Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 1

Comments from 2003

ok, the aside on the front page might better go here.

Baha'is are sometimes asked "why all these pictures of architecture?

(Note that I recently added a photo of the shrine of the Bab in Haifa to the page on the Bab as well) -- Baha'is use photos of the shrines for several reasons, first, respect for the person of the manifestation of God, and, of course, there IS no photo of the Bab. Still there is a photo of Baha'u'llah taken as a passport photo on his entry into Ottoman turkey. The original is an object of adoration during Baha'i pilgramage in Haifa, Israel. A copy of it exists on the web, since it dates from the 1800's it clearly has no copyright issues, and is freely linkable.

Still, I'm gonna ask for some restraint about posting it here.

and If I went over the edge of the wiki way on the front page with that note, I'll be happy to delete it. Rick Boatright 00:03 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Please leave links in even if you disagree with the linked group as removing links which are there to maintain a neutral point of view can result in permamenet removal from wikipedia of the one erasing links. multiman

Linking to Orthodox Bahá'í Faith

Please stop linking this article to the "Orthodox" Bahá'í Faith. The link is totally irrelevant - it is as if Jehovah's Witnesses would put a link to their site on the article about Jesus, just because they believe in him. This article must be a short biography about Bahá'u'lláh. Thank you. --Saed 20:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, it is perfectly reasonable to put a the link to the Othodox Baha'i faith. Look at say John the Baptist, 5 religions are mentioned because they believe in him. You are in the wrong not the link. Besides, what do you have against the othodox babs anyway? You have removed every linking to them. Yes, we can see exactly what you change. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 20:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

one thing is a religion, another is a sect(constituted by a dozen people)!

I think that a link to the Orthodox Baha'i faith is valid - although I completely understand the Bahá'ís view of this. The article about Jesus does link to the article about Jehovah's Witnesses - as it should. While I recognise and sympathise with the Baha'is view, the fact is that another group also claims a link to Bahá'u'lláh and they have been judged significant enough to have an article here. To not link to the orthodox Bahá'ís is to make a point of view judgement on their validity - something that is outside the bounds of Wikipedia. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

isnt making a judgement that they are significant enough also POV?

I have nothing against the group of the Orthodox Bahá'ís. It is a matter of relevancy. Should we put on the article about Jesus every single link to the more than 20,000 groups, parties, sects and movements that are associated with him? The article about Bahá'u'lláh is a biography about him and his life. During the lifetime of Bahá'u'lláh (and even during the lifetime of his son ´Abdu'l-Bahá) the Orthodox Bahá'ís didn't even exist, so they have nothing to do with his biography. Thank you for your cooperation. --Saed 20:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All I can say is so what? It doesn't matter the just because they didn't exist at the death of Bahá'u'lláh. They are an important religious phenominon. We list things with relavence. The 10,000 missing christian denominations are not there because they are not an important religious phenominon. They have their own list and are mentioned there. Orthodox Bahá'ís are important for two reasons, they are the second largest Baha'i group in the world. And two, their existance is interesting because the Baha'i religion is not supposed to have an factioning, it is against dogma. ---The Sunborn

