Talk:Subh-i-Azal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Baha'u'llah's and Mirza Yahya's Wife

Copying some of the discussion from Baha'u'llah discussion that has to do with Mirza Yahya

Just another note to prove that the laws of the Arabic Bayan were not applied right away was that Mirza Yahya (Subh-i-Azal), the sucessor of the Bab, also took a second wife after the Bab died. -- Fadeaway919 06:36, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Babism you can have two wives. As you very well know, this is also the case with Bahaullah's own writing, which was later "explained" by Abdul-Baha that when Bahaullah said you can have two wives, it really mean only one !!  :-) --- so yes, Subh-i Azal took a second wife, but according to Babism he was not doing anything wrong. In both the Bayan and the Aqdas it is CLEARLY indicated that up to two wives is allowed. --Amir 06:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Mirza Yahya's wives, there are many sources were they say he had more than 6 wives or even more, for example his own son Ridvan-`Ali reports him to have had eleven or twelve wives (from Browne, "Personal Reminiscences of the Babi Insurrection at Zanjan in 1850, written by Aqa `Abdu'l-Ahad-i-Zanjani," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, (1897, pp. 761-827) p. 767.) , but let's say that is not true.

This page [1] recounts evidence (with non-Baha'i sources) about Mirza Yahya's wives. I'll go over some of them here, showing that he had more than one wife before going to Baghdad and show he married more wives in Baghdad after the Arabic Bayan was written saying you could only have two wives. (see the linked page for non-Baha'i sources to below info).

1. Qanitih (also known as Maryam), married in Iran and stayed in Baghdad,

2. Fatima (Mulk-i-Jahan, Malakih Khanum) of Shiraz, the sister of Mirza Baqir. Married in Iran. Followed her husband to Baghdad, Edirne and Famagusta and died in Famagusta.

3. Badri-Jan (also known as Badr-i-Jahan) who married Mirza Yahya in Baghdad and finally was exiled to Akka away from her husband. She eventually returned to Cyprus alongside Mirza Yahya and died in Cyprus

So yes Baha'u'llah had three wives, marrying one after the Bab's Arabic Bayan came out, but the facts above are to show that the rules of the Arabic Bayan were not completely in use, even by Subh-i-Azal (Mirza Yahya) who was appointed as the Bab's successor. -- Fadeaway919 17:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is really such a lame excuse for a leader. He had accepted the Babi principles, and according to Bahai claims, he was one of the most prominent figures of the Babi movement. And you are trying to excuse his breaking one of the principles of that faith for his carnal and worldly desires, and what excuses him is "well, the other guy also did it"?!! His third wife, Gowhar from Kashan, was actually one of the maids of his first wife, Asiye Khanum Navab. So in all likelyhood, he was taking sexual advantage of this house maid, she became pregnant and he had to marry her. --Amir 19:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please provide references for "in all likelyhood, he was taking advantage ..." -- Fadeaway919 19:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand what "in all likelihood" means? It means "quite probably" ... if there was any solid evidence to support this statement, then it would not have been stated with probability, it would have been stated with certainty. --Amir 21:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I also left you this note elsewhere. --Amir 22:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

really... whats the point? i mean, i dont see any constructive discussion, much less something related to improving the article.. wikipedia is not a forum :) - --Cyprus2k1 10:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copying over a reference from another article: a son of Subh-i-Azal reported his father to have had eleven or twelve wives while another source gives fourteen wives. The source is M. Momen's The Cyprus Exiles at [[2]]. --Occamy 14:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Letter from God to God

The quote shows quite clearly that the Bab was addressing himself as God, to Mirza Yahya as God. This is unequivocable no matter how much Bahai's want to ignore it. Wjhonson 07:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue and there are two associated points:

The first is that the Maulana Muhammad Ali's History and Doctrines of the Babi Movement is at best a secondary source. The E.G. Browne document quoted is available here. Browne's introduction to the Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf does not provide a translation of the Báb's Will, so it (Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf) can at best be considered a secondary source — making the Maulana Muhammad Ali's tertiary.

Upon review of the H-Bahá'í document, the passage of the Bab's will quoted in the Maulana Muhammad Ali document does not appear there. There is in fact only one reference to "Nabil", and this is off-topic from the succession.

Further a study of the actual will can be found in Manuchehri's "The Primal Point’s Will and Testament, Translation and Commentary", available online here. The commentary on the Báb's will has this to say about Browne's Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf:

"Nuqtat al-Kaf: ed E G Browne, Leiden: EJ Brill 1910. Reprinted East Lansing, Mi: H-Baha’i 1997. Whilst not quoting any of the verses in full, the author focuses on the general tone of the letter particularly verses 5, 25, 27, 30, 32 and 34."

Study of the Manuchehri translations show no resemblence at all to the History and Doctrines of the Babi Movement passage cited and elsewhere on Wikipedia. It appears that the reference to The Bab's will in the History and Doctrines of the Babi Movement is not at all credible. This selection should be stricken as the source isn't reliable.

Secondly is the consideration of the text itself. Interestingly the key verse, the second, is not unanimously translated among the four studied. Of the three that concur, Manuchehri points out that Version 1 is attributed directly to Yahya, Version 2 is in Yahya's own handwriting, and Version 4 is ascribed to "generations of Babi/Bayani scribes overtime". These versions, 1, 2, & 4, read:

"Then testify that there is no God but you, the victorious and permanent." (Emphasis added.]

Version 3 is ascribed to one owned by the Afnán family, and has this to say about that version:

"Secondly, its discovery in the Afnan collection may point an earlier MS [manuscript] owned by Sayyid Ali Afnan or the Bab’s immediate family residing in Shiraz. It could suggest that the Bab or Subh-e Azal chose to send an early copy of the original MS to Shiraz."

The Baha’i scribe notes that the original did not contain any points/dots in the handwriting, which could suggest that this MS [manuscript] was from either Sayyid Husayn Yazdi or the Bab."

This version differs from the other three and reads:

"Then testify that verily there is no God but me, the victorious and permanent." (Emphasis added.)

Charges and counter-charges of forgery, suppression of various texts, etc. have been a part of the Baha'i/Azali question from the beginning. However, stating that only one translation is the "right and proper" one on the encyclopedia is inappropriate.

We need to refer to the actual translations on H-Baha'i as primary sources and strike the reference to the History and Doctrines of the Babi Movement. We also have to note the discrepancy in the second verse and that that discrepancy involves passages in Yahya's handwriting. It would look something like this:

---

Claims that Mirza Yahya's is "Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest" are based in-part on a version the Báb's Will. Several versions of this are extant. A translation, by Manuchehri (2004), of the Will as published by, and in the handwriting of, Mirza Yahya (available online here) reads:

"Name of Azal, testify that there is no God but I, the dearest beloved.

Then testify that there is no God but you [Yahya], the victorious and permanent.

Say, God created what He created from the time of beginning that has no beginning and, whatever He creates until the time of end that has no ending, to manifest His own being. This is the commandment of God upon whatever He has created and shall create.

...

We order you to obey Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest. He will verily appear amongst this people with a sublime reign in the final resurrection.

Verily we are all servants and kneel down before Him.

He shall carry out whatever He wishes, with permission from His Lord. He shall not be questioned for his actions. However all others are responsible for everything they do. ..."

Manuchehri, Sepehr (2004). "The Primal Point’s Will and Testament, Translation and Commentary", Research Notes in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies, Vol. 7, no. 2 (September, 2004) (Emphasis added.)

This claim is not un-contested, and another manuscript, owned by the Afnán family, differs from the abover version in one key particular. Manuchehri translates the second verse of that manuscript as:

"Then testify that verily there is no God but me, the victorious and permanent."

ibid. (Emphasis added.)

---

I'm not sure that that should go onto this page or Bahá'í/Bábí split. But clearly the History and Doctrines of the Babi Movement selection isn't credible. MARussellPESE 21:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The source citation was in error Wjhonson 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your request to refer to only the translations on the Baha'i site is flawed in one serious way. They are Baha'i. That is pov, not neutral. It is well-proven that there have been many self-serving "corrections" to original works. We are not here to prop up the Baha'i church, but to write a balanced article about Mirza. A person that Baha'i are taught is fairly close to being Satan. Their own writings are not the place to look for a balanced pov on him.

Or make a link from this page to a *new* page where we can discuss the will at greater length. Merely wiping out the most crucial evidence to support Mirza's claim isn't fair to his memory. No matter how many Baha'i scholars agree. Wjhonson 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The source citation was in error Wjhonson 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

H-Baha'i is by no means a Bahá'í site. It's an academic site hosted at Michigan State University, and its editor, J.R.I. Cole, is a well-known critic of the Bahá'í Faith. I pulled these sources precisely because they were not Bahá'í.

Please provide a citation that can be followed-up on. This: "(Quoted from the 24. New History, pp. 420, 426, 427, Browne in J.R.A.S. 1889, pp. 996, 997, October 1892, p. 763.)" is un-intelligible.

Do you mean this: [3]? It seems to jibe with the text in the article; but it'll have to be noted in the article that the document translated by Browne is in Mirza Yahya's handwriting, and that Browne took him at his word that this copy was authentic. Then let the reader decide for themselves its authenticity. MARussellPESE 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link that takes you to the JRAS page so you can see what this refers to. I've sent a message to them asking if it's possible to get a reprint of those articles to see for myself what they say. Finally what is your source that the copy Browne used was in Mirza's handwriting? Wjhonson 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This thread continues and combines with "Sources" below.

A Traveller's Narrative

Shoghi's "reprint" with notes is not sufficient. Only the original work is sufficient for research purposes. I have not yet reviewed Shoghi's version, but I believe there are substantial differences that non-Bahai's would object to. Knowing how other Baha'i sponsored works have undergone serious revision. Wjhonson 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have referencing information for the original then that's fine. Find the original publishing information, where it was published, and an ISBN. As I recall, this was a book written by Abdu'l Baha and translated by E.G. Browne, with Browne's footnotes. I don't know how Shoghi Effendi fits into this. Cuñado - Talk 18:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

H-Baha'i is a reasonable source for information. I'd thought that a reference with an ISBN would be preferable. Both are now referenced. Wjhonson, your reference to "Shoghi" is unclear. MARussellPESE 18:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 55 pages to the Introduction in the 1891 reference that do not appear in the reprint link. I haven't looked at the rest yet. But that is at least sufficient for why the original link is necessary. Wjhonson 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And apparently over 100 pages of a supplementary appendix that the other source is not including. Very bizarre. Wjhonson 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This is a bit silly. this site is clearly a web blog that anyone can post to. Sites like this have been consistently deleted as poor references. Is there a reason it keeps getting put back in? Cuñado - Talk 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an accurate retort to the claim that the Will does not say what the quote says it does. You wanted a source, and now you keep deleting a source which more-or-less says what I said. Obviously this translation is by a person who can read the language so it's relevant. It's interesting to see how the translation you prefer is so wildly inconsistent with this one. Delete yours and I'll delete mine, otherwise they both stay. Wjhonson 01:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor misunderstanding between the two of you. Wjhonson is quoting a new translation of a relatively famous "appointment letter". It is often used to show that Azal was in fact the head of the Babis after the death of the Bab. This should not be considered his will which is what the H-Baha'i site translates (or at least, common Baha'i and Babi belief is that blog translation is not his will). Note for instance that the Bab says relatively little about his posessions (actually says relatively little about anything). I wouldn't like to say which has more say in what the Bab actually meant though.

