Talk:Baháʼí–Azali split/Archive 1

removing section

==A Contrary Point of View of Bahá'u'llah's Claim==

A contrary point of view is that the Báb's writings refers to Subh-i-Azal as "the One", "the Way" and "the Great Truth". Moreover, the Báb's writings do not refer to Bahá'u'lláh by name leading at least one author to state that Bahá'u'lláh was not considered an important person by the Báb (this ignores, however, the common usage of titles instead of names). Bahá'u'lláh did receive tablets from the Báb which addressed him as the brother of Azal, but most significantly the pentacle tablet.

"....This is a letter from God, the Guardian, the Self-Subsisting, to God, the Guardian, the Self-Subsisting.... This is a letter from Ali before Nabil, the Reminder of God for the worlds, to him whose name is equivalent to the name of the One, the Reminder of God for the worlds.... That, O thou, name of the One, guard what has been revealed in the Bayan and enjoin the same, for thou art surely the way, the great truth." ::(Quoted from the "History and Doctrines of the Bábí Movement" who quotes Browne's "Introduction to Nuqtatul Qaf".)"

The various versions of this letter have already been noted.

I removed this section for several reasons: it's very POV, and appears to be the result of editors fighting; its content is repeated above in the article; and it's very poorly written. Cuñado - Talk 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

Is this a neutral article? The whole split is described only from the Baha'i POV, e.g. it describes several attempts against Baha'u'llah's life (which very probably happened) but it does not mention that Baha'is allegedly murdered several Azalis in Adrianople and Acre, as reported by E.G. Browne. OTOH there are no references to Azali sources for contrasting views. Again, I'm not anti-Baha'i or pro-Azali. I prefer that Wiki readers have all the information readily available and make up their own minds on issues. I expect good will from editors of this article to include more NPOV material here, and I will simply add an external link to an Azali site for contrasting information on this issue. --Jdemarcos 07:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has more pro-Baha'i information. Can you add to it? -- Jeff3000 13:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually earlier versions of this article were very poorly cited. The current version was updated to provide much tighter sources, particularly a eye-witness source. It's easy, and was an almost constant occurence on both sides, to level these accusations. It was so easy, frankly, that I don't much trust even original documents much on either side. I marginally trust eye-witnesses, but even these changed sides and stories sometimes.

The article could use balance but, given the subject, assertions will need to be tightly sourced on both side. And even then they could be suspect.

The bayanic website either cites no sources, Browne's third-hand accounts, or sources that aren't available. Browne was so uncritical in the stories and documents he catalogued, which were almost entirely Azali, that I find him of only partial use despite the fact that many consider him the definitive source.

There weren't any murders documented in Adrianople that I recall immediately, although there were several in Persia on both sides during this time. It took Baha'u'llah a very long time to cool the tempers of the Baha'is who'd just come out of the Babi period.

The three Acre murders are well-documented. This is Browne's account on the bayanic site. Even it corroborates the Baha'i account that this was not at Baha'u'llah's instigation or even foreknowledge, Azali third-hand assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Also, the NPOV policies on undue weight need to be considered here. The Azalis have been a very small group relative to the Baha'is for a very long time, even described as probably defunct. MARussellPESE 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the article is heavily biased against Azalis. It appears that the article is written from the Research Department, and UHJ's POV. It would be interesting to see what are the views of other Bahai groups such as: BUPC http://www.bupc.org/, The Guardian of Bahai faith http://bahai-guardian.com/, THE HEART OF THE BAHA'I FAITH, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HeartoftheBahaiFaith/, the Alaska Northern Lights Baha'i http://www.alaska.net/%7Epeace/formibc.htm and a number of others. Mañana eterna 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncited statements

Fair warning to anybody watching this article. There are serveral {{citation needed}} templates in this article. I'll be striking these statements in the next few days unless someone can find sources for these. MARussellPESE 03:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

These stale uncited statements are struck per above. MARussellPESE 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinship

According to a book published in Hebrew: Sharon, M (2005) The Bahá'í Faith and it's Holy Writ - The Most Holy Book, Carmel, Jerusalem - Subh-i-Azal and the Bahá'u'lláh were brothers. I haven't seen this stated in the articles on the Bahá'í Faith in the Wikipedia. RCSB 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor point to the Baha'i Faith. Not so much to the Babi movement. The relationship is discussed in depth there.

Also, Subh-i-Azal is a title of Mirza Yahya. He is more commonly known among Baha'is by name, and he is discussed, and linked, in Bahá'u'lláh's biography article. MARussellPESE 02:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Subh-i-Azal and Baha'u'llah were half-brothers, and it is indicated in this article, although lower down in the page. I'll also place it higher up. It is also mentioned in the Babism article. -- Jeff3000 03:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

I think the article name should be changed to remove the "/" - see WP:SLASH and WP:SLASH#Article_titles. Any suggestions? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A dash (—) instead of a slash could work. If we're going to move the page though, it may be time to determine the correct name of the article. I haven't seen "Bahá'í/Bábí split" used anywhere but Wikipedia, but at the same time I don't think there is any specific name that is generally used to describe the split. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "split" the right word for it anyway? Surely what happened was that followers of the Bab converted to become followers of Baha'u'llah? Conversion of Babis to the Baha'i Faith might be better? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO it was actually a split because they were one community and there was a division between those who followed Baha'u'llah and those who remained loyal to Azal. However the use of a dash instead of a slash does not seem relevant to me. Am I missing something? --jofframes (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it seems there was a kind of split in the Babi community which gave rise to the mass conversion to the Baha'i religion but also that the use of the word split is rare. How about Late Babi changes of the community?? Or we could recast the article as a profile if the Babi community covering more time than just the end phase? It could cover Zoroastrian conversions for example and early spread of the religion in Bahá'í Faith in Azerbaijan and Bahá'í Faith in India (both of which dates back to the Babi period.) and so would also cover the Azali article(s) 'Course this is much more than just a renaming.Smkolins (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)