Talk:Qutbi Bohra

Validity of name Qutbi Bohra

This page is misleading as there is nothing like Qutbi Bohra . This name is used to defame a split of group. The links given have no evidence . Most of the links are forum discussion hence delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.126.78 (talk) 08:21, February 4, 2014‎

Answer:

As mentioned in the article the Qutbi Bohra was not a publically declared sect, the reasons for the same are also mentioned in the article.

But it is not true that it is misleading. it is not only mentioned in forum discussion but also in prominent newspapers:

1) Hindustan Times: April 15 2013.

2) Indian Express: Jan 20 2014.

On prominent websites:

1) www.muslimnews.co.uk:April 16 2013

2) www.newageislam.com: April 15 2013

3) en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Qutbi

4) peeepl.co.uk

5) in azad54.pdf a publication of progressive dawoodi bohra which is available on the site www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk, (if possible please upload the same in reference) where it is mentioned in detail.

Would these evidence be enough.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

contesting deletion: i am not aware exactly how to contest deletion but let me specify it here:

1) There is no official statement of existance of such sect due to difference in ideology with Dawoodi sect. The then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin being in the position that he was could not openly declare the existence of the sect.

2) False allegation regarding what can the one explain. What is the false allegation.

3) Defamatory article: what is the degamatory statment can they specify.

4) Imagination of author: Given the mention in prominent news papers and websites other than discussion forums are they all imagining.

5) No neutrality: the article has been written as it had happened detailing without accusing anyone of anything.

6) The article azad54.pdf gives clear indication of the links between PDB and Qutbi Bohra.

7) the article has been deleted and modified by somebody to change facts and references are also been deleted. please stop whosoever from doing so. as it will modify the facts.

8) As you can see repeated attempts are being made to delete this article. that itself will tell that whatever is mentioned is true and a number of people dont want the truth to come into the open. They are trying all they can to supress the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 17:05, February 4, 2014

If it would have been a succession issue then it should have started after the sad demise of His Holiness Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA) but the formation of this sub sect was done years before as can be seen with the given reference in newspapers and websites and it has nothing to do with seccession. Even before the succession was even conisidered the sect had already being formed. and it already had a following, though it was kept a secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 18:31, February 4, 2014

Please refer to the 'discussion of above points' tab to get the complete picture. The below mentioned discussion is the continuation of the above points. Read them together to get a complete and true picture. Again i would like to reiterate that Qutbi Bohra is a sect formed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin and i have provided the above mentioned references for the same. All arguments regarding non exsistance and repeated vandalisaton of the article suggests that efforts are being put in to hide it. Otherwise why would anyone even try to vandalise an article so many times risking being blocked. I would request that this article be looked at in an informative point of view and not make it a war zone of any person's perspective. Nobody can change what has been done in the past. Closing one's eyes to the truth or claiming falsely that an event that has taken place in the past has not taken place for whatever reasons, maybe for some personal gain, will not change the past. Just as Qutbi Bohra was mentioned in the newspapers and prominent websites and newsletter, every action or act done leaves some or the other kind of marks behind. Claiming ignorance to all these evidence and only mentioning discussion forums is like closing one's eyes to the facts, to the truth. Furthermore claiming Qutbi Bohra to be related to succession issue is another story made up to cover facts. Qutbi Bohra was born well before the succession issue even started as can be seen from newspsper references. And Qutbi Bohra's exsistance has remained since then can be seen from its reference in the current newspaper articles. Again the false claim that Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is not connected to Qutbi Bohra can be clearly seen by the support given by the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra members or its factions to Khuzaima Qutbuddin in various current articles of succession issue. Why would members of the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect support a person who is claiming to be the successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect, from which Progressive Dawoodi Bohra had seperated from in 1977? All these point to an effort to hide the truth and this article has become a place to show it. By vandalising it, nominating it for deletion, making false claims against it, putting up a link on the same discussion forum, whose link is given by Ftutocdg under 'Relist', to support this article for deletion and what not must have been done. I don't know the intracities of Wikipedia, yet as i am very new here. I like to write articles on various topics. I love it here in Wikipedia. I have updated some articles to the best of my knowledge about them. Coming back to Qutbi Bohra article i would request the editors, administrators to guide me as to how to save this article. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the above points

Point 1

you get your own anwser... Ftutocdg (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Point 2

Example quoted from your article : "The then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin founded the Qutbi Bohra sect in 2004 in Udaipur starting a new progressive movement, which was the materialisation of a thought process that had started many years back"

Ftutocdg (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

we all know that the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin was in Udaipur for 9 years which adding up to the (you know which) inicidents that took place in the year 2003 led to the formation of this sect. And he and his supporters were clearing asking Dawoodi Bohras to join in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 00:47, February 5, 2014

Point 3

Example quoted from your article : " ... Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin bagan to aggressively oppose the policies of His Holiness ... "

Ftutocdg (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It was very clear from the begining that he did not like the policies of His Holiness because of which more than once 'permission' (do you want me to elaborate) was denied upon him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 00:47, February 5, 2014

