Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

File:Syedi Mufaddal Saifuddin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Syedi Mufaddal Saifuddin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014

IN THE ARTICLE SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN THERE IS A MISTAKE, SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (TUS) IS NOT CLAIMING TO BE THE DAI,SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN(TUS) IS THE 53RD DAI-AL-MUTLAQ OF THE DAWOOD BOHRAS, SYEDNA MOHAMMED BURHANUDDIN(R.A.)HAS DONE NASS ON SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN(TUS)MANY TIMES Superhuzaifa (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We know there is a dispute over who is the of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras, and until the dispute is settled we will continue to describe both claimants in that way.
It is not our role to side with one claimant or another, but to explain that there is a dispute, who is involved, and why the dispute has arisen.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please maintain NPOV and both are only claimants untill the courts decide.

• the article should be fully protected in its stable NPOV form : [1] as I dont see the issue resolving in near future , hence for NPOV both should be written as claimants only citing various issues over the succession. Moreover the matter has gone into courts as in the alleged succession video[2] ,no one was named by Burhanuddin as he was completely disabled and could not speak, move and was made like a Idol to preside over the ceremony.

Also the succession Issue is such that the people cant elect the Da'i . It has to be a verbal succession statement from Burhanuddin. It seen that Burhanuddin never made any verbal public declaration of succession. It was only after he went into a comma and stroke in London that his sons declared themselves as the successor with no verbal statement from the deceased Da'i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.208.58 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've replaced the semi protection with full protection since the semi didn't stop the edit war. I encourage the involved users to discuss the disputed content and its relation to the BLP policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 February 2014

Reference

• [3]
• [4]

Murtazajamali (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• What edit, exactly, are you asking to be done? WN.com is not a WP:RS, and the other link has nothing of value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Succession

Those of you who are removing that Saifuddin and Qutbuddin are both claiming succession, or that Saifuddin has been unequivocally confirmed as the new Da'i al-Mutlaq, do you have any 1) policy-based reasons for doing so or 2) reliable sources stating Saifuddin's position? It is clear, to me, that the controversy cannot simply be removed because you disagree with it. It has been major news in India, and even reached the UK, for three weeks. Like it or lump it, the controversy is part of the succession (whoever succeeds Burhanuddin). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2014

I wanted to edit the article as I have a lot of knowledge about this matter . In the current article a lot of vandalism was done and attempts were made to conceal various news reports about the succession controversy in wiki it was changed to "Succession story". The links like http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/nass-e-jali-1432h-part-ii-raudat-tahera/ are partisan \ primary sources which represent the camp of Muffadal. On such issues third party sources are required. The following edit is the best reflection and NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=594834390

The above was subject to various vandalism attempts which was reverted but nevertheless it remains. Summichum (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing by Markdrows

Mufaddal Saifuddin is accepted by almost 99.99 % of Bohra Population. Khuzaima Qutbuddin is just accepted by 40-50 people (his relatives and few more). I have mentioned that in both the pages.

Mufaddal Saifuddin has never claimed to be Dai-al Mutlaq. He was informed by his brothers from London that Mohammed Burhanuddin has appointed him as his successor.

It is Khuzaima Qutbuddin who is claiming himself as Dai-al-Mutlaq.

• Refs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the refs can be found at Indo gulf times Asms5253 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Succession dispute

This article on Muffadal_Saifuddin is written by biased elements. There is a severe crisis in the dawoodi bohra community regarding succession issue of the Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras . Muffadal is just one of the claimant to this title and there are various legal issues in court to decide the succession issue. The other claimant is Khuzaima_Qutbuddin who has furnished written proof of succession as the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. The only proof which Muffadal has is a video on the supposed succession where the 52th leader was in comatose state of stroke. He was just made to sit in front of Muffadal to show the succession.

Hence the article and its infobox should reflect Muffadal as a Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq and not appointed one as there are legal battles going for the succession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.233.76 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital which led his son Mufaddal Saifuddin to proclaim himself as the successor in a London Hospital followed by a ritualistic ceremony in Mumbai while the Syedna was still in the condition of stroke.[5] However, this has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin - who proclaims the title of the 53rd Dā‘ī l-Muṭlaq - and a minority of the Dawoodi Bohras. He also claims that the succession was not done in London as he suffered from stroke. Muffadal took advantage of this and declared himself as the successor[6]. The former Chief Justice of India upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.233.76 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492, this is what's at stake in that edit war during which you blocked IP122.168.246.72. Their edits are not of good faith: they are edit-warring to keep out information (verified information) that indicates that this succession is not uncontroversial. I just closed a report at WP:ANEW, indicating that you blocked them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, noticed this. The section obviously needs work, but am trying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• As for the first comment, please provide citation for the written proof of succession(nass). As per the claimant Khuzaima himself, it was only between him and syedna, NO other witness and no writting of the event, then please show where is this said written proof? As per the Chief Justice, he has said, "Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled". This does not equate to the writing of the nass by syedna Burhanuddin but according to ones belief ("NOT AS A JUSTICE", but a simple devotee) one believes to be true, so there is no Judiciary element into it. Also I can't find any where if a case has been fielded, I mean not just a rumor in the newspaper but evedence of it being field, All the cases in india, current or past, are recorded online an example here[8] please give citation here so its progress can also be traced.Mustafasr (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Additional argument, this is one of the videos that the claimant khuzema has alledged that Syedna Burhanuddin was diabilated and was hijacked and was made to do things against his own will. Please view the video and the debate[9], the opposition side, which one may prefer to read first is here[10] Please check the question 12. The video and related content is now pulled down from there site, as there is a clear announcement of the name of the successor by syedna burhanuddin as indicated on the first citation in this comment and can be heard clearly by anyone wearing a headphone while listening on the specified times. The cache copy of the original claim for the video and its links can be checked on googles cache here [11] I hope this is now Neutral POV with proper evidence and citations Mustafasr (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Mustafasr, Google User Content and "Believe Syedna Qutbuddin.com" are clearly not reliable sources. You're not going to convince anyone with those sources. Read WP:RS. Even if Saifuddin is ultimately confirmed, that does not mean information on the controversy should be removed wholesale; it was clearly a major event — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Md iet

• Md iet, I have reverted your revert as your revert reinserted content with significant issues. One by one:

1. WP:IMGSIZE is against having a 350px lede image
2. Both Saifuddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin are, technically, claimants, as the succession issue has not been resolved yet. Claiming one is Da'i al-Mutlaq is POV
3. MOS:DATES is clearly against having 23rd, 14th, etc. as dates (WP:BADDATEFORMAT
4. Way too many images, including several non-free images which violate the WP:NFCC
5. The days are not necessary, see MOS:DATES
6. Wordings such as "Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin solemnized his Nikah" are overly venerative and not understandable to the majority of readers. The hijri date is similar, although in some cases it can be kept.
7. The revert reintroduced numerous typos and spelling errors, including spaces

Please discuss before reverting further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• And I've just reverted Markdrows, who removed the "claimant" bit and its reference, and added that 99.99% (a rather magical number) confirmed him, but without evidence. This is contested material and edits will need to be argued and explained, or the article will be locked down completely. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just further clarified succession story with due references to make things clear. Further reversion of above said material pointed out by you will be done with due care.--Md iet (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have reverted as the sources are not reliable. Blogspot? Partisan sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think You have seen only selected source and reverted the edit. may please see the following:

Report from Daily News and Analysis:

‘he was admitted to a London hospital on Saturday night after a stroke. The leader’s second son, Mufaddal has been announced as the next supreme head of the community’.

‘On Sunday, a website hosting Bohra community news announced that Syedna Burhanuddin ‘has proclaimed Naas (succession) upon Shahzada Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin’.’

Report from Hindustan Times

“With prayers and quiet celebrations at home, the Dawoodi Bohra community has welcomed their community leader’s choice of Shahzada Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin as his successor. Saifuddin, 66, is the second son of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, and was named the 53rd ‘Dai-al-Mutlaq’, the post of the community’s spiritual leader, early on Sunday. The community is concerned about the health of the 100-year-old Syedna, who was in a London hospital recuperating from a stroke when he made the announcement. “

Report from Wiki [http://wikinewslive.com/dr-syedna-mohammed-burhanuddin-dies-funeral-details/115/] “Syedi Aaliqadr Mufaddal Bhaisaheb Saifuddin has ascended as the new spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community. He is the second son of Muhammed Burhanuddin.”

Report from Business Standard [12]

“The late Syedna's second son, Mufaddal Saifuddin, took over as the new Syedna and becomes the 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq.” “Later, the funeral procession culminated in a final "namaaz-e-janaza"… The new Syedna led the prayers after which the body was laid to rest.”

Report from The Hindu [13]

“Throughout the day, the community awaited the arrival of Dr. Syedna’s successor — his second son and the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (70) — who is on his way back from Sri Lanka. He was proclaimed the successor in 2011 in London.

“The present 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin shall lead the Namaz-e-Janaza of the late Syedna at Saifee Masjid at Bhendi Bazaar and shall be laid to rest at Raudat Tahera mausoleum in Mumbai,” the press release stated.

Report from Outlook[14]

“In 2011, Syedna had proclaimed Nass (investiture) upon his second son Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in London. The present 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin led the Namaz-e-Janaza of the late Syedna at Saifee Masjid at Bhendi Bazaar before he was laid to rest at Raudat Tahera mausoleum in Mumbai.

However, the following day, just as many gathered for the funeral procession from Saifee Mahal to Raudat Tahera, where he would be buried later in the day. With the tri-colour on the coffin, thousands, perhaps lakhs (strangely reminiscent of Bal Thackeray’s funeral) walked in the procession”

Report from Indian Express[15]

“Many Bohras have accepted Burhanuddin’s second son Syedi Mufaddal Saifuddin as Syedna”

“Nass is the official conferring of succession of the Dai’s position, which can be done either in a public ceremony or in private. At 3.15 pm on Saturday, when Muffadal Bhaisaheb Saifuddin made his first public appearance on a temporary bridge connecting Saifee Masjid and Raudat Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed “Maula” giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq.” “For some members of the community, there is absolutely no doubt over the succession of Mufaddal Bhaisaheb as the next Syedna.”

I think inclusion of my edit is justified; we may rework it if some correction required.

I have also included subject on another claimant, who has raising the issue after passing away of late Syedna and reported in news. The claimant and his family are beneficiary themselves still their views are included. The claimant himself has accepted the nass and congratulated the first claimant as justified by some of editors above then how he can claim now. The expression and movement of late Syedna in video available of the ceremony at Raudat Tahera [16] clearly speak about the fact although he was not very clear of his voice to others.

Some editor above claimed that 'Mufaddal Saifuddin proclaim himself as the successor in a London Hospital'. When he was not present in London, how he can claim. One of the witness of the nass was first son of late Syedna, how come first son accept false nass of his younger brother Muffadal.

The ex chief justice of India is Bohra and seems to be one amongst of the rival group of late Syedna, he cannot be expert of knowledge of Fatimid tradition Bohra follow. His opinion can be quoted but he is no authority to judge the case. --Md iet (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Right now there is no RS stating that the issue has been solved. All the RS's I've found state that the issue is ongoing (example). As such, although Saifuddin may have a larger backing, neither has been 100% confirmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I will say that the source that the case is field is also not reliable, as I commented in the above section, please provide the citation for the case on this official judiciary website of the indian government.[17] I cant find any case filled, once cited here, it shall be also easy to follow the progress of the hearings. Mustafasr (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Threats and intimidation reported

Bohras who refuse to denounce Qutbuddin face threats, this shows how serious this controversy is and by taking the side of the opressor the locked article is clearly locked in the wrong version : [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.218.74 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not threats or any act due to fear of losing some thing, it is anger and inner fillings of fidayeen(warriors) of Fatimid culture which is coming out. They can't see or digest this type of behavior of their own. It is my request to everybody to not to indulge in this type of activities, we should not forget that Fatimid culture has loved everybody and respected their opponents also. They are one of us and will realize sooner or later.--Md iet (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Request restraining SUMCHUM from forcing his POV and encouraging edit war

--Md iet (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because reference are valid. --Ftutocdg (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again the references are not valid and sourced from media. further statement by Judge Ahmedi has no legal standing. petition filed is from web and has no legal standing. There are thousands of people who believe and I Believed the Mufaddal Saifuddin is our 53 Dai. if people who do not agree please refrain from this article and do as you please. why write libelious comment against him. whatever claim you make you make at the site of khuzaima qutbuddin your 53rd dai. Mufaddalqn (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Media source are valid since they are from major Indian newspapers. Your reason for speed deletion are not valid. your beliefs is your concern, not wikipedia's user concern. Thanks Ftutocdg (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Same your argument are baseless. facts have been misrepresented. and my citation for delete is absolutely valid. as this is a biography of living person. media tend to exaggerate facts in order to sell their papers. so they cannot be a reliable source.it is wikipedia's user concern that no libelous and defamatory statement or comments are made in the article. only facts to be stated and should be neutral.Mufaddalqn (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are imposing your POV on major newpapers artcile. Reference are valid regarding the succession issue, the persecution of followers of Khuzaima Qutbuddin, ... CONTEST DELETION. NO VALID REASON.. Keep your beliefs for you. However, you can contribute in the improvement of the article instead of vandalizing. Thanks. Ftutocdg (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Muffadal is still a Claimant to the Da'i and the version is locked inadvertently in the wrong version

By freezing Mufaddal Saifuddin in the form User:Mufaddalqn is trying to impose on it, inadvertently one is effectively taking his side in this dispute. I request that admin should put the article back to the last edit by user [19].The sufficiently sourced section was deliberately blanked in an attempt to conceal available information thereby biasing the article to reflect a single party view. while this issue is still under controversy. The other claimant Khuzaima Qutubuddin is also a claimant and the title of Da'i is something which cannot be decided by bohra public but only by clear verbal or written expression of the succession deed by Burhanuddin in sane state of Mind and physical well being. So in short Muffadal is currently just a claimant to the title like his rival and the matter is in court of law to decide the truth of the matter. Infact the highest judicial authority in India, The former chief justice of India has made a public statement that the party of Khuzaima has all the correct proofs as the rightful claimant of the title of 53rd Da'i. And the public demonstration of the succession ceremony was a case of misuse of the comatose body of Burhanuddin by his sons to farce a succession show. In the alleged ceremony Burhanuddin was in comatose state as reported in the linked news sources as well as can be seen in the video.