A more common translation is provided by Miller[4] around page 73/74. You cannot use this link in wikipedia as the site is in breach of copyright (Millers book is all over the web, but the copyright does not allow it).

As a general thought I'd suggest we remove the blog link. Although it is a new translation it doesn't offer anything extra and most would not consider it his will. If people still want it, I'd suggest use a different link (ie non blog) and link it as something other than his will. Thoughts welcome -- Tomhab 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I've now created a new page just for the successor letter where the full quote now lives. And I've moved the quote from this page to that one. Also fixed the Miller link since the book is readable online and permission is granted by the publisher themselves. Wjhonson 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to go to the Royal Asiatic Society for the "Appointment Letter". (The link provided doesn't actually point at anything on-topic.) Nor does one need to go to Miller, who's sources are not cited. It's already on H-Baha'i. Wjhonson, did you read the link above? It's a facsimile copy of the actual page 426 from Browne's The Tarikh-i-Jadid (New History) that you cited and reads that the document was "Copied by Subh-i-Ezal [sic] from the original document ...". The facing page states clearly "Facsimile of transcript made by Subh-i-Ezel [sic] of the document him as the Báb's successor. (original written by the Báb.)"

Cut-and-dried — the available copy of Mirza Yahya's "Appointment Letter" is in his own handwriting.

I'll edit the "Appointment Letter" selection to match this verifiable reference and include Browne's notes. MARussellPESE 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Miller does source his quotes, that is where I got the link to the Journal in the first place. From the new research into the JRAS I believe it's likely that the 1889 version has a facsimile of the original document. That would be in the Bab's own handwriting. I'm still waiting for a response from them. Wjhonson 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Browne didn't actually see the original. That the original is in the Bab's handwriting is Yahya's claim and Browne never verified it. That he often took Azali documents at face value without confirming against originals is one of the criticisms levelled at Browne during the later period of his work on the subject. (Balyuzi, Hasan (1893). E.G. Browne and the Bahá'í Faith. ISBN 0853980233. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)) Browne notes that the original is in Yahya's possession and not the RAS. There's no telling what that RAS citation says, so asserting, or suggesting, that this is a genuine copy in the Bab's handwriting is unsupported. MARussellPESE 16:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that Browne did not see the original is unsupported. In fact Miller, who has evidently read the Journal article, states that the original was sealed with the Bab's own seal. And Browne states that the original in the Bab's handwriting is in Mirza's possession. Browne is usually very exact in the statements he makes. The way to tell what the JRAS has, is to view the JRAS article. Wjhonson 16:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Browne is usually very exact in his statements, which is why I'd take him at his word that the original was in Yahya's possesion and not his. His translation is of the document that Yahya wrote himself and sent to Browne. There's no evidence that Browne ever saw another copy, otherwise he'd have translated that one ¿no?, which supports the assertion that "didn't actually see the original".

That there's controversy over which document(s) are authentic is well-documented with respect to the Will in Manuchehri's Study. [5] These controversies were widespread and involved many documents. Charges that Bahá'ís over the years have supressed these, and that this is evidence of malfeasance on their part, ignores the fact that it's really not the Bahá'í community's responsibility to maintain Azalí documents any more than it's the job of a Sunní madrassah to maintain a Shía library.

Miller is, at best, a secondary source. His background as a Christian missionary does not suggest that he'd recognize the Báb's seal as such unless he were told what it was. Nor does Miller's book provide another translation of the "appointment letter", except Browne's, which is already discussed. This vitriolic book, along with Maulana Muhammad Ali's polemic, at best document the controversy as well as the authors' biases. We need to push till we find reliable primary sources for these citations. MARussellPESE 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I linked Miller because the link you provided above because the web version of Browne's book seemed to miss out the appendix with the translation. I didn't see the GIF.

Although I've always noted scheticism over this (and other) letters by the Bab from Baha'is, I've never seen someone quote something saying "its wrong" so....... until someone finds a source saying its not genuine, we should link it. Besides it doesn't say anything that Baha'is are ashamed of. Shoghi Effendi always said that Mirza Yahya was appointed leader of the Babis. -- Tomhab 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Miller, does not state that he *saw* the seal, so whether he could or couldn't recognize it is irrelevant. He states that the letter has the seal of the Bab. And he cites his source as that JRAS article. So I would have to believe, that Browne states this in that very article, otherwise why would Miller state it and cite that article? Browne also, independent of that article (so evidently in two places) states that the document is in the Bab's own handwriting. So apparently stating that in at least two seperate places. Wjhonson 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Appointment section

For the record, Wjhonson has characterized this discussion as an edit war over, apparently my, unwillingness to "face the fact that the Bab nominated Mirza [Yahya] as his successor", and the quibbling over sources as evidence of that. This is patently false. It's generally accepted that Yahya was the successor — even I do.

I am the one who actually added the "Appointment" section, took the trouble to do the reasearch to add a reliable source, and copy the entire letter word-for-word, so as to update Wjhonson's work. [6] Wjhonson's own research led him to quote a book with the wrong source for this [7] I update this and am accused not wanting to "face the fact"?

What's not generally accepted is whether or not The Báb referred to Yahya as "God". (I wish Wjhonson would slow down and read the discussion above, or the study of the primary sources, on the Will.) There is legitimate and open controversy over which version(s) are correct. And again, I'm the one who did the research, dug up a reputable source that documents the primary sources, and presented both sides, even quoting Yahya's version in full.

Wjhonson also laments that we are (Do I read "I am"?) not willing to consult original sources when I'm the one who's dug up original facsimilies on a reputable academic site maintained by a noted critic of the Bahá'í Faith. Miller's and Maulana Muhammad Ali's work are at-best secondary sources and kept on religious apologetic sites, but these seem to be the principle (only) sources that Wjhonson considers authoritative.

Totally aside, Wjhonson, Mirzá isn't a name — it's an honorific.

MARussellPESE 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

First it was not I my friend but Occamy who so characterized it as an "edit war" on my own user:talk page. Secondly, when certain persons, blindly delete my additions *without* even reading the sources which I quote *and* link to, that tells me something right there. I use Mirza because that is how he was called. I have no problem with you moving the page, if you want to move everything that links to it as well. Wjhonson 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What number am I on.. fourthly? The "Will" and the "Successor Letter" are apparently not the same thing. Although Maulana calls the Letter the Will, another posted (I forget who) believes they are not the same thing. Certainly the translation provided on the Will does not match, whatsoever, to the translations provided in at least three places (although perhaps derivative). Fifthly, Browne visited many times. He did not just sit in his study and collect letters. So he had the opportunity to see for himself if the Succession Letter were actually in the Bab's handwriting or not. Wjhonson 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I did not say you. There is at least one person who is using a pop-up tool to delete my additions. Without any comment. And there is at least one more who does not take the time to read the sources before blindly deleting my cogent points. Wjhonson 19:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I first coined the term "Successor Letter" as I've never seen it termed his "Will" before. Besides any problem of something being genuine (both of these have small question marks over their heads as the original sources are quite rare), there appear to be two distinct letters. If you read his "will" it is many verses long. The "succession letter" says very little except "hold" and "enjoin" the laws of the Bayan. Certainly nothing about completing it. -- Tomhab 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

After vandalizing the page three times as an anon user [8] [9] [10], you added the quote from the Bab's letter and said "I will now watchlist this page and instantly revert any attempt to remove this quote" before anyone had even deleted it. You have imagined some ideological battle is going on and the Baha'is editing the page have not even engaged you.

Baha'i sources agree that Mirza Yahya was appointed to lead the Babis, there is no dispute here or some hidden agenda. Mirza Yahya was also told to be obedient to HWGSMM, and he was given the authority to finish the Bayan with His permission. Your attempts to dig up dirt have led you to using a mass murderer as your primary source. You have used a strange patchwork of online sources, which all the other contributors have spent energy fixing up, adding proper formatting and ISBN's. Please be civil. In your attempt to counter a perceived POV you have gone to the opposite extreme. In trying to prop up Mirza Yahya you deleted the reference that he was only 19 when appointed, and the important fact that he was clearly instructed in the letter that he was not HWGSMM, and that he was to follow Him when He appears. In my case it was your distorted view of the facts, combined with poor referencing that led me to revert. Cuñado - Talk 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I was not even active on this site during the month of December. At least not in the Baha'i section. Don't believe me? View my history for yourself. Withdraw your slander. I had posted the long quote and it was removed. So I put it back. (After enough of these sort of new-speak deletions, I get annoyed.) It's completely relevant to the issue, and people should be able to make up their own minds about it without censorship.Wjhonson 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I jumped to conclusions. I admit it. The edits I mentioned were very similar to your first edit on the page. Cuñado - Talk 21:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cuñado, I can't follow what you're talking about either. I don't think that this is helping.

Okay, Wjhonson. You intended no offense — none taken. I hope likewise. However, you may want to take a look at your posts to my, other's and various articles', talk pages with an eye to the, frankly, beligerent tone you've taken. As Cuñado points out, your edit summaries "revert the complete dishonest distortion of cunado" and "I will now watchlist this page and instantly revert any attempt to remove this quote" are cases in point. Also, you seem to be the first person to have referrd to others' edits as vandalism here.

Also, ten edits in one hour on one page are incredibly hard for others to follow. (They're probably also hard on Wikipedia's servers.) Could you make edits all at once please?

I think you're running into the Recent Changes Patrol when you're getting reverted without discussion. Editing heavily and frequently on the same page, and noting them all as minor even when you're adding/deleting passages, will very likely attract their attention. Having completely dis-interested editors revert your work is a clue that your conduct, if not your contributions, are out of the norm.

I think you'll find the Bahá'í editors more than willing to log-roll with you, if you take the time to discuss changes on Talk pages and come with sources we can discuss. MARussellPESE 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I found the citation finally, it's already online. I edited the article and added the citation and fixed the verbage since it's not clear that Browne did see the original, and did state that it was in the Bab's own handwriting. I believe the RAS is sending me a copy of it as well. Wjhonson 04:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources (II)

Continued from "Sources"

I think you'll have a real problem relying Maulana Muhammad Ali's History and Doctrines here. If he can't get the Will and Appointment letter straight, which apparently even Miller can, that seriously call into question it's credibility. That and it's still a secondary source where the H-Bahai documents aren't. There's a lot there that you'll find interesting; and you won't have to rely on polemicists like these.

