This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There is no need for creating wiki articles on current issues related to some religion. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.199.130 ( talk) 12:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
user:anupmehra changes I have made is the proof that user:Summichum is biased. as you can see he quoted only his POV from the reference he himself has given. which I have added in full. you can also refer his link [1]. Rukn950 ( talk) 11:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have also removed user's own adjective (weasal words) cleverly inserted to divert the issue to his own POV. please refer history. Rukn950 ( talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment:- An another article on my "to-do" list. Not sure, it should exists or not. However there are multiple reliable sources on this subject that easily satisfies WP:GNG criteria. It'd be a tough job maintaining neutrality! Anupmehra - Let's talk! 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ommiting the established facts in favour of POV is not acceptable according to wikipedia policy. Rukn950 ( talk) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Anupmehra , User:rukn is flooding tags and has undone by sincere formatting attempts. What to do in this case , you can see the diffs Summichum ( talk) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I not done any edit without reliable references.there were edits that stated half truth and omitted the other half of the matter from same references cited.
The tags are necessary to maintain NPOV,till the article is done on wiki standards. infact this article is fork of Dawoodi bohra and Mufaddal saifuddin and as principal it shoud not exist. Rukn950 ( talk) 15:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to maintain NPOV. I am available for discussion. Rukn950 ( talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Fatemidawat.com is Primary source which solesly exist as pomotion of khuzaima qutbuddin and managed by his camp. has no readership, lot less than badremuneer. dawood bohra forum is not acceptable as forums cannot be cited. similarly youtube. so I have removed the sources which are against the wikipedia guidelines. Please discuss if anyone has any objection to my edit. Rukn950 ( talk) 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove tags before discussion and consent from the concerned editor. In this case Anupmehra, DGG, Markdrows and Md iet Rukn950 ( talk) 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The innocent children were kidnapped by daughters of khuzaima qutbuddin against the permission of their fathers, as per law this is a crime
Parental Kidnapping occurs when one parent deprives the other of his or her legal right to custody or visitation by illegally taking the child out of the jurisdiction. It is outlawed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993])
Rukn950 ( talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) It is sad that innocent children were dragged into this controversy.
This citation as being referenced in the article is primary source. it is a self published supplementary. I request my fellow editors to look into this matter.Referene No 16 and No 17 in the article:
<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> This reference does not comply with wikipedia source policy. Rukn950 ( talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Lots of peacock terms are added in this sections. and undue weightage is given to progressive dawoodi bohra.Reference given are also self publish primary source, no independent third party reference are given except in few places where the matter is blown out of proportion of prove user summichum's POV . Rukn950 ( talk) 06:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As India is secular country no one can, and has stopped Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, to form their own group along with their believers, elect their own Nizam and follow their own doctrines. Rukn950 ( talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The absurd demand of progressive dawoodi bohra has no real meaning. it is like Scientology cult advising Pope the tenants of religion.This group is taking advantage of the controversy giving sugarcoated pills,misleading the readers. And I feel summichum is promoting their cause. Rukn950 ( talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no way anyone can reason with user:summichum. he will maintain his POV and revert all others good faith edits. Rukn950 ( talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If the source <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> is acceptable here, and Mr. Sumchum claims that "IT IS A primary source and is verifiable unlike sloppy badre munir which is a unverifiable self published work " Let me give details of "Badre Muneer" magazine:
Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community BADRE MUNEER, Regn. no. RAJKOT/378/2012/14, Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252 Follow them from wherever you are: On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages This is not a primary source of claimaint, but a private publication, you can follow from wherever you are on all public network like facebook, google, orkut etc. on web ID given above. How come this secondary source become sloppy. We agree that this magazine is specifically meant for Dawoodi Bohra, but it has world vide circulation amongst Bohra and material available in it is treated as news material worldvide for Bohra , how it can be non encyclopedic in the matter of Dawoodi Bohra.
If publication like www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf, publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad (which are not at all as per wiki std.) are sustained, 'Badre Muneer' are 100 times genuine as a majority news service of DB. -- Md iet ( talk) 11:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Anupmehra User rukn has flooded this page with many irrelevant tags. Do verify each source is third party neutral NPOV source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That is unfair allegation of summichum. I have tagged that is relevent. This issue is highly volatile and we have to strive to achieve NPOV. I am preventing this article to become a personal blog. I request summichum not to remove tag before proper discussion. Rukn950 ( talk) 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
--
Md iet (
talk) 11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)== Third party non aligned views on controversy are Important as per WP:NPOVIEW ==
Some users are trying to remove the section on views of respectable third parties , please discuss here.
They cant be removed as per WP:NPOVIEW and we are not stating it as fact but just quoting it without attesting to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.
The article claim:
‘self declared’: What proof this Mr. Nandy have. We forget about earlier Nass before 2011, Mufaddal was not present in London Hospital, his brothers informed him of incident, this is well proven and well reported fact, nobody can dispute. How can it be self declared, definitely his brothers are middleman involved. is new Syedna? Trouble brews as half-brother stakes claim, |quote= in June 2011, the late Syedna had reportedly said to have suffered a stroke and had made the same proclamation of nass in front of his sons.
‘asked follower to..declare their allegance’...: Is he called the hundreds of thousand DB in Mumbai on the day of late Syedna demise( Mufaddal was away Colombo). Is he asked all the DB to chant ‘Moula Moula” to him in the street of Mumbai when he was on the bridge near Raudat Tahera, at time of last rituals. Indian Express[ http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/who-is-new-syedna-trouble-brews-as-half-brother-stakes-claim/2/, quote= Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed “Maula” giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq.”- Indian Express]
‘his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ : the claimaint himself says that anoinment was done in private and did not put any direct proof of incident. From where this Mr. Nandy got the proof and declared single headedly.. ‘had anointed’. Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.
The statement is not at all properly weighted and a just allegation, never never suitable for inclusion in BLP cases as per Wiki guidelines.
User: Summichum is trying to add the statement again again to force his POV. The statement is to be removed immediately. Hope the above is justified, any value addition is welcome, else the para will be deleted.-- Md iet ( talk) 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr.Sumchum, a quote can be a blatant lie as proven above, but as per WP:BLPFIGHTit is to be properly weighted for inclusion in Wiki. Please don't try to find out quote in favour of Mufaddal, just restrain from doing edit war you are up to.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There is some material in this article which breach copyright:
I haven't checked the whole article but I suspect there are other areas that are either copy vio or excessive use of non free material in terms of the amount that is directly quoted. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed some of the copyrighted information, however the excessive quoting is still an issue in terms of excessive non-free use. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally.