In this case there are not 20,000 groups - there are only two (one much smaller than the other to be sure). Both recognise Bahá'u'lláh as a manifestation of God (if I am remembering my terminology right - I am not Bahá'í) and both have an article on Wikipedia. And both articles should be linked to from here. To do otherwise is introducing the point of view that Orthodox Bahá'ís are not legitimate. The Orthodox Bahá'ís would say that they did exist before the death of Bahá'u'lláh (and Abdu'l-Bahá). They would say that they are the true and legitimate continuation of that line - and whether you or I agree with that is beside the point. We have to report the facts and not comment on our own beliefs - that is the essence of NPOV . Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sannse, I agree with you that we must report facts. What are the facts? The Orthodox Bahá'ís have claimed for forty years now that they have a membership of more than thousand believers, yet every insider knows there is only one "leader" somewhere in the US with a handful of very active followers on the Internet trying to tell everyone that they are the second largest group after the "Heterodox Bahá'is". Of course they are the second largest group, because they are the only one, there is no other group! So if I would create a website about my new Bahà'í sect and had I five followers could I make it to Wikipedia? Just because someone seems to be very active on the Internet is a legitimation for him to be included in Wikipedia? You can go to Encylopaedia Britannica, check your lexikons about religion, look in theological publications etc - there is no word of the Orthodox Bahá'ís. They seem to be big, because they are so active on the Internet (and on Wikipedia it seems). --Saed 21:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that at least part of the problem is that it is difficult to verify the significance of this group. There appears to be propaganda on both sides (please note the word "appears", I do not wish to slur either side). Perhaps there is some way to find a provably unbiased account of the significance of this group. I know that I was aware of them before I came to Wikipedia (I have an interest in religions in general and Bahá'í in particular), and I think an article on them is justified - and if an article is justified then a link from this article is also important. If there are discrepancies in the reporting of membership and significance of the group then that should be included in the Orthodox Bahai Faith article.. but there would still be a case for inclusion of a link in this article in that instance. Removing all references to this group is not acceptable and feels like censorship - that is not what I believe Wikipedia should be about -- sannse (talk) 21:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With the above in mind, I have re-added the link. -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And have restored the link in the absence of further discussion here -- sannse (talk) 18:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- Below is a comment from User:Foant, moved from the article by sannse (talk) 21:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC):

I still wanna se an image of the guy. Where can i find it? I ask they respect my curioisty.

End of moved text

---

such "alternative" groups are very very small and are already mentioned in the main article, mentioning OBF everywhere is like mentioning "Potters of God" on every Chrstian related article. the OBF look "big" because there is pretty much one or two persons around the world that create a lot of different sites about them, to give the impression that they are very significant. plz dont let wikipedia get hoaxed.. --Cyprus2k1 08:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are 70 localities where Orhtodox reside, there are poeple that or 4th generation orhtodox now, so grow up. Also, at this point I am re-again putting the link in as both groups claim the smae founder, and as wiki forbids the erasing of links, further if the erasieris continue and you want an erasier war then be prepared for soem unpleasant consequences on your major sites.

Baha'u'llah's picture

Just something to add...I am a Baha'i and the picture of Baha'u'llah for me is disrespectful not so much for the fact that it's viewable on the web (even though I do object to this), but also because it's not an accurate picture. The picture was actually tampered with after it was taken for the following reasons: 1. the top of Baha'u'llah's taj is not supposed to be black. This tampered picture originally appeared in a Persian book on philosophy that was written by a man who was anti-Baha'i, I believe either in the late 1800's or early 1900's (but I could be mistaken). He said that he colored the top of the hat because he "wanted it to be the same color as Baha'u'llah's soul" (I am paraphrasing, but may God forgive him). 2. A piece of Baha'u'llah's eyebrow has been "taken out" of the picture which makes Him look wild eyed. 3. His hair and beard is colored white, even though it is historical fact that his beard and hair were completely black (from continuous henna) his whole life. Persian men of royal lineage (His family was related to an ancient line of Persian kings) traditionally wore their hair to about shoulder length and kept their hair hennad black their whole lives. Obviously this picture is "factually inaccurate" on several grounds. Is this good enough reason to take it down? Can someone please respond to this? Thanks

As mentioned in the article, for Baha'is, Baha'u'llahs picture is not shown for signs of respect. Most Baha'is do know that a photo exists outside the Baha'i archives building, but don't even want to go and search for it. It is not a minor part of their (my) faith.

