Talk:Dawoodi Bohra/Archive 1

message: Maybe we can mention both sources and add a line to the effect that there are unresolved issues between the two. Incidentally, are you two Bohras?
-Farhat
:Actually, no. I mean not Bohra. But a (non-formal) student of religious history. And I agree that we need to provide a neutral description of the situation. And I think it's not a matter of "issues between the two", but that Mr. Engineer is a dissident/ex-communicated member of the Bohree community—and he might deserve mention since his critique is probably the most prominent and well-argued.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:46, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
True. I didn't think it over before typing. I think we should derive from as many sources as possible as there are large parts about Bohras, especially history, which are non-contentious and there should be independent sources for this. As for the contentious parts we'll have to tread a more carefully trying to be as non-partisan as possible. --Farhat
:And to turn the question on you; are you Bohra?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:37, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, non-practising though. -Farhat
::This is most unfair. It is a wrong argument. Asghar-saheb is wrong about the oppression of the Bohras by the Syednas because he was excommunicated? Excuse me, but the reason why he was excommunicated was because he exposed the oppression of the Syednas. His social work is vilified by the Syednas because he exposes their brutalities and the social evils. This is evident because many others, both Muslims and non-Muslims also expose the social evils in Bohra society perptrated by the Syednas. Kalpana Sharma's criticism is also very "prominent" and "well-argued", as is many others which I will obtain over time. I am not a Bohra, or a Muslim for that matter, but I have many friends who are Bohras and they constantly talk about this problem so it is important to write about it as it is notable.India Rising 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineer 

message: I am reverting the article to the last version by Aebrahim, dated 07:18, 26 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: I read with interest the debate between a progressive dawoodi bohra and a believer of Syedna above. Most arguments made by the progressive dawoodi bohra's in the article and the discussion page is propaganda. They might want to refer to Jonah Blank's 'Mullahs on the Mainframe', the first independent study of the community. Sbohra 07:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mullahs on the Mainframe

message: I have removed the table on Islam. It is reflective of the Dawoodi Bohra's POV on Islam and hence is misleading.  Sbohra 08:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table on Islam 

message: Italic textI'm trying to reduce the number of articles on the Islam category page. Reason:, there are too many articles on that page and only the most important ones should be kept there. The Dawoodi Bohras article clearly belongs in the Shia subcategory (or even the Ismaili subcategory). I'm trying to recategorise all the Islam articles in the most efficient way without losing the most important ones. Please be patient. Thanks. MP   (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam category ? - no thanks 

message: Assalaamualaikum! (May peace be on you)
I would like to know whether anybody is planning to add more info regarding the seven pillars of Islam based on the Dawoodi Bohra ideology.Stuffyvoid 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pillars of Islam 

message: I'm going to try and give the criticisms section a more neutral point of view by removing unreferenced, colloquial, obviously POV and dubious text.  Text that is unsubstantiated by the associated references will also be removed or altered.  Thanks, AlphaEta 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Striving for NPOV

message: New info claiming that the death of the 46th Dai ended the Dai-ul-mutlaq chain completely lacks citations.  All viewpoints should be included, but without verifiable citations the material can be considered a point of view violation and may be deleted.  Kindest regards, AlphaEta 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations missing for claim that Syedna Mohammad Badruddin was the last of the Dai-ul-mutlaq succession

message: There is a really beautiful new mosque for the Dawoodi Bohra community of Bradford, England, constructed in the Girlington area of the city.  I understand the work finished either in 2008 or possibly early 2009.  It would be nice to include a couple of lines about this in the main body of the article.  I'd do it myself but don't know how to reference properly...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Beautiful new mosque

message: * More references needed
* Current References miss details like page numbers in books, publisher of books and sites as well as date and authors of sites. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP India assessment 

message: Who are the real Muslim people , bohras ? , Sunni's ? , there are so many but is not the one who believes in the creator of the Holy book & so on  LORD ALLAH , why do people have these differences in their heart ? is it them or is it the people who started them ?...who are the real followers . I think all are equal but , we think different why cant we open our hearts to love care let go & respect each other than holding into stuff that everybody find hard to believe .. Bohra's I have seen have this problem with status why people ?? Everybody is human learn to respect lives , & others let you heart feel it .....Live like human 
Life is short!  Break the rules!  
 
 
Forgive quickly!  Kiss slowly!
 
 
Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably..
 
 
And never regret anything that made you smile
& Respect others feeling .....................  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.36.218 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading All these articles confuses me  

message: One or more portions of this article duplicate or duplicate other source(s).  The remnants of this infringing material, placed in this edit, have been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. 
Other, more extensive sections that have identified issues have been tagged to give interested contributors an opportunity to address them, by proposing new text or securing permission.
Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The contributors to this page can barely speak English. Someone needs to neaten the entire article up: correct spelling, typographical errors, lack of spaces/too many spaces between words, grammatical errors etc etc.
I agree with the above. The article has been totally messed up making it unreadable. Lots of non-material information has been added. The table showing "Table of Imams along with Caliphate" is not understandable. The sub-article "Kalema-tut-shahadat" is not at all needed. Sherenk (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible grammar and spelling 

