Talk:Bahá'u'lláh's family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Revert Wars

WooHoo! Well it's good to see the revert warriors are going full-steam ahead. By the way, I don't have any problem with "Greater Branch" versus "Most Great Branch". Although my source says "Most Great", "Greater" is probably the more correct English translation I suppose. Not sure why pseudo-Amir is reverting some of those edits. Some of them seem inocuous. Maybe you should try making spelling corrections first, then adding your attempt to prop up Baha as a seperate edit. <big grin> Wjhonson 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure where the confusion has arisen on these pages, but the differences in titles is clear in Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i-Ahd (Book of the Covenant), viz: Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muhammad Ali] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [Abdu'l-Baha]. He is in truth the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen `the Greater' after `the Most Great', as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed. See Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 222 Occamy 07:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oops, the previous paragraph of the Kitab-i-Ahd states: "The Will of the divine Testator is this: It is incumbent upon the Aghsan, the Afnan and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch.". And the title is used in the Lawd-i-Ard-i-Ba (Tablet of the Land of Ba) and Shoghi Effendi's God Passes By. Occamy 08:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of Baha'u'llah

I suggest that after the debate on Baha'u'llah has completed we decide what to do here. I think Amir is being a bit provocative in putting the picture up here, but thats not the point at the minute -- Tomhab 01:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I can agree with Tomhab on this. Although the photo belongs on the main page, I don't see a useful reason to post it on ALL pages related to Baha. Wjhonson 01:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should be one this one because it is directly about him. The Faith article is about a wider context. violet/riga (t) 10:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... Ignoring my personal feelings on the situation I think we should resolve whats happening on the Baha'u'llah page first and then see what to do about this one. The Baha'u'llah page seems to have settled on Geni's bottom-of-the-page idea but I'm not holding my breath quite yet. -- Tomhab 11:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Bahá'u'lláh has now been stable for some timeGeni 18:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weird - who'd have thought. Would it be inappropriate to remove it from this page? Its only semi-relevant and theres a picture on the main Baha'u'llah page... -- Tomhab 22:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing the image as inappropriate here. I am not someone who belongs to the Bahá'í traditions, but I think it is simply civil decency to respect them to the degree possible. I strongly favored retaining the image in some form, but object to posting it in so deliberately offensive a manner as has been done. A few further comments I have made are on the Talk:Bahá'í Faith and Talk:Bahá'u'lláh pages. ~ Achilles 20:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now the Baha'u'llah page is protected this one is getting reverted now... Great -- Tomhab 09:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three Wives

The "controversy" about three wives can be removed by inserting the following into the article. I am putting it here first to avoid it being too much of a shock for Amir and colleagues:

The three wives of Baha'u'llah is not an issue for Baha'is. One reason is that Baha'is accept that Baha'u'llah is the one promised by the Bab--i.e. Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest--of whom the Bab wrote in his Will and Testament (v.29): He shall carry out whatever He wishes, with permission from His Lord. He shall not be questioned for his actions.... Through this verse, the Bab instructs that Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest is not subject to Babi law. Occamy 21:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of the "pick and choose" or "copy and paste" nature of the whole Bahaism sham. Did you notice how the Bahai official stance is that the Bayan is recinded, but on the Bahai official web page, they use only bits and peaces of the Bayan? The same goes true about several other sources. As a Bahai, you are a victim of a sham that was started by a sick and selfish man in the 19th century. I have educated you Bahais a lot by my contributions. Instead of trying to fight off every reasonble and honest and observant point that I have made, try to think about them. --Amir 21:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The fact that you believe that the Baha'i Faith is a sham is your POV. You do raise interesting points that prompt me to research in a way that I have not done for years. While the replies have improved my typing skills, you do not seem to consider them. For example, you do not address the quotation and comment above. In what way is the obvious and simple conclusion wrong? What referenced counter-arguments can you bring to the discussion? And if you are trying to convince Baha'is like me that we are wrong to believe in Baha'u'llah, foul comments like the one you make below greatly weaken your arguments and your claim to a NPOV. Occamy 22:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I did not consider your "will and testament" claim, for reasons that you know better yourself. Which version of "Bab's Will and Testament" are you using? The Bahai version includes even some parts in Bahaullah's own handwriting, claiming that (if I remember correctly) Azal didn't let him have it, so he had to write down those parts manually himself. Is that the "Will and Testament of the Bab" that you are using as the source of your quotation? Either way, can you put a link to your source? Furthurmore, it seems that you are assuming that I accept the Bab as a credible figure. My view on this whole thing is for the most part in line with the late Iranian scholar, Ahmad Kasravi, which shows how Bahaism is a sham (bahaism) branched out of a sham (babism) branched out of a sham (sheykhism) branched out of yet another sham (shiism). But from a historical and sociological point of view relative to Iran, I can have some respect for the Babis/Bayanis, but the Bahai movement was just flat out oppurtunism by Baha in Baghdad. --Amir 17:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The versions of the Bab's Will and Testament are discussed and compared verse by verse by Sepehr Manuchehri, The Primal Point’s Will and Testament, Research Notes in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies,Vol. 7, no. 2 (September, 2004) [[1]]. The study concludes
  • "None of the significant variations relate to the intended duties or responsibilities of Subh-e Azal. They are mainly concerned with the ‘operational’ aspects of his work (verses 13, 14, 16) or are simply praises (verses 2 and 28)."
  • "Although the original of the tablet has not surface to this day, there is no evidence that this document has been forged or maliciously altered."
If you have one, please quote a scholarly reference that contradicts these conclusions. Meanwhile, your personal POV speculations need to be removed from the article. Occamy 22:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i believe you know yourself that your bahai "source" is not accepted by anybody other than your own organization. do not bargain for a document that is partly handwritten by bahaullah, to be accepted as a valid source to support a claim made by bahaullah. i can't even believe that you have the nerve to ask for such a preposterous compromise. --Amir 01:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Amir, you have been expending a lot of effort to push your vision of a Controversy over the status of Baha'u'llah's third marriage. What scholarly sources do you have that support your POV? One may speculate all sorts of things about a subject but such things have no place in a NPOV article. The lack of any scholarly debate about the subject indicates that it is not a controversial marriage. State your authoritative sources. Occamy 23:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It clearly says there is no evidence, but it is plausible. There is PLENTY of reason given in the article that no matter how you twist and turn it, you cannot justify this strange marriage of Bahaullah, yet you, due to your extreme bahai zeal, cannot "allow" any bitter facts about bahaism, and try to delete or modify any non-bahai contributions that are less than praise for your cult. I am an iranian, a persian specifically, and i know the cultural dynamics of what it means when you hear a persian man, especially of a high-rank family, married their house maid. you have NO RIGHT to deprive the readership of wikipedia from this correct and fair presentation of the case of his third wife.
Again, in typical bahai "pick and choose" style, in one place your consider Shoghi Effendi's words to be written in stone (even on this very discussion page you did it) and in another page, on the Gowhar section of this article, you ignore the fact that Shoghi officially announced that Bahaullah had three legal wives, and you copy-and-paste from a juan cole speculation. your "religion" is a copy-and-paste and pic-and-chose cult and your behaviour shows it. --Amir 01:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is something surreal in the article now. I just reread it and was stunned when I saw that "Baha ten years after his last marriage introduced a law saying that there was a limit of two wives and no concubines..." But he was already "married" three times at this point according to Baha'is ! So is "above the law" now equal to "hypocrite" ? I find that amazing personally. But anyway, there is another work that exists called the "Aunt's epistle" which was writen by an aunt of Baha. I wonder if we could track it down. Wjhonson 15:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I seem to be lagging behind everyone for a while so not sure where the misunderstanding is. The point is, because of the time scale, he was already married to three wives when he introduced the max of two wives. I'm not sure what I believe on the matter, but the point is someone could argue that "When he revealed the Aqdas saying that only two wives are allowed, he was married to three anyway. He wasn't going to divorce one just because of the law." Its not a water-tight argument but I think people can (and do) legitimately believe in it. Its much like what I understand to be the Islamic argument why Muhammad has so many wives (was it twelve?) when he introduced the max-of-4 rule (after his last marriage). Like Baha'u'llah he didn't divorce any of them when he brought that in.
I've never heard of the Aunt's Epistle. From what I understand he didn't have any contact with the generation above him after he left Persia. I'd be very interested if you do find it though. -- Tomhab 01:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tom you're doing fine. I think it is one of E G Browne's books where he mentions that various people related to Baha U'llah and in there I think he mention's the "Aunt's Epistle" although it's probably not called that exactly. I think this is supposed to be either Baha's aunt or his sister (and thus aunt to Abdul Baha). In addition, everyone should take a look at the article on Shoghi Effendi (his great-grandson) because in there there is a link to a purported genealogy chart of the family. Hard to read but could give some more information. PLEASE do not copy the unfounded assertion that he is really a descendent of Mohammed. The chart is probably only "good" for about three or four generations. Wjhonson 01:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest vs. Greater