Point 4

Example quoted from your article : "Finally the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin was designated by majority as the leader of Qutbi Bohra sub sect ..." Ftutocdg (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

when designation is not by nas then it is by majority. so what did i imagine in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 00:47, February 5, 2014

Point 5

example 1 "but the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin bagan to aggressively oppose the policies of His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA)"

example 2 "The then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin used the money and power of position given to him by the Dawoodi Bohra sect to further the growth of Qutbi sect" Ftutocdg (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The above mentioned sentences are facts and cannot be written in any other neutral form. He was opposed to the policies of His Holiness which can be clearly seen by his dipiction of introducing progressiveness even on his present day personal website and even said in press releases. further more he was in a position of power and money which is the only way he could even think of forming this sect otherwise who would have listened to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 00:47, February 5, 2014

Point 6

so this PDF is your only proof? Not a reliable source, sorry. Like your other references. Ftutocdg (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not the only proof but the newspaper interviews. the webpage updates. if you want i can upload from people testimonials, but that will olny create hard fellings. look brother i dont know who you are and why are you so against this article. All i have mentioned are just facts and informative. there is no need to feel prejudiced. if i wanted to write a non neutral article i would have purchased a website and done it there, like he has done it in fatemidawat.com. if something has been done in the past no one can change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 00:47, February 5, 2014

We are on Wikipedia: it is an encyclopedia. Not a vulgar tabloid. Therefore contribute and write articles with factual references. Thank you. Ftutocdg (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

in the whole article i have not used anything vulgar. if i intented to there could have been the mention of N A. Furthermore i have tried to give as many factual information so as to not hurt anybody or feelings that too that is available in media. any more factual would definitely prove my case but would hurt him and the people who love him. trust me. i have done the best writing on a very thin line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 00:47, February 5, 2014

Separate Sect

Qutbi Bohra is a totally seperately formed sect and it has been inviting members of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra members to join them, so merging these two articles would present a totally wrong picture. These two sects share only ideology but PDB was led by Asghar Ali Engineer, now his son or whoever is nominated. While Qutbi Bohra is formed and lead by the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin. And it is not related to the succession issue at all, because in the succession issue the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin has claimed leadership of Dawoodi Bohra sect. But he is already the undisputed leader of this Qutbi Bohra sub sect. And it is quite clearly not concerned with the running of this sect that has already being formed. Furthermore some more text has been deleted, it changes the meaning and history of the formation of the sect. I hereby seek protection against such vandalism and put in a request to edit protect this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 17:21, February 5, 2014

As per the claims put forth by Ftutocdg as regard to the corresponding nature of the article, i would like to inform you that Qutbi Bohra was formed by the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin and only the ideology of the his sect matches with PDB. It is a totally different entity and in no way correspond to PDB.

Further there is no question of amalgamation as Qutbi Bohra and PDB are two seperate identies having separate leaders and as of date they have not declared any amalgamation between themselves but Qutbi Bohra members have openly sought membership from PDB and a number of PDB members are supporting Qutbi Bohra sect.

Qutbi Bohra is headed by the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin, to claim that he is 'Syedna' the then Khuzaima Qutbuddin will have to prove that the nas has been done on him otherwise he just remains the founder and the leader of the Qutbi Bohra sect and the title of 'Syedna' or 'Da'i al-Mutlaq' cannot be attributed to him.

As regards the so called conflict between the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the current 53rd Da'i al Mutlaq His Holiness Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (TUS); it was started by the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin in a bid to gain control of the Dawoodi Bohra community assets and has nothing to do with the formation of the Qutbi Bohra sect. Qutbi Bohra was started years before this conflict even arised. Actually there is no conflict at all as during the 3 years after the zahir nas was proclaimed there has been many occassions wherein there are records of the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin accepting the nas and even praying for the long life of His Holiness Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA) and His Mansoos His Holiness Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (TUS). And lastly it is a conflict between an uncle and his nephew, something that is in the family, so much so that the nephew is asking his uncle to come back and join him, for as a Da'i al Mutlaq His Holiness Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (TUS) has now the ilham of secluded Imam (AS), whereby He can foresee that maybe someone in the future linage of the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin is destined to be on a rutba in Dawoodi Bohra sect, and that the present acts of the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin may become a hurdle for that person to attain His rightful position. So it would be better if this conflict issue is not raised in this regard.

The links of the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin with PDB is very clear from the fact that Asgher Ali Engineer has acclaimed of its exsistance and purpose in 'Awaz' the mouthpiece of PDB.

There is no question of tarnishing anybody's image as difference of opinion can take place between any two individuals and because of it certain steps detramental to the relationship could be taken, but these can be reverted, can be undone, like Qutbi Bohra can be merged into Dawoodi Bohra and everybody can live like one big family. After what is the fight for, the control of a minority in the minority sect, whose members are less than 0.0001 percent of the world population and after all the investments in all the welfare programs for its people and the world at large what amount of wealth would be left with the community that is worth fighting for.

With referance to the website of the then Syedi Khuzaima Qutbuddin, one can write anything one pleases on a website purchased by oneself, it cant be taken as a evidence by any means.

