Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Historic travel inclusion

As suggested and agreed above we may include following in 'historic travel' para:

"The Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid on 28 Rabi' al-thani 1435 AH (28 February 2014 CE) accompanied Mufaddal to Mumbai airport to see off for his first visit abroad after demise of late Syedna. 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. In Pakistan, he received state protocol and welcomed at the Karachi airport by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah."syedna-saifuddin-receives-warm-welcome-on-brief-visit.28.02.14, Dawn, Karachi.bohras-spiritual-leader-receives-state-protocol

If any body have further value addition, may suggest.--Md iet (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I object to the addition as adding travel itineraries of people irrespective of who is involved is not remarkable. Also state protocol are easily purchasable with adequate money esp in Pakistan. Also you cant add any refrences to him as 53rd dai as the people at that time did not know about the succession controversy and now the matter is in courts Hence such references should be removed.Summichum (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This 'travel itineraries' is 'involved' with the subject of the article. It is 'remarkable' as it is his first foreign journey being see off by the country FM. The incident is of more than one month from start of controversy, and the people 'did now about the succession' very well. Mufaddal is not 'referred' as 53rd Dai. '53rd dai office' is referred inside a specific quote of news.--Md iet (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2014

Please add Syedna before the name Mufaddal Saifuddin. Also please remove claimant from this article. Only Khuzaima Qutbuddin is claimant who is humiliating sentiments of our religion by taking media help. Khuzaima Qutbuddin is Dai of Qutbi bohras and not Dawoodi Bohras. Mufaddal Saifuddin is accepted as Dai by the Bohra Community, and nothing is going to change now. Even court are not taking religious matters in their hand. Also if any President, Prime minister or any other leader declares Khuzaima as the Dai, Dawoodi Bohras will still be with Mufaddal Saifuddin , without any doubt in mind.

You can also take an example to relate this issue. Like if a King has declared his son as his successor three years before, everyone has welcomed him as successor. Then suddenly when the King dies , half brother of king claims that I am the new King. Will then a wikipedia article say both son and brother as claimants ? or just the brother as claimant?

I give you another example. Suppose I claim without any proof and witness that I am founder of wikipedia, and Jimmy Wales is false founder (This is just a example) . Will you make Jimmy Wales Sir the claimant ?

Hope you will take a notice regarding this issue.Thanks --Arvinduncle (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Arvinduncle (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources indicate a dispute, then in any of the cases mentioned, the dispute can be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia. Your sentiments are off-topic here, and this is obviously not an uncontroversial edit. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Qwertyus is right - we can only unambiguously call Mufaddal Saifuddin "Syedna" if the vast majority of reliable sources unambiguously call him "Syedna". This isn't the case at the moment, as far as I have been keeping up with events. Please see WP:WEIGHT for the Wikipedia policy on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

About removal of claimant word and making foot note in place

"Please change "Mufaddal Saifuddin (Arabic: مفضل سيف الدين‎; Abu Jafar-us-Sadiq Mufaddal Saifuddin) is the Claimant 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." wherever it(claimant) is mentioned in Wiki articles.

• There are events described with due citation (having written proof and witness names and their acceptance) at ‘succession’ and succession controversy’ Para of this article which make it clear the various Nass process taken place for Mufaddal and its response from mass Dawoodi Bohra[1][2][3][4][5][6].
• There was neither claim raised by Khuzaima for Nass in public for more than two years (after public declaration of nass on Mufaddal) till the demise of late Syedna nor he has discussed the matter with late Syedna. He claims now that nass was done in private (obviously no proof) 50years back. He claims that it was to be kept secret and HT reports[7] that former CJI 'wrote' about the nass 'before late Syedna demise'.The matter he disclosed in his website[8] there are few comments of late Syedna narrated by him:

1. “Maara pachhi bhai Dai chho” “bhai ne sajdo karse, bhai karva dejo; pachhi [sajda ni maana] zahir thase”(After me brother will be Dai, ‘Sajdo(bow down)’ will be done to brother, let them do, that it will become known in the future). Khuzaima tells that this was told to him by late Dai in private, no proof, only we have to believe his words?
2. Late Syedna then declared following in his open speech (translation):“I appoint in the rutba of Mazoon-ud-da’wat, the one whose name was the most beloved of names to Syedna Taher Saifuddin, my beloved son, my beloved son, my beloved son, Khuzaima bhaisaheb Qutbuddin. I appoint him in the rutba which I myself occupied during Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s reign.” The above statement only declare appointment of Khuzaima as Mazoon, called him as his son, made him feel that whatever ‘rutba (title)’ he occupied, he has given same ‘rutba’ to him. The title (rutba) means only title and it is specific, Mazoon is title but we can’t presume ‘successor’ as a title. Let us assume this, then also Late Syedna’s first statement specifically defined 'rutba of Mazoon’, than how can it be presumed that Mazoon also carry meaning of Successor (mansoos), when it is not necessary that mazoon will necessarily become dai although he is number two in the ranking (please see the List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra article, many mazoon have never became Dai)
3. Further site say “he (late syedna) further instructed all the people to offer qadambosi to Syedna Qutbuddin....because the bay’at oath of allegiance is primarily for the Dai.” This (qadambosi) can be done to anybody when Dai feels it. Late Syedna use to do “Sazda” at Moulai Adam qabr, Adam was not also rank of Mazoon and Dai himself was doing sazda. Asking for sazda does not make any body Dai, Dai is only who, who is clearly appointed by late dai.
4. As per site “Private Nass is valid according to Dawat doctrine”, an “Nass, once conferred, cannot be retracted”.“Mazoon’s aala shaan is attested in Dawat kitaabo. Therefore, you must accept that what Syedi Mazoon Saheb is saying about Nass is the truth". Private nass is valid can be accepted as per dawat doctrine details provided. But the all written proof produced, witness attestation given, video recording of public function given in the article on Mufaddal succession, also clearly indicate that late Syedna has all indication of doing nass on Mufaddal and he was not at all bothered about absence of Khuzaima who was Mazoon and not attending the all functions taken place after proclaimed 2011 public nass. Now as per statement given by Khuzaima, Mazoon is such a post and he is so great that whatever he saying will be always truth then Dai whatever he is looking in front of him still not reacting from last two years, and as per Dai Alla shaan(great quality) attested in Dawat Kitaabo(books), Dai can be liar or can be a person who cannot do anything in front of thousands of his follower who are ready to die for even for his one look? Dai do not know that “Nass, once conferred, cannot be retracted” and he has forgotten about the private nass he has done? Khuzaima has disclosed his private nass to former CJI before death of late Syedna[9], where is high qualityof Mazoon gone? Where is oath of secrecy? When he can disclose the matter to former CJI, Why did not he declare the thing in public and gone to late syedna to clarify the matter when he was live? These are all questions self explanatory and contradictory to what Khuzaima claims. After all Khuzaima is human, human grid may have overruled 'Mazoon' dignity?
5. There is claim that late Syedna was hijacked in Nass ceremony at Mumbai and before. The photo clips of Mumbai ceremony published in media reflect positions of late Syedna and claim be verified, whether he looks like hijacked[10]
6. The matter published in media[11] reports only matter detailed in this personal web site they don’t provide anything extra and describe about the boycott/threats[12] etc. As such the follower s of Khzaima are very few hardly in few thousands against total Dawoodi Bohra in few millions. All public properties are in their hand although main sol trustee declared is Dai, but he cannot touch the property against public will. This few thousand cannot do anything but I feel that these boycott /threats etc. are due to anger from within of some warriors and due to commitment and faith they have for Fatimid heritage . This is not due to fear of losing something and may not have done with instruction from some Dawoodi Bohra authority.
7. I have very limited knowledge about the subject still I could argue as above as a common Bohra, detailed analysis of complete episode is done by experts [13][14], who have dealt with each points minutely which I also not read, only just some points here and there.

• 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 as Mazoon and asking his blessings while his car was moving out[15].Photo[16]
• There was mass protest of Dawoodi Bohra in many cities of India, they gave referendum in favour of Mufaddal to official city authorities. The media reported the matter referring Mufaddal as 53rd Dai even after mass publicity done by Khuzaima. [17][18][19]
• There are reports which mention and details about claim of Khuzaima, These reports are based on information provided by personal website [20], which was launched specifically for this agenda. This website mainly speak of private nass to Khuzaima 50 years back with no witness, no written document made public to prove that explicit Nass has taken place.[21],
• There are allegation that Mufaddal has hijacked the late Syedna. He is second son and he was not present in hospital when Nass announcement was made public and his elder brother has accepted the choice and informed his younger brother. Why the elder brother has not revolted against his younger brother and taken the advantage if there were chances of ambiguity? As per reports elder brother was witness of earlier Nass taken place in private and he was pretty sure what his father wants and has accepted the decision gracefully as per Fatimid tradition.
• Even in month of February/March 14, many international magazine/news has projected Mufaddal as 53rd Dai, and many officials visited Mufaddal as successor to convey their condolences. Indian foreign minister honoured Mufaddal to give him send-off for his first visit as Dai to Iraq as state guest[22],[23], [24].--Md iet (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

References

I could have done the edition myself (as I have authority given by Wiki) as recommended by last editor who has cleared last request but I want to honour prestige of wiki and don't want to write something which have possibilities of conflict as it is religious issue. No court can decide next pope, only the colour of smoke can, similarly late Dai can only appoint his successor and he has such a responsibility on him that he cannot fail and cannot see that it is in wrong hand. Late Syedna has given enough time to make the things clear before he die. From his side he made the things pretty clear. Mass Dawoodi Bohra can judge the truth and they are with his decision. Mass media and government officials is also convinced and referring Mufaddal as 53rd Dai from day one and continued to do so.

