "nass" (succession) on his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin'; 'Declared.. successor' and 'performed "nas'( succession)' are one and same thing and any wording can be chosen. 'The central board of dawoodi bohra' is a minority platform of so called 'progressive dawoodi Bohra'. This is an independent group, not related with 'Dawoodi Bohra' main group and their comment do not justify any space in lead para of 'Dawoodi Bohra' article.--Md iet (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • their site claims that they are dawoodi bohras and also believe in daee. and they have a significant following worldwide. They also claim that the dai is misusing his powers and that they are the 'real' dawoodi bohras. so dont judge on this as you have COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: For us to change this we need a consensus. That means you actually need to talk to each other rather than arguing with each other. Please re-enable the {{edit protected}} template when you find a consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reincarnation and other Batini beliefs

This article could be better if the metaphysical beliefs of the bohra were better clarified.

First death anniversary of late Syedna, a historic event

The edition was done at [17], [18], and [19] for an important event in DB history. User:Summichum had removed the same in the name of vandalism/test edit.

The following may please be added in ‘Demographics and culture’ section:

"As per report more than three hundred of thousand Dawoodi Bohra gathered in Mumbai from all over the world on January 6, 2015 to commemorate late Dai Syedna Burhanuddin’s first death anniversary. On the occasion Fadnavis, CM of Maharashtra addressed the gathering in presence of Mufaddal Saifuddin, and commented that Dawoodi Bohra is 'peace loving', 'progressive', 'hard working' community and, they 'contribute immensely to the GDP of the country'. .

CM, Maharashtra with Mufaddal on occasion of first death anniversary of late Syedna Burhanuddin, Jan 6, 2015

Hundreds of thousand DB doing sermon under Mufaddal

DB offering tribute to Burhanuddin at Raudat Tahera his cremation place.

"

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources provided do not support the information in the edit requested.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see [20]: -‘commemorate 'Urus' or the first death anniversary’ ‘The main day of his passing is January 6’

-‘Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, has described the Dawoodi Bohra community as peace-loving and progressive’

-‘Speaking at a huge gathering of Bohras who have gathered in Mumbai to mark the first death anniversary of their leader, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, the chief minister said the Bohras were hardworking and they contributed immensely to the GDP of the country.’

-‘More than 3 lakh ( 300 thousands) Bohras from 55 countries around the world have come to the city to homage to their spiritual leader”.

-The photo in the news as well as attached one, depict CM as wellas Mufaddal seating in the gathering.

Hope these are sufficient to support above edit requested.

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Undone: this is a one-off event with unclear historical significance. It doesn't belong in that section, and (IMHO) not in this article at all at this point. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a historical event in the Dawoodi Bohra history when more than 3 lakhs(300 thousands, about one third of community gathered at one place to commumurate anniversary of their late Syedna. It is also historic because a state CM attended the function and commented about the whole community which is the subject of article.

It is very much belong to DB article as it belong to their leader, it represented by mass of them and it speak about them. It constitute matter of its own section but it is immaterial where we can place that. Reliable authentic historical material may please be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.153.160 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't judge whether an event has historical significance a week after it's happened. That's a basic tenet of historiography. Also, the quote is the kind of standard praise that politicians give at this kind of meeting. It's not significant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is gathering of one third of community hundreds of thosand people at one place from more than 55 countries for their leader is not significant?

Is Presence of state head is not significant in itself?

Matter is true or false or standard is not to be decided by editors. Information from reliable source of significant personality on the subject is justified to be included.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.141.189 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 

If there is no further suggestions, the edit may be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.180.9 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Images above may also be given space in the article.125.21.153.160 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no further suggestions. May plz edit.

Hundreds of thousands copies sold after one week of Charlie's incident defined as historic. Importance and impact matters not the time.

Matter covers culture and their belief on Dai, can be put in any relevant section.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Material copied from sources without necessary permits

In the section 'evolution of DB...' some poetry and fatwa points are just copied word to word without providing permit details. Similar unjustified material edition was done by me with proper justification, which were completely undone by someone (including some important valid new images). He may be warned/restricted doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.156.10 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As per above in the section "Evolution of Dawoodi Bohra..." the complete poem "Sajda tuje..... " and typical activities "*Prostrating other.....,*The leader of Bohra..." are copied as it is from the cited source without any details of copy right. This is against wiki rules, may be deleted.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit to me made from X to Y as below:

X:

part of edit request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evolution... "The Dawoodi... Dai" "Doctrinal... in front of him". "The following.. Sajda...hain". " Following are...object to him". "In article... Now Y should be: Y: Evolution... " The Dawoodi... Dai". "Doctrinal...in front of him". "In article... The deletion part: " The follo....object to him". This deletion part is direct copy from sources, copy right details required, hence to be deleted, and X to be made Y.

Okay, I think what you're requesting is that the poem in Dawoodi Bohra#Evolution of Dawoodi Bohra from other Shia sects be removed. Is that correct? Cannolis (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Poem as well as salient points of Fatwa report to be deleted as it is direct copy of material from a chat forum/ committee . Copy right information may be required. Hope I am right. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.137.61 (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

First death anniversary of late Syedna, a historic event

The edition was done at [21], [22], and [23] for an important event in DB history. User:Summichum had removed the same in the name of vandalism/test edit.