I think that the message could be changed to something that says that Baha'u'llahs picture exists and can be found on the web, but as a sign of respect for Baha'is that the precise link not exist. If people really do want to see the picture they can go ahead and find it. -- NavidAzizi 19:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some more info. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, who was appointed the successor, to Abdu'l Baha (who was appointed the successor to Baha'u'llah) has written the following. "There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes." So just for the sake of respect I ask that the precise link not be posted. -- NavidAzizi 19:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

The question is - should Wikipedia articles be restricted out of respect to its subjects, and if so, who should define respect - neutral Wikipedia users or the subject. What if a spokesman for the US Army asks to remove the images of prison torture "out of respect"? Or children of a Nazi war criminal ask to remove his photo "out of respect"? (not equating Bahaullah with any of those, of course). My opinion is that Wikipedia is not a Bahai encyclopedia, so in no way should writing of articles on Bahai faith (including related articles, such as this one) be governed by the principles of Bahai faith. If we can't put a link to the photo, because Bahais do not want so, can we put criticism of the church or would that be disrespectful too?

So my view is that Wikipedia can make no such concessions to what material is included. This is an article about a person. There is a photo of that person. That photo is in public domain. Ergo, the photo should be included (or the link to it, it doesn't make much difference). Paranoid 19:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, this is a biography article, and the only picture of him is integral to writing it. On wikipedia, informing our users trumps desires by religious adherents to not include it. →Raul654 06:31, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(there are at least two or three, the one in this article is the worst quality one) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. - --Cyprus2k1 05:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this photo is the best one, because the ones that the Bahai Center in Israel shows the pilgrims are retouched photos (in fact one of them is a bogus one based on this photo) and they are worked out to make Bahaullah look "more presentable", which, if you think about it, is actually an insult to Bahaullah. If you believe in this guy, then just accept him the way he really looked. If he is not "good looking enough" for your taste, then shop around for a better looking prophet or "manifestation of God". The authenticity of this passport photo has been officially acknowledged by the Bahai authorities. --Amir 15:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thats not the point, i dont care how to photo looks like, i will copy-paste what i said: "you see, Bahai´s usually see photos(..) of Baha'u'llah on pilgrimage(which is a special moment to bahai´s), by showing the photo in the article without any warning is very ofensive/shocking to bahais. im not saying the photo should be deleted, but at least put a wikilink to it instead.. "

I have got to say I find the picture mildly offensive. I implore everybody to consider changing it into a link as [1] suggests in the rule of thumb - 11. It is hard to explain to a non-Baha'i but this really is very important. -- Tomhab 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should definitely be a link - and it makes a HELL of a lot of difference. The Baha'i attitude to Baha'u'llah's photo basically derives from the Islamic prohibition on representative art (certainly, if there were photos of Muhammad around, you'd get vociferous complaints from Muslims if you had it there on the Muhammad article). Imagine if you'd illustrated the article on Jesus with a photo of one of the more controversial artworks depciting him (say, "Piss Jesus", or something like that). This picture was taken from a passport photo of Baha'u'llah, as Amir says, but it is only public domain because it appeared in a book full of knocking copy by a Christian missionary out to discredit the Baha'is. People who don't like Baha'is publicise this picture because they know that to do so is offensive to Baha'is. That is the only context I have ever seen this picture appear on the web. PaulHammond 20:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

