Talk:Persian Bayán

Motammem Al-Bayán

The only notation of this book I can find online is in passing here. It does not mention that this is Azal's completion of hte Bayan. There's no record of this book in English on [www.bayanic.com], which is very strange. One would think that this is a ranking text.

Actually bayanic.com says that Azal did not finish the Bayan, but only added two section to the Persian to bring it into parallel with the Arabic. Is this the Motammem Al-Bayán? MARussellPESE 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Can Jeff300 explain to Wikipedia readers why he reverted my change which included changing the reference to 'Babism' to be 'Bayani faith' but without providing any reason?

The following was provided in support of the change I made:

The author of the Persian bayan himself believed that what he was founding was the religion of Bayan. The book itself has many references to the 'Bayani faith'. It is interesting that Bahaism which claims to be succeeding Bayan appears in Wikipedia as 'Bahai Faith' but the religion preceding it appears in Wilipedia as 'Babism'.

If Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz believed he was the founder of the Bayani faith then we should give him the credit of being known as the founder of 'Bayani faith'. In his book of '5 Grades' (Panj Shan), Sayyid Ali Muhamad of Shiraz refers to the first five years of his mission as having the title Bab only:

"You named me after that which has a numerical value of five (i.e. BAB) since you had set four Gates for me; Then, after these years, you made me manifest over all things by the name Qaim and elevated the mention of your self in the year five with glory. In the sixth year, you mentioned the name of your self, your glorious and mighty name."

Panj Shan (5 Grades, Professor Browne Collection F.15(19)=BBF.2 University of Cambridge. In other words he believed that he took up the title of Bab during the first 5 years, then he took up the title 'Qaem' (He Who Will Arise) and then claimed to have been elevated to being the manifestation of God. Bayan was written by him during the period that he considered himself as manifestation of God. (Nekunaman)

Because it is original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. Virtually all reliable secondary sources call the religion Babism, and that's what Wikipedia has to use as per the verifiability and no original research policies. The usage of primary religious material cannot be used as sources as per those policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The primary source I am quoting here from is the Persian Bayan itself, the subject of this page. You did not explain why we should NOT refer to what Sayyid-Ali-Muhammad founded as something that he himself considered it to be that is ‘The religion of Bayan’. This is a verifiable fact. Here are testimonies from two of the two available partial translation of the Persian Bayan to English which have been published.

Example 1): [1] Translated by Denis McEoin a renowned researcher of this field. Chapter 4 of Unity 2 of Persian Bayan: "For, at the moment when a servant says 'I take refuge with God', if he does not enter within the religion of the Bayan, he shall not be granted refuge from hell."

From Brown’s translation of Persian Bayan ,edited by Mojan Momen: [2] "God hath ordained the Creation of all things according to the "Number of All Things" (361, or 19 x 19), and accordingly the Chapters of the religion of the Bayan have been arranged according to the Number of All Things."

You said "Virtually all reliable secondary sources call the religion Babism"! I'm afraid you are wrong. There is even contradiction within your own assertion above. Is it a religion or an 'ism'?

Let's look at some of the reliable secondary sources that I know of: 1) "The Babi and Baha'i religions : from messianic Shiism to a world" by the same Peter Smith. This uses the reference Babi religion not babism.

2) Britanica online refers to it as Babi religion.

3) More importantly, the most comprehensive and credible primary source for the study of this field is Professor Edward Browne's Materials for the Study of Babi Religion.

No other work, and I repeat no other work by anyone can ignore this work of Browne. It is the mother of all research on this topic. The title of this work refers to it as Babi religion not Babism.

At the same time, I can quote dozen of references that refer to 'Bahaism' what Wikipedia refers to as 'Bahai faith':

Bahaism A Study of a Contemporary Movement By AR Avil

Bahaism and its claims by Samuel Graham Wilson

Rituals in Babism And Bahaism by Denis McEoin

From Babism to Bahaism by William Miller

..

As is, this article begins with a mistake that is misleading and inconsistent.

If you prefer to ignore the testimony of Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz the author of the Persian Bayan himself as to what was it that he founded (which would be very ironic) and instead use references made by what people thought he did then Wikipedia should perhaps refer to it as Babi religion and explain what other people refer to it, there should be a similar change to the Bahai page.

