Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 14

Bahá'í WikiProject

What are the thoughts on forming a Baha'i WikiProject? There are projects for most religions, but not the Baha'i Faith. It might help coordinate work on stubs, cleaning up articles, collecting common source material, etc. - Parsa 07:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need. If you want to go ahead and fix things, just go ahead. For the most part, Wikiprojects, except for the largest ones, don't do anything, except group certain people together and divide them from others, and that's not a good idea. -- Jeff3000 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw it more in terms as a place to discuss work that needs to be done—where we could focus on particular articles to expand them or clean them up. From the ones I've looked at, there are some positive benefits such as collaboration on articles, proposals for new articles, requests for peer review of new articles, requested photographs, translation services to and from other wikipedias, lists of good secondary sources, requests and discussion for moves, redirects and deletions, etc. It's also a place to collect Categories, Templates, Lists pages, etc. Some of the better Projects seem to result in a larger number of Good and Featured articles. Look at some of the larger Projects like California and Japan for better examples. Perhaps we can do it on the unused Category talk:Bahá'í page, but a Project would be more official. The alternative is that a lot of these things have to be done in this talk page when it should be for the Baha'i Faith article itself. - Parsa 06:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Those wikiprojects have tons of editors and pages to consider. There are only a limited number of Baha'i pages that you can put on the watchlist, and I think most other editors who work in the Baha'i space also have their watchlist, so any discussion can be seen by those editors. Look at Muslim Guild as an example of a wikiproject gone bad (it was deleted). -- Jeff3000 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about creating one myself several months ago. I think that it will be beneficial in the long run. I certainly know that it would be better to have all the discussions in a central hub rather than here, it seems like we have many issues arise in here that actually have nothing to do with this article but instead other smaller sub-articles. Some of the other religion pages have very nice and sofisticated project spaces. The way I see it: if someone is willing to put in the time to creating a Baha'i project, then go for it, I will certainly help when I have the time. Nmentha 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary yet but it may grow to that point. I just finished a search for "bahai" across wikipedia and found a few links that needed fixing, added a whole new page based on a tiny reference to a Baha'i organization taking over a school going broke, and a Baha'i who was noted only in German that he was a Baha'i. --Smkolins 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

White space

The TOC and the Baha'i template are creating a very large white space after the intro. Is there a way we can do a page layout that would make the page density more uniform? - Parsa 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The whitespace depends heavily on your monitor resolution. On my computer there is not much, as both the ToC and the template are the same height. Moving the template would actually cause more whitespace, since the ToC is the limiting page structure. There are ways to remove the ToC, but it is not good practice to do so, especially with an article with so many subsections. -- Jeff3000 15:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I was certainly not advocating the removal of either the TOC or the Baha'i template. I was just wondering if there was some other version of the TOC, or some other layout that might help reduce the white space. - Parsa 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual Lineage

A change in the article should be made. The intellectual history of the Baha'is is one not to be found in this article. I am outlining the argument (however shortened here) which will be duly footnoted in the article: A direct intellectual line can be traced from Baha'ism back to the Isma'ili heretical movement. In short (I will provide the citations in the article's final form) The Hurufi movement (founded by a certain Fazl Allah Astarabadi in Iran) was the intellectual inheritor (to some extent) of the Isma’ili movement. Astarabadi claimed to be Jesus returned and the Muslim ‘Mahdi’. The group had a curious obsession with numerical values of letters (hence the name hurufi from the Arabic plural of harf, meaning letter). The obsession worked itself out to the number 14 (corresponding to 14 points on the human face). This was later doubled to 28 (the number of letters in the Arabic alphabet).

The Nuqtavi (derived from the Arabic Nuqta: meaning diacritcal point on a letter) order was founded by Mahmud Pasikhani who had been a follower of Astarabadi in Gilan (Iran) but had been expelled from the Hurufi movement. He was similarly obsessed with strange theories and numbers. He claimed himself the Wahid, which had the numerical value of 19 (when the letters are assigned there recognized numerical value and added up). The Nuqtavis first surfaced in Adjudan near Kashan in Iran (a center of Nizari Isma’ilism). This is important in establishing the intellectual lineage of Isma’ilism to Baha’ism.

The Bab (born ‘Ali Muhammad Shirazi; intellectual fountainhead of Bahai’ism) was the inheritor of this accumulated tradition. He similarly had an obsession with the number 19. He assembled a council of disciples of which there were 18 (he being the all important 19th).

When questioned in Tabriz he stated that he was the Mahdi (“I am that person whom you have been expecting for more than a millennium.”) After being completely embarrassed over his faulty Arabic grammar and ignorance of finer points of religion, the Bab recanted his claim and desired forgiveness.