This article looks like most of the claims were taken directly from Bahai myths/scripture. Wikipedia cannot contain information, which can't be independently verified. I think that without references to some independent history books/studies (i.e. not Bahai texts) some of the information may need to be removed or at least rephrased to indicate ambiguity and uncertainty. Paranoid 19:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The references have been stated in the article. E.G. Browne was an English Historian who met with Baha'u'llah while he was imprisoned in Akka. He was not a Baha'i and he wrote a book called A Travellor's Narrative where he wrote about both the Babi and Baha'i histories. You can find the book in some libraries. I urge you to go out and find info which is not in accordance with the article. The things that could be taken out of the article are what people felt and how they reacted to Baha'u'llah and I am willing to remove them if necessary. I am going to remove the disputed tag, until you can find sources that say that the information in the article is wrong. -- NavidAzizi 20:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that A Traveller's Narrative was written by the son of Bahaullah (and translated by Browne?). The first line in the introduction says "This book is the history of a proscribed and persecuted sect written by one of themselves." [2]. Clearly this is not an objective source. Ditto for the second reference. Please do not remove the disputed tag. It is not intended to imply that the current version is blatantly wrong (or even wrong at all). The only thing it implies is that there is an unresolved dispute, which there is (we are disputing whether there are sufficient references). It should attract the attention and stimulate other users to contribute to resolving the dispute. Paranoid 22:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No that is another book called "New History" which is a translation by E.G. Browne of a Babi before Baha'u'llah even declared; it has none of the history of Baha'u'llah's exiles and his declaration. A Travellor's Narative is is E.G. Browne's own accounts when he went to the middle east. Again, please point out what is disputed, and only then place the disputed tag. Other than the picture, I can't see why the disputed tag is there. -- NavidAzizi 04:52, Jan 15, 2005.

I've left the disputed tag there, but I'd like a list of disputed items, or I will remove it in a couple of days. -- NavidAzizi 05:01, Jan 15, 2005.

Paranoid is right. In fact, Edward Brownse, in another book talks about some gory details of how the Bahais and Azalis brutalized one another, in particular, how the Bahais were intolerant of the Azalis. The Bahais today know these facts very well, but do their best to keep such mess under the carpet. As for "extremely offenisve to the Bahais", well, tough. First of all, let's be honest, the reason you don't want this photo publicized is because he looks like Rasputin, or he looks like the crook that he was who hijacked the Babi movement. If "out of respect" you don't want his photo displayed, then how come the photos of his son Abdulbaha is all over the palce? Because he was more photogenic and his appearance is more "marketable". If you think about it deeper, it is you who is being offensive to him by saying that his appearance is not good enough! But as it was pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a Bahai encyclopedia. It is stupid to put a photo of some house in this article, when a photo of Bahaullah is available. And this photo is authentic and is his passport photo. Martin2000 22:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as a messenger of God, and as so displaying his image is unrespecful. It has nothing with anything with the way he looks. I'm going to go back to Paranoid's suggestion of jsut linking to it. -- NavidAzizi 04:52, Jan 15, 2005.

You removed most of my contributions to the article, which were objective and historical facts. Why? Which of my contributions were wrong? Also, you removed the part where I said Bahaullah escaped from Persia and went to Baghdad (just like many other Babis had done), you changed that to "he was exiled from Persia", yet, a look at the history of the page Subh-i Azal shows that you (NavidAzizi) wrote explicitly that he "escaped" to Baghdad. What evidence do you have that Bahaullah (who at the time of his escape wasn't even the leader of the Babis) was exiled to Baghdad? So this clearly shows that you are dishonest and you are promoting Bahaullah while at the same time demoting Subh-i Azal, consistent with your other "contributions" on this subject. I will give you a chance to correct all these misdeeds and give the article an honest contribution, or else, be prepared that someone who knows the history of the Babis/Azalis/Bahais very well, will rewrite the whole chain of articles. Martin2000 05:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which of your contributions were wrong? Here's a list of your contributions and my comment to them:

1. "Although it seems highly strange that a distinguished nobleman in the court of a Persian King, not provide any formal schooling for his son. Even more strange is that after his father's passing, they would offer a high-ranking position to a person with no formal schooling."

So that addition is a POV, and I accept what was there originally could be seen as POV, and is thus removed.

2. "leadership was with Mirza Yahya ."

It is true that the Bab said that Mirza Yahya was the leader, but he did not guide anyone and that is why people looked to Baha'u'llah. But you are right, and even though it the original article did write Mirza Yahya was the leader lower down, I have moved it up.

3. he escaped from Persia to Baghdad, then a city in the Ottoman Empire and joined many other Bábís in Baghdad. At that time, the official leader of the Bábís was Bahá'u'lláh younger half-brother Mirza Yahya Nuri, known az "Subh-i Azal" who was appointed as the leader of the movement by the Báb himself, when the Báb was in prison.