I'm familiar with Browne's travels in, and impressions of, Persia. I read Momen's Selections from the Writings of E.G. Browne on the Bábí and Bahá'í Religions. ISBN 0853982465. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) last year which includes his own diaries of his 1887-1888 sojourn and several other works. That year was the only period of time he spent there, and he went there fresh out of school to study the Báb and the Bábís. He'd never heard of "Bahá'ís" and didn't much care for the pacifist tone Bahá'u'lláh was taking with his works. At that time the "genuine" Bábís were Azalís as the vast majority of Bábís were by then Bahá'ís. To Browne, Bahá'ís were not interesting.

Afterwards the bulk of his research was in European libraries and through correspondence with acquaintances he'd made there. He was desparate in the middle of his career to obtain anything he could. A lot of these correspondents were Azalis, including Yahya, so his research was skewed even given his best efforts. Baluzi (E.G. Browne and the Bahá'í Faith. ISBN 0853980233. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)), another Bahá'í historian, confronts this directly and documents the issues.

So, again, that's why it's easy for me to say that if Browne had had a copy of this letter in the Báb's handwriting, he'd have translated that. It's absence is significant and doesn't provide independent confirmation (Browne's) that the Báb called Yahya "God". The contradictory versions of the "Will" provide no confirmation either.

I don't have any problem with the "Appointment" section being here or in "Baha'i/Babi split". It's probably better there.

I don't think that the Miller and Maulana Muhammad Ali references are appropriate in the face of the primary sources on H-Baha'i and they should be removed and replaced with those. MARussellPESE 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Except that both Miller and Maulana cite *new* sources that are not in H-Baha'i as you can see. Or at least are not readily obvious. I've posted at least four that had to be looked up to verify they even exist. Wjhonson 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, if Miller's or Maulana Muhammad Ali's citation are not obvious that certainly makes them questionable sources. That's why this takes so much work tracking down primary sources. Can you post the citations here. You and I can both look through H-Bahai. MARussellPESE 21:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. The Miller book is online, he cites his sources, they are right there. For Maulana I did cite the source as I mentioend again. He cites for the Letter the Introduction to Naqtutal, which apparently is wrong, but I did find that Miller cites the Journal which seems accurate enough to at least look into. Wjhonson 22:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You will want to review Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Both are secondary sources because they aren't the original documents. They quote or cite the original, or primary, sources. The reliability of secondary sources is always a concern as one is relying on the author/editor to be reliable free of bias. One could hardly say that of either Miller or Maulana Muhammad Ali. Both had axes to grind.

You have made a lot of edits on these pages and haven't cited that many sources beyond these two, if then. You've obviously got something to say. But your contributions will have far more staying power, and make stronger contributions if you can back them up with reliable and verifiable sources. MARussellPESE 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As does Abdul and Shoghi don't you think? Their entire reputation rides on deriding their predecessors. Since *this* page and others are about their predecessors, then those sources are themselves pov. I don't think you can honestly dispute this. You want only the Baha'i spin without anything to counter it. That is pov. So Miller and Maulana have to stay if you're going to be quoting "God Passes By" and other words. That is called balance. I did review reliable and secondary sources are quite fine. Esp are the primary sources are spun by whoever it seems feels like publishing them, as we've seen already in a number of instances. Wjhonson 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's asserting that God Passes By is a primary source. I would submit Nabil's Narrative as it's a personal account. One uses secondary sources when primary ones aren't available, so using Miller's or Maulana Muhammad Ali's citations of documents available elsewhere is what's weak. MARussellPESE 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify what you are intending by "successor". It's apparent that even Baha'i sources state that he "led" the group. Leading is a form of succession by itself. And it's well-known that he added to the Bayan. I haven't read a Baha'i source which claims that these additions are Satanic, just that they don't really read the Bayan anymore. Not that it wasn't authoritative when he wrote his additions. Wjhonson 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to NPOV your edit of 03:28, 8 February 2006 with the endearing Edit summary: "I will now watchlist this page and instantly revert any attempt to remove this quote". This issue of "succession" was already addressed in Bahá'í/Bábí split and "Him whom God shall make manifest" (HWGSMM). You brought it here.

Yahya was and is generally taken to have been appointed to lead the Bábís in the interregnum between the Báb's death and the coming of HWGSMM. Parenthetically, I don't buy Manuchehri's commentary on Verses 10-12 of the "Will": "Attaining Azal’s presence is equivalent to attaining the presence of God. ... " [11] These verses don't mention Yahya, but rather say, in Manuchehri's own translation and after he's made it clear that the letter was addressed to Yahya: "Whoever attains the presence of the Throne of your Lord, has in effect attained the presence of God, ..." Attain whose presence? Seems clear that it's Yahya's Lord, not Yahya himself.

Browne used the term "successor". However, as a "Manifestation of God", the Báb's successor was often read as HWGSMM by Bábís; and the assertion that nobody else claimed to be HWGSMM is not true. This was actually the foundation of Yahya's claim to be HWGSMM. According to Baluzi, "Hardly any of these self-styled 'Manifestations of God' were men of guile or greed or ambition. As tensions increased their number rose to the high figure of twenty-five." (H.M. Balyuzi, E.G. Browne and The Baha'i Faith, p. 42) (Emphasis added). Both articles highlight the major ones. The question of leader v. successor is not a small one to Bábí history and shouldn't be duplicated here on a biography page.

I think this whole section should be edited down significantly, stating that Yahya was taken to be appointed to lead the Bábís until the HWGSMM should step forward. And provide a main article link to Bahá'í/Bábí split. These points are raised better there as they involve far more people than Yahya and Baha'u'llah.

My current edit anticipates such a move. MARussellPESE 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Divine Showdown

What is your source for this tale of the divine showdown that Yahya Nuri wouldn't show up to? Wjhonson 09:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was lazy by copying from Cole's "A Brief Biography of Baha'u'llah" [12]; he uses the following sources for the whole paragraph, but I have not checked them: (Baha'u'llah, Lawh-i Nasir, Majmu`ih-yi Matbu`ih, pp. 166-202; Dahaji, pp. 35-38, 283-85; Salmani, tr., pp. 42-48, 93-105; Qazvini, tr., pp. 19-27). --Occamy 14:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely in these: E.G. Browne, Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion, An Epitome of Babi and Bahai History To A.D. 1898, Translated from the Original Arabic of Mirza Muhammad Jawad of Qazvin, page 18 [[13]]

My Memories of Bahá'u'lláh, by Ustád Muhammad-`Alíy-i Salmání. pages 94-95 [[14]] --Occamy 16:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yahya did "refuse" to go according to both sources:

"In short, soon after he [Baha'u'llah] had entered the Mosque, Mír Mubammad arrived saying, 'Mírzá Yahyá asks to be excused because to­day it is not possible for him to present himself. He therefore begs you to appoint another day, and to write a note to this effect, signed and sealed, that whoever does not present himself at the appointed time is an impostor.' ... Some days elapsed after this, and they gave him no such note, nor did they appear at the trystingplace" (E.G. Browne, Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion, "Open rupture between Baha’u’llah and Subh-i-Azal, Aug. 26, 1867) (Emphasis added.)

"Before noon the next day, Bahá'u'lláh stepped out of the andarún, and the revelation was upon Him. "No one shall accompany me." He said, and none did, except for Mír Muhammad. ... Bahá'u'lláh went to that mosque, and there was no Azal to be seen. ... Bahá'u'lláh waited there about one hour. No Azal. Mír Muhammad went and told him, 'Look here, fellow, you come!'

And Azal said, 'Go on back. I will be there.' Back and forth went Mír Muhammad, two or three times. Still no Azal. And his falsity was exposed for all to see." {Ustád Muhammad-`Alíy-i Salmání, My Memories of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 95)

The statement that Yahya "neglected" to go suggests that he didn't know about it. No sources state this. In fact, most point to this episode as being Yahya's challenge. MARussellPESE 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry (again), you are correct. --Occamy 13:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Citing Maulana and bayanic.com

These references are sloppy. The other references note page numbers and give links where available. Merely saying "Maulana says so-and-so" is of next to no help when back-checking. Maulana Muhammad Ali's book is a noted anti-Baha'i polemic (MacEoin, The Babi and Baha'i Religions: An Annotated Bibliography, "Anti-Baha'i Polemics", #413) and routinely either makes unsubstantiated claims or exclusively cites Browne's various works. Without a page number it is not possible to check which is which. As an aside, MacEoin notes that Miller is flat-out biased (ibid., #639), and he, Miller, uses basically the same approach as Maulana Muhammad Ali: make unsubstantiated claims or selectively quote Browne. Both are derivitive works and we should be citing Browne where they would. The rest is unverifiable.

For example, the statment "nobody questioned his leadership" is weasley and unsubstantiated. "Leadership" is a tricky concept here. As already stated, and sourced, in the article, Mirza Yahya was MIA almost throughout the Baghdad period and Baha'u'llah was one of the community's defacto leaders. The "Leader" of the Babi's was to be HHGWMM after some interregnum which, every source agrees, Mirza Yahya was to oversee. Howevre, several men, including Mirza Yahya, advanced such claims evenutally, so there were in fact several rival claimants to the "leadership" of the Babi community. "Interim leader" or "leader in the interim" are far more accurate. The only thing I can find in Maulana is that nobody questioned the appointment as interim leader (Maulana Muhammad Ali, History and Doctrines of the Babi Movement, p. 28) and that is not sourced. Maulana Muhammad Ali then goes on (ibid., pp. 33-37) to reiterate that Yahya was to step aside for HHGWMM and then lists several claimants to that role. (These rivals are independently verified by other sources.) This is hardly "uncontested leadership."

Regarding Mirza Yahya's successor, Maulana Muhammad Ali, (ibid. p. 45) merely cites the exact same sections from Browne already in the article, including the spelling of his name. Of course he wouldn't have anything to say about the successor's conversion away from the Babi Faith — because the successor was the son of the one who renounced the Faith.