Further i would like to state that all the details mentioned above and in the article are a retrospective of deep study by the author and does not in any way present the views of any community or sect. It is just a view of the way things are. And in presenting a true picture if i have hurt anyone i would hereby like to apologise. I have tried to be as neutral as possible given the circumstances. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)</

After deleting major parts of the article and claiming that article does not have any links or evidence. If you want to discuss, please keep the article as it is. and then discuss about it. further more it is also not a orphan article any more. if you want more evidence. i will update more evidence. please keep the page intact. please read the talk page. i have always intented this page to be a neutral and informative page. thank you. span> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 08:01, February 10, 2014

I have a recent newspaper article where in the son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin has accepted to the formation of the Qutbi Bohra sect. Updated in '1' reference. Further if you see the forum that has been mentioned they had given a link on their forum to get this article deleted 4 days back. all this is a collective effort to delete this page. And if you merge this article it would be like merging Christanity and Protestant articles together. As you read the artice you will come to know that these two sects are seperate not just because of leadership but also because of ideology. Further if you notice most of the persons in favour of deletion are stating that this sect is not officially declared that would clearly mean that they too agree that unofficially this sect does exist. It is just for the time being that it is not being announced. But as you see the article that i have updated. you will clearly see that their intention of declaring the formation of the sect is showing up as the son of Khuzaima Qutbuddin himself approving the same. I hope you will give due consideration and do the needful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate that the succession issue about Dawoodi Bohra sect is not connected in this article as the Qutbi Bohra sect was made long before the dispute even started. And about the sources, the reference to this sect are predominently in these articles but i request you to please consider the 2013 newspaper articles, at that time the issue about succession was not there, the issue of succession started from 17th Jan 2014 after the demise of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. And in the issue of succession Qutbi Bohra sect has no role as Khuzaima Qutbuddin is claiming succession of Dawoodi Bohra sect. It would be better if i upload an article about succession issue that will make everything clear. Give me some time and this link will be working. Also i would like to bring to your kind notice that the Qutbi Bohra is a sect that is kept secret, so getting even this much evidence was difficult. Further this is my first article and at that time i was not aquainted with linking to Wikipedia so i put them in reference. Now that i know as shown above. I will make the necessary changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim that there is no relation between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra (PDB) is not true as it can be seen clearly on the wikipedia page of Khuzaima Qutbuddin where he claims to be leader of both PDB and Dawoodi Bohra sect. Further one can see PDB and its progressive factions supporting Khuzaima Qutbuddin in newspapers openly. Why would PDB members support a person who wants to be the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra sect, that they had broken away from. Furthermore if Qutbi Bohra is just a gossip why is it coming again and again in newspapers, and in the Indian Express newspaper Khuzaima Qutbuddin's son Abdeali is approving the Qutbi Bohra sect.

This article was deleted a number of times but was restored, why would anyone do it if all this was not true. One more thing to add the newspaper references are only for the reference of the sect Qutbi Bohra and no way connected to the content of the newspaper article. Since Qutbi Bohra is a sect that is kept as a secret, it was very difficult to find references for the same. That is the reason why i gave the reference of these articles just for the mention of 'Qutbi Bohra'. Thank you.Araz5152 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's because a FAKE article that I've deleted most of your edits. Understand : this is wikipedia, not a gossip ! Public forum like dawoodi-bohras.com can't be used as reference. Ftutocdg (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As i have already mentioned none of the details given in this article are fake. it is the truth. it became a source of gossip when the news came out in the papers. I have given reference of 3 newspapers and one newsletter by one of the factions of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect. Furthermore the support for Khuzaima Qutbuddin can be seen by most of the newspaper articles ending with support statements from some faction of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect. By deleting the article you are vandalising it. i request you to please talk about your issues. i can answer all your querries here on talk. Araz5152 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --59.160.12.114 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)The links are not verified links all are just forum links

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --
all that is written is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.198.19 (talk) 11:41, February 4, 2014

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --65.255.37.220 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Progressive Dawoodi Bohra

From what I can see, this appears to be the same movement as Progressive Dawoodi Bohra. If that's the case, the content and sources here should probably be merged to that page. I'm not an expert on Islamic sects, however, so would appreciate clarification from someone with more knowledge of the area before proposing a merge. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

– No link between PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin ! Ftutocdg (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qutbi_Bohra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qutbi_Bohra

- No official statement of the existence of such a sect
- false allegations
- defamatory article
- Imagination of the author
- No neutrality
- No link between Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra

Understanding shia succession

The Intricacies of Succession: Two Claimants Emerge for Dawoodi Bohra Leadership

Official Khuzaima Qutbuddin web site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftutocdg (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

removed all doubtful references

I removed all reference which can not be accepted in an encyclopedia like gossips from public forum, yahoo group and other doubtful reference listed here :

http://www.csss-isla.com/iis-archive115.htm

http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad54.pdf/

https://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7751

http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Qutbi

http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-world-news/north-carolina-lawmaker,-links-islamic-prayer-to-terrorism--report/d/11151

http://peeepl.co.uk/details/bohra-kutbi/

http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8141&start=210

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DawoodiBohraIzzy/conversations/topics/1978

http://themuslim500.com/profile/asghar-ali-engineer
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftutocdg (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ftutocdg please dont vandalise the article again and again using different pretext everytime. Now the article is not AFD anymore and i have discussed every aspect of the article in detail at the AFD and also here on talk page still if you have any doubts please use the talk page i am still ready to discuss with you and explain any detail that you may need. But i request you to stop your destructive editing, deletion vandalisation of the article just to prove your point of view. What is worrying you so much? Even Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his family doesnt have any issues with the article. Trust me i have not mentioned anything that i shouldnt have or would prove defamatory to Khuzaima Qutbuddin but the citation you are asking for would definitely defamation of Khuzaima Qutbuddin then he will be definitely be very angry with you. Just because of citations requested by you and displayed in this article he will lose his claim to succession issue. Is it what you really want. Do you really want me to put up a citation to defame Khuzaima Qutbuddin. I dont think Wikipedia would allow me to do so. But i will help you out. I will put all the citation in a blog page and send a link to you for your satisfaction. But i cannot assure you that other people will not see it. If you want me to do this please revert here on talk page. Araz5152 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Araz5152, you can't remove template like no reference dubuous this way. Wikipedia article must be neutral. It can't be an only one POV. If you have reliable reference, then put them of the article. Ftutocdg (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I was asked to comment of the tagging.

I do not know Bohra history, I never even knew about the group until yesterday. I do not consider myself qualified to edit the article, or to resolve disputes about it, I would not be qualified unless I learned a good deal more. I need to tell you both I do not at present have time to learn. I find the article not particularly helpful in trying, which is why I placed the tag on it for "unclear" I suggest that it would gretly help to give some more substantial introduction to set it in context for the reader.

Rather, my role as an administrator is not to edit the article, or decide on the facts, but to preserve order. As far as I am concerned, if the only way to preserve order will be to ask the two principal combatants to both of them not edit on this topic, I can do so. Even if I did have knowledge of which side is right, what I could not do is to intervene in favor of the side I think is right.

With respect to NPOV. The rule of WP editing is that it is done by consensus: the people working on an article must agree on it, and are expected to do so by polite discussion on the talk page, not by changing the article back and forth. It helps to do this by making a list of specific points in sequence, and discuss them one at a time. If agreement becomes impossible, the methods to proceed are give at WP:Dispute resolution -- the usual first step is to ask someone who might understand the subject to take a look. I do not have at present the time to do this, even were I qualified. Perhaps one of the other participants in the discussion will--but you should try yourselves first. In doing this it is always advisable not to attack the other side, but to consider only the specific information.

I suggest that the first question should be whether there is evidence for a group calling itself by this name, If there is, the next question is to define who composes it and who speaks for it. If there is evidence for a group, the question of whether by the customs and rules of the larger group they have a right to split is secondary--and this is unlikely to ever reach agreement.

With respect to sourcing, WP does not attempt to determine the actual truth--our method of editing is not suitable for that. We rather attempt to present what is verified by reliable sources. Reliable 3rd party independent published sources are strongly preferred. There will be problems when all the information on a subject comes from clearly partisan sources, or web sources of uncertain reliability--in extreme cases it may be impossible to write an article, but it is often possible to write a very short article giving whatever information is well sourced. Sometime reliable sources disagree, even about the basic facts of a matter. In that case the article has to be written in a tentative way, presenting what the different sources say, without attempting to determine which of them are right, In this case, many of the sources may not be in English. To use these, add a translation of the title of the item, the title of the work or website, and a translation of a key phrase, for further information here, see WP:RS. It appears from the AfD that there is a dispute about whether the web sources are reliable. Whether web sources are usable depends on what they are, there is no firm rule. The matter must be decided by consensus,not by removing and reinserting the references.

I suggest discussing each one individually on the talk page. You can ask about paticular sources at the WP:RSN, Reliable sources noticeboard, but that's the palace to ask about sources, not discuss the fundamental issue. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Third_Opinion

I have requested a third opinion for the content of this artcile.

Araz5152 and I will not be able to find common ground about this artcile.

Thanks

--Ftutocdg (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly you put the article for deletion, do everything you can to get the article deleted. You vandalise the article. You take the help of your friendly editors to vandalise the articles, put false templets and tags. Coordinate efforts to vandalise the article. Then make false arguments connecting the article with all kinds of succession issues in your pov, while at the same time you are vandalising different articles that form the part of the seccession issue you are refering to. Then finally when all your plans failed to get the article deleted at AFD, you again vandalised the article, Ftutocdg, you along with your friend summichum. After your vandalisation was reverted first you put a number of templets against the article which were reversed by DGG stating that most of the templets were wrongly applied. Then your friend applied the same templets and added more. You did not let me revert this false and wrong act. Now after doing all this you want to take third opinion? Any opinion is taken for creating an understanding. What we have here is your pure hatred against the article due to some pov of yours regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin.