Similar edit was done by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin. Rukn950 ( talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
whether the article is about living person or not but the quote is hence it is violation. you reverted my edit without discussion. that has become your habitual consistency. I would request user:Qwertyus and user:Anupmehra to look into this matter and also about Azad suplimentary. Rukn950 ( talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.
The matter was deleted by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin(I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC),), and edit war complain [3]was negated by another admin on the same issue. Sumichum is reinstated the material on his will, admin to notice.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:SOURCES, 'material challenged or likely to be challenged [4],..whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.', also this inclusion is not at all justified.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If anybody else is against removal of this not properly weighted statement where, 'the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect' as per one of the admin, may please put his view.-- Md iet ( talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) As there is no other editor who is against removing this material, and
user:Mr. Stradivarius has already removed this from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on basis of ‘author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect', and
user:Kuru has already accepted [5] removal as no violation, hence
The statement is being removed. It may please not be added without further consensus, else would be treated as edit warring.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
EdwardH
(
talk) 08:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Violation WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.
WP:Gossip
Removed the quoation as per the above mentioned violation Rukn950 ( talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Mr. Stradivarius This article is about succession controversy and not about what foreign ministers of India offering condolence to Mufaddal, . From the reports Mufaddal had deceived his own people and staged a succession ceremony using the debilitated stroke ridden body of burhanuddin as a prop. While the people believed what was told to them , the fact is a succession deed was not pronounced although it was made to appear as if it was pronounced and people were made to believe that which was what reported in Media , untill his brother came up with evidences and videos which showed that succession did not take place. Hence you cannot say that a political foriegn minister accorded it. the user md_iet is having a COI and wants to add completely irrelevant details to loose the focus of the article. User:Anupmehra please look into this matter. Also he is accusing in COI board of "poking nose in others matters". Which is completely bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Summichum I dont seem to understand, you gave too much weightage to passing statement of Pritish Nandy . yet you object the report of Salman Khurshid, who is foreign minister. Dont you think you have objection of every good faith edits that does not confirm your POV and Yet you blow out of proportion any minor info which does? Rukn950 ( talk) 08:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are good faith editors who knows much more then what actually available in reliable resources, which are real facts and true and hidden. People can get all the material from anywhere( all reliable sources), but cannot get material which is some thing extra available in Wiki. Here the difference is, because this platform is open to all and free to edit, self correcting and wrong or false thing would not sustain much.
I totally agree with you and I don't have any further reservation or personal ego or anything else to not to follow Wiki guidelines as it is designed keeping overall interest and further it's rules are open to all for further improvements.
You can take it granted my full cooperation, and I wouldn't take otherwise of your any comment and you are free to edit my inputs in whatever way you want in Wikiepedian manner.
Now come to the Fatimid topics, as far as I know, this faith is always in tremendous pressure even from the time of it's root the Fatima and Ali, and that pressure still sustains in this modern era (as you must have read in Dawoodi Bohra article). After death of Mohammad, Ali was dragged out from his house by men of Abu bakr and threat was given that if they doesn't open the door of their house they will burn their house where little Hasan and Husain was also present. Imam Husain was brutally killed along with his 6 months old son Ali Asgar in Karbala, whose complete family was kept without water for three consecutive days. Heavy taxation was imposed on pilgrimage going to Karbala for Husain. Fatimid Imam 9th to 11th was to hide themselves with nicknames and world don't have their proper names known even in this Wikepedia, which I as Fatimid Bohra declared with 100% confidence. Imam Husain's head was digged and transferred three times by Abbasid caliph and was kept hidden for years together near sea shore at Ashklan , philistine(now under control of Israel), such that people do not come to Sham Damascuss)to pay homage. It was Fatimid Imam Mustansir who got tracked the place and build again a worship place their for Shia people. Israeli force again destroyed complete place , made it plain ground and build a hospital over it. In this modern era nobody knew that this was place where Imam Husain head was kept hidden for many years together. Fatimid Bohra 51st/52nd Dai got location identified, Israeli authority was approached to dig the place, old proof of the place was found underneath, and small monument was built where Dawoodi Bohra only visit the place. Fatimid Dai were 'gheraoed'(captivated) in Yemen at Zimarmar fort by Zaidian rulers, and they faught very hard to survive fatimid tradition. Finally they couldn't survive in Yemen and they shifted to India. In India also Mughal ruler didn't like Shia principles and they were put into hardship, Dai Qutbuddin was to sacrifice himself, his head was cut by Aurangjeb.
Now you could understand , to keep their faith alive even up to today many facts are hidden in Fatimid literature which is not available to common public. Only rough information are available and it is very easy to manipulate the things by others. My self has corrected many article related with Fatimid, which do not have proper citation and things are written contradicting to each other article and nobody knows. Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi article and his mother article Asma bint Shihab was intermixed, nobody was clear what matter should be where. Both article were having material intermixed. Same thing with Imam Husain daughter Sakina. There were three daughters of Imam Husain one 11years ,one 7 years and one 4 years old, they are called somewhere or other with name similar to Sakina: fatema Sugra/fatema kubra/Rukayya /sukayna. There were only two article on Sukayna/Rukayya amongst three daughter and nobody was clear what is where. I introduced third article and made all three sister clearly defined in each article. Similarly there were contradictory statements in different articles without citation on who/how the Fatimid first caliph origination begin in north Africa. I tried tocorelate them and harmonise the material.
You might be getting bored, but my emphasis is that after doing all hard work all around by Wiki editors, there are some thing get hidden, and many information are still hidden, which is to be completed by help of good faith editors. And to be make them further encyclopedic should be common efforts. Wiki do not take guarantee to provide each and every thing available on earth, but if it is made as far as clear and true to viewer, it will be a another plus point for Wiki.
I will further remember and emphasize that : "Editors is not to continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary to any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Md iet ( talk) 04:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
To all good faith editors, This never ending argument between sunni and shia has been going on for 1400 years, this arguments are covered on other places please dont drag it here. just state here what is relevant to the topic. Rukn950 ( talk) 05:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Lets start over! Previous discussion seems to have been diluted with irrelevant contexts and personal attacks and policy and guidelines. Why are we here talking on this talk page? We are here to establish a consensus, to write a summary of already available information in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources about ongoing succession controversy in the Dawoodi Bohra community. We are not here to present the truth/fact to the world. Just a summary of information present in multiple reliable sources from a neutral point of view.