Bayanic.com sources don't meet wikipedia verifiability policies. References are to have been published, or self-referencing if "not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources". Its claims that there were no successors is so contradicted: Browne's, as already noted in the article. MARussellPESE 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement on wiki to cite page numbers. Read the source yourself, it's crystal-clear. Your laziness is not a requirement on my part to do your research for you. Second, the successor did not renounce the faith. You can't set-up a strawman and then blow him down, that trick doesn't work on me. Third, bayanic sources do meet the verifiability section. They are published. Your statement that they are not is without any foundation. Fourth, Baha'i sources themselves state quick clearly that Yayha was the leader of the movement for this time period. Your lack of interest in researching your own history, is not a requirement on me to do it for you. Wjhonson 17:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. I used Miller in creating this page, so Miller is a Reference. Not only is he a Reference, he is a Source. His book gives primary references NOT in any other work, as far as I'm aware. That makes him a primary source. Perhaps you want a new war over that? Wjhonson 17:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Miller was a Christian preacher who wrote the book in an attempt to debunk the religion, and likewise Maulana wrote his to defend his own version of the Mahdi. Moreover, both were written decades after any of the events they recall, and neither of them did any research outside of Browne and other sources that we have available, so they are hardly even secondary sources. The fact that they are used so extensively by anti-Baha'i polemic is a testimony to the depths of ignorance that people will stoop to dig up some dirt.

I agree with MARussellPESE on all accounts. Web sites should not be used if they are contradicted by actual sources, and primary sources should be used whenever possible. Browne can be considered a primary source, because he actually met Mirza Yahya and Baha'u'llah and had an intimate relationship with many Babis. But even his writings are heavily weighted on the Mirza Yahya side, so he is not the ultimate authority. There are numerous primary sources on the Baha'i side of things. Cuñado - Talk 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, you're kidding right? Just about every paragraph has detailed citations, including pages, so that anybody can review them. I'm not doing the research?

1. No, there's no requirement on wikipedia to cite page numbers. That'd just be courteous. You might please consider it. (Harvard referencing and the Chicago Manual of Style do though.)
2. Which successor are you talking about? Hadiy-i-Dawlat-Abadi or his son. Both are identified as "successors". The father did, as cited. Nobody knows about the son. There's actually no reference to him beyond the reference in Browne. We don't even seem to have his name.
3. Please provide an ISBN or publishing house for the bayanic.com material. How is stating that they aren't published without foundation when they don't even say so on their own website?.
4. Nobody's questioning that he was the "titular" leader, but all the sources also say that he was AWOL. "Interim" leader is the most correct, and even Maulana backs that up. (Ref. the transfer to Baghdad and Baghdad years.)
5. Obviously you used Miller, and haven't provided any citations at all for it. So nobody can check to see if he cites any primary sources on-point. It's entirely un-verifiable on that score.

Arguing that this article without Miller/Maulana Muhammad Ali is a biased Baha'i character assassination is specious. Only one source is Baha'i and is only there because Browne has no information on it. There was a lot he didn't have as he lamented for much of his career. All, repeat all, of the rest are from academic, even anti-Baha'i sources.

I'm not asking you to do my research. I'm asking you, and have for some time, to provide enough data so that people can confirm yours, without having to dig through pages and pages of a book trying to dig up what you might be trying to add. It's courteous. My sources, with their page numbers, are right there. MARussellPESE 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Courteous is a two-way street. You remove my research instead of simply asking for a citation. That is not courteous. You can review other pages to see that the courteous method is to post a citation tag on the statement. Wjhonson 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the burden of proof is on you to provide your references. This is a controversial subject that deserves careful treatment. We've bent over backwards to use any source other than Baha'i ones. This discussion goes way back with you. You've had ample time to find the citations and share them.

Calling me lazy for not being willing to dig through over a hundred pages of text to tease out some comment of yours because you can't be bothered to list a page number is beyond belief really. It is easier to revert apparently than to dig up a reference and improve the content. MARussellPESE 21:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson: Very much improved. Thank you. Now individual points can be addressed. You've also added some good material. Mirza Burzurg indeed was not a "Prince", and clarifying that exposes an item of the typical Persian hyperbole of the period that crept into an awful lot of everybody's works. Nice touch. (See, I don't reject Miller out-of-hand.) MARussellPESE 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunado you are simply wrong. Miller states quite clearly if you'd bother to read it, that he was given over eleven *hundred* pages of original manuscript pages. Some of the statements in his work, as far as I know, do not exist outside of his work. And whether he is partisan or not is irrelevant. Everything published by the Baha'is is partisan as well. Putting all sources together is called balance or npov. Only relying on *approved* Baha'i sources isn't balance. Read the first few pages of the Miller book I cited, see for yourself what he does or doesn't say. He read Persian and Arabic himself, so he was quite able to understand the original manuscripts he was reading. Wjhonson 17:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On another note, Subh-i-Azal's appointment as leader is also detailed in the New History link I posted. Mirza Jani wrote in 1851 or 1854, *before* the Babi/Baha'i split. His work is quoted extensively in the New History by Hamadani. Read what he says about the appointment, etc. It's very interesting. Wjhonson 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

page title

This page title should be moved to Subh-i-Azal. Mirza Yahya Nuri was his given name and Subh-i-Azal was his title, so it should be one or the other but not both. Considering that most pages use the title, it should be Subh-i-Azal, and note that it should have two dashes (currently says Subh-i Azal). Any comments before I change it? Cuñado - Talk 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. --Occamy 10:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language verification

There appears to be confusion about what is meant on V when they discuss foreign-language documents. There is no restriction on using foreign-language documents, and there is no denigration to using translations. If there were this sort of restriction, we could not even quote the Bible, or anything Bahaullah wrote either. So obviously the interpretation that foreign-language translations may not be used is an incorrect interpretation of V. Wjhonson 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They're supposed to be translated per WP:V, either by the editor or someone else, so that the reader can read something in English to validate what's been said. Quoting directly:

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

MARussellPESE 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that sources that aren't printed in English can't be used, and translations done by editors are worthless. Cuñado - Talk 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? WP:V is policy, and the points above seem clear enough that editor translations are OK, provided they cite their source clearly. MARussellPESE 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this section was moved from WP:RS, which is a guideline, to WP:V which is a policy, without any discussion on the V Talk page. I've reverted it so it can be discussed and refined. We, as editors, cannot be in the position of second-guessing whether a published translation is accurate. The original wording that was copied from RS implied that ill-conceived notion. Wjhonson 16:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you didn't put this back into WP:RS, and I don't follow your argument. Nothing in those points suggests second-guessing published translations. In fact, it states a clear preference for them. The second choice is a user-provided translation with a clear citation that provides the opportunity to check it by other users — fully in accord with WP:V. MARussellPESE 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where in the policy pages it states that editors can't translate, but if it doesn't, then it should. Editor translations are original research. Word definitions can be accomplished by dictionaries, but long passages can be distorted when translated, or simply made-up. To me, unless there is a published translation, it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Cuñado - Talk 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Undent. The way the wording was stated seemed to imply that editors had a duty to ensure that the original could be found, or that the translation was accurate in some way. That is what I objected to. I also agree with Cunado that we as editors should not be translating at all. Evidently I'm in the minority on that issue. I don't feel horribly strongly about it, but I do agree that it seems to be OR. Translation is not a purely mechanical task like transcribing is (which isn't OR in my view). At any rate, it appears that addition to WP:V is going to be discussed in the Talk. It would be pretty restrictive if we had to validate translations in any way other then merely citing them. Wjhonson 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we three are in some agreement here. (Let me put my feet up and enjoy this for a moment.) Editor-provided translation is arguably OR, and even with a full citation that allows another editor to check, doesn't seem to get over the WP:V bar, because that requires that "any reader" can check the source. (That's why I'm so damned anal about complete sources by the way.) It doesn't say "an editor with the appropriate language skills". (I've carried this to that project page talk page.)

Also, that V bar is rather low in this in a sense that, as you both point out, translations themselves are arguable. Anybody remember the Azam v. Akbar argument? By the way I just heard a BBC reporter translate Allau-u-Akbar as "God is Great". Languages whose words have slippery meanings only compound the problem. And once something is in Wikipedia, it is the devil's-own time to get it out, even if it's junk, because the bar is "verifiability not truth". MARussellPESE 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this whole article is disputed

I have tagged this article disputing its neutrality Thamarih 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The title Subh-i-Azal

It is attested in at least a dozen sources and epistles penned by the Bab - all of which are presently on Bayanic.com. Since some of the people have argued here that Bayanic.com is not a worthy portal of citation for these articles, we will adduce H-Bahai where some of these same sources are also present. Besides the 'Seven Proofs' cited earlier the title of Morning/Dawn of Eternity/Pre-Eternity (subh-i-azal) is directly cited in the Bab's Book of the Five Grades, beginning here, http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/areprint/bab/M-R/panj/ps089.gif (second line before last)

Tens of hundreds of other such references where the Bab makes mention of his successor as Subh-i-Azal can be furnished from the same Book and countless other epistles all on Bayanic.com. A-L-M Nicolas also cites it here, http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/K-O/N/Succeseur/Succeseur.htm

Given this, the statement that scholars dispute the title having any currency is specious. Note that the only "scholar" to have publicly made it is Moojan Momen and it is an amateurish argument which been disputed by several individuals, including Sepehr Manuchehri and Juan Cole, and on the H-Bahai discussion list. So those individuals including this statement need to proffer more evidence of the plural "scholars" (and those besides Moojan Momen) who disputed this title belonging to Subh-i-Azal. Shoghi Effendi does not count as a scholar nor Douglas Martin nor Adib Taherzadeh. Thamarih 07:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover Nicola Towfigh nor Udo Shaeffer count here either Thamarih 07:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The sock puppet misses the point.

• Everyone, Baha'is included, recognize that Mirza Yahya was the Bab's appointed successor.
• Everyone, Baha'is included, can see for themselves that Mirza Yahya was commanded to obedience to "Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest".
• Everyone, Baha'is included, can see for themselves what little Mirza Yahya was able to accomplish with his talents and leadership.

However, the Azalis have insist that all of the Islamic references to "Azal" in fact specifically apply to Mirza Yahya — hence the sturm und drang over his title. When contrary facts are presented, and cited, reliance on ad hominem attacks to try to impeach them, while they may have a long and cherished history to Azalis, isn't an effective answer. MARussellPESE 15:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You Bahais, as usual, do not have a leg to stand on such questions. This is what the Will and Testament of the Bab actually states regarding He whom the Godhead shall make Manifest, http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/abac1eaace6c4fce/81d40cafeb9d57da?lnk=st&q=Will+and+Testament+of+the+Point&rnum=3&hl=en#81d40cafeb9d57da "And you are all commanded [to obey] He whom God shall make Manifest, for He will assuredly return to this creation in the other/later Resurrection by the Sovereignty of Mighty Excellence. Verily we are [His] servants and verily to Him are we all prostrated. He shall carry out whatever be His will by the permission of His Lord. None shall question Him about His doings but all things shall be questioned about what they do."