Now I leave the decision to my fellow editors and millions of readers to judge the case and report what the best we can.--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There are two competing claims to the leadership position. One claimant has much more political power than the other, but neither claimant has an insignificant following. All creditable sources say that there's a major conflict, causing significant strife, and that neither party looks as if it will back off of their claim. As editors it's our role to represent facts and avoid promoting contentious or prejudicial material. The facts are as I have stated: there are two claimants and a crisis of succession. It's not our task to evaluate the legitimacy of succession claims, it's only our job to say that they exist and have significant followings. The references will direct readers to the relevant sources, so that they may make political decisions for themselves. Your proposal makes contentious claims that are needlessly divorced from the relevant facts, and ultimately violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'm disappointed with the edits made to this article in the past two days. Earlier drafts were both more informative and more organized, as well as less partisan. Catfax 22:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs)

Further Clarifications:;

• ‘but neither claimant has an insignificant following’ : One claimant have hundreds of thousands supporter reported in mass media against few hundred/thousands of another. ( minority Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and Qutbi Bohra group (both totaling tens of thousands) seems to be supporting Khuzaima, but Khuzaima claims to be Dawoodi Bohra, and other minority support is immaterial for the case)

• ‘All creditable sources say that there's a major conflict, causing significant strife, and that neither party looks as if it will back off of their claim. ’ :

Sources describe conflict as follows:

1".... the official website of his secretariat which allude to his accession, the language itself is not entirely clear and one can see how those suspect of the claim might contest it. ....." [25],

2. "...‘performed nass on private’, ‘ Syedna had indicated .... next Dai’, ‘instructed mazoon not to reveal(but revealed as per below)’, ‘ Muffadal ... lakhs (hundred of thousands) of Dawoodi Bohras .. screamed “Maula” .. clear indication ..53rd Dai al-Mutlaq’.... [26],

3. "... Khuzaima ... said that the late Syedna, ...conferred nass on him ..fifty years ago in private ..asked that the news be kept a secret."... "Ahmadi,.... wrote to Qutbuddin’s family, even before the late Syedna’s demise this month, expressing his opinion and support.." [27]

4 "....’ in private ...keep it secret. It was in trust that this was kept secret until now.(but made open to CJI and not to Syedna))"..’ private ceremony was conducted verbally’.."[28].

These reports indicates no proof, contradiction in secrecy claim, just reporting for second claimant, can’t be treated as major conflict reported.

On other side, there is smooth transition taken place for 53rd Dai, all administration is with him, he is commanding majority support of his community, he has done last ritual of 52nd Dai amongst hundreds of thousands Bohra as reported above, reported overwhelmingly as 53rd Dai in media, have condolences/recognition from ministers of India and abroad, hence there is no strife visible. One another claimant has put up his claim all on flimsy ground, no public document provided of former CJI personal stand, no details or proof given for case being prejudicial. Hence case is neither contentious or prejudicial. There is no issue of ‘ back off of their claim’ or ‘crisis of succession’, as one natural claimant has already taken over, smooth succession has taken place and well reported . There is no need for him to back off as mass has accepted his claim. Only Point left is, there still exist one reported claimant, which is to be indicated and all relevant well reported information to be referenced.--Md iet (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with user:Catfactory. the revised article is more clear and states the points in logical and neutral manner. further this Article is of Mufaddal Saifuddin, counter arguments are already given in Khuzaima Qutbuddin article. please don't attempt to start edit war again.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• "All creditable sources say that there's a major conflict, causing significant strife, and that neither party looks as if it will back off of their claim" - the response to this claim is inadequate. You cite sources discussing interpretations of evidence for the succession claims, rather than the discussions of the nature of the conflict. The conflict is significant, has caused strife, and neither party is backing down. Your comments are irrelevant to my claims here which are clearly supported by the evidence. The claim that the dominant claimant has taken majority control is not under examination here. The question is of how this control was taken, what it means for many Bohras, and how many Bohras have responded. It's not a surprise, then, that progressive Bohras have tended to align with the minority faction.

"These reports indicates no proof, contradiction in secrecy claim, just reporting for second claimant, can’t be treated as major conflict reported." This is not an english language sentence. If you wish to comment in a public forum then please do so in an accessible manner.

Sorry, Dear Cat and other respected editors. It is 'Engineer's English'. As I requested in my talk page, please bear with me. 'Comma' is being used as a 'pause' connecting two relevant thoughts, little childish. Pl.excuse me till, you can draw meaning out of it.

What I meant to say above is whatever reports media has printed about Khuzaima's Nass, don't have any documentary proof and based on verbal statements given on website. The oath of secrecy claim for non disclosure of Nass and not getting clarified through suitable agency or from Syedna himself during life time of late Syedna, is not at all valid as the same report which comment about secrecy, contradict in the next report, as clarified above. When there is no proof of Khuzaima's nass claim + Secrecy claim is false+ All proofs are given for legitimate Nass of Muffadal before Syedna's illness hence all the drama of alleged hijacking are no more valid reason for denial of Nass => press reports cannot be treated as major conflict on Nass.--Md iet (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The nature of conflict is very clear, one natural party has taken over post with due legitimacy, having all the written, video and witness proof with mass majority support whereas there is sudden claim for the post by another who himself was not sure of his claim and hence not clarified the matter in public/to authority(late Dai) himself when Nass secret was made open by authority itself, don't have courage to claim in presence of authority since 2011 AD and now claiming the things, with allegations having no written /audio/ video proof/witness and taking plea of secrecy, which was contradicted by themselves. on one side natural claimant with all proofs and mass support, recognition by officials/govt., whereas on another side just alleged claim, no proof, no mass support hence as such no conflict only an alleged claim which should also be reported as per neutral POV.

"The question is of how this control was taken, what it means for many Bohras, and how many Bohras have responded" is clear from the reports of overwhelming support from everywhere when Nass was made public in 2011. Was there any opposition smell in public, from nowhere. Even on the day of demise of late Syedna, there was no clue of another Nass. Mass public, every Dawoodi Bohra was in agony of pain, there was not a zero suspicion on Mufaddal, there was sea of support on Mumbai street visible on well reported media reports all over. Even there was no doubt of traitor by Dawoodi Bohra. Photo of secret opponent moving out from the house of late Syedna in the next morning was published in media, Dawoodi Bohra who was present there to have last glimpse of late Syedna were surrounding his car with folded hands to get his blessings as he was holding the post of repute. All the media declared the successor and designated him as 53rd Dai, all condolences messages from all dignitaries even from Arab countries were pouring in on 53rd Ddai, clearly indicated 'how many bohra' and outer world responded.

On the other hand a press conference called by opponent next day of demise, to remain present in the last ritual of late Syedna, he chose to move out from his residence. Declared material on website prepared in advance, looking like he was waiting for the occasion of sad demise of his half brother. There were only family members of him present with him with hardly few other Bohra who was made convinced by him god knows by which manners. Media got story of their choice to get the publicity and fame, as it is but natural that there are always few points for improvements in any system in the name of progressiveness and media started it on encasing them. There is mass protest for opponent declaring mass support for 53rd Dai taken over, every where in major cities of India, well reported by media makes thing pretty clear how many Bohras are responded.

"It's not a surprise, then, that progressive Bohras have tended to align with the minority faction", perfectly written, 'enemy's enemy is best friend' is well known to every body. These so called progressive minority (definitely have some better points which looks like modern) were waiting for this occasion, and as alleged in Qutbi Bohra article, this opponent had linked with them earlier to gather some support to strengthen his opposition to late Syedna, were definitely tended to align as they don't have any leader left and they themselves wanted publicity and this is best opportunity they have.--Md iet (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"the revised article is more clear and states the points in logical and neutral manner" this is irrelevant (and I think untrue, but that's incidental). Wikipedia biography pages are not bulletin boards for political agendas. If there's interest in a detailed discussion of the succession crisis then that discussion belongs on a page specifically devoted to that crisis. The notion that competing accounts should be presented with prejudice on each claimant's page is absurd. The facts are these: the majority of Bohras accept the alleged Nass performed on the dominant claimant. The minority rejects the legitimacy of this nass, and instead supports the other claimant's position that he was tapped 50 years ago. A 'timeline of events' is inappropriate given that it is these events that are precisely the point of contention between these two parties. That 'counterarguments' are given in a different article is irrelevant to the fact that Wikipedia biographies are not the place for political punditry. It's not our job to make theological or political decisions for the wider community.

"please don't attempt to start edit war again.Mufaddalqn" - I reject the implication. I did not attempt to start an edit war, and am evidently not attempting to do the same here. I am responding to a suggestion on an article talk page in a fair and non-prejudicial manner. That you'd jump to accusations of misconduct says more about your perspective than my own. If, however, this article continues down this path of political punditry then I will do my best to get it locked or deleted until the crisis passes. If you cannot help but promote partisan political positions in Wikipedia articles then I suggest you delete your account. 07:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs)

CatfactoryPlease refer to the (Fallacies in arguments)aboveMufaddalqn (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC) I don't understand what Catfactory seems to say. he contradicts his own words.

• Catfactory:"It's not our task to evaluate the legitimacy of succession claims, it's only our job to say that they exist and have significant followings. The references will direct readers to the relevant sources, so that they may make political decisions for themselves."
• Catfactory:"That 'counterarguments' are given in a different article is irrelevant to the fact that Wikipedia biographies are not the place for political punditry.
  • Catfactory:"Your comments are irrelevant to my claims here which are clearly supported by the evidence. The claim that the dominant claimant has taken majority control is not under examination here. The question is of how this control was taken, what it means for many Bohras, and how many Bohras have responded.It's not a surprise, then, that progressive Bohras have tended to align with the minority faction."
  • Now who is being partisan.