The following may please be added in ‘Demographics and culture’ section:

"As per report more than three hundred of thousand Dawoodi Bohra gathered in Mumbai from all over the world on January 6, 2015 to commemorate late Dai Syedna Burhanuddin’s first death anniversary. On the occasion Fadnavis, CM of Maharashtra addressed the gathering in presence of Mufaddal Saifuddin, and commented that Dawoodi Bohra is 'peace loving', 'progressive', 'hard working' community and, they 'contribute immensely to the GDP of the country'. .

CM, Maharashtra with Mufaddal on occasion of first death anniversary of late Syedna Burhanuddin, Jan 6, 2015

Hundreds of thousand DB doing sermon under Mufaddal

DB offering tribute to Burhanuddin at Raudat Tahera his cremation place.

"

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources provided do not support the information in the edit requested.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see [24]: -‘commemorate 'Urus' or the first death anniversary’ ‘The main day of his passing is January 6’

-‘Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, has described the Dawoodi Bohra community as peace-loving and progressive’

-‘Speaking at a huge gathering of Bohras who have gathered in Mumbai to mark the first death anniversary of their leader, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, the chief minister said the Bohras were hardworking and they contributed immensely to the GDP of the country.’

-‘More than 3 lakh ( 300 thousands) Bohras from 55 countries around the world have come to the city to homage to their spiritual leader”.

-The photo in the news as well as attached one, depict CM as wellas Mufaddal seating in the gathering.

Hope these are sufficient to support above edit requested.

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Undone: this is a one-off event with unclear historical significance. It doesn't belong in that section, and (IMHO) not in this article at all at this point. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a historical event in the Dawoodi Bohra history when more than 3 lakhs(300 thousands, about one third of community gathered at one place to commumurate anniversary of their late Syedna. It is also historic because a state CM attended the function and commented about the whole community which is the subject of article.

It is very much belong to DB article as it belong to their leader, it represented by mass of them and it speak about them. It constitute matter of its own section but it is immaterial where we can place that. Reliable authentic historical material may please be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.153.160 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't judge whether an event has historical significance a week after it's happened. That's a basic tenet of historiography. Also, the quote is the kind of standard praise that politicians give at this kind of meeting. It's not significant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is gathering of one third of community hundreds of thosand people at one place from more than 55 countries for their leader is not significant?

Is Presence of state head is not significant in itself?

Matter is true or false or standard is not to be decided by editors. Information from reliable source of significant personality on the subject is justified to be included.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.141.189 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 

If there is no further suggestions, the edit may be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.180.9 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Images above may also be given space in the article.125.21.153.160 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no further suggestions. May plz edit.

Hundreds of thousands copies sold after one week of Charlie's incident defined as historic. Importance and impact matters not the time.

Matter covers culture and their belief on Dai, can be put in any relevant section.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request as above

As there is consensus edition may be done

In "Imam and Dais" section : Change X: "Dawoodi ....

....worldwide."

to Y: " Dawoodi....

....worldwide."

Add para :

"As per report more ....

.....GDP of the country." ( as written in the start of this section above.) http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150107/jsp/nation/story_7156.jsp#VLOiInrbugto

Add images given above.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -I do not see any consensus over there. All I see is objection by Qwertyus. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus requested again

Objection raised above is answered and clarified. If objection persist may further confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.181.40 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Evolution of Dawoodi Bohra...

1. Deoband :
2. Askimam:
3. Dawoodi-Bohras.com
4. Dawoodi-Bohras.com

The above references given are not reliable because they are self sourced(which have been already established previously) . kindly give reliable references or we would have to remove the content.Rukn950 (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bjelleklang,Becky Sayles, request you to look into this.Rukn950 (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rukn950: Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. If you are not autoconfirmed, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Material copied from sources without necessary permits

In the section 'evolution of DB...' some poetry and fatwa points are just copied word to word without providing permit details. Similar unjustified material edition was done by me with proper justification, which were completely undone by someone (including some important valid new images). He may be warned/restricted doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.156.10 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As per above in the section "Evolution of Dawoodi Bohra..." the complete poem "Sajda tuje..... " and typical activities "*Prostrating other.....,*The leader of Bohra..." are copied as it is from the cited source without any details of copy right. This is against wiki rules, may be deleted.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit to me made from X to Y as below:

X:

part of edit request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evolution... "The Dawoodi... Dai" "Doctrinal... in front of him". "The following.. Sajda...hain". " Following are...object to him". "In article... Now Y should be: Y: Evolution... " The Dawoodi... Dai". "Doctrinal...in front of him". "In article... The deletion part: " The follo....object to him". This deletion part is direct copy from sources, copy right details required, hence to be deleted, and X to be made Y.

Okay, I think what you're requesting is that the poem in Dawoodi Bohra#Evolution of Dawoodi Bohra from other Shia sects be removed. Is that correct? Cannolis (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)