Tom, I just want to let you know that in Arabic, azam is not a "superior" word to akbar. They both mean "greatest", but they are obviously two different words from two different triconsonantals. Just to assure you akbar is not in any shape or form "inferior" to azam I would point out the famous Islamic motto of Allah-u Akbar (God is [the] Greatest). Surely, if azam was a superior word, that motto would have been Allah-u Azam. In case of these two titles, they are equal in meaning. It is like arguing if "His Excellency" is "superior" or "His Highness". If Bahaullah bestowed a superior title to the oldest son of his first wife, his second wife, who was also his cousin and also had an "oldest son", would have cut His little balls.--Amir 21:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Errrrm OK. I've got to admit my Arabic (and Persian) is pretty much non-existant. For the sake of the flow of the article could we make at least a distinction? Or perhaps add an extra line explaining "Whilst they both have the same meaning in English, they are meant as titles of equal greatness"? Sorry, I figured what you'd done was simply a typo error. Or perhaps "Mightiest" and "Greatest" which I've seen around. -- Tomhab 22:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As Shoghi Effendi is the authorised Interpreter of the Baha'i Writings, Baha'is use his translations because translation involves a degree of Interpretation. Occamy 22:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Occamy, do you realize how what you just said sounds to a non-Baha'i ? Wjhonson 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it's late and I'm feeling rather dim. I believe what I said is legitimate, but maybe things will look different in the morning! Occamy 02:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean it's not legitimate to say it. But what it sounds like is something like "We don't bother studying the underlying Persian because we just trust that Shoghi did it right. Even if someone were to point out flaws in his translation, we'd still trust his translation." Kinda like the Roman Catholic church translations before Martin Luther. Wjhonson 04:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I've reverted to "Most Mighty" and "Most Great" in order to show more clearly that the terms are equal and to match the source I'm using. Wjhonson 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok sourcing this. My source as usual is the book by Maulana Muhammad Ali here is his quote, let me know if you want me to source it in the article. "His eldest surviving son by his first wife was Abbas Effendi while his younger half-brother Muhammad Ali was his eldest son by his second wife. On the former Bahaullah conferred the title of Ghusn-i-Azam, or the most mighty Branch, and on the latter that of Ghusn-i-Akbar or the most great Branch." Wjhonson 04:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not an expert in hermeneutics – the science of interpretation – but the book by Maulana Muhammad will not be the most authoratative concerning the Baha'i writings. I am referring to a paper on the subject: Some Interpretive Principles in the Bahá'í Writings, Baha'i Studies Review, Volume 2.1, 1992 [[2]]. The authors write that the following quotations from messages of the Universal House of Justice "...indicate that the interpretative writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and the Guardian do not have a temporary or transient nature."
  • The revealed Word, in its original purity, amplified by the divinely guided interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, remains immutable, unadulterated by any man-made creeds and dogmas, unwarrantable inferences, or unauthorized interpretations. (Wellspring of Guidance: Messages 1963-1968. Rev. ed. Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1976, p.13)
  • The interpretations written by the beloved Guardian cover a vast range of subjects and are equally binding as the Text itself. . . The Guardian reveals what the Scripture means; his interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied. (Wellspring....p. 52). Occamy 08:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Glenford Mitchell writes on Shoghi Effendi as Interpreter too in [[3]]. Occamy 08:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
WHAT has any of that got to do with this subject? First, remember that we are not here to uphold the purity or lack thereof of Shoghi Effendi. That would be a POV. So the Universal House or anyone else saying that his word is law has no bearing on the issue. We are discussing what the original documents actually said. I have linked a few documents, including E Browne's and Maulana's so if you can read Persian you can read the text and see what it says. But your argument that since Shoghi was 100% right in Baha'is opinion means that non-Baha'is also have to agree is specious.
I don't read Persian so I am out of my depth there. I agree that it is a NPOV activity to compare the original text against the translation accepted by Baha'is. Let's see where it leads. Thanks. Occamy 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think Occamy and Tom both might read pg 174 of the Miller book where he goes into excrutiating detail on this issue. I've just linked it into the family page so you can jump right to it. It's a very interesting additional resource on the Baha'i faith I think. Wjhonson 02:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Research hell

OK I've done around 4-5 hours research tonight putting in changes to the children of Baha'u'llah from the second and third marriages of which less is known. Urrgh my head hurts. I'll work on making the controversy paragraph more structured tomorrow. -- Tomhab 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Street names

Isn't there an Abbas street below the old Western Pilgrim house? -- Tomhab 12:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct. Occamy 12:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

OK I think I've done my last major edit. My suggestion on the structure is in 3 sections:

  1. Family and the facts. If there must be something speculative about it, keep it particularly short
  2. Speculation. Speculative ideas with any facts that they're based on
  3. Defence. Although this article can't make any decisions about what was right/wrong, the Baha'is must have their defence if we're putting in loose speculation

Thats how its laid out at the minute. Its a fair amount tidier than before and covers it all.

