Talk:Dawoodi Bohra/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Difference between Dawoodi Bohra and other Islamic sects

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

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

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

dum tera bharunga main, tausif karoonga main,

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

”

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

• Prostrating other than Allah

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

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

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

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

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

The sect is infamously known for harsh religious persecution of its own followers to the extend they have again split into this issue alone forming the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra Sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

user summichum is unaware of dawoodi bohra principals

As Mr summichum is unaware of dawoodi bohra principals and their philosophy , he fails to comprehend the true meaning of being a dawoodi bohra. The very statement of progressive dawoodi bohra."They also claim that the dai is misusing his powers and that they are the 'real' dawoodi bohras." contradict their claim.

First to become dawoodi bohra you have to give Misaq (Oath). which is taken by Dai al Mutlaq. Doctrine of Oath states that you acknowledge the supreme authority of Dai al Mutlaq and belive in non fallibility of his actions.( Like Pope )

The progressive dawoodi bohra, so called reformist, deny the oath taken by the Dai al mutlaq and have criticized on every opportune. They deny very basic tenant of the faith. hence they cannot be called mainstream dawoodi bohra, but self formed group of dissident.

The Dawoodi Bohra's are recognized by their adherence to the Dai al Mutlaq, not vice versa.Rukn950 (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Very correct, and that is real difference between a 'Mumeen' and a "muslim'. Mumeen and Muslim both follow Islam, but the Mumeen follow an additional thing which is "Valayat"( faith in his god). If you don't have 'Valayat' your every things fails. If you don't have integrity to your organization, you are immediately sacked. We all are living in organization of god, if we don't have faith/integrity/Valayat in him then we don't have right to live in his empire. We are just forcefully living. You don't have peace ,just living. Take 'Fatimid Principles', there is a god almighty, who have a Messanger( Nabi) Mohammad, who appointed his Vasi(care taker), who further appointed Imam which are continued till date one after another. Present Imam is in seclusion, guiding his representative Dai-al-Mutlaq, he in turn educated and appointed his representative in the world wherever his believer lives. Each Fatimid/Dawoodi Bohra have a representative appointed by Dai. Even at the location where few families lives and don't have capability to sustain expenditure of Dai's well trained representative(Amil), those fellow can recommend their own representative, who are judged and given all power to represent on behalf of Dai. All the major activities and general Namaz/Salaat are done in his knowledge and complete discipline and unity is maintained. See how democratic and systemic approach. A single Fatimid ordinary man has direct link to God through the path, just as in perfectly managed organization. Can any organization survive without boss, and clear cut delegation of responsibility/power up to it's last employee. Answer is simply NO. Then how can you expect that a vast organization of God, this universe can run in anarchy. There can't be two boss, there is explicit administrative responsibility given. No organization can exist without supreme boss and there can't be two boss for one thing, it will collapse. This world cannot sustain without Imam and there would never never be position of UNAVAILABILITY, if you have faith in god.

Dear Sumchum, this is matter of 'valayat', which is most important pillar of Fatimid principles/faith, please don't interpret or feeble with it, if you don't have faith in it and for god sake don't play with it. If you consider the Quran Aayat 'Qul-ya ayyohal kaferun', you will understand, non believer cannot be made believer (till their heart change), let them remain on their own.--Md iet (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• talk this is not a place to preach your religion, if you want please go to the relevant religious forums where all such claims can be easily refuted. , please desist from this , your opinions and beliefs have no value addition to the article unless you cite it from relevant third party sources. User:Anupmehra, admin User:Callanecc please look in to this matter as they always try to bring religious doctrines to support their arguments. User:Callanecc please look into the COI noticeboard and ban these users for not cooperating at all and trying to preach their obscure dawoodi bohra religion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 04:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is talk page and good faith points can always be discussed here. It is collective decision whether the particular points to be amended or not. This Summichum is attacking on a community faith, doing single sided amendments with single agenda and bent upon harassment of other good faith law abider editors. We will try to search for genuine third party source, but his baseless allegation declaring the community as a non acceptable to Islam etc., attacking on faith of some community on the basis of media discussion on forums and media such as a rediff.com, where anybody can share his comments and propagate such type of propaganda is not a healthy sign for free and fare platform like Wiki. This fellow is bent upon searching all the materials even on live person against BPL policy, and trying to force his agenda on mass community to address his partisan activities. He is calling Bohra religion a "obscure". what right he have. if he don't like this religion ,why he is pocking his nose here in Dawoodi Bohra particular articles. Why he is advocating Qutbuddin, when he hates Bohra. This proves that he has clear conflict of interest and finding all means to derogate Bohra community as a whole, let it be any faction of it. He is trying to use the situation, trying to encash the opportunity, to damage the image of community. Mr.Ajay, you are from Delhi and didn't have direct contact with Bohra community , which are mainly in Gujrat/ Maharashtra/Rajasthan/MP area. I should not advocate myself, but we are very peace living people and believe in live and let live, very cooperative with all community, business class people, loyal to land they live and you will find that everybody in the neighbor have faith in them and like to leave with them. They have faith in Islam and true abider.You can feel the image of them judging various comments and response received from media as whole after demise of our late Syedna. Response of general media and noted personality are collectively presented in Bohra magazine Badre Muneer at page no.106,107,110 and 111 in Vol.18, no. 8,of Feb-1014. you can visit their site www.badremuneer.in to have insite into it.