Another view could be that Burhanuddin did not gave succesion to anybody but died without a succession deed. === Succession controversy===SAYEDNA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (T.U.S.) IS THE REAL DAI UL MUTLAQ OF --178.61.188.74 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)--178.61.188.74 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)--178.61.188.74 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)DAWOODI BOHRA. 100% OF DAWOODI BOHRA'S ARE WITH HIM. THE SO CALLED CLAIMANT IS A LIAR, AND IS BACKED BY HIS FAMILY ONLY.I.E SONS, WIFE AND DAUGHTERS. SAYEDNA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (T.U.S.) IS THE 53RD DAI......LONG LIVE MUFADDAL MOULA..AMEEN, PLEAE UPDATE UR PAGE AS 53 DAI. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital, which led Saifuddin to proclaim himself as the successor in a London Hospital followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna was still in the state of full blown stroke at age of 100. However, Muffadal's claim to succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Bhaisaheb Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor. He also claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move. While in the state of stroke, his aspiring son Muffadal declared himself as successor. The former Chief Justice of India, AM Ahmadi, upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor as he was the second in command to the Daee before Burhanuddin died.

References

the controversy is still going on has reached an ugly face with harassment attacks between both parties[20]

• See m:The Wrong Version. That term's not going to draw much support for your position (although to be honest I agree with your assessment). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• thanks I had been given that by the admin and hence this discussion to resolve this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Rather this should be reverted to the original version - Asms5253 (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • You mean the one which is completely unreferenced and has terrible grammar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • It is really bad that the current version which is conveying a wrong information and taking sides is still locked. Crisco is this normal on Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
        • It depends on when the admin protects the page. If I edited through the protection I'd be (quite rightly) blocked. We need to establish a consensus here, which is impossible when the other side is not talking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The Children Section from the original version is not disputed. It can be reinserted as is. - 116.74.96.140 (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • • Not in dispute, okay. But still unreferenced. Per WP:BLP it should not be included. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • the other side is least bothered as they have just wrote from their mind and not verifiable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.233.205 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• My knowledge of history is limited, but I dont remember any Pope or any religious Leader elected by a court in the past, can this be a issue whom the people follow in their belief will be decided by courts from now on? Sory just to clear the smoke ie distinguish between rumors and reality. Mustafasr (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering people of this religion still haven't reached a unanimous decision, or formal decision recognized by the general public, it is not the court which we are waiting for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refer all the reports published in mass media, the fact is general public has recognized Muffadal Saifuddin from very first day, which is very very evident from last ritual reports of late Syedna. He has taken over complete administration of Dai office since then and mass public is with him which is attributed by mass public coming to Mumbai to pay respect to late Syedna and convey condolences to his son new Syedna and various dignitaries visited him.

The claimant Khozaima reports are coming after passing away of Syedna, if he is true then why he has not clarified the information in public and met with late Syedna to clarify the succession claim whereas he revealed the information to exchief justice and his family (He claims that it was supposed to be top secret and bound to be not to share with anybody). The succession of Muffadal Saifuddin was declared in 2011 and he had sufficient time to sort out the issue.--Md iet (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes but Khuzaima has cited that he was instructed to keep it secret from general **public** by Burhanuddin. This was a well known fact in the internal circles. Anyways both are claimants and one should not take side of any unless a court of law decides on the matter. Court of law is important as by law the Dai position is the owner of all properties, hence it becomes a civil legal matter to decide the owner of the properties. It is also reported that most of the people are being forced to accept Muffadal as he acqquired all control over the properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.218.74 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The motive behind the propaganda has clearly come out, Khozaima and his family with few associated wants to be owner of Dawoodi Bohra properties. Let it be clear that Dai is representative of Dawoodi Bohra mass who clearly knows who is their true representative. The properties are of Dawoodi Bohra, Dai is just care taker. By self claiming Dai's position will not make anybody owner. Court of law is not blind, it will never be with a few chunk of people claiming something of their own for their self interest. Public properties will remain with public and Dawoodi Bohra mass is its owner.

Khozaima alleged to have collected enough properties of its own, its better he be satisfied with that only and don’t make the fun of Fatimid culture, else he will be ruined and will left with neither ‘Dhan’(property) nor ‘ Dharam’ (religion).

It is still time he should realise his fault and accept true invitation given by Muffadal, he will get love and respect of him and all Dawoodi Bohra. He has enough properties with him, he will not get any penny further rather loose and already started loosing. If he accept true Fatimid culture leaving aside his personnel ego, Muffadal can give further whatever he wants except position of Dai which is not of his own but given by Fatimid culture which has to be uphold at any cost. Muffadal is also one of his own and Khozaima will remain elder and beloved uncle, more respectful then he was.

It is my inner personal fillings that Taha is going to be next Dai and Khozaima's daughter is his wife. Khozaima's son become next Dai has no chance at all but there is ample chances that his daughter get honour of wife of a Dai that will also be a great. Khozaima's son seems to be overeducated and mastermind behind this drama. It is Dawoodi Bohra request to Syedi Khozaima (not to this Khozaima) to not to come under influence of anybody, he has few years to live with, let it be with full honour and with Fatimid tradition as he was one of a pillar of it, his father Taher Saifuddin and his brother Mohammad Burhanuddin loved him and given him honour till they lived and will get same from Mufaddal.--Md iet (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please dont write personal opinions , the succession is not granted to any party , both remain as claimants and hence one should not take side of any one person. So let the NPOV state remain. Also from what I read the position of Daai is not decided by people but only by the preceding Dai hence a majority voting cannot decide a Dai. So please dont take side of any one person and let both the persons should stay as claimant to the title unless court of law decides who is the real claimant based on the evidences put forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.126.76 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As there is second claimant, reports and comments available from valid sources, It is very true that for Wiki part NPOV is to be reported. But it does not mean that correct and well referenced information also to be removed as being done by (User talk:Summichum, who seems joined this forum recently to force partisan POV. Regarding referring Muffadal as 53rd Dai there are arguments which can be resolved through consensus. We can't stop general public to undo the specific comment which is not acceptable to them when it is not true, well reported in media, religious matter, acceptable to mass community and not affected by court decision (court cannot decide pope) as court cannot allocate mass public properties to one who has not their support, at most can recognize faction and give authority to use facility depending on their strength. Few hundred people cannot claim for full community on the basis of money power when their claim is not acceptable to mass on religious ground.

I have not disturbed the 'claimant' comment as it need consensus, but reinstated the true information well reported in media, may please not delete, we may reframe them as per Wiki standard for proper presentation.(User talk:Summichum has given some comment on my talk page, better he restrain from doing partisan activities, forcing his POV on Wiki.--Md iet (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Md iet You had removed claimant from the Infobox , which i restored it back.secondly the ceremony video has no utterance of the lisanud dawat phrase " nass no taj". Please do not write clearly discernible lies as anyone who hears the video can hear that he did not say anything , even at the cited time there is no reaction from audience which proves that nothing important was said as audience itself could not hear it. Hence I request you in the spirit of Wikipedia to not write biased comments on the video. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The video comment was not originally written by me, the undo action done by me was for restoring my well reported facts being altered by you for forcing your POV.--Md iet (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Marriage

There is mention Jawharat-u-sharaf Aai Saheba, but seems that Mufaddal Saifuddin was married to one of Khuzaima Qutbuddin's daughter as his second wife. Why there is no mention on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftutocdg (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Succession Controversy

Mr.Sumchum is inadvertently disrupting Wiki genuine edition. Regarding claimant issue we agree that till there is two claimant, both will remain claimant for Wiki till a consensus is not arrived. Accept this issue Mr. Sumchum is trying to delete genuine important content and forcing unjustified addition. Request admin to control the fellow who has specifically joined the Wiki for specific intent. --Md iet (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• • What you (talk) have provided as evidence are personal blog links of muffadal saifuddin one of the disputants and the diary images as seen are clearly fraudulent as Burhanuddin was not in a position to write or even sign things. The diary images are clearly self made fabrications of one of the disputants. It is well known that Burhanuddin did not utter nass even while he was healthy for 50 yrs. So this was for a purpose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The diary pages are of year 1388 AH, 48 year old, when Burhanuddin was in his full command.--Md iet (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Forced Revisions

Editor Summichum is trying to force his partisan view, neglecting mass media reports. It is ample clear that this editor has joined Wiki for this specific purpose. He is welcome to add facts but suppressing true information is not desired. This page is for Mufaddal Saifuddin, all true information on him are preferred here. All the negative things as well as minority views are also to be pointed out with due reference such that viewer can decide and know about factual position. These things can be further detailed in relevant specific pages allocated for that topics (like Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, Qutbi Bohra) etc.

Complete statement of Khuzaima, reference of his personal site, CJI event and statement, statement on allege harassment and press release of minority Progressive bohra group with reference is given, what else he wants from Wiki?

He wants that only information of his claimant is given and all other real happening incidents of Muffadal are to be sensored is not possible for Wiki.

It is very true that there is controversial succession conflict, but it is also clear that it is raised by minority group, mainly for public property control, which is under possession of Dawoodi Bohra community and mass community is with Mufaddal.

The smooth transfer of post has already taken place, reported in mass media, having support of mass Dawoodi Bohra(well reported), already accepted by most official including Foreign Minister of India.

The second claimant is intentionally raising the issue in public after more then two years of public declaration of Nass, after the demise of late Syedna, who could have easily clarified whole story when he was alive. Dawoodi Bohra could have demanded explanation from Mufaddal and there are various authority who could have clarified the matter, in case there was abnormal issues with Mufaddal's nass.

Khuzaima was away from Burhanuddin since more than two years since Nass was publicly announced; only gone inside his room when he was no more. When he is so confident that Burhanuddin has appointed him as his successor, what was hitch that he could not clarify the same in two year period? Nobody has forced Khuzaima not to meet Burhanuddin. He approached to former Indian CJI, why he has not disclosed nass matter directly to Burhanuddin or made public the issue when he has already broken the oath by disclosing to CJI.

On the day of sad demise he whisked away from residence of Burhanuddin in front of mass public. Nobody has stopped him, why he has not stayed to take part in last ritual. After going to Thane he was requesting for safety. When he went away crossing mass public, there was no issue of safety, even public was respecting him and asking his blessings while his car was moving out.

Considering all above it is fact that 53rd Dai is Muffadal, declared in mass media. He has all valid proof, which are open to public. Now it is also fact that there is another claimant, putting up his case with whatever method he can. Media is reporting the matter as it is against one religious system and there are always issues with any religion we have and human grid is everywhere involved as anyway all are human beings. It is media responsibility to pinpoint them and they also gain popularity, so they encourage it, but it should be aimed for social upliftmant, not for creating religious disorder.

It is Wiki's responsibility to give true picture of information in encyclopaedic manner. This is such a unique platform where self correction possibility is there and only and only truth will prevail in long run.

Although all media is referring Mufaddal as 53rd Dai, till consensus is arrived we can call both as claimant but true facts are to be presented, and mass report is to be given importance and other facts/reports of minority with due source also to be reported such that third person can get detail information if he deserve so.