Its also important that we do not make any conclusions as thats not what an encyclopaedia is...

Let me know what you think -- Tomhab 02:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amir's whole Controversy section contravenes Wikipedia policy: "Remember that Wikipedia is not for your opinions or for original research.". Amir's approach to put up a sham argument and then knock it down is a vulgar attempt to slander and defame. It has no place here. I was tempted to mirror his technique and put up a hypothetical controversy about things Amir may have done in his life and then deny them with counter-arguments. But I have not because--without authoritative sources--it would have been an unfounded slander, which is what Amir has done in the "Bahá'u'lláh's family" article. Meanwhile Amir has gone back to calling anyone who edits his work a bigot. As Wikipedia says on the Edit pages, If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.
My proposal is to delete the whole sham Controversy discussion and strip out the unreferenced speculation concerning Gawhar Khanum thus:
Gawhar was Bahá'u'lláh's third wife and may have been known as Haram-i Kashi (the Kashi Wife). They married in Baghdad some time before he declared his mission. Juan Cole writes in A Brief Biography of Baha'u'llah [[4]] :
  • "In Baghdad he married Gawhar Khanum (the latter appears to have been a pro forma temporary marriage [mut`ah] of a sort required of Shi`ite law where a man had a live-in maid, and Gawhar Khanum had been brought into the household in the Shi`ite Karkh district in order to serve Asiyih Khanum, the first wife of Bahá'u'lláh )."
When Bahá'u'lláh left Baghdad she and her daughter stayed and lived with Gawhar's brother Mirza Mihdiy-i-Kashani. For some years she was among the Baha'i refugees in Mosul and later went to Akká at Bahá'u'lláh's request.
One contributor speculates that the third marriage to Gawhar did not comply with Babi law, which allowed two wives. However this claim is void if Baha'u'llah was, as he claimed to be, Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest, who is not subject to Babi law. The contributor has not supported his speculation with scholarly references.
Both mother and daughter were declared Covenant-breakers in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. Occamy 07:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
is it of no significance that baha gave pompus arabic titles to two of his wives and not to the third one? is it not of significance that he had a total of 13 children from the first two wives and only one from his third wife? is it of no significance that he married his house maid? is it of no significance that in persian culture marrying a house maid is a huge cultural shock? and the fact that he was from a high-ranking family underscores it even more. is it of no significance that whether he was a Babi or Bahai (in heart as he claims), he could not take more than two wives and he had already reached his limit? is it of no significance that none of the bahais could offer any asnwers to these points and after two days, you came up with the truly lame and pathetic argument of "well, since he claimed to be The Promised One, and according to what Bab said, The Promised One can do anything he wants without being questioned" -- not to mention the fact that even the so-called Bab's Testimony (the Bahai version) is not authentic and a good part of it is written in Bahaullah's own handwriting. your feeble argument trying to excuse him, and your refusal to accept that he could not help himself fooling around with his young house maid shows your lack of intelligence and is a good indication of what kind of religious zealot you are.
does bahaism teach you to get rid of the truth if it does not suit your preference? --Amir 08:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well Bahaism if you want to call it that does discourage people from spreading unfounded rumours (which this could debatably come under). My problem with occamy's suggestion is that Juan Cole's suggestion is pretty contradictory to my understanding of Baha'i theory. I'm not sure about the whole idea that speculation shouldn't be included in wikipedia though.... I'll ask someone who knows more about this kind of thing -- Tomhab 13:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
all the points that are raised are completely valid and worthy of inclusion in the article. i have no respect for Occamy because he just wants to get rid of anything that he deems "inappropriate and unhelpful"!! also, the suggestion that gowhar was a shia girl from the "shia district of ottoman land" is complete nonsense. why would an iranian shia girl live in ottoman land? why would she work for a babi/bahai family? why would her name be "gowhar" in an arab speaking area (the shia areas of modern iraq) where they don't even have the "g" phonem? fact is, gowhar was from an iranian babi/bahai families of iran who were probably settled in baghdad along with the rest of the baghdad babi community. her family was from kashan and i believe i even read once somewhere about her family, can't remember right now. --Amir 14:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amir and Gawhar

OK... what I'm trying to do is keep the first section dedicated to facts, without any assaults on or defence of the faith. The second half is then DEDICATED to assaults and defence of the faith, and what facts they're based on. My point is all that can be moved down to the other section. I've written the section to cover all the bits we've written. If you feel it doesn't cover something adequately then feel free to add in something.

Its all about how to writing an article that keeps the flow and the readers attention. Science lessons in school:

  • Introduction
  • Design
  • Method
  • Results
  • Conclusions

Having the conclusions in the design stage is just not right.

History essays on two versions of events:

  • What is known to have happened/facts and details
  • One view of events
  • The other view
  • Your conclusions on what ACTUALLY happened

OK we can't include conclusions because thats against Encyclopaedia policy, but its all about keeping the reader interested.

Theres no censorship or anything of that kind here, we want the details in (hell, have you read the contents of this page?? hardly a Baha'i pamphlet). Have you noticed I included a section on if she was pregnant? Its completely baseless and unless we can find a source from someone claiming that that happened (or even might have happened) I'm tempted to delete it. -- Tomhab 14:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh and as for titles... "Bahá'u'lláh often bestowed grand Arabic titles upon people close to him". Do Navvab and Mahd-i-'Ulya actually mean anything in Arabic? The argument sort of disappears if they aren't at least fairly grand Arabic titles. -- Tomhab 14:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


