Talk:Taher Saifuddin

changed tone added citation

I have changed the tone of the entire article and also added citations. I request the administrators to please consider the same and remove the tags. Araz5152 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone

Stuff like:

He had led the Dawoodi Bohra community through the darkness of frequent attacks by the enemies to the brightness of growth and prosperity.

On 12th November he silently left for his heavenly abode handing over the reigns of the Dawoodi Bohra sect into the strong and able hands of his illustrious son the 52nd Da'i al-Mutlaq Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin.

And all the other similar stuff that I recently removed from the article is not neutral, does not comply with WP:NPOV and does NOT belong in the article.--ukexpat (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to come here and say the same. The word we use when a person dies is "died." And I also notice thing like "And it was soon realized that he was right by the success and prosperity achieved by the Dawoodi Bohra community." We do not give unsourced opinions in WP. Only the opinions a a NPOV published authority are usable, and they must be cited precisely, and all respectable opinions included. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for guiding me on this regard. As you could very well see that i have been hounded by an editor named Ftutocdg. He and his group are regularly following me and creating all sorts of issues for me just because they have a special affiliation towards Khuzaima Qutbuddin. I have noticed that not only in my edits but they are continously hounding all those articles which are in anyway connected with Khuzaima Qutbuddin. When i saw you delete and blank out article i thought Ukexpat was one of them. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I will definitely make the required changes within 48 hours. Right now i am working on an article and the changes made by you have changed the meaning of the content. I assure you that i will make the necedsary changes and intimate you when i am done. I will intimate DGG too so that both of you experienced editor and administrator can verify my work and i learn how to keep NPOV while writting. I am new to Wikipedia and i request both of you to please understand my situation and give me some time. Please. Thank you.Araz5152 (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to the version as I edited it. Please work from that version. Note that this is not your article and you do not control its content.--ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, YOU DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE. Stop reverting constructive changes and work from the current version.--ukexpat (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

i reverted only your destructive edits. If you have an issue with the tone of a sentence you should change the tone not delete it for it changes the meaning of the article and interrupts the flow of the content. You have tremendous experience. Blanking out parts of the article on any pretext is called vandalisation and i see you have a particular dislike for the acheivements section and again you have blanked out sections. What should i consider? You claim that i am controling the content but it is you who is vandalising the content and asking me to do nothing about it. Your anger can be justified if you really do constructive editing instead of showing off personal grudge or hatred for the concerned person. The person in concern has already died but i guess all the hatred for him has remained alive. Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, has few members in London as well. Dont you see Ftutocdg's efforts he just wants to promote Khuzaima Qutbuddin at any cost. He inserts the name of Khuzaima Qutbuddin at every place possible in Wikipedia to promote him in every place possible way. But in his effort he is making the name of Khuzaima Qutbuddin more cheaper and poorer in status who has to fall so low in life that he has to engage the services such vandals to create free publicity. Ftutocdg knows that Syedna Taher Saifuddin's grandson was already born in this period and that he had named him Aali Qadar, but i have not mentioned about him in the article just not to create dispute in this article but the Ftutocdg did his usual stooping down low and put in his advertisement. As per his claim the name of Mukasir is mentioned but he forgets that Khuzaima Qutbuddin is excommunicated and i did not mention that either. I am telling you all this because you too seems to be involved in this article just like him. Prove me wrong do constructive editing as claimed by you. And this time you correct the changes made by you, if you have even a little bit of an writer left in you. Dont fall down like Ftutocdg. This is Wikipedia not a place to show affiliations or create an advertisement. Think about it. Araz5152 (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh please stop the drama. The problem isn't just one or two sentences but the tone of the whole article - it reads like a fan page, not an article in an encyclopedia. I don't care about any dispute between you and Ftutocdg. My only concern is that the article comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005 - I think I know what is and is not a neutral point of view.--ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Araz5152, can you please stop quoting my name in each of your message. Is it an obsession? Ftutocdg (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not writing any drama, just the facts. The tone of this article is inspired from a featured article in Wikipedia and have just added the details about the Syedna Taher Saifuddin. If the tone of this article is wrong then that featured article should also not be in the featured category. I agree that you dont care about Ftutocdg, even i dont. But you would definitely consider the fact that even if you sit on your pc for the whole day and keep modifying pages you wont be able to cover even 0.001% of Wikipedia articles but if you teach new editors like me by imparting a little of the vast experience, together we, and other editors can cover Wikipedia article in a comprehensive manner and we all will thank you for it. Instead of feeling discouraged due to lack of understanding as to why the article is being ripped apart by an experienced user claiming to know everything but not ready to impart the knowledge to junior editors. I hope you understand what i am trying to say and would retrospect your actions now and in the future in the favor of Wikipedia and not for personal acclaim. Please dont misunderstand me again and take this as a constructive feedback. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Araz5152, people have brought up policy with you, but here are some links to take a look at, because they are the problems people are finding:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
• WP:NPOV