Baha'u'llah did not escape. The authorities who had imprisoned him, let him go after they had ordered his exile. He was never really free, since they only let him go AFTER the exile order. If he had escaped, why would he go to Baghdad. Mirza Yahya was in a different prison in the north of Iran. Baha'u'llah's travel to Baghdad had nothing to do with Mirza Yahya's travel to Baghdad. The particlular reason that Baha'u'llah was exiled was the Baha'u'llah was the one whom the Persian prime-minister believed had instructed the assassination attempt on the Shah of Iran, and thus they wanted to get rid of him. Mirza Yahya was already in prison during the time of the assassination attempt.

4. "success among Bábís started a split in the Bábís community, and the followers of Subh-i-Azal became known az "Azali Bábís" and the followers of Bahá'u'lláh became known az "Bahái Bábís" -- later, they became simply known az "Azalis" and "Baháis""

You are right, except that the split happened after Baha'u'llah claimed he was the one whom the Bab has prophesized. I moved it to that part of the document.

5. "According to non-Bahá'í historians, the reason for the Ottoman government sending both the Bahá'ís and Azalis out of Baghdad, was the constant violence and brutality between the two sects. Eventually Bahá'u'lláh was exilted to Akka (now in Israel) and Subh-i Azal was sent to Cyprus."

This is not true at all, the violence if you call it was purely in words, except for Baha'u'llah's poisoning.

6. "According to the Bahá'is during"

I kept this there. You're right.

So in general, a lot of your changes were correct, there were POV in the article, and the article is updated to reflect a better version. Thank you for pointing them out. But the espace from the Siyah-Chal is plainly false. So please tell me what else is wrong with this article or any of the other articles I have edited. I will change the Mirza Yahya page to make less POV but that article is generally does not have a POV. NavidAzizi 06:20, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

One other thing I wanted to add is that you say I wrote the Mirza Yahya page. Actually that is not true, I just added stuff from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. You can find the encyclopedia article here [3] as linked to by the the Wikipedia article [[1911_Encyclop%E6dia_Britannica]].

Particularly in the Brittanica article you can see the following text (even with OCR errors). Note that britannica says Mirza Yahya escaped, and note that it says he lived in great seclusion. I did not say these things. Most wikipedians accept the 1911 Britannica as neutral and true.

The Bflb was succeeded on his death by MIrth Yahy of Nflr (at that time only about twenty years of age), who escaped to Bagdad, and, under the title of Subh-i-Ezel ( the Morning of Eternity ~),became the pontiff of the sect. He lived, however, in great seclusion, leaving the direction of affairs almost entirely in the hands of his elder halfbrother (born 12th November 1817), MIrth Husayn All, entitled Ba/ui ulld/i ( the Splendour of God ), who thus gradually became the most conspicuous and most influential member of the sect, though in the Iqdn, one of the most important polemical works of the Babis, composed in 1858-1859, he still implicitly recognized the supremacy of Subh-i-Ezel NavidAzizi 06:54, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean that he escaped form the Siyah-chal, what I mean is that after he was released from the Siyah-chal, he escaped out of Persia as many other Babis did at the time, because after the failed assassination attempt, it was extremely unsafe for the Babis in Persia. Bahaullah made a conscious decision to take his family to Baghdad where there already existed a sizable Babi community. To my knowledge, there is no authentic evidence to support the claim that he was sent to exile by the authorities. In fact, I can't even remember having read or seen any historical evidence (other than the Bahai literature) that he was even imprisoned in Persia. This, I have only read in Bahai literature, but not elsewhere.