message: It is always  better to have Criticism, but it has to be constructive.It should not be done for the purpose of Vandalism or just to convey some revenge .
All religion have some good things in them,and it is being practiced for some good cause. Religious article should be taken on that ground .
Why  the space in Allah's House, mosque to be sold, it is ridiculous to comment on it. Why the burial of a person can be denied,nobody can think of it than why to write on it. On genital issue there are traditions.Scientific explanation are there and being practiced and openly suggested by Doctors for Gents. I presume ,it's purely tradition, no written guidelines, and only ancestor can explain for the practice. Probably contributor of the Critisism ask his elders if he gets the reply.--Md iet (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some further criticism on an alleged lack of democracy and infringements of women's rights have been added to the article.  While mention of such criticism is totally valid, the current edits cannot stand as they are not footnoted.  If such criticisms are footnoted in the future, they should not be removed unless the allegations are proven to be inaccurate by a separate, third party, reliable source.  Criticism should not be avoided simply because "nobody's perfect".  However, the recently-added criticisms are not footnoted and thus not defensible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Critisim' para added and removed 

message: There is comment added about view of  small section bycott ,which is undone as;
The small section referred  seems to be the  progressive Bohra who has already  dissociated from Dawoodi bohra and they don’t agree with the principle of collection of  Zakah , and follow their own ways. This is Dawoodi Bohra page and if other  views  are to be discussed it to be done on their own page or other platform. The type of comments made can be treated as Vandalism for the page, and cannot be accepted here.--Md iet (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and to emphasise: Wikipedia is not a "platform" for anybody.  The point of the DW article is to explain the DW, not give the community an outlet for self-promotion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental of  Faith,Zakah section amendment

message: I think it's important to emphasise that any criticisms, regardless of the sect of the author, should be allowed if they are backed up by neutral, third-party references.  If the Delhi Times publishes "the Dawoodi Bohra practice female circumcision", and the "History of Women's Rights in India" from Oxford University also states such, than that would certainly be an acceptable addition to the article.  What is not workable is what's been added recently, just sentences of criticism with no outside verification.  Description of controversial issues is fine, but it simply must be footnoted to neutral sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and to emphasise: Wikipedia is not a "platform" for anybody.  The point of the DW article is to explain the DW, not give the community an outlet for self-promotion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism by "Progressive Bohras"

message: I am currently in the process of refining and hoeing the article, so that it will become more approachable in the future.  Yes Wikipedia is not a piece of literature, but some of grammatical errors affect the readability of the article and thus need to be corrected.  I do not know how long this will take considering the vast size of the article, but it is a task I will undertake and I think, enjoy.
Contact me on my talk page for any questions.
Jab843 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  undertaking the editing of Dawoodi Bohra 

message: (copy-pasted from my comments at WP:INDIA's talkboard)
For anyone else interested in Shi'a sects in India, I've been hacking away at Mustaali and Dawoodi Bohra, both of which were largely unreadable reams of script regarding these branches of Ismaili Islam.  In particular, I have great concerns that many articles under :Category:Mustali and :Category:Bohra have been written or edited by parties with a strong POV (maybe unconciously) for the Dawoodi Bohra faction.  This faction appears to be the largest, and relatively wealthy, so it may be the case that they simply have a good body of English-speaking, computer-literate supporters in India to add their POV.  For example, many of the articles on predecessor branches of Dawoodi Bohra, such as Mustaali and Taiyabi, appear to have been written from a DW perspective, portraying that branch as the "rightful heirs" all the way back to the time of Ali.  Note particularly Dawood Bin Qutubshah, where is basically flat-out says that he was the right inheritor of the faith and other claims are false.  In addition to that, there's a strong tendency to define the history, all the way back to Ali, as "the history of the DW (Fatimids)".  This rather revisionist perspective confuses the issue of when the DW became a separate entity from competing sects (mid-1500s), and ends up summarising a millenium of history in each article, with a strong DW bias.  In any case, I've had fun trying to pick through this, untangle all the jargon to make it something an average reader can grasp, and try and reconstruct the chronology to make sure that each step clearly indicates where it branches off, and where it's actually "Group X's" history, and where it's just background of a larger faction.  So Muslim history should be in Muslim, Shi'a in Shi'a Islam, and so on for Fatimid, Ismaili, Mustali, Tayabi, Dawudi, etc. all the way down.  What they're doing now is not unlike having World War II get into in-depth explanation all the way back to the Middle Ages.  Any help in untangling these threads would be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about Dawoodi POV 

message: I assume these are just two different spellings?  Can someone confirm this so that we don't have confused readers thinking they're two different things? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Matthew for your efforts of improvement. "Du'at" and "Dawat" are not just different spellings but are two different word. 'Dawat' refers to organisation a system whereas 'Duat' are person who facilitate 'Dawat', 'Dai' are most prominent amongst them.
DW are amongst Mustaali but Mustali is group not known to general public it is only limited for definition purpose. Bohras are the only prominent sect remains of Mustaali (as Hafizi are extinct) .All relevant material must be detailed in the article which are referred most (Mustaali has 1000 reader whereas DW has 11000 readers in a month)hence DW article to be given preference, We can  give reference of Mustaali in this article, interested reader can always go to that article. Para related to faith, doctrine, azaan, kalema etc will have better location here.--Md iet (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are "Du'at" and "Dawat" the same thing? 