it sounds like you are planning to make it too long. it will have to be reasonably short and to the point, and clear, so that the reader is not cheated out of the facts in any shape or form, because remember, that the "Gowhar section" is indeed a "problem area" for bahaullah. there should not be any attempt to divert the focus from the problematic nature of the Gowhar case. --Amir 14:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Look at the article!!! Look at how much I've written about why the marriage to Gawhar is odd!!! How can you say I'm trying to cheat them out of the facts??? We (and in this case We refers to you, me and every other contributor to this page) have been REALLY clear that he was married three times CONCURRENTLY. We have been REALLY clear that Gawhar is a prickly issue (the sections entitled Controversy for crying out loud), and discussed every possible scenario that we can find. Amir are you just trying to be difficult? I'm really lost, your arguments here AND on the Baha'u'llah page about the Iqan don't make the Baha'is look any better OR worse, they just make Wikipedia look like a badly written resource. -- Tomhab 15:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
sorry, it came across the wrong way. i didn't mean that you are intending to cheat, i accept that my wording was not well constructed. sorry about that. i mean that the Gowhar section should not become too long, convoluted and include tidbits that would divert that core issue, which is the specific points that are there right now. --Amir 15:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, it's simple then, I deleted the two paragraphs which are ENTIRELY YOUR SPECULATION (no sources, no academic citations, nothing, just Amir babbling) and left the long discussion of Gawhar's possible reasons for marrying Baha'u'llah INCLUDING the pregnanacy in the "controversy" secotion at the bottom. The _most_ that belongs here is "the marriage is considered controversial, see CONTROVERSY below. " Rick Boatright 17:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we are to remove speculation from the article, most of Amir's "contribution" would disappear. Addressing Amir's points addressed to Occamy earlier:
  • He is anxious to state in the article that Gawhar was a housemaid when Baha'u'llah married her. This was stated clearly in my contribution to the article that he dismisses.
  • Only one child from Gawhar: Amir claims some adverse significance to the fact that Gawhar had only one child. The simplest explanation would be that Baha'u'llah married Navvab's housemaid legally for her to come into the household and that the conjugal relationship was brief though legal. But then again, this is purely speculation, and speculation no place in NPOV Wikipedia articles.
  • Bab's Will & Testament: Amir has produced nothing authoritative to contradict the Manuchehri analysis of the authenticity of the versions of the document.
  • Pompous Arabic titles: Amir's point is his POV. We are entitled to express our POV in these discussion pages, but not in articles.
  • Huge cultural shock: much of Arabic society in the 1850s would have been a huge cultural shock to me, but that is my POV. Setting aside our POVs, the Cole reference is the only NPOV analysis that I have found which describes the situation. What outrage in the Babi community was recorded? Surely an improper third marriage would have incensed the Babis, and they would have rejected his claim to be Him Whom God Has Made Manifest? Would not his rival half-brother Subh-i-Azal have mentioned or written something accusatory? Surely the Persian authorities would not have missed an opportunity to defame Baha'u'llah's third marriage. Does Amir have alternative authoritative sources to support his wild speculation?
  • Babi two wives limitation: the logical reply is as per "Huge cultural shock".
  • "get rid of the truth...?": Independent investigation of the truth is a fundamental principle of the Baha'i Faith. Wikipedia articles require confirmed facts, not POV speculation, which Amir dresses as a sham debate/controversy. When Amir rushes libellous speculation into the article without first presenting his case here on this page, and then stubbornly resists all efforts to delete the speculation in the article using terms like "bigot", what claim does Amir have to intellectual honesty? None!
As Rboatright says elsewhere, there is nothing to stop Amir from setting up speculative pages to defame Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, but this is not the place if Wikipedia is to have any claim to NPOV authority. Occamy 17:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tom, i don't see why the 4-wife law of islam is of any relevance to the "facts" section. none of them were muslims at that time. why is it relevant, let alone "important" as you say it is? to me it sounds pretty awkward to have to say "would have been had it not been for his last two religions". i think it confuses the reader. the facts are layed out pretty cleanly and logically other than that one. --Amir 18:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tom dear, why should any speculative comments be included in the article when--in Amir's words--we should be dealing only in "...just plain, honest, clear facts"? Occamy 19:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is just my opinion and I don't feel so strongly about this to start a revert war or anything, but when people see the facts and figures in their purest form then they'll speculate themselves. Let Amir speculate for them. That way there is room for a Baha'i defence (as required for a NPOV article). The truth is what we're all looking for here. -- Tomhab 19:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As for why the 4 wives bit, its relevant because thats what the culture was at the time. Baha'u'llah was born a Moslem in an Islamic country which had Islamic laws. It explains at lot such as why there wasn't a public outcry (like in Mormanism where polygamy was announced and they had to flee to Mexico - Utah was under Mexican control then). Unless you're telling me its incorrect, I think it explains a lot of things. -- Tomhab 19:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i don't see how islam's law is relevant in the list of facts of this case in any shape or form. in fact, the sentence even sounds really awful "he would have been a muslim had it not been for his recent two religions" (paraphrasing). the fact that the "culture" of islamic societies was/is that, is totally irrelevant as bahaullah was not only a babi at that time, according to his own claim, he was already a messenger of god of a new religion. please remove the islam part because is only adding confusion and diversion from the otherwise logical and relevant facts. --Amir 20:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Its relevant because he was in a culture where polygamy was accepted as the norm. In modern society polygamy is frowned upon, but having 3 wives wasn't frowned upon by society as a whole. Mormans were murdered for doing what Baha'u'llah did, whereas in Baghdad, it was shrugged off as the norm. Its important to make that distinction. -- Tomhab 20:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
how is that relevant? bahaullah was a babi at that time who according to his own claim, was already inspired by god of his new mission. islam's laws from his point of view were superseded, not once, but twice. i am removing it. --Amir 20:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For crying out loud! He was in an Islamic country where Islamic rules prevailed! We've included a bit saying that the rules were superseded, so I don't see what you have a problem with it. Oh no, I've just realised, its because its a defence for the Baha'is - can't have that can we? -- Tomhab 21:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy speculation

I've been reading up on Wikipedia policy on NPOV as well as discussing it with others. It appears that wikipedia can't allow speculation based on original research (ie stuff that an editor has come up with). Unless a source can be found to support the pregnancy speculation, it will have to go. -- Tomhab 21:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

there are most definitely sources for that speculation. not the least of which are Ahmad Kasravi's series of articles in his Parcham newspaper (and later published under a book called "Majmoo'eye Maghalat" (this is not his book on Bahaism, this is a book of the collection of his articles). There are also Bayani and Azali articles that I have seen this same speculation has been mentioned, but they are not as respected as Kasravi. --Amir 21:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please add it to the references section then. This kind of thing is really important. -- Tomhab 21:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal/Reinsertion of the 4-wives-in-Islam factoid