Hope all the editors will keep Wiki above all, and editor using this platform for partisan view be restrained.--Md iet (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

Please change the profile text from: "He was born on 23 Ramadan 1365 Hijra (20 August 1946), the night of Laylat al-Qadr.[2]

As a child, during the era of Syenda Taher Saifuddin, he began the recitation of the Quran in Saifee Villa, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

He married Jawharat-u-sharaf Aai Saheba on 1 January 1970. They have five children, one of whom is Jafar us Sadiq Mufaddal Saifuddin.[citation needed]"

to:

"He was born on 23 Ramadan 1365 Hijra (August 20, 1946), the night of Laylat al-Qadr.[2] Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin is the 53rd Dai or “Unrestricted Missionary” of the Dawoodi Bohras. He succeeded the office of Dai Al Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras after 52nd Dai Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin passed away on Friday 16th January 2014.

When Mufaddal Saifuddin was born, his grandfather, the 51st Dai Syedna Taher Saifuddin, wrote a note saying his name as “Aali Qadr Mufaddal”.

During the era of Syedna Taher Saifuddin, Mufaddal Saifuddin began the recitation of the Quran in Saifee Villa in Sri Lanka. Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin solemnised the marriage of Mufaddal Saifuddin with Jawharat-u-sharaf Aai Saheba, daughter of Amir-ul-Jamea’ Syedi Yusuf Najmuddin.

Mufaddal Saifuddin travelled to Karbala, Shaam, Misr and Yemen. During his trip to Yemen, he laid the foundation for the construction of Syedna Hatim’s Roza. After that journey, Syedna Burhanuddin entitled him with “Aqeeq-ul-Yemen” as was the case when in 1961, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin made a trip to Yemen to visit the earlier Dais of Yemen and consequently received the designation of "Mansurul-Yemen" from his father Syedna Taher Saifuddin.

Burhanuddin proclaimed succession on Mufaddal Bhaisaheb Saifuddin on June 4, 2011 in London. Burhanuddin was in the hospital at the time. With prayers and quiet celebrations at home, the Dawoodi Bohra community had welcomed their community leader’s choice of Mufaddal Saifuddin as his successor.

Mufaddal Saifuddin is the Omara (rector) of the Dawoodi Bohra community’s 200-year-old institution Jamea-tus-Saifiah, which has campuses in Surat, Karachi, Mumbai and Nairobi. He was closely associated with the late Syedna and has received much of his spiritual guidance under the tutelage of his revered father.

Bohras say that the tradition of the Dai-al-Mutlaq has existed for more than 1,000 years, and though every Syedna declares his own heir, it is not always passed down from father to son. Mufaddal Saifuddin, however, is the third generation Dai from the same family, and shares his title with his grandfather Syedna Taher Saifuddin, the 51st Dai who died in 1965.

Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin supervises the curriculum of the Arabic academy Al Jamea Saifiyah and has emphasised education, both religious and secular, and modernisation for both men and women of the community. The Jamea is an Islamic Arabic Academy situated in the heart of Surat, India, and is a leading theological university for Dawoodi Bohras. It was founded in 1814 by the 43rd Dai Abdeali Saifuddin." [Source: a. http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/profile-of-syedna-mufaddal-saifuddin-1.1279387 b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Burhanuddin ]

Tznomani (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Serious issues with the article , this article looks more like a propoganda page as a very controverial succession conflict is going on and this article is being made to support one claimant, here the article is biased towards one of the claimants of the post. Both are just claimants to the dai position.

203.192.193.143 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014

Please change "Mufaddal Saifuddin (Arabic: مفضل سيف الدين‎; Abu Jafar-us-Sadiq Mufaddal Saifuddin) is the Claimant [1][2][3] of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras." to "Mufaddal Saifuddin (Arabic: مفضل سيف الدين‎; Abu Jafar-us-Sadiq Mufaddal Saifuddin) is the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras." Imhusain (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Can this blog of huffinton post Huffington post blog be considered as reliable reference? Mufaddalqn (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• As also argued by some other editors Mufaddal has already taken over as 53rd Dai in smooth change over and overwhelmingly accepted by Dawoodi Bohra as reported in mass media. Mass media also refer him as 53rd Dai( as also argued by User:DistributorScientiae) and got official recognition as many official dignitary including Foreign Minister of India visited him to pay him their condolence as he is treated successor to Burhanuddin and accompanied him to Mumbai airport to see off him, as he was on his first visit as Dawoodi Bohra head to Iraq as state guest. These are enough evidences and encyclopedic proofs that Wiki can also refer him as 53rd Dai with footnote about another claimant.--Md iet (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Views from other editors are also requested to have the consensus please.--Md iet (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Quote by former chief justice ahmedi

I have deleted the quote by former chief justice Ahmedi as already reference is given. (ref no:1) and further it is judge's personal opinion. If all the reference are quoted then the article would become confusing.Mufaddalqn (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Succession controversy

Since there are too many war-edits I Suggest the topic succession controversy should be shifted to separate article.and Mufaddal Saifuddin should be strictly his biography.Mufaddalqn (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• 100% agree with you --Ftutocdg (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• 100% agree with you --Catfactory (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fallacies in arguments

• The two sources user:summichum states as proof are flawed. first 'Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community' is a minority group and is not accepted by general dawoodi bohra's and another citation of former judge ahmedi, has no leagal standing and that is hon judge personal view. further the documents he describes has not been released to public.Mufaddalqn (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• The user claimed that the documents shown amidst thousand of Dawoodi bohra gadhering by syedna mufaddal saifuddin are forged, without any evidence.Today forensic technology is available to determined the truth. why dont khuzaima kutbuddin release their said document(claimed by Former Chief justice Ahmedi) and get it tested.Mufaddalqn (talk)
• The user claimed that khuzaima kutbuddin is the owner for both of dawoodi bohra headquarters. where are legal documents and proof for such a claim.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• The user:Catfactory states That Both the claimants have significant following. If you study all the media articles, like gatherings in Azad Maidan, and all city reports and also the burial processions report you would find thousands of Dawoodi Bohra's accepting Mufaddal Saifuddin as their Dai. whereas we find few not even hundreds with khuzaima qutbuddin. Apart from the baseless claim that people are afraid to come forward there are no people to be seen. infact the claim of people fearing to come forward is proof enough that they have no public support.
• The user states that people can make the political decisions.This Issue is not a political issue for country ,state or district. this is religious issue and belief of people.As India is Secular Country everyone is free to follow their own belief, so are the followers of Khuzaima Qutbuddin.They can split to another faction such as Qutbi Bohra or some other.Why are they so adamant to state their claim, if not for wealth. Mufaddalqn (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attact On Mufaddal Saifuddin

user:Ftutocdg is making personal attack to Mufaddal Saifuddin by his comment that "Mufaddal Saifuddin did not remember such an important date". he has again started edit war. He has reverted my edit, I propose removal of this edit as it violate BLP policyMufaddalqn (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

diff:10:05, 16 March 2014‎ Ftutocdg (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,004 bytes) (+160)‎ . . (Undid revision 599839792 by Mufaddalqn (talk) unjustified delete.)

26 March 2014

Summichum Seem to be persistent in his disruptive edit and delete the well referenced edits from other editors. again and again stating that both are claimant. If Mr. summichum had read the article properly he would notice that the work claimant is not removed from the initial introduction. further the controversy claim of khuzaima qutbudin is remained intact. But Mr. summichum imposes only his point of view. as discussed weightily above we indeed have maintained NPOV. just coining the term Partisan and NPOV again and again without any reason, I feel is unethical.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The extensive use of a primary source such as Badre Muneer, a Dawoodi Bohra magazine, in the section /Succession/ is at best questionable. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, that are independent of the topic. I suggest the question regarding Badre Muneer is raised on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get broader input. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've fully protected the article for a month to try and force the users involved to discuss the issues. But a warning to all users if there are any edits which continues this edit war without a consensus I will be blocking people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. OccultZone (Talk) 15:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 March 2014

This Article is Biography of Mufaddal Saifuddin,why is succession controversy so important in this articel two line statement would suffice. user summichem is bent on his agenda yet fellow editors doesn't seem to realise what he is upto. systematically he is diverting this article to his point of view.where is NPOV? do you see any other input of mr summichum in any other wikipedia article? apart from Mufaddal Saifuddin, Dawoodi Bohra. what is his purpose? Mufaddalqn (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've the same concern, it is a biography of living person and the succession controversy is over-whelming all where in the article (not only this but in all related articles). It requires re-writing to comply with wiki standards. As, I've earlier said, I'm working on this article (see, my userspace), I'm trying to concentrate on the subject rather than the controversy. I've made few edits there, still I'm left with a lengthy controversy section. Feel free to make changes there in my userspace or suggest your changes on the talk page. I'm going to treat this article same as I did with Qutbi Bohra, a complete re-writing and invite editors to suggest changes in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks User:Anupmehra Mufaddal Saifuddin is characterized by the controversy and is also popular in the media only because of this controversy , he was not well known before the succession controversy. You wont find any mention of him before this controversy in any authoritative media outlets. Hence the controversy section demands great attention. Even I was the first to request long back that this article needs to be re-written by a third party. You should see how Qutbi bohra article was made a hoax article by these same people. Qutbi Bohra still is no sect and does not exist. Khuazaima has persisted with his claim as leader of dawoodi bohra and claimed support of 40-50 thousand people and does not want to create split group which he has officially declared. Whereas Mufaddal has forcibly acquired control over the administration and has forced people to accept him or stop attending the activities and lavish food parties of the Jamat administered by him. Also Khuzaima has created his own administration in parallel to Mufaddal using the same names and positions. Both parties deny the validity of each others administration.

kindly sign the comments on talk page...Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• • (Reply) The user above over emphasizes the controversy issue. if he is so keen on addressing this issue. I request separate article for it. From the comments above, you can clearly see his partisan view.Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin

Hello again, everyone. I've figured out that, there's not one but multiple issues with this article. It is a biography of living person but the controversy thing is overwhelming all where in the article. It has been even more that led to the edit war among various editors, finally full-protection by an admin. Protection is for a month, I guess, issues should be resolved within, otherwise, there would be once again edit war and protection and it'd certainly be going round and round all the time. It should be re-written in accordance with WP:BLP and various other wiki standards. I've tried re-writing it in my user space, (click here). I request all involved editors to review the newly re-written article and opine your view on this, before I propose it to replace the present junky one. If it is still missing something, propose your changes (must be in accordance with WP:BLP) on the talk page. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddalqn, Summichum and Md iet? Work together to reach a consensus to improve the present article and put an end to edit war. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks user:Anupmehra I agree with you and I appreciate your efforts. You have my full compliance.Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, This article was in existence from last 2-3 years and all earlier incidents on the subject were accepted by all the reader and editors. Suddenly after demise of late Syedna, a partisan team has emerged and all earlier reported facts has become controversial and false for them. I perfectly agree with user:Anupmehra and will have joint efforts not to dilute the facts and report all relevant encyclopedic material to the standard and repute of Wiki.--Md iet (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your valuable inputs. Yes, suddenly after the demise of 52nd Syedna, all related articles dramatically turned into a battle field of succession controversy leading to edit wars involving many good faith editors. However, I'm benefited with this, I didn't knew any of subjects before, now apparently I am. It is a biography of a living person, and it should be same. Contents of the article should concentrate on the subject. Md iet, can you please provide us your opinion on newly re-written article, here? So, we could improve the present article, end the edit war and save the community time to improve other aspects of Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 March 2014 (Withdrawn)

There have been multiple issues with this article. In order to fix all while the article being "fully-protected", I've worked in my user space (User:Anupmehra/Saifuddin). Now I feel it is complete, to replace the present article.

There are three editors involved here, User:Mufaddalqn, User:Md iet and User:Summichum. Two out three (except Summichum) are agree with the change. His recommendations were ignored by me for not being in compliance with WP:PG. I explained it on my user space talk page. His edits doesn't seem me to be in good faith and he appear to me, a SPA. Yesterday, I left him a message on his talk page and I'm replied with his "talk page cleaned". Well, it was him, who invited me here, leaving me a message on my talk page.

Taking into consideration, support by three editors (including me) and one editor being not co-operative (explained above), I'd recommend to "replace the present article with one in my userspace at User:Anupmehra/Saifuddin". Reviewing administrator himself, if wish, is requested to analyze the target and proposed article. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• • firstly Thanks User:Anupmehra,User:Ftutocdg, for taking initiatives . Mufaddal Saifuddin is characterized by the controversy and is also popular in the media because of this controversy , he was not well known before the succession controversy. You wont find any mention of him before this controversy in any authoritative media outlets. Hence the controversy section demands great attention. WP:BLPFIGHT here is misplaced as we are just reporting about the person from media , e.g: Snowden[21] is also characterized by controversy only, nobody knew him before that controversy. And most of the article talks about controversies surrounded by him. There are many such articles on wiki .Even WP:DUE does not fit as Khuzaima has also claimed support of large numbers as he claims 4.5lac followers, so the division is not about majority\minority. Also another major reformist group in dawoodi bohra rejects both. And Even I was the first to request long back that this article needs to be re-written by a third party. You should see how Qutbi bohra article was made a hoax article by these same people. Qutbi Bohra still is no sect and does not exist. Khuazaima has persisted with his claim as leader of dawoodi bohra and claimed support of lakhs of people and does not want to create split group which he has officially declared.