There are probably others, but these are the ones that I was able to scrounge up quickly. There are/were a lot of puffy terms that put the subject on a pedestal and departed from the encyclopedic tone that articles *should* have. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidence. I went through the articles you have mentioned. Other than 6 sentences i did not find any terms matching those articles. But i have used those sentences as they were in the books i was referring to. Should i use quotation marks, but they are not quotations. Should i delete them or modify them? Is it ok if statement in article differs from reference article? Furthermore i have inserted inline citation, an article i read when i was going through the articles mentioned by you. Earlier i was really confused about inline citation. Can you just confirm if the inline citation i have given is ok. Please revert back. And thank you for all your time and efforts. Araz5152 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we might need to have a look at those source and determine if they are reliable. But a revert like this that re-introduces a blurp like

The Shams (sun) of Da'i al-Mutlaq by his radiance heated up the Dawoodi Bohra sect such that all impurities were burnt away and what remained is pure gold like members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect.

is uncalled for. Another example:

Tears swelled up in his eyes. Syedna Abdullah Badruddin called him closer and keeping a hand on his shoulder acknowledged that the dark clouds of conspiracy are looming over the Dawoodi Bohra sect and that he is all alone. But assured him that the Imam in seclusion is with him and expected that the Imam in seclusion will reveal himself on his hands. A few days later the Badr (moon), Syedna Abdullah Badruddin, placed the helm of Dawoodi Bohra sect in the hands of the Shams (sun), Syedna Taher Saifuddin and died.

Even if this story could be sourced, that is just not how we try to word articles. Another example:

His family thrived through generations and grew in number and importance. At the time of his death the number of members of his family had crossed the hundred figure mark. They all remember him as a loving and caring father or grand father who touched each of their lives with the grace of the Imam in seclusion. Each of his children and grandchildren were blessed with the knowledge and training which was either provided by him personally or under his supervision.

And it goes on

Syedna Taher Saifuddin voyage through the life reached its destination on 12 November 1965 (19th Rajab 1385 Hijri) in Matheran and from then on he is always present in the heart of every member of the Dawoodi Bohra sect by virtue of his teachings, his literature, his prayers, his compositions and most specifically by virtue of his son Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin.

and on

The times of Syedna Taher Saifuddin also saw great tribulations in the beliefs of not only the members of the Dawoodi Bohra community but also in the beliefs of the people of the world at large. People were questioning the basic religious beliefs and wanted to change religion according to the changing times. This was the same reason that had given birth to the enemies of the Dawoodi Bohra community in his times. What the enemies thought to be an issue with the Dawoodi Bohra community was an issue faced by the whole world at that time, that is, questioning the beliefs of religion. He stood steadfast in the fact that the tenets of Islam are perfect and complete and require no changes to be made to it. He travelled a lot among the settlements of the members of the community to educate them and to strengthen their faith. He has gone to the houses of each and every member of the community during his visit of a particular settlement however inaccessable or difficult to reach the said home might be. He travelled in trains extensively.

When several editors raise their concern, please stop for a moment, read the links to guidelines and policies provided, and listen.

I notice that two publications authored by Huzefa Mohiyuddin are quoted inline. Huzefa Mohiyuddin, who apparently died in 2012, was one of the sons of Mohammed Burhanuddin and thus a grandson of the article subject, Taher Saifuddin. I intend to do a mild cleanup. Any concerns, please engage in dialogue here on the talk page. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

removed unverifiable and unreliable claims and sources see WP:RSN. Self published sources also removed

Please dont add biased unreliable unverifiable sources.User:Anupmehra I have removed all the unverifiable claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Taher Saifuddin