And it is not your place to block or delete or ask other editor to delete his account. your conduct is highly inappropriate.Mufaddalqn (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: I've marked the edit request as answered, as it's not clear exactly what edit needs making, and it's even less clear that there is a consensus to do so. Also, I have just updated the article, which may change this debate somewhat. If you would like to update the article, please make a request in a new section below, including the exact wording that you would like added, including references. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 May 2014

Most of Media refers to him as 53rd Dai ,

above is a personal opinion and OR the Guj highcourt has infact issued stayorder on Mufaddal to restrain him as acting as 53rd Dai. Infact most of the articles on him are about succession controversy. Please refer the Main article on the controversy.As of now the position is disputed untill the court decides. Summichum (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• The above is not a personal opinion but definitely there are also reports on succession controversy. The fact is Mufaddal has taken over as 53rd Dai in a normal process and mass DB support him. All media reports the same, but as there is another claimaint, for being Wiki as purely NPOV platform, this statement require further proper care. I suggest following:

" There is report that “Most(dawoodi Bohra) backs Syedna Burhanuddin's second son, Syedna Mufadda Saifuddin, and hold him as its 53rd spiritual leader’([29],Indiatimes|The Times of India|The Economic Times| ‘The late Syedna wanted his half-brother to succeed him’,| Mar 12, 2014). ([30], New Bohra spiritual leader arrives in Karachi, The express Tribune, Karachi, February 27, 2014)(Syedna Saifuddin receives warm welcome on brief visit,[31] March 28, 2014), [32], 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). However there is minority support for Khuzaima Qutbuddin also."--Md iet (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is an incredibly malformed request. "Most of Media refers to him as 53rd Dai" isn't even in the article. What Md iet seems to support is unclear, though I think they are proposing a change in the wording--but "however there is minority support for Qutbuddin" is unreferenced. Though it's clear that there is support for Qutbuddin, and probably minority support, there is little point in quantifying "most" and "minority". What I've done is added the Times of India reference to the article. Please be more precise in formulating these requests. And if anyone were to propose scrapping the entire chunk starting with "Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims...", saying that it's redundant information that doesn't belong in this article since it's about a. the controversy or b. Qutbuddin but certainly lot about Saifuddin, such a proposition could be entertained. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact Statement is there in lead para as :"Most Media refers to him as 53rd Dai". Sorry to correct, but there can always be confusion, as matter is being repeated. As I said this statement is also not a personal opinion and correct but require some addition to balance it. which I will further try to do it.

Your suggestion for scrapping "Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims...", seems justified as we have separate article on 'controversy' and referring to that is enough in the 'this' biography article.--Md iet (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• 1. The sentences:

"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 swear allegiance to Mufaddal Saifuddin.[2][3][4]"

may be replaced with:

"There are various media reports where Mufaddal has been referred as '53rd Dai' and titled as 'Syedna'. Majority Dawoodi Bohra swear allegiance to Mufaddal Saifuddin ,,,, however there is some support[33] for another claimant."

References

• 2. And please scrap-- "Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims...", statement as we have separate article on 'controversy' and referring to 'controversy' is enough in the 'this' biography article.

For Khuzaima 'support' link is made to controversy article, where minority part is further clear. Regarding media reports referring Mufaddal as Syedna or 53rd Dai are dated from 26 th Jan to march 28, when all media were well aware of controversy.

• 3. Further as suggested and agreed in above we may include following in 'historic travel' para:

"The Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid on 28 Rabi' al-thani 1435 AH (28 February 2014 CE) accompanied Mufaddal to Mumbai airport to see off for his first visit abroad after demise of late Syedna. 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".. In Pakistan, he received state protocol and welcomed at the Karachi airport by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah.

References

As per factual figure regarding DB support, 'majority' here is more than 95% ( about 2 millions) and minority is less then 5% (few thousands)(as Khuzaima Qutbuddin family members and few hundreds other are only with him, and some of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra(tens of thousands) want to support him as new Qutbi Bohra faction, which Khuzaima straight forward denies, as he wants property benefit of Dawoodi Bohra).--Md iet (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC) There is no value addition to the above suggestion. Editors want to have any further counter argument to discussion already done above, are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: This seems reasonable, but there has not been any discussion about it yet, so it is unclear whether or not the proposed edit has consensus. Let's leave it for a few more days, and judge the level of consensus after that. If there is a discussion resulting in a consensus, or if there are no objections here, please reactivate the edit protected request and someone will make the edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As it is 12th days after edit request initiated and there are no further objections, rather User :Mr. Stradivarius expressed reasonability for the proposed edit. May I request for making the edit please.--Md iet (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I've carried out your three requests, as well as copy editing them and formatting the references. (It took quite a while to get it right!) Let me know if there's anything I've got wrong, and I can change it over for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mr. Stradivarius, It is now balanced NPOV. The sentence 'however there is some support for another claimant' may pl. be written like this, if possible. The present version colour is highlighting the sentence itself, which tilting it toward POV. --Md iet (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If we just link the word "support", readers might think the link is about the concept of supporting. Per WP:ASTONISH, we should link the phrase which corresponds the best with the subject of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). I don't mind changing the link target, but it has to be something that respects WP:ASTONISH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK User:Mr. Stradivarius, I suggest following:

'however there is some [34] for another claimant.' --Md iet (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not going to work either - we can't have external-style links in the article body (see WP:EL). The link needs to be a normal wikilink. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mr. Stradivarius, What about this : 'however there is some support for another claimant.'--Md iet (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2014

Please change the infobox picture. The current picture is showing a nikah(wedding) ceremony of someone which is not fit for this article.

Please replace with this image

Mufaddal Saifuddin on visit to Dubai,2013

Markdrows (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful photograph, does it have permission from source Zeninfosys.--Md iet (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I'm marking this as answered until the image's copyright status is clearer. Md iet, do you know exactly where this image was taken from? Can you give us a link to it? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Up loader himself writing it from Zeninfosys, I tried to find out exact link, but could not locate it,--Md iet (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC) pl.

Here is the link: http://zeninfosys.net/zen/akhbar/akhbar/huzurala-tus/dubai/17954 , Md iet Open this using ur ITS ID and password. And for admins who can't open up that link refer to this link : http://zeninfosys.net/zen/sites/default/files/styles/akhbar-popup/public/photos/akhbar/huzurala-tus/2012-11/17954/09-11-2012-250765-dsc0273.jpg?itok=kpaJYfdr — Preceding unsigned comme--182.70.181.86 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)nt added by 182.70.181.86 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC) My system don't have facility to open religion related material. Would you please find out copyright status for the image?--Md iet (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Uploaded by Fakhruddin Z. Ahmedabadwala -- Fri, 11/09/2012 - 21:21 , there is nothing other than this on the page.--182.70.181.86 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 May 2014

In the Historic travel section, please correct the spelling "Sonia Ghandi" to Sonia Gandhi. Nick Number (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 June 2014

59.183.183.62 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Please atleast add the suffix of bhaisabh Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin for now as only Mufaddal Saifuddin does not give respect to him.

Obviously not uncontroversial. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 June 2014

'Succession controversy' paragraph [35]:

"Muffadal Saifuddin claimed the title of 53rd dā'ī (leader) of the Dawoodi Bohra 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.[12][13][14] However, his succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who also claims the title."

is not complete. As the article is on Mufaddal Saifuddin, it should carry all related incidents properly reported with documents. This may be replaced with following:

" In 2011, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed as the successor. This was followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna was recovering from the stroke.

It was reported that at home the Dawoodi Bohra community welcomed this news of Saifuddin as the successor.

Evidence for Muffadal Saifuddin's nass ceremony in 1388 AH (1969 AD) was made public in 1432 AH (2011 AD) and 1435 AH (2014 AD). A diary entry was found describing the nass conferral. Mufaddal Saifuddin said on 4th Rabiul Akhar 1435 AH (February 2014 AD) that, 4 or 5 years ago, he read an entry from a diary in Syedna Taher Saifuddin's room which no one else other than Moula Burhanuddin had access to. It described the nass ceremony given by Burhanuddin in 1969. It was written by Shaikh Ibrahim al-Yamani, who had attended along with two other witnesses. The transcript was signed by Burhunaddin. Some is quoted below:

Date: 11th, Tuesday eve in the month of Zilqadatil Haraam 1388AH.

...Mohammed Burhanuddin, at 1 am, called this humble servant Ibrahim al-Yamani, Al-Shaikh Abdulhusain al-Shaikh Ghulamali Tambawala and Abdulhusain al-Shaikh Ibrahim into his private chamber...

Disclosing in confidence

...

I am the 52nd Dai.

...

I am giving consideration to the investiture of the mansoos [...]. This night I am conferring nass upon my ... son ... Mufaddal bhai Saifuddin. ...

This matter shall remain secret until it is revealed at its appointed time(:Ibrahim al-Yamani).

...Mohammad Burhanuddin.

There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements before 2011 succession. Court proceedings also reflect that Saifuddin's earlier 'pleading' of succession was showing "the source" as "the hospital bed", but after demise of late Syedna, "now the case is different. That pronouncement was made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011."

However, Syedna Mufaddal 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 al-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Qutbuddin claims that Syedna had performed nass on him in private nearly 49 years ago while appointing him as Mazoon, that is the second in line to become the Syedna.However, Khuzaima has no witnesses or hand-written proofs regarding this 49 year old issue."

References

In the above Para source "mumineen" is used, which was debated as primary source. But as justified at [36], this source refer to a important document, hence its inclusion is justified as per wiki norms.