I largely agree with Amir - that the explanations given by Shoghi Effendi etc re the wives do not sound good, but rather like spin. I still think though that the Islam connection should remain as Islam is the background on which Baha'ullah etc lived and preached. He obviously is out of line with Babism and later Baha'i rules, but not iwth his general cultural/religious background - unlike that famous Western founder of new religions and practiser of polygamy - Joseph Smith. Refdoc 22:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the explanation sounds like spin. I will give a reference to back up a bit of the speculative nature of that in a minute after I re-read the current state. I also agree that it is important to mention the 4-wife limit of Islam since the average reader would not know that having 2 or 3 wives would not raise eyebrows. Wjhonson 04:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Errrm OK. Are you saying that the way I put the explaination down sounds like spin or the original response? Obviously if its my explaination thats needs sorting go for it, but otherwise... I've always felt that his third marriage was a simple case of in order to protect her he took her in. Obviously I largely read Baha'i sources, but I've never seen anywhere coming up with the mass protest and outcry in him breaking one of the Bab's laws. Can you imagine what a field day the Persian government would have with this let alone Azal. If it were contraversial at the time then he'd never have a leg to stand on when he declared. -- Tomhab 14:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tom I'm saying that Shoghi's late-date need to "explain" sounds like spin. "There's nothing here folks, move along." Usually means there IS something here. E B Browne's not mentioning the third marriage at all, at the late date of 1918 is damaging. E B Browne was probably the foremost Western expert on the movement. He met personally with many of the participants. It would be a little odd that he wouldn't know about the third marriage. Also the fact that that wife and daughter stayed behind is odd as well right? I'm starting to feel like we are looking here at a concubine. It just doesn't feel right to me. The fact that Shoghi has to come out and say "Baha U'llah didn't HAVE a concubine" is like saying "Oh people are saying he had one, well he didn't because we don't allow that ... oh opps well we don't allow third marriages either, but well it's better than having a concubine so we'll fudge it up here." But that's speculation. I've modded the entry to show that there's some apparent issue about this third marriage even existing.
For sure, the Azali's couldn't use this as a propaganda point against Baha'u'llah - as I recall, Azal himself married about 12 times. Like this page, Tom, but I'm curious - why is there a bolded "this is all controversial and we don't even know much about these wives" warning at the top", and then the whole article is a well-researched explanation, including photographs, of quite a lot of the information that we do know about Baha'u'llah's wives. Seems somewhat odd to me - but I guess it's Amir's doing. PaulHammond 11:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, to the author of the comment above, EG Browne, by the end of his life, was an Azali sympathiser. He thought the Baha'is were too apolytical. (Basically, he wanted his beloved Iran to move closer to a democratic form of government, and thought the Azali's more likely to achieve this goal than the politically quietist Baha'is). So, EG Browne is a good witness of events, but certainly doesn't carry a brief for promoting Baha'u'llah. - PaulHammond 11:33, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
"I've always felt that his third marriage was a simple case of in order to protect her he took her in." <== plus some loving Godly visits to her bed. --Amir 19:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For sure. Need we go into the wives of Mohammad. -- Tomhab 19:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look, Tomhab, I make no case for nothing - much as you have described there are several options and all are perfectly possible. My gutfeeling - evidence free and without any support - is that if people start to explain why something is not wrong, there is usually something wrong. As said long ago, my personal respect for Baha'ullah is non-existent (Not taht I know much about him) and I am simply here because I like the editing process on "tough" pages. That is all. Not encyclopaedic and not even "own research". But I am positive that Amir will come up with a quote sufficient to leave his theory of improper impregnation and shotgun marriage standing. Otherwise it should go out ASAP. And wrt the wives of Mohammad - there is already an article ;-) Refdoc 19:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and you think i care about muhammad?! heh, be my guest. i have noticed that a typical bahai defence for bahaism/bahaullah is the childish argument of "well, what about xyz? that is even a worse case." -- that is weak. --Amir 19:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh don't worry. I'm pretty much stepping out of this one. I happily concede if I feel consensus is against me. I've said my personal feelings about islam's 4 wives, its taken into account. If its about pregnancy... Well I have my misgivings. Just like theres no evidence that George W Bush performs oral sex on a goat (picked out of the air), theres no evidence to support that Gawhar was pregnant. Doesn't mean we get to slander the US president. Is there a difference? I'm struggling to come up with a real argument that there is (apart from Baha'u'llah is an easier target because he's not alive to defend himself). Anyway again, as long as there is a decent discussion on the topic and a consensus is taken I don't mind which way it goes. I'm just fed up with baseless character assassinations on wikipedia. -- Tomhab 21:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole Controversy thing is character assassination, plain and simple. Wikipedia policy cite sources is clear: "Remember that Wikipedia is not for your opinions or for original research." The place--if any--for speculation is on the discussion pages. It has been pointed out earlier that a scandal would have occurred if a third marriage were improper: his rival Subh-i-Azal would have denounced it, the Babis would have rejected Baha'u'llah and the Persian authorities would have pounced on it. But is there any controversy from that time? There is nothing! It amounts to speculation as part of a character assassination.
What do we have?
  • E.G. Brown wrote that he had two marriages.
  • Shoghi Effendi wrote that Baha'u'llah had three legal marriages.
All that we can write legitimately at this time is "Baha'i sources (Shoghi Effendi) wrote that 'Bahá'u'lláh had no concubine, He had three legal wives', though this contradicts contemporary historian E.G. Brown who wrote that he had two marriages."
I would be pleased if reputable sources could be quoted to explain the discrepency. But until then, the gutter speculation should be removed from the article and moved to this discussion page. If we ignore this fundamental Wikipedia guideline, then what are we doing? Occamy 10:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's possible that Browne got his information from sources that for some reason didn't include the third wife. He puts the daughter in a footnote, but no mention of the third wife. Maybe whoever told him, wasn't sure they wanted to mention the third wife. Either because they knew it went against Babi rules, or because she was really a concubine. I know that I said she stayed behind because one source said that. But then I just read another that said she lived across the street from the palace where Baha lived at the end of his life with his second wife. So it seems the traditions about her are confused to say the least. -- Wjhonson 05:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just added Wjhonson's tag so I don't get confused later. One other thing that I can think of might be that Gawhar might have died before Browne was writing his book (dated 1918). For some reason I thought she died 1902ish but I may be mixing it up with Mahd-i-'Ulya (who died 1904 according to this article). Anyway, it doesn't clear up what status Gawhar was really. What was the source about across the street? I've had a sudden craving for historical sources on the topic :). Not sure what to think on it though. I've been to Bahji before and its in the middle of nowhere (although they could have been flattened, I'm really not sure), so my initial impression would be that any building in the vicinity would be built specifically for Baha'is anyway. -- Tomhab 02:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of facts

Its amazing how little we know about the family. I'm shocked that we don't even know some of their birth and death dates just a rough guess. I suppose its just a reality check and differences between societies today and then. -- Tomhab 04:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tom I've added a few more "bits" to some of the family. Also there is a family tree of sorts at Harvard or Princeton... I imagine it's in Persian however. Also in EB Brown's "Materials" he discusses some of the family members a tad. Wjhonson 04:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I've got to be honest all I researched was using Ocean. My next step was to go through "history and doctrines", but got set back. As with any wiki project please carry on, the more info the merrier -- Tomhab 14:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just reading through EG Brown's work [5]. Its got some different dates to the ones suggested in this article - look at page 320 and the next couple. Abbas born in 1841, Bahiya in 1844 etc. -- Tomhab 15:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey you guys! Coming at this from the opposite direction, I've just started a page for the Hand of the Cause of God. I found 37 of them, I think there is supposed to about 50 but I got tired of looking. At any rate, Shoghi Effendis wife was one of them and so its linked off her page, and I think off his page, and off the First International Bahai Council page. I'm tired. Wjhonson 03:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC listed

I have listed this page and Talk:Bahá'u'lláh on WP:RFC to attempt to elicit a concensus on the photograph of Baha'u'llah that Martin/Amir/Nitro can accept. Rick Boatright 17:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Two other articles in this category have been unprotected for a day or two without any problems, so I've unprotected this one too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Under the "facts" section it states this:

According to Bábí law, a man should take no more than two wives and no concubines

I consider myself pretty well versed in the Babis, and I've never heard of that. If it's a fact, can someone provide a reference? Cuñado - Talk 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cunado makes a good point here; that it is important to research and be certain of Bábi Law before we outline controversy. If there is no Bábi Law that mentions this, then the controversy is immediately dismissible. However, for me it seems that both arguments are flawed. On one side we have people saying that it is heretical on the other side we have the view that it is alright because of the standards of the time. Sure, these both have logic that is at least sensible based on ones point of view. However, if we analyze it we find that these claims are not sufficient. For example:

Traditions: The argument is made that it was common place to have many wives in the area and at that time thus making it acceptable. While this might explain the reason why the practice was not questionable at the time, it does not suffice because we know that just because many people do something doesn't make it the correct thing to do.
Heresy: The argument is made that Bahá’u’lláh marries three wives but later reveals the law that men can only have two wives as long as they can treat them equally and that this sounds heretical. By this standard it also sounds heretical for Moses to kill a man when the ten commandments He reveals forbid it; it sounds heretical for Mohammad to have more than four wives when His law forbade having more than four wives; it sounds heretical for Jesus to overturn tables and drive out moneychangers and merchandisers from the temple when the teachings that He spoke forbade the people from taking vengeance and asks His people to be gentle and avoid passing judgment. In each instance, the presented action takes place before the teaching, law or injunction is given to humanity. The Messenger cannot be bound to a law that doesn't yet exist.