If it had been the litrature of the article that is being opined for then we can come to a decision. You are asking to evaluate the hatred you have for this article and your pov regarding ths article. Trust me only you can do it. I hope you realise this is just an article and not a battlefield to prove your pov. Araz5152 (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Araz, stop your ridiculous drama. Let's a third opinion decide for this non sense and fictional article. I've nerver vandalized this article. You don't have ownership on article put on Wikipedia, even if it's written by you. AND PLEASE, STOP QUOTING MY NAME IN EACH OF YOUR MESSAGE. Ftutocdg (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup notice!

Hello everyone, I'm Anup and I've planned to make a large-scale clean-up removing wp:unreliable sources, unsourced contents, {{citation needed}} templates and re-writing lines/sections found wp:original research once the subject survives AfD. If anyone has some comment, it'd be helpful. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What I see is the multiple reliable sources that helps the subject to reach the WP:GNG standard. I do neither deny nor accept the presence of possible WP:OR in the article. I've never edited this article before and never knew a bit about the subject. This is why I assume, I can make appropriate changes to the article going through all reliable sources available. I posted a message here on article's talk page to let know apparently all active editors of this page of my intention. I'll subsequently wait for some reasonable time in case some people didn't login in the meanwhile and missed the message. I was actually looking for objections over my intention to clean-up, not suggestions. Criticism would be more welcomed. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I moved my suggestions on a new section. Thank you. Ftutocdg (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

hi Anup, thank you for atleast giving a consideration to the article. After the severe tagging by summichum and putting the article for deletion again by him in colaboration with Ftutocdg had created a negative feeling in my mind which i expressed in the first reply by me on AFD page. There has been absolutely nobody to stand by the article. I have given a number of references regarding the content of the article. And there are more content and references which if i give would definitely prove the authenticity of the article but would defame Khuzaima Qutbuddin, and i really dont know why Ftutocdg regularly asks me to give those defaming references which will not fit the criteria of Wikipedia. You guide me on this as to how i can put up such defaming references with the permission of Wikipedia just as references. If you have any queries you can write here or on talk page. I have answered all queries of Ftutocdg on talk pages and also on last AFD. I am taking the name of Ftutocdg because he is the only person who has a problem with the article and he had called summichum to join him. I hope you understand my concern. I have just finished a complete make over of the article with reference to heavy tagging and for neutrality. I request you to go through the article and remove those tags that are not applicable. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

suggestions for cleanup

@ Anupmehra, thanks for your (future) contribution.

I wonder if people have read this article. A bunch of interpretations, gossip and false allegations.

I don't know how to re-write this artcile since Khuzaima Qutbuddin has nerver claimed to lead this sect.

There are many fasle allegations by Araz5152 which require deep clean-up, especially :

• the link between Qutbi and the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and Asghar Ali Engineer.
• the so-called agressivity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin toward the late Syedna, Mohammad Burhanuddin. Khuzaima Qutbuddin was Mohammad Buhranuddin's Mazoon (second-in-command) during 50 years, and there is no evidence of discord between them.
• The sequence of events taking place in Udaipur (2004) are completely fictional and have been imagined by Araz5152.
• The so-called progressive ideology (again Khuzaima Qutbuddin was Mohammad Buhranuddin's second-in-command during 50 years and there is no evidence he had tried to change the fundamental doctrines of Dawoodi Bohra)

Araz5152 was not able to provide ONE reliable source. Actually, the whole artcile is a hoax. Qutbi Bohra name as used by many newspapers is probably the only truth of this article.

I will request a '3O - Third opinion' if necessary.

exemple of higly dafamatory passages of this article, wich require rapid clean-up :

• He wrote books, organised verbal attacks, tried to corrupt minds of members of Dawoodi Bohra sect , filed cases in courts of law, assembled like minded people with progressive viewpoint
• The formation of Qutbi Bohra sect and its leadership by his own brother Sayadna Khuzaima Qutbuddin brought great hurt and pain in the heart of his brother Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who fell gravely ill because of all this and eventually this led to His untimely demise --> Qutbuddin is supposed to have killed the late Syedna ? Mohammad Burhanuddin stroke was a black magic spell ? (laugh) Ftutocdg (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

qutbi bohra is an appropriate name as i was also called by this sect and offered lakhs of rupees to name myself as a qutbi bohra.though i refused it and remained in dawoodi bohras sect and a true follower of syedna mufaddal saifuddin.

qutbi bohras administrators also gave me their visions that how they have made themselves differ from dawoodi bohras in traditionas and beiefs . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noorialiasgar52 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Ftutocdg's claims above: There is no interpretations or gossip or false allegation. All these points have been already cleared in this talk page above, in the last AFD and in current AFD.

Khuzaima officially claimed to Qutbi Bohra in the article of Hindustan Times on 15 April 2013 and again as mentioned in this article at the time of succession in Indian Express on 6 February 2014.

Just see the article of April 2013, it refers to a person, Hasan, name changed, who is talking with his family for six months regarding converting to Qutbi Bohra sect, no person would take such a major decision of his life based on a rumor, further more it is mentioned that other than his family 15 other families have decided to follow Qutbi Bohra sect. That would amount to 64 people deciding to follow Qutbi Bohra just based on a rumor? No the word rumor is added to undermine the truth. This article was published by reputed newspaper on the front page, newspaper will not print rumors on first page and the article is not a rumor.

