Talk:Bábism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Made a fairly minor edit, but didn't seem minor enough to call minor. In any case, the reason I did not log in was because I have forgotten my password, and although I'm being e-mailed a new one, it has yet to arrive, and I'm getting impatient. The recent edit was done by me.

Contents

[edit] Typography

I've been through to do a bit of tidying up, but I fear I may have messed up the representation of some names. I started off changing ` to ' before I noticed that they seem to have different uses. If anyone passes this way who knows about these things, can you check that things are OK? Noisy | Talk 19:49, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Might it be worth mentioning that there are few Babis left today, it is seen largely as a stepping stone religion into the Bahai faith and Azalism? Tomhab 15:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why does this page use Bahá'í orthography for non-English words when the Bāb, although a part of the Bahá'í religion, is in some respects independent of Bahá'íism? I'd like to change the orthography to accepted international standards (using macrons over long vowels instead of an accent mark) but wanted to first verify whether there's a specific reason not to do so. Kitabparast 07:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Errrm... How is the Bab best known? He is best known as a part of the Baha'i faith, and certainly thats how he's spelt most. Sure he's got no solid connection so don't actually say there is one in the article but his name is most recognisable in the Baha'i form. -- Tomhab 08:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Oops just noticed what page this is (Babis, not Bab). As long as there is a reference to how they're known in the Baha'i format the first time they're used, I'll just shut up :) -- Tomhab 08:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought the Baha'i standard was based on the most common international standard used by academics. It's not an attempt to make others conform to Baha'i ways of spelling, but it was a way for the Baha'is to conform to the most commonly used standard of transliteration. Anyway that was my understanding. If you have some reference that shows otherwise I'd like to see it, and then you can have a ball on this page and the Bab's page. Cunado19 16:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure - I think it depends. I think the western standard is to use the "Shoghi Effendi" typography (not just in Baha'i texts), but a lot of scholarly literature use Bāb. I can see it could be debated either way and am not too bothered. Perhaps one thing to take into account is that the a-acute (á) is more like how wikipedia uses its accents. For instance "Bahá'í" is not how it is spelt on www.bahai.org - its normally spelt "Bahá’ís" (although not exclusively). Confused about the difference? The inverted comma is different. ' and ’. Wikipeida use ' as other articles use it (and also ’ isn't on my keyboard). Is it incorrect? I've tried to keep it using the ' in webpages as it gets confusing, but its hard to see.
In my opinion, as long as no-one gets confused what's being talked about it doesn't matter too much. This can be avoided by using brackets of what its otherwise known by.
One has a choice - follow what other encyclopaedias and definitions use, Bábís, or what scholarly typography uses Bābīs (debatably the "more correct" spelling). I can't personally say which wikipedia policy prefers, but generally they have a policy of "whatever, just make it consistent in the article" with most things (British/American spelling etc). -- Tomhab 22:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Good point, Tomhab. I'll leave it as it is and not loose any sleep. :-) You are correct: as long as people know what's being talked about, it shouldn't matter too much. I think I'll go and have a ball on pages really related to Islām. Kitabparast 22:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kitab-i-Iqan

Having read the Kitab-i-Iqan carefully, I am surprised to read in the article, "...though in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, one of the most important polemical works of the Bábísm, and now the Bahá'ís, composed in 1858-1859, ...he still implicitly recognized the supremacy of Subh-i Azal." In the Iqan, Baha'u'llah is generally understood to be proving the claim of the Bab and hinting of his own station. So where does the italicized interpretation come from? --Occamy 20:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading figures

First off - the figure 20,000 is, in my experience, the number given to all those, Babis and Baha'is who have been martyred since 1844. It is misleading to compare this with "conservative" figures that are only relevant between 1844 and 1850. Please let me know if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty certain I'm not. -- Tomhab 22:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standard naming

Names.... Well, In one section, I see Mulla Muhammad Ali of Barfarush, Quddus, and Muhammad Quddus being used. I may have noted the same for Tahirih. Can we acknowledge a single naming scheme form all these people? I suggest starting a page Talk:Bábís/naming with all the names used in wikipedia - no other name can be used unless it explicitly links it with the standard name. Sound good? Obviously the same can go for Mirza Yahya Nuri/Subh-i-Azal/Azal etc etc etc. -- Tomhab 22:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support as stated above -- Tomhab 22:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support as stated above -- Kitabparast 23:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support as stated above -- Cunado19 13:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Comments