While he had been imprisoned in Maku (at the behest of Russian authorities) he was heard teaching the doctrines of the Nuqtavis.

The Bab was obsessed with the number 19 along with several other Hurufi and Nuqtavi traditions. One has to look no further than the 19-day Baha’I feast and the 19 months of the Baha’I calendar to see the obvious link.

If there is a cogent argument refuting this, I will entertain it, otherwise I believe I should take the information (cite it) and place it in the article. Altrafton 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These statements are the same polemics that are used in Iran all the time, and have been discredited by multiple third-party sources, and polemical sources cannot be used in Wikipedia. Minority views do not get space in Wikipedia based on Wikipedia's Undue Weight policy. -- Jeff3000 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. There is clear evidence of the intellectual history. I would like to see these third party sources. I am still curious about how the number 19 remains a recurring theme however. Is this a mere coincidence? By the miracle of miracles the Baha'is randomly picked the number 19 and the fact that this was a recurring tradition in heretical Shi'ism is simply coincidence. Is the length of the fast 19 days or not? Are there 19 days in the Baha'i calendar or not? It is clear that the number 19 is recurrent in the heretical history of Iran, the link seems obvious, why the fear of putting the 'coincidence' in the article?

If a Holocaust denier says the world is round does it mean he is wrong? Just because someone may be hostile to a group doesn't invalidate their criticism based on that fact alone.Altrafton 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a factual error here. The Bab is not the "intellectual fountainhead" of the Baha'i Faith. Baha'u'llah is.

This argument will have to be much better than relying on the coincidence of the number 19. There's no serious work I'm aware of that connects the Bab to the Ismailis, especially when the doctrine revolves around fulfilling Twelver messianic expectations. MARussellPESE 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bab proclaimed the coming etc... Baha'ullah fullfilled this 'prediction'. The Bab had recanted his claims under questioning, after being humiliated for poor Arabic grammar and ignorance of religious details. If the Bab had recanted it certainly should be noted, whether or not Baha'is hold this to be true is another matter, one with which I am not concerned. I have come up with something better than the number 19, read above. The signs are obvious, I will be happy to get the rest of the sources, if you read Turkish and Persian. It seems a cabal of Baha'i editors have taken it upon themselves to safeguard the article from genuine criticism.

"Bahá'ís see the Báb as the forerunner of the Bahá'í Faith, because the Báb's writings introduced the concept of "He whom God shall make manifest", a Messianic figure whose coming, according to Bahá'ís, was announced in the scriptures of all of the world's great religions, and whom Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, claimed to be in 1863.[5]" (from the article itself) I can see why the Baha'is have been trying to distance themselves from the Bab, it seems problematic to base one's beliefs upon a claim that was recanted. The term "He whom God shall make manifest." (Man Yuzharu Allah) had been used before in Iran. It should be included in the article.Altrafton 07:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the number 19, what you are arguing is a synthesis from different conclusions, as is considered original research and is not allowed under Wikipedia policies. Quote:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

In regards to the Bab recanting, MARussellPESE has already shown based on work by Denis MacEoin that the arguments for his recanting are specious, and regardless this is an article on the Baha'i Faith and not the Bab. You should read Wikipedia:Summary Style. Next, the Arabic you speak of, many scholars including MacEoin and Walbridge have stated that the Arabic of the Bab was exactly the way it was to advance a claim of prophethood. -- Jeff3000 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin had his work published by a Bahai press (Kalimat Press). He was approached by them to do the piece on Babism. MacEoin was (or is) a Bahai. Is this the 'independent' sources you speak of? Many reputable scholars have made the connection between the Hurufi and Nuqtavi movements and Babis and Babis to Baha'is. These appear in reputable journals which are reviewed. As for the Arabic. The two scholars which you cite here are (MacEoin and Walbridge) are both Baha'is, and have an interest in validating the claims of the Bab. I don't understand how terrible Arabic grammar advances a claim of prophethood. These opinions should be included, I don't understand the reluctance. It has nothing to do with Wiki policies (considering I plan on using reputable sources and allowing other people to edit the final form). Furthermore I don't understand how including a section to the effect of "Some scholars have noted the repetition of themes to be found in Baha'ism in previous movements splintering from Shi'a Islam." If this is cited to a few reputable scholars in reputable journals I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article? It wouldn't be synthesis to say that nor would it be POV. Why the reluctance, has this struck a nerve?Altrafton 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually both MacEoin and Walbridge are not Baha'is. Secondly it is not if they are Baha'is are not; it has to be if the works are reliable sources, and have been reviewed by others. Both MacEoin's and Walbrige's have been published in respectable journals which have been peer-reviewed, and that's were I'm bringing in the info. You, yourself noted Iranica, and if you look at the authors of the Baha'i articles on Iranica you will notice that MacEoin and Walbridge figure prominently as the authors of those articles.