Please approve the above as the main facts are to be primarily cleared here in this topic itself as being sustained at [37] in controversy topic.--Md iet (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest value addition if any, such that the above can be done.--Md iet (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is about a week since the edit request is made. There is no further comments on the subject. We may presume consensus and revision may please be agreed.--Md iet (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this information is already contained in 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) and linked to from this article, so I don't think it is appropriate to repeat it here. If you disagree, please show a consensus otherwise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There can not be controversy on the factual documentary information. There can be controversy on it's interpretations. This information is primarily related with this article and should have first mention here. There can be reference or repetition at 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). If any body have disagreement on this may please put his comments else it will be treated as consensus please.--Md iet (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 June 2014

Yousuf motiwala (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Please use preffix syedna before the name mufaddal saifuddin as he is the 53rd leader of worldwide dawoodi bohra and appointed as a dail mutlaq

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of a diary entry describing the nass conferral

Please refer edit request Dt. 6 June 2014 above, There can not be controversy on the factual documentary information. There can be discussion on it's interpretations. This information is primarily related with this article and should have first mention here. There can be reference or repetition at 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). If any body have disagreement on this may please put his comments else it will be treated as consensus please and the information to be first mentioned here in the article.--Md iet (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

May we presume consensus on the above?--Md iet (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable third-party source (news site, court proceedings) that establishes the importance and reliability of the diary entry (or the lack of it, which may be relevant information as well)? The only source in the other article is strongly partisan. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Court proceedings only indicate pronouncement made in 1969 AD (1388AH) for which reference is already given. On the basis of photo copy of this document one private blog describe the reasons to believe and one magazine 'Badre Muneer' just re quote these reasons.

This is a documentary proof and complete claim is based on this document and if year is mentioned in court proceeding, there is no reasons not to believe that this document must have been produced in the court. Putting up forge document in the court is almost impossible for a community head of 10 millions or so. Hence it can be believed that even though source quoted seems to be partisan its document reproduced in public can be believed as presented from primary source. This is only written document available for the critical historical case of a very very ethical importance of a community as whole. Wiki has provisions for use of this type of source in these types of cases where second or third reliable source are not available to avoid original research.

Hope my argument satisfy the requirement. We can always substantiate the case as case proceedings move forward and further sources are available.--Md iet (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Incase there is no other issue, may we proceed?--Md iet (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As there is no further suggestions on the issue, we may edit the para as suggested below. Elaborate dairy details are also removed as these are described in main controversy article.

'Succession controversy' paragraph [38]:

"Muffadal Saifuddin claimed the title of 53rd dā'ī (leader) of the Dawoodi Bohra 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.[12][13][14] However, his succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who also claims the title."

is not complete. As the article is on Mufaddal Saifuddin, it should carry all related incidents properly reported with documents. This may be replaced with following:

" In 2011, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed as the successor. This was followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna was recovering from the stroke.

It was reported that at home the Dawoodi Bohra community welcomed this news of Saifuddin as the successor.

The court proceedings indicates that Saifuddin's earlier 'pleading' of succession was showing "the source" as "the hospital bed", but after demise of late Syedna, "now the case is different. That pronouncement was made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011." There is written document of a diary entry found describing the nass conferral. Mufaddal Saifuddin said on 4th Rabiul Akhar 1435 AH (February 2014 AD) that, “some 4 or 5 years ago”, he “was told to open the cupboard” and “instructed to take out a particular book and read from it. It was document of "the nass as witnessed by Shaikh Ibrahim al-Yamani and 2 others in a private meeting with Molana Burhanuddin (ra) in 1388AH and with firm orders to keep it secret.” “The final line in the record, and his own name were written by” Mohammed Burhanuddin.

However, Mufaddal 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 al-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Qutbuddin claims that Syedna had performed nass on him in private nearly 49 years ago while appointing him as Mazoon, that is the second in line to become the Syedna.However, Khuzaima's claim is referred as 'unilateral', and of being 'conferredfifty years ago in private'. 'had conferred nass on him at the time of appointing him the Mazoon fifty years ago in private' http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/dawoodi-bohra-succession-issue-former-chief-justice-pledges-allegiance-to-syedna-s-uncle/article1-1

References

 Administrator note The proposed paragraphs need copyediting. Are there any other comments about this insertion? — Martin (MSGJ • talk) 08:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's no reference on the final sentence.

Reply: Sentence reviewed and proper reference provided.

• "There are also reports" is weasel-worded and misrepresents the source. The source cites Qaidjoher (spokesman of one of the two sides), it does not comment on the truth or falsehood of his claims. Also the first sentence of the quote in the reference is irrelevant.

Reply: This is rectified and referred source is removed as it is not required.

• "There is important written document" is subjective and slanted toward one side of the dispute. The cited sources are all affiliated, so they should at least be named inline and the "facts" should be hedged.

Reply: "important" word removed and facts are under quoted.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Qwertyus, for positive suggestions. Rectification done as above.--Md iet (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The court proceedings indicates numbers of succession pronouncements before 2011 succession." Not in source given. One of the lawyers has presented evidence of this, but no source is given for a judge finding these credible enough to rule on them.

Sentence removed, as next sentences convey the similar message.

• The "now the case is different" quote is not given in any reference. (In fact, one of the references is empty.)

The quote mentioned in the reference also.

• "Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's succession" clearly picks sides for one of the two parties.

Syedna word removed.

• "However, Khuzaima has no witnesses regarding this 49 year old issue" — not in the source, and not backed up by the quote in the reference.

Sentence edited to the wordings of quote.

Md iet, I can keep nitpicking at your text proposal like this, but your opinion shines through in every edit you make, and you keep interpreting/misrepresenting sources. What you find true or important has no relevance here, only verifiability of information. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, You are very right, every one has his own POV and select article in Wiki of his choice to review and it is very difficult to present things with NPOV as per Wiki, although they are facts. Only editors like you of third party can pinpoints it and I am thankful again for taking interest in these articles. In the article of Burhanuddin, you have corrected similar mistakes. My intention was not to remove any reliable reference, it was purely due to oversight and my mistake. As the pronouncement before 2011 are very important and done by Burhanuddin so they require mention in his article. I have reinserted the material, but with due care of your concern for making them NPOV. You may check it further, and suggest edition as done here.--Md iet (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I've deactivated the edit request based on Qwertyus's objections above. If you can find a consensus on what changes to make, then please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have considered all suggestions and edited the para above accordingly. If there is any further suggestion may pl. indicate , such that revision can be done.--Md iet (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, for the usual reasons: presenting one side of the conflict's opinion as fact, extensive citing of partisan sources where third-party sources are required, as well as some rather incomprehensible sentences. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Qwertyus Dear, This is article on Mufaddal. Only fact about a documentary proof is presented that too in wikipedian way. I have complied all your above observations. Would you please be specific rather than issuing a categorical statement for your remaining objection, such that amicable solution can be found. Your valuable suggestions and reviewed matter would be helpful. --Md iet (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Request to reinstate text

Please include following refrences and texts which were deleted :

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[39] :.

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.[40]:

"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[41]:

-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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

New edits again

I have reverted to the version from 15:35, 20 August 2014, by Qwertyus because it was the most agreed version. Summichum, if you really want to make any new edits, discuss here first. You can make any edits but not again if they have been reverted by multiple users. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

This talk page is getting rather large now, and I was wondering if any would be mind if I set up Clue Bot III to automatically archive old, inactive discussions. EdwardH (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done ClueBot III should begin archiving soon. EdwardH (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The controversy is not yet over and this page has lot of discussion very very important, may please not archieve.--Md iet (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

But, many of the discussions on this page are rejected edited requests or discussions which have been inactive for several months. They do little more than clutter the talk page—if they were still relevant, they would still be active. The bot will only archive discussions which have been inactive for one week. If you prefer, this could limit could be increased to two weeks or a month or two. EdwardH (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussions related with rejected edit requests can be archieved. Others discussions although may not be active, references are being taken rom them and people reading talk page get aquanted with them, may please take action accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because people are used to the inactive discussions on this page isn't reason to keep them. Those discussions are still inactive and cluttering the page. Archived discussions can still be referenced and easily searched through, so editors can still use them. EdwardH (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate Edits of Summichum without consent

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=625343702&oldid=625334667

User:Summichum has inserted edits as shown in the difference above without consent of other editors. he is trying to push his POV again. This consequent edits may lead to editwar again. It would be better shifted to 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)Rukn950 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(rukn) is removing well sourced information. Occultzone , callenac please look into my edits and explain what is wrong with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have reverted un-consent edits by user:Summichum. as he is trying to impose his POV. and disrupting the well edited version by good faith editors. I request Admin to lock this page as this user doesn't seem to learn.Rukn950 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Summichum,You are welcome to do the edit, but before that you should act responsibly and take the consent of other editors.Rukn950 (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks user:Occultzone, There is one particular editor trying to disrupt all DB related article one by one in a non Wikipedian manner. This fellow has succeeded in locking the article 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) after his inconsistent edition. Controversy article was advocated by him to include whatever information available in media on both claimants without much of noise as the article itself describing controversy. Now situation is this that controversy article got locked at point where he has succeeded in put in all his partisan views and now trying to put in all those partisan information in all the other main articles where the main thrust should be on matter related with main topic. Controversy to be discussed in very short in nonpartisan ways and viewer interested in controversy can very well refer controversy article if he is interested.