  • to consider -- which of the following formats should we use. I've seen all of them used. Cunado19 13:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Somebody of Barfarush
Somebody-i-Barfarushi
Somebody Barfarushi
Yes, I agree, but without knowing exactly whats the best one to use, I suggest we standardise on one for each person. -- Tomhab 16:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mirza Jani journal

Is there only one copy of the journal written by Hâjji Mirza Jâni Kashani? I presume we're talking about the version included in the Nuqtat al-Kaf? Did anyone here add that line or know anything about it? Last I heard the Nuqtat al-Kaf has been widely produced as part of EG Brown's notes -- Tomhab 20:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I suggest moving the title of this article, but I admit I'm not sure what would be the best. I think "Bábí movement" would be the best, or "Bábí Faith", but "Bábís" just isn't a good title. Cuñado - Talk 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Babism -- Jeff3000 03:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Jeff3000. MARussellPESE 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This was orphaned, I agree and I'll move the title to Bábism. -- Cuñado - Talk 18:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maceoin

Maceoin is hardly a secondary source. If he states that secondary sources indicate only a small number of Babis killed, then those sources should be quoted and not him. Also, he states that Baha'i sources agree with the lower number, which they don't. I removed some of his opinions. Cuñado - Talk 18:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think MacEoin's statements need to be in the article. He was an academic that did a lot of work on Babism and Shakiism and based on his academic work which he's published he's believes that there is around 2000 to 3000 Babis killed. He's done the research himself, looking over many many sources and has added up the numbers of people killed and come up with the number; it is not a number that is based on any other work but by his historical analyses (such as newspapers, etc). This of course is lower than what Baha'is believe based on Abdu'l-Baha's statements (which Baha'is use and state that MacEoin's estimates are too low because they don't include the numerous persecutions that were not accounted for), but MacEoin's statement is an academic source, and should be in the article for NPOV. I will be reinserting it.-- Jeff3000 18:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be clear what he was doing then. If someone tried to count how many blacks were lynched in the US over the last 4 centuries, and their sources were limited to reading newspaper articles, they would be a few hundred thousand off. Cuñado - Talk 19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of y'all's sentiments here. MacEoin's assertion is quite valid but should have a specific citation though. Can you pick that up, Jeff? Cuñado's got a quite valid point. The Iranian hinterland was a very, very, bloody place to be at the time. Much less flashy that Ft. Shaykh Tabarsi, but a lot easier to get dragged out of your house. The comparison to lynching is apt. And there were precious few outsiders who kept anything remotely like records. The Baha'i numbers are probably inflated with double counts and such, but I'll bet they are better than anything that anybody else has — and much better than MacEoin's. The Baha'i numbers are exaggerated by an order of magnitude? I doubt it. MARussellPESE 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lot of history but lacking doctrinal content

I understand that a page on a specific religion or sect should contain all the basic tenets of its doctrine. I find that this page, being about a movement and not about a person, contains a lot of biographical and historical data but very few, if any, explanations about the actual contents of Bábism as a distinct religious path. I suggest that the article needs to be reorganized and expanded in that area in order to improve it. --Jdemarcos 13:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I don't have access to books (such as MacEoin's The sources for early Babi doctrine and history : a survey or Amanat's Resurection and Renewall) that would be verifiable sources. Regardless, I'll try to find some on verifiable information on the web, and add some stuff. -- Jeff3000 00:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added some beliefs. I've found some of Amanat's and MacEoin's essays on the web, in addition to Browne and Esslemeont, and used them as references. -- Jeff3000 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Babi Faith.

That's the title. Zazaban 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm indifferent, but I would prefer Bábism, since it's the most common reference in academics (in my experience). Cuñado - Talk 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Babism is the most common usage, and should stay. -- Jeff3000 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In the outside world I've heard "baha'ism" more than "Baha'i faith" but does that make it correct? People still use Czechoslovakia for heaven's sake!