Once again, both arguments present valid logic but are entirely too limited in scope and often fail in their objective. Obviously several serious questions arise: is the Messenger of God above the law that He brings? Is this true because actions seemingly contradictory to the law take place before the law comes into existence? While we do know that God has ultimate power and therefore is not subject to human law, the depth presented in these questions is beyond what is necessary to discuss here.

Last main point: There is one key concept, despite what I mentioned above, that should be the real topic matter of any discussion on the marriages of Bahá’u’lláh. If I remember correctly, from my studies into the Báb’s work, many of the Laws (unless otherwise specified) are not actually meant to be carried out. In fact, the Báb places the entire work of law within the domain of "Him Whom God will make manifest". In other words, many Bábis did not follow the Báb’s laws because they were awaiting "Him Whom God will make manifest" to define, enact, and even change those laws. If one reads of the various laws put forth by the Báb, one would think that they are very strict and even outrageous. However, from provisional translations in English and French as well as other authorized material, the Báb reminds the believer countless times that the entire purpose of the Law is to testify to the greatness of "Him Whom God will make manifest" and to cause all to turn towards Him with admiration and obedience. Not to mention the statement of the Báb that "Him Whom God will make manifest" is not bound to the Law that the Báb reveals. If this is all true, then it means that the only law Bahá’u’lláh was bound to was the law of Islam until He abrogated or further specified what Laws would replace them. Therefore, in this instance Bahá’u’lláh was forbidden to have more than 4 wives under the teachings of Mohammad. And I believe I can say with full conviction that He remained faithful to this Law. Nmentha 00:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

Wjhonson has made a series of edits that modify the titles of Mirza Muhammad-Ali and Mirza Mihdi without citing references. Interestingly he's put up different translations of the same title for Mirza Muhammad-Ali without explaining or sourcing either.

This passage from the Kitáb-i-‘Ahd is clear what the titles were and that the titles were not synonymous.

"Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muhammad ‘Alí] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [‘Abdu’l-Bahá]."
(Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223)
And by the way this 1988 edition is suspect. The whole point is that numerous examples of historical revisionism have been going on. This is apparently just another one. Wjhonson 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless some verifiable sources can be found for these alternative translations, this version should hold. MARussellPESE 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the history of Talk and see for yourself. We had this discussion a year ago. We all, at that time, agreed that the two phrases in Persian mean, essentially the same thing. Wjhonson 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't see where this was, had to go back through a year of history and it's right there. It's above under "Greater Vs Greatest". Read that thread and you will see the entire discussion. Wjhonson 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That thread doesn't shed much light on the situation. You disagree with the official Baha'i interpretations because you state they have a POV, but both Miller and Maulana were specifically anti-Baha'i (Miller being a supporter of Azal (so that he could discredit Baha'u'llah, which he was truly concerned about), and Maulana, being anti-anything from the Bab and later), so they are not NPOV, either. -- Jeff3000 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The only source for calling Muhammad-Ali the "most mighty branch" is the Maulana book, and it appears to be his interpretation of the Arabic phrase. (see quote in the section above) I think when it comes down to it this is an issue of what is the best interpretation. Unless there is some references to that from experts (not us), then I would suggest sticking with the best known translation of "greater branch", and if you insist that it's so important that the article can't live without it, then say it's translated as "Greater Branch, or Mightiest Branch". Cuñado - Talk 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And you completely ignored that most cogent fact. When we say Allah Akbar are we say God is Greater? or Greatest? Tha alone is sufficient to destroy your argument. And in addition the Maulana book is *not* the original source of the statement. It is a secondary source which quotes the primary material. Maulana did not make up the titles for any particular purpose. Why would he call both of them "greatest"? For what reason? Your logic doesn't make any sense. Wjhonson 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And can I correct you? This was Amir's argument, a person who actually could read the underlying language, not mine. I merely agreed with his reasoning.Wjhonson 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There is not a one to one translation from every Arabic word to English Word; for example, Baha may be translated as Splendour or Glory. It's the same for Azam and Akbar. Since Baha'u'llah through Abdu'l Baha designated Shoghi Effendi as the official interpreter of his writings, Azam, regardless of it's translation, is meant to be higher than Akbar in Baha'u'llah's writings. In other writings, that may not be the case. -- Jeff3000 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not willing, like some Baha'is to grant Shoghi the ability to redefine the language to whatever he wants. The language says what it says. Akbar is not inferior to Azam, if it were, about God, we would say Allah Azam not Allah Akbar. You cannot argue this point, it's obvious. Wjhonson 01:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, do you have any background in Arabic to make these categorical statements? Your arguing from authority, but haven't provided any bona-fides, nor cited any NPOV sources to back up your various assertions. MARussellPESE 03:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And what sort of NPOV source would be acceptable to you? I feel that no matter what source I cite you will claim they are biased against you. I have yet to hear any argument against the point that Allah Akbar means "God is Greatest" not "God is Great-ER". How much more obvious does the point have to be? Are you going to claim now that Akbar is contextual and can mean both greater and greatest? Wjhonson 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[6] [7] Here are two Muslim sites saying that Allah-u-Akbar means "God is Greater". [8] [9] These two say it means "God is Great". And an Arabic dictionary translates Akbar as "BETTER, GREATER, BIGGER, UTMOST, MAJOR, CHIEF, MAXIMAL, PLUS".
this page translates "al-Imam al-A`zam" as: "The Greatest Imam". this site says the same. this site translates "Al-Ghawth al-A'zam" as "The Mightiest Succor". this site translates "Ghawth ul A’zam Pirane Pir" as "The Greatest Spiritual Helper, The Shaykh of Shaykhs".
Apparently none of these are connected to the Baha'i Faith.
This is of course rather unimportant, they have different distinctive titles in Arabic, and the title for 'Abdu'l Baha was the one given authority. The correct translations should be used, and if you have evidence that supports a better translation, then provide it. Cuñado - Talk 06:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Maulana who read the original documents, in the original language, states the translation. Wjhonson 06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And this site says it means "Greatest" Wjhonson 06:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And here Allah AkbarWjhonson 06:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Akbar only means great-ER, i.e. the comparitive form when used *with* "min". Without that, it means great-est. Wjhonson 07:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The most literal translation is "God is Great". Baha'is all the time go around translating "Allah'u'abha" or "Ya-Baha'-ul'abha" when they have no idea what the original Arabic means. The same happens with web pages like the one you referenced. Try using a dictionary and separate it from the Allah part. Then look up A'zam. Cuñado - Talk 07:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In your opinion. My opinion is that if you think Akbar means great then repost to the Allah Akbar page I directed you to and see how quickly they shoot you down on that interpretation. Read that page, they point out that it means the suprelative form "Greatest", not merely "Great". A ham sandwich is great, but it's not greatest. Akbar doesn't mean great. Wjhonson 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, you've only cited one external source for "greatest". Cuñado's provided eight muslim sites that confirm all of the title originally used in the article.