This fellow is nothing to believe in good faith, searching all third parties reports where he can fulfill his agenda as per Wiki rules and using all means to prove good faith edit false and a real 100% COI case. Dear Mehra, You are a real third party editor and I have full faith in you. I know you are an Indian and know the psychology and behavior of persons here. We all are here to cooperate with you in making Wiki a free and fare platform, but be careful of identity who are bent upon tarnishing the image of particular community with particular aim. We bohra are generally not encouraged to involve in this type of propaganda, and be happy with our own image. I am Bohra, so something untrue pinching me and openly declaring the same, but he has declared himself outside of community, why he is so interested, how come he has become so active and die hard supporter of Wiki only after Jan,14. He is only worried for Dawoodi Bohra article is some thing very very interesting. I must appreciate him that he has masterminded all tricks for getting well acquainted with all rules and regulations of Wiki(which I have not become in last 6-7 years, as this is not our primary job, but for the sack of humanity and Fatimid tradition devoted some time), declaring himself a true third party editor. After getting banned twice for making disruption and still making nonstop editing in whatever manners he can, keeping strict vigil on good faith editors, and promptly replying, like he has only job to defame this particular community as a whole.

.--Md iet (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of a chat platform [2], where anybody can say anything, all fatwa and whatever anybody likes are discussed, is the source selected by Summichum for making blatant allegation that 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims'. This is not just a original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline., this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. DB are on real sunnat of Muhammad and follow the deeds of their Imams as principles of working, on the basis of Al-Qadi al-Nu'man's most prominent work, the Daim al-Islam[3].--Md iet (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• • please desist from diverting the topic , I would urge User:Anupmehra and other admins to see their comments , they always try to divert attention from the main topic using completely baseless arguments which no one here would care about . The request is not to go to religious doctrines but report available information as per WP:NPOVVIEW . Please ensure good faith of all editors involved including me. I just intend to cover authoritative third party reports as I was really interested in this community when I read many articles regarding succession controversy in media which motivated me to read more and research more , I have access to most books in the world hence I was quickly able to understand their rich history where such succession conflicts were very common going back to the fatimid kings. And its an interesting event from academic point of view that such a succession dispute has occurred in our time and thus all details of it need to be reported in good faith. Such succession conflicts are milestones in an era which bring significant changes to the future as new cultures are bornSummichum (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• The above reply was given by me against the argument given by Sumichum at [4] above. The editor is again making base less allegation here and calling DB as "obscure", hence this discussion is very much needed here also. He calls all the things mare baseless preaching hence now information on bohra religion is provided with third party reliable source to prove our point. I agree such succession conflicts are milestones in the era, but where is need of making allegation about community without any basis. Mr.Mehra, as you said somewhere that every human has an bias, and definitely I also have, as I am DB and know what actual position is. But I perfectly agree with another point that we have to present the matter in NPOV manner, and we will. All the facts to be presented and as it happening with due citation, and it is added responsibility of editor, well conversant to the topic to keep the check that Wiki convey same message as really true to the extent possible.--Md iet (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum is confusing other editors with baseless claims. how can he call himself to be in good faith when he reverts every edits that doesn't conform to his POV? I dont seem to understand his silly notion "I have access to most books in the world hence I was quickly able to understand their rich history where such succession conflicts were very common going back to the fatimid kings" everyone has access to information in this Information age.Rukn950 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Reformatting and cleaning the article

Dear Editors I am attempting to reformat this article in order to align it to Wiki standards and improve its rating. I expect your support and feel free to correct me wherever I am wrong. but please refrain from edit war. please discuss in this talk page if you do not agree with me. I would also do the same. thanks Rukn950 (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Md iet: the controversy issue has been addressed further down what do you feel of removing this para Mohammed Burhanuddin (6 March 1915 – 17 January 2014) was the last and 52nd Dā‘ī l-Muṭlaq. Burhanuddin had suffered a stroke in June,2011 and at that time it was declared that the Dai had appointed his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin as ‘designate-successor’[5]. It is reported that Dawoodi Bohra ‘community’ had ‘welcomed their community leader’s choice’ of Mufaddal Saifuddin as his ‘successor’.[6][7]After the demise of late Syedna in Jan,2014, Mufaddal ‘took charge officially’.[8][9][10] But this has been ‘challenged’ by Khuzaima Qutbuddin,[11][12]Burhanuddin's half-brother that he appointed him heir around 50 years ago while conferring on him the title of 'mazoon' and also published a public notice on his website declaring the same.[9][10] As per Times of India report,‘Most’ Dawoodi Bohra ‘backs’ Mufaddal Saifuddin,and ‘hold’ him as its ‘53rd spiritual leader’.[13] [14]. as this is repeated. Rukn950 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