It can be seen in the Azad 54 issue where Qutbi Bohra and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is clearly mentioned and the number of people deciding to join the sect is put at 640.

In the same article Saifuddin Insaf claims, "While the mazoon (Khuzaima Qutbuddin) has declared on record that he is the Syedna's successor. There is no clarity as to how much support he has." Now where is this 'on record' that Saifuddin Insaf is mentioning about. It is this article, in which Khuzima Qutbuddin has provided the declaration.

Now to answer the connection. This person Saifuddin Insaf, is a Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and is the executive secretary of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra, an organisation formed by Asghar Ali Engineer. Asghar Ali Engineer is also the founder and leader of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect. The autbority with which Saifuddin Insaf asserts that - Khuzaima Qutbuddin has declared himself successor- shows the close relation between Qutbi Bohra, Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and Asgher Ali Engineer.

The aggressivity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin towards Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin can be seen from the number of times raza (permission) had been blocked on Khuzaima Qutbuddin for different acts and omissions by Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Mentioning the acts will be amount to defamation of Khuzaima Qutbuddin but since Ftutocdg insists so much and since this is talk page let me mention two incidents;

Performing a get together without raza (permission) when Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is nearby admist a function. For this Khuzaima Qutbuddin was reprimanded.

Khuzaima Qutbuddin's aide declared Khuzaima Qutbuddin as successor of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin in a get together, it evoked a very angry response from the members of Dawoodi Bohra sect and also angered Syedna Muhammed Burhanuddin, who not only reprmanded Khuzaima Qutbuddin's aide but took back all his titles and then reprimanded Khuzaima Qutbuddin by canceling Khuzaima Qutbuddin's raza. Khuzaima Qutbuddin as he claims today never kept quiet of his intentions of becoming the successor, but planned ways to bring his intentions into the open.

There were many such incidents of aggressivity towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin but cant be mentioned due to defamatory nature.

The sequence of events for formation begin from the wrongful act of Khuzaima Qutbuddin in Africa in 2003 because of which not only his raza was cancelled but it also ended any claims he might have of becoming a successor. The act cannot be mentioned due to defamatory reasons. This is what led Khuzaima Qutbuddin to form Qutbi Bohra sect in 2004 and taking the help of Asghar Ali Engineer, who in turn gathers all reformist in a conference in 2004 (ref given in article) to get support for Qutbi Bohra sect.

The progressive theology is clearly mentioned in all article especially verbally by Khuzaima Qutbuddin's son, the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra members, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra members in newspaper articles related to succession issue. Even the ex-Chief Justice of India, who is the member of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect claimed Khuzaima Qutbuddin's support.

In the last two para the 'He' refers to Asghar Ali Engineer. He has written 70 books and a 1000 articles. One of his article is given, one can see the amount of hard feelings he has towards Dawoodi Bohrs sect. He organised verbal attacks through his gatherings, meetings etc excerpts can be seen in Azad and his articles. Tried to corrupt minds of people of Dawoodi Bohra sect by publishing false information in newspapers making false claims like the one in The Times of India, mentioned in Azad 2005 issue. Filed cases, in 2004 itself Asghar Ali Engineer filed 3 cases against Dawoodi Bohra community under the banner of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra. He has also filed many cases under different names. Cases can be seen in different sites of record of court cases. Assrmbled like minded people under the banner of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra and other conferences and meetings held in various countries and also different states of India.

The last para answer is yes, the formation of Qutbi Bohra and its leadership by Khuzaima Qutbuddin bought great sorrow in the heart of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin leading to his untimely death because there is a video and also reports in which Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is telling a Hindu Scribe to come and meet him on his 105th birthday but he died even before his 103 birthday because of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Now as asked by Ftutocdg he was kiled by Khuzaima Qutbuddin? Definitely by severe mental torture. And black magic as suggested by Ftutocdg, i don't know if it can be ruled out seeing the reputation of Khuzaima Qutbuddin.

Most of the points in this answer to Ftutocdg's questions lead to clear defamation of Khuzaima Qutbuddim and hence not mentioned in the article and mentioned here for information only. Araz5152 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been heavy editing and deletion of references on the article. An article referenced in another newspaper would not be the original article as it will have different compiler and it will be in a different newspaper with different audience. Please use talk pages to discuss the same. Araz5152 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting and modifying reference and now content also