WP:NPOVFACT WP:NPOVVIEW is also violated if we dont sufficiently describe the controversy, we cannot fork a separate article for this, quoting: """ All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article """

quoting wikipedia policy for not creating seperate forks: A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia.

Also WP:BALANCE is at stake , the two authors had made direct claims that Nass\succession was given to mufadddal by syedna , while we know that syedna was not even in the condition to speak or move at that time.

Also I conclude by saying that its is the succession controversy which characterizes and even go on to say , that it defines both of them. Very little was known about them before this controversy (including the stroke ceremony) like Snowden's controversy

The one proposed by Anup does not reflect the available information about the subject which is against WP:NPOVFACT WP:NPOVVIEW There is still no consensus on this as vote of involved User:Ftutocdg is pending:

hence I request the admin User:Crisco_1492 and User:Callenecc to instead update with this earlier edit by Anup Mehra :proposed diff of Anup consisting all POV

Summichum (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a reasonable argument to keep or delete a line/section or even an article. User:Summichum has been editing all "Bohra" related articles to highlight "succession controversy" section to push his POV. His speedy tag to a related article Qutbi Bohra was recently removed as disruptive by the reviewing admin (perhaps yesterday). He has been warned multiple times about his involvement in all these "Bohra" related articles, on his talk before I was involved here. The above proposed version is in compliance with WP:PG and is acceptable by all involved editors except him. We have a consensus over this. User:Summichum seems to be a SPA, probably is looking for a topic ban (I had been left a message on his talk page, yesterday regarding this). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• thats a false accusation , in fact I had only reverted vandal edits from dawoodi bohra which tended to remove the claimant issue from the article , what I did was to maintain the fact that both are still claimants. Any ways I feel the User:Anupmehra seems to have selectively ignored significant news items related to the subject from highly acclaimed news sources to present an obsolete representation of the subject which is against WP:NPOVFACT WP:NPOVVIEW. The Qutbi Bohra article itself is a hoax article as this sect does not exist but is just an unofficial slang used by opponents of Khuzaima to segregate them into a sect whereas we know that Khuzaima has never claimed formation of a separate sect , rather he has come up with his own parallel administration and issued a legal affidavit that he is the 53rd dai and hence the sole owner of all dawoodi bohra properties and trust. His son claiming 4.5 lac followers. User Anup left message without addressing the issue and tags WP:NPOVFACT WP:NPOVVIEW i suggested but to propagate his own obsolete article. And its not just me who is involved but users like User:Crisco_1492 and User:Ftutocdg are also involved in this. The admin User:Crisco_1492 knows about this issue and how these two editors Md.et, Mufaddalqn added blatant clearly verifiable white lies to this article whose evidence is still present as explained in my last edit request, I had made an issue on this on other noticeboards too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no end to dispute, every one has to accept what is truly reported, neutral view on the subject. Mufaddal's points to be described at Mufaddal page in details in chronology of reports with mention of adverse points with due references (to go into details, if somebody wants to verify) also and vice versa at Qutbuddin's article.

I appreciate work done till know to achieve consensus. I request User:Summichum, User:Ftutocdg to honour reports published. It is not Wiki who decide whether late Syedna was in condition to speak or Move. In 2011 that report was published and well accepted all over without any dispute hence Wiki is reporting that happening. In 2014 suddenly there is adverse claim which is again reported. What reliable media report and announce should to be acceptable to all. I have tried to have some further change, depicted at User:Md iet/Mufaddal and open new discussion below, may please do value addition if any.

Protected edit request on 28 March 2014

Following lines are false claims,as ref#7 does not report late syedna to say anything, Mufaddal and his group declared himself a ssuccessor on seeing the incapacitated condition of his father. Also the heading is itself a false claim as the nass(succession) was not conferred.

>Nass conferred and made public, London, 2011 AD/1432 AH

Late Syedna said, that he was elevating ‘Mufaddal bhai’ to the office of Dawat. He asked them if they had heard him and then instructed that this should be informed to all.[7]

It was reported that at home the Dawoodi Bohra community welcomed the name of Mufaddal as a successor.[8]

>Nass ceremony at Raudat Tahera, Mumbai

The Nass(succession) itself is in dispute hence a misleading title persists from the self published source, the ref # 7 news article never said what is written above, the syedna was hospitalized and the disputants proclaimed himself successor after admission to hospital in the state of stroke. and in ref 8 the public was just informed by the self declared leader which took them by surprise.

Quoting 2:

>According to Husain, Son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin report: "..Ahmadi,..chief justice...wrote to Qutbuddin’s family, even before the late >Syedna’s demise this month, expressing his opinion and support...", indicating that secret was made open to former CJI which contradict ?Khuzaima's claim of secrecy above and explanation not to claim as successor in public[14].

the above quote is a clear judgemental statement and the user has given his own opinion , which should be rather replaced by the quote from the Chief Justice of India.

Summichum (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not going to work! If accepted, someone else tomorrow or next hour would place an another edit-request to re-instate the deleted contents. Involved editors are required to discuss the subject and related issues to reach a consensus beside edit-warring whether directly or indirectly (using edit-requests). It is biography of living person, controversy things should be limited as per WP:DUE (Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view) and to maintain the WP:STRUCTURE of the article. I've re-written the article from a new end in my userspace and invited below all involved editors to opine their views on it (read below section on this talk page). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. See Anupmehra's comment above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• User:AnupmehraCallanecc please see above I have reported a verifiable white lie which is added in the wiki article. How can you let remain a clear white lie which is easily verifiable on the article? please verify the ref#7 on your own an see how a lying statement was added :"Late Syedna said, that he was elevating ‘Mufaddal bhai’ to the office of Dawat" which is not at all mentioned in ref#7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

please have consensus

I agree with efforts done by team of (User:Anupmehra)and User:Mufaddalqn, I have further suggested some change at User:Anupmehra/Saifuddin, and those are depicted at User:Md iet/Mufaddal . This will make complete picture more clear and every thing is presented with reliable source/citation with proper quote. Hope this would be as per expectation of team and we may have any further value addition if any to get overall consensus. --Md iet (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2014

Multiple things:

1. Remove "23 Ramadan 1365 AH" since we don't normally have these kinds of dates in the infobox.
2. Change <ref>Gulshan-e-Ma'alumaat Birth Date Article</ref>{{Full|date=March 2014}} to <ref>Gulshan-e-Ma'alumaat Birth Date Article{{Full|date=March 2014}}</ref> Placeing the template inside.
3. Change http://www.anjumaneshiateali.org/news_details.php?id=MjI= to http://wayback.archive.org/web/20140313034232/http://www.anjumaneshiateali.org/news_details.php?id=MjI= since the link appears to be dead.

(t) Josve05a (c) 15:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Josve05a, I support request points 1 and 2 but that is not how we fix dead links so I oppose point 3. Please fix point 3 using {{deadlink}} and the proper cite template with both urls. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: In that case please change <ref>http://www.anjumaneshiateali.org/news_details.php?id=MjI=</ref> to <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.anjumaneshiateali.org/news_details.php?id=MjI=|archiveurl=http://wayback.archive.org/web/20140313034232/http://www.anjumaneshiateali.org/news_details.php?id=MjI=|archivedate=2014-03-13 |title=Nass Mubarak Majlis |publisher=anjumaneshiateali.org |date=2011-06-20 |accessdate=2014-03-31}}</ref>. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Much better, but I'm not an admin, so I can't actually make these edits for you. I do however support all three points of this revised request. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: You should remove the <ref>http://www.anjumaneshiateali.org/news_details.php?id=MjI=</ref>, since you replaced it with the above, it should not be two refs with the same link. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2014

Please change:

• <ref>[http://www.afternoondc.in/city-news/prominent-citizens-including-shiv-sena-chief-uddhav-thackeray/article_102648 shiv-sena-chief-uddhav-thackeray]</ref> to <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.afternoondc.in/city-news/prominent-citizens-including-shiv-sena-chief-uddhav-thackeray/article_102648 |title=Prominent Citizens including Shiv Sena Chief Uddhav Thackeray |publisher=Afternoondc.in |date=2014-02-08 |accessdate=2014-03-31}}</ref>

(t) Josve05a (c) 23:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Plus the above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 March 2014

Remove unreliable sources and contents based on the same, blog link used 7 times in the article to support disputed contents (in violation of WP:V), another unreliable source, now dead link, anyone can make a website and publish contents related to his likes and dislikes.

• Delete contents from "1.Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH)" to "4. Nass conferred and made public, London, 2011 AD/1432 AH". --Reason: based on unreliable source, self-published blog. Blogger is a follower of the Subject of the article (see About of the blog).
• Delete the line, "In the same video uploaded, at exactly (26:53 to 26:57), followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin claim that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin says Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu Taaj" from "5. Nass ceremony at Raudat Tahera, Mumbai" section. --Reason: as per above. same source used a inline citaiton.
• Unreliable sources and contents based on the same, including original research must immediately be removed.
• Let me know, if I'm unclear with my edit request, {{ping}} me.

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to re-open the edit request, because the unreliable source and content based on the same has not yet been removed.

• The source (blog link), is still used 4 times in "Succession controversy" section (no. 7, 8, 9 & 13).
• Please remove contents from "Information of nass given in London, 1426 AH" section to "Nass conferred and made public, London, 2011 AD/1432 AH". --Reason: based on a source which is a blog written by a follower of the subject (clearly conflict of interest and WP:NOTRELIABLE). It violates verifiability policy as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material as per WP:PROVEIT.

Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• • :::Regards, User:Anupmehra and Callanecc please consider rolling back to the version: [22] as I had painstakingly removed those violating WP:RSN sources , the users had created a succession chronology based on those unreliable references.

Done again, sorry about that I didn't thoroughly read your first edit request. Please feel free to reactivate the request if I missed anything. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks Callanecc and User:Anupmehra , there still exists unsubstantiated claims in the controversy section :

Quoting 1: ______

>Nass conferred and made public, London, 2011 AD/1432 AH

Late Syedna said, that he was elevating ‘Mufaddal bhai’ to the office of Dawat. He asked them if they had heard him and then instructed that this should be informed to all.[7]

It was reported that at home the Dawoodi Bohra community welcomed the name of Mufaddal as a successor.[8]

>Nass ceremony at Raudat Tahera, Mumbai

_____

The Nass(succession) itself is in dispute hence a misleading title persists from the self published source, the ref # 7 news article never said what is written above, the syedna was hospitalized and the disputants proclaimed himself successor after admission to hospital in the state of stroke. and in ref 8 the public was just informed by the self declared leader which took them by surprise.

Quoting 2:

_____

>According to Husain, Son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin report: "..Ahmadi,..chief justice...wrote to Qutbuddin’s family, even before the late >Syedna’s demise this month, expressing his opinion and support...", indicating that secret was made open to former CJI which contradict ?Khuzaima's claim of secrecy above and explanation not to claim as successor in public[14].

___

the above quote is a clear judgemental statement and the user has given his own opinion , which should be rather replaced by the quote from the Chief Justice of India.

Badre Muneer is independent publication of Dawoodi Bohra and not "another self published source of one of the claimants". This magazine has vide circulation all over the countries where Dawoodi Bohra lives and act as mouthpiece for Dawoodi Bohra;

Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community

BADRE MUNEER Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252

Follow them from wherever you are:

On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages [23] --Md iet (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 March 2014

Respected admins User:CallaneccSam Sailor Anup Mehra User:Ftutocdg, the current version of the above wiki article is based on citations from badremunir which is one of the claimants own publication and the other fatemidawat.com is another claimants own publication, you can imagine the dubious nature of above source as they have duplicated the above blog on their domain to get accepted on wikipedia hence I request all statements citing the highly biased references of badremuneer be removed and remove all the claims which dont have the citations to support the claim. Also note that this is a very serious controversy and media is closely following this case as billions of dollars worth property is at stake and both the claimants are using all means possible to get control over it. hence Wiki as a champion of neutrality should not allow biased claims from sources published by both the claimants. Persisting the article with stale claims shows poor quality of the article and I request the admins to do a cleanup operation and remove superfluous,dubious claims ref: WP:RS self published source.

http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm which is an exact duplicate of the blog source you removed and this badremunir is not even a blog , but specially created to act as a placeholder for the contents of the other blog , in short both are duplicates of each other. Anup Mehra Please remove http://www.badremuneer.in too .

This has been discussed in WP:RSN noticeboard :[24] User:Callanecc Seems to have removed only one of the source , but the other one which is an exact duplicate of the blog source is not removed. Badremunir is a another self published source of one of the claimants.

Summichum (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)— Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree, passages based on Badre Muneer, a primary, biased source, ought to be pruned as well. (Summichum, cut Callanecc a little slack, it can be difficult to grasp these situations.) Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Summichum- Please do not unnecessarily make things complex. I've already been requested the same change in a previous "edit request". Consider withdrawing your edit-request. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: See edit request above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fatemidawat.com too is a self published primary source.