However, the point is not what their respective titles were (There's never been any controversy on which title belonged to whom.), nor what they meant, but whether or not 'Abdul-Bahá's role was ahead of Mirzá Muhammad Alí's after Bahá'u'lláh's death. That point Bahá-u-lláh answers directly here: "Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muhammad Ali] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [Abdu'l-Bahá]." (Bahá'u'lláh, "Kitab-i-'Ahd (Book of the Covenant)", Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 221) [10]. MARussellPESE 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The entire controversey is on "what they meant". They both are the superlative form "greatest" or "biggest" or "most" or whatever. Not the comparitive form "er". Wjhonson 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're not aware that this Tablet quote was answered in the lifetime of Abdul ? You think that it was just ignored by the many people who turned their backs? I can't believe you believe that. But I'll dig out the quotes to convince you. Wjhonson 09:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akbar vs A'žam

First of all, I can't type Arabic from this computer, so for those that can read Arabic, you can follow along if you know proper transliteration, except that I'm using "ž" instead of "z" with the two dots under it, representing the letter that looks like "Ţ" but with a dot over it.

So far this has been an argument over the proper translation of Akbar and A'žam. Wjhonson has made the argument that they should both be translated as "Greatest", arguing against the translation of Shoghi Effendi that Akbar=Greater and A'žam=Most Great. His argument is based off of an argument a year ago by Amir whose own argument was based on his personal opinion and experience with Arabic. Wjhonson also used a reference to "Allahu-akbar" which is translated a number of ways, including "God is great", "God is greater", and "God is the greatest". (see above for references)

First of all, it's silly that they should both be translated exactly the same since they come from different Arabic words. I took over a year of Arabic, and have enough knowledge to properly use a dictionary. I also went back to my professor and asked him his opinion (without mentioning any Baha'i context), and he said that they are basically the same, exept that A'žam is a little higher. He also said it doesn't matter if they're following a noun, so for example, Imam-i-Akbar and Imam-i-A'žam could both be translated as "the great Imam", "the greater Imam", or "the greatest Imam", except that A'žam insinuates a higher rank if compared side by side.

I used two dictionaries one Arabic-English, and the other Persian-English,

  1. Dr. Rohi Baalbaki (1995). Al-Mawrid, 7th, DAR EL-ILM LILMALAYIN, Beirut. 
  2. F. Steingass PhD, University of Munich (1970). Persian-English Dictionary, Including the Arabic words and phrases to be met with in literature.. Librairie Du Liban, Beirut. 

The two words come from two respective root words of Kabír and 'Ažím, which were defined as:

  1. Kabír: Great, big, large, sizeable, bulky, huge, senior...
  2. Kabír: Great, large, bulky, immense, heavy, serious, senior, elder...
  1. 'Ažím: Great, big, tremendous, mighty, strong, colossal, mammoth, enormous...
  2. 'Ažím: Great, large, much, grand, glorious, magnificent, much esteemed...

As used in the titles they are Akbar and A'žam, these are given in their entirety:

  1. Akbar: Greater, bigger, larger, major, senior, superior.
  2. Akbar: Greater, greatest.
  1. A'žam: Greater, bigger, more grandiose, more imposing, more magnificent, more splendid, more important, more significant.
  2. A'žam: Greater, larger, greatest, bigger, superior, supreme.

It is obvious to any casual observer that A'žam in both cases uses a much richer vocabulary to describe it, and in the case of ref#2 it completely envelopes the definition of Akbar and adds a higher status. The definitions of Kabír all appear to have a sense of physical size, and the definitions of 'Ažím all carry a higher degree of respect.

So I'm going back to Shoghi Effendi's translation on the page because

  1. It's necessary to distinguish between the two titles in English. The page currently uses "Greatest" for both.
  2. There is nothing indicating that Shoghi Effendi's translation is wrong.
  3. The word "A'žam" carries a higher status than "Akbar", and that needs to be reflected in the English translation.
  4. The complaint against Shoghi Effendi's translation is based on original research.