That way there is some balance and the reader becomes better educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policies above. Wikipedia is not about Truth (with a capital T), but about Verifiability. It's about what contemporary neutral sources say. Your two first sources are primary sources because they are quoting from the Bayan, and cannot be used (i.e. It's the Bab saying something, not a secondary source). Neither MacEoin or Browne ever uses the name "Bayani faith" in their own description of the name of the religion. When I was saying virtually all reliable sources I was referring to the prefix Babi versus Bayani. In regards to whole word (Babism verus Babi faith) it becomes a case of which one is used more by contemporary reliable secondary sources. Iranica for example uses Babism, the Encyclopedia of World religion uses Babism, but their could be case for calling it the Babi Faith. Regards, - -Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

---

One of the sources from which I quoted atranslation of a passage from Bayan is already included as a reference. They are absolutely verifiable. A translation is a secondary not a primary. The choice of words in a translation is by the translator.

The Selections from the Writings of Bayan ' is translation of the works by Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz. Why is that then included as a secondary reference?

It is a shame that Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on truth but rather on what could be erroneous interpretation of individuals the reliability of which is plausibly objectionable.

In any case, I believe I have established that very important reliable verifiable secondary works (such as that of Browne) which is also included in the list of references confirm that the reference is to a religion not an ‘ism’ and that there is a similar story for Bahai/Bahism.

I have also established the reverse case for Bahaism.

Since you are agreeing now that there is a case to use religion as opposed to ‘ism’ I am changing ‘Babism’ to Babi religion as a compromise. I am however expecting to see in the related page some explanation as to what did Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz use for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nekunaman, a translation is not secondary material, but still primary source material. If I translate Das Kapital from German to English, it doesn't change the fact that it is material from Das Kapital written by Marx, just in another language. Also note that Selections from the Writings of Bayan is included as further reading and not as a reference. As I mentioned before, the Bab's own writings cannot be used as references. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The to-be-author of the remaining 8 Unities of Persian Bayan

The paragraph beginning with ‘It was intended to be finished by HWGSMM ..’ could not be further away from facts supported by documentary evidence. Who knows what made Peter Smith to come up with a false statement which can be easily proven false. Could it be his Bahai convictions, insufficient research or both? Wikipedia readers expect more than what they find in bahai dot com.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that Bayan was left partial to be completed by HWGSMM. According to Bayan, every manifestation abrogates the old one and introduces a new book. HWGSMM is said to be the bearer of a new book. He/She will not be contributing towards an abrogated book. Such claim simply breaks the core principals of the Bayanic teachings concerning succeeding manifestations. The matter of course could be easily settled by the letter written by Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz. In it, He explains clearly who is been given the assignment to complete the remaining 8 unities of Persian Bayan. [3]

But, apparently Wikipedia rules do not allow us to hear from Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz Himself as to who he thought was given the assignment! Surely He knew better than Peter Smith. But, that would be just too simple.

Following Wikipedia rules, I quote from the book ‘Bahai faith and its teachings’ by William Miller whose work is attacked by Bahai authors, as being pro Azali:

“When Professor Browne visited Subh-i-Azal in Cyprus in 1896 he was shown the original document, written and sealed by the Bab himself, in which the Bab appointed Mirza Yahya Subh-i-Azal as his successor. Browne published a facsimile of a transcript of the Arabic text, … (Professor Browne, New History, Page 417).” “.. the Bab’s instructions to Subh-i-Azal for the period after his death were as follows: 1) … 2) to complete the Bayan by writing the eight Sections (Wahid) which the Bab had left unwritten (there were to be 19 Sections), thus indicating Azal’s oneness with the Bab; 3) in case the time should not be propitious to complete the Bayan, to preserve carefully what the Bab had written, and to preserve himself; “

The paragraph in question is a huge claim to be simply concluded using a single source that evidently advertises the Bahai claim.

Therefore, I suggest that the paragraph in question should be either removed or the article enhanced by a paragraph along the following lines to provide the readers with a more balanced view of the matter:

According to the Bab’s instruction, Mirza Yahya of Nur (Subh-i Azal) was instructed to complete the Bayan by writing the eight Sections (Wahid) which the Bab had left unwritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can Jeff3000 explain his criteria for ruling out Miller as an unreliable source? The assertion appears to be coming from Lewell_Sutton's review of Miller's book. [4] This review questions Miller's motivation which has nothing to do with the quality of the work. Sutton clearly is not happy with Miller questioning the Bahai claims but is unable to put forward any argument. Ironically, Sutton concludes he doesn't know who to believe Miller or the Bahai writers.