Secondly, you cannot use the sentence "Some scholars" as that is a weasel word and their use discouraged in Wikipedia. The article already includes a statement that the Baha'i Faith has much in debt to the Shia Islamic environment that it came from. You should also read Wikipedia Summary style and undue weight; not everything that anyone has said belongs in Wikipedia and in every page; from that Wikipedia policy page "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented" -- Jeff3000 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I put 'some' in the summary in place on the names of the scholars which would appear in the actual article. Editing out 'some' is the job of the editors. My head is spinning from this run around. The link is obvious, as I said before. The Baha'i editors can put aside their intransigent religiose position and realize that, or they can continue with a semantic run around to avoid the obvious conclusions, ones that might be drawn by better informed readers. ("Well 19 yes, but that doesn't count because I don't like it and it makes me look ridiculous"). There is no doubt in my mind that Baha'is have reworked a great deal of their traditions to remove them from the curious foundations from which they arose. That is not a judgment of Baha'is it's a historical viewpoint, one I have developed from research. I have no need to humiliate Baha'is or delegitimize the Baha'i faith. I do have a need to put these facts in the article. I will say it again, Nuqtavis 19, Babis 19, Baha'is 19. The link is manifest. The information is legitimate, it is produced by scholars who are reviewed. The Nuqtavis were an off shoot of the Hurufis, who had many theories in common with the Isma'ilis (cyclical view of time etc...). The Nuqtavis sprang up in an area renound for its Ismai'lism. Explain where that information is wrong, and I will confess my mistake, but it is obvious. Just because it is not widely known (because no doubt it has been downplayed by Baha'is) does not make it original research on my part (I didn't do the translations, and I didn't publish the articles). Nor is it POV, because it is true (which by the correspondence definition of truth it is indeed true, due to corresponding verifiable facts). I could care less about your religious beliefs, but your logic confuses me. I am giving the information here, I am happy to let a Baha'i editor work it into the article in a reasonable fashion. Put it wherever you like, I don't care, it does need to be in the article.Altrafton 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unity of Science and Religion

I think it should be noted here that this particular view is only tenuously supported by facts. The Bab wrote in his 'Bayan' that "The Sciences have always been what begins and ends with speech lacking benefit." He also went on to ridicule philosophy (falsafa) and other epistemologocal pursuits. I know there may be some differentiation between the Bab and modern Baha'is, but I hardly see it (The Bab's semi-coherent text that is) as unimportant. Additionally there were a number of violent occurences in Iran for which the Baha'is were responsible. I vote both of these receive mention in the article. The Baha'i faith, like or not, in its origin was a Shi'a heretical group, and only recent reworking of its themes (to make it palatable to western audiences) have created what we see today. I would like to see some kind of consensus on this issue. I am in the process of doing some research.Altrafton 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The teaching of the Harmony of Science and Religion from the Baha'i point of view is clearly delineated in the Baha'i holy writings, which have basis in Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's writings. The Bab's writings on the subject are not the basis of the Baha'i beliefs as many of the Babi practices and beliefs were superceded by Baha'u'llah's teachings. Furthermore your belief that Baha'is were the source of violent occurrences in Iran is untrue and is the from Iranian polemical sources which have been discounted by multiple third-party reliable sources. The vast view of the Baha'i Faith is not that it is a Shia group, but an independent religion. You should be aware of Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines which do not allow the use of polemical sources as statements in the Encyclopaedia, and also of undue weight which does not allow for the inclusion of minority views. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the violent occurences, you seem to be right, I misread Babi as Baha'i in an article. However the sources, such as Encyclopedia of Iranica are not 'polemical sources'. It is a source to which a wide range of scholars are contributors, the articles are reviewed. It would be different if the source were the Iranian State News Agency. Perhaps it is irrelevant.Altrafton 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Iranica is not polemical. It also does not speak of the points you mention above. -- Jeff3000 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Altrafton, I think the passage you are referring to is actually by Baha'u'llah, not the Bab. However, it clearly shows Baha'u'llah's views on science. It is from one of Baha'u'llah's Arabic texts called Tajalliat:

The third Tajallí is concerning arts, crafts and sciences. Knowledge is as wings to man's life, and a ladder for his ascent. Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the earth, and not those which begin with words and end with words. Great indeed is the claim of scientists and craftsmen on the peoples of the world. Unto this beareth witness the Mother Book on the day of His return. Happy are those possessed of a hearing ear. In truth, knowledge is a veritable treasure for man, and a source of glory, of bounty, of joy, of exaltation, of cheer and gladness unto him. Thus hath the Tongue of Grandeur spoken in this Most Great Prison. - Baha'u'llah

The original text can be found at this site.

