Jump to content

Talk:Dawoodi Bohra/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Syedna

Will someone please create an article on Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin?!! Should I do a stub? —iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Syedna

A stub would be a fine idea. I personally dont have enogh information nor the time to research about him at present. Maybe something on the general line of Syedna's descent might be a better idea.

Asghar Ali Engineer

just wanted to point out that using source material based solely on Asghar Ali Engineer's work would be too slanted to maintain NPOV. Asghar Ali Engineer and the Syedna have a personal enmity/feud going on and he himself has technically been exiled from the community.

Though there are various criticisms of the Bohra community that Engineer points out that may indeed be very valid... we can't not present both sides of the picture. Hulleye 08:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fullly agree.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:20, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

agreed as well. But eliminating him from the picture isn't valid either. If their are divisions with the Dawoodi Bohras they should not be glossed over.

Engineer

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)

Dissent in the community

The new additions from 216.138.105.66 on 30 June appear to be written from a completely non-NPOV, and make accusations that the author does not bother to substantiate with anything. It's hearsay at best and fiction at worst. Unless the author can provide a well-researched NPOV view and there are no objections from anyone else, I am going to revert the changes in 24 hours. Also, material related to this should really be on the Progressive Dawoodi Bohras page, not the main Dawoodi Bohras page. MHusein 1 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

well the dissent section should not be removed altogether, though i agree with Mhusein that it does require an NPOV edit Hulleye 07:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
have replaced the Dissent section by reverting to the last edit by User:203.94.232.86. Hulleye 07:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

ANSWER

You talk about "substantiating" claims, yet you write; "Unlike many other sects of Islam, Dawoodi Bohras believe that the education of women is equally important to that of men, and many Dawoodi Bohra women choose to enter the workforce." What fact are you basing this on? Bohri women are one of the most opressed women in the Islamic world. In Masjid they continuely tell us that women are not supposed to be in any field that brings them in contact with men. They are allowed tobe doctors only when they are in OBGYN.

You also removed the FACT about Bohris calling other Mulsims unTrue believers, or that they are not momin. If you disown that statement then you are not a Bohri yourself. As the "Da'i" himself said that it is okay to curse the previous 3 caliphs and to say that non-Bohirs are not momineen. Are you saying that this statement is not true.

This claim about the so called "princes" spending habits and luxorious lifestyles is from observing these people from a very close position. For example, the so called "Shehzada Sahib" in Houston is being audited by the United States Internal Revenue Service for property fraud. He owns numerous properties in Houston and all over the country and he has no income to show for it. Also, I personally took some behan sehabs on their many thousands of dollars gold shopping sprees.

Also, the incident about being told to take a "Karzae Hasana" to pay the Wajibaat, that happened to me in the Houston Jamaat. What proof you want, do you need transcripts of my discussion with the Amil Sahib? You want proofs, yet all you believe in and have put on the page is Hearsay in itself.

There are many other issues that you are ignorning and are trying your best to put a rosy picture of here, and I am not going to let you do that. If you want to dispute the whole article so we can discuss things here. Of course according to you there are no issues since all of us whould believe what is said in the Masjid.

Also, are you so insecure that you would remove the link to the Progressive Bohra web-site?

Answer to your answer

With regards to Bohra women in the workforce, I am basing this on the fact that I personally know many Bohra women who are indeed in the workforce. I know even more Bohra women who are well educated. In fact, there are even Bohra women who are professors at some of the most respected universities in America. Needless to say, these women come in contact with men in their jobs, and there is no prohibition of this. Your example of women only being allowed to be OB/GYNs is also spurious, because there are many women Bohra doctors who are GPs who see patients of both sexes. In fact, not much of what you say about this is borne out by fact. That you say that Bohra women are one of the most oppresed in the world shows a severe lack of perspective. Having both a worldly and religious education is encouraged by the Da'i for both men and women alike.

I have no idea what you're getting at in your second point. The edit I removed said that hostility exists between Bohras and other Muslims. This is simply untrue. Not only is it untrue, but your content was written as if you were trying to prove a point, rather than stating an opinion from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not an advocacy site.

