Talk:Mírzá Muhammad ʻAlí

Ghusn-i-A'zam vs. Ghusn-i-Akbar

This is the specific refrence to whom had which title:

"As we have already stated in chapter 3, a similar statement was made by Bahá'u'lláh in answer to a question by Mirza 'Ali-Muhammad, entitled Varqa. He wanted to know the identity of the person to whom all must turn as revealed in a verse of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. Bahá'u'lláh intimated to him that the intended person was the Most Great Branch, and after Him, the Greater Branch.[*] The passage in which the Greater Branch is chosen 'after' the Most Great Branch, meaning that Mirza Muhammad-'Ali is to succeed 'Abdu'l-Bahá, brought about tests and misunderstandings for the believers, many of whom were astonished at this statement. These believers either knew Mirza Muhammad-'Ali personally or had read several condemnatory passages that Bahá'u'lláh had written about him. Both groups saw him as a perfidious person, deceitful, materialistic and avid for power -- one who was related to Bahá'u'lláh physically but had no spiritual relationship with Him. These believers were deeply puzzled when they observed that Bahá'u'lláh had chosen such a person to succeed 'Abdu'l-Bahá.

[* Ghusn-i-A'zam (the Most Great Branch) and Ghusn-i-Akbar (the Greater Branch) are titles which Bahá'u'lláh conferred upon His sons, 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Mirza Muhammad-'Ali respectively.]"

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 256)

And is a specific reference to what people thought of Mirza Muhammad Ali:

"I said to him: 'In all His references to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the Blessed Beauty has assigned to Him all the exalted names and praiseworthy attributes. He enjoined on us all to show forth, for the exaltation of His Cause, the utmost love and humility towards His Person. In the Kitáb-i-'Ahd, He has clearly stated: "It is incumbent upon the Aghsan, the Afnan and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch." Therefore to the extent that you show forth humility, self-effacement and utter nothingness to His blessed Person ['Abdu'l-Bahá], you will accordingly acquire the exalted qualities you wish to have. Based on the same principle, you will lose these qualities to the extent that you lessen the measure of your humility and submissiveness towards Him. The reason for this is that all the praise and honour which are bestowed upon you by Bahá'u'lláh are dependent upon certain conditions. Certain verses of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and their further elucidation in the Kitáb-i-'Ahd are as unequivocal and clear as the sun in mid-sky. God forbid, if for one moment in your heart you might think the passage in the Kitáb-i-'Ahd ought to have directed the Aghsan, the Afnan and others to turn their faces to Ghusn-i-Akbar [the Greater Branch, i.e. Mirza Muhammad-'Ali]. It is clear that you do not possess what the Master possesses. God, exalted be He, does not act hypocritically, nor does He create means of division among people. It is impossible for the One True God to entrust the guardianship of His Cause to two individuals at the same time... Apart from all this, who is it in this world of being that can claim to rival the Master on any level?' I was talking on these lines when he arose from his seat saying it was time to go to bed, so I left him.[57]

[57 Haydar-'Ali, Bihjatu's-Sudur, pp. 337-8.]" [Taherzadeh's citation. Ed.]

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 44)

Disputed translation

I removed:

The translation of this term is disputed.

Unless it is disputed by a notable source this shouldn't be mentioned. Although I'm sure he would disagree, Wjhonson is not a notable source. The translation was discussed in great detail on Talk:Bahá'u'lláh's family. Cuñado - Talk 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You know very well it's disputed. I have posted the disputes. Whether you think it's "resolved" or not, does not affect the issue of whether it's disputed. Wjhonson 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the citation, you had the notes mixed around. Wjhonson 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wjhonson, you dispute this. You argued this interminably on Baha'u'llah's family without answering Cuñado's arguments and dictionary citations. Further, as you haven't provided any source better than "Maulana", which isn't the way you'd cite him by the way, I'm removing the useless footnote and unsupported statement.

Wjhonson, you seem to love this book and plaster it all over. Would you please do the research and provide at least a page number when you cite Maulana Muhammad Ali making a specific claim? MARussellPESE 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I did the research and found that Wjhonson is wrong. Maulana Muhammad Ali translates it as "Most Great", not most mighty on p. 56 of his "History and Doctrines". So much for that. MARussellPESE 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept "Most Great" since it is a synonym for "Greatest". The main point being that, in English, the two titles have no significant difference. Wjhonson 07:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Who did the appointing?

The article currently says "At the time of `Abdu'l-Bahá's death, Shoghi Effendi was appointed as the Guardian of the Faith, ...". May I request that someone clarify this to indicate who did the appointing and how this appointment occurred? —Wookipedian 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

done. -- Jeff3000 07:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit questions

My first was a question having to do with using pronouns in conjunction with various individuals mentioned in this article. I went back and checked the articles for Baha'u'llah and Jesus (for comparison to this one), and in neither one was there a consistent use of a capital letter of the pronoun form of either of their names (as in He, Him, His, Their, etc., when referring to Baha'u'llah or Jesus). It does not appear that this is something that is done in these kinds of Wikipedia articles (which is understandable, of course, and keeps articles more neutral, I feel), but I just wanted to check to verify that such was indeed the case. The reason I bring this up is because it has the ability to affect certain of the sentences I discuss below.