I've removed all unsourced contents and unreliable sources from this article. I've tagged it with {{refimprove}} because it requires some reliable sources to verify claims as such he was appointed Da'i at the age of 27. Do not add any unreferenced or poorly-referenced contents, such additions would be undid. If you wish to add/remove further on, it'd be better to first discuss your changes here. And, I would not repeat stuffs related to edit-war on each and every talk page, taking into consideration the group of editors engaged on every bohra related articles are the same. Go edit-war and find yourself reported at WP:AIV. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Anupmehra Thanks for helping improve the article.I am adding the following significant information about the subject , I found on reliable sources after a lot of painstaking reading and research on this fascinating world of Bohras, a wealth of information on these topics is discussed on [| Dawoodii Bohara website] which does ratify it and a whole big faction of dawoodi bohras have a significant strong views on Taher and it seems there were several court cases against this person who seems to have built a very rich empire in India from the collected money of his followers:

Taher Saifuddin claimed that he is “Elahul-Ard” (God on this earth) in Bombay high court when a case was filed against him challenging his authority[1] he also claimed in the high court that he is accountable to no one and that he is master of the soul, mind, body and properties of his followers. He made it compulsory that every Bohra should call him/herself as “Slave of Sayedna” (Abd-e Sayedna(male) / Amat-e Syedna(female)) and perform “Sajda-e ‘Ubudiyat” (Prostration of Obedience) in front of him. He also claimed that he is “Qur’an-e Natiq (speaking Qur'an) and that the Quran in the present book form is a dead book.Taher Saifuddin called himself “Da’i-ul-Mutlaq” (Absolute Da’i) and Sultan of the Bohras. He introduced an oath (Misaq) which is compulsory for every Bohra to offer to the Da’i. The harsh conditions in Misaq made it an instrument of punishment. He started a practice of “Jama’at kharij” (excommunication), thus enslaving the entire community.Summichum (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Wait for comments from other involved editors. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum seems to decided on a single agenda, making propaganda by selecting topic of his favour. He is in search of material to force his POV. From initial activities it was understood that he wants to favour Khuzaima by opposing Mufaddal. Now he has increased his target area, we don't know to prove what or achieve what. His thought process is on single partisan POV. It is OK to improve the article to make it more encyclopedic, but not at cost of removing important information without making fare try for providing proper citation for good faith true material. User:Anupmehra we know that you have decided to improve single handedly 'Bohra' article on your own. Removal is very easy, but it takes lot to build a article. We would further appreciate your efforts, if only original research part is removed and to the maximum extent good faith edit is supported by reliable sources, as it gets available, till it is really objected by somebody else for its true ness. I think that, you can also smell something suspicious from above, that this fellow has become suddenly so sincere in his efforts on a single agenda.--Md iet (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User Summichum give too much emphasis and Undue weightage to the statement of the extreme minority Progressive and so called Reformist Dawoodi Bohra committee, which was headed by asgarali engineer. Syedna Taher Saifuddin and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin were internationally known as Ambasador of Peace. User Summichum give too much emphasis and Undue weightage to the statement of the extreme minority Progressive and so called Reformist Dawoodi Bohra committee, which was headed by asgarali engineer.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru visited Saifee Villa,The house in which Mahatma Gandhi spent the night of April 5, 1930, the eve of the historic day when he broke the Salt Law, which was Donated By Syedna Taher Saifuddin to the nation. Now it is known as Saifee Villa, Ghandi Memorial Museum, Dandi.http://www.ebharat.in/gujarat/navsari/dandi-arabian-sea-navsari-gujarat. The Late Prime minister Abdul kalam Azad Himself Walked in the funural procession of Syedna Taher Saifuddin.

Giving undue weightage to very few dissidents against such an eminent personalitis is never justified.Rukn950 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Please dont bring in your personal opinions here, this is a place to only reports verifiable ,with referenced facts which makes wikipedia the best encyclopedia that has caused others to go out of print.