What's the problem here? Sources do contradict each other. The same source, who does mention Saifuddin as 53rd Da'i, in his later publication mentions him, a claimant. We should to mention the events chronologically. We've to write a simple, clean, and complete summary of information available to this date. It should be divided into few sections as, "What the actual controversy is", "Why did it happen", "Claims of the people involved", and "Developments after the controversy, as such court cases, comments by other notable peoples, etc.". That's it.
If you people insists on introducing your personal knowledge into this, we would be leading to no where. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 17:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why the edits I last made were reversed. This article needs significant cleanup for grammar, readability and tone. On the one hand some contextual information is missing which could puzzle an uninitiated reader, and on the other there are instances of repetition within the article and between several related ones. There is no need to exclude any reliable references, or any points of view, we just need to organize it less chaotically. I propose that since there seem to be two clear invested points of view in this debate, we should restructure the page with a minimalist introduction, and then organize two main sections with each point of view. Hopefully, it should be far easier to reach consensus within one camp, and respectfully leave the counterparty to represent their own point of view. Lurente ( talk) 18:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ( User:Summichum). If other editors would give their feedback we can work out a non-contentious way forward. Lurente ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Lurente, for your constructive and correct approach, and most of all making User:Summichum)agree to add legitimate material which he has deleted 'inadvertently' 3-4 times till now. Chief justice disclosure before late Syednas demise was shifted to 'dispute' para, as that was important there. Support part with exact quote of CJI added at 'Support' para, balancing the both the topics.
Court case part shifted from lead para to 'court case' para, as this was repetition, as it was not so important as stay order is already withdrawn.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
References
Earlier a important nass document detail was removed from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on the plea that reliable secondary source is not available. This document is very very important, as this is a written proof ,of which photocopies are made public in three different sources ,
1. Dawoodi Bohra official web site : http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/
2. A personal website http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/02/01/reason-34-doubt-cannot-undermine-conviction/
3. A international dawoodi bohra magazine ‘Badre muneer’ web site http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm ( same material as of 2,requoted).
As per WP:WPNOTRS, Wiki mention that
a. ‘ Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.’, and
b. ‘while specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.’
Hence
1.As per b) above , Wiki permit primary source to use it for ‘specific facts’ on second preference.
2.As per a) above, primary source can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid OR.
These both points are applicable in the present situation. As the photo copy of a important dairy is a document having a ‘specific fact’. and we are considering all media source available as primary and no secondary source is available , hence we have tried all option available at present and we are compelled to use primary source. Hence these sources can be used as per Wiki for presenting this information.
Facts as depicted in the report are presented without adding any OR , and part of dairy material is quoted, please.
Hope all the editors would agree to my above justification.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refer above and the article version [ [9]], inclusion of a specific document copy (a dairy entry) was perfectly justified as a special case with reference being primry reliable source.
Now User:Qwertyus has removed the same material again, and issued a notice on my talk page , which is not at all justified.
He has also undone other corrections which are done as either reported material here are no where mentioned in the source or one single news report has been generalised. these correction and well reported material are again included by me.
I have not reinstated the report and quote of primary source of a factual information of dairy to have a further look at my justified discussion in the para just above.
Hope my above action is well justified and we will further agree to include factual information of Dairy.
Any further suggestions invited please.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article may please be restored to [10] version, as all the points till then were well discussed on talk page. Md iet ( talk) 11:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if the medical reports that are at the heart of the lawsuit are publically available. The Mumbai Mirror speaks of "two of the reviews", and there are three experts so I guess there are three reviews (?). Can these be found somewhere, so we can cite them directly? A medical report should be a reliable source for its own conclusions, if attributed inline. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 18:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ceremony video A video made 2011, purportedly showing that Mufaddal was never pronounced successor, was posted by Qutbuddin to YouTube, but then removed after followers of Mufaddal claimed it infringed on their copyrights.[11]
The above statement I feel has no relevancy now as the described video is no longer on YouTube. I don't understand what is achieved by mentioning that on this article.
I request the Admin to delete. Rukn950 ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The largest sect of dawoodi bohra had seen the process of nass (succession) on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin dated 19 June 2011, Sunday in Raudat Tahera, Mumbai near the mausoleum of Syedna Taher Saifuddin, thousands of people were available over there. Video is still there on youtube linked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9wG2Irv-Q Another thing is we had also seen the same process of nass by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in Cromwell Hospital London, which was relayed video is seen by the Lakhs of People as it was spreaded world wide. Due to religious purpose and private situation, this is not published on any website, the Bombay court had viewed the same video and marked as an important proof from the side of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin had shared the the place of Dai with Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin many a times in the past two years before the demise of Syedna Burhanuddin especially on the occasion of Muharram.
Mustu6233 ( talk) 10:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 08:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add following views of central board which are highly relevant to the issue:
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. [1] [11]:
"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 [12]:
-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. Summichum ( talk) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Please compare following:
"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 had supposedly recovered in a way that "has never been medically explained".[8][9] 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.[10] 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.[1][5][11] A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal [5] 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.[12]
"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",
and
" Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained” [2] [3]. 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 in private. [4] 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. [5] [6] [7] Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report [6] 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.[12]
"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".
There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements of Mufaddal before 2011 succession.
[8] 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."
[9]
[10]"
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Is the second option of reporting is complete and proper? hope User:Qwertyus or any other editor would not have any further suggestions replacing the para?-- Md iet ( talk) 06:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we reedit the same as follows;
" Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained” [1] [2]. 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 in private. [3] 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. [4] [5] [6] Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report [5] 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.[12]
"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".
"There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements of Mufaddal before 2011 succession.
[7] Court proceedings reflect that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the year 2011 pronouncement done in London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were made earlier in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011."
[8]
[9]" --
Md iet (
talk) 11:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
References
Hope there are no further suggetion for above, and option suggested is acceptable.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
may please amend the para as per above.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Regarding to you last edit in [13] , you had entered that the stayorder was taken back but the refrences do not say so. even the ref http://dawatcaseupdate.com/ is maliciously mentioned it does not say that the stay order was vacated\taken back, Hence please revert the edit.