Any further changes to the titles should address these issues. Cuñado - Talk 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, these are the kinds of verifiable sources that we're asking you to produce. MARussellPESE 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You just contradicted yourself. You said they are basically the same thing and then you say you're going to change it. On the basis of what? They are the same thing. Your POV is showing. Explain why we don't say Allahu Azam, you didn't mention that.Wjhonson 02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No he didn't. He said that A'žam "adds a higher status" — a position confirmed by his independent source: his Arabic professor. MARussellPESE 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
See 99 Names of God, numbers 34 and 38. They are: Al 'Azim (العظيم) The Magnificent, the Infinite and Al Kabir (الكبير) The Great. You can say Allah-u-(any one of 99 names). Cuñado - Talk 08:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You *can* but we *dont*, that is significant don't you think? Also see Allah Akbar where they are very specific that Akbar means Greatest and not Greater. You should seek a consensus there, since they are the experts of what it means. Shoghi is pov obviously since his entire position depends on making sure that the succession was *obvious* when that succession is the entire contention of why the two words mean the same. You can't use the prosecution only without allowing the defense to say anything. That is what you're doing and it's not npov. Wjhonson 08:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
So the two dictionaries are wrong but you're right? MARussellPESE 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Also you have not responded to this "... the elative is only explicitly a term of comparison when used with the preposition min". If you or your teacher think this is wrong you should post to talk on Allah Akbar and reach a consensus before deciding that you know better how to translate the word than other Arabic scholars. Wjhonson 09:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The complaint against Shoghi is not based on original research. It is a direct quote from Maulana on what the words mean, backed up by dictionary entries, and linguistic analysis published on wiki. That's not my private unpublished research. Wjhonson 09:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, we had this say "mightiest" i think for about a year with no problem at all before you decided to start this new war. I would be happy with any word that is in the superlative form of "most" or "est". You can even say the Most Superduper if you feel like it. But to use the compartive form is simply incorrect as a translation. Without "min" you don't have a comparitive form. Wjhonson 09:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source for disputed information. You have not addressed any of the points I raised. Mighty is not used in any of the definitions except for 'Ažím. I'm reverting back. Cuñado - Talk 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And Shoghi is not a npov source either. You have yet to address the points I raised. Please address the point I raised about the Allahu Akbar page. Please post to that talk your detailed analysis, I have already done you the courtesy of createing a subhead where you can post it. I see no reason why you won't except you are afraid they will shoot you down. Your professor is not a verifiable source, and Shoghi is not a npov source. Maulana has no reason at all to call him the "Mightiest Branch", it serves Maulana no purpose whatsoever in his argument. Wjhonson 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The main point is that A'žam is higher than Akbar, with both meaning, among other things that are very related, greatness. The current translation shows portrays both of these things. -- Jeff3000 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The main point is the correct English translation would put them both in the Suprelative, not the Comparitive. You can't say in the phrase "the best and the brightest" that somehow "Best" is higher than "Brightest" they are both suprelative. One is not Comparitive and the other Suprelative. That is the same situation with Azam and Akbar. That is why commentators (except Shoghi) translate these with other words like Mightiest, Grandest, etc and not Mightier or Grander. I see no problem, except the pov Shoghi with leaving both titles in some word that is suprelative. If you see a problem with translation the second title as Mightiest, or Best or Grandest or some other Suprelative form, other than Shoghi, please post it. Otherwise it's pov. I've already posted sources which state they are equivalent, as has, in fact Cunado, although he insists they say the opposite of what they actually say. Wjhonson 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I also direct your attention to Allahu Akbar whose very intro states: "This article is about Islamic religious phrase "Allah is most great"." Most great, not more great. With all the Muslims on this site do you think this page could stand even ten minutes without this being changed to "more great" if that is the correct translation ? Please respond to that directly with your reasoning. Wjhonson 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source of information for debates on wikipedia. There are plenty of examples that translate "Allah-u-Akbar" as "God is great", "God is greater", or "God is the greatest". My references were from Muslim sites, and so far none of my arguments have been based on Baha'i sources. Translating it as "God is greater" is perfectly fine grammatically, and is not incorrect. It is implied that God is greater than everything, because he is God. All this is refernced in the websites I already posted. Cuñado - Talk 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. Please post a link from some official wiki policy page that states that. And in addition I have given sources that state that it means greatest as have you. So I don't see your continuing problem with translating it as greatest. Or any other suprelative such as mightiest or highest or strongest. Wjhonson 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It's clear from the dictionaries that A'žam has a higher status Akbar even though there's overlap. Wjhonson, you're stuck with comparative usage because the words, themselves, imply it. MARussellPESE 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the Baha'i faith, Azam and Akbar are used in the way that Shoghi Effendi translated it. Therefore it should be used that way. We've encountered this problem before with other aspects (such as spelling - "International Teaching Centre" or "Center"). Wikipedia does have policy on this in that:

  1. Consistency within the article(s) is most important
  2. Choose the spelling that is most relevant to the topic (so "Centre" as this is the spelling that the Universal House of Justice uses).

The above is of course paraphrased. See the Manual of Style's example on English vs American spelling. Although the context is not the same I believe the principals behind it apply to this instance.

By my understanding then, the only reason why the Guardian's translations might not be used is if they are explicitly incorrect (which I believe is not the case). Or of course someone believes there are more significant texts used in which case we should reopen the debate about the correct spellings of "Bahaullah" (as used by Maulana), "Behá'u'lláh" "Subh-e-Azal" (EG Browne), "Baha'e" (I seem to remember thats how early translations spelt Baha'i) and of course the "Bâha'î" faith ("correct" transliteration when following modern Muslim scholarly standards). Oh and the "Kitab-ul-Aqdas" (correct Arabic name) -- Tomhab 00:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tomhab; his solution solves the problem, though it may not be acceptable to the small minority who object to Shoghi Effendi. --Occamy 13:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] referencing

I changed the reference to this format:

"Other authors have chosen to translate `Abdu'l-Bahá's title as "Most Mighty" and Muhammad `Alí's title as "Most Great".(Maulana, Browne[11])"

I removed the comment that they "disagree", which is different from just simply translating it differently. I assume that since the authors use the same translations throughout, just a mention of their names is fine (and link which takes up no real estate). Browne uses those two translations throughout the linked page, so a reference to Mirza Jawad is not necessary. This is not something controversial (the fact that they translate it differently) so I don't think incredibly detailed referencing is necessary, especially since it's already a footnote. By the way, Maulana was not in the references, so using Harvard referencing didn't work anyway, and I don't know which book it was in reference to. Cuñado - Talk 08:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, could you please add the Maulana book under the references section. You quote p. 56 and it is unclear which book it refers to. Cuñado - Talk 05:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I assumed it was already there... OK I added it. Thanks for the head's up. Wjhonson 05:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garbling the translations of Azam & Akbar

The confusing titles is an English artifact. There was an attempt to sway Western believers to Mirza Muhammad Alí as the intended successor to Bahá'u'lláh's by asserting that he was "Most Great" as shown in the translations.

However, the text of the Kitab-i-Ahd, The Book of the Covenant refers to Azam specifically as the successor. While Browne does translate it as "Most Great" 85, it is nevertheless clear in that account that Mirza Muhammad Alí was referred to as "Akbar" and `Abdul-Bahá was refered to Azam, and therefore `Abdul-Bahá is Baha'u'lláh's designee.

Among native Persian and Arabic speakers there isn't any confusion over who was referred to as what. The note needs to clearly identify that and avoid confusion. MARussellPESE 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Disputed third wife" and speculation presented as facts

The status of the third wife isn't disputed by Baha'is, and wasn't disputed at the time. Any "controversy" has been overlaid after the fact.

These bullet points are all presented as speculation:

  1. Pro forma temporary marriage
  2. Gawhar was the widow of a martyr
  3. Gawhar was pregnant
  4. Gawhar was simply a concubine

No. 1's source is Juan Cole, who presents nothing to backup this assertion. Cole then goes on to actually support the Baha'i notion that plural wives were acceptable interpretation in that time-frame.

No. 2's "source" is a board thread. Hardly passes muster as verifiable.

Nos. 3 and 4 are presented without any source whatsoever. Browne's notation that there were only two wives is a flat out error on his part.

"Speculation" has no real place in any encyclopedia unless it's broadly shared and can be verifiably documented. Cole doesn't count as "broadly". Further the contemporaries treated Gawhar and her daughter as an equal. She was eventually installed in Akka and her daughter married into the Bab's family. This is not the fate of an inconvenient concubine.

So: per WP:Not, WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR I've struck Nos. 2, 3, & 4, clarified No. 1 to note that Cole exclusively holds this position, and struck the error that Gawhar is a "controversial" figure — at least with respect to the marriage.

Along the same lines, several of the "Possible rebuttals" are likewise uncited speculation. I'll be culling these as well.

By the way, there's no sourcing at all on the "facts" surrounding Babi marriage law. These need to go until there are decent sources are presented, if any can be found.

The "Rebuttals" section needs better sourcing. Will do. MARussellPESE 03:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)