What I have written above can be glimpsed from the publicly availaible court proceedings : The Honourable Judge's observations on the Dai and his conduct as per records of a court proceedings :-

The learned Judge has observed that I have now said enough to show that Mullaji's religious position is so high that it only causes confusion and perhaps injury to over state it." It is incorrect to say that Mullaji is in effect God or for all practical purposes God and it is a sacrilege to bring the present suit. I think it is opposed to the leading tenets of the Muhammed an faith which is known to educated people all over the world i.e. "there is but one God and Muhammed is the Prophet." With regard to dealing with the Mullaji's claim that he be the owner and master of all property possessed by any Dawoodi Bohra and to be also the master of their minds, bodies and souls, it was negatived as they could not justify their claim. As per their religious books viz. (1) Quran, (2) the Hadis or saying and doings of the Holy Prophet Muhammed and (3) the Nehjul Balagh or saying or doings of Ali. It was observed that in none of these is the claim which the Mullaji now makes specifically put forward as the counsel of the Mullaji admitted that he had no religions authority to show in precise words that the Mullaji could take away trust property under a deed, will or scheme, as by such powers as stated above.

The learned Judge has further observed' "I have been through all the other religious writings which were cited, but it is impracticable to do this in a judgment. I have given them my best consideration but in the result, I am not satisfied that they fairly substantiate the claims of the Mullaji to ownership of the minds and properties of the followers. Further the priests themselves would seem to draw a distinction between ownership in a worldly sense and ownership in a religious sense. The learned Judge also observed that "I should mention as extremely important fact viz. that the defendants cannot produce a single instance of these extreme claims having been exercised by any Mullaji Saheb prior to the present suit."

." The learned Judge has observed that the theory of the Mullaji Saheb's universal ownership, therefore, seems to be unfounded in fact and bad in law."

In Aksarally A. Adamji Peerbhoy and Ors. v. Mahomedally Adamji Peerbhoy and Ors. AIR 1932 Bombay 350 the Mullaji expressed his unwillingness to under-take any liability upon himself and he did not wish to be appointed a trustee, which necessarily implied accountability (to beneficiaries and court) and denial of exercise of any plenary powers over the mosques.

In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concerned only with the validity of Bombay Act No. 42 of 1949 by which the power of excommunication was totally taken away from the Dal-ul-Mutleq and the act of excommunication was made a criminal offence.

Mr. Mehta has placed reliance on Notification published in newspaper dt. 6.4.25 of the Mewar State. It reveals that there was a dispute regarding burial of dead bodies between Mullaji's person and non-believers of Mullaji and it was notified in that notification that dead bodies will be buried in this cemetary and even non-believers of Mullaji and person of Mullaji have no right to prevent them.

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/12102/

In giving the mithaq, the Nathwani Commission report revealed, a Bohra must consent to yet another draconian condition that forms an integral part of the mithaq

—that if he dares to violate the mithaq his ‘entire property, house, vessels, jewellery, vehicles, horses, cattle, servants—men and women—and other worldly possessions’ would become‘illegal’ for him, and even that all his property ‘can be looted’. If he is married, his wife is no longer his, and their marriage is automatically dissolved. ‘Even if the violator of the mithaq walks [to Arabia] barefoot and performs the hajj 30 times, God will not forgive him for this sin, nor will He accept his hajj […] Violators of the mithaq will be cursed by God in the same way as God cursed Iblis [Satan], who was turned out of heaven and sent to hell.’

Bohras who defy the Syedna are promised eternal torment in hell. He who violates the mithaq, the Bohras are forced to believe, ‘will, after his death, be presented before God as a kafir and an apostate and will be thrown into hell.’ ‘Without loyalty to the mithaq’, they are told, ‘a soul cannot gain freedom, for there is no way to salvation other than by abiding by the conditions of the mithaq.’

Detailing the various rules of the Bohra mithaq, the Nathwani Commission report termed it as a ghulami namah or a veritable ‘a charter of slavery’ invented in order to coerce the Bohras into blind obedience to the Syedna not just in religious matters but in every other aspect of life. It even suggested that the mithaq was designed and used to force the Bohras to become slaves of the Syedna, rather than of God. ‘In this conception,’ it commented, ‘God is not above the dai because it is written in the mithaq that if one disobeys the dai, God would not forgive him, but that if he renews the mithaq, then God will.’