/info/en/?search=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make a new section on survey among the bohras on their opinion on succession claimants based on: [14]
Text to be added at the end of the last paragraph:
An 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
[15]. A cover story on the Bohra survey revealed that most Bohras (46%) support Khuzaima over Mufaddal and many are in the community due to due to fear and force
[16]
Summichum ( talk) 07:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the comment given on the survey is :
"This survey is seriously flawed in selection of the community's sample group, which makes the results and inferences totally skewed and irrelevant to the bohras. See the points below:
1. Nearly 85% of Bohras live within Indian subcontinent but have only 36% participation in the sample group.
2. Nearly 30% bohras have graduate/post graduate degrees but have 88% wightage in the group.
3. Nearly 40% Bohras are computer-savvy but the other 60% are neglected in the survey group totally.
4. Male:Female proportion is nearly 1:1 but the survey group has proportion of almost 3:1.
As can be seen from the above, the results are heavily skewed in favor of/influenced by computer-savvy, highly educated, "foreigner", males.
Thus this survey lacks credibility and has severe errors. I read it as a first sample of its kind but was quickly disappointed when I analyzed the sample group "demography.""
This is purely a partisan reports looking to selected representation. Wiki may not like to include this report without giving all the background information.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the survey is reported and published in front page cover stories in major news paper does demand that it be mentioned in this article , Moreover the points you have quoted are your own made up figures , all surveys however well designed has some flaws , that does not discredit them though and certainly you are not the one to judge esp since your past history. Dear User:Anupmehra QVVERTYVS , Please have a look on this. Summichum ( talk) 04:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please compare following:
Gujarat High Court case
“Gujarat High Court issued an interim order on 16 April 2014 prohibiting Saifuddin from acting as the 53rd Dā'ī and his supporters from dealing with the trust properties. Khuzaima filed eight writ petitions before Gujarat High Court pertaining to the succession controversy.[30][31][32]”
And,
"Gujarat High Court issued an interim order on 16 April 2014 prohibiting Saifuddin from acting as the 53rd Dā'ī and his supporters from dealing with the trust properties. Khuzaima filed eight writ petitions before Gujarat High Court pertaining to the succession controversy, however this order was 'vacated'(taken back) on the next hearing of 22nd April, 2014. [1] [2] [3]
References
"
Is the second option of reporting is complete and proper? hope User:Qwertyus or any other editor would not have any problem replacing the para?-- Md iet ( talk) 04:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
[17] also quote complete official court document word by word.
Both reference are quoting court documents, which are nothing but ‘specific facts’,
As per WP:WPNOTRS: “ Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.” , and same is being followed here.
Without the information about the 'specific fact’, the presented para of Wiki carry altogether different meaning, a clear cut partisan view. Whereas after inclusion of this ‘specific fact’, information is complete and presented in NPOV to Wiki viewers. Will the use of these primary (may be called doubtful) sources are not fair? In the present case, Definitely yes, because they seems to be ‘ reliable and useful in present situation, and they are being used with all caution and with due discussion.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hope there are no further suggetion for above, and option suggested is acceptable.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
may please amend the para as above.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
EdwardH
(
talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)As per various suggestions in last discussion above, Please compare the following:
Present version:
"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 had supposedly recovered in a way that "has never been medically explained".[8][9] 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.[10] 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.[1][5][11] A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal [5] 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.[12]
"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",
New edited version:
" Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained” [1] [2]. 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 in private. [3] 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. [4] [5] [6] Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report [5] 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.[12]
"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".
"There are reports which indicate Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar's statement that 'nass was performed on Mufaddal not once but a number of times'.
[7] As per court proceedings also, Qutbuddin's lawyer pointed out that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the pronouncement done in year 2011 at London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were 'made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011'."
[8]
[9]
References
"
Hope now the second para is also very clear with needed copyediting as per suggetions last given. Any further comments are welcome.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hope now there is consensus for the above change. May please edit accordingly.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011. Subsequently on 4th June,2011 Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers Burhanuddin as the successor in the Hospital itself. A ceremony was arranged in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that 'has never been medically explained.' [1] [2] 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 in private'. [3] He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that 'the succession was not done in London Hospital' as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a 'full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move'. [4] [5] [6] Regarding pronouncement of succession at London Hospital, a report [5] 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, also upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]
"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".
Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar has stated that 'nass was performed on Mufaddal not once but a number of times.' [7] As per court proceedings also, Qutbuddin's lawyer pointed out that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the pronouncement done in year 2011 at London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were 'made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011'." [8] [9]"
References
I have tried my best to copy edit the matter further, would request my fellow editors to help me to further examine it. Hope User:Qwertyus would not mind doing it, as he has taken good amount of interest in the subject and may be further helpful having command on language also.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As there is no further correction suggested to my 'new edited version' just above, we may treat as a accepted version. Request to replace it in article with any improvement from Admin themselves.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sweet reminder please.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Spelling in Background section - paragraph under quote Please change "refering" (one r) to "referring to" Arjayay ( talk) 05:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(I made this a new section to restart the discussion; #Protected edit request on 13 September 2014 see above for the previous one.)
I propose to add, as a second paragraph in the section "In the community" (subsection of "Support for the claimants"):
References
This text uses the survey itself to establish its statistical findings, because Mumbai Mirror and Hindustan Times cite different numbers from the results. I've explained above why these figures are to be taken seriously, when the context of the survey is carefully explained. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The Qutbi Bohra article discusses the succession controversy, but does not actually establish with references to reliable sources that Qutbuddin's followers have established a new sect. In fact, the only mention of "Qutbi Bohras" that I've come across is in an article that predates the whole affair and speaks of rumors that the community would split. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Also QVVERTYVS a very big thanks for your contributions as this matter is now in courts and trillion dollar worth assets worldwide are at stake because only the daee is a legal owner of these properties accquired in Mafia style by the last two daees of dawoodi bohra. I also request you to see their community members discussion how these Mullahs extort wealth from their blind followers: http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/2040/52/Vying-for-power-Old-habits-Dai-hard/d,pdb_detail_article_comment/
Summichum ( talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've redirected the other article here. I've also removed Md iet's copy-paste of the article's content to this page, as it was only adding to the noise. We'll have to copyedit the lede: there's still only one source where they reportedly refer to themselves as Qutbi Bohra, and that source predates Qutbuddin's claim of succession. Afterwards, that name seems to only be used by their opponents. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There is no need for creating wiki articles on current issues related to some religion. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.199.130 ( talk) 12:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
user:anupmehra changes I have made is the proof that user:Summichum is biased. as you can see he quoted only his POV from the reference he himself has given. which I have added in full. you can also refer his link [1]. Rukn950 ( talk) 11:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have also removed user's own adjective (weasal words) cleverly inserted to divert the issue to his own POV. please refer history. Rukn950 ( talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment:- An another article on my "to-do" list. Not sure, it should exists or not. However there are multiple reliable sources on this subject that easily satisfies WP:GNG criteria. It'd be a tough job maintaining neutrality! Anupmehra - Let's talk! 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ommiting the established facts in favour of POV is not acceptable according to wikipedia policy. Rukn950 ( talk) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Anupmehra , User:rukn is flooding tags and has undone by sincere formatting attempts. What to do in this case , you can see the diffs Summichum ( talk) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I not done any edit without reliable references.there were edits that stated half truth and omitted the other half of the matter from same references cited.