Extended info
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
An editor Sam sailor has been continously deleting and modifying references of the article just like a child playing with a toy. Just see the amount of manupulations he has done and after deleting 12 references till now, he is still continuing he claims that i am doing edit war. He is the one vandalising the references and also voted for the articles removal, clearly showing his intentions regarding the article. I request the administors to take his vandalism seriously as he is using a loophole in the system by making small vandalising edits and also modifying such that if reverted the will accuse the reverting editor instead of the vandaliser like Sam sailor. Please do the needful, request to all editors. Araz5152 (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC) another editor is systematically deleting content. I request administrators to look into the matter. There is a systematic effort put by some editors to remove the article from Wikipedia. I request administrators to please help save this article from planned vandalisation. Araz5152 (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC) What an irony? The very policies that are used to protect articles on Wikipedia are been exploited by some editors and nobody at Wikipedia can do anything. Nobody has any rights to stop editors who go on a rampage over an article just because of some pov of theirs, using the very policies of Wikipedia used to protect articles. I guess there is no system of checking the edits of such editors against vandalisation such that they can blatantly claim that whatever you report to authorities nobody is going to listen. This is not according to Wikipedia standards and also not healthy with respect to protection of articles on Wikipedia. Protection should be such that deletion and blanking should not be allowed to editors other than the author of the article or administrators. This would curtail vandalism to a great extend. It will also stop vulturism in editing wherein editors who do not contribute with any articles but just pick on other editor's articles for whatever reasons would be discouraged and genuine critics would be encouraged who will follow the procedure of mentioning on talk pages for editing. Furthermore if there are issues it can be discussed in talk pages and updation made accordingly. If any author does not log in for specific period of time the article may be alloted to another editor or taken up by adminstrator or it can be locked and put up as library content which can be edited by any administrator. This would add international standards as one expects on Wikipedia and also encourge authors to provide more contribution. Anyway still it is a huge effort by Wikipedia to maintain such a huge collection of articles, it does not matter if a few articles get deleted or vandalised or removed from Wikipedia just because some pov of some editors. I understand to gain something one has to loose something. It is perfectly alright for all administrators and other authorities not to do anything and watch an article getting ripped of part by part. After all Wikipedia is with all, by all and for all. So nobody takes any responsibility. My sympathies are with the policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC) None of the above three posts have anything to do with improving the article content as such. I will post to the user on their talk page. Afterwards I intend to collapse this section per WP:TPG. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 21:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

deleted defamatory statement without reference

Hello,

I've deleted this sentence regarding the death of Mohammad Burhanuddin :

[...] The formation of Qutbi Bohra sect and its leadership by his own brother Sayadna Khuzaima Qutbuddin brought great hurt and pain in the heart of his brother Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin the then Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra sect. who fell gravely ill because of all this and eventually this led to His untimely demise. reference = timesofindia.com [...]

The reference provided did not mention it. Just a personal interpretation of User:Araz5152.

Thanks. --Ftutocdg (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

infobox

Hello,

I'm about to delete all parts of the infobox that are not related to a solid reference or facts. I do not know how this infobox has been filled in since the sect doesn't officially exist.

After cleaning, only this few sections should remain :

• name = Qutbi Bohra
• abbreviation = QB
• type = Bohra
• main_classification = Shia Muslim
• orientation = Islam
• scripture = Qura'n al-Majeed
• separated_from = Dawoodi Bohra
• parent = Shia
• other_names = Qutbi Dawat, Kutbi Bohra, Qutbi Vohra, Kutbi Vohra, Kutbi Dawat

--Ftutocdg (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree to your proposal, Ftutocdg. There has been some edit-warring in the period 13-16 March which has reintroduced malformatted references. The last version prior to removal of AfD notice with any substantial editing was this revision. I also notice that all maintenance templates were removed in this edit. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Major re-construction

Hello everybody, I'm Anup. I didn't knew "Qutbi Bohras" or even any Bohras until last AfD, I was randomly involved with. Following a long pattern of edit-warring and dispute between few editors over contents and references of the article, I've re-written the article from a new end, removed unsourced claims not in compliance with verifiability policy and some original research as per WP:No original research. If anyone have some question over the newly re-written article or deleted contents, ask me here. If you want some more contents to be added/deleted, discuss it here. However, editors are encouraged to be bold while updating encyclopedia, do not edit war in any case, make no personal attacks, assume good faith and help building encyclopedia. Thank you and happy editing all. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Wait at least 24hrs before assuming self-consensus. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning

• A formal warning to editors engaged in edit-warring. If your changes was undid by some other editor discuss it on talk page, here. If you do not, you'll find yourself reported at WP:ANI for edit warring. For lazy wikipedians, I would like to let you know that, edit-war often leads to a block and arguments like, I was doing it in good faith goes void.

• Ftutocdg has reverted one change made by Araz5152. If Araz has doesn't agree with this change, put your arguments here. I would love to read one line from WP:OWNERSHIP for User:Araz5152, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". No more edit-warring! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

" only takes but does not give "

Hello, I don't really understand this passage which is quite confusing :

Qutbi Bohra is an encompassing of progressive reformation against faith and practice of Dawoodi Bohra originated with doctrines, religious and political causes, which insists on to reach out and offer help in form of money and housing to all Momin who admires Qutbi Bohra faith. It is in direct conflict with the theory of Fatemi Dawaat which only takes but does not give

Fatemi Dawat is the name of the theological system inherited from the Fatimid Caliphate. Nizari and Bohra (Dawoodi and all sub-sects) are following its basics principles. Never in Fatimid history it was said to only take but not give.