there is also error in urdu spelling please see to it.Rukn950 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Md iet: I have retained your matter and shifted it under succession heading as it was reapetitive and added Etymology and Origin Heading. Thanks Rukn950 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope that there will not be a repeat of your removal of properly cited content (In the [5] "Activities" section). Because of that removal, done without explanation or even an edit summary, of content critical of Dawoodi Bohra activities, I am also troubled by your removal of the multiple issues tag. Remember, the purpose of this article is not advertising for Dawoodi Bohra. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry ,for removal of additional information, as there are specific articles on individual Mosques, specific details can be described there without adding any original research please; if we are sure that the source is Wiki reliable. The source mainly describe things done by west, who were unknown of Fatimid original culture. The structure described here are built by Fatimid builder, Bohra being from Fatimid culture has taken care specially of original features (history has use it like stable also, those features can't be retained please). This article is mainly on Dawoodi Bohra, main generally acceptable feature only are described here please. --Md iet (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop deleting properly cited content. And please stop misusing the term "original research". Middle East Journal is not a "blog", Islamica Magazine is not a "blog". The sources make clear that the restorations were criticised (and further restoration activities in Cairo by Dawoodi Bohra stopped) because the religious ideology of Dawoodi Bohra had led to the restorations involving activities and end-results that went against internationally acceptable methods of conservation and restoration. That is why the content should be here, as well as on any pages which might exist for the actual monuments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding OR here. Adding specific technical allegation with own wordings like :‘using incorrect conservation methodology’, ‘following the minimal intervention route’, ‘imaginary re-creations’, and ‘not agree with the religious ideology of Dawoodi Bohra were removed’ on specific this work is not mentioned any where in citation. Please get specific quote/definition, if these are not your OR. The article is specific views of an writer, cannot be generalized for allegations. --Md iet (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I am also disturbed by your archiving of a large part of the Talk Page content. It is not advisable to archive recent content during a period of active editing of the article because it could interupt ongoing discussions, and could also give the impression that something is being hidden. I have gone ahead and restored the most recent discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I had no intention as you have described above. the discussion had gone too lengthy. and as you can see from the article there is no purpose for advertisement as you allege. I am troubled by your comments as you assume bad faith from other editors. my purpose was to make this article more compatible to wiki standards. Still I have no objection for your reverting recent edits on the talkpages. hope in future you would show some good faith.Rukn950 (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards are firmly against involved editors archiving very recent talk page content, especially when that content contains heated discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have archived not deleted and what you had reinserted recent comment I had accepted, dont get personal.Please dont make mountain out of mole hill.Rukn950 (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) your recent edit in the article under Activites seemed more inclined towards vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

I request you to remove the link to http://dawoodi-bohras.com/. They are not Dawoodi Bohras. They say all bad about the community and it's His Holiness Leader (even make fun) and they criticize everything. Why don't they make a different community and do whatever they like and name their community whatever they like? They are not worthy of being called Dawoodi Bohras. Ismusidhu (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I see removing the link as a contentious edit, therefor I'm requesting you establish a consensus to remove it before reactivating this request. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The link should be removed, as the link is of a website of so called reformist who have not pledged allegiance(Misaq) to Dai mutlaq.--Saifee (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nathwani report

The report clearly refers to 'reformist members of Dawoodi Bohra'. There is wrong reporting done. Please get it corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazxcv1234 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the Dawoodi Bohra Commission was formed by Narayan’s citizens for Democracy and issued its report in 1979. Popularly known as the Nahwani Commission after the name of its chairman Narendra Nathwani. it was composed of three Hindus. two Muslims. and one Parsi (Aloo Dastur. who withdrew before the report was tiled). None of the commission members were Bohras".As the report's authors acknowledge, The information supplied to the Nathwani commission came almost entirely from dissident sources: The Syedna Saheb. . . decided to boycott the commission and to dissuade the orthodox members of the community from co-operating with the Commission.- Opposition was intense: in April 1978, ninety-two orthodox Bohras were injured during a protest that degenerated into a scume with police.82 The Nathwani Commission claimed to have received question. naires from 1,075 individuals out of the 5.000 solicited,o3 but the Bohra community at large does not seem to have welcomed the commission’s int trusions. V. M. Tarkunde, a commission member and for a time its chairm man, admitted that even as early as 1977 he had received thousands” of telegrams and letters opposing the investigation. which would mean that many more Bohras actively rejected the commission’s survey than chose to participate. For a time, protests were coming at a rate of 300—4oo lett ees? and 600 telegrams per day.85

This is the excerpt fro the book Mullah on Mainfraim. [[6]]which state that commision was botched up. I request Qwertyus and Admin EdJohnston to look to this matter. and refrain partisan users from imposing their agenda.Rukn950 (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Added some of this to the article, as well as some more info from Blank's book. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(hm?) thanks for expanding the section, there was a huge effort at that time by the syedna to bribe people and stop this commission but inspite of all the hurdles by him it went ahead and gave a correct successful report, interviewing 1000+ members to compile a report is no joke Rukn950 those who dissent and speak against his crime make it "botched up source"??

whoever you are! your comments seems to be biased.this is not the place to put your personal views.Rukn950 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is false reporting. It is allegation on Taiyyabi system as a whole please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazxcv1234 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC) This report is given official heading of 'human right violation of reformist Dawoodi Bohra'. This is to be clarified. It is allegation on custom of Taiyabbi community as whole please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazxcv1234 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC) If the heading of the report is not clearly stated than it amounts to be hiding facts. This is supposed as false reporting as per my view. May consider it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazxcv1234 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of partisan sources in Wiki

It may please be noted that there is use of partisan sources/forum to defame some community specially Taiyabi as whole. Objective material described just after lead Para. Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Be specific or fix it. Vague complaints lead nowhere. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read 'difference' para. Materials from 'fatwa communities', forums, and 'Milli Gazette' type of source purely meant for partisan type activities are referred in Wiki. Criticism is good for any community, but this presentation in just beginning seems something not proper.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

differences between dawoodi bohra and other islamic sect

User:Qwertyus why was it removed? it does not have self published source , rather an official source of the ministry of religious affairs KSA and deoband was used , these are institute level publications and hence cannot be ignored considering the importance of these Muslim institutions in the islamic world. I agree that it is presented as fact which needs to be corrected to reported speech. Below is the section which has many valuable details which were removed, please ;let me know what is self published here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sajda is not 'worship'

It has been clearly shown with reference from the Quran that 'sajda' is not worship otherwise the sajda (prostration) of the angels to Adam would also be worship and thus could not have been an instruction to them from the Almighty. Please refrain from insisting that sajda to the Da'i is worship. Mfeeroz (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Mfeeroz

I believe I have to agree with you. There's only an allegation from the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas, which is erroneously used as an authoritative source by Summichum. I don't see why a Sunni theological council should have the last word when it comes to a Shi'a sect's practices. If the Committee's word has any effect in the real world, this kind of stuff can be cited, but for now it seems rather irrelevant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the permanent committe ruling for the exposition , it does not matter what one believes , the permanent comittiee is an official and influential organization who have academic publication titled "al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah" which is very authoritaative source in the Muslim world, the content appears in the publication and citation with attribution without mentioning it as fact is required. Also it does have effect in the real world as based on this ruling bohras worldwide are not allowed to construct their mosque in arabia the birth place "sajda" was prohibited by Muhammad himself and such practice was not even found in the Ismaili Imams but was started by Taher Saifuddin, who also claimed to be elahul ard (God on earth).