On another note, I have no problem with a link to his photo, but honestly, for the life of me I can't understand why it is "offensive" to have his photo in the article. In all honesty, to me it seems that the Bahais are actually insulting the guy by indirectly rejecting his appearance. Wouldn't every Christian or Muslim have loved to know exactly what Jesus or Muhammed looked like?!! The claim that "out of respect we don't want his photo here" is indeed strange and even lame -- but I will not insist, because in my heart I feel that the real reason for this objection is because the Bahais consider his photo to be ... hmmm ... "unmarketable". That is like saying "we love the guy, we just wish he looked a little better so we could comfortably include his photo in the article"!! Martin2000 07:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the picture, a couple reasons. One is so that the picture does not become an icon, where people idolize the icon and not the teachings. Secondly like I wrote about, Shoghi Effendi wrote not to view the image. There is a strong link of authority in the Baha'i Faith, and when Shoghi Effendi has written not to place the image in public places, most Baha'is do listen. You might call this listening to authority a restriction of freedom, but Baha'is see it as a way of conserving unity and protecting it (not eliminating it) from divisions. The point about people seeing this authority as a restriction to personal freedom is in the main Wikipedia article on the Baha'i Faith.

As for the escape/exile to Baghdad, you are partly right, he wasn't exiled to Baghdad, but was told he had to leave the country (and thus an exile). He was given the choice to choose the destination of the exile, he chose Baghdad. I don't know why Baha'u'llah chose Baghdad. And I don't know if he chose it because Babais were already there or if the other Babis followed Baha'u'llah to Baghdad. Actually the persian authorities wanted to execute Baha'u'llah just like they did to the Bab, that would have been the easiest thing to do. But since people in shah's court knew Baha'u'llah and his father they asked for proof that he was part of the failed assassination. So the next best thing was to get him out of the country. NavidAzizi 15:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Navid. I have to disagree with your assertion here. A copy of Bahaullah's Iranian passport page(s) is on the official Bahai web site (as well as on other web sites). According to his passport, he had requested to visit the Shiite holy sites in then Ottoman Empire (modern day Iraq). So it seems that he had told the authorities that he is going for shiite holy site pilgrimage, and he was taking his wives with him. According to his passport, he took 4 women with him, and 2 sons. Any reasonable person will think that he escaped out of Persia in this way, and he was not asked to leave. His passport clearly indicates that the passport will expire in one year, which was the standard expiration date for passports issues at that time. At this time his half-brother Sobh-i Azal was already the leader of the Babi community in Baghdad, and when Bahaullah joined him, Sobh-i Azal put him in charge of much of the affairs of the movement. From that point on, Bahaullah went on to accept Subh-i Azal's leadership of the Babis for almost 10 years without any incidents until he came up with some ideas of his own. It certainly seems that Bahaullah planned to leave Persia and join the Babi community in Baghdad; and all the melodramatic stuff such as "he was forced to leave Persia with very little food and supplies etc...." is bogus and should be taken out of the article. --Amir 16:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Check the BBC article in the references [4], it clearly says exiled. Check the 1988 Encyclopedia Article on the Baha'i Faith, it says quote "He was released in January 1853 and exiled to Baghad." If you read the rest of this discussion, you will see that Baha'u'llah was banished from Persia, he was free to go any place outside of Iran, and yes CHOSE Baghdad, but that doesn't been he was not exiled, he had to leave Persia. -- Fadeaway919 18:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK fine, he had to leave Persia. So he took 4 women with him (apparently 2 were his wives, and 2 other -- probably concubines) and went to Baghdad. Later in Baghdad he married his third wife. He had three wives at the same time. This is not only against his own teachings, it is even against Babi teachings. So even as a Babi he was not adhering to the principles. The article says at age 27 he had accepted the Babi principles. What does this tell us about Bahaullah's personality? It is also a fact that for 10 years after he went to Baghdad the Babi leader was Subh-i Azal and Bahaullah was playing second fiddle to him. The article says that when he moved to Baghdad, the Babis turned to him for guidance. This is a historical falsification and cannot be supported by any reliable evidence. In fact, the reverse of it can be easily shown by historical evidence. --Amir 05:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the people looking for guidance from Baha'u'llah (1) From the Encyclopedia Brittanica (1988) "He was released in January 1853 and exiled to Bag had. There Bahá'u'lláh's leadership revived the Bábí community." (2) From the BBC article "On arrival, he met followers of the Bab and his influence grew to the extent that it caused dissension, conflict and jealousy amongst the followers of the Bab." and "In Baghdad, he found the Babi community had become dispirited and divided. It seemed that his brother had not provided effective leadership, so Baha'u'llah spent the next 7 years teaching the basic teachings of the Bab by both word and example."