In English, the "Baha'i Faith" is orders of magnitude more common than "Baha'ism", (in may not be that way in other languages) not to mention that "Baha'ism" is commonly used in a belittling way by attackers of the Baha'i Faith. On the other hand, Babism is much more common than Babi Faith. And note that even though the Czech government would like people to call what is most commonly known as the Czech Republic, Czechia, the article is still titled the Czech Republic since that is the most common usage. -- Jeff3000 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badasht

The statement under the heading of Fort Tabarsi is incorrect I believe. The fort established at the shrine of Shaykh Tabarsi is on the northern slopes of the Alborz mountains. I have yet to find the exact location, but it is relatively close to Babúl (Barfarush), the home of Quddus, and Sari. The context in Nabil's narrative implies this. In fact the name "Tabarsi" implies an origin in Tabaristan, the old name for Mazindaran.

I do know where Badasht is located. I have it on a map, and it is just east of the current town of Emamrud. Go here: Multimap, select "Rest of the World" at the bottom of the pull-down, then type in "Iran" for country, and "Bedasht" for town. Make sure and spell it with an "e". This is where it should be according to the historical texts.

Now one interesting question I've always had is why they were walking west from Mashhad and ended up near Babul. Nobody seems to address where they were trying to go.

Another interesting point about the battle at Tabarsi is the prophetic/mystical nature of the event. The number of participants (313) is said in some untranslated texts to represent each of the previous Manifestations "endowed with constancy" (major prophets), while Quddus took on the role of the Báb (he wore the Báb's turban). Then Baha'u'llah makes an appearance as the next Manifestation. As I understand, the number of participants in the Battle of Badr was also 313, and Shi'i prophecy points to this being the number of the Mahdi's supporters. [1]

In relation to Badasht, I made a note in the discussion for the Conference of Badasht that I plan on working on that article. -- Parsa 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I read through much of the first chapter on the Mazindaran Upheaval in Nabil's narrative. I have a couple things to correct in the statement above. Mulla Husayn was supposed to be heading to Karbila from Mashhad. He was then told by the Báb to go in aid of Quddus, who was then imprisoned in Sari. The trip west actually took several months. The Babis ended up near Barfarush (Babul), where the first confrontation took place. Ultimately, the were escorted by a squad of 100 armed men out of Barfarush, and were to be taken as far as Shir-Gah. The leader took them down a forest road, and betrayed them by attacking the Babis. It was from there, part way to Shir-Gah, that the Babis took refuge in the shrine of Shaykh Tabarsi. The Guardian says it was 14 mile SE of Barfarush near a village called "Afra." This would have been near modern Qa'emshahr. There is an "Afra Takht" nearby, but it is east of Qa'emshahr. Shir-Gah lies south of Qa'emshahr on the road through the mountains to Tihran.
Mulla Husayn wore the Bab's turban, not Quddus, but Quddus did fill the role of the Mahdi since he fulfilled hadith prophesies related the Mahdi at Tabarsi.
The actual mystery was not where they were going from Mashhad, but rather why they were on the road to Shir-Gah. Mulla Husayn agreed to go to Amul after talks with leaders of Barfarush. Amul is west of Barfarush. However he ended up heading to Shir-Gah which is to the southeast. No explantion for this is given. See this comment. -- Parsa 08:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uprisings and Massacres section