Badre muneer is widely circulated magazine. both on paperback ( I have a copy for paperback at least 10 years old) and in net. I wouldn't consider it as a blog.

User summichum is treating this article as a means to promote his propaganda.So I would request to rest this matter as it is and no changes be made right now. let the true situation present itself. One month is ample time.Mufaddalqn (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Badre Muneer is independent publication of Dawoodi Bohra and not "another self published source of one of the claimants". This magazine has vide circulation all over the countries where Dawoodi Bohra lives and act as mouthpiece for Dawoodi Bohra;

Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community

BADRE MUNEER Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252

Follow them from wherever you are:

On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages [25] --Md iet (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 April 2014

Following lines are false claims,as ref#7 does not report late syedna to say anything, Mufaddal and his group declared himself a ssuccessor on seeing the incapacitated condition of his father. Also the heading is itself a false claim as the nass(succession) was not conferred.

>Nass conferred and made public, London, 2011 AD/1432 AH

Late Syedna said, that he was elevating ‘Mufaddal bhai’ to the office of Dawat. He asked them if they had heard him and then instructed that this should be informed to all.[7]

It was reported that at home the Dawoodi Bohra community welcomed the name of Mufaddal as a successor.[8]

>Nass ceremony at Raudat Tahera, Mumbai

The Nass(succession) itself is in dispute hence a misleading title persists from the self published source, the ref # 7 news article never said what is written above, the syedna was hospitalized and the disputants proclaimed himself successor after admission to hospital in the state of stroke. and in ref 8 the public was just informed by the self declared leader which took them by surprise.

Quoting 2:

>According to Husain, Son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin report: "..Ahmadi,..chief justice...wrote to Qutbuddin’s family, even before the late >Syedna’s demise this month, expressing his opinion and support...", indicating that secret was made open to former CJI which contradict ?Khuzaima's claim of secrecy above and explanation not to claim as successor in public[14].

the above quote is a clear judgemental statement and the user has given his own opinion , which should be rather replaced by the quote from the Chief Justice of India.

please see above I have reported a verifiable white lie which is added in the wiki article. How can wiki let remain a clear white lie which is easily verifiable on the article? please verify the reference #7 on your own and see how a lying statement was added :"Late Syedna said, that he was elevating ‘Mufaddal bhai’ to the office of Dawat" which is not at all mentioned in ref#7 203.194.103.205 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC) ≈203.194.103.205 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The above seems to be from editor group who just want to disrupt the things to push their POV. Now they have started using nonregistered ID to save them from blacklisting. We are in process to keep only material which are well published and depicting the things what it is told with NPOV. Request cooperation from all in the process.--Md iet (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I had made the above request no knowing i was logged out, this has not been contested by both md.et and mufaddalqn and they are avoiding to deal with this , as they are the ones who added this clearly verifiable(reference #7) white lies

Court case filed on Muffadal in High Court of India

Please add information about the todays case filing against Mufadal Saifuddin who is alleged by Khuzaima as a wrongful claimant, a press release was made today[26]Summichum (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 April 2014 - succession controversy

This is my final edit request on this topic , the users Mufadal, md.et have not contested the core of this request which was done before and assuming bad faith of editors, hence i request admin User:Crisco 1492 to look into the matter below: Following lines are false claims,as reference #7 does not report late burhanuddin to say anything, Mufaddal and his group declared himself a ssuccessor on seeing the incapacitated condition of his father. Also the heading is itself a false claim as the nass(succession) was not conferred.

>Nass conferred and made public, London, 2011 AD/1432 AH

Late Syedna said, that he was elevating ‘Mufaddal bhai’ to the office of Dawat. He asked them if they had heard him and then instructed that this should be informed to all.[7] {false statement}

It was reported that at home the Dawoodi Bohra community welcomed the name of Mufaddal as a successor.[8]

>Nass ceremony at Raudat Tahera, Mumbai

The Nass(succession) itself is in dispute hence a misleading title persists from the self published source, the ref # 7 news article never said what is written above, the syedna was hospitalized and the disputants proclaimed himself successor after admission to hospital in the state of stroke. and in ref 8 the public was just informed by the self declared leader which took them by surprise.

Quoting 2:

>According to Husain, Son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin report: "..Ahmadi,..chief justice...wrote to Qutbuddin’s family, even before the late >Syedna’s demise this month, expressing his opinion and support...", indicating that secret was made open to former CJI which contradict ?Khuzaima's claim of secrecy above and explanation not to claim as successor in public[14].

the above quote is a clear judgemental statement and the user has given his own opinion , which should be rather replaced by the quote from the Chief Justice of India.

please see above I have reported a verifiable white lie which is added in the wiki article. How can wiki let remain a clear white lie which is easily verifiable on the article? please verify the ref#7 on your own and see how a lying statement was added :"Late Syedna said, that he was elevating ‘Mufaddal bhai’ to the office of Dawat" which is not at all mentioned in ref#7 Summichum (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Done I've removed the statements in question, and also a few more statements that were either unsourced, not in the source cited, or were cited to sources that didn't pass our reliable sources test. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is very clear on this - any material in this biography that doesn't satisfy our sourcing policies needs to be removed. I've also copy-edited the result so that it is understandable. Let me know if I have made any mistakes in my wording, or if you find anything objectionable, and I can update the article again. However, be aware that I won't add any text that doesn't satisfy WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, or WP:Neutral point of view. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, Thanks for corrections. This has resulted in removal of some citation ( [1] and [11]). Further I have replaced citation[10] (as it is claimant's personal website) with other reliable ones and added some well reported fact which got hidden. Please see the corrected para below;

Muffadal Saifuddin claimed the title of 53rd dā'ī (leader) of the Dawoodi Bohras in 2011, and he was welcomed as successor to the previous dā'ī, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, by a large section of the Dawoodi Bohra community.[8][9] However, his succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who also claims the title... Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Mohammed Burhanuddin conferred nass (succession) on him 49 years ago in a private ceremony, just before he was publically appointed as mazoon, the second-in-line to the title of dā'ī.. He said that he never went public with the claim of being the rightful successor as Burhanuddin asked him to keep it secret[12]. It is further claimed that former CJI in his personal stand upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor and he “wrote to Qutbuddin’s family, even before the late Syedna’s demise this month, expressing his opinion and support” [27] (although Khojema explained succession claim to be kept secret as above) .

References

Hope you wouldn't mind correcting it again.--Md iet (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Md iet. I have a few points:

• We should leave some time for others to comment on this proposal to make sure it is uncontroversial. Edit requests should only be made when there is a consensus to make a change; at the moment it is too early.
• Citation numbers can change, so please don't refer to sources by by numbers like [11], etc. Instead, use the name of the source, include a link, or use a proper citation.
• What does "CJI" mean? We need some context for these initials.
• When you propose a change to article text, please add the source text to this page; don't just copy and paste from the "read" view. This makes it easier for me to update the article text.
• You can make references show up on talk pages by using the template {{reflist-talk|close=1}}. I've done this for you above.
• We usually refer to other editors by linking to them, not by using their signatures. (Mr. Stradivarius, not Mr. Stradivarius.)
• Per WP:REFPUNC, references go after punctuation, not before. (Some text, not some text.)

Could you try reformatting the paragraph using the source text? I'll copy edit it for you, and then we can leave a little while for discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Thanks again for kind advice, Mr. Stradivarius.

Reformatted paragraph is ;

Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin has proclaimed Naas (succession) upon Mufaddal Saifuddin for the title of 53rd dā'ī (leader) of the Dawoodi Bohras in 2011, and he was welcomed as successor, by a large section of the Dawoodi Bohra community... However, his succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who also claims the title... Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Mohammed Burhanuddin conferred nass (succession) on him 49 years ago in a private, just before he was publically appointed as mazoon, the second-in-line to the title of dā'ī.. He said that he never went public with the claim of being the rightful successor as Burhanuddin asked him to keep it secret.. It is further claimed that former chief Justice of India, in his personal stand upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor and he wrote to Qutbuddin’s family, even before the late Syedna’s demise, expressing his opinion and support (this was asked to keep it secret as above).

References

Solution?

I've withdrawn my edit-request following further disputes between involved editors. There are editors pushing their POV, to include their personal opinion in contradiction with WP:OR (The present one is already full of this). It's never gonna ending and presumably there's no solution as limited "controversy" in a BLP and presenting both views would be against their POV to publicize controversy in favor of their favorite leader. It is a fully-protected article only to be edited by the administrators, an another cause that suggests admin intervention as the only solution. No action taken would result in an another edit-war following expiration of protection of a month. I'm not willing to get involved into this article or any related one with these SPAs and POV editors, anymore. In my humble opinion, they are not here build encyclopedia. A topic ban would cause many to either leave Wikipedia, create a new account or to continue as an IP editor. I'm out of this. Thank you, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I'm in. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2014

Khuzaima the Mazoon of Burhanuddin has filed a 700 page petition in Bombay high court accusing Muffadal as a false claimant[28]

"We tried repeatedly to resolve the issue internally. We even invited him for a debate and establish the rightful claim of nass (succession). But all the attempts have been ignored and rebuffed by Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin," said Qutbuddin's son Abdeali Qutbuddin. He added that his father has submitted "credible" documents to the court to support his claim to the much-revered title of Dai.

Seeking judicial intervention, Qutbuddin has said that the claim of Syedna Burhanuddin pronouncing nass on Mufaddal Saifuddin in March 2011 in London was false as "Syedna Burhanuddin had suffered a debilitating stroke and was medically unfit to even speak". To create confusion in the community, added Abdeali, Syedna Burhanuddin was brought to Mumbai in a critical condition in an air ambulance. "A ceremony was staged (at Saifee Masjid) where thousands were present but Syedna (Burhanuddin) could not speak clearly due to effects of the stroke," said Khuzaima Qutbuddin's other son Aziz. He added that he would soon come out with more details on the merits in the claims being made by his father.

Khuzaima had also uploaded via youtube on his website a video made in 2011, when Mufaddal Saifuddin was allegedly pronounced 53rd Dai by the late Syedna at Saifee Masjid in Bhendi Bazaar, to prove that no formal announcement to the effect had been made by the late Syedna.

Mufaddal's supporters, however, subsequently got the video removed.

"They claimed copyright to the video and asked Youtube to block it," Aziz Qutbuddin further said. "What do they have to fear? Why do they not want that video there?" he questioned.[29]

The Mufaddal Qutbuddin faction remained unavailable for comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please include the text you would like added to the article, including references, and leave a few days for people to discuss it. If there is a consensus to add the material after that, please reopen this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this petition should be added. OccultZone (Talk) 06:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This Succession issue is highly volatile. If Certain users like User:Summichum andUser:OccultZone intends to push his POV I am afraid there will not be an end to this edit.My good friend User:Anupmehra too was frustrated in trying to find solution. Again I would state that this Article is Biography of Mufaddal Saifuddin. Why this users so intend in suppressing the well sourced and referenced edits and push his POV instead.Let controversy be addressed by Media and let this article stand for what it is, maintain BLP ! Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mufaddalqn, it will be violation of BLP. But I've read similar 'petitions' in many other pages. So if you have got any better or neutral summary, you can add here. Or else we can ditch this idea. OccultZone (Talk) 07:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Mufaddalqn and [[User:OccultZone, this is page on Mufaddal, dispute is mentioned, all other actions on dispute etc. don't have to be repeated here, people can see it if they want on Khuzaima Qutbuddin page. --Md iet (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• • The allegations are proven User:OccultZone and well known , the camp of Mufaddal has forcibly acquired control of Bohra properties and those who dont want to accept him face divorce in marriage ,social boycott and threats[30]

Also note that the very grandsons of Mufaddal have left and joined the camp of Khuzaima[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The very grandsons are minor, they are innocents and taken by their mother who is daughter of Khuzaima. This is nothing great, they are ruining life of these innocents, who can be probable future Dai, god knows.--Md iet (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request

I propose to delete this edits as it is in complete violation of BLP policies

Pritish Nandy in Bangalore Mirror reported that "Meanwhile, the self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back."