Regarding the people that travelled with him to Baghdad were his wives, his sister and his daughter.

Regarding Baha'u'llah having more than one wife, even though his own teachings say that you can have only one wife. He had married more than one wife (in accordance with the teachings of Islam) long before he received the message of his claimed prophethood in 1853, and long before he accepted the Bab's message. Furthermore he wrote the law of marriage in his time in Akka in the 1873, again long after he had more than one wife (again in accordance with the teachings of Islam, which he followed during his youth and young adulthood). -- Fadeaway919 05:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

He married his third wife in Baghdad. For quite some time he had three wives at the same time. He even made multiple children with these wives. Can we be honest here for a second? There is no graceful way to excuse his three wives at the same time. The best thing to do is to just accept the facts as facts. He had three wives at the same time, and he married his third wife in Baghdad. He had married the first two while still living in Iran. So even as a Babi, he was breaking the principles of Babism. Anyway, can you please include in the article that he had three wives at the same time? --Amir 06:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And did not Moses commit murder, one of the 10 commandments. The laws of one dispensation always take time to be completely applied. Even now, not all of the Baha'i laws revealed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas are applied to Baha'is as explained by Abdu'l-Baha and continued by the Universal House of Justice. Abdu'l-Baha explains that some of the laws are for future times when the world is not the same. I'll add the personal life of Baha'u'llah in the article. -- Fadeaway919 06:24, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Just another note to prove that the laws of the Arabic Bayan were not applied right away was that Mirza Yahya (Subh-i-Azal), the sucessor of the Bab, also took a second wife after the Bab died. -- Fadeaway919 06:36, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Babism you can have two wives. As you very well know, this is also the case with Bahaullah's own writing, which was later "explained" by Abdul-Baha that when Bahaullah said you can have two wives, it really mean only one !!  :-) --- so yes, Subh-i Azal took a second wife, but according to Babism he was not doing anything wrong. In both the Bayan and the Aqdas it is CLEARLY indicated that up to two wives is allowed. --Amir 06:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When and WHY did this discussion became about the wives of Baha'u'llah?? and whats the point anyway? - --Cyprus2k1 14:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's true that there is no point, I would have this discussion with Amir1 offline, but he has not set up his e-mail address in Wikipedia. I would like to correct some misconceptions about Mirza Yahya's wives though, and I'll do it in the talk page of Mirza Yahya. Fadeaway919 17:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