This stanza in no way implies that this manifestation is to occur immediately, especially as the very segment I put up from the Book of the Five Grades above explicitly states that any manifestation will occur after the setting (ghurub) of the Morning-Dawn of Pre-Eternity (subh-i-azal), and it is a Command to all of the People of the Bayan and not specifically Subh-i-Azal. The stanza immediately following the one I cited from the Will of the Point, then tells Azal,

"And if God manifests grandeur in thy days, manifest the Eight Paths by the permission of your Lord by that which you [receive] of His high generosity. Verily We have promised to the Throne carrier of your Lord a perspicuous path of Unity when the command descended in her presence, for verily We are of those who fulfil [promises]. God does not promise anything that He cannot succeed in fulfilling, for verily He is the Truthful of the Most Truthful. And if God does not manifest grandeur in thy days, be patient with what hast been sent down and do not change even a single letter, for such is the command of God in the Mighty Book."

He is telling Him to reveal the rest of the eight remaining unities of the Arabic Bayan, conditional on the manifestation of grandeur - meaning victory of the cause of the Bayan. Nothing in there about the imminent manifestation of the Promised One of the Bayan. Earlier He had told Him,

"And if in your days God should manifest one like unto you, He is accounted by God as the one singular inheritor of the Cause. And if He does not manifest it, for certain God does not wish that His Self be known and so the decree of the whole Cause returns to God, your Lord and the Lord of the worlds."

If He is telling Him to appoint a successor, conditional on One appearing like Him, pray tell, where does this remotely imply that He whom the Godhead shall make Manifest will appear immediately during Azal's lifetime? It does not. It categorically implies the opposite.

The rest of your arguments is the usual assortment of errant nonsense that has spewed endlessly out of the malicious and sick sectarian minds of you Bahais! If Subh-i-Azal was not able to accomplish much, pray tell, how did He manage to compose over 100 volumes of works (most of which run several hundred pages each), a dozen times more than the corpus of your prophet squared? The only way your so-called religion managed to accomplish anything was with full backing of European colonialist powers who backed your prophet for their own nefarious colonialist ends. With nothing, Subh-i-Azal accomplished much. With much, the most your so-called religion has accomplished is to generate generation after generation of conflict and rancor within families, beginning in the family of your prophet himself. So much for your creed's so-called accomplishments. And fancy buildings on Mt Carmel funded by Israeli subsidies with drones in suits guarding them, behind which lays nothing but hot air and bluster, is no accomplishment. By the way, what has ever become of Abbas Effendi's prophecy regarding the lessor peace by the year 2000, pray tell?

Thamarih 07:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to A-L-M Nicolas' article (in French) "Qui est le succeseur du Bab?" on the successor of the Bab, viz. Subh-i-Azal, that categorically refutes everything you Bahais have been stating in all of these contrived, sleight-of-handed wikipedia entries you are desperate to territorialize, monopolize and control on behalf of your authorities as an organ of their propaganda that sheepishly rehearses your totally biased, white-washed, conflated, re-Imagined, deceitful, manufactured and 100% bogus sectarian fantasy-narratives, that were already discredited decades ago: http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/K-O/N/Succeseur/Succeseur.htm

And from August J. Strensand http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/P-T/S/stenstrand/Stenstrand.htm http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/P-T/S/stenstrand/Stenstrand4.htm http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/P-T/S/stenstrand/Stenstrand5.htm

Read it and weep! Thamarih 12:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bahai Universal House of Justice is not an academic institution

You state that "certain academics have disputed the title of Subh-i-Azal" and the only proof your proffer is from the Bahai Universal House Justice, the Haifan Bahai body of the main branch located in Haifa Israel. This body is not an Academic institution so the statement is an outright deception and lie. I have removed it.Thamarih 08:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

You fail to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially verifiability, and no original research. verifiability states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. " Self-published websites are not considered reliable sources. Also secondary sources are recommended over primary sources so that one does not perform original research and interpret statements themselves.

Now in your edits you removed sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia sources. You removed Barret, which I've reinstated. You also removed Adbu'l-Baha, and fine remove that source, but I've referenced it with Cole. And finally the House is not being used as a source, it was used as an online location where the text from the other published source could be seen; I've made that clear in the reference now (that the House is not the one being sourced). Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia's policies quite well. There is no original research here. All the items referenced from our end are have been circulating in numerous sources for years. You Bahais are attempting to ram through your own biased sectarian narratives by force down everyone's throat (as has been your practice for 140 years now), using wikipedia as a sectarian propaganda platform, attempting to make skewed narratives as established fact, in an effort to perpetuate your sectarian fantasies and the smeering of a holy Bayani figure - particularly as every last item of such smeer has been disputed by everyone ten times over not remotely tied to your creed. You have not referenced A-L-M Nicolas. You have gratuitously referenced E.G. Browne whenever it has suited your purposes, failing to reference him in other instances, but have deliberately sleight of handed (or fallen silent) when he clearly contradicts your overall sectarian narrative and smeer of Subh-i-Azal. You have not referenced Denis MacEoin's Divisions and Authority Claims in Early Babism Studia Iranica (1989), nor have you referenced Gobineau, who is one of the earliest European language sources which attests to the succession and Mirrorhood of Subh-i-Azal. And the list goes on and on. We are not going to bend over backwards for you Bahais anymore to accomodate your propaganda fantasies. We are not asking for a Bayani hagiography here of Subh-i-Azal. We ask for balance, and a balance that is decidedly not the whitewash smeer campaign of you Bahais. Either these Bayani wikipedia articles reflect that, or we will escalate this information war on you ten times over in other more public domains, as we did with Bahais in My Backyard. Ball in your court. You can either work with us and act reasonably for a change, or we will fight you to the bitter end and establish our point of view on these Bayani related matters by any and all means necessary. You choose!

And you Bahais do not own wikipedia. Just remember that.

Thamarih 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple other Wikipedia policies, assume good faith and no personal attacks. If you have secondary sources that state things, bring them into the article with the citations of course. But don't delete other cited materials; if you're asking us to work reasonably, then you have to do so as well, and have documentation from all reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies assume good faith. That's right. Ramming propaganda narratives consistently and insisting it is verifiable is not good faith, even by the warped standards of you Bahais. Clearly where all these articles are concerned there is a pattern of bad faith and malice consistently exercised by you Bahais. Therefore the assumption is sound that your monopoliziation of these articles is precisely exercise of bad faith, hence a violation of wikipedia policies. For example, you have not proffered a single explanation as to why a better picture of Subh-i-Azal which was uploaded by me was removed by you. This is bad faith. Case shut! Thamarih 07:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Appointment as The Báb's successor

The entire section needs to be rewritten from scratch as it is nothing more than a verbatim rehearsal of Bahai sectarian narratives. Denis MacEoin's Divisions and Authority Claims in Early Babism Studia Iranica (1989) is one place to start. Thamarih 13:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that while that particular document is not sourced, the MacEoin article from Iranica is already used in the succession part. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is sleight of hand and bad faith, not to mention transparent dishonesty. You have not sourced MacEoin but claim it has been referenced within the article. Such referencing is selective and gratuitous (and a very deceptive claim on your part) because in the article Maceoin quite clearly unpacks all of your sources one by one identifying them as biased and hagiographical, hence unreliable source material tout court. Yet you persist in still quoting such material as verifiable primary objective sources, deceptively attempting to dismiss other sources as unverifiable by a standard which is clearly ideologically leaning upon your personal propaganda interpretative narratives, when indeed they - these other sources, such as Nicolas, MaCeoin, Gobineau, Miller et al - are far more verifiable than your biased hagiographical narratives such as God Passes By or the Dawn Breakers. What you're doing here in historiography is called selectively and biasedly privileging certain sources over others, and it clearly an exercise in bad faith. In the Academy you people would either be laughed to scorn or thrown out on yours ears. But what is one to expect of you people anymore since this is the entire historical modus operandi of your so-called creed since the 1860s. Thamarih 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FBI, CIA Scriveners Edit Wikipedia Entries

Proof that Haifan Bahai wikipedia hacks are working hand-in-glove with American Intelligence

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=954

Thamarih 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=958

Figures.

Thamarih 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Checking out anonymous Baha'i administration editing of WP is easy:

Using Wiki Scanner and:

Searching: "Baha'i" Results: 1 edit.

Searching: "Bahai" Result: Same edit.

Searching: "Baha" Results: 2 edits.

Hardly anything connecting Baha'i editors to Baha'i administration, much less intelligence services. That accusation betrays a profound ignorance of Baha'i teachings. We are to "Shun politics like the plague, and be obedient to the Government in power in the place where we reside." (Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 57) But such accusations are par for the erudite arguments from the blogosphere. MARussellPESE 05:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Thamarih pasted two entire articles on the talk page after the links, and I removed them. There is no reason to post the text here when they are linked. And Thamarih's conclusion goes something like this: "article says that the CIA was found editing Wikipedia. Baha'is edit Wikipedia. Therefore, Baha'is in the CIA are editing Wikipedia." Flawless logic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jonah, you are violating the TOS of wikipedia by changing discussion logs. Thamarih 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We know how the system works and the underhanded tactics you cultists use. You all here are on the specific assigment of your respective Bahaim administrations, i.e. its Internet Committee, whatever you say. All three of you are sock-puppets. Straight up! And this is a page on Subh-i-Azal, which is not a Bahai topic, so your grautious invocation of some stupid Bahai platitude does not apply, although allow me to tell you what you may do with your Bahai principles Thamarih 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to Bahai Internet Committee wikipedia hackers

For every change and revert you do, you need to give reason and justification, and right here. For instance, you have not explained why you changed the Morning of Pre-Eternity (which is the meaning of Azal = pre-eternity). Since none of you Bahai Internet committee hacks knows a word of the source languages, refrain from touching linguistic issues or give explanations as to why you are reverting. Here is the dictionary meaning of Azal from Hans Wehr:

Eternity without beginning; pre-eternity, eternity a parte ante; sempiternity (fourth edition), column 1, page 15.

Thamarih 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently then MacEoin, Cole, Browne, Manucheri and bayanic.com are each and all wrong too?

Actually, you need to provide justification for contributions. And one can't exise neutral secondary sources. MARussellPESE 05:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually had an iota of what you're talking about, Mr Bahaim Internet Committee Hackster; meaning, if you actually read articles all the way through (esp. with Browne and MaCeoin); you would learn what the precise, technical meaning of azal is in Arabic. Crack open any Arabic dictionary, moron, and you'll see it (that is, if you are able to read it)! I dare you!! Manuchehri - whom I happen to know personally - knows no Arabic. So invoking him is neither here nor there. Cole has an agenda, which MaCeoin exposed years ago. But you have no freakin' idea what you're talking about, chump, other than what your superiors tell you to write and say. And still you have profered no freakin' reason why you keep changing Azal's picture. Now go jump. You want a war. You got one, mofo! There's a whole posse of people out for your stinkin heads on this and other related matters!