This particular editor has a very dubious record , got blocked regourously, trying to portrait him as a neutral third party but his action [42] seems to be malign whole Shia community of which DB is part, representing Fatimid faction, which has a very empathetic role in establishing true Islam with all brotherhood making sacrifices of Husain fruitful against Yezidi Yazid I forces who is trying to disrupt peace and harmony in the world even now. This fellow not signing his comment and trying to disrupt stable articless. I request Anup Mehra and User:Qwertyus, who has taken interest as active editors for DB related article to go deep into the subject matter and try to scrutinise the information. I am DB and have basic information on all internal issues, I have my personal POV, but take me granted that I will not oppose single information properly represented in Wiki manner, simultaneously we should not allow a person to use Wiki platform to fulfil his dubious partisan views having a well orchestral mail intentions. Hope all fellow editors and admins who is watching the DB related articles may visualise my feelings. My intentions are not against progressive reforms/ supporting a good cause, but definitely trying to balance the information, where I feel that a wrong message is not being conveyed by Wiki on the matter and trying to put forward all the information present in media in best possible way in good faith manner.--Md iet (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who links to blogs, internal publications of the claimant Mufaddal to enforce your false POV, Besides you are supporting one of the claimant and I am maintaining NPOV. Both are claimant and will always remain so , even the online survey reflects the opinions well. Infact it is very clear from videos and first hand accounts from my friends that Mufaddal saifuddin with his brothers like qid zohar had staged a sucession ceremony using the the stroke ridden body of burhanuddin as a prop, Burhanuddin himself never uttered any sucession statement which is clearly seen from the videos and the court case.Also it was well known in bohra community that burhanuddin did not appoint any sucessor untill the stroke episode,MUfadal took advantage of the stroke condition to get himself appointed as the sucessor. So according to your views itself Mufaddal is behaving like yazid and forcefully taking control , doing lanats etc on the other claimantSummichum (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please have a good consultation from your so called freinds and try to behave in Wikepedian manner. Mr.X did you asked your freind that when his rightful claimant can approach former CJI to prove him right, why he has not gone to court or public media then to get truth revealed when his brother, late Syedna was alive. When successor was declared open, who has stopped him to claim his rights and property then. Public, police or media would have done his work, which he is trying so hard now. Now the single authority responsible is dead, and this claimaint is claiming that he was made his successor in private by him. When so called false claimaint was officiating the post in open why he was silent. I simply ask you, why? When there is person available to prove him right and his belief of community/religion is at stake, for what purpose he was waiting. He is breaking secrecy in front of CJI but have no guts to face his master, public or media. I tell you the answer. This simply prove that this fellow did not had faith in his brother who was his master, didnot have moral to claim his post, because he was knowing that his claim was false and illegal, and he can't claim wrong as per community belief in front of his master. Now master is dead, he can do whatever mischief he wants, he is clearcut a traitor of community, of a belief for which Imam Husain has sacrificed himself. Mr. X whatever you are, please beware blaiming Shia community as whole. Behave in Wikepedian manner to put your arguments/matter. I am with you for Wikepedian support.--Md iet (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not upto you to judge why he did not disclose it , he had clearly stated that Burhanuddin himself instructed to keep it secret from general public. So as per his claims he was only obeying the order of his daee, I am not ruling out the possibility that Burhanuddin died without doing nass which is more closer to truth as he did not appoint anyone even during his 100th birthday and getting mentally and physically ill several times in the past. Maybe he alone wanted to remain in center stage after all he and his father were the ones who made the "kothar" system of exploiting poor bohra people and extorting money from people , as long as he was alive he wanted all the power and money , it did not matter to him what happens after he died.Summichum (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is nonsense, for one hand he is obeying the order of his Dai to keep it secret and trying to be most obedient and faithful, and another hand he is allowing fake person to capture the post from his mentor, who already appointed him for the post. A fool can understand that who is more obedient the fellow who can see his master being robbed of a post which is a so divine without his wish or a traitor who just watch the show of his master, his community being deprived of a genuine successor, do all jugglery of going to CJI but don't have guts to tell the truth in front of public, wait for his demise and make a mockery of his master and his community after. Shame, for this type of thinking and support. Mr. X , please don't make fools of other, whosoever you are, please behave in Wikepedian manner.--Md iet (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why wikipedia don't allow to add Syedna?

Majority of the Dawoodi Bohra's (nearly 99.5%) are supporting Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. Media, Indian Prime Minister, President all knows who is the true Syedna. Then why wikipedia don't add Syedna before Mufaddal Saifuddin. It is our personal matter, and not the matter of Wikipedia englishmen's who don't know even a little about Dawoodi Bohras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.91.118 (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that a majority of Dawoodi Bohra support Mufaddal Saifuddin, the D'ai remains disputed and there is not enough information from reliable, independent sources stating that he commands near universal support. If and when that information appears, then it may be added to the article to justify referring to him as Syedna. Until then, to maintain a neutral point of view, equal weight must be given to all information, which means we can only say that the title is disputed. EdwardH (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is narendra modi( indian prime minister Link) adding title Syedna before Mufaddal Saifuddin. I don't understand what wikipedia want's more. Atleast for now you should add Syedna title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.235.171 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Syedna, TUS, claimant, etc.

To all the anonymous and new users editing this page to state that Mufaddal Saifuddin is the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq: please provide a reliable, third-party source stating that the succession crisis is over. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Syedna Title

Here is media list mentioning "Syedna" title before Mufaddal Saifuddin.

Outlook: Link

Yahoo Finance: Link

Andhra News : Link blocked
Indian Express: Link
Huffington Post: Explaining Succesion Controversy , yet giving a title "Syedna" before Mufaddal Saifuddin.Link

and there are many more ... I will put it after filtering google results(a lot of other work to do).

My question is why wikipedia is not giving a title "Syedna", whereas all other internet sources are adding "Syedna". And I don't think all these media's and google results are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.235.171 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC is the Wikipedia policy governing titles and honorifics. If you can argue that the "Syedna" title should be added based on this, please do so. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Syedna title on Mufaddal Saifuddin

The article Mufaddal Saifuddin and 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) should be written in this(Click Here) way by considering Mufaddal Saifuddin as official heir and Khuzaima to be claimant. Please let me know if admins agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.168.63 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we should update at least 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) with this. I'm not sure what the HT means by "official heir", though; it seems like they've drawn picked sides, but based on what?

As for the title, how does it fit in with WP:HONORIFIC, which is our own guideline on this? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of survey material

Please refer [[43]], there was no consensus on the material regarding subject survey and Admn has refused inclusion. User: summichum again trying here to include the material and disrupting the editing process and warned not to include material without further consensus.--Md iet (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Majority here including from 3rd party unbiased editor User:qwertus is to include survey results , please desist from removing valid content. Summichum

Don't misrepresent my opinion. I'm in favor of including the survey on the controversy page, carefully hedged and put in context. You're trying to present it as the only source for levels of support in the community, while we have an independent source on this page stating that Mufaddal Saifuddin has majority support. Md iet is right, your editing is disruptive as it destroys well-sourced information. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 December 2014

The ban was placed after incorrect content was placed , hence I request to revert back to the last version made by Summichum. This version labels him daee and has a box below for that and many more incorrect information from partisan, now blocked users has persisted. Summichum (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwertyus WP:HONORIFICS is violated by adding Ali Qader, this is a self proclaimed title of Mufaddal. Hence requesting to remove.Summichum (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Summichum: What ban? If there is a WP:BAN pertaining to this page or one of its editors, I'm not aware of one. Also, why is your version better than any other? See WP:WRONG; and so Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk The other major contributers are topic banned , and they introduced honorifics and other claims like Mufaddal being the syedna.

User:Qwertyus is a unbiased third party editor , may be he can add more to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

May implore User:Qwertyus and User:Anupmehra to please provide consensus building opinions as requested by (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Improper deletion

There is improper deletion of material covered in the sources. Without these clarifications the sentences carry altogether different meaning. Please get the things corrected.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific, or fix it yourself. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit I have done on the matter regarding surveys are undone. May like to examine and restore please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Data

Mufaddal Saifuddin Claimant to the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community
During a visit to Udaipur as a state guest
Born	(1946-08-20) 20 August 1946 Surat, Gujarat, British Raj
Children	Jafar us Sadiq (b. 1973)
Parent	Mohammed Burhanuddin
Relatives	Khuzaima (half-uncle)

User:Summichum undid my update on the infobox. I'd like to suggest the following:

• References to the Claimant be at the end of the title
• The succession contorversy ought to be linked to the word Claimant
• The image suggested by the user is repeated in the article and also shows him from an angle.
• Predecessor parameter should be left vacant until the dispute is over
• His wife and mother do not have their own articles at present and hence should instead be stated in the article.

I request you to state your opinion below. Thank you.

• Support as nominator. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ali Fazal (talk) thanks but claimant word alone needs to be substantiated and predecessor is disputed like how successor is disputed which means we have to include the controversy page as predecessor. The Image is unverified and probably from zeninfosys which is not allowed as its copyrighted and the modi image is officially verified image and has no copyright issues. Moreover this image makes him look like daee which is not the case. You have reverted before discussing anyways i also incorporated some of your suggestions Summichum (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In Succession Controversy section Khuzaima's claim of Dai office and head quarter don't have any citations. It is to be deleted Till proper citations available.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In 'Succession Controversy' section following sentence to be deleted, as it is important and doesn't have any citation:

'Khuzaima also took the office of 53rd Dai.....having two headquarters...... resides'.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Becky Sayles,could you consider that the material was not added after consensus and there is no citation given. How come the controversial material can sustain in Wiki without reliable sources given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.133.82 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Aali Qadr?

What does "Aali Qadr" mean, and why does it redirect here? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Aali Qadr is an honorofic title given to Mufaddal Saifuddin by his Grand father Syedna Taher Saifuddin.Rukn950 (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Meeting with dignitaries

@QVVERTYVS:kindly explain to me why you reverted my edits.and how can it be not the neutral tone as it was taken directly from the source.