This article is about Bahaullah. The fact that he had three wives at the same time is very relevant and quite important. Why do you express a surprise? This information is going into the article, just as soon as I find a bit of time. --Amir 20:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, please show me Baha'u'llah's picture on the official Baha'i website [5]. You won't find because it's not there. -- Fadeaway919 19:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I never said the official Bahai web site has his picture on their site. Please read again what I wrote. I said the Bahai officials have indeed acknowledged that this photo of Bahaullah is an authentic one (in response to a letter from a Bahai asking specificially about this photo) but they have said that this is not one of the photos of Bahaullah that they show to the pilgrims in Israel when they visit. --Amir 05:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What you wrote "A copy of Bahaullah's Iranian passport page(s) is on the official Bahai web site." -- Fadeaway919 05:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's right, I wrote that. A copy of the first page of his Iranian passport is on http://bahai-library.com web site. Isn't that one of the official Bahai web sites? --Amir 06:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As written on the bottom of http://bahai-library.com "Managed by Jonah Winters and a team of contributors. This site is not endorsed by any Bahá'í institution and is not affiliated with the International Bahá'í Library." -- Fadeaway919 06:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Amir, your comment certainly suggested to me that you thought Baha'u'llah's photo appeared on the official Baha'i web site. If you didn't mean to say or suggest that, then you have certainly been unusually careful in choosing your words here. I doubt it appears on Jonah Winter's site - presumably the reference to his passport there is one of the pages that does not contain his photo. The Baha'i taboo against casually displaying Baha'u'llah's image is very strong, so loyal Baha'is like Jonah are not going to put his picture up. Baha'u'llah's picture in all cases only appears on the sites of people who wish to criticise and offend Baha'is. PaulHammond 03:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I meant there is a picture of the main page of his Iranian passport, dated 1853, which does not contain his photograph. Also, it seems that one Bahai is blaming me for having used that site and another Bahai is calling it the site of a "loyal Bahai" -- can you please make up your minds? My reference to his "passport photo" which may have been the cause of this confusion for you and Navid is probably form another section of this page, when I mentioned something regarding his photo, I think, to Cyprus2k1. --Amir 10:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It sounded to me like you were saying "This official Baha'i site contains Baha'u'llah's picture, so it must be okay for me to use it here". This is not the case, and Baha'is really do have a strong taboo against the casual use of their Manifestation's picture. Amir, people are not "blaming you", they are trying to explain the situation. Jonah Winters explains on his site that his work has no official status - Navid has reproduced that site's disclaimer above. But that Jonah Winters is a loyal Baha'i (and therefore would not reproduce Baha'u'llah's image anywhere on his site) is also the case. The official Baha'i site is at http://www.bahai.org Incidentally, you have also made an incorrect assumption about me. I am a non-Baha'i.

On a more general point, the talk-pages aren't meant to be a place for debating who is right and who is wrong. We're supposed to be working making this article better, and working towards agreement, that's good Wikiquette. I am just about to make a suggestion to that end here. - PaulHammond 12:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Also I have never contested that the photo is not of Baha'u'llah, it is indeed a photo of Baha'u'llah. You might even notice that I've put the photo back when other people have deleted it, even though I don't agree with it being there -- Fadeaway919 06:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Amir1, I was wrong in the point of Mirza Yahya escape. Mirza Yahya was not in prison and he did not escape from prison. After the failed assassination attempt, Mirza Yahya did leave to Bagdad, but since the authorities were looking for him (as they were for many other Babis after the assassination attempt, including Baha'u'llah) some texts (including the pro-Azali books) use the word escape for his travel to Baghdad. -- Fadeaway919 20:02, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I also have found a non-Baha'i source which says Baha'u'llah was exiled. The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation has a series of documents on different Religions and Ethics [6]. In the Baha'i section, you can find the following quotes "The prime minister of Persia decided that it was preferable for Baha'u'llah to be banished from the state and he was released from prison in 1853. He was stripped of his wealth and possessions and travelled to Baghdad with his wife." [7]

Furthermore, in regards to his schooling "In his early life he had a relatively limited education (which was normal for the class from which he came). He learned horsemanship (he was known as a fine horseman), swordsmanship, poetry and calligraphy (he was also renowned as an excellent poet and calligrapher). His Islamic education was strictly non-technical, but despite this, his knowledge of Islam (and of other religions) was far beyond what could have been expected of someone from the wealthy governing class." [8] In general the BBC site confirms a lot of the stuff I removed in the past couple days. NavidAzizi 22:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and made sure it is in accordance with the BBC article noted above (and in the references). This is a non-Baha'i source. I will wait a couple days, and if there is no objection to the changes, I will remove the disputed tag -- NavidAzizi 02:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

One additional non-Baha'i source. I have just read the 1988 Encyclopedia Brittanica; it states clearly that Baha'u'llah was exiled from Persia to Baghdad. NavidAzizi 22:49, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)