Also in all Shia and Sunni Islam , sajda is an act of worship. Sajda to the Kaba is correctly not sajda to the building but to God , whereas when a dawoodi bohra does sajda to the dai , he does it to the Dai remembering and praising him whereas in sunni\shia sajda the sajda is while praising Allah alone.Summichum (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Official" doesn't mean anything. You should find a third-party source that establishes the influence of that Committee. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

prima facie the unchallenged influence is in atleast the entire arabia as explained in authority section of wiki article you linked about permanent committe , also the edicts of the permanent committe are a final say and hold a canonical status in the Muslim world http://islamqa.info/en/126635 Summichum (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the website of some other Saudi theologian. Provide a source establishing that this particular opinion of the Committee has any real-world significance. Otherwise, this is an original synthesis and it doesn't belong in the article, and certainly not at such a prominent place. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not original synthesis but directly mentions the conclusion of the source which is itself a published book https://archive.org/details/fldbeefldbee Also various other famous organizations like Deoband in India concur with this as duly referenced Summichum (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't read that, so I've no idea which conclusion you are talking about right now. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This 'official' proclamation has only as much breadth as a Papal decree would have only on Roman Catholics. It is one point of view. On the other hand the permissibility of prostration to a living person has been referenced by the Holy Quran itself (which Summichum has failed to address) which is relevant to all. The main point however is that the Wikipedia article was kept neutral when BOTH points of view were given airing whereas Summichum is not respecting that neutrality and insisting on a bias of his own point of view only. Noughtnotout (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)(talk) 07:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)noughtnotout

I agree with arguments of Mfeeroz and Nought. Angel Eblish has not followed instructions of god to do Sajda to Adam and, he was thrown into hell. If Sajda means worship than god would never have ordered such things. Doing Sajda means obeying and not worshipping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.156.10 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Noughtnotout:Iblis was not an angel but a Jinn , anyways there are enough authentic narrations from Muhammad which explicitly prohibit Sajda and it was started only by taher saifuddin, even the earlier Imams did not order Sajdas, In the human history only PHAROAH ,namrood were the humans who ordered to do sajda and his subjects were his slaves and happy to do sajda to him and did not oppose him , anyways this is not the place to justify this, we just need to report that "DB's status by influential islamic organization. YOu can also cite influential islamic organizations who dont raise an objection to prostration

Summichum (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dignitaries

It is relevant what honorable dignitaries says about dawoodi bohra and i have also provided proper references. more than certain people like asgharali engineer and zahra cyclewala.Rukn950 (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. What you cited is just run-of-the-mill diplomatic praise. This kind of stuff may be significant if it's unexpected (say after a conflict) but in that case you need a source that explains why it's interesting.

The coverage on criticasters of the Da'i is starting to dominate the page, but your additions don't help counter that. We need an impartial tone presenting relevant information, not pro and counter campaigning. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks QVVERTYVS I think you are right. please see to it that this article doesn't get into some propaganda and the neutrality of this issue is maintained.Rukn950 (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Material without copyright

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

no the committee has published it and is third party

The matter copied and require copy right clearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.181.40 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright information provided yet. This is justified for deletion. Matter under discussion above since 15 Jan, edit request is being made as below:

Please change:

X: section: " Evaluation of Dawoodi .."

The Dawoodi Bohra sect ...Dai.

Doctrinal ..in front of him. The following poem..

" Sajda....."

Translated:

"Prostration.. breadth."

Following..

• prostrating...

. .

• .........to him"

In an article... empowerment."

to be change to:

Y:

The Dawoodi Bohra sect.... .

.

.....in front of him.( deletion start from: The following... . . ......object to him.<- deletion end here)

In an article.. .. empowerment. ".

x to be changed to Y as per consensus above.106.215.171.214 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory information in Amman Message

In the recent edit the following line is contradictory as the shafi madhab is a sunni Madhab : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i whereas dawoodis are Shia Ismaili :

the Dawudi Buhara who follow the fiqh of Qadi Nu’man and thus are basically Shafi’i

Thus this source presents an incorrect understanding of the real nature of Dawoodi Bohras. Hence cannot be used as source. Also it does not deserve a whole section which speaks of other madhabs also. This page is about only dawoodis. If one wants to include then it can be included in achievements section as this looks like an award and has no practical influence in Muslim world.Summichum (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: contradictory info ---With respect sir, it is not contradictory, because other schools of thought within Sunni Islam have laid claim to Qadi Nu'man, infact even some Twelvers have laid claim to him. There is much scholarly dispute over the maddhab of Qadi Nu'man. I recommend reading "The Early History of Ismaili Jurisprudence" by Agostino Cilardo. The author suggests that he is most likely to have had Maliki background, before converting to Ismaili Islam.

