Talk:Subh-i-Azal

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Merge proposal

See Talk:Azali#Merge proposal for a discussion on merging Azali into this page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominal head

To clear up some confusion: Subh-i-Azal was not named "nominal head". This is a claim of Bahá'u'lláh and his followers, based on an alleged secret correspondence between the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. Historically, there is no evidence of such correspondence, and so the claim is not accepted by historians outside of the Bahá'í religion. Thus, it is not neutral point of view and should not be stated directly.

As of the article by Denis MacEoin in Encyclopaedia Iranica, it makes it clear that the Báb regarded Subh-i-Azal as his successor and a receiver of divine revelation:

"From about 1848, Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣobḥ-e Azal was in regular contact with the Bāb, who was then in prison in Azerbaijan. His letters were well received by the Bāb, who claimed to find in them evidence of divine inspiration. Numerous references in writings by the Bāb from this period seem to provide strong evidence that Azal (also referred to as al-Waḥīd, Ṭaḷʿat al-Nūr, and al-Ṯamara) was regarded by him as his chief deputy following the deaths of most of the original Babi hierarchy, and as the future head of the movement."

It also makes it clear that this claim was generally recognized after the Baghdad exile in 1852, although there were other claimants in the early period:

"After the Bāb’s death in 1266/1850, Ṣobḥ-e Azal came to be regarded as the central authority within the movement, to whom its followers looked for some form of continuing revelation. Recognition of his authority was, however, only one of a number of doctrinal positions adopted by Babis in the 1850s and early 1860s. ... Following the attempt by several Babis on the life of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah in 1852 and an abortive uprising organized by Azal in the same year, he and other Babis chose to go into exile in Baghdad. Here he lived as generally-acknowledged head of the community until their removal to Istanbul in 1863. "

Note also that the reason why MacEoin is talking about other claimants is that he notes that they were from a non-clerical background, not that they were equal to Subh-i-Azal in terms of recognition or theological continuity. Mineemod (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: Muhammad-Ali Barfarushi, titled Quddus, was the original chief deputy of the Bab with the title of Mirror. Both were inherited by Mirza Yahya Nuri Subh-i-Azal after the former's death. Mineemod (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The term nominal head does not come from the basis you are supposing. It comes from a sober and deliberate analysis of what Subh-i-Azal's actual function is on the basis of the list of duties provided in the text cited as appointing him to a leading role, as found in the source that directly addresses this important document. The list of proposed tasks to accomplish as found in Manoucheri do not really justify the use of the term 'central authority'. They suggest a set of deputized functions or duties to accomplish but do not grant anything like the kind of religious authority expected of a 'central authority'. The term deputized leader or chief deputy fits, or perhaps chief of the community or nominated head does as well. However the term central authority verges on being an overstatement. The concept of headship fits far better. Nominal head implies nomination to a leading role, or leader in name with some specified but largely loose functions.

Likewise MacEoin's statement does not justify that the Bab saw Subh-i-Azal as the recipient of divine revelation as you are overstating. Rather, as MacEoin puts it, he found 'divine inspiration' in them. Inspiration and revelation are categorically distinct in both the Babi and the Islamic context of theology that it builds upon, and cannot be equated. Likewise he later states, "to whom its followers looked for some form of continuing revelation." Followers looking expecting this is not equivalent to the Bab clearly granting that status.

However, most importantly, more recent scholarship, especially by Dr. Nader Saiedi in 'Gate of the Heart' (pp. 344-352) completely supercede MacEoin's analysis and contradict the expansive impression you have of Subh-i-Azal's authority. Simply put it does not appear to cohere with established doctrinal and explicit statements of the Bab. When put alongside these, the tendency to exaggerate Azal's role is questionable.