This Pritish Nandy has taken all power to take judgment of religious matters and declared unambiguously Mufaddal a self declared leader. Do he have proofs? Has he verified the facts? It is something strange, being so respected journalist, reporting in this manner. I have strongly objected him in his article and asked for explanations. Better he answer the queries, playing with sentiments of society as whole is not expected of him. Looking to other well published report, I feel that Wiki should ignore quote with the blatant wordings Nandy has used without any proof.--Md iet (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Further the reference given to this edit is completely out of place

The 'Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community' which represent Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, a minority Bohra group alleges that both claims are not reliable and involves dispute over control of wealth.[14]

Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct about unproved allegations, they must be removed right now. OccultZone (Talk) 08:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The allegations are proven User:OccultZone and well known , the camp of Mufaddal has forcibly acquired control of Bohra properties and those who dont want to accept him face divorce in marriage and social boycott[32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

He is not convicted. Check WP:BLPCRIME. OccultZone (Talk) 10:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• • social boycott and religious divorce are not crimes rather community level issues hence it does not come under WP:BLPCRIME. The fact is that many people have been boycotted and asked for divorce already as reported above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply of Summichum allegations

• According to what I read the it was the CJI who had communicated to Khuzaima after Mufaddal had staged the succession ceremony using the stroke ridden debilitated body of Burhanuddin and the secret was told not to be made public but it was known in the internal circles already as you can read from their dawoodi bohra forums. Khuzaima seems to have followed this edict of keeping this secret and informing only after death of Burhanuddin. And I think this stratagem by burhanuddin is farely common in such high profile cases when there is a fear of attack or damage. Summichum (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Mr.SUMCHUM, you are a third party, outside of community, how come you are so concerned and gave immediate reaction to only point which is pinching you most? How come CJI know and verified the documents Khuzaima has, and he is in position to make his personal opinion that claim of Khuzaima is principled unless Khuzaima has revealed it before the demise of late Syedna. How come material of Khuzaima got designed for a website and published just in a day after demise. I think Khuzaima seems to have followed many edict in addition to pretend for keeping secret. Please don't think that world is fool, except you few chunk of people. Media got a opportunity (but be clear that Wiki is not a platform which will an cash the opportunity, and try to reports the facts behind), which you fellow has given and making mockery of Fatimid principles. It is still time you fellow understand and accept reality, don't hammer your own feet. Only fellows who are calling themselves Qutbi Bohra (the youthi), will make use of you and then throw in dust bin. You just see the respect what Khuzaima used to get and even on the day of demise, when this fellow was running away from Saify Mahal( residence of late Moula), people were around his car with folded hands asking his blessings. Now see the change, he is self prison in his home, getting humiliated, and facing curse of millions, definitely not seems to be happy within, lost internal peace. And look at other side, enjoying respect of world together. Can't you see the difference, please don't be self centred. The youthi (so called progressive) who used to oppose late Moula, were with Dawoodi Bohra to mourn late Syedna, given condolence messages in paper, and almost closed their shop for 3days. They know what is right and what is wrong, there can always be differences but truth will prevail. Don't you think that Qauid Johar is not capable; he was involved in all the departments and a very able and successful administrator. He had first right for the post being most elder brother. But he abided his Moula's decision. Was he (like Khuzaima) not of his blood, whether Moula or Qauid was fearing Mufaddal, NO a big NO. We have seen Moula in public during last two/three year after the stroke; he used to get immediately furious if something is not done of his choice. We can't think that a person of his caliber can be moved an inch without his will, forget of hijacking. We can judge the face of Moula when he was sitting on the bridge near Raudat Tahera and taking salaami( guard) on his birthday, his face was full of happiness(same thing on the day of Nass at Raudat Tahera), we can visualise tears of joy in his eyes, when hundreds of thousands were crossing in front of him with folded hands whipping and crying "moula, Moula" and he was trying to raise his hand again and again in return but was abiding god's will. Mufaddal was sitting near, where was Khuzaima then? Why I am writing all these here, myself don't know, please understand.--Md iet (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

what user summichum with his lengthy arguments forgets that this is the Biography article and not court room.I would request Admin to extend the block for 3 months and no edits be done untill all matters are resolved.All good faith editors time is consumed in endless discussion without any result. and it will definetly continue.''Rukn950'' (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Rukn950 I think you should assume good faith of editors and I see that you two editors rukn and md.et have conflict of interest on this topic which is known by admin User:Crisco_1492and can be seen from your both userpages hence I request User:Anupmehra to continue with the edit request to remove the wrong information and the current status Mufaddal's court case . May I know why you changed your user name?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• • User:Anupmehra The user after I pointed out his conflict of interest has removed his profile pic which shows that he belongs to the clergy of dawoodi bohra faith[33] and also changed his username to conceal it.The other user is also of the dawoodi bohra faith. Hence you can assume consensus as these people seem to be highly biased towards their faith. Also the dawoodi bohra article seems to be severely skewed and personal POV have been pushedinto it. Hence I also request you to review that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 05:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My Profile pic showed myself driving a car. user summichum is making mountain out of mole hill.''Rukn950'' (talk)

• • Mr summichum is assuming bad faith. I have renamed and removed my profile pic. but that is to maintain my privacy. and it is according to wiki guidlines. futher I have not removed my other photos if that was my intention what summichum assumes. By profession I am an Architect.why dont user summichum identify himself? if he is so keen of identity. What are You Summichum?''Rukn950'' (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum is getting personal. I have right as all other editors to protect myself from scrupulous persons. His constant badgering about his POV and flooding my talkpages with templates, I think is taking its toll on me.''Rukn950'' (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And Off-course I am True Dawoodi Bohra and I have concern that these Articles not be used as propaganda,The POV user Summichum again and again tries to impose. I have direct interest in this issue. As follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin. I will not tolerate blatant lies made by summichum or any other bad faith editors. Still as my fellow editors would attest That I am assuming good faith. ''Rukn950'' (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

and as user summichum doesnt know first hand about the issue,in his own word he says "I am in no way related to this community but when first stumbled on this article when the media was talking a lot about this person on the succession issue" . He gets his information from media. I suggest that user summichum first take consent of other good faith editors before suggesting any change.''Rukn950'' (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Involved editors are requested to bring their personal differences on some other page NOT this one. It is an article's talk page, meant to hold discussion related to the article not some other thing. As I see there's some allegations of conflict of interest. If there's no evidence, it'd be considered a personal attack and can be reported at Administrators noticeboard, if there's some evidence, then make a case at conflict of interest noticeboard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin is not claimant. Only Khuzaima Qutbuddin is claimant

First of all it is a community affair which is clear to the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community worldwide and those who have an issue with it are free to call themselves whatever they want to and separate themselves from the mainstream. It is astonishing that Wikipedia calls for two claimants where as there is only one, namely, Khuzaima. Logically talking when did any judiciary system in the world have any authority over the beliefs of the common man especially in a secular and largest democratic country like India. The issue is not about faith it is about material gains that Khuzaima is after and the entire claim is for the same. The dawedar or the claimant is a person who moves to the court of law in a country therefore Khuzaima is the claimant, while Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS should be called by his rightful and respectable name as Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS, which wiki has very thoughtfully and tactically neglected, until the claimant in anyway comes up with some public issuance against it. Another thoughtful view to the situation is, for example, a saint (India has many of them) goes to the court asking to force people to accept him as a saint of an XYZ community what would the court do. The question would have astonishing replies. One such reply would be why would a saint or a spiritual leader ever want to go to court to prove his Godliness. God's men do not need any court to prove their spirituality nor do they need public support or majority. Its the hearts and souls of living humans that make them men of the Lord. Let the media not try to make easy money by sensationalizing internal community affairs and hurt the religious sentiments and morals of law abiding citizens. If Khuzaima has decided to go to court let it be and let the court come up with its own version of decision which on the other hand will not effect the love and faith of the Dawoodi Bohra community for His Holiness Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS has and will take the community to further heights in following the tenets of Islam and prosperity in this life as well, with sense of morality and responsibility towards all creation of Allah as a peace loving society; continuing the legacy of our most beloved Maula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas, the 52nd Dai al-Multaq, Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. So it is my request to remove Claimant from Mufaddal Saifuddin Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdrows (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Markdrows: Make a Facebook page or a Blog page and post your opinions there. Wikipedia doesn't include original research. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2014

Succession controversy

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital in year 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna was still in the state of full stroke. It was reported that at home the Dawoodi Bohra community were surprised yet welcomed the name of Mufaddal as the proclaimed successor as informed to them. However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor. He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move. . A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan reviews that "It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery," .Mankens further said that family members usually report even the slightest improvement to medical staff. "It surprises me that such an event would not be documented in the medical record, much less reported to the medical staff," . The former Chief Justice of India , AM Ahmadi, in his personal stand, upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

"Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled,"

— Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India

Forced Allegiance

There are various reports that Mufaddal has taken over the administration using threat and intimidation. Also the Bohras who support Khuzaima are being forced to swear allegiance to Muffadal using social boycott and threats of divorce between married couples[34] :.

Sakina’s husband was okay with her belief in Qutbuddin, but the local jamaat insisted that she leave her marital home. Her in-laws and husband succumbed. The second woman, a professional, had just had her nikaah solemnised; now, her in-laws have told her to choose between her belief and her husband.

— Reported threats of divorce in Punemirror

Ceremony Video

The video of the alleged succession (nuss) ceremony is available. The original video was uploaded on Youtube but was later removed on accusation of copyright violation by Jameat Saifiya currently under control of Mufaddal. However the video has been available in other places. The sons of Khuzaima claim the video was uploaded by them showing that nothing conceivable was uttered in that ceremony to prove that no formal announcement to the effect had been made by the late Syedna

Press Conference declares Neutral Stance

A press conference was organised by Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community which is represented by intellectuals in the community recommended taking a neutral stance in wake of the succession controversy, not taking side of any of the claimants.[35]:

"Over the last ten days we have been witness to the ugly dispute over the right successor to the late Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb. This was not unexpected, as the late Syedna Saheb had been unable to clearly nominate his successor for nearly 50 years while he was alive. The claim of both his so-called successors is shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, as there are no reliable and disinterested witnesses to their nomination. The community is therefore both in a dilemma and distress, and is greatly agitated. For nearly 200 years there was no such problem, as the succession was monopolized within one family, with either the brother or the son being nominated by his predecessor. However, now, the stakes are quite high. An unbelievably large amount of wealth has been accumulated over the last hundred years through extortion and exploitation. The dispute is, therefore, not religious as claimed by both the claimants, but for the control of this wealth. Nathwani and Tewatia Commissions in the 1970s and 1990s have fully documented the various modes of this accumulation, and how this wealth is spent on the luxurious lifestyle of one family, and not for the benefit of the community. The Central Board warns both the claimants that if they do not change with the changing times, become liberal, stop malpractices and loosen their control over a docile and peaceful community, they will be consigned to the dustbins of history."

— Official statement of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community

Also the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohras , high ranking intellectual dawoodi bohras like Professor Emeritus Ismail K. Poonawala and Prof Hamdani want the successor to be decided based on their requirements and they would accept any claimant which accepts their demands for the claimants[36]:

-that he is only a Nazim Da’i (administrator) and not a Da’i Mutlaq (with full powers)

-that he is prepared to accept all past and future charities as waqf properties of the community with an independent authority and financial transparency, and that he should not claim to be the sole trustee as claimed by Sayyedna Tahir Saifuddin and his successor;

-that he would accept democratic constitution of all the local jamats and for the Central Jamat Board to be elected directly by the community,and that this body should be consulted by him in all matters affecting the welfare of the community

-that he will abolish all non-Islamic collection of taxes called wajebat and several other taxes at the time of death, such as ruku’ chiththi (recommendation letter that the deceased has paid all his dues and should be welcomed to paradise), etc.;

-that there should be no baraat (excommunication) of an individual member or a family of the community, which is a form of religious tyranny… membership of a community is a voluntary thing;

-that he will put an end to conferring honorary titles based solely on payment of large sums of money;

-that the custom imposed by Tahir Saifuddin to obtain raza (permission) for each and every petty matter is against the teachings of Islam and should be abolished;

-that he should declare his predecessors’ claim to have authority over the jan (soul) or mal (property) of a member of the community as totally against the basic Islamic teachings and bring it to an end;

-that he should be easily accessible to any member of the community and listen to his/her complaint and access should not be controlled by a coterie of henchmen around him, in short, there should not be either an iron or bamboo curtain around him;

-that efforts should be directed towards building a civil society that not only includes the admirable charitable, educational, and social welfare organizations, but also an alternative religious or scholarly elite to prevent the attrition of Bohras to other branches of Islam, and provide the progressive spiritual guidance that is sorely needed.

Court Case against Mufaddal

Late Syedna's half brother Khuzaima moved High Court claiming the position of 53rd dai and to restrict Mufaddal from discharging the duties as the 53rd Dai. The prime contention of the 700-page petition to high court is to have Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the half brother, legally declared as the 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq of the 12-lakh strong Bohra community, and simultaneously to restrain his nephew, Mufaddal Saifuddin, from acting as the Dai .