The tags are necessary to maintain NPOV,till the article is done on wiki standards. infact this article is fork of Dawoodi bohra and Mufaddal saifuddin and as principal it shoud not exist. Rukn950 ( talk) 15:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to maintain NPOV. I am available for discussion. Rukn950 ( talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Fatemidawat.com is Primary source which solesly exist as pomotion of khuzaima qutbuddin and managed by his camp. has no readership, lot less than badremuneer. dawood bohra forum is not acceptable as forums cannot be cited. similarly youtube. so I have removed the sources which are against the wikipedia guidelines. Please discuss if anyone has any objection to my edit. Rukn950 ( talk) 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove tags before discussion and consent from the concerned editor. In this case Anupmehra, DGG, Markdrows and Md iet Rukn950 ( talk) 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The innocent children were kidnapped by daughters of khuzaima qutbuddin against the permission of their fathers, as per law this is a crime
Parental Kidnapping occurs when one parent deprives the other of his or her legal right to custody or visitation by illegally taking the child out of the jurisdiction. It is outlawed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993])
Rukn950 ( talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) It is sad that innocent children were dragged into this controversy.
This citation as being referenced in the article is primary source. it is a self published supplementary. I request my fellow editors to look into this matter.Referene No 16 and No 17 in the article:
<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> This reference does not comply with wikipedia source policy. Rukn950 ( talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Lots of peacock terms are added in this sections. and undue weightage is given to progressive dawoodi bohra.Reference given are also self publish primary source, no independent third party reference are given except in few places where the matter is blown out of proportion of prove user summichum's POV . Rukn950 ( talk) 06:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As India is secular country no one can, and has stopped Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, to form their own group along with their believers, elect their own Nizam and follow their own doctrines. Rukn950 ( talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The absurd demand of progressive dawoodi bohra has no real meaning. it is like Scientology cult advising Pope the tenants of religion.This group is taking advantage of the controversy giving sugarcoated pills,misleading the readers. And I feel summichum is promoting their cause. Rukn950 ( talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no way anyone can reason with user:summichum. he will maintain his POV and revert all others good faith edits. Rukn950 ( talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If the source <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> is acceptable here, and Mr. Sumchum claims that "IT IS A primary source and is verifiable unlike sloppy badre munir which is a unverifiable self published work " Let me give details of "Badre Muneer" magazine:
Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community BADRE MUNEER, Regn. no. RAJKOT/378/2012/14, Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252 Follow them from wherever you are: On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages This is not a primary source of claimaint, but a private publication, you can follow from wherever you are on all public network like facebook, google, orkut etc. on web ID given above. How come this secondary source become sloppy. We agree that this magazine is specifically meant for Dawoodi Bohra, but it has world vide circulation amongst Bohra and material available in it is treated as news material worldvide for Bohra , how it can be non encyclopedic in the matter of Dawoodi Bohra.
If publication like www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf, publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad (which are not at all as per wiki std.) are sustained, 'Badre Muneer' are 100 times genuine as a majority news service of DB. -- Md iet ( talk) 11:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Anupmehra User rukn has flooded this page with many irrelevant tags. Do verify each source is third party neutral NPOV source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That is unfair allegation of summichum. I have tagged that is relevent. This issue is highly volatile and we have to strive to achieve NPOV. I am preventing this article to become a personal blog. I request summichum not to remove tag before proper discussion. Rukn950 ( talk) 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
--
Md iet (
talk) 11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)== Third party non aligned views on controversy are Important as per WP:NPOVIEW ==
Some users are trying to remove the section on views of respectable third parties , please discuss here.
They cant be removed as per WP:NPOVIEW and we are not stating it as fact but just quoting it without attesting to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.
The article claim:
‘self declared’: What proof this Mr. Nandy have. We forget about earlier Nass before 2011, Mufaddal was not present in London Hospital, his brothers informed him of incident, this is well proven and well reported fact, nobody can dispute. How can it be self declared, definitely his brothers are middleman involved. is new Syedna? Trouble brews as half-brother stakes claim, |quote= in June 2011, the late Syedna had reportedly said to have suffered a stroke and had made the same proclamation of nass in front of his sons.
‘asked follower to..declare their allegance’...: Is he called the hundreds of thousand DB in Mumbai on the day of late Syedna demise( Mufaddal was away Colombo). Is he asked all the DB to chant ‘Moula Moula” to him in the street of Mumbai when he was on the bridge near Raudat Tahera, at time of last rituals. Indian Express[ http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/who-is-new-syedna-trouble-brews-as-half-brother-stakes-claim/2/, quote= Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed “Maula” giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq.”- Indian Express]
‘his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ : the claimaint himself says that anoinment was done in private and did not put any direct proof of incident. From where this Mr. Nandy got the proof and declared single headedly.. ‘had anointed’. Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.
The statement is not at all properly weighted and a just allegation, never never suitable for inclusion in BLP cases as per Wiki guidelines.
User: Summichum is trying to add the statement again again to force his POV. The statement is to be removed immediately. Hope the above is justified, any value addition is welcome, else the para will be deleted.-- Md iet ( talk) 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr.Sumchum, a quote can be a blatant lie as proven above, but as per WP:BLPFIGHTit is to be properly weighted for inclusion in Wiki. Please don't try to find out quote in favour of Mufaddal, just restrain from doing edit war you are up to.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There is some material in this article which breach copyright:
I haven't checked the whole article but I suspect there are other areas that are either copy vio or excessive use of non free material in terms of the amount that is directly quoted. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed some of the copyrighted information, however the excessive quoting is still an issue in terms of excessive non-free use. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally.