Miller's page on Wikipedia does not say he is not a reliable source. [5]

Warren Chastain (who I believe is a modern writer) describes the work as follows: "William Miller gives us the fruit of over a half-century of intensive study into Baha'i affairs, providing a mass of information that even contemporary Baha'i converts are unaware of. The fifteen chapters of his book carefully document the rise of the Babi movement, the manifestation of the Baha'u'llah and the growth of the Baha'i world faith". (from International Journal of Frontier Mission. [6]

The fact that there is a debate between modern writers about Miller doesn't Jeff3000 the right to decide for the readers who they should believe. I will undo Jeff3000’s changes until he addresses the issues I have raised and can prove that Miller's work is considered unreliable by all modern writers (something that I have proven false). Wikipedia should not get involved in choosing sides.

Taking as an example this particular topic, how can Miller’s work which refers to Browne’s facsimile of the Bab’s letter and describes what is in that letter is unreliable but Peter Smith who has ignored such critical document and bases his claim on pure fancy is considered reliable? I challenge any living modern writer or anyone else to disprove Miller's account on this topic.

Furthermore, I am including here another secondary source from Sepehr Manuchehri [7]. In it, in respect to the particualr passage in the Bab's letter, he writes:

"Verses 30-33

This verse must be read in conjunction with verse 25 above. The Bab reminds Subh-e Azal that eight chapters of the book remain uncompleted[34].

Subh-e Azal is given the choice to complete them if ‘victory’ appears during his lifetime. In essence, the revelation of Bayan is to be completed by Subh-e Azal."

---

Since my last post, Jeff3000 reverted my changes without responding to my challenging him on the merits of considering Miller's work as unreliable. The challenge stands.

I have now included Professor Edward Browne's remarks on who the Bab believed was to complete the remainder of the Bayan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 01:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Miller's work is self-published and cannot be included in pages that not about the author, and Saiedi's book published by Wilfred Laurier Press, an academic publisher, which are deemed to most reliable, refutes Browne's assertions as plain wrong. Wikipedia prefers newer material than older material. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Jeff3000, your first sentence on Miller is not readable. Miller's book is published by William Carey Library. You are practically saying that Browne is a less reliable author than Saeidi! It is impossible for Browne's assertion to be wrong because he is simply basing his assertion on Bab's tablet of Vesayat a facsimile of which and a translation of which is also included. You are simply making it impossible for Wikipedia to be unbiased. Your preventing of having a balanced makes Wikipedia worthless.

By merely Saeid refuting it doesn't make him right, I suggest that you include Saedid's work so that readers can decide for themselves and not you deciding for them.

To support the evidence, I am including as a further reference testimony given by yet another important researcher of the Babi religion A.L.M Nicolas who has translated the Bayans into French. Translation of the relevant passage in the introduction of the book: ".. only eleven units (of Bayan) were revealed, but its number to be completed by Subh-i Azal".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal by Jeff3000. Miller is being used as a reliable source. His personal conclusion is being stated as fact. What the Bab wrote was that he gives permission to Subh-i-Azal to finish the remaining eight, with the permission of Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest. In other words, until the promised one appears and gives permission, nobody will finish it. Check out Saiedi, Nader (2008). Gate of the Heart. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN 978-1-55458-035-4, for a reference on it.

As to Miller's reliability, his work is clearly a polemic and biased attack on a religion by a Christian missionary. It is not academically honest and should not be treated as such. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Since neither Jeff3000 nor Conado were prepared to say what actually Saeidi said, I thought I do that myself. We are specifically concerned here with a specific passage from Bab’s testament. Saeidi does not say which work of Bab he is referring to and does not produce a translation of the disposition.

Staring abruptly (on page 347), he says “one sense refers to the unities of the Bayan, and the other to the entire Bayan. The Bab’s reference to manifesting eight ‘path’ after the appearance of the Promised One MAY refer instead to making public or distributing the eight copies of the Bayan that the Bab had sent to Azal”.

Note that the segment “after the appearance of the Promised One” is Saeidi being creative. There is no such thing in that paragraph. What follows next is "with permission of God" .

The first ‘sense’ is the one understood by Browne, Nicola and Miller. The second one is Saeidi’s and it gives me no joy to say that his "sense" is plain laughable. Interpreting ‘manifesting’ as ‘distributing’ and ‘path’ as ‘copies of Bayan’ makes a mockery of the passage. For the Bab to use a strong word such as ‘manifest’ to mean ‘distribute’ takes much creativity on part of Saeidi to whom the ‘eight paths’ simply happens to coincide with the ‘eight copies’. Instructing Subh-i Azal to take on the task of distributing copies of Bayan is a trivial matter that does not fit into important matters discussed in Bab's testament.