Thamarih 11:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bahai World Centre computers edited 77 articles

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=192.115.144.0-151.255

The Wikiscanner shows that the computers of the Bahaim WC have edited articles on wikipedia. This is only from computers at their WC in Haifa, Israel. Seeing that the Internet Committee of the respective National Spiritual Assemblies utilizes and hires people on all ends, the individuals here are obviously appointees of the National Spiritual Assemblies of Canada and the United. This clearly violates wikipedia policies and confirms what Kurt Nimmo has been stating overall and what I have been asserting that wikipedia is being actively used as a propaganda and misinformation platform for agents of the Haifan Bahai organization. Thamarih 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that anyone is taking you seriously, but that link doesn't show any connection to Haifa. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonah, you are a paid hack of the Internet Committee of the Bahai administration who is paid to perform a circus act by feeding endless misinformation on these boards. In other words you are a propagandist and a paid liar. Where it counts, such as Kurt Nimmo, Israeli film-maker Naama Pyritz, Fred Glaysher and the entire Orthodox Bahai community, I am taken very seriously. Come over to TRB (talk.religion.bahai) on USENET and take a look, Fascist, at what people are saying about your activities here. Thamarih 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

Despite Thamarih's last comment, I did mention reasoning for not using the image on his talk page, which is where he engaged me on the subject. The main objection is that there is absolutely no source information for the image Image:nur.jpg. The other issue is that the picture is obviously not a real photograph and therefore is a fictional representation. I don't really care that much so I'll just use BOTH images and wait for the unsourced picture to be deleted by an administrator. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultist hacker, I put the source information in when I uploaded the picture. Perhaps you have personally seen to having that source information deleted, being the manipulative buggers and fiends that you glaze-eyed cultists are? Your excuses are just that. The picture is a scan of the original passport photograph of Subh-i-Azal which E.G. Browne reproduced in Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion (Cambridge: 1918, reprint 1961) p. 57. Go take a look, lying schmuck! This is the original. Thamarih 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The original information that you added to that picture is the following: "Original Ottoman Passport photograph of Subh-i-Azal. Private collection, Tehran, Iran." You didn't mention where it might be published. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So what? I mentioned private family holding and it is already well known as the picture Browne produces in his materials. You want to play this game. Very well. Watch this. Thamarih 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Struck

Thamarih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) put an NPOV tag on the article over four months ago. Contrary to best practice he hasn't tried to resolve the dispute. Specifically he hasn't:

• Identified specific areas of concern, or
• Made any edits of substance updating areas of concern.

Frankly, most of his edits have been about the picture, or trying to delete WP:V material; and most of his discussion have been ad hominem attacks, etc.

If the article can't be "improved" by a partisan, then it looks like the article is neutral enough. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You people are something else. Truly. The tag has been put back up. Most of the areas that remain unneutral have alredy been covered Thamarih (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As before you haven't given one specific example of where a problem is so that it can be fixed. The article is sourced predominately by MacEoin and Amanat, who are openly hostile to the Baha'i Faith. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention sympathetic to Azal. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have given a dozen reasons, all of which have been ignored. Your referencing of Amanat and MaCeoin is also (how typically bahai) beside the point. Thamarih (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You have given none. You just accuse Baha'is and keep ranting. Give specific points in the article, or I'll bring in another administrator. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ranting (not to mention lying) is what Bahais do -- who are adept at the art. Your entire history is slanted towards Bahai propaganda and its sectarian sources. I have specified the reasons again and again and again. You do not cite Browne's volume 2 (annotations) of his Travellers Narrative that contains a decent, critical biography of Subh-i-Azal, which BTW categorically rejected the slanted and biased sectarian narrative you Bahaim are peddling here. Instead you privilege Shoghi Effendi and similar Bahai sources. Clearly the article is biased all the way through, and biased specifically in a Bahaim direction, hence the appropriateness of the tag. For the enth time already! The tag STAYS! Also Sepher Manuchehri is not a recognized historian or an opinion of more than one. He is not an academic nor does he have a Ph.D nor is he published beyond the internet -- and there are questions over his versatility in Arabic. Thamarih (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to get you anywhere, as your not making an argument nor presenting any information.

As per the opening, you had over four months to make appropriate "corrections". You made none. Your edits were initially an attempt at removing verifiable sources. After those were perforce reverted, your edits were largely on the subject's picture. A meaty topic to be sure. In good faith, none of the Baha'i editors touched the NPOV tag until it had gone quite stale.

Most of your discussion here, and elsewhere, have been ad hominem attacks and proofs by assertion. To wit from this last:

• "Ranting (not to mention lying) is what Bahais do -- who are adept at the art." — More ad hominem
• "I have specified the reasons again and again and again." — Proof by assertion ad nauseum and asked and answered
• "You do not cite Browne's …" — It's not anybody's job, but yours, to do your research.
• "The tag STAYS!" — You have no authority to issue such an imperative.
• "Also Sepher Manuchehri is not a recognized historian or an opinion of more than one." — The fact that he was published in a peer-reviewd journal does not establish his credentials? The fact that two members of its board are hostile to Baha'i does not distance his work from Baha'i interests enough? Proof by assertion.
• " … and there are questions over his versatility in Arabic." — Who questions them? You? Asking you for independent proof would be too much I suspect. This is a weaselly ad hominem cheap shot.

If you've got an argument, please make it. If you have some sources, bring them. But merely edit warring with tags, and making personal attacks will again lead you nowhere. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made the arguments above and on several occasions again and again and again. Ad hominem is the only thing you cultists seem to respond to. This article is biased and is unabashedly rehearsing Bahai ahistorical propaganda. It is not neutral at at all, hence the tag.

Thamarih (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just stating that it is not neutral does not make it so; I have asked you mulitple times to give specific reasons, and you never bring them up with sources to back them up. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I have made the arguments above and on several occasions again and again and again." — More proof by assertion ad nauseum.

MARussellPESE (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You people are obviously blind. The sources you are using for this article are all biased sources leaning exclusively on a Bahai narrative of the biography of Subh-i-Azal. The flippant and disrespectful tone this article takes on a holy Bayani figure qualifies it as purely sectarian. As such it is biased so its neutrality is questionable. Thamarih (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Title Subh-i-Azal and the succession to the Bab

1) There is no dispute over whom the Bab named as successor and Mirror. A-L-M Nicolas' categorically states that Azal's successorship is indisputable (an article which has not been mentioned here): http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/K-O/N/Succeseur/Succeseur.htm (qui est le successeur du Bab?)

The 'dispute' (as dispute) originates with the Bahais exclusively whose founder made an independent theophanic claim. Denis MacEoin meticulously proves the succession with Subh-i-Azal as sound in Divisions and Authority Claims in Early Babism in Studia Iranica 18:1 (1989), which is another article which has deliberately (and gratuitously) not been cited here. Gobineau, the earliest source, also categorically places such succession with Azal. These are the European primary sources which have gratuitously not been cited.

2) There is no verse in the Will and Testament of the Bab that states the Babi messianic figure He whom the Godhead shall make Manifest will appear during the lifetime of Azal or that Azal is to abrogate the Bayan should He appear. This assertion is made up by the Bahais.

3) Verse 27, which Manouchehri has vaguely translated, actually states "You are all commanded to obey HGSMM when He appears in the Other Resurrection (qiyamati'l-ukhra), with the Sovereignty of Mighty Excellence...." etc. Nothing in this verse remotely suggests this figure will appear imminently. I am happy to unpack the Arabic of this verse word for word in all of its manuscript versions Manouchehri cites as well as several others which Mr Manouchehri does not.

4) The abstention of Subh-i-Azal - which the Bahais impute some opportunistic aloofness regarding - has to do with the Bab's own command in the same Will and Testament that Azal preserve Himself and engage in the preservation of the Writings of the Bab and the composition of His own. Manouchehri's verse 37-38 to the end.

5) "Bahá'ís claim that he was unscrupulous, jealous, frustrated, and behind several murders and attempted murders of his enemies, including the poisoning of Bahá'u'lláh.[13][14][15" is a sectarian ad hominem located in a specific sectarian narrative regarding Azal and is biased. Re-write it from scratch or else I will remove it. More troubling is that it is placed first with the counter-argument following and only given a passing reference.

6) The scholar or scholars who dispute the title Subh-i-Azal are Baha'is, and actually one, Moojan Momen. None of the earliest European language studies from Gobineau to Nicolas and MacEoin dispute it. This disputation is sectarian bias and sectarian Bahai hubris.

More to follow...But these on their own warrant the NPOV tag.

Thamarih (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, these those warrant a NPOV tag, because your statements are mostly original research and don't qualify for any inclusion in Wikipedia. For example your statement that the verse translated by Manoucheri actually states something else needs a verifiable source. Secondly, there is the policy of undue weight, which is part of the NPOV policy, that states that opinions stated in the article have to be in proportion of those who hold them. Instead of applying the tag you could have easily fixed two cases, which I have done so now. Lets go back to your six points:

1. The Nicholas source is actually in the article, take a closer look. The rest of the paragraph is sourced mostly from Cole, and MacEoin. Hardly Baha'i sources.
2. original research. Not admissible
3. original research. Not admissible
4. Added the statement and reference from Manouchehri regarding Azal's safety
5. I have removed the text in question
6. The section is correctly sourced; It has references to his titles, and to those who state that some were not used. Similar to the case of his staying in hiding, and Manouchehri statement about why.

-- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If Nicolas ('the who is the successor article') is cited in the article, your wave of hand 2 and 3 are automatically moot and irrelevent because he says exactly what I say. He also says exactly what I say in his translations. The only source denying Azal's titles are Momen. MacEoin's article which you do not cite trumps Momen. This article reflects a specific Bahai sectarian bias all the way through and as such the NPOV must remain. Thamarih (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas Towfigh and Udo Schaefer's 'Making the Crooked Straight' is not an academic source. On this question, what they say is sectarian bias and slanted historical falsification. MacEoin's Review of this so-called source: http://bahai-library.com/maceoin_schaefer_crooked_straight#14

As such their objection (which actually originates with Momen) is irrelevent, and would constitute original research.Thamarih (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policies including verifiability, original research and neutral point of view, including its section on undue weight. Verifiable sources are those that have been published by non-self published sources such as Lulu publishers, etc. Those sources can be used to add content to Wikipedia under the section of Undue weight, which states that different opinions are included in the number of people who believe or state such at thing. There are differing opinions on certain things, and when there are differing opinions, they are added in proportion to those numbers of people who state it. That Nicholas says something doesn't trump that others don't believe it, and which there are verifiable information that state it. That you don't think Momen and Shaefer are not academic sources is irrevelant; they are veriable sources as per Wikipedia policy.