Saiedi provides a compelling analysis - and one as of yet uncontradicted in the scholarly literature unless and until you provide any such well-recognized source - of doctrinal and textual reasonings to suggest that there was no expansive 'central authority' granted or envisioned in the Babi texts. In it he:

• cites explicit statements from the Bab in the Persian Bayan, the central text of the Babi Faith, that categorically deny a formal successorship or vicegerency in his faith. [p. 348]
• cites explicit statements from the Bayan that there would be no binding writings until the arrival of the Babi messianic figure 'He Whom God shall make manifest' (i.e. precluding the claim that Subh-i-Azal was intended to 'reveal' or had the function of an authoritative commentator) [p. 347]
• justifies that the envisioned arrival of the Babi 'Promised One' was indicated by the Bab as imminent and near, and allusions were provided to the Babi community that this arrival was close, such that it stimulated widespread expectation of its imminence [p. 351]

Altogether, along with explicit statements of the Bab in the text nominating Subh-i-Azal to his designated functions, statements that make his functions contingent on the will and blessing of 'He Whom God shall make manifest', grant a strong picture of contigency in the role. I would support finding another term for his functions than 'central authority' because the authority that was granted to him appears significantly circumscribed.

Finally, there is no citation for your claim about Mirza Yahya 'inheriting' this from Quddus, so do please cite such a thing when you get the chance. Aliyeen (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of your analysis is based on primary sources. We need to find reliable secondary sources that review and summarize the primary sources. MacEoin is a reliable source but has an obvious anti-Baha'i bias being a former Baha'i. Saiedi similarly has a pro-Baha'i bias. I'll check Warburg and see if I can come up with anything on Azal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair to my comments with respect to 'the analysis of primary sources', while it may appear as my own analysis I am actually being careful to conform to the evidenced conclusions of Saiedi, which is among the most thorough and most recent scholarly works that actually directly address the rather obscure matters that relate to this topic. Similarly with regards to Manoucheri it is also important to conclude from what is not present as to what is. He positively asserts a limited range of roles indicated by that document, but also leaves absent anything like the expansive claims one would expect from an empowered religious successorship. It being among the only scholarship directly dealing with that important document, the fact that it does not include anything like justifying an expansive vision of Azal's leadership is important to externalize; at the very least it gives pause to unevidenced attempts to grant an expansive vision of Azal's role.

To depict that this is not just a partisan conception, another source, J.R. Cole, that is unfriendly to Baha'is but supportive of this conclusion (e.g. that justifies it is not just a Baha'i contention that the exact nature of Azal's role and authority is subject to scholarly debate), is:

• The Azálí-Bahá'í Crisis of September, 1867, Juan Cole, Studies in Modern Religions, Religious Movements, and the Babi-Bahá'í Faiths, Moshe Sharon, ed., pages 227-251, Leiden: E. J. Brill, (2004)

Cole's impression is that the status was 'supposed', 'putative' and subject to community favorship and expectation.

Another source, more recent, from a 3rd party scholar, also renders the status of Azal as a 'nominal head'. Though this person does not appear to be a widely known scholar, it's an example of how the suggestion that Azal's leadership was rather circumscribed is not a uniquely Baha'i slanted interpretation:

• Anoshka, Siarhei A. 2024. "Transition, Emulation and Dispute over Authority in the Bábí/Bahá’í Faith" Religions 15, no. 5: 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050577

I am happy to weigh further academic sources that contribute to establishing a view of the academic consensus on this topic, but again urge care in not overextending terminology used. The fact that the central doctrinal text of the Babi religion appears to obliterate the idea of successorship (as evidenced in secondary literature on this topic by an established scholar, Saiedi of the Bab's writings) should give serious pause to what the envisioned role for Azal's leadership was. Since this scholarly work on the subject has not been contradicted in the literature we have to account for it as a prevailing conclusion. Aliyeen (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting those sources. I don't disagree with you, I just mean Verifiability, not truth. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the "Babi religion appears to obliterate the idea of successorship" because this is an outright Bahai position (i.e. what MacEoin calls conflation) that is articulated at a later period by bahais. In fact all of primary sources as well as the non-bahai secondary sources in European languages prove decisively the opposite. CarnelianSun108 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is direct evidence, substantiated in the source you're baselessly dismissing. This topic is directly addressed in the scholarly literature (Saeidi, 2008) with direct recourse to the primary texts from the founder of the religion himself categorically denying a formal successorship or vicegerency in his faith [p. 348]. Unless and until there is a novel scholarly contribution that supersedes this contribution by significantly contradicting it, this should be accounted for in the Wikipedia conventions around Azal's leadership role.