I tend to disagree with the overall characterization of the struggles involving Babis as being "revolts." In once sense, the Revelation of the Bab was a revolution... That is in the spiritual sense. However, I think it's wrong to imply that the Babis were somehow continuously trying to cause revolt and insurrection. The view presented in Nabil, God Passes By, and other sources, is that the struggles were defensive actions. This is illustrated by the behavior of the Babis before and during the battle at the shrine of Shaykh Tabarsi. On nearing Barfarush, the mob incited by the chief religious leader, attacked the approaching Babis. Mulla Husayn ordered nobody to retaliate. It was not until they had been attacked three times that he charged into the mob and killed the last assailant. Once again, when the Babis were in the caravanserai at Barfarush, Mulla Husayn ordered the call to prayer. Three Babis in turn attemped the recitation of the adhan but were each killed. Only after the third death did Husayn order the gates to be opened and the mob attacked. I believe the overall wording and tone of the section needs to be altered to reflect this fact. -- Parsa 05:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, there are academic viewpoints that disagree with your analysis, and the Baha'i viewpoints; main among them are Denis MacEoin's work. As I mentioned in the Talk:Baha'i Faith, articles must use a neutral point of view, and secondary works are preferred to primary reports such as the Dawnbreakers. -- Jeff3000 06:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dawnbreakers is only a primary source when Zarandi recounts his own experiences. For the section on Shaykh Tabarsi, he is acting as an historian reporting the first hand accounts of others. In that case the work is a secondary source. God Passes By is also a secondary source, as is Resurrection and Renewal. So then it's a matter of choice, preference, etc. In the past, a great many encyclopedias used non-Baha'i sources in what can be presumed to be an attempt to be neutral. However, many of these sources were books by Iranian enemies of the faith or by western missionaries. Western reporters of the events in Mazindaran, Zanjan and Nayriz were getting their information from the government, not first hand (see Momen, "The Babi and Baha'i Religions, 1844-1944, Some Contemporary Western Accounts). If we agree to their characterizations of the events as revolts against the government, we may also have to agree to their views of the Babis as "fanatics". Should we ignore Christian authors of Christian history in favor of agnostic or Buddhist scholars writing on Christianity? Isn't a Buddhist, who grows up in that tradition to be trusted in his accounts of Budhhist history? Should we universally ignore all historical accounts of adherents of a faith in favor modern academic scholars? I doubt if this is the view of the folks writing articles for Wikipedia on Islamic history. Just because an account is from a Baha'i source does not mean it is non-factual. If it is factual, then it is neutral. -- Parsa 07:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, optics are just as important as facts, and using only Baha'i sources does not provide the right optics, especially when there are qualified historians who are not polemic who give the opposite viewpoint. Both viewpoints must be given, and qualified with "Baha'i sources state ..." and "Denis MacEoin says ...". Look over the countless Christian and Jewish articles where there has been debates over how the religion sees itself and historians see it. -- Jeff3000 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is not concerned with presenting multiple sides, but rather with the general use of the term revolt. That seems to be non-neutral in the sense that it does indeed support the Shi'i contention that the Babis were political revolutionaries and seditionists. I don't want to water things down, but perhaps a more neutral terminology can be used such as the terms "upheaval", "struggle", "conflict", "confrontation", etc. I have no argument against presenting the opposing views as is done in the introductory statement to the section. Yes, present Baha'i, academic, Shi'i, governmental, or any other point of view as long as the source is identified and explained. -- Parsa 16:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bábism and Bábis

When the title of this article was changed to Bábism in March, the opening description was not changed to match. The first sentence does not define Bábism as the religion of the Báb, but begins by talking about Bábis. The opening should be similar to that on the Bahá'í Faith:

The Bahá'í Faith is a religion founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th century Persia. Bahá'ís number around 6 million in more than 200 countries around the world.[1][2]

Reference to the Báb should be in the first paragraph, and an explanation that adherents of the religion are called Bábis should follow later. -- Parsa 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of this page

Hi guys, I am much impressed by this article - but I have to point out a few things as a Bahá'í - The correct way to describe the religion brought by The Báb is - The Bábi Faith. The correct way to describe the revelation of Baha'u'llah and the religion followed by over 7 millions Bahá'ís worldwide is The Bahá'í Faith - Not Babism, Not Bahaism - that is just plain wrong and it's really annoying when others add the -ism on the end! As Bahá'i we believe in The Báb as a Messenger of God in His own right as well as the forerunner of Bahá'u'lláh - The Báb is a major part of Bahá'i history!! Is Christianity called Christanism or Islam called Islamism? I feel aggrieved by this, even though it is in reality just a word - but because I feel its a way people use to put down an expression of Faith they either don't understand, have not adequaltely researched or simply oppose. Please get it right! Yours, Fleur Fleurba 23:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fleurba, some of the main policies of Wikipedia is neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. As part of these policies, Wikipedia uses terms that are used in the majority of reliable sources, and not what we believe as individuals or spokesmen. The reliable sources are usually secondary sources that have published in mediums which have editorial oversight. For the religion of the Bab, most sources call it Babism, and the Wikipedia Manual of style on titles means that the most used term has to be used. Thus the term has to stay. As for the Baha'i Faith versus Bahaism the term Baha'i Faith is used much more that Baha'ism and that is why the title of that article is Baha'i Faith. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of Bab

the word Bab simply means "door", not gate. Bawwabah is the Arabic word for gate. (67.171.224.169 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The Encyclopedia Iranica article on the Bab states that it is translated gate, not door. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)