Similar edit was done by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin. Rukn950 ( talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
whether the article is about living person or not but the quote is hence it is violation. you reverted my edit without discussion. that has become your habitual consistency. I would request user:Qwertyus and user:Anupmehra to look into this matter and also about Azad suplimentary. Rukn950 ( talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.
The matter was deleted by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin(I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC),), and edit war complain [3]was negated by another admin on the same issue. Sumichum is reinstated the material on his will, admin to notice.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:SOURCES, 'material challenged or likely to be challenged [4],..whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.', also this inclusion is not at all justified.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If anybody else is against removal of this not properly weighted statement where, 'the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect' as per one of the admin, may please put his view.-- Md iet ( talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) As there is no other editor who is against removing this material, and
user:Mr. Stradivarius has already removed this from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on basis of ‘author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect', and
user:Kuru has already accepted [5] removal as no violation, hence
The statement is being removed. It may please not be added without further consensus, else would be treated as edit warring.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
EdwardH
(
talk) 08:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Violation WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.
WP:Gossip
Removed the quoation as per the above mentioned violation Rukn950 ( talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Mr. Stradivarius This article is about succession controversy and not about what foreign ministers of India offering condolence to Mufaddal, . From the reports Mufaddal had deceived his own people and staged a succession ceremony using the debilitated stroke ridden body of burhanuddin as a prop. While the people believed what was told to them , the fact is a succession deed was not pronounced although it was made to appear as if it was pronounced and people were made to believe that which was what reported in Media , untill his brother came up with evidences and videos which showed that succession did not take place. Hence you cannot say that a political foriegn minister accorded it. the user md_iet is having a COI and wants to add completely irrelevant details to loose the focus of the article. User:Anupmehra please look into this matter. Also he is accusing in COI board of "poking nose in others matters". Which is completely bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Summichum I dont seem to understand, you gave too much weightage to passing statement of Pritish Nandy . yet you object the report of Salman Khurshid, who is foreign minister. Dont you think you have objection of every good faith edits that does not confirm your POV and Yet you blow out of proportion any minor info which does? Rukn950 ( talk) 08:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are good faith editors who knows much more then what actually available in reliable resources, which are real facts and true and hidden. People can get all the material from anywhere( all reliable sources), but cannot get material which is some thing extra available in Wiki. Here the difference is, because this platform is open to all and free to edit, self correcting and wrong or false thing would not sustain much.
I totally agree with you and I don't have any further reservation or personal ego or anything else to not to follow Wiki guidelines as it is designed keeping overall interest and further it's rules are open to all for further improvements.
You can take it granted my full cooperation, and I wouldn't take otherwise of your any comment and you are free to edit my inputs in whatever way you want in Wikiepedian manner.
Now come to the Fatimid topics, as far as I know, this faith is always in tremendous pressure even from the time of it's root the Fatima and Ali, and that pressure still sustains in this modern era (as you must have read in Dawoodi Bohra article). After death of Mohammad, Ali was dragged out from his house by men of Abu bakr and threat was given that if they doesn't open the door of their house they will burn their house where little Hasan and Husain was also present. Imam Husain was brutally killed along with his 6 months old son Ali Asgar in Karbala, whose complete family was kept without water for three consecutive days. Heavy taxation was imposed on pilgrimage going to Karbala for Husain. Fatimid Imam 9th to 11th was to hide themselves with nicknames and world don't have their proper names known even in this Wikepedia, which I as Fatimid Bohra declared with 100% confidence. Imam Husain's head was digged and transferred three times by Abbasid caliph and was kept hidden for years together near sea shore at Ashklan , philistine(now under control of Israel), such that people do not come to Sham Damascuss)to pay homage. It was Fatimid Imam Mustansir who got tracked the place and build again a worship place their for Shia people. Israeli force again destroyed complete place , made it plain ground and build a hospital over it. In this modern era nobody knew that this was place where Imam Husain head was kept hidden for many years together. Fatimid Bohra 51st/52nd Dai got location identified, Israeli authority was approached to dig the place, old proof of the place was found underneath, and small monument was built where Dawoodi Bohra only visit the place. Fatimid Dai were 'gheraoed'(captivated) in Yemen at Zimarmar fort by Zaidian rulers, and they faught very hard to survive fatimid tradition. Finally they couldn't survive in Yemen and they shifted to India. In India also Mughal ruler didn't like Shia principles and they were put into hardship, Dai Qutbuddin was to sacrifice himself, his head was cut by Aurangjeb.
Now you could understand , to keep their faith alive even up to today many facts are hidden in Fatimid literature which is not available to common public. Only rough information are available and it is very easy to manipulate the things by others. My self has corrected many article related with Fatimid, which do not have proper citation and things are written contradicting to each other article and nobody knows. Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi article and his mother article Asma bint Shihab was intermixed, nobody was clear what matter should be where. Both article were having material intermixed. Same thing with Imam Husain daughter Sakina. There were three daughters of Imam Husain one 11years ,one 7 years and one 4 years old, they are called somewhere or other with name similar to Sakina: fatema Sugra/fatema kubra/Rukayya /sukayna. There were only two article on Sukayna/Rukayya amongst three daughter and nobody was clear what is where. I introduced third article and made all three sister clearly defined in each article. Similarly there were contradictory statements in different articles without citation on who/how the Fatimid first caliph origination begin in north Africa. I tried tocorelate them and harmonise the material.
You might be getting bored, but my emphasis is that after doing all hard work all around by Wiki editors, there are some thing get hidden, and many information are still hidden, which is to be completed by help of good faith editors. And to be make them further encyclopedic should be common efforts. Wiki do not take guarantee to provide each and every thing available on earth, but if it is made as far as clear and true to viewer, it will be a another plus point for Wiki.
I will further remember and emphasize that : "Editors is not to continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary to any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Md iet ( talk) 04:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
To all good faith editors, This never ending argument between sunni and shia has been going on for 1400 years, this arguments are covered on other places please dont drag it here. just state here what is relevant to the topic. Rukn950 ( talk) 05:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Lets start over! Previous discussion seems to have been diluted with irrelevant contexts and personal attacks and policy and guidelines. Why are we here talking on this talk page? We are here to establish a consensus, to write a summary of already available information in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources about ongoing succession controversy in the Dawoodi Bohra community. We are not here to present the truth/fact to the world. Just a summary of information present in multiple reliable sources from a neutral point of view.