Okay. Number two. "He was born from his father's second wife, Fatimih Khanum, whom he married in Tehran in 1849, and she was later known as Mahd-i-'Ulya." Do you think the wording of this is lexically ambiguous as to who did the marrying?

Three. "In The Kitáb-i-‘Ahd (The Book of the Covenant), he appointed `Abdu'l-Bahá as his successor[3], with Muhammad `Ali subordinate to `Abdu'l-Bahá, explicitly noting both by their titles." Should "he" be changed to "Baha'u'llah", for clarity?

Four. "The division caused by Muhammad `Alí was short lived." I changed this to "short-lived" (adding the hyphen) -- I believe this is more grammatically correct. Please corerct me if I am wrong.

I am sorry if these are the kinds of edits that I should just do without asking -- I am new to Wikipedia, and I wanted to ask before I just started changing things. Should I continue to do that, or should I just edit and see if any problems come up (for more minor edits, such as this, or short additions -- as in, nothing that is a major change to the article)? Thanks so much!

—Comments by Twilightsojourn

Regarding the pronoun capitalization question, I suggest lowercase, since Wikipedia is supposed to use a neutral point of view and therefore I would think should not appear to confer special status to any particular person/entity. (Of course, things inside of quotes, when the quote was from text written originally in English, should not be tinkered with.)

On number two, I think you're right.

On number three, it sounds like a good idea.

On number four, this not only sounds like a good idea but it sounds way below the threshold of something that might need to be discussed before being changes.

—Wookipedian 04:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I think I've made most of them, but please go ahead and change such things without the need to ask on the talk page (Wookipedia is right). As to the capitalization issue, the pronouns are not capitilized except when referring to God (not gods). See Talk:Bahá'í Faith/archive2 for more information. -- Jeff3000 05:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help -- I really appreciate it! I'll go ahead and make changes like that without consulting next time (I'm learning!). :-) --Twilightsojourn 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Maulana Muhammad Ali as a Source

Maulana Muhammad Ali's book is not an appropriate source. WP:V requires reliable sources from reliable publishers. Inclusion fails both criteria:

1. Maulana Muhammad Ali is an Ahmadi apologist rendering him an unreliable source.
2. The book is published, in the U.S. by an Ahmadi publishing house: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore, Inc., effectively making it self-published.

The only wiggle room for self-published authors is in ¶2 of WP:SELFPUB which allows for inclusion if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". No other third-party uses him or his book as a reference. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Great-granddaughter

So what if it's a mockumentary? The Bahai library verify her lineage. http://bahai-library.com/momen_nigar_bahai_amsalem 78.148.67.220 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

1) bad citation does not make a point.

2) not useful to the article.

--Smkolins (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disputed succession of Bahá'u'lláh

The following statement was deleted with the spurious claim that it is not reliable.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

So, what part of the statement do you perceive to be not reliable?

1) Is the official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy not disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants?

2) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí?

3) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not subsequently led by Shua Ullah Behai?

4) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi?

The works of Smith, Bausani, Momen, and other Bahá'í historians do not dispute these basic facts, although they would certainly disagree with underlying causes of the dispute.

You are not basing this on any of their works. You are adding this exclusively based on a extreme minority pov source with no substantial presence in modern scholarship. Your conjecture of other points is specious what you are actually doing. It is an unrelaible source, pure in and simple. Smkolins (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not basing this on any of their works. You are adding this exclusively based on a extreme minority pov source with no substantial presence in modern scholarship. Your conjecture of other points is specious what you are actually doing. It is an unrelaible source, pure in and simple. Moreover you are simultaneously doing this in several articles showing some disregard for standards in wikipedia. Smkolins (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of things where your edit breaks Wikipedia's policies. First it's a self-published source which "are largely not acceptable as sources". Secondly views that are held by small minorities, don't get the same weight in articles, as those that appear in most reliable sources. See undue weight. In most reliable sources, the successorship from Baha'u'llah to Abdu'l-Baha, to Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice is the only one they mention, and if they mention anything else it is in passing. -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the Baha'i editors object to the reference of material written by Covenant-breakers, which is not self-published as you mischaracterized it, I have included references from official Baha'i sources.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160927005108/http://www.voxhumri.com/books/a-lost-history-of-the-bahai-faith/ to http://www.voxhumri.com/books/a-lost-history-of-the-bahai-faith/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Mirza Muhammad 'Alí being named successor of 'Abdu'l-Bahá in Kitáb-i-Ahd?

@Cuñado I'm curious why you removed the sentence: "Both documents named Muhammad ʻAlí as being the successor of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá in the station of the head of the Bahá'í faith that is established in Kitáb-i-Aqdas."? The statement is, as far as I understand, directly follows the source I cited. On page 256 in "The Child of the Covenant", which I cited, the phrase "Mirza Muhammad 'Alí is to succeed 'Abdu'l-Bahá" is used.

Note that my sentence is not saying that the successorship effectively happened (which is false) not that it is theologically correct (that would violate NPOV). Am I misunderstanding something? Is the source biased in this topic? Or does the referenced sentence mean something else according to your interpretation? Mineemod (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cuñado Please do not remove the reference to Muhammad 'Alí as successsor of 'Abdu'l-Bahá without further discussion. This is the second time you removed this much relevant information that is stressed repeatedly in a source used in the rest of the article. If you do it another time without explaining your actions, I will have to report this as vandalism. Mineemod (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)