My main contention is that such lengthy quotes from routine reporting are out of place in an encyclopedia. Apart from that, the wording used by the Times of India is not necessarily the wording that Wikipedia should use. Coming back to the actual content: the relevant bits, if any, are that Modi apparently recognizes Saifuddin as the leader of the DB. Apparently, because the source doesn't make this explicit (for all we know, Modi might be having similar meetings with Qutbuddin). If you can find a source that establishes that the Indian government recognizes Mufaddal Saifuddin as the Syedna, that would be something to cite. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• take his name correctly , other sources say that the issue is in court and syedna will be decided by courts , till then both will be considered as claimants also see WP:HONORIFICS syedna title is not allowed.Summichum (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate survey

The online survey in the article was posted to a site for the group known as the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra. Due to the majority of Bohras not visiting that site (since it caters to the reformers who do not believe in the Da'i's authority, it's unlikely that very many orthodox Bohra from either faction frequent it), the survey's results cannot be taken as accurate and should not be proclaimed as such in the article. In addition, much of the recently added information comes from the Mumbai Mirror, a tabloid newspaper that may or may not be accurate. 75.114.24.85 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding criticism section to the page , made it NPOV suggest any improvements

Owing to the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) It is alleged that Mufaddal Saifuddin is supported only by “a tiny, tiny section” of the community a coterie that derives some benefit from being close to Mufaddal.. However There are various media reports where Mufaddal Saifuddin has been referred as 53rd Dā'ī and titled as Syedna by a faction of Dawoodi Bohras who support Mufaddal Saifuddin An anonymised online survey among the Dawoodi Bohra community revealed that only one fifth of the Dawoodi Bohras support the succession of Mufaddal saifuddin and a little less than one fifth support the half brother Khuzaima as the rightful successor [44]. A cover story on the Bohra survey revealed that (46%) Bohras support Khuzaima over Mufaddal and many are in the community due to due to fear and force [45].There are various reports that Mufaddal Saifuddin and his representatives are resorting to threats and social pressure to maintain their control over the community. Qutbuddin has alleged that Saifuddin and his family “took advantage of a severe debilitating stroke that affected Burhanuddin following his 100th birthday in London” to declare Saifuddin the successor. In a statement issued in February, Qutbuddin also said his objections said had earned him “abuse, intimidation and even violence” from Saifuddin’s family. Saifuddin’s sermons have been disturbing, said a Mumbai-based Bohra woman in her mid-30s, who wished to remain anonymous because she did not want to be seen speaking publicly against her community’s leader. “If he had his way, he would want us to just stay at home and tend to our families, and nothing else,” she said. “And this is causing a real division within the community. Disagreeing with the Dai on such fundamental matters is regarded as some sort of betrayal.”.

experienced editors please improve above and I will add it tomorrow

References

Summichum (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"A frog in a well cannot conceive of the ocean."Rukn950 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The content above seems not neutral. This had been deleted repeatedly. Please delete the matter and not to be added till it have consensus.--Ruksakba (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: @Anupmehra: please discuss on the addition of above in criticism section.

Ruksaba and many socks of the user mdiet are to be ignored:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet/Archive

Summichum (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

the dispute and controversy is already given at other article specially addressing this issue. I see no point of repeating it at this article.Rukn950 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is of living personality. Sanctity to be maintained. Controversial issue to be discussed at right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.156.136 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice unheeded

Summichum has reverted the topic Without discussing immediately the other day (after editwar notices resuming his old behaviour)[46] to avoid 3RR. unheeding advice of the Admin Bjelleklang.[47]. Summichums conduct is very unethical. I can revert it back, but that would start editwar again and I want to avoid it. Pleasei advice.Rukn950 (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed it on talk page as shown above , and you should not remove content from reputed news sources to conceal information and present a biased POV with COI.Summichum (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see section 3 above, where Rukn950 replied to you three days ago, arguing against the material as it's repeated. You have not responded to this, and simply starting a discussion doesn't give you permission to start reverting again. Let me ask a couple of key questions here; why do you insist on having a source about the controversy that was published before there even was a controversy? And why do you want the link under see also when it's already present earlier in the article?Bjelleklang - talk 10:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Summichum Why are you assuming me as biased with POV and COI at every discussion. can we not talk in mature manner?Rukn950 (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bjelleklang thanks for intervening , here are the answers:

Ans1: The sucession controversy existed even before the death of Burhanuddin and the source link substantiate it, I have many other links like [48]which also prove that succession controversy existed even before his death and the two factions existed in cold war fashion even before the death, Burhanuddin himself knew this but did not do anything.

Ans2: The see also link is a pointer to other related article , the notability of Mufaddal saifuddin is defined solely due to the succession controversy , before this he was not known and nothing was printed about him in news sources, even before the death of burhanuddin his name appeared only regarding the succession conflict[49] Summichum (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Summichum, that was not the question. Kindly explain why you want this to insert in the Mufaddal Saifuddin article when it is already given in the Article Specially created to address this issue53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)(though that article is not exactly neutral,that's another issue). why repeat? This only creates confusion. and the link of article you have given as reference is written way after the demise of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin.Can we not treat Wikipedia as what it is, an encyclopedia? because in tying to prove our point we sometime forget that.Rukn950 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are purposely trying to focus on a strawman to deceptively hide your bias , I would request admits to see his case on the COI noticeboard.

Same can be said about you Summichum, but we are not here to argue about that, are we?Rukn950 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The link posted is dated Apr 30 2013 way before Burhanuddin died. Which proves that the controversy existed far before his death . and regarding ans 2 then it is sufficient justification for including the link as mufadal becomes notable solely due to the succession controversy. Summichum (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I misread the date.but as per the fact Mufaddal Saifuddin was appointed as successor two years before demise of Syedna Muhammed Burhanuddin.But that doesn't answer my question. and I am sick of your assuming that I have bias opinion. can you not simply answer my question?Rukn950 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Further I would Like to add that the notability of Mufaddal Saifuddin is NOT due to controversy issue. you can just type his name in google and verify the fact. why you want to stress this point again and again? What is Your Motive?Rukn950 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your criticism against Dawoodi Bohra and Mufaddal Saifuddin at every occasion cherry picking references and misrepresenting facts at every article doesn't seem to be Biased?Rukn950 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I have come to notice that you are undermining the references which are not against DB and related.not giving equal weight-age.Rukn950 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I would request Summichum to read WP:AGF.Rukn950 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Appointment as Chancellor of AMU

User:Summichum please check the following sites. These sources confirm that Mufaddal Saifuddin has been appointed as the Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University.

• News18.com
• the Hindu

Amu.ac.in has confirmed his appointment here. amu.ac.in Zon (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Caption of the Main image

Please notice that the user User:Summichum is captioning the image as "saifuddin(la)". He/she says that it means left adjacent, however I doubt that is the intention. la is an abusive term, in the concerned culture. I changed "la" with "l" for left but my changes were reverted. Editiors please take note. At the same time, I must ask User:Summichum to be cautious in this regard. DistributorScientiae (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@DistributorScientiae: Interesting. What exactly does "la" mean? And which culture/language is it from? EdwardH (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@EdwardH:"la" is a commonly used abbreviation for "lanat", which in Arabic implies damnation. It's commonly used in Shi'ite texts to address dissidents. For example Satan(la) or Yazeed^la. This is very commonly known, so I doubt User:Summichum's sincerity. Plus, I never knew la stood for left and adjacent. Who could have guessed? DistributorScientiae (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

thats a false accusation , besides I have seen even this single (l) to be used to denote "lanat" so does it mean that? there are many cases where same abbreviations mean different things in which case we need to see the context where it is used , here the context is clearly to denote positional attribute.Summichum (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be best to put the complete words "left" and "right" in the image caption. It will resolve everything - 1. There will be no confusion over what is meant. 2. No sentiments will be hurt. 3. Uninitiated users will be able to understand without any ambiguity. My edit is based on the fact that there is plenty of space to write the full words, hence abbreviations are not needed in the first place! Right, Summichum? :) Aftab104 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@DistributorScientiae: Summichum is involving in edit war by repeatedly reverting the main image caption. As admitted by Summichum himself, the letter "l" can also denote "lanat" (arabic for damnation). Hence it will be appropriate for a culturally sensitive article like this to have the full words "left" and "right" in the image caption, to avoid any ambiguity, especially given that the space allows for the same. Aftab104 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2016

The name of should be edited to Dr. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. Horrific suffixe CLAIMANT should be instantly removed .

111.91.5.250 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done There are two claimants, of which he is one - as explained at 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) - Arjayay (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Retracting of Award given to Mufaddal

The following excerpt from thisthread says that the award is retracted and on their website no mention is made of Mufaddal receiving any awards:

Dear sir: I was appalled to see & read the report of Global peace award being presented to the Dawoodi Bohra priest Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on 23 rd of September 2015,by Mr Joginder singh Bhadoriya on behalf of AICHLS.

He has NOT contributed anyway to world peace domestically or internationally. He has not engaged in any dialogues or debates since he took office. Here are his deeds since he took his office which is for your information. 1.He is not elected chief priest of the bohra people yet as the case against him is still pending in the Mumbai (India)courts.

2.He has not stopped the order of FGM -female genital mutilation -that is ...carried out on young prepubety age girls-the practice which has been banned by United Nations.He orders womens to wear special costumes wherever they go.

3.He has been involved with the hunting of lion & elephant on his African Safari visit

4.He collects huge amounts of money during his visit to the foreign countries and does illegal transactions of that money which does not benefit either the host country or it's citizens. He announces bogus donations of money which he never carries through after the visit is done just like his predecessor father & grand father did.

5.He has ordered illegal & illogical orders of asking people for not going to work and ask the students to be absent from the school during his preaching time in the month of Moharram which puts a lot of hardship to the community. Most of his preachings do not relate to the fundamentals of the religion at all but consists of repetitions of family history & fake miracles.

6.He has threatened the followers with excommunication if they do not follow his commands- In other words he tries to run a small dictatorial government within the Bohra community.

7.The food program that he boasts does not feed the community free but it is a business by itself which benefits his henchmen or relatives.

I kindly request you to reconsider & retract the award from him. I plan to publish this data on internet if there are any financial favors occurred in awarding him the title. I will forward you the pictures of his hunted animals as per your request

Sincerely'. Isufali Kundawala 3709, Hackberry Lane Richardson, Tx 75082 972-234-1080 ifkunda@sbcglobal.net [9/26/2015, 10:11 PM] +91 94080 41522: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:47 AM, HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL <humanrightscouncil.org@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Dr Jagannath Patnaik

Kindly note that Dr. Anthony Raju have received a call from USA from Mr Yusuf (below self explanatory email from Mr Yusuf) , objecting about non approved award being given to Dawoodi Bohra priest Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on 23 rd of September 2015,by Mr Joginder singh Bhadoriya on behalf of AICHLS , which is totally illegal and the Governing Council and The Board of Patron do not authorize any one to present any kind of award / reward on behalf of AICHLS and without the written permission from National President.