Also if it was an incorrect understanding of the Dawoodi Bohras, then the two Bohra Princes who endorsed it, would have not done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acader2 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Poem and fatwa inclusion

I have removed the poem and fatwa because the reference provided is a forum[[7]] which was established earlier that it cannot be used as reference. also a fatwa by KSA. which cannot be considered as proper source. If any fleeting comments and forum talk is used ,then this article will become a mess and unreadable. confusing the readers.Rukn950 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The following poem is recited addressing the leader:

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

hajj hai teri pabosi, tu kaaba- e- alam hai dum tera bharunga main, tausif karoonga main, ae shah-e-zaman jab tak, ye dum mein, mera dum hain

”

Translated:

“ Prostration is compulsory to you(O Dai), You are the sacred mosque(Masjid al-Haram),

hajj is performed around you , you are our Kabaa

will only speak of you in my breadths, will praise you alone,

O king of the time,until my last breadth

”

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

• Prostrating other than Allah,

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

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

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

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

This issue was on the discussion above but no consent was achieved to include it in the article.Rukn950 (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Poetry and information from forum pages do not constitute reliable sources. And what do Salafi Saudi Fatwas have to do with a Shia community?

References

Indian ruler and Fatimid Bohra

Is the following relevant to present editing done on Fatimid bohra in India?:

In India Fatimid Bohra’ s often fell ‘victim’ to ‘intolerant rulers’. Qutbuddin was ‘martyred’ by Moghul.

Reference: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uy8QAQAAIAAJ&q=dawoodi+Bohra+Mughal+rulers+Qutbuddin&dq=dawoodi+Bohra+Mughal+rulers+Qutbuddin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iz9pVcLFBsywuATCmIOwBQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw,https://books.google.co.in/books?id=aTIKAQAAMAAJ&q=dawoodi+Bohra+Mughal+rulers+Qutbuddin&dq=dawoodi+Bohra+Mughal+rulers+Qutbuddin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iz9pVcLFBsywuATCmIOwBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaysingh1234 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Differences

Zoaib Rangwala, secretary of the community at Palo Alto says that the terrorists are not representatives of Islam.

Dawoodi bohra is a sect of Islam. the general attitude in the western wold is that islam promotes terrorism and is represented by ISIS. but in reality most Muslims are against terrorism. so is the attitude of dawoodi bohra community.who is peaceful community who condemns terrorism in all its form. the above quote represents that belief.Rukn950 (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dawoodi Bohra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060828073418/http://malumaat.com/pics/sanfrancisco1426/letter_from_president_bush_usa.jpg to http://malumaat.com/pics/sanfrancisco1426/letter_from_president_bush_usa.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928161543/http://malumaat.com/akhbar1428/paris/index1.html to http://malumaat.com/akhbar1428/paris/index1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Schism Diagram

Md iet

The mention of "Sevener" sect after Ismaili Imams is a poorly/uncited Wikipedia page. I don't think any sect exists as such. Please re-check, and otherwise delete from diagram. Muffizainu (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Muffizainu, refer 'Sevener' page, it is not a sect name but a diversion in Ismaili, where they believe on seven Imams. Material could not survive without any existence. I think people under Sevener believe on Imam Ismail, hence Ismaili, if otherwise please explore and suggest.--Md iet (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments on a Mumbai development project of the Dawoodi Bohra

Please see a blog post on a DB-sponsored development project in Mumbai by the American economist Alex Tabarrok. He points out that members of the DB may have the incentive to join in a redevelopment of the Bhendi Bazaar that would not be possible using the regular government institutions. Usually blog posts are not accepted as reliable sources, but if some of these observations have value and people want to improve the article, some of the material might be sourced elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, matter added with proper sources.--Md iet (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dawoodi Bohra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iis.ac.uk/SiteAssets/pdf/sayyida_hurra
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228214917/http://www.ismaili.net/Source/0910.html to http://www.ismaili.net/Source/0910.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120215648/http://malumaat.com/archives/articles/moulaiadam.html to http://malumaat.com/archives/articles/moulaiadam.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080127173707/http://www.anjuman-e-burhani.org/masjidhistory.htm to http://www.anjuman-e-burhani.org/masjidhistory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

In the very first line, "Dawoodi Bohras are a sect within the Ismaili branch of Shia Islam." is a flawed description. A sect is an offshoot from a larger group. That is certainly not the case for Dawoodi Bohras. Their religion is the Fatimid interpretattion of Islam, which was the development of Ismaili theology and history. The body generally known as "Ismailis" is the Nizari branch which would more appropriately be called an offshoot as they consisted of a small break away group from mainstream Fatimid Ismailis. I suggest that the sentence should be changed to: "Dawoodi Bohras are a branch of Ismaili Shia Islam".