What's the problem here? Sources do contradict each other. The same source, who does mention Saifuddin as 53rd Da'i, in his later publication mentions him, a claimant. We should to mention the events chronologically. We've to write a simple, clean, and complete summary of information available to this date. It should be divided into few sections as, "What the actual controversy is", "Why did it happen", "Claims of the people involved", and "Developments after the controversy, as such court cases, comments by other notable peoples, etc.". That's it.
If you people insists on introducing your personal knowledge into this, we would be leading to no where. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 17:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why the edits I last made were reversed. This article needs significant cleanup for grammar, readability and tone. On the one hand some contextual information is missing which could puzzle an uninitiated reader, and on the other there are instances of repetition within the article and between several related ones. There is no need to exclude any reliable references, or any points of view, we just need to organize it less chaotically. I propose that since there seem to be two clear invested points of view in this debate, we should restructure the page with a minimalist introduction, and then organize two main sections with each point of view. Hopefully, it should be far easier to reach consensus within one camp, and respectfully leave the counterparty to represent their own point of view. Lurente ( talk) 18:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ( User:Summichum). If other editors would give their feedback we can work out a non-contentious way forward. Lurente ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Lurente, for your constructive and correct approach, and most of all making User:Summichum)agree to add legitimate material which he has deleted 'inadvertently' 3-4 times till now. Chief justice disclosure before late Syednas demise was shifted to 'dispute' para, as that was important there. Support part with exact quote of CJI added at 'Support' para, balancing the both the topics.
Court case part shifted from lead para to 'court case' para, as this was repetition, as it was not so important as stay order is already withdrawn.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
References
Earlier a important nass document detail was removed from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on the plea that reliable secondary source is not available. This document is very very important, as this is a written proof ,of which photocopies are made public in three different sources ,
1. Dawoodi Bohra official web site : http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/
2. A personal website http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/02/01/reason-34-doubt-cannot-undermine-conviction/
3. A international dawoodi bohra magazine ‘Badre muneer’ web site http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm ( same material as of 2,requoted).
As per WP:WPNOTRS, Wiki mention that
a. ‘ Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.’, and
b. ‘while specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.’
Hence
1.As per b) above , Wiki permit primary source to use it for ‘specific facts’ on second preference.
2.As per a) above, primary source can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid OR.
These both points are applicable in the present situation. As the photo copy of a important dairy is a document having a ‘specific fact’. and we are considering all media source available as primary and no secondary source is available , hence we have tried all option available at present and we are compelled to use primary source. Hence these sources can be used as per Wiki for presenting this information.
Facts as depicted in the report are presented without adding any OR , and part of dairy material is quoted, please.
Hope all the editors would agree to my above justification.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refer above and the article version [ [9]], inclusion of a specific document copy (a dairy entry) was perfectly justified as a special case with reference being primry reliable source.
Now User:Qwertyus has removed the same material again, and issued a notice on my talk page , which is not at all justified.
He has also undone other corrections which are done as either reported material here are no where mentioned in the source or one single news report has been generalised. these correction and well reported material are again included by me.
I have not reinstated the report and quote of primary source of a factual information of dairy to have a further look at my justified discussion in the para just above.
Hope my above action is well justified and we will further agree to include factual information of Dairy.
Any further suggestions invited please.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article may please be restored to [10] version, as all the points till then were well discussed on talk page. Md iet ( talk) 11:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if the medical reports that are at the heart of the lawsuit are publically available. The Mumbai Mirror speaks of "two of the reviews", and there are three experts so I guess there are three reviews (?). Can these be found somewhere, so we can cite them directly? A medical report should be a reliable source for its own conclusions, if attributed inline. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 18:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ceremony video A video made 2011, purportedly showing that Mufaddal was never pronounced successor, was posted by Qutbuddin to YouTube, but then removed after followers of Mufaddal claimed it infringed on their copyrights.[11]
The above statement I feel has no relevancy now as the described video is no longer on YouTube. I don't understand what is achieved by mentioning that on this article.
I request the Admin to delete. Rukn950 ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The largest sect of dawoodi bohra had seen the process of nass (succession) on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin dated 19 June 2011, Sunday in Raudat Tahera, Mumbai near the mausoleum of Syedna Taher Saifuddin, thousands of people were available over there. Video is still there on youtube linked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9wG2Irv-Q Another thing is we had also seen the same process of nass by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in Cromwell Hospital London, which was relayed video is seen by the Lakhs of People as it was spreaded world wide. Due to religious purpose and private situation, this is not published on any website, the Bombay court had viewed the same video and marked as an important proof from the side of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin had shared the the place of Dai with Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin many a times in the past two years before the demise of Syedna Burhanuddin especially on the occasion of Muharram.
Mustu6233 ( talk) 10:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 08:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add following views of central board which are highly relevant to the issue:
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. [1] [11]:
"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 [12]:
-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. Summichum ( talk) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Please compare following:
"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 had supposedly recovered in a way that "has never been medically explained".[8][9] 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.[10] 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.[1][5][11] A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal [5] 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.[12]
"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",
and
" Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained” [2] [3]. 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 in private. [4] 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. [5] [6] [7] Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report [6] 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.[12]
"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".
There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements of Mufaddal before 2011 succession.
[8] 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."
[9]
[10]"
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Is the second option of reporting is complete and proper? hope User:Qwertyus or any other editor would not have any further suggestions replacing the para?-- Md iet ( talk) 06:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we reedit the same as follows;
" Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained” [1] [2]. 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 in private. [3] 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. [4] [5] [6] Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report [5] 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.[12]
"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".
"There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements of Mufaddal before 2011 succession.
[7] Court proceedings reflect that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the year 2011 pronouncement done in London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were made earlier in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011."
[8]
[9]" --
Md iet (
talk) 11:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
References
Hope there are no further suggetion for above, and option suggested is acceptable.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
may please amend the para as per above.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Regarding to you last edit in [13] , you had entered that the stayorder was taken back but the refrences do not say so. even the ref http://dawatcaseupdate.com/ is maliciously mentioned it does not say that the stay order was vacated\taken back, Hence please revert the edit.