We have a very strategic procedures to award the people after going through his/her complete citation/ bio data, Final decision is always taken by the National President for the approval of any kind of award in AICHLS.

But we are very surprised to read this mail and the call received from Mr Yusuf , we are not aware why this award was created and how Dawoodi Bohra priest Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin has been selected for this award without the permission from National President. .

AICHLS do not recognized this award at all by all legal mean.

Therefore you are requested to kindly look into this matter on urgent basis and ask Mr Bhadoriya to withdraw this award from Dawoodi Bohra priest Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin immediately if, and also send Dawoodi Bohra priest Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin bio data to National President under your recommendation to reconsider for the award.

You may speak with Dr . Anthony Raju - Directly. at 85888 72001

June Ann National President's Office

--Award is well sourced from news media , kindly put relevance tag if any issue. As established earlier forum discussions are not valid source.therefore I have reverted back.Rukn950 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

suit is not abated only cross examination dates cancelled reference added for the same

It is hereby clarified that the Hon'ble High Court has not passed any order declaring that the suit filed by KQ has abated. The Hon'ble High Court has merely cancelled the dates which were reserved for hearing of the suit. As per the legal advice, the scheme of the law is that the legal representative of the original plaintiff (in this case the legal representative of KQ) can make an application to be brought on record as plaintiff within 90 days. The law provides that the suit abates only on the expiry of the 90 days period from the date of the death of KQ if no such application is made.

following are references for same: http://www.asianage.com/mumbai/syedna-s-death-won-t-affect-succession-row-high-court-717

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-bombay-high-court-cancels-cross-examination-of-khuzaima-qutbuddin-due-to-his-death-2199109

And following is the original high court notice that only dates have been cancelled due to the death of one of the claimants:

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/download/file.php?id=2382&mode=view

The AsianAge article is mere quoting/reporting on a statement attributed to Qutbuddin's family. It does not present it as fact, or as its own view. The same is true for the DNA article. Most media have reported it as an abatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.160.65 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Add proper Prefix to the Name

It has been viewed that the name of our leader has not been used with its proper prefix whereas the name of the other claimant has the prefix 'Syedna' which is not right also shows no respect on your behalf. Also the facts posted are false. Proper name should be posted, i.e., 'Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin'. If the issue of the dispute is the reason why the name is not posted as such then there should be no discrimination between the two people.Arwa53 (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Muffizainu

Unfortunately it seems that user Muffizainu has revamped the whole page using primarily cited (or copied?) from a book called "His Holiness Dr Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin – A brief profile. the Department of Statistics & Informai, Dawat-e-Hadiyah, Badri Mahal, Mubai India. September 2015". This book appears to be published by Mufaddal Saifuddin's own office. Another source the user refers to often is "His Holiness, Syedna Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin Saheb (1436H). رسالة اننعي المسماة - حكمة الغيبة القدسانية الابدية. His Holiness Syedna Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin Saheb, Badri Mahal, Mumbai, India" is written by the subject of the article himself and also contains much self-congratulatory content.

According to the WP:SELFPUB guidelines, the material should not be "unduly self-serving" and the article should be "not based primarily on such sources". However, the text he adds includes many phrases like "In recognition if his dedication to the lofty task of disseminating knowdledge" and "benefited from the personal tutelage of his revered father" amongst others.

He is also removing properly sourced content regarding the spouses of Mufaddal Saifuddin, where some context and one line description is appropriate (and properly sourced with external references).

Please refer to revision number 723447937 which shows Muffizainu's edits. Unfortunately it seems his/her agenda is to whitewash the FGM section, reduce it's importance, and put so much advertorial material at the top that nobody finds it. On the FGM issue specifically, he/she says that letters by local congregations are being issued "on the instructions of" Mufaddal Saifuddin but provides no evidence for this. The only available public evidence reported by multiple news sources including Reuters and Times of India and many others is that Mufaddal Saifuddin has advocated this practice, not prohibitied it. If Muffizainu can subtantiate using a source saying that Mufaddal Saifuddin himself has given instructions to issue such letters, please let him/her provide it and show the source so that the Wikipedia article can be updated.

I have tried to re-incorporate whatever content was usable and properly sourced from Muffizainu's edits, using revision number 723324825 as a base, adding his usable content back in.

I try to keep all edits fair to both sides with NPOV but it is difficult to do so when bombarded with advertorial material such as what Muffizainu is adding.

Juzarbhai (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In reference to user Juzarbhai s comments My edits “contains much self-congratulatory content”, I thank Juzarbhai for pointing this out, and have make the edits accordingly. 1. Juzarbhai raised issues about the two references: The book called "His Holiness Dr Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin – A brief profile. the Department of Statistics & Information, Dawat-e-Hadiyah, Badri Mahal, Mubai India. September 2015" – is an official and published work available to all media houses and Government offcials. And the second is the Syedna’s own work. Further, using these sources completely according to the WP:SELFPUB guidelines,

• It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I have even substantiated it with further references for the benefit of the readers. 2. Regarding the spouse of Mufaddal Saifuddin (Juzarbhai is referring to Ms Bazat), even though he has cited her work, according to Wikipedia guidelines it “not directly related to the subject”. If he wants, he is more that welcome to create an article for Bazat Saifiyah Qutbuddin.

3. User Juzarbhai accusations are out of line. There is no intention to “whitewash” anything with “advertorial material”. This article is about Mufaddal Saifuddin, and my aim is to provide authenticated references to his biography, which clearly doesn’t seem to be Juzarbhai’s intention. Isn’t that what Wikipedia Biographies are made for?

Muffizainu (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Muffizainu. Regarding the two reference books I still have concerns because we are not able to find any references to these texts online, other than on Wikipedia and also you mention that one of them is "available to all media houses and Government offcials". This means it is not public? How can Wikipedia editors verify anything you say when the source is not available to them. One could say anything, refer to that book, and none would be the wiser. From which shop or website can a member of the public obtain this publication. The other book, which you agree is the subject's own work, is not publically available to anyone at all, as far as I know including "media houses and Government officials", making it even more impossible to verify any claims made with this as a reference. Is this book published? Where can a member of the public obtain it? Please clarify.

Regarding the WP:SELFPUB guidelines, that you have kindly copy/pasted into the talk page, the three which I would say these publications violate, are the following:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Authenticity is a question, because one of the reference texts is not available to the public at large, and the other has a completely restricted circulation where no public has access. You are basing almost all of your edits on these private texts, which is also a problem.

Regarding the spouses, a short text regarding both spouses is included only for context. I don't think it's a major issue, if you have a look at pages for most public figures, lets say Barack Obama, there is plenty of family information on the same page, going so far as to include information about his relatives in Indonesia and Kenya, so I don't think that a one liner intro to both spouses is of concern, and I don't you know why you are naming one and not the other. I added the intro for both of them, in as fair a way as possible.

Based on Muffizainu's previous edits, I do stand by the statement that the edits were primarily advertorial, being taken out of self published books with no attempt to use any outside sources. Even in the edits that Muffizainu has recently made, established naming conventions are being ignored and Muffizainu is adding honorifics that are not correct for this article.

I would request that you try to use sources which are available to the public and can be independently verified to make any future edits. Thank you.

Juzarbhai (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Succession Controversy

User Summichum intentions are clearly not to contribute productively to this biography. His comment confirms that: "esp the succession controversy which got him a place here". I have linked the Succession Controversy to the main page, so there is no unnecessary repetition and all the details can be found there and updated. Chronologically, the Succession Controversy happened much later, hence I have re-positioned the heading. Muffizainu (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2016 (IST)

First you accuse me of having wrong intentions, and now you are accusing user Summichum of the same. There is a pattern here. @Summichum has gone on record and said he is not even a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community so I have no idea why he or she would have any bias on this issue, but Muffizainu you are constantly trying to delete or reposition content from this article that you disagree with or you think is not favourable to Mufaddal Saifuddin. I am reverting back to the latest version by Summichum, version 724137147. Note that within headings matters are usually discussed chronologically but that the headings themselves do not necesarily appear in chronological order. Also request you to please refrain from wholesale deletion of content. Juzarbhai (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no "wholesale deletion" of the content. It has been linked to the main article Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) for the sake of brevity. All details have been mentioned on that page and much more in depth analysis of the subject. The repetition here is totally unnecessary and further, doesn't give the entire understanding of the subject. Links to articles exist for this reason.

I request the Wikipedia Admins to look into this matter further. Muffizainu (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2016 (IST)

Edits by Juzarbhai

Juzarsays “I try to keep all edits fair to both sides with NPOV but it is difficult to do so when bombarded with advertorial material such as what Muffizainu is adding.”. Once again, Juzarbhai is guilty of his is own accusation on me. It is evident that Juzarbhai’s intentions on this site are to malign the personality of Mufaddal Saifuddin. If however, his intentions were to publish information on Mufaddal Saifuddin, he could easily be doing so from multiple available sources, instead of deleting cited material.

It seems that his intentions may also be to protect the interests of Mr Taher Fakhruddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Juzarbhai is the original creator of “Taher Fakhruddin” page on 4 April 2016‎ and his a frequent editor. However, he has misused the “Mufaddal Saifuddin” page to advertise the views of Mr “Taher Fakhruddin”. In fact, it is Juzarbhai who is guilty of posting “advertorial material” on another persons page.

For example, his most recent edit: "For a period of time, Mohammed Burhanuddin may also have sent him to receive spiritual instruction from his half-uncle, and rival claimant to the position of Da'i al-Mutlaq, Khuzaima Qutbuddin.[5][6]" I have deleted this edit, as the article clearly says that these sessions weren't "Not regularly. But only once in a while". Juzarbhai's edit "may have also sent him" are one sided assumptions and Juzarbhai should stick to the facts. It is also important to note that that is Khuzaima Qutbuddin's claim, it is not the court's nor the media's position, The media is simply quoting him. Juzarbhai's intentions are clearly only to advertise Khuzaima Qutbuddin. If Juzarbhai considers this as one of Khuzaim Qutbuddin's lifetime achievements, he has the liberty to post “advertorial material” on Khuzaima Qutbuddin's page.

