Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
India: Uttar Pradesh Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Would Like to mention that ShehZada Aali Qadar TUS's marriage is mentioned in the article but as far my knowledge tells me, he has married twice and divorced once. There is no mention of this second wife who is the daughter of Syedi Khuzaima Bhaisaheb Mazoon ud Dawat. If his marriage is mentioned to Jawhara Bensab, I think it would be unfair to the neutrality and conscience of the writer to not mention the second marriage. Hoping to see the article edited asap.
- The second marriage and divorce could be mentioned in the article, however I don't see how it is significant to his current position. What is the name of the first wife? When was the marriage? When was the divorce. --Shabbir Abbas Hussain 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anything which is part of his Hayat Taiyebah is signifant to his current/past/future position.
Daughter of Syedi Khuzaimah Bhaisaheb Qutbuddin DM - Saifiyah Bensab Qutbuddin Date (Nikah) - Exactly not aware but can be written that on the Mawqeh of Maulatena Ruquiyah's Zarih's Iftetah. Nikah Solemnized by - Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin TUS Date (Divorce) - Within a year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.147.47 (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Also in the Wikipedia Pages of Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin TUS and Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA there is no dedicated section for marriage/nikah. In Syedna Taher Saifuddin's RA article, there is no mention at all of even a single of his four Spouses. If the author wishes, he can scrap that part (Marriage) altogether following the formats of the Wiki articles of Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin TUS and Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA or else furnish complete details. Wassalaam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.147.47 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Syedi Mufaddal Saifuddin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Syedi Mufaddal Saifuddin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
Succession dispute
This article on Muffadal_Saifuddin is written by biased elements. There is a severe crisis in the dawoodi bohra community regarding succession issue of the Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras . Muffadal is just one of the claimant to this title and there are various legal issues in court to decide the succession issue. The other claimant is Khuzaima_Qutbuddin who has furnished written proof of succession as the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. The only proof which Muffadal has is a video on the supposed succession where the 52th leader was in comatose state of stroke. He was just made to sit in front of Muffadal to show the succession.
Hence the article and its infobox should reflect Muffadal as a Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq and not appointed one as there are legal battles going for the succession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.233.76 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital which led his son Mufaddal Saifuddin to proclaim himself as the successor in a London Hospital followed by a ritualistic ceremony in Mumbai while the Syedna was still in the condition of stroke.[1] However, this has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin - who proclaims the title of the 53rd Dā‘ī l-Muṭlaq - and a minority of the Dawoodi Bohras. He also claims that the succession was not done in London as he suffered from stroke. Muffadal took advantage of this and declared himself as the successor[2]. The former Chief Justice of India upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.233.76 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Crisco 1492, this is what's at stake in that edit war during which you blocked IP122.168.246.72. Their edits are not of good faith: they are edit-warring to keep out information (verified information) that indicates that this succession is not uncontroversial. I just closed a report at WP:ANEW, indicating that you blocked them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, noticed this. The section obviously needs work, but am trying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Editing by Markdrows
Mufaddal Saifuddin is accepted by almost 99.99 % of Bohra Population. Khuzaima Qutbuddin is just accepted by 40-50 people (his relatives and few more). I have mentioned that in both the pages.
Mufaddal Saifuddin has never claimed to be Dai-al Mutlaq. He was informed by his brothers from London that Mohammed Burhanuddin has appointed him as his successor.
It is Khuzaima Qutbuddin who is claiming himself as Dai-al-Mutlaq.
- Refs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Revert by Md iet
- Md iet, I have reverted your revert as your revert reinserted content with significant issues. One by one:
- WP:IMGSIZE is against having a 350px lede image
- Both Saifuddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin are, technically, claimants, as the succession issue has not been resolved yet. Claiming one is Da'i al-Mutlaq is POV
- MOS:DATES is clearly against having 23rd, 14th, etc. as dates (WP:BADDATEFORMAT
- Way too many images, including several non-free images which violate the WP:NFCC
- The days are not necessary, see MOS:DATES
- Wordings such as "Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin solemnized his Nikah" are overly venerative and not understandable to the majority of readers. The hijri date is similar, although in some cases it can be kept.
- The revert reintroduced numerous typos and spelling errors, including spaces
- Please discuss before reverting further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- And I've just reverted Markdrows, who removed the "claimant" bit and its reference, and added that 99.99% (a rather magical number) confirmed him, but without evidence. This is contested material and edits will need to be argued and explained, or the article will be locked down completely. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014
IN THE ARTICLE SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN THERE IS A MISTAKE, SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (TUS) IS NOT CLAIMING TO BE THE DAI,SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN(TUS) IS THE 53RD DAI-AL-MUTLAQ OF THE DAWOOD BOHRAS, SYEDNA MOHAMMED BURHANUDDIN(R.A.)HAS DONE NASS ON SYEDNA ALIQADR MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN(TUS)MANY TIMES Superhuzaifa (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: We know there is a dispute over who is the of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras, and until the dispute is settled we will continue to describe both claimants in that way.
It is not our role to side with one claimant or another, but to explain that there is a dispute, who is involved, and why the dispute has arisen.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2014
I wanted to edit the article as I have a lot of knowledge about this matter . In the current article a lot of vandalism was done and attempts were made to conceal various news reports about the succession controversy in wiki it was changed to "Succession story". The links like http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/nass-e-jali-1432h-part-ii-raudat-tahera/ are partisan \ primary sources which represent the camp of Muffadal. On such issues third party sources are required. The following edit is the best reflection and NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=594834390
The above was subject to various vandalism attempts which was reverted but nevertheless it remains. Summichum (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)