‘It is difficult to understand how any self-respecting person can take such an oath or how a person not yet a mature adult can fully abide by it,’ the report of the Commission went on. It declared that the terms of the mithaq were an insult to all human rights and very obviously violated both the law of the land and God’s law. Accordingly, it recommended that the untrammeled power of the Syedna to declare baraator excommunicate Bohras for violating the mithaq be controlled. Following this, reformist Bohras sought legal action in this regard, but, in true Indian style, the matter continues to languish in the courts, thus allowing the Syedna to continue unhindered with his dictatorial rule over his ‘slaves’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

References

citation

File:Powers of Mullaji Monster.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

removed unverifiable and unreliable claims and sources see WP:RSN. Self published sources also removed

Please dont add biased unreliable unverifiable sources.User:Anupmehra I have removed all the unverifiable claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

QVVERTYVS most of the references are from an unreliable source which is also unverifiable i.e: Hozefa Mohiyuddin, Tasbeeh al Mafakhir, Neelam Publication. This issue was raised long back and refrences were demanded. Since these refrences are self published at best they cant be considered as valid sources. Hence I call upon you to re edit \ transform the article on solid wiki standards.Summichum (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• This biographical article appears to have all the maintenance tags it could have. Most of the cited sources are offline, and one may not easily be able to perform a double check on them. Also, majority of offline sources relate themselves to "Neelam Publication", I've no idea about, never heard of. To me appears to be a primary/unreliable source, looking at this. I had earlier interacted with some 'badre muneer' sources, and they all were biased and promotional in nature with no indication of journalistic work. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't trust the sources, feel free to remove them and the info they are supposed to source. I reverted because Summichum also removed the parts sourced by Jonah Blank's book and added a couple of nonsensical tags. The new tag deluge also serves no purpose, IMHO. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw., where on WP:RSN is the discussion pertaining to these sources? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

QVVERTYVS firstly there is no reference to Jonah blanks , I agree that this book should be cited but nothing in this article comes from that book "Mullah on Mainframe" Hence I request you to please constructively remove all such junk and actually include material from that book, if you dont have a copy I can send it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Summichum, I'm wondering it has almost been a year now and you've not yet learned, how to sign and date your talk page messages? Please do it by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. @Qwertyus:, - I think, the discussion is buried deep on any of the Bohra related article's talk page. It was not dragged at RSN because they were very clearly a promotional self-published work at first glance and helpfully they had admitted the same in the 'About' section of their page. I think, I'd request scan copies of the few cited pages at WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) --Okay, done. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just been hunting for third-party sources and have found sources for at least the claim that T.S. was chancellor of Aligarh University. I see Summichum did a more careful deletion of material now (although I'm not sure the name of T.S.'s wife is controversial...) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My query has been answered at Resource Exchange desk. Yes, it is a self-published source. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Criticisms section

I was observing this article and I noticed the IP remove some content and get reverted. That lead me to research this further. There are some serious issues with the content as well as the references.

1. First of all, the section makes extra ordinary claims. As per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, that would need extra ordinary references where as the references used are either written by the claiming person as the author or a reference stating clearly that these are the claims of that person and not factually saying these are true. Therefore even the references used are not backing these statements as facts, rather as mere claims. These references are not even enough to support such POV claims and they are not even WP:DUE here as opinion of this person.

2. These are mostly based on Wikipedia:Fringe theories and there is no fact checking involved, all claims go against mainstream sources and no counter opinions are discussed in the references. Therefore, it is clear that these sources are not Reliable sources.

3. Even if all the sources were, for the sake of argument, assumed to be reliable, the content itself would still not be eligible for wikipedia. The reason is clear, the content is heavily WP:SYNTH of even these poor sources. It presents as facts what are claims and combines opinions of the claiming person(s) as statements that are not made or quoted directly from the subject.

Based on above three points, I am removing this content. Kindly do not reinsert it as this is a serious referencing issue. Muffizainu (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, thought not technically a BLP article, it is worth noting:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. — WP:BLPPRIMARY

Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Date of Birth Conundrum

A couple of sources¹·² indicate the date of Syedna Taher Saifuddin is 5 August 1888, whilst a Dawoodi Bohra official publication³ (authored by Syedna Taher Saifuddin himself) which I have access to claims it to be 4 August 1888.

I'm going to change the date to 4 August 1888 in accordance with that.

¹ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jD8jAQAAMAAJ&q=taher+august+1888

² https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_Authentic_Account_of_the_Pontifical_Office_of_Dai_al-Mutlaq_and_its_Fifty-First_Incumbent_His_Holiness_Sardar_Saiyedna_Taher_Saifuddin_Saheb.pdf

³ دفينة مفاخر ال النبي الطهر (page 82) Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Removing the tag because I don't see a discussion on the talk page on examples of what needs to be changed. I wrote most of the article and very much open to adding newer content or changing tone where required. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)