Regarding your third point, there are thousands of people audited by the IRS every year, most of whom are not guilty. If the person in question is actually found guilty by the IRS, feel free to make a note of that here. Until then, making claims about that person are just that, unsubstantiated claims. As for your shopping adventures, Wikipedia is not a place to voice your personal grievances. Perhaps if you thought it wrong, you shouldn't have done it.

Regarding point four, could you point us to the part of the page as it existed before you made your changes that was hearsay?

Regarding point five, I don't care about painting a rosy picture. I care about presenting an article that is well-researched, well-articulated, and written from a neutral point of view. Why is this so hard to understand? It's rather obvious that you're so emotionally charged about whatever it is that is bothering you that you are incapable of being objective.

Point six. While I'm sure you'd like to think of me as insecure (and toeing the line or whatever), I removed it because the link already existed in the Dissent section. What use are duplicate links?

How about getting a username so I'm not talking to a bunch of random IPs?

MHusein 1 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Reverting

I am reverting the article to the last version by Aebrahim, dated 07:18, 26 June 2005 (UTC) plus the minor change by BD2412. If someone wants to write a factually correct NPOV article about the Progressive Dawoodi Bohras they should feel free to do so. To 216.138.105.66, please note that while I am removing one link to the Progressives' web site, I am leaving the link in the Dissent section where it should be intact. So please don't start any new edit wars over it (one link is enough). If someone wants to write a long article about the dissidents, then it belongs on the Progressive Dawoodi Bohras page which is linked to from this one. MHusein 4 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

Mullahs on the Mainframe

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)

You say arguments made by progressives is propaganda. Enough said.


Table on Islam

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)

Islam category ? - no thanks

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)


Pillars of Islam

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)Muzaffar

Striving for NPOV

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)

Citations missing for claim that Syedna Mohammad Badruddin was the last of the Dai-ul-mutlaq succession

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)

Beautiful new mosque

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)

WP India assessment

Reading All these articles confuses me

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)


One or more portions of this article duplicate or duplicate other source(s). Some of the material was copied from: http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/2/97/The-Bohras-Religion-and-spirituality/d,pdb_detail_article/. 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)

Terrible grammar and spelling

Fixed
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

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)

Thanks for kind suggestions,but one thing we all should understand that Wikepedia is read for it's material content and not as a beautiful English literature, If it is made beautiful nothing like it. People like you are always there to make it but it doesn't mean that you remove hard core material from the article.

'History' details given were very relevant and were removed. 'Table of Imam along with Caliphate' is a basic table prepared ,which simplest way of looking history of imam,informative to all muslims , showing ,where dawoodi bohra stands. This information is not very common and hardly known to all muslim.

The sub-article "Kalema-tut-shahadat" is also very important basic of Islam, The Dawoodi Bohra has tradition of reciting it in extended fashion and this has historic evidence from Fatemid era . It is their speciality and carry some specific meanings and message ,hence in the dawoodi bohra article it is well justified.

Everybody may not be well known with particular literature, improvement can always been done by experts. Please respect good and relevant information for the sake of Wikepedia.Md iet (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC).Corrected some spellings and structure in above,as it's obvious to do mistakes for non english fellow in extempo writings.--Md iet (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

'Critisim' para added and removed

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)

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)

Fundamental of Faith,Zakah section amendment

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)

Criticism by "Progressive Bohras"

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)

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)

undertaking the editing of Dawoodi Bohra

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)

How much of this article is specific to the Dawoodis, and how much can just go in Mustaali?

I'm not an expert on this subject, but it appears the Dawoodi Bohra are a cultural group which happen to practice, and are self-defined by, the Mustaali Ismaili Shi'a Muslim faith. If that is correct, shouldn't most, if not all, of the info about the Kalema, Azan, Dais, etc. go into the Mustaali article, barring only those portions which are specifically unique to the Dawood Bohra? Barring a clear explanation for the uniqueness of specific religious aspects to the Dawoodi instead of all Mustaali groups, I'd like to merge all applicable broader material into Mustaali, with clear links given on this page as necessary to make sure people go to Mustaali for any religious issues of the broader sectarian community which the DW fall under.