Similarly, in regards to the FGM section, there is no necessity to mention the views of Taher Fakhruddin's position on another personality in this page. That portion should be deleted.

• It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

Juzarbhai may have forgotten to add the FGM section on the “Taher Fakhruddin” page where it is more apt, I have added it there.

Muffizainu (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2016 (IST)

Muffizainu, thank you for adding the FGM section to the Taher Fakhruddin page, it is indeed appropriate to add there and I thank you for your contribution. Wikipedia is a public forum and anyone is welcome to post properly verified content about any subject, in line with Wikipedia's norms.

With regard to your accusation about my giving any one side preference over another, can you please point to a single edit I have made which is not neutrally stated and properly sourced. Even the edit you mention regarding the education above, was written with "may have" because it was the claim of one person as given in a news source. I do not consider anything I've posted a lifetime acheievement, I am not sure where you got this from. It was relevant to the Early Life of Mufaddal Saifuddin as education is always a matter of relevance, so I posted it giving it due mention that this "may have" been the case, and giving the appropriate, publicly verifiable citations.

The same article you say which "Not regularly. But only once in a while", also goes on to say that they were regular during one period of time, and that the over period was about ten years, which I think is a significant period of time. So while accusing me of being one sided, please don't cherry pick quotes out of a wider context to justify this.

Muffizainu says that "it is not the court's nor the media's position", but this is how press articles are reported and Muffizainu has no qualms about using similar types of materials when they are in favour of his argument.

I have no intention of maligning the personality of anybody. I am only adding material to articles which is cited and sourced and based on fact, and if Muffizainu considers that to be maligning, then I can only say that it is not me who is doing the maligning but the facts and sources themselves.

Again, I welcome Muffizainu and all other editors to please call me out if any of my edits are not properly cited. However, if an edit is properly cited, and relevant to the topic, then please don't summarily delete it just because you don't agree with it.

Muffizainu has accused me of deleting cited material. Please clarify where I have done this. For record, books which are not made available to the general public are not verifiable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

Juzarbhai (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Juzarbhai said: "can you please point to a single edit I have made which is not neutrally stated and properly sourced." One example would be the following in the education His secular education includes partial completion of his secondary schooling. This edit had no source, where as I had cited a source which wasn't acceptable as per the guidelines. Since this is now deleted and mutually agreed, there's no point discussing this further. Muffizainu (talk) 011:55, 5 June 2016 (IST)

Noted on this, I think it may be the only one. If there are any others please let me know. Let's close this matter now and move on. Juzarbhai (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Juzarbhai continues to add the opinion of another personality, Taher Fakhruddin in the FGM section. This page is about Mufaddal Saifuddin. There is no need to add the views of another Muslim sect on this page. There are hundreds and can be mentioned on their own pages independantly, or create an article about practices in the Islami community. I have added the information on Taher Fakhruddin page as it is only relevant there. Juzarbhai thanked me for this.

Muffizainu (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2016 (IST) I have deleted an edit by Juzarbhai where he added a statement by Farzana Doctor. Tee article clearly states that she's an author, and Juzarbhai's edit states she's "A doctor in Toronto belonging to the community". There is also no eveidence that she belogs to the community. Hence, her statement is irrelevant. Muffizainu (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2016 (IST)

This is my mistake in writing, thanks for pointing out the error and I have fixed it and changed to social worker rather than doctor. This was a simple solution that you could also have done yourself and is also the correct solution rather than deleting it entirely. You say there is no evidence she belongs to the community but the article says so. If you start questioning this type of thing then anything said in any press article is up for debate and we may as well delete the entire Wikipedia entry on Mufaddal Saifuddin as it is based primarily on press articles. Juzarbhai (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

62.215.195.28 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You have not made any request, and it's not protected either. INVISIBLE^knock! 11:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My Edits

I happy to contribute to this biography, but i tried drafting this in a word doc and now doing it in sandbox and need some help making the article neutral as well as correcting the code, even the footnotes have got messed up in the process. I've created a Sandbox where I'll be drafting. You'll are free to suggest how to better my editing This is my sandbox link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muffizainu/sandbox (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2016 (IST)

@Muffizainu: Sorry, but I don't think anyone is going there. You just copy/pasted this article and DESTROYED all content there. If you want to make any proper change, edit directly on this article; and make sure you have reliable sources. INVISIBLE^knock! 15:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was choosing a biography in this topic area to edit and was about to write something about this biography given my interest in this topic as a part of my college assignment but then I saw all these comments on talkpage. I think this current article really needs coherence. I am proficient in html, so I think I might be able to help. I have no personal point of view regarding the topic which may be a good thing. I also see what Mr. Muffizainu did in his sandbox, but I think he did not copy the full html markup with the file. If you can correct that, redo your edits in a fresh copy of the article in your sandbox you will be able to avoid direct editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immmmanuel (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Would like to add the following: "Mufaddal Saifuddin was named one of The 500 Most Influential Muslims[29] in 2014/15[30] and 2016[31]." And in the education section "graduated from The Institute of Islamic Studies at Al-Azhar University[3][c]" (Refer to my sand box for the references). Since it's in arabic, how best to do it?

(talk) 11:33, 14 June 2016 (IST)

I was able to extract the references from your sandbox and added the detail to this article. I think this is what you wanted. After reading all the comments above, I think this article will need as many credible references as possible and a rewrite in some areas. I will be researching other references you gave and doing that impartially. Please let me know if any one can help. --Immmmanuel (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016‎ (UTC)

I have made some more non controversial changes to the article to make it look a bit more like good encyclopedia articles. I will try to format it a bit better. If you or any one else have more information like you are sharing in your sandbox, please send the link here. --Immmmanuel (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made an edit on the Sandbox. Can the following changes be added?

(In the intro) He succeeded (http://themuslim500.com/downloads/2011-low.pdf), not without dispute, to the office after his father, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who passed away in 2014. [3] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Syedna-suffers-stroke-names-son-successor/articleshow/8754141.cms He is the spiritual leader of 2.5 million people living in 100 countries. (Ref http://themuslim500.com/downloads/151001-TheMuslim500-2016v009(23%7C48)-Web-Low.pdf & http://themuslim500.com/downloads/m500-2014-low.pdf)

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin conferred upon him the title of (Arabic: ثقة الدعوة الطيبية‎‎; Thiqat al-D'awat al-Tayyibiyah ) (meaning The Trusted of the Tayyibi Mission) and bestowed upon him the cognomen of “Saifuddin” (سيف الدين) on the 27th of Zil al-Qa'da 1385H corresponding to 18th March 1966.[17][18]

And a suggestion to add A sub heading as Aligarh Muslim University's new Chancellor --Muffizainu (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked through history of article. I think some users may consider a separate heading for being the chancellor as promotional. I suggest that you create a heading named "career" as in many other articles. Then write your content in it. If there is a lot of content for his career as a chancellor, we can discuss about separate heading. I think other edits have good references. I have written other edits. See how I am adding to article, you can add yourself as well but you may need to try to be neutral as I gain from all above comments that neutrality is a must. --Immmmanuel (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Summichum please do not revert everything as "whole sale blanking". You will need to point out what and why you are reverting and discuss it. I see that you have a problem with alma mater. Please explain. But do not blank other details as they do not have anything to do with this. --Immmmanuel (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Immmmanuel, it appears you inserted incorrect references in the Awards section, possibly due to some confusion or mistake in my sandbox. I have corrected them.Muffizainu (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I remember going through the correct references when I researched the topic but some how the wrong ones got copied. Your sandbox is a little confusing maybe. --Immmmanuel (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made some small edits on this page and have been reading the page since a while. I feel that the material regarding FGM and succession needs some pruning since it appears to be in violation of wiki policies. They are merely a collection of statements without context to the biography of the subject. Taha Shoeb 10:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahashoeb (talk • contribs)

Hi Taha, I agree. I placed a tag on the FGM section for the same but no one responded to reorganize so I will do it myself because now we have consensus to do it. i will research the topic and applicable wikipedia policies and manual of style today and make it more like an encyclopedia article. --Immmmanuel (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I read through the FGM section. It mostly talks about other people and concepts than the subject personality. It is also a collection of statements and not encyclopedic text. I am removing it completely according to consensus by me, Taha and Muffizainu and if some one wants to add it back, please first discuss it on talk page. This text will need to comply to WP:MOS and WP:COATRACK before it can go into the article and it will need CONSENSUS to get its place back in article. --Immmmanuel (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this sentence does not have a reference on it "Both marriages were solemnised by the 52nd Da'i Mohammed Burhanuddin but the second marriage to Bazat Saifiyah Qutbuddin ended in divorce". Can you please see if it is in a reference in article or in your sandbox? --Immmmanuel (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sections cannot be removed without consensus, I disagree with removing it , previous removal was restored by an admin Summichum (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your disagreement is your right to opinion. To participate in consensus, you have to give an actual reason why the section should not be removed. Restored by admins or editors is a thing of past. New revisions are based on above policy and fact based discussion. You can discuss too. Whatever you do, do not undo everything. Your revision undid everything even text you did not contest. Stop disrupting like this. --Immmmanuel (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Should not be removed as it is well cited , admins have reinstated the exact same content nothing can override WP:NOTCENSORED , you cannot delete this important info on FGM of Mufaddal and the awards added have no citations hence not verifiable besides being self published. It is you people who should stop disrupting the stable version of the article considering you are under Sockpuppet investigation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/_Muffizainu Summichum (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Travel Section" seems a bit out of place in this article, I have moved the information as it is into more relavant sections. Namely the early life, and recongintion sections. --Muffizainu (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)