Anyhow, Saeidi says there are two ‘senses’ here and he appears to agree with the second sense. Note that this “sense” is produced by Saeidi as there is no precedence for it, but he does not put his name to it and leaves it to be misunderstood as if the second “sense” did exists.

To make it short, Saeidi has not proven Browne or Nichola wrong and he is not claiming that he has proven "the first sense” wrong. In fact he is not even certain of the “second sense". He qualifies this interpretation with by saying "it MAY refer .. " which does not sound conclusive at all.

The change I have made reflects both understandings. Readers are better informed of both and can draw their own conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to include fringe beliefs that are no longer held by contemporary academics. You won't see flat earth theories in articles about the Earth and Browne, and Nicolas are not contemporary academics. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And you should read Saiedi's work in full, it's not really about the 8 copies, but it is a complete refutation that Subh-i-Azal could be the one who was supposed to finish the Bayan because the Bab stated that no one's else writings would be authoritative after his death to the time of Him Whom God shall make Manifest (which Subh-i-Azal claims he is not) Also the Bab affirms to Subh-i-Azal himself that Him Whom God shall make Manifest may appear in Subh-i-Azal's own lifetime, and thus eliminates any form of viceregency for Subh-i-Azal. Also the proposition that the Him Whom God shall make Manifest would take two thousand years is absurd since the Bab discusses the advent of Him Whom God shall make Manifest during Subh-i-Azal's lifetime as a conditional point for Subh-i-Azal to take certain actions with Him Who God Shall Make Manifest's permission. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Saeidi is a Bahai and then an academic. He cannot be considered unbiased. A scientific matter the truth of which does not require interpretation (such as the shape of earth) cannot be compared with something for which opposing views come up with different interpretations. Your example is very poor one.

I have read Saiedi’s book in full. He is not infallible to say the least. At the best, he is simply trying to re-interpret things differently to suit the Bahai claims. Saeidi's interpretation is just that whether it turned up 2008 or 1900. He ignores the evidence for the earlier interpretation and his reasons for his interpretation are simply flawed. We just saw one where he interprets 'manifest' as 'distribute'!

Who is talking about ‘viceregency’ here? Subh-i Azal was Bab’s mirror not his deputy. Bab considered Subh-i Azal like himself. He tells him ‘I am you and you are me’. Therefore, for Subh-i Azal to complete the Bayan is the same thing as Bab doing the same thing.

There is nothing anywhere that says HWGSMM appears in the time of Subh-i Azal. There is also nothing anywhere that says Subh-i Azal should seeks the permission of HWGSMM, you are making it up. If you want to debate these things I am happy to do that outside of this forum. You may think HWGSMM appearing from 1511 to 2001 years sounds absurd, but there is tons of evidence in Bayan that indicates otherwise. But that is not what we are here talking about either. You are confusing too many things here. One thing Saeidi can start interpreting is the number 2001 appearing in digits. If you think you have found a silver bullet called Saeidi work made in 2008 that can kill all past views that Bahais do not like, you are wrong. It is not even apiece of cotton.

On the specific subject of whether or not based on the testamentary disposition, did Bab instruct Subh-i Azal to write the remaining unities, Saeidi has come up with an alternative interpretation and he says that it MAY mean something else. So, if he is not certain, what makes you think that his interpretation is infallible?

For you to revert my change again, you must prove that Saeidi did prove beyond a shadow of doubt that what Bab meant instead was to instruct Subh-i Azal to distribute the 8 copies of Bayan. You are up for a serious challenge because Saeidi himself does not claim he has done that and he is not even certain that his interpretation is correct let alone a tautology as you imagine that to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 08:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, because it is not what you or I think or how we interpret things, because that is original research. What's important is the source and how verifiability|verifiable the source is and a book published by university presses are considered the most reliable after peer-reviewed journals, and sources have to be in the mainstream. Saiedi's book is published by Wilfred Laurier Press, a contemporary book published by a university press, and the book says that it makes no sense that Subh-i-Azal was a person who was allowed to extend the religion by extending the Bayan; quoting "no on' else's writings would be binding and authoritative after His own passing until the advent of Him Whom God shall make manifest" and the "Bayan is written in the mode of divine verses, and the Bab states, for example, that no one will reveal divine verses except Him Whom God shall make manifest" The idea that Subh-i-Azal was supposed to finish the Persian Bayan does not appear in contemporary mainstream sources. Peter Smith's book published by Cambridge University Press, also a book published by university press, does not state anything about this fact, and only says that Subh-i-Azal was asked to "preserve the religion". Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)

Saeidi’s book being published by a university press does not guarantee the correctness of his claims. He is a Bahai and he is defending his religious convictions. On this specific subject, I am simply only pointing out what Saeidi has and has not done in his book.