This article got 11,000 hits in September, so evidently it's quite popular, so worth spending a little time to clean up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've condensed the Beliefs section to avoid repetitious over-explanation of principles common to Islam in general. Again, it may be the case that most of this can be moved to the Mustaali article, that article linked in, and whatever details in which the DW differ from Mustaali overall be listed here as specific to this specific group. MatthewVanitas (talk)

Concerns about Dawoodi POV

(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)

Are "Du'at" and "Dawat" the same thing?

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)

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)

Defining Hurrat ul Maleka and hujja

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) As far as I understand these are titles given to a Lady par excellence. Hurrat ul Maleka refer to a lady having quality of a heavenly woman amongst ladies. Hujja is again a title for a pious lady having honor of the category of Haj in Islam.--Md iet (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Major concerns about deletions over the last 3 years

Looking at older drafts of this article, it appears that there's a ton of information that's been winnowed out over the last several years, much of it pretty solid and verifiable info. In many ways, the 2007 article was better than the one I arrived at earlier this month. I'll be taking a hard look at the past material to see what needs to be brought back. There's a lot of cultural info about dress and whatnot that's interesting and pretty non-controversial. There's also some good info on Criticisms that can't simply be hand-waved away as "belongs in the Reformist article." I don't clearly see why some of this content is removed, and I also think we need to take a harder look at how much of the article is (mis)spent on covering DW history prior to 1592. An article about the "Reformed Baptist" denomination should go back to their split from the Baptists, and a little earlier context for the motive for the split; it should't go back to the Protestant Reformation, formation of the Catholic church, the Gospels, and Moses. Among other reasons, spending too much time re-hashing history covered in other articles means that improvements here won't be relected in the main articles like History of Shi'a Islam, and likewise improvements made there won't magically appear here. An article about the Bohra should cover that which is unique to the Bohra, with minimal reference and some good links to more general content. That's why we don't need to re-explain the Seven pillars of Ismaili Islam, since there's already a whole page just on that. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent thinking, but one thing we should keep in mind that the major strength of this sect is its basic thinking on principle of Islam which they got from Fatimid tradition, and they are honored and flourishing due to that approach and humanity principle they following. Seven pillars are well known to everybody but their effective use is one which one can learn from them. If this article helps to get home this thing then our efforts will be paid.
Prior history is also very important .Wiki is an encyclo and best source for it. One should know why so many sect and where they stand.--Md iet (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, an article about the DW does not need to go into great detail all the way back to Ali. We have articles covering all the intermediary stages which led up to the DW, so this one single article doesn't need to get into great detail on the whole journey. Further, the removal of material about the Progressive DW (by whoever did it) was pretty inappropriate, so I'll be looking into the History for other material removed due to bias. Further still: the point of the article is not to talk about how great the DW are. The point is to tell the basic facts, some of which will be good, some bad, and some indifferent. Again, at this point one of the best things you can do to help out is start adding some footnotes, which are grievously lacking in the current version. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very right, the Wiki is a neutral platform and facts should prevail whatever it is.Please don't take my view point otherwise. I am also not in favor or against any sect but the difference of opinion on the subject of that sect is to be made clear and that was my intention. Doing that history and basic are to be referred and elaborated sect wise to drive home the subject. --Md iet (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent source; good footnotes for half the page

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)

Good source on controversy of mosque restorations

There's a book with a substantial preview on gBooks, Text & Context in Islamic societies (vol. 17, Irene A. Bierman, Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2004 ISBN 0863722989, 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)

Collection of deleted text from previous drafts

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)

Concerns with number and quality of photos

Fixed
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

The number of photos, some of them low-quality, is getting out of hand in this article. I suggest the following:

  • Given the large number of photos, those photos which are blurry, have a large amount of white-space built into the photo (note how many photos have a large space between the edge of the image and the edge of the border), or have captions printed on the photo (totally unnecessary since Wikipedia allows us to caption photos) should be removed.
  • We absolutely should not have any pictures which are not directly tied to the DB, so "Fatimid" inscriptions in Cairo which long pre-date the DBs should not be used simply because they share the same azaan or similar.
  • I recognise that editors have assigned great importance to the restoration of Islamic sites by the DW, and accordingly want photos thereof. That makes sense, but I don't see the utility of having more than a couple example photos thereof, otherwise they just all start to run together.
  • So far as which photos should be here, the pic of the men outside with a banner is great; high-resolution photo, shows members in traditional dress/environment. The large picture of the Dai is good (though not the blurry funeral one with tons of white space and caption). Several of the masoleum shots are good, though several others have tons of white space, or are so poorly-angled you can barely tell anything except that it's a building.

These are my thoughts; I'll leave these up for a bit and ping a few major editors, but I'd like to start removing excess or poor photos sooner than later. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Matthew, for continuous interest shown in the improvement of the article. Your worry about photos is genuine but we have to make judgments in such a way that readers are not deprived of the information same time quality as per Wiki norms are maintained. Some photos correlate complete history and features of DB which depict DB different from others so their importance and justification to delete is to be judged from a different angle till better option is available. Your idea of substantiating the matter also by proper references is excellent.--Md iet (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I would submit that having an over-abundance of photos, and some low-quality photos, detracts from the importance of the several key, high-quality photos. So far as "depriving" the reader, let's keep in context that this is not intended to be the only resource for readers to access DB information, but instead an overview which provides the basics. I submit that having one or two pictures of key renovation projects would give the overview sense of the works being done by the community, and that other photos are available, or could be made available, on DB community sites, architecture sites, the Wiki pages for the specific buildings in question, etc. In a similar way, listing out 20 projects of renovation will cause the reader's eyes to blur, while listing out several key projects (with links to the Wiki articles about the buildings) will allow him to come away saying "yes, I understand they focus on renovation, such as shrine XYZ."
Recall first and foremost that this article is for all readers, not just DB readers. If anything, you could argue that the article should be more for laymen than DBs. DB members are quite amenable to reading sites written by and for their own community, but an outsider looking for DB information trusts Wiki to provide balanced, neutral, objective information. Having information which appears to slant in one direction would deprive the reader of a clear, neutral area to learn about the DB without concerns of bias. I certainly trust your judgement regarding what facts the DB see as important, but I submit we balance those off of the perceptions of non-DB readers who can help keep the article in credible neutrality. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, your concern for biasness is genuine. Providing complete information on the subject is not a weak point of encyclo but a strong point and a reader should get all information. Wiki should present all the genuine matter available from proper sources and that is beauty of Wiki that proper material will only sustain. You are right that its presentation should not create blur and one can easily skip the information if he don't intend to read. If the information is proper wiki is not to bother who is the reader. An expert on the subject can definitely help in providing all relevant information and that will increase credibility of Wiki for providing complete and objective information. To delete basic information is not called neutrality but if there is some counter argument on subject that is also to be included is neutrality. We must encourage this and that will make article balanced and neutral. Your contribution in improving presentation by proper editing etc. is worth appreciation.--Md iet (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Walayah" anecdote

Fixed
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

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)

We may agree for requirement of reliable RS to state this incident, but being a well known fact amongst DB, we may think of giving some weightage with proper citation pending.--Md iet (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The article 'Vali-e-Hind Maulai Adam bin Suleman [a.q.] -by Mu. Saifuddin Surka NKD' from a journal website http://malumaat.com/archives/articles/moulaiadam.html seems a reliable source for the matter.--Md iet (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC) We may add following to article to get home the point:

--Md iet (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

FGM : Female genital mutilation within Dawoodi Bohra Communities

“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)

  1. ^ 'Vali-e-Hind Maulai Adam bin Suleman [a.q.] By- Mu. Saifuddin Surka NKD' http://malumaat.com/archives/articles/moulaiadam.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawoodi_Bohra/Archive_1&oldid=1153938196"