As far as I have read this page (http://fatemidawat.com/philosophy-vision/) on Qutbuddin's web site, he seems to prone a reformation over the financial issue but not against faith nor religious practice of the Dawoodi Bohra (a fortiori Fatemi Dawat). Ftutocdg (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The passage is solely based on the opinion of a mainstrean Dawoodi Bohra source, and has not been attributed as such. I will remove it and expect that re-addition will only be done if a reliable secondary source is found. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• It can be re-added as per WP:ABOUTSELF. It is an official definition of the subject by the subject. The article doesn't heavily relies on primary sources (in fact, it is only one1) and not such extraordinary claim it is, to be attributed to only secondary reliable sources. I'm waiting for some reasonable argument (based on WP:PG or even WP:ESSAYS) to not include this content in the article. And, editors are advised to keep their POV out of Wikipedia. Heads up for Ftutocdg, a sincere Mufaddal Saifuddin's follower (diff. link). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply since the passage, removed here, was based on Akbari, Munawar Ali (2013-07). "Conflicts in Saifee Mahal" (PDF). AZAD (54). Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society (UK): 4–5. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Further Ftutocdg did not say, here, that he was a follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin, he alleged that Md iet is. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, how it constitutes a reasonable logic that, "a phrase has already been removed hence a particular policy doesn't apply any more". I said, It could be re-instated as per WP:SELFPUB because it doesn't consists any extra-ordinary claim.

My argument is based on very first line of WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". Contents being asked to re-instate, is an official definition of the subject by the subject. It may be partially modified to reflect it a official definition and to be more clear such as "As per Dawoodi Bohra" or something similar. WP:SELFPUB doesn't say that, once removed could not be re-instated.

And user:Ftutocdg, I guess, didn't alleged but persuaded user:Md iet to interfere in the article on behalf of being an another sincere follower of Saifuddin (can you please re-read his comment?). Some real counter argument please, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anupmehra, Sam Sailor is right. I'm 'NOT 'Mufaddal Saifuddin's follower (neither Khuzaima Qutbuddin's in fact). Seems you missed my whole action here in Wikipedia : I'm just trying to keep NPOV on Dawoodi Bohra related articles, especially since the sucession war broke out in january. I knew some hard followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin will try to put their biaised POV on those articles. You can review, if you want proof, all my edits on different Bohra articles.

Further, I don't understand why you are questioning my positions. it's none of your business. I wrote to Md iet and other Mufaddal Saifuddin's followers to become aware of the need to do something against the fake/hoax Qutbi Article written by Araz5152.

There is a misunderstand about the passage I underlined "only takes but not give". I thought there was a confusion between Fatemi Dawat (the theological system of Bohras whose both Qutbi or Mufaddali are claiming to be keepers) and the name of the web site of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. I didn't expect that Sam Sailor will delete it.

I just wanted a clarification about the passage. Can you please explain us what are you trying to say with it? What is Fatemi Dawat for you? And whre have you read this statement to "only take but not give" ? Best regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• When you say, "I wrote to Md iet and other Mufaddal Saifuddin's followers to become aware of the need to do something against the fake/hoax Qutbi Article written by Araz5152", it somehow interprets your POV towards Saifuddin. I didn't knew you did not even analyzed the source cited in the article and directly came to oppose to something you do not want to see. Check the source above given in my last comment. It is appropriate to use in this article, as per WP:ABOUTSELF. What is "Fatemi Dawat" for me? I didn't knew any related stuffs until the AfD, where I was randomly involved. If you read the source, it clearly says, the same as the deleted content, "direct in conflict of Fatemi Dawat which only takes but doesn't give". I did follow source and WP:PG. Now, I'm waiting for arguments why it should not be re-instated, User:Sam Sailor has boldy removed the content, I'll see it as a good faith edit. I'd like to establish a consensus accordingly wiki standards to re-instate the deleted contents. If anybody has some comments why it should not be in the article, put your arguments here. One line from WP:POVEDITOR, "We don't much care who you are. So we don't care if you're neutral. We care about the article being neutral, but not about you". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is not a self-published source. Hope it helps. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sam Sailor- You deleted the contents saying, "The passage is solely based on the opinion of a mainstrean Dawoodi Bohra source[..]", now you say, "It is not a self-published source"?
  You are really not helpful here with your dubious arguments. WP:PRIMARY states, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.[..] (re-read more visiting the page)". The source is published by "Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society (UK)" and accessed from their's official website, www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk.
  Now clarify, How it is NOT a primary and self-published sourced and why it could not used as per WP:ABOUTSELF? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No further comments since a week. Re-instating deleted contents. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is very clearly an opinion rather than a fact; it's an interpretation of a religious rule, not a fact. I've removed the whole passage again, since it's not clear from the context who is saying what here (and I also have trouble interpreting the source). WP:SELF clearly requires claims sourced in this way to not be "unduly self-serving" which I believe is the case here. If the claim is to be re-inserted, it needs to be attributed, inline, to the person or organization making the claim, preferably with a link or short description that clarifies their position in the whole debate. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

POV/confusing

This article seems to be yet another place where the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) is being fought out by proxy, with the exact same text that is being posted to various other related articles. I've tagged the article for NPOV checking and being confusing; perhaps it should just be redirected to the main controversy article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)