1. I have already established that Saeidi himself is not certain of his own interpretation/sense. 2. On this very subject , Saeidi does not say he has proven Browne and others (conclusively) wrong. He merely says that the passage may mean something else. In doing so, he draws from Bahai interpretation of some passage in Bayan for which again there is a different interpretation.

Therefore, the "two senses" (as Saeidi puts it" are different interpretations and therefore Wikipedia readers should be able to know both of them. Your act of censorship is very disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand Wikipedia's policies. It is not you or I that decides correctness, it's the publishers. That's why Wikipedia doesn't have a Truth policy, but a verifiability policy. And the publishers that are considered most reliable have published his material and that's what counts. Again, Browne and Nicolas are not contemporary sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do understand the WP rules. You are abusing those rules. I made two simple points about Saeidi's work. Just by Saeidi saying 'this an this in 2008' is not sufficient. Unless he can prove his and disprove the others he will have to join the back of the queue adding more alternative interpretations. For a contemporary work to annul an earlier theory the work must conclusively prove that the earlier theory was a fallacy. ONLY in this case the earlier theory is no longer quotable. I use your own example on ‘flat earth’. Modern works have conclusively proven that it is wrong.

Saeidi does not claim he has proven the earlier interpretation false. He could not have done that because he has not looked at all evidence. He has merely added an alternative interpretation that he is not even sure of.

Ironically, you have removed Saeidi’s interpretation on the very topic we are concerned with here which is strange. You have gone overboard incorporating Saiedi's views on a range of irrelevant issues but you have omitted the reference to the evidence on which past authors have relied on!

Instead: You have since added twice as much as the current size of the article and included all of Bahai anti Subh-i Azal rhetoric by Saeidi’s. ‘Vicegrency’, the time of the appearance of HWGSMM have nothing to do with Unities and chapters of Bayan and who was going to complete them. Saeidi has certainly not proven any of these and there is tons of evidence that prove him wrong. Again, they are simply his interpretations, most of which have come from primary Bahai works.

We would then have to include all other past work that contradict Saeidi’s work (for which there is no shortage) and this page will earn the record of being the longest Wikipedia page. The discussion in this page will have to cover the entire spectrum of conflicting views on Bahai/Bayani. My change will include past and modern interpretations on this very topic and I believe it is balanced:

"Certain early researchers of the religion believed that based on the testamentary disposition written by the Báb, the right of completing the Bayán was conferred on Subh-i Azal.[4][5][6] However, more modern work reject that interpretation adding that it may refer instead to making public or distributing the eight copies of the Bayan.[7]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Smoklins, if you don't want to see contradicting views, then do what Jeff3000 does, make it all to come from a single source! Of course there are contradicting view. The view by Browne and Saeidi differ. The whole discussion above is to cover both views. What I have quoted is cited and is from Browne. You are simply preferringf one view over the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekunaman (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not without reason - and please note your language was " Based on the Bab's testamentary disposition" - as if it were a fact and that's what the difference of understanding is about. Then add that modern scholarship revisits the subject and does not support the older interpretation you keep introducing. Smkolins (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Interpretation

Look Nekunama, you got a long review of the idea of Truth vs Verifiability and you go off about how one of the scholars cited got it all wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for that debate. Write your own article and submit it to a journal somewhere if you think the scholar got it wrong. Until then there's not even a hint of a debate about it. You are promoting a point of view of about 1. Smkolins (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Browne and Miller as Reliable Sources

Nekunama, Browne's principle correspondents were Azalis. Azali dissimulation and taqiyyah, unfortunately, renders many Babi texts themselves unreliable, much less Browne's interpretations of them. Please see the discussion here.

Miller's book is a discredited source, and nothing more than a re-hash of Azali talking points.

Neither source pass muster as reliable and have to be excluded per WP:Sources.

At best, their inclusion would provide the opportunity to, yet again, highlight the Azali distortions that plague analysis of Babi texts and the period. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bayán

What does Bayán mean?--98.199.22.63 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)