In the 2nd paragraph, first line, the words "sort of" are unnecessary and should be deleted. The words appear to suggest that the Dawoodi Bohra are only Muslim to some extent. That is an incorrect and unsupported assumption. The Bohras clearly follow the fundamentals of Islam, vis the Quran as the Word of God, Prophet Muhammad as the final Messenger, Prayer, Zakat, Hajj, etc. There is therefore no "sort of" Shia Islam that they follow. They are as much Shia Muslims as any other Shia denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mancunian53 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Mancunian53 I think these suggestions are fair.Muffizainu (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: You said that a sect is an offshoot from a larger group. As Dawoodi Bohras are a branch of a larger group, Ismaili Shia Islam, they would be considered an offshoot of that larger group. "Sort of" refers to something which varies "in some way or to some degree", but that does not necessarily imply to a lesser degree.  Spintendo  22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Daudi Bohras are a denomination of Ismaili Shi’a of Gujarati descent, with 470 major communities spread Out over forty nations around the world. Both dawat and dissident sources place the worldwide population at one million, but this f (like most big, round numbers) should be treated as a very rough estimate.’ As post-Independence censuses in India do not provide denominational data, the main statistical basis for speculation remains censuses of the colonial era. The 1931 census rated the community at 212,752, but all Shi’a groups tend to be undercalculated in Indian censuses. The matter is further complicated by separate categories for “Shi’a,” “Bohra,” and “Muslim,” raising the possibility of many respondents identifying themselves as non-Bohras out of confusion. Since the 1930s all figures bandied about have been extrapolations from earlier data. They range from 317,844 to 560,000 to the ever familiar one million. The dawat itself is rumored to have very precise figures, but if such data exist they have never been made public. In pre Independence court testimony, Syedna Taher Saifuddin estimated his fol lowing at 300,000, but for the past thirty years dawat sources have cited the figure of one million. A more conservative guess might be somewhere between 700,000 and one million worldwide. In any case, at least two thirds of the total population live in India, with the largest concentrations residing in the Western states of Maharashtra (particularly Mumbai) and Gujarat. If one calculates Muslims at 12% of the Indian population, and Shi’a at about one-fifth of Indian Muslims, one reaches a rough estimate of Bohras comprising something like 2.5% of Indian Shi’a and 0.5% of In dia’s Muslims. As a community of indigenous converts rather than an elite ruling class of extrasubcontinental ethnicity, Daudi Bohras fall into the atraf rather than the ashraf category of Indian Muslims. The name “Bohra is generally presumed to be derived from the Gujarati verb vohrvun (to trade), reflecting the occupation of the overwhelming majority of Bohras throughout their history. While certain Bohra families (including a 14 dynasty of da’is al-mutlaq in the eleventh-thirteenth/seventeenth-nineteenth centuries)* claim Rajput Kshatriya descent and other aristocratic clans posit Brahmin ancestors, the bulk of the community seems to have been converted from the mercantile jatis of the Vaishya varna.

Edgyvirus (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done – We cannot republish copyrighted material without permission. – Þjarkur (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation

Md iet It's not debatable, it's an established fact. I cited several reputable sources and there are many more. Where does it say it's not acceptable to include it? Wikipedia:NPOV. You've been told not to preach your religion on this page before.

Admins: This user has a pattern of NPOV-violating edit wars on this article and has been blocked from editing it before. Please don't let him continue to revert my edit.

PolenCelestial (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear X, Please desist doing mischief here. Wiki is platform note to do partisan activities intentionaly. You are discussing without identifying your self proper and not signing it. I suppose you are acting on some behalf and joined Wiki for the specific purpose. This fellow has not even created his page and started activity with this identity from this act of his from yesterday 16th Nov, and quoting rules and history, depicting himself as a loyal Wikipedian.

The ritual being discussed is a case of discussion on practice may be followed on old religious background by various Islamic factions. To discuss this on specific community page is debatable and Wiki has avoided it in past. The fellow involved seems bent upon doing mischief, and covered the things on lead para.

Rather violating Wiki manners I requested to add the material only after proper consesus, but he has not desisted from it.

Admin may please take a note of it and act suitably.--Md iet (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, forgot to sign. FGM isn't a partisan issue, it's universally recognized as the most severe human rights violation outside the communities that commit it. I'm not acting on behalf of any organization and I created my account on November 7 when I edited a different article on the Spanish wiki. There's no requirement of being a long standing contributor in order to insert factual information and I make no such claim.

PolenCelestial (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear PolenCelestial , We know how much you hate our beliefs, but keep it to yourself. You are clearly defaming the article by inserting ridiculous data , that also in the top. Please Follow the rules of wikipedia. Dear, Admins please see into this matter.--Burhanhusain (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved the information out of the lead. A consensus needs to be reached among all Wikipedians, not just those trying to cover up extreme human rights abuse within their sect.

PolenCelestial (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Md iet I reverted your edits clearly designed to cover up your sect's requirement of female genital mutilation by only including a term that the vast majority of the world has no idea what it means. For an explanation, see my talk page. Most readers don't read the citations and you deleted the ones where victims speak out. Female genital mutilation is the term agreed upon by the worldwide medical profession and everyone else who isn't involved in perpetrating it. FGM groups don't represent the majority of the world population and Wikipedia isn't written from their perspective.

I don't know why I received email notification for the "educational institutes" edit but not for the FGM edits. I'm not going to stop watching this page, so it's not a matter of waiting a few days and then reverting my edit thinking I won't notice. PolenCelestial (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FGM is the term used by the WHO and various other UN organizations, so replacing it with a non-English term that the general public doesn't understand is not constructive. I added a link to Khitan (circumcision), which explains the term and its application to both circumcision of boys and FGM. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Md iet, please stop your non-constructive reverting. Circumcision of boys is (a) not in the source and (b) so common in Islam that it doesn't really need mention. You're also removing sources that discuss the practice of FGM in the DB community in depth, as well as the link to female genital mutilation. We can discuss the exact phrasing of that section, e.g., use "female circumcision" in the text like the sources do, but please discuss this instead of going into edit war mode. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ThanksQwertyus, Exact phrasing of this section is required to convey the message in proper ways. Some partisan force using Wiki as the platform , may please cooperate correcting their agenda.--Md iet (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Qwertyus, once again my ignorance of undocumented MediaWiki behavior caused me to not be notified of these edits. It won't happen again now that I understand how the watchlist works. PolenCelestial (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It is common practice of circumcision in both boys and girls in Islam. It can be mentioned in this article, but I feel that this paragraph of FGM is leaning more towards one side than other. I think we should follow the practice of neutrality discussing and gaining consensus before doing any edit. One line mention is enough. with proper reference. I also feel that the references given are overkill. ( too many references, some are blogs and some internet petition which does not stand as reliable source.) I hope my fellow editors would agree.Rukn950 (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We have a source, Outlook India, for the statement that the Dawoodi Bohra are the only Islamic group in India to practice FGM. We're not actually citing the internet petition, but rather the Hindustan Times' reporting on it. We can get rid of the FORWARD ref, it's superfluous given the other ones. No self-published sources are being cited; the only blog source is on the Express Tribune website, so that falls under the ET's editorial control. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just checked the account of user PolenCelestial and his edit history. it seems tobe SPA Rukn950 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:SPA this is only against the rules if WP:NPOV is violated. I already brought this edit war to the administrators' noticeboard and my edits have been approved by everyone who has seen them with the exception of Bohra that are trying to portray their sect in a positive way by deleting the FGM information. They are the ones in violation of NPOV and WP:COI because they edit the article for that purpose.