message: Nice work on providing definitions for several of the technical terms in the article!  There are two major ones that are still unclear though:   Hurrat ul Maleka and hujja.  Can you explain in parentheses what those are, or else explain here so I can figure out the best way to phrase it in layman's terms? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining ''Hurrat ul Maleka'' and ''hujja'' 

message: A ton of the info on this page that lacks footnotes can be easily/quickly footnoted out of here: Maharashtra, Part 1. Volume 30 of People of India: States series. Anthropological Survey of India
Recommend that those interested in improving the article mine this resource for reputable citations to cover the many claims in the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent source; good footnotes for half the page 

message: There's a book with a substantial preview on gBooks, Text & Context in Islamic societies (vol. 17, Irene A. Bierman, Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2004 , 9780863722981). It has some very interesting description of the Bohra's work in refurbishing mosques, and the religious/political implications thereof. Particularly in terms of the work done to separate "Fatimid" culture from standard Cairene culture in ways that are, arguably, historically jarring. I'll try to dig into this one later, but welcome others to give it a read. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source on controversy of mosque restorations 

message: I went back through the history of the page to see what has been added/chopped over time. Massive edit-warring, generally over what to include in terms of criticism of the sect, and about the Progressive DBs. If anyone is curious, I have a draft on my page: User:MatthewVanitas/Bohra missing pieces . MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of deleted text from previous drafts 

message: We've disagreed on the inclusion of the following bit. I submit it really shouldn't be in there for a couple reasons, key among them being that it's unreferenced, and also that it's not really encyclopedic content. Both in presentation and in content, it resembles hagiographic or apologetic writing. These religious anecdotes may indeed be of interest to participants, but are not really pertinent to a lay audience. Particularly when, as is the case here, we don't have an WP:RS stating that this incident is significant, nor tying it specifically into an overall DB concept of walayah. 
I would submit that we are good to just mention and link walayah to its article, and if there are any scholarly comments on particularly unique/characteristics of the DB-walayah relationship, we can cite those to an RS. Not a religious site, not a forum, not a blog, but only if an RS established a relationship. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Walayah" anecdote 

message: “We claim to be modern and different from other Muslim sects. We are different but not modern,” Bano, a 21-year-old law graduate who is angry about what was done to her, told AFP in New Delhi.
She vividly remembers the moment in the party when the aunt pounced with a razor blade and a pack of cotton wool. … 
For generations, few women in the tightly-knit community have spoken out in opposition, fearing that to air their grievances would be seen as an act of revolt frowned upon by their elders.
But an online campaign is now encouraging them to join hands to bury the custom.
The anti-Khatna movement gained momentum after Tasneem, a Bohra woman who goes by one name, posted an online petition at the social action platform Change.org in November last year.
She requested their religious leader, the 101-year-old Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, ban female genital mutilation, the consequences of which afflict 140 million women worldwide according to the World Health Organisation.
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is the 52nd Dai-al Mutalaq (absolute missionary) of the community and has sole authority to decide on all spiritual and temporal matters.
Every member of the sect takes an oath of allegiance to the leader, who lives in western city of Mumbai.
When contacted by AFP, Burhanuddin’s spokesman, Qureshi Raghib, ruled out any change and said he had no interest in talking about the issue.
“I have heard about the online campaign but Bohra women should understand that our religion advocates the procedure and they should follow it without any argument,” he said.
But over 1,600 Bohra Muslim women have since signed the online petition. …
“The main motive behind Khatna is that women should never enjoy sexual intercourse. We are supposed to be like dolls for men,” 34-year-old Tabassum Murtaza, who lives in the western city of Surat, told AFP by telephone. … 
see: Female circumcision anger aired in India 
AFP 23.04.2012 
http://dawn.com/2012/04/23/female-circumcision-anger-aired-in-india-fm/
A Sydney sheikh has appeared in court in relation to the alleged genital mutilation of two children.
Sheikh Shabbir Vaziri, 56, who police sources say is part of a lesser-known branch of Islam, has been charged with two counts of accessory after the fact of female genital mutilation and hindering investigation of a serious indictable offence.
Police will allege the two girls had the procedure, which is also known as female circumcision, performed on them in NSW when they were aged six and seven within the past 18 months.
Police allege one mutilation was performed in Sydney; the other in another metropolitan area.
Mr Vaziri, who was arrested today, appeared in Burwood Local Court this afternoon and was granted bail.
see: Paul Bibby: Sydney sheikh in court over 'female genital mutilation'
SMH - The Sydney Morning Herald 13.09.2012 
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-sheikh-in-court-over-female-genital-mutilation-20120913-25ubq.html
Police claim Sheik Shabbir Mohammed Bhai Vaziri told members of the Dawoodi Bohra community at Auburn to lie to police when they questioned them over the mutilations. 
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_print_link.cfm/blog_id/43892
79.251.101.104 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FGM : Female genital mutilation within Dawoodi Bohra Communities