References

Summichum (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: A little better than earlier one but it too consists original research. For example, "He also claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke[..etc..]", source doesn't mention the same. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks User:Anupmehra added reference # 9 based on the recent medical review report, User:Ftutocdg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Summichum: You need a consensus in order to get your edit request accepted. Please stop abusing the {{edit protected}} template. I recommend you read WP:Consensus, and make sure other editors actually agree with your proposed text before reactivating the request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mr. Stradivarius Thanks for the review , I had edited as per User:Anupmehra as he is also the one without any conflict of interest , the other two editors have clearly shown their conflict of interest as they have proclaimed that they are blind followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin whereas I am not even born into that community but when I saw the initial versions I was suprised how people were pushing their POV without any evidence on such a famous issue of succession controversy which is now appearing almost daily in many indian media. I had changed the edit request after modifications requested by Anup Mehra nd then resubmitted the request for review, please point out which sentence etc is problem thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 April 2014

Add following to the succession controversy section:

Main article: Mufaddal Saifuddin Succession Controversy

[37]

Summichum (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree the succession issue is related to dawoodi bohra article should not be placed here. as this is biography of Mufaddal Saifuddin.Rukn950 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Done As long as we are not removing the succession controversy information completely, it makes sense to have a link to the main article here. This fits in with Wikipedia's principle of using summary style. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of false allegation

Pritish Nandy in Bangalore Mirror reported that "Meanwhile, the self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back."[21]

The above statement is against BLP policy therefore I request its immediate removal.Rukn950 (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rukn950 and request immediate removal of false allegation above.

Please refer:

[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/The-late-Syedna-wanted-his-half-brother-to-succeed-him/articleshow/31863688.cms, The Times of India,Mumbai,Mar 12, 2014,'Most backs Syedna Burhanuddin's second son, Syedna Mufadda Saifuddin, and hold him as its 53rd spiritual leader']--Md iet (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

For your Reference from BLP:2:Reliable sources.

Challenged or likely to be challenged

Main page: WP:SOURCES

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukn950 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Avoid misuse of primary sources

Further information: WP:PRIMARY

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[4]

• • I oppose the change,Before the death of Burhanuddin it was informed by the party of Mufaddal Saifuddin that he would be the 53rd Dai but after the death of Burhanuddin this dispute surfaced due to a claim by Khuzaima the mazoon or second in command of Burhanuddin that succession was performed on him 49 years ago in private and that the succession ceremony of Mufaddal was staged using the stroke ridden debilitated body of Burhanuddin. The sons of Khuzaima claim a succession ceremony video was uploaded by them showing that nothing conceivable was uttered in that ceremony to prove that no formal announcement of succession had been made by the late Syedna. So it seems Pritish Nandy a leading former editor of famous news papers is highly responsible and from circumstantial evidence it is clear that Mufaddal is a self declared leader like Khuzaima. The point here is both are self declared leaders and now the issue has reached the courts.Summichum (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This not regarding succession controversy but BLP violation. I have cited above.Rukn950 14:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukn950 (talk • contribs) I request User:Mr. Stradivarius to look into this matter! Rukn950 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Done I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction section-wise!

1. Lead, includes original research should immediately be removed. I'm gonna be hard this time on POV editors.

There are various reports that Mufaddal has taken over the administration as 53rd Dai and most media refers to him as the 53rd Da'i. Most Dawoodi Bohra sweared allegance to Mufaddal Saifuddin.

• Source, 2nd is a dead link. 3rd doesn't mention any various reports or most media or most Bohra. Neither does 4th one.

2. Early life, doesn't satisfy WP:MINREF and therefore unsourced contents must be removed.

On the milaad (birthday anniversary) of Taher Saifuddin on 27 Zilqad al-Haraam 1385 AH (18 March 1966 CE), Mufaddal received the laqab of Saifuddin, and the religious honorific title of Seqato Daawate Taiyebiyah

• No source cited. WP:BLP requires additional citations for verification.

3. Marriage, WP:MINREF. Even reliably sourced, notability is not inherited,

They have five children: Jafar us Sadiq Bhai Saheb, Taha Bhai Saheb, Husain Bhai Saheb and two daughters.

• Respect the privacy of his non-notable children who do not give up their rights because their father happens to be famous. It could be re-written as, Saifuddin has three sons and 2 daughters.

4. Historic travel, again WP:MINREF and Fails verification,

Mufaddal Saifuddin was made Amirul Hajj in 1390 AH. After Hajj

• Source doesn't mention the same. A simple, Ctrl+F for "Hajj" doesn't match any words.

5. Succession controversy, Original research, fails verification.

[..]by a large section of the[..]

• Source mentions "Even as a section of[..]". It should be the same.

6. Demise of 52nd Dai Al Mutlaq Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA,

• It belongs to Mohammed Burhanuddin and a little to Dawoodi Bohra article not this. It is a biography of Saifuddin NOT Burhanuddin.

Now, why should not above changes be made to the article? Give your opinion on respective sections, below to this, better if it is number-wise. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Heads up! 24 hrs. has been passed. If no constructive criticism made within next 48 hrs. (72 hrs. should be enough), I'd assume consensus to request an administrator to implement above changes. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dear Anup, well done, you was supposed to be get retired from the article. How come again a sudden boil of blood? Keep patience, we are all here to help you making the 'Bohra' articles of your vision.

Giving ultimatum may not be of any help, give alternate solutions if any such that we get agree on them.--Md iet (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither "boil of blood" nor "ultimatum" it is. Yes, I was little frustrated earlier, but I can't really give up so easily. It is a list of correction suggested by me based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm waiting to hear some criticism, why should not above changes be implemented? Voice your opinion here. If no concerns raised, I'd recommend same in my next "edit-request". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Anupmehra I thank you a lot for sparing your valuable time and verifying each sentence , you did a marvellous job. This Mufaddal article helped to learn a lot about how wiki works. I am in no way related to this community but when first stumbled on this article when the media was talking a lot about this person on the succession issue ;was surprised by the highly promotion oriented edits and the first versions sounded very funny as the authors described the obscure travels made by Mufaddal, I was wondering why to mention places visited by a person in wikipedia. i dont think noting down the travels of Mufaddal is of any remarkable interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr.SUMCHUM, no doubt, how the Wiki works is very very clear. Sorry Dear,You can't cheat Wiki, it has caught you red handed. You are not signing the edit, and claiming that you are no way related with community, but you are definitely related with the claimant. Are you something of the claimant? I doubt you can't be a Dawoodi Bohra by your virtue?--Md iet (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Summichum You think by not sighing the comment your name will not come up. you have been blocked twice for your disruptive edits. after so much time and after imposing your partisan view again and again.and lengthy discussions, you claim you are NOT related to this community.Have you taken us for fools? Mufaddalqn (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of editors and I was the one who invited third party reliableUser:Anupmehra as you had severly compromised the article reflecting your POV and were not budging inspite of engaging you in talk page. And yes I was not even born in that community \religion but I do read about it a lot recently. And I had reverted your edits multiple times and you had cunningly blocked multiple editors User:Ftutocdg who were good faith as we had unrolled it as they were clear POV pushing. Yes you can cheat wikipedia but not for a long time. As how Anup has shown. Anyways keep your biases aside as you both clearly are part of the community possibly at the higher echelons of the clergy. Regarding signing then I dont care to sign as wiki adds my name automatically.Summichum

You 'don't care to sign' and seems to pretend to abide Wiki rules, gets blocked, and think Wiki, your assistant who will sign for you.--Md iet (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If what you say is true why are you taking only one side that of Khuzaima qutbuddin? you were already blocked twice for you disruptive editing. you are imposing your view reverting others edits without discussion. asuming ownership of articles. and lastly harrasing me by flooding my talk page with templates. I dont think you are acting on good faith.

''Rukn950'' (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rukn, for a befitting reply. I have also given some reply to him on my talk page. What I am is clearly written at my page in 2009, there is no need for guess.--Md iet (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

*Objection to Lead (#1)- The above is not as such original research, but seems to be good faith reporting, please read below with same meaning with all source Wiki required:

There are reports that Mufaddal has succeeded the office of Dai Al Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras, and media refers to him as the 53rd Da'i...... Dawoodi Bohra community has faith and show solidarity with him...

References

Hope this will satisfy you, we have to work together to make all the below to Wiki standard, expect your cooperation.--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose Anup's edit as the above references are stale and we need to consider all references, I have already cited many media reports which now cite both as the claimant and well all know the ground reality and now since it is a court case its subjudice and takes precedence over any reports. Moreover Khuzaima seems to have his own parallel administration headquartered at Thane.Summichum (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply to objection raised above, @Md iet: - Not OR but Good faith reporting? Wikipedia is not a newspaper! I'd suggest you to take your time to read and understand what actually Wikipedia No Original Research policy is. There is NO source that reports that the dispute has been resolved. If "XXX" is nominated president of country "ZZZ" and it is mentioned by sources, P, Q, R, S and T, then it'd be written as, "XXX is reported to be nominated president of the ZZZ country by P, Q, R, S and T sources" NOT "by many sources". When you write "many/most/various" unless mentioned by a reliable source, it'd be called a WP:Original research.

If few reports in few RS that does mention, Saifuddin as a 53rd Da'i, there are tons of reports of the same newspaper who does mention the dispute and no one as the 53rd Da'i. Now when you consider only first few sources, ignore others and write about the same, it is called "POV editing". Click this one--> Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

So, Md iet, Your objection over the suggested changes is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and particularly contradicts with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. . Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Further follow up: Objections over suggested changes must be based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't care for your personal opinion and point of view. Waiting for some real objections. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anup, for explaining OR in such a beautiful manner, it can be lesson for many. Although Wiki is purely encyclopedic platform, My aim is Wiki should also present something really true, clearly visible through common eyes. Wiki is such a platform that it is self correcting, if something has sustained here means , you can rely and take it granted. I want to visualize Wiki of that standard. Whosoever reading it, is a inspector, and there is always a limit, he will not sustain the matter, if it is not at all true. In the present case, regarding claimant part it is very true that in courts eye both are claimants, but this is not a ordinary case, a case of faith, a case on community, no ordinary rules apply here. Whole Community view is to be taken. In a community of 1-2 millions, if few hundreds says something different has no meanings as far as truth is considered, but it will definitely have meaning in the court of law. All the newspaper are not denying that one has full majority and already taken over office and simultaneously also reporting that there is opposition by a small group. The same things should reflect in Wiki reports, that is expectations of common man. If we want to make Wiki a common man's information center, that missing thing we have to cover up. It is very difficult, but in cases of faith, legal things take years together and common man can't resist the false statement.

In the present case smooth changeover has already taken place. Opponent has not raised his claim to public when sufficient time was available to him when late Syedna was alive and public declaration of one candidate was already done. The second candidate which is now so confident that late Syedna has selected him for the post, why he has not approached to late Syedna and approached former Chief justice of India. When declaration of candidate has become public, he has made his cards open to former CJI, why he was hesitant to make the things open to public/press. That time public/press would have made every thing possible. No alleged hijacking would have tolerated. Late Syedna was in difficulty of movement and speech, but having complete sense and could move with some support and his face and hand reflexes was quite clear to judge what he wants to convey. In the presence of late Syedna fate of the next Dai would have easily resolved through third respectful party of the choice of second claimant. But the second claimant was silent, making preparations of his own to raise claim and waiting for the demise of late Syedna to raise the issue on the plea of secrecy, which he himself has defied by going to former CJI, and designing his website in advance and declaring it on the next day of late Syedna demise. In place of making mockery of him and community's faith, he would have gone to media at that time and media would have got all cards open, if he was so true. It is crystal clear that he has another plan in his mind and some how wanted to tilt the position his way. This claimant has no worry of community but worry of property the post carry. All the statements of the party clearly reflects same.

Now position is clear. The facts are Muffadal has occupied the office of 53rd Dai, has mass support, and have recognition of all officials in the country and abroad. There is one claimant exist, challenging Muffaddal nass, claiming of his Nass being done in 'Private', declaring no proof, no witness till now. Presenting verbal reflexes, which were common, not carrying much weightage.

Now we have to have consensus how to present the case. I have tried as above, I expect support from all the corners to make it further fit as per Wiki considering above.--Md iet (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Md iet: - "[..]facts are Muffadal has occupied the office of 53rd Dai, has mass support, and have recognition of all officials in the country and abroad[..]". Whatever facts are presented by you is not supported by any reliable sources, hence not acceptable to Wikipedia because of its verifiability policy. As I said above, I'm looking for arguments why should not above suggested changes be made, based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines not personal opinion. Try again! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• The next revision is as follows:

* Next revision of statement of Lead (#1)

'There are reports that Mufaddal has succeeded the office of Dai Al Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras.. There is clear indication of Dawoodi Bohra community's faith, most backs him, and hold him as its 53rd spiritual leader. Thousands of Bohra took out a peace march to express solidarity with their 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq....'