Finally, please refrain from changing the spelling of the title section. The specific spelling in the article is straight from MacEoin's article, and the translation is original work. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1) The translation is wrong. And MacEoin placed a consonant marker under the "t" that makes it the letter 'th' not 't'.

2) If Lulu.com is now deemed a verifiable source according to your self-serving and gratuitous citation of wikpedia policies, which you people earlier rejected, my monograph needs be cited in this article. Thamarih (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't make the decision on what a translation is wrong or right, that's original research. It's cited from MacEoin's article, and we go with verifiable sources. Add a dot if you want, but the spelling from that article is with a T. Also reread my statement, self-published sources such as Lulu.com are not allowed under Wikipedia verifiability policies. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

<rolling eyes> A consonant/transliteration marker under a "t" indicating a letter in an original is a not translation. The word is "THAMARA" (meaning 'fruit') not TAMARA! MacEoin has correctly identified the letter in the original Iranica article. You are deliberately obscuring it. I have the Iranica article and a key to their pronunciations. You are welcome to it.

Here is your quote:

"Verifiable sources are those that have been published by non-self published sources such as Lulu publishers, etc."

Lulu.com is the publisher of Liber Decatriarchia Mystica that incorporates previously published as well as newly translated material. Your stickling falls flat on its face. Thamarih (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a little more that a second to read both the article, and the my comments above; first I added the little dot and macons and underlines exactly as MacEoin, and secondly read my quotes "Veriable sources are those that have been' published by non-self published sources." Lulu.com was being used as an example of a self-published source as it follows that that noun, not as a verifiable source. Lulu is an example of a self-published resource, and thus not admissible. If you don't believe me, read the policy, which I've asked you do to multiple times. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your partial reading of such policy is gratuitous, skewed and meant to bolster your own biased sectarian agenda you are pursuing on behalf of your creed. By this reasoning, everything published by the Bahai Publishing Trust must be automatically discounted as well. Thamarih (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my partial reading, but a consensus that has made by countless editors. Lulu.com has been discounted on an endless number of occasions. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your notion of consensus is your own biased sectarian one, and other forms of gratuitous Bahai group-think, so therefore it means absolutely nothing to me.

Now you still need to address the issue why you did not cite MacEoin's "Divisions" Iranica article that categorically slams the propaganda being foisted here. Thamarih (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bahai original research

This whole paragraph is original research (and one slanted towards Bahaism)and so should be removed:

However, the calibre of Subh-i-Azal's leadership of the Bábís was controversial.[7] He generally absented himself from the Bábí community spending his time in Baghdad in hiding and disguise; and even went so far as to publicly disavow allegiance to the Báb on several occasions.[7][1][8] Subh-i-Azal gradually alienated himself from a large proportion of the Bábís who started to give their alliance to other claimants.[1] Manuchehri states that Subh-i-Azal remained in hiding because he was primarily concerned with personal safety, due a statement from the Báb in his will and testament that Subh-i-Azal should protect himself.[5]

Thamarih (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As to regards to Wikipedia policy, the above is a published verifiable source. Do not remove cited content. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire web content of Bayanic.com is published WP:V/verifiable source and contradicts your biased sectarian sources. No regards Thamarih (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bayanic.com is a self-published resource and not allowable under WIkipedia policies. Please understand Wikipedia policies. And please be civil; that's another Wikipedia policy. You put up your six points, and I addressed them, either by adding the sources that you specified, or showing that it original research. The rest of this article is completely sourced, virtually from non-Baha'i sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thamarih, please review WP policies and comport yourself accordingly. You've been informed about the acceptability of bayanic.com on the Azali page some time ago. It fails WP:V. You've also taken blocks for uncivil conduct. Rehashing these arguments on new pages can't be a useful way to spend your time. I doubt it is for Jeff3000. I know it's not for me. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not give a hoot what you find useful or do not, or how many blocks or unblocks you people gratuitously make against me. That is your business and what your Internet Committee orders you to do. I am prepared to engage with you sectarian cultists and historical whitewashers here on wikipedia in order to give fair, balanced play to the Bayani community and the Bayani central figures until hell freezes over!!! This is a personal Shaykh Tabarsi for me!

Bayanic.com uploads facsimile manuscripts of Bayani works by Bayani central figures that are presently catalogued and indexed in the Browne collection at Cambridge University, the British Museum, the Bibliotheque National in Paris, the Princeton University Miller collection and the Leiden University Babi collection - not to mention your own Bahai World Center in Israel. Your arguments before - as your argument now - are typically self-serving and vacuous to the extreme. Thamarih (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you keep repeating the same points without reading any of the Wikipedia policies.

Virtually everything is sourced by MacEoin who is critical of the Baha'i Faith. The article even follows his style in presenting Azal. And now, that your comments have been address, and you don't have anything change in the article, you're just adding a POV tag with no reasons, which is not acceptable, and will constantly been reverted. If you continue this behaviour, I will report you and you will be blocked. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Bahais caught in the web of their own sectarian deceptions and gratuitous dishonesties. You have not cited everything by MacEoin. Significantly for this page as well as the Azali page (which should be Bayani), you have not cited his 'Divisions' article or quoted from it. You are privileging your own sectarian sources and then using gratuitous and dishonest, one-sided interpretations of wiki regulations to silence all other alternative discourse. I will revert because none of the issues have been resolved. Your reporting and blocking of people is a tactic to silence and monopolize the discussion in order to unhinder own sectarian propaganda. Nothing else.

Go report me to whoever you want. I'll be back and we'll be at this again and again and again. BY THE WAY your cult's gratuitous self-promotion on wiki articles that have either absolutely no relevence or the most peripheral have been noted. Thamarih (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You brought up some points, they were addressed, and you have not brought up any other points, so the POV tag is off. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

None of my original points have been addressed directly. Instead you sectarian cultists have hidden behind one-sided and skewed interpetrations of wikipedia policies in order to avoid addressing the issues. The non-neutral tag stays since you have provided absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why it goes. This article is right now slanted to an exclusively Bahai sectarian narrative and so therefore it is not neutral. The tag stays. Thamarih (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to cite to your web link, since that seems to set-off revert warring. If you are citing works, you can simply cite them in bibliographic style without any link at all.Wjhonson (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you had not said anything here, and I had done so, they would be erasing and revert warring my sources. I've already done what you advise a while ago and it was erased without any explanation by these people. Thamarih (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a very small change to the aforementioned paragraph which hopefully is towards NPOV.

Also, looking at the citations, I count:

Critical of the Bahá'ís:

• 25 from McEoin
• 7 from J R Cole
• 1 from Millar

Historical (and Neutral, if I'm not mistaken)

• 4 from E. G. Brown (actually seems to take the Bayání position on more than one occasion)
• 1 ALM Nicholas

Bahá'ís

• 1 Shoghi Effendi
• 1 Balyuzi
• 1 Momen
• 1 Schaefer

Unknown to me:

• 2 from Abbas Amanat
• 1 Atiyya Ruhi
• 4 S. Manuchehri
• 2 or 3 other citations

Even if you conservatively put all the unknowns and neutrals with the Bahá'í citations, you still get nearly a 2:1 ratio critial of the Bahá'í Faith, so I'm not sure you can call this article a piece of Bahá'í research. Still, McEoin is by far the most cited source, equal to all other citations put together. I believe that is what Jeff3000 meant by "Virtually everything".

Having said that, I'm going to re-read that paragraph a few more times and see if I can't come up with something that improves the tone without losing the meaning of the citations. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard, and yet more testimony to Bahai propaganda methods of dishonesty. You claim to cite more non-Bahai sources but yet weigh in on a Bahai propaganda narrative all the way without citing a single item of those narratives that categorically contradict the sectarian narrative you are attempting to foist here. Thamarih (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good try, but doesn't quite capture it. MacEoin's Iranica article on Azali Babism states that this seclusion actually alienated him from the community. The statement about his controversial leadership should probably be quite direct. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MacEoin later retracts this position in Divisions and Authority Claims in Early BabismBold text, an article you bahaim are conspicuously silent about, which his latest views on the subject. This Iranica article trumps anything MacEoin said previous to this. Thamarih (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the issues whereby the NPOV tag should remain have been resolved. Thamarih (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What issues? Just stating that there are issues doesn't indicate that there are issues. I have asked you many many times to come up with a concrete list that is backed up by reliable sources, and you have not. Your statements go against the published reliable sources, which I should state have been published by non-Baha'i authors who are all critical of the religion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the issues that have been spelled repeatedly in black and white above. Those ones. There is something wrong with you. I have provided lists of articles and texts that categorically contradict the biased Bahai narrative being peddled here. How many times does one have to go over this? You have ignored them all. The article is thoroughly biased. Thamarih (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging this article's netrality as disputed

I am tagging this article's neutrality as disputed. It is overwhelmingly slanted towards the Baha'i position without respect for the Bayani ("Azali") claims and sources.

Believer's Diamond (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Believer's Diamond

The Removing of "Reliable" Sources

-Why were my references to the Nuqtat al-Qaf and most of the information I added about Subh-i-Azal's early life from Atiyya Ruhi removed?

Mirza Jani met Subh-i-Azal and his history is the earliest and most reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Believer's Diamond (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

-Why were the citations of Denis MacEoin's Divisions in regards to Subh-i-Azal's seclusion removed?

It was left there as a citation for many statements, but for this subject it was removed; why? It is not scholarly to take what you like from a reliable source and discard everything that does not suit the Baha'i narrative.

-Why were my citations of the Hasht Bihisht and the Tanbihun Naimin removed?

To say that "Azali taqiyya" makes these unreliable is to twist the definition of taqiyya. Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani at least was a reliable primary source, as he met Baha'u'llah and Subh-i-Azal. Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi also met Subh-i-Azal. I don't see much reason why these people would be less reliable than Browne.

-And why was the list of Azal's books removed?

Believer's Diamond (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to echo Believer's Diamond's sentiment. Edits referencing reliable sources should not be removed because they don't match the presumptive narrative pushed by a religious hierarchy. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

All material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Per WP:SOURCES: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources".