/info/en/?search=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make a new section on survey among the bohras on their opinion on succession claimants based on: [14]
Text to be added at the end of the last paragraph:
An 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
[15]. A cover story on the Bohra survey revealed that most Bohras (46%) support Khuzaima over Mufaddal and many are in the community due to due to fear and force
[16]
Summichum ( talk) 07:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the comment given on the survey is :
"This survey is seriously flawed in selection of the community's sample group, which makes the results and inferences totally skewed and irrelevant to the bohras. See the points below:
1. Nearly 85% of Bohras live within Indian subcontinent but have only 36% participation in the sample group.
2. Nearly 30% bohras have graduate/post graduate degrees but have 88% wightage in the group.
3. Nearly 40% Bohras are computer-savvy but the other 60% are neglected in the survey group totally.
4. Male:Female proportion is nearly 1:1 but the survey group has proportion of almost 3:1.
As can be seen from the above, the results are heavily skewed in favor of/influenced by computer-savvy, highly educated, "foreigner", males.
Thus this survey lacks credibility and has severe errors. I read it as a first sample of its kind but was quickly disappointed when I analyzed the sample group "demography.""
This is purely a partisan reports looking to selected representation. Wiki may not like to include this report without giving all the background information.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the survey is reported and published in front page cover stories in major news paper does demand that it be mentioned in this article , Moreover the points you have quoted are your own made up figures , all surveys however well designed has some flaws , that does not discredit them though and certainly you are not the one to judge esp since your past history. Dear User:Anupmehra QVVERTYVS , Please have a look on this. Summichum ( talk) 04:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please compare following:
Gujarat High Court case
“Gujarat High Court issued an interim order on 16 April 2014 prohibiting Saifuddin from acting as the 53rd Dā'ī and his supporters from dealing with the trust properties. Khuzaima filed eight writ petitions before Gujarat High Court pertaining to the succession controversy.[30][31][32]”
And,
"Gujarat High Court issued an interim order on 16 April 2014 prohibiting Saifuddin from acting as the 53rd Dā'ī and his supporters from dealing with the trust properties. Khuzaima filed eight writ petitions before Gujarat High Court pertaining to the succession controversy, however this order was 'vacated'(taken back) on the next hearing of 22nd April, 2014. [1] [2] [3]
References
"
Is the second option of reporting is complete and proper? hope User:Qwertyus or any other editor would not have any problem replacing the para?-- Md iet ( talk) 04:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
[17] also quote complete official court document word by word.
Both reference are quoting court documents, which are nothing but ‘specific facts’,
As per WP:WPNOTRS: “ Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.” , and same is being followed here.
Without the information about the 'specific fact’, the presented para of Wiki carry altogether different meaning, a clear cut partisan view. Whereas after inclusion of this ‘specific fact’, information is complete and presented in NPOV to Wiki viewers. Will the use of these primary (may be called doubtful) sources are not fair? In the present case, Definitely yes, because they seems to be ‘ reliable and useful in present situation, and they are being used with all caution and with due discussion.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hope there are no further suggetion for above, and option suggested is acceptable.-- Md iet ( talk) 04:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
may please amend the para as above.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
EdwardH
(
talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)As per various suggestions in last discussion above, Please compare the following:
Present version:
"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 had supposedly recovered in a way that "has never been medically explained".[8][9] 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.[10] 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.[1][5][11] A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal [5] 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.[12]
"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",
New edited version:
" Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained” [1] [2]. 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 in private. [3] 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. [4] [5] [6] Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report [5] 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.[12]
"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".
"There are reports which indicate Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar's statement that 'nass was performed on Mufaddal not once but a number of times'.
[7] As per court proceedings also, Qutbuddin's lawyer pointed out that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the pronouncement done in year 2011 at London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were 'made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011'."
[8]
[9]
References
"
Hope now the second para is also very clear with needed copyediting as per suggetions last given. Any further comments are welcome.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hope now there is consensus for the above change. May please edit accordingly.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011. Subsequently on 4th June,2011 Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers Burhanuddin as the successor in the Hospital itself. A ceremony was arranged in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that 'has never been medically explained.' [1] [2] 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 in private'. [3] He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that 'the succession was not done in London Hospital' as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a 'full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move'. [4] [5] [6] Regarding pronouncement of succession at London Hospital, a report [5] 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, also upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]
"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".
Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar has stated that 'nass was performed on Mufaddal not once but a number of times.' [7] As per court proceedings also, Qutbuddin's lawyer pointed out that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the pronouncement done in year 2011 at London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were 'made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011'." [8] [9]"
References
I have tried my best to copy edit the matter further, would request my fellow editors to help me to further examine it. Hope User:Qwertyus would not mind doing it, as he has taken good amount of interest in the subject and may be further helpful having command on language also.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As there is no further correction suggested to my 'new edited version' just above, we may treat as a accepted version. Request to replace it in article with any improvement from Admin themselves.-- Md iet ( talk) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sweet reminder please.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Spelling in Background section - paragraph under quote Please change "refering" (one r) to "referring to" Arjayay ( talk) 05:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(I made this a new section to restart the discussion; #Protected edit request on 13 September 2014 see above for the previous one.)
I propose to add, as a second paragraph in the section "In the community" (subsection of "Support for the claimants"):
References
This text uses the survey itself to establish its statistical findings, because Mumbai Mirror and Hindustan Times cite different numbers from the results. I've explained above why these figures are to be taken seriously, when the context of the survey is carefully explained. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The Qutbi Bohra article discusses the succession controversy, but does not actually establish with references to reliable sources that Qutbuddin's followers have established a new sect. In fact, the only mention of "Qutbi Bohras" that I've come across is in an article that predates the whole affair and speaks of rumors that the community would split. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Also QVVERTYVS a very big thanks for your contributions as this matter is now in courts and trillion dollar worth assets worldwide are at stake because only the daee is a legal owner of these properties accquired in Mafia style by the last two daees of dawoodi bohra. I also request you to see their community members discussion how these Mullahs extort wealth from their blind followers: http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/2040/52/Vying-for-power-Old-habits-Dai-hard/d,pdb_detail_article_comment/
Summichum ( talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've redirected the other article here. I've also removed Md iet's copy-paste of the article's content to this page, as it was only adding to the noise. We'll have to copyedit the lede: there's still only one source where they reportedly refer to themselves as Qutbi Bohra, and that source predates Qutbuddin's claim of succession. Afterwards, that name seems to only be used by their opponents. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)