The fact that Saeidi is a Baha'i does not contravene the nature of the analysis being cited, just as it wouldn't contradict it it were an atheist, a Buddhist, or a Babi performing the same analysis of the primary sources being cited in his analysis. What matters is the content and how it shapes the overall scholarly discourse. Likewise, your personal negative impressions and dismissals of the scholarly discourse (including Baha'i voices and otherwise), demonstrating that the leadership of Azal was and has been indeterminate from the beginning, has no bearing on the issue.

This article cannot avoid carefully weighing the scholarly consensus on the disputed nature of the leadership role afforded to Mirza Yahya Azal. There is ample reason to conclude that a limited role was called for Azal, nothing like the kinds of religious successorships to be found in descriptions of other religious communities on many other Wikipedia entries, so the article should not mislead readers with exaggerated wording, hence the use of 'nominal head' which conveys the type of functionary that scholars have been describing in the literature (where exactly each account lands is not in itself important). Aliyeen (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Subh-i-Azal in Warburg's book

In Citizens of the World.

P. 7-8. "a growing tension developed within the Babi community between Baha'u'llah and th enominal leader Subh-i-Azal, who was Baha'u'llah's younger half-brother. The tension led to a schism... The Azalis disappeared as a movement in the beginning of the twentieth century."

P. 38-39. "In the introduction to the Tarikh-i-Jadid from 1893, Browne raised the issue of the reliability and authenticity of the Tarikh-i-Jadid versus the Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf as sources on the Babi movement. He thereby ignited a mixture of religious and academic polemics, which today still influences not only academic work, but also BAha'i attitudes toward their own history and the study of it. Several scholars have been engaged in this discussion, but by far the most detailed and convincing analysis is made by Denis MacEoin in his book The Sources for Early Babi Doctrine and History, from 1992. In the following, I summarise the essential conclusions of his analysis."

"In 1892, Browne acquired the Babi manuscript named Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf from a collection of Babi manuscripts originally owned by de Gobineau and sold to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris in 1884. The first portion fo the manuscript is laid out as a doctrinal treatise, while the later sections contain what Browne assumed to be an early copy of Mirza Jani Kashani's history. Browne considered his discovery to be of immense importance, since at that time no other copies of this history were known. However, Browne also discovered that the manuscript was at variance with the version of Mirza Jani Kashani's history that made up the core text in the Tarikh-i-Jadid. Although the two texts for the most part are equivalent, several passages in the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf that refer to Subh-i-Azal and his role in the Babi movement are not included in the Tarikh-i-Jadid. This led Browne to conclude that the discrepancies between the two histories were the result of a deliberate plot of the followers of Baha'u'llah to discredit Subh-i-Azal's claims to leadership. the Baha'is hotly rejected Browne's conclusion and accused the Azalis of distorting the sources. Thus, Abdu'l-Baha suggested that the Azalis had prepared a falsified version of Mirza Jani Kashani's history and had encouraged Browne to publish it. This hypothesis was restated many years later by the Baha'i historian Hasan M. Balyuzi..."

P. 446. "Shortly before the BAb's execution, Subh-i-Azal had risen to become a principal authority in the BAbi movement. He was held in high esteem by the Bab, probably because of his ability to write what the BAb regarded as divinely-revealed verses. It seems likely that Subh-i-Azal was designated to be the Bab's successor, because the Bab called Subh-i-Azal the "mirror" (of the Bab's thinking) who could explain what had not yet been explained, prior to the appearance of the man yuzhiruhu'llah. In the confusion following the execution of the Bab, Subh-i-Azal did not succeed, however, in exercising his authority to unite the Babis firmly around him. A considerable number of other Babis also claimed spiritual authority, and some even claimed to be man yuzhiruhu'llah, so the Babi movement became increasingly fragmented."

"Subh-i-Azal's wider role in the Babi movement is still an issue of debate in Baha'i studies; in particular, there is disagreement over whether Subh-i-Azal was designated as the Bab's successor for good, or only, as the Baha'is officially maintain, as a cover for Baha'u'llah."

I'll check for more later. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

P 154. "The far majority of Babis in Iran followed Baha'u'llah and not Subh-i-Azal after the split in 1867."