References

• * Next revision of statement of Lead (#1)

It is said that Mufaddal has succeeded the office of Dai Al Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras.. It is further reported that there is indication of Dawoodi Bohra community's faith, they backs him, and hold him as its 53rd spiritual leader..,However, Qutubuddin's claim has not gone down well with the Dawoodi Bohra community in the country and abroad.,

References

Although link is not dead, 'thousands' Figures were quoted by specific body and I have removed that statement. I have kept only general statement quoted by media and also removed honorifics. Hope this will satisfy editors,--Md iet (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"@Anupmehra: -Please try again to test improvement.--Md iet (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• "There are reports [..]", is again an WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH (read it again!).
  "Most backs him [..]" is WP:YESPOV.
  Thousands of Bohra took out a peace march to express solidarity with their 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq FAILS VERIFICATION (might be, because link appears dead).
  Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and comment thereafter only. Take your time to understand Wikipedia, It'd help to save community and my time! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet, Do you need some more time? It has been 4 days, I feel applying silence procedure as per WP:SILENCE. I'll wait 24 more hours, though! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anup, thanks for giving so much time and concentrating on 'dawoodi bohra' topics. Frankly speaking, I have interest in Fatimid philosophy and faith . Being a Dawoodi Bohra, I can feel (+) and (-) point of it. Only human grid and ego makes system helpless and these evils you cannot control, and we have to bear with it. I know you are analyzing all the wording as a lawyer with Wiki guidelines as a base. Sorry, I don't have so much patience, time and energy to correlate each and every thing. One thing is sure, I don't want to put up any thing wrong. I am a fan of Wiki, for making Wiki a free and fare platform, I am there in whatsoever manner I can help. People having partisan view try to take advantages for their own grid, wiki should not get in trap of them. Sometimes we have to manage on good faith consensus to some extent, when matters are anti society and attacking faiths for personal gains.--Md iet (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We have an essay over this, called WP:POVEDITOR. It reads, "Human beings have biases. Probably most editors have biases that lead them to select which articles to work on and what to add or delete. Those personal biases are fine with us, as long as the result is an article that's neutral.". I just want to know if you have some real wiki policy based objection over above suggested changes? Wikipedia doesn't take either side, whether it is social or anti-social. Wikipedia is NOT censored. We represent information as a summary of available reliable sources. Please advance your arguments to counter mine above suggested changes. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Anupmehra there are wealth of information available over bohra topics by many reputed intellectuals which is surprisingly absent and not even cited here all such available information should be reflected in wikipedia and make it as detailed as possible too. I think you have given enough time and now. you should proceed and make the above changed in a edit request.Summichum (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Claimant/Defendant

To all those out there that State Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin to be a claimant, Syedna Mufaddal saifuddin is not claiming to any position unlike khuzaimah qutbuddin, until his claim is proven(which is a long lost dream) Syedna mufaddal saifuddin remains Dai al mutlaq. as by law until the claim is proven the defendant remains innocent of what he is accused of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.217.143 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

information displaying error.

I am deeply grieved by the information text displayed on this page . his holiness syedna mufaddal saifuddin saheb is our spritual leader and spritual father and everything for our community. how can you write his holiness's name without any respect.you should write his holiness and syedna for him .When I read "CLAIMANT" in the occupation i was totally shocked , it is an insult and disrespect also for an ordinary man ! actually the claimant is khuzema qutubuddin as he showed his colours after the sad demise of our syedna mohammed burhanuddin ! this shows how your page editing department is so much careless that it posts such a big and important and sensitive article that can hurt the sentiments of a community.

• • This is not error , but put after consensus of all involved , please see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction section wise - Edit request (consensus)

Hello, again, people!! I've got some time enough to back on the article. I, earlier, have proposed some changes to the article (see, Talk:Dawoodi Bohra#Correction section-wise!). I, here, again, inviting involved editors to raise their objection over changes. It has been since a while, I see, no comment over there. I'd like to confirm, it one more time. If someone notices that, proposed changes violate Wikipedia policy and guidelines, someway, please forward your arguments, here. Editors should remember that the goal is encyclopedic information and should attempt to set aside their personal opinions while they are here at Wikipedia. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 April 2014

Syedna Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin Mannantawa (talk) 10:01, 23 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 April 2014

Please remove, "Demise of 52nd Dai Al Mutlaq Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA" section completely (including Other reports sub-section). It doesn't belong to this article, but Mohammed Burhanuddin.

The section deals with the demise of a religious leader in his son article, where the subject has its own article, Mohammed Burhanuddin. It should be there, in fact, it is already there. The Other reports sub-section deals with the controversy thing, what already is covered in another section (Succession controversy) with a link to main article.

Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Done This seems reasonable to me, so I have enacted the request. If anyone disagrees, please let me know and I will revert my edit. Although it would probably be better to move some of the material into the "succession controversy" section rather than revert the whole thing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Stradivarius, material which was not covered earlier in succession controversy (main article) is now included with proper wordings and citation (Summichum trying to disrupt the things there).

First visit of Mufaddal to Iraq and see off and condolences given by Indian Foreign Minister is an important event and its inclusion in this article is also well justified. Mr. Stradivarius,we may think of reverting following in the article, probably in historical visit para please.

"The Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid on 28 Rabi' al-thani 1435 AH (28 February 2014 CE) arrived to offer condolences to Mufaddal Saifuddin at the late Syedna's residence Saifee Mahal, Mumbai. It is reported that he "presented a letter of good wishes from Indian Congress President Sonia Gandhi as Mufaddal left for his first trip abroad to Iraq, after accession to the 53rd Dā'ī office". ["Union Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid". Afternoon Despatch & Courier. Mumbai. 28 February 2014.]".--Md iet (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

As there is no further suggestions on this draft, we may revert the information regarding Indian Foreign Minister here.--Md iet (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance tags addressed!

I've just addressed maintenance tags and made few edits accordingly. Succession controversy now belongs to 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) article. If you got some other problem, discuss it here. Before you do, may I let you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary of information already available in multiple reliable sources written from a neutral point of view as such it reads satisfactory and/or good to both, promoters and criticizers. Wikipedia does not represent truth or fact, but information. Please have sources to add/update information in this article or propose your changes here. If you are here to present unsourced information or concoction of your opinions, it is not the right place. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert explanation!

How this content belongs to succession controversy? Explain!

In Jan 2014, after the demise of Buhranuddin, Mufaddal Saifuddin led the last rituals in which hundreds of thousands of Bohras joined.Pinglay-Plumber, Prachi (2014-01-18). "The Last Glimpse". Outlook. Retrieved 2014-03-01. It is reported that "When Mufaddal Saifuddin made his first public appearance on a temporary bridge connecting Saifee Masjid and Raudat Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed “Maula” giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dā'ī al-Muṭlaq. Many Bohras have accepted Burhanuddin’s second son Syedi Mufaddal Saifuddin as Syedna"."Who is new Syedna? Trouble brews as half-brother stakes claim". The Indian Express. Mumbai: The Express Group. 6 February 2014."Syedna Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin". Retrieved 27 March 2014.

Succession controversy came to surface only after the claim made by Qutbuddin following demise of Burhanuddin. No earlier events belong to succession controversy. And death ceremony of Burhanuddin belongs to his article, not his son's. Along with other concerns, it is POV editing and copyright violation. For a claim of this magnitude, we need more than one reliable source citation. I've notice other Freepressjournal articles, combined this gives an impression of a biased source. And,

• Agreed, what about these fact:

"Times of India reports that “Most(dawoodi Bohra) backs Syedna Burhanuddin's second son, Syedna Mufadda Saifuddin, and hold him as its 53rd spiritual leader’([38],Indiatimes|The Times of India|The Economic Times| ‘The late Syedna wanted his half-brother to succeed him’,| Mar 12, 2014). This was also visible when he stop over at Karachi during his first foreign visit ([39], New Bohra spiritual leader arrives in Karachi , The express Tribune, Karachi, February 27, 2014)(Syedna Saifuddin receives warm welcome on brief visit,[40] March 28, 2014), and at Mumbai on his arrival back ([41], Saturday, March 22, 2014 , 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 ,Mumbai, Maharashtra, India)." --Md iet (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Other reports? Wikipedia is NOT a news paper. If his journey to the Iraq is really remarkable, it should be mentioned in already existing section, "Historic travel".

Good suggestion, matter shifted.--Md iet (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For above concern, recent changes to the article has been undid by me, and the same should not be re-instated without discussion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• 'Raudat Tahera statement' is undid as citation medical report discuss about June 4, incident only. Self formulated POV inserted, and the same should not be re-instated without discussion. --Md iet (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement : ‘And that the succession ceremony in Raudat Tahera was staged using the debilitated stroke ridden body of Burhanuddin as a prop.’ is reinstated by Mr. Sumichum , inspite of warning given above.

'There is no mention of 'Raudat Tahera' or ‘prop’ word used any where in citation and medical reports only refers to 'june 4' incident only,

"The Syedna suffered the stroke on June 1, 2011, and according to two of the reviews, he could not have possibly spoken coherently on June 4, when he allegedly 'loudly' pronounced his son, Mufaddal, as successor, after which sherbet was consumed by everyone." ' "It would have been impossible for His Holiness to have drunk sherbet the night of June 4... "

This fellow has not only reinstate his self generated POV , but removed material on his important visit abroad ,which was properly discussed giving 'edit request' above and further diverted as suggested by editor Anup.

Mr. Sumichum is requested to be getting restrained at earliest please.--Md iet (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Mr Sumichum has reinstated the material again in spite of my specific explanation and second warning given. This editor is removing all the well discussed well sited NPOV material added, on his wrong plea of having statement of his choice and his POV.

He has deliberately added allegation of 'staged' and presumed location of 'Raudat Tahera', which is no where mentioned in citation. He has deliberately remarked late Syedna as a 'prop' on his own without any proof or citation in the reputed Wiki, presuming that it is his right to do whatever he wants on Wiki, playing with sentiments of whole community, not being of that community.

I request admin to immediately inter fare with this type of vandalism done by a single element against a whole community. This is a pure vandalism and I don't want to break 3RR rule, although I am supposed to be allowed in this case.--Md iet (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I request Anup to immediatey remove this as he is closely watching this and further request admin to take strong action on this.--Md iet (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Add views of central board of dawoodi bohras

The following edit deleted by the excessive editing and should be reinserted:

Press Conference declares Neutral Stance

A press conference was organised by Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community which is represented by intellectuals in the community recommended taking a neutral stance in wake of the succession controversy, not taking side of any of the claimants.[42]:

"Over the last ten days we have been witness to the ugly dispute over the right successor to the late Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb. This was not unexpected, as the late Syedna Saheb had been unable to clearly nominate his successor for nearly 50 years while he was alive. The claim of both his so-called successors is shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, as there are no reliable and disinterested witnesses to their nomination. The community is therefore both in a dilemma and distress, and is greatly agitated. For nearly 200 years there was no such problem, as the succession was monopolized within one family, with either the brother or the son being nominated by his predecessor. However, now, the stakes are quite high. An unbelievably large amount of wealth has been accumulated over the last hundred years through extortion and exploitation. The dispute is, therefore, not religious as claimed by both the claimants, but for the control of this wealth. Nathwani and Tewatia Commissions in the 1970s and 1990s have fully documented the various modes of this accumulation, and how this wealth is spent on the luxurious lifestyle of one family, and not for the benefit of the community. The Central Board warns both the claimants that if they do not change with the changing times, become liberal, stop malpractices and loosen their control over a docile and peaceful community, they will be consigned to the dustbins of history."

— Official statement of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community

Also the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohras , high ranking intellectual dawoodi bohras like Professor Emeritus Ismail K. Poonawala and Prof Hamdani want the successor to be decided based on their requirements and they would accept any claimant which accepts their demands for the claimants[43]:

-that he is only a Nazim Da’i (administrator) and not a Da’i Mutlaq (with full powers)

-that he is prepared to accept all past and future charities as waqf properties of the community with an independent authority and financial transparency, and that he should not claim to be the sole trustee as claimed by Sayyedna Tahir Saifuddin and his successor;

-that he would accept democratic onstitution of all the local jamats and for the Central Jamat Board to be elected directly by the community,and that this body should be consulted by him in all matters affecting the welfare of the community

-that he will abolish all non-Islamic collection of taxes called wajebat and several other taxes at the time of death, such as ruku’ chiththi (recommendation letter that the deceased has paid all his dues and should be welcomed to paradise), etc.;

-that there should be no baraat (excommunication) of an individual member or a family of the community, which is a form of religious tyranny… membership of a community is a voluntary thing;

-that he will put an end to conferring honorary titles based solely on payment of large sums of money;

-that the custom imposed by Tahir Saifuddin to obtain raza (permission) for each and every petty matter is against the teachings of Islam and should be abolished;

-that he should declare his predecessors’ claim to have authority over the jan (soul) or mal (property) of a member of the community as totally against the basic Islamic teachings and bring it to an end;

-that he should be easily accessible to any member of the community and listen to his/her complaint and access should not be controlled by a coterie of henchmen around him, in short, there should not be either an iron or bamboo curtain around him;

-that efforts should be directed towards building a civil society that not only includes the admirable charitable, educational, and social welfare organizations, but also an alternative religious or scholarly elite to prevent the attrition of Bohras to other branches of Islam, and provide the progressive spiritual guidance that is sorely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 11:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Claimant/Defendant

To all those out there that State Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin to be a claimant, Syedna Mufaddal saifuddin is not claiming to any position unlike khuzaimah qutbuddin, until his claim is proven(which is a long lost dream) Syedna mufaddal saifuddin remains Dai al mutlaq. as by law until the claim is proven the defendant remains innocent of what he is accused of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.217.143 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)