Furthermore, there's no standard for how many different topics need to be edited by an account in order to avoid the SPA label. I created this account this month and this is the only article on the English wiki I've edited so far, although before I started editing it I contributed to a completely unrelated article (on Mexican music) in the Spanish wiki. The intention of my account is not to edit a single article or topic, but I haven't devoted time to any others yet. I'm not aware of any rule requiring me to do so as long as my edits are neutral. PolenCelestial (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Md iet Regarding your continued edit war, female genital mutilation is the only recognized medical term. Many sources such as http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/ http://fgm.co.nz/what-is-fgm confirm this. Wikipedia isn't written from the perspective of your sect, as has been pointed out countless times to you already. Your edits are in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI, for this reason you have been blocked on at least one occasion from editing this article and I have not. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PolenCelestial, stop doing edit war for your single point agenda. You have reverted my valid edit [[8]], where information is specific and source is using the term, and you are forcing the term of your own. Desist doing disruption and correct the same. Anybody else having objection may discuss here.--Md iet (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Haven't been following the editing to the article, but in strictly accurate medical terminology, "female circumcision" can only refer to the cutting away of a tiny flap of skin surrounding the clitoris -- and not to either cutting the clitoris itself, or the labia. Using "female circumcision" as an obfuscatory euphemism for genital mutilation was done by some during much of the 20th century, but is falling out of favor now, and probably should not be used that way in Wikipedia article text, except in direct quotes from historical sources... AnonMoos (talk)

15:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No body knows what is done in the process of 'khatna' on female. This is custom way back from old Arab era may be common to all Taiyabian sect. It may be a tiny flap cutting for the sake of custom, and not affecting anything. It may be with purpose making females free from any doubt their husband may create in the name of virginity. Female circumcision may be the correct terminology as defined above.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the article we read: "The main purpose of FGM is to make sure the Bohra female does not enjoy sex." Maybe that is wrong, and that FGM/C is Islamic, and that the main purpose is: Fulfilling a religious obligation. 79.251.125.99 (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that "No body knows what is done in the process of 'khatna' on female," here's a link to a page from the advocacy group Sahiyo that provides information about the practice:

https://sahiyo.com/faqs/

This organization, which focuses on raising awareness about FGM in the Bohra community, prefers the term "female genital cutting" for the Bohra practice of khatna because (1) it does not remove the entire clitoris; and (2) use of the term "mutilation" has been shown to traumatize victims of the practice (see the link above). Therefore, I used the term "cutting" in a recent edit to the article. The practice of FGM in the Bohra community has received widespread press, most recently with the arrest of a Michigan doctor for performing it. Therefore, it should definitely be mentioned in the Dawoodi Bohra Wikipedia page. shwikiagg (talk) April 17, 2017 5:38 PM UTC

FGM case in Detroit, Michigan Jumana Nagarwala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumana_Nagarwala

The Dawoodi bohras do not practice FGM and the respected legal courts of Australia and India have overturned the verdicts on it. Lets wait for the Detroit and and India cases to reach a verdict and then state such statement. Husein5253 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Dawoodi bohras do not practice FGM" - Husein5253, as the WHO regards FGM as FGM Type I, II, III, IV, the Sunni muslims of Shafii madhhab and also the Shia muslims of Bohra - among them the Dawoodi Bohra - practice female genital mutilation, FGM. 2003:E8:5BC8:D093:9403:88EC:715C:1366 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand why this page is not editable? This against my understanding about Wikipedia. I am a paid supporter of Wikipedia with an understanding that Wikipedia allow us to edit. Manojacob (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

FGM need to be added there. I am trying to mention. Manojacob (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

FGM-case in Australia, UPDATE: "A mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, midwife Kubra Magennis and Islamic sect community leader Shabbir Mohammedbhai Vaziri were found guilty of female genital mutilation offences against two girls under 10. Each was handed a minimum 11-month custodial sentence." High Court upholds NSW genital mutilation convictions | The Sydney Morning Herald | 16. Oktober 2019 https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/high-court-upholds-nsw-genital-mutilation-convictions-20191016-p53197.html 2003:E8:5F18:8D00:F0CB:C861:83DD:8765 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've added it to the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This entire article is a mess.

Editors, what is up with you? This entire article has been hijacked by a propaganda war of some sorts. The article fails to do justice to the rich topic that this is. Here are a few things to be noticed:

• • The article begins with the religious specifications and meaningless theological details that the Dawoodi Bohra adhere to.
  • It contains tones of religious disagreement, and arguments. Lot's of in-depth religious stuff, which is totally unnecessary.
  • Too much emphasis on descent and linage. While it is understandable that such things should be included, there is too much eagerness in the article to show 'The list of dais' or 'the list of Imams' or 'Fatimid family tree'.
  • Lack of a third-person kind of tone.
  • It has extensive references to legal cases and history, which frankly, do not define the community.
  • It pictures used are not of any good quality.
  • Lots of neutrality issues.
  • There is a stark absence of the genuine culture and achievements of the community.