To support documents and text on bayanic.com, you should be showing reliable third-party neutral sources that have reviewed the material and make commentary on it. We already have numerous third party sources in this article, such as Browne, MacEoin, and others, some of which carry a bias against the Baha'i Faith and can't be accused of providing a Baha'i bias. Anyone can make a website. Until you have academic references and reviews, it's just a blog to me and can be removed. Besides being unreliably sourced, your additions have been violating WP:NPOV in the language and weight used. I made every attempt to review and include your contributions that were useful. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You've side-stepped my questions. I did not say anything about bayanic.com. You've removed my statement about Subh-i-Azal's seclusion being exaggerated which was sourced by MacEoin's Divisions. You've removed my citation of the Hasht Bihisht in regards to why Dayyan was killed, leaving the article only presenting the Baha'i side of the story which states that a follower of Azal killed him on his supposed orders, and all my quotations of the Hasht Bihisht have been removed, even though it's quoted by MacEoin as reliable in his Divisions. You've removed most of the biographical information about Subh-i-Azal I added including the reason why he became a Bayani which is sourced by Atiyya Ruhi and the Nuqtat al-Kaf - I don't see why any of this should be removed. If the Baha'i legend the Dawnbreakers and God Passes By is up to standards, then I do not see why Atiyya Ruhi, Mirza Jani, Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani, or Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi should be removed when they are all primary sources who are just as if not more reliable than Browne. Believer's Diamond (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't follow your comments. Be more specific. Your edits had repeats and bad formatting that I cleaned up, and much of your biography sounded like vanity writing (Ruhi's book title includes "His Holiness"). In general, primary sources should be avoided when there are reliable and verifiable third party academic sources. Using primary sources yourself can lead to original research. Encyclopedia Iranica, Britannica, and Encycopedia of Islam are good examples of neutral writing about the subject, even though they may have minor errors. I'll try to break out specifics below. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Specifics

• Becoming a Babi - the question of whether he was 13 or 14 in 1844 is irrelevant to the substance of the article and the reliable source says 14. I also removed an unencyclopedic quote about his feelings, which was also from an unreliable source.
• Early activities in the Bábí community - I removed a reference to "his devotion". I removed a vanity biography that was entirely sourced from Ruhi. Take note that {{sfn|Kashani|1910}} is the pointer to Kitab-i Nuqtat al-Kaf, which you seem to think I'm deleting.
• Appointment as the Báb's successor - I deleted a fairly incoherent paragraph about the letter with 360 derivatives of Baha. If there is a point there, it was not clearly explained, and the source is not verifiable.
• Dayyán - The Hasht Bihisht is not clearly referenced, so it is not verifiable. And if it was made verifiable, using a primary source is not desirable if a verifiable reliable third party source is sourced, which in this case appears to be MacEoin.
• Exile - your quoting of the Hasht Bihisht is giving undue weight to an unreliable primary source, when there are already several reliable third party sources describing the same event.
• Succession - I removed an unsourced quote. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ruhi is a reliable source. The biographical information was taken from said reliable source. How is that "vanity?" That was not simply his feelings which were removed but rather the explanation of why exactly he became a Bayani which in turn led to all of the other important events in his life.

And yet the statement about the circumstances regarding Subh-i-Azal's seclusion likely being exaggerated which was sourced by MacEoin was removed. The account in the Hasht Bihisht regarding Dayyan is confirmed by both Wilson and Gobineau. I will add references to them. Believer's Diamond (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As Believer's Diamond has noted, the source you dismiss as "unreliable" is Atiyya Ruhi's A Brief Biography of His Holiness Subh-i-Azal which was in fact a source used by Denis MacEoin. And, again, you dismiss the Hasht Bihisht as "an unreliable primary source" even though you give no basis for why either of these works should be deemed "unreliable."

The only basis for dismissing these sources as "unreliable" is that they do not corroborate the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. Again, as Believer's Diamond points out, The Dawn-Breakers, God Passes By, and similar works are frequently referenced in numerous Wikipedia articles, including this one.

Please do not assume my defense of Believer's Diamond's reasoning is an indication of sockpuppetry.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Misquoting MacEoin, Cole and Barett

In the section Appointment as the Báb's successor, the following line "...even went so far as to publicly disavow allegiance to the Báb on several occasions..." is not supported by the citations attributed to the statement. MacEoin does not make this statement in his Encyclopedia Iranica (EIr) entry nor does Juan Cole in his online article nor, for that matter, does Barett in his book. The statement will now be taken out. CarnelianSun108 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Misattributed citation to Juan Campo

In the section Early life, the citation is attributed to Juan Campo's entry on Babism in the Encyclopedia of Islam (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009), 82-3. This book is available online in full from libgen.org: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=3091AB1F4A40F56E740BFE1ED446AEBE . This alleged information cited in this Wiki article does not appear in it. In fact the source for this information is the (garbled 2004 English translation) biography by Atiyya Ruhi http://www.bayanic.com/lib/typed/hist/AzalHist/Subh-bio-Eng.htm . The information can also be found in a longer Persian biography in a typescript among the Women's Worlds in Qajar Iran database of Harvard University, here http://www.qajarwomen.org/en/items/1141C1.html . As such the attribution needs to be fixed CarnelianSun108 (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, in the section Becoming a Bábí the citation has also been misattributed to Juan Campo. The source of the information is, again, Atiyya Ruhi and can be found in both the garbled English translation of Subh-i-Azal's biography on Bayanic.com as well as in the one at the Women's Worlds in Qajar Iran database of Harvard University linked above. This citation has now been fixed CarnelianSun108 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mullā ʿAbd’ul-Karīm Qazvīnī's suggestion to the Bab is ‘Abdu’l-Bahá's claim

The originating source for the claim that Mullā ʿAbd’ul-Karīm Qazvīnī suggested the Bab appoint Subh-i-Azal as his successor is by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Maqālih-i-Shakhṣī-i-Sayyāh kih dar Tafṣīl-Qaḍīyih-i-Bāb Nivishtih ast (Tehrān: Mu’assisih-i-Millī-i-Maṭbūʿāt-i-Amrī, 119 Badīʿ/1962 CE), 67-9; also ed. E.G. Browne A Travellers Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Bāb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), vol. 1, 79-80 (Persian text); English trans., vol. 2, 62-3. Amanat cites Fadil Mazandarani's Tarikh-i-Zuhur al-Haqq, vol.3, 370, for the claim. But that entry and page regarding Mullā ʿAbd’ul-Karīm Qazvīnī states nothing about Mullā ʿAbd’ul-Karīm Qazvīnī suggesting Subh-i-Azal as the Bab's successor. Here is the relevant section from the upload of this text on H-Bahai http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/areprint/vol2/mazand/tzh3/t370.gif CarnelianSun108 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Atiyya Ruhi Fragment of Subh-i-Azal's Biography

I have added this source in the references. Although the original language is in Persian, there should no longer be any problems around the notability of this source since it is published on an official Harvard University project site and has been clearly labeled in English CarnelianSun108 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Browne's translation of Nuqtat'ul-Kaf in his Appendix II of Tarikh-i-Jadid

As there previously was an objection to the inclusion of Hasht-i-Bihisht, while Browne's epitome translation of Nuqtat'ul-Kaf has been included in this article; rather than quote a short selective piece from Browne, the whole of the part Browne translates from Nuqtat'ul-Kaf regarding Subh-i-Azal's appointment in Appendix II of Tarikh-i-Jadid has now been put inside the quote of the section Appointment as the Báb's successor. There should be no further quibbles and objections from this point forward CarnelianSun108 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Positions made clearer in section Appointment as the Báb's successor

The paragraph after the quote from Browne's epitome translation of Nuqtat'ul-Kāf in Tarikh-i-Jadid has been made clearer in order to clearly delineate who holds what position. Previously the wording was extremely vague and misleading CarnelianSun108 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Block quote from Browne's summary translation of Nuqtat'ul-Kāf

If this there is a problem with the length of the quote, please summarize the entire quote rather than reverting to an earlier version selectively quoting relevant material and thereby giving undo weight to one particular narrative. Here is the quote in entirety:

...After the martyrdom of Hazrat-i-Kuddús and his companions, the Master was filled with sadness, until such time as the writings of Jenáb-i-Ezel met his gaze, when, through the violence of his delight, he rose up and sat down several times, pouring forth his gratitude to the God whom he worshipped...About forty days after his departure the news of the martyrdom of Hazrat-i-Kuddús came to Jenáb-i-Ezel. I have heard that after receiving this news he suffered for three days from a violent fever, induced by the burning heat of the fire of separation; and that after the three days the signs of holiness (áthár-i-kudsí) appeared in his blessed form and the mystery of the 'Return' was [once more] manifest. This event took place in the fifth year of the Manifestation of the Truth, so that Jenáb-i-Ezel became the blessed Earth of Devotion, and His Holiness 'the Reminder' [i.e. the Báb] appeared as the Heaven of Volition...Now when the letters of Jenáb-i-Ezel came to His Holiness 'the Reminder' [i.e. the Báb] he rejoiced exceedingly, and thenceforth began the decline of the Sun of 'the Reminder' and the rising of the Moon of Ezel. So he [i.e. the Báb] sent his personal effects, such as pen-cases, paper, writings, his own blessed raiment [i.e. his clothing], and his holy rings, according to the Number of the Unity [Váhid = 19], that the outward form might correspond with the inward reality. He also wrote a testamentary deposition, explicitly nominating him [i.e. Ezel] as his successor [Walí], and added, 'Write the eight [unwritten] Váḥids of the Beyán, and, if " He whom God shall manifest" should appear in His power in thy time, abrogate the Beyán; and put into practice that which we shall inspire into thine heart.' Now the mystery of his bestowing his effects on Ezel according to the 'Number of the Unity' is perfectly evident, namely that he intended the inner meaning thereof, that it might be known to all his followers that after himself Ezel should bear the Divine influences. And his object in explicitly nominating him as his successor also was to re-assure the hearts of the weak, so that they might not be bewildered as to his real nature, but that enemies and friends alike might know that there is no intermission in God's grace, and that God's religion is a thing which must be made manifest. And the reason why [the Báb] himself refrained from writing the eight [unwritten] Váḥids of the Beyán, but left them to Ezel, was that all men might know that the Tongue of God is one, and that He in Himself is a sovereign Proof. And what he meant by 'Him whom God should manifest' after himself was Hazrat-i-Ezel and none other than him, for there may not be two ' Points ' at one time. And the secret of the Báb's saying, ' Do thus and thus,' while Ezel was himself also a ' Proof,' was that at this time His Holiness ' the Reminder was the Heaven of Volition, and Ezel was accounted the Earth of Devotion and the product of purified gifts, wherefore was he thus addressed. In short, as soon as the time had come when the 'Eternal Fruit' [Thamara-i-Ezeliyyé] had reached maturity, the Red Blossom of Reminder-hood [i.e. the Báb], casting itself from the branch of the Blessed Tree of the Ká'imate (which is ‘neither of the East nor of the West’) to the simoom-wind of the malice of foes, destroyed itself, and prepared to ascend from the outward and visible 'World of Dominion' to the inward realm of the Mystery of Godhead...

Please also justify any future changes made to this article and its sections here so that the process (together with its justification for changes) can all be properly documented. CarnelianSun108 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)