P 166. "In the Babi community in Baghdad, Subh-i-Azal adopted a solitary and secluded way of life, allowing only a few trusted persons to have access to him."

P 167. "In March 1856, Baha'u'llah returned to Baghdad and apparently took over the de facto leadership of the Babis. The Baha'i literature generally interprets this change in power being due to Subh-i-Azal's cowardice and incompetence as a leader; he was not equipped to lead the Babis after their utter defeat in Iran."

P. 172-3. "[In Edirne] On the initiative of Subh-i-Azal, a public theological dispute was to take place between the two in the Sultan Selim mosque. The holding of such a debate in the mosque was a common way to setle theological disputes. However, Subh-i-Azal never turned up, and this completed the break in September 1867. A minority of Babis followed Subh-i-Azal and were called Azalis, while the majority acknowledged Baha'u'llah as their leader. They were soon known as Baha'is, which means the "people of Baha". In the history of the Baha'i religion, the significance of the events in September 1867 can hardly be overestimated."

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable Baha'i sources contradicted by a litany of primary sources as well as EG Browne, Nicolas and others in European sources. Your removal of sources has also been reverted. It is also interesting to note that you literally waited to revert once Israel attacked Lebanon. This needs to be noted far and wide in that the Bahai Internet Agency appears to be taking cues on how it vandalizes entries on Wikipedia from Israeli military strategies. CarnelianSun108 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Warburg is not a Baha'i source. She is a Danish sociologist who studied the religion for 10 years and wrote a book on it as an independent researcher. The book is probably one of best sources that could be used on Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Warburg worked for a long time with Bahaí Fereydoun Vahman and is known to have taken funding from a source intimately tied to the Baha'is. Besides, Warburg has no access to original source languages and merely repeats the secondary Baha'i literature in a pseudo-critical way. 101.188.188.160 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

In what world is it shocking that a sociologist who studies a religion would have a wide variety of ties with members of that religion? In what world is it shocking that such a person would also have worked with a well-regarded scholar with a notable body of scholarship and publications on topics in the Babi Faith and history, one who happens to be a Baha'i (which again cannot and does not de facto dismiss that relevance of their scholarship)? The fact that this is something remotely 'damning' in your eyes is concerning. Similarly, your comment about 'taking funding' is not only unsourced but so vague as to be completely immaterial and utterly pointless, especially in light of the specific scholarly insight that is being cited related to the topic at hand. Aliyeen (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This kind of baseless conspiracy theory mongering behavior is completely unbecoming of the standard any Wikipedia contributor should bring about. Frankly, not only is it shameful and manipulative, it's insulting to the people suffering from geopolitical conflicts that you would try and invoke such malicious intent. The fact that you're resorting to 'bogeyman' tactics by presuming any possible person that doesn't conform to your perspective is some agent with ill intent is sad proof that you're not contributing in good faith. Aliyeen (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

P 154. "The far majority of Babis in Iran followed Baha'u'llah and not Subh-i-Azal after the split in 1867."

P 177. "Subh-i-Azal was sent with his family and a few adherents to a similarly distant place, Famagusta on Cyprus, where he stayed for the rest of his life. He did not attempt to organize a local Azali community with himself as leader, and people apparently regarded him as a Muslim holy man. He died in 1912 and is buried in a small shrine on the outskirts of Famagusta. When I visited the site in 1996... I met the 86-year-old grandson of Subh-i-Azal, Mr. Rida Ezel, who still functioned as caretaker of the rather neglected shrine." "The Azali Babis represented the orthodox core of the Babi movement, and in Iran they continued to oppose the Qajar state. Several Azalis, individually, were among the nationalist reformers and played a role in the constitutional movement. As an organised religious community, however, Azali Babism stagnated. There may be one or two thousand people left in Iran who still consider themselves to be Azalis, but any organisation seems to have ceased to exist." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Mineemod, Aliyeen: I just realized that your accounts are new and the page is semi-protected. You weren't the intent of the protection, so if you have any edits, you can share here and I'll do my best to incorporate.

As an aside, I've been looking through the refs used in the article and I haven't found a good biography from a reliable source. I need something like that to structure the article. The closest I could find was Peter Smith's Encyclopedia. Any other ideas would be helpful. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)