This article needs thorough rewriting. I plan to do this. Please help me do this. I know that this article is problematic. But good editing and encyclopaedic language can help overcome such obstacles. DistributorScientiae (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I must say I'm not very impressed with the new lede. The previous one wasn't very good, but at least it carried more specific geographical indicators than "worldwide". Also, is "Most men have a beard" really lede paragraph material? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that western India is now listed as the main location of the DB community. I'll remove the "worldwide", as it's not very informative. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm making a few edits to try and organize this article in a better way. Muffizainu (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the order of the history section to make it more readable. THe article still requires a lot of work, and would appreciate everyoen's feedback. I also propose that the diagram is also remade to look better. The history of the other splits also can be made shorter in my view. Muffizainu (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I will try and help. I have the “Mullahs on the Mainframe” book that has such good and relevant details. I will update wherever possible. I am new to this so requesting patience and guidance from my fellow wiki folks. :) Samwode (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The entire history section isover crowded with complex details. I've shortened it. Muffizainu (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to edit the text as much as possible. Some grammatical and citation checks will need to be made. Request editors also to add some images. Muffizainu (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

Introduction doesn’t sound very neutral, despite the numerous citations provided. Adondai (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

EVENTS SECTION

Md iet I feel the ceremonies section is too long and badly formatted. I suggest to either remove it or limiting it to only main events. I've moved it to my Sandbox. Please feel free to edit there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muffizainu/sandbox Muffizainu (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SyednaMohammedBurhanuddin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

During this month, Dawoodi Bohras fast from dusk to dawn as a mandatory practice.

Bohras fast from dawn to dusk. Sherekab (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sherekab, this is already mentioned in the lead as a common practice with other muslims. Ravensfire (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

i would love to edit this page in wikipediaMohammed.Khandwala (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Mohammed.Khandwala (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ravensfire (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Please write Syedna before the names of Dai. Salutation "Syedna" precedes the name of every Dai. 91.75.164.218 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We generally don't use honorifics or salutations in prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the WP:HONORIFIC for more details on why. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

Ravensfire Per WP:PRIMARY A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. I see 56 places where thedawaoodibohras.com is used. Sometimes to support a single statement (probably bordering on WP:CITEOVERKILL). Can you please point out why Primary sources, in the context they're used are problematic for the integrity of this article (as in, "original research" level problems)?

Also, in some places, primary source is in addition to a secondary or a tertiary source, while in others thedawoodibohras.com is simply presented as a lay-archive lay-summary of what was published in other sources (usually news agencies).

In other places, thedawoodibohras.com is used for WP:ABOUTSELF (like their culture / tradition / religious practices, for example), which is fine? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, it's being used a LOT. When primary sources are the only source of information, some thoughts about the overall relevance are needed. ABOUTSELF also mentions the material not being "unduly self-serving". Basic facts are one thing. "there's a marked emphasis on gender equality, environmental activism, and philanthropy." - that's not a basic fact, that's the POV of the group, stated in Wikipedia's voice, sourced to the group. That's getting into problematic territory. Ravensfire (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You say a "lot" but cite only one example where you found use of primary-source, thedawoodibohras.com problematic. The first part of that sentence is Predominantly informed by the Fatimid philosophy and theology,... followed by a citation to their website which indeed confirms both their limit (that is, as informed by the Fatimid theology) and reason (Fatimid philosophy) to place emphasis on philanthropy, equality, and environmental activism.

What appears as "lot" is infact, like pointed above, mostly used to support straight-foward statement of facts. Oft times, also supported by secondary and tertiary sources. Is that not the case? I can go through all 56 thedawoodibohras.comcitations and lay them out here to justify why they were used but that'd be super time-consuming and unproductive. If you agree to list out the problematic first-party citations (in your capacity as a seasoned Wikipedian) that needs secondary / tertiary sources, then other editors (like me who'd like to make this article "encyclopedic") can jump in to help fix those, without having to worry about replacing most, if not all, first-party citations. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, right now, I don't have the time to go through every single cite and look for issues. Hence the tag - 56 times is frankly too many times for a primary source to be used in an article. If something is supported by a secondary source, then remove the primary - Wikipedia strongly prefers the use of secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ravensfire You may be making the mistake of judging it on quantity, whereas the policy calls for judging them within a context ("quality") with a leeway for acceptable use. I'd rather the tag be removed until the problematic citations be identified (either by you, or whoever has got time)? In the mean while, I'll remove thedawoodibohras.com citations wherever there are also secondary and tertiary sources present. Though, I must say, thedawoodibohras.com lends itself to "easy" verification than books (some, if not all, of which are out of print). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, I've removed the tag and will highlight areas I'm concerned about. I am going to raise this at a noticeboard (either RSN or NPOV) and will tag you when it's up there. This doesn't sit right with me and I want some outside eyes to review the use of primary sources here. Ravensfire (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ravensfire Makes sense, especially since your hands are full. Given the work you've already put it in, it is only fair you'd seek RfCs. Anyways, I've removed ~25 redundant 1p thedawoodibohras.com refs (for which 2p / 3p sources existed already in the article. I count about 25 thedawoodibohras.com refs of the 203 in total (~10%). 12 of which are in just two sections: Masjid and Dawoodi Bohra#Muharram. Easier now to gauge which 1p aren't acceptable? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)