Also, I have to say that claiming that the Baha'i Faith is an hertical sect of Islam is not a good way to start out. It displays an obvious bias. The people editing the article have tried very hard to be as neutral as possible.

- Parsa 06:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to state that Baha'ism in its form today is anything heretical. I am saying it has roots in heretical doctrines, which has been noted by reputable scholars. If this is (above) what appears in Baha'u'llah's work, I shall quote from the Arabic Bayan "Kanat wa Mazalat al-'Ulum tabda' bil-Kallam wa tantahi bil-Kallam dun fa'ida" (The sciences have always been that which begins and ends with speech that is without benefit). If something similar appears in a Baha'i work it would seem logical to conclude that the source (in part) was the Bab's work. This is indeed synthesis if it is my conclusion. I am completely unconcerned with what the Baha'is believe, I find the Baha'i faith today interesting and praiseworthy, however I don't believe that should exclude the faith from historical scrutiny. For such a self described tolerant faith, I find the unwillingness to include verifiable criticism curious. My hostility is to the exculpatory goals of the article, which insulates it from scholarship that does not fit the overall a priori thesis.Altrafton 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Altrafton, we could say that every major faith was "heretical" initially. The people of Mecca thought that Muhammad was denying the religion of their fathers and grandfathers (which in the case of idolatry, he was). They obviously thought he was heretical. Even the Jews of Medina did not think his religion was orthodox, even if it was monotheistic. Likewise, the Pharasees and other Jewish priests and doctors of religion thought Jesus Christ was a heretic. For instance he ignored the law of the sabbath at one time. The same could be said of nearly all prophets and messengers, whether we accept them or not. From the perspective of the Baha'is, Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God, and so was the Bab. So from this point of view they were not heretical, but revealing the will of God for this period of history. It's a matter of belief and perspective. - Parsa 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that is fair enough. I would ask if Wikipedia is in the business of expressing 'belief and perspective' with incomplete information. I notice in the Islam article there is a section on criticism of Islam. The view that Muhammad was influenced by an obscure monastic figure in Damascus, is without a doubt a minority view (which is disregarded by most people who understand the history of Islam). This is logically parallel to describing the origins of Baha'ism as rooted in a heretical Shi'a tradition (regardless of present form). Why is a minority view about Islam acceptable and a so-called minority view of Baha'ism rejected? Why the double standard. I know Islam bashing is the 'in' thing these days but why the obvious hypocrisy? There seems to be an intellectual barrier surrounding this article on Baha'ism. Furthermore the article on the Mormon faith contains a criticism section. Why is it unacceptable to include one here. I understand that the Baha'is are playing on this 'Iran scare' phenomenon. It is without question that Baha'is served the Shah in prominent positions while he was carrying out massacres of innocent people in the streets of Iran. This is not included, nor do I request that it is, because these individuals do not represent Baha'is in general, but the origin of the faith should be held up for scrutiny as other faiths have been on wikipedia. I am asking for equinimity in article construction. Your attempt to create an obfuscation of the issue at hand is pointless. Platitudes like "All religions are heretical" is not helpful. I think every page regarding religion should contain criticism, barring nothing (except what is obvious racism and xenophobia).Altrafton 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

About that, I have no idea where you got that the Baha'i Faith (Not Baha'ism, which is considered offensive to many) started from an Ismali sect, especially when it accepts the 12er Imams. Baha'is have been persecuted in Iran their entire history, the only people who claim that they held high positions in the times of the Shah are Iranian anti-Baha'is. Time and time again have we stated to people that all significant critisism is mentioned, and every one of those people refused to listen and really only seemed to be out to spread anti-Baha'i sentiment. If those people have failed to add unnotable and factually questionable criticisms I really doubt you will succeed. Zazaban 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There were some Baha'is who were trusted officers in the Iranian military. They were loyal and were known as people who were honest and could be trusted. However, the regime of the Shah and Savak were no kinder to Baha'is than the post 1979 regime. In 1955 the government and clergy officially destroyed the National Baha'i Center in Tehran. Look at this web site and you will see the Shah's army officers smiling as they destroy the building, and the grafitti on the ruins of a Baha'i building burned by Savak in Shiraz praising the Shah and denouncing his enemies. - Parsa 05:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Zazaban, regarding the intellectual lineage, it is without question. The Imams are a secondary issue to the other central themes. For instance Mahmoud Pasikhani (founder of Nuqtavi movement) wrote that he was the wahid. Wahid has the numerical value of 19 (when the Arabic letters' numerical values are added up). The Bab divided his Arabic Bayan into 'wahids'. Wahid is never used to mean chapter in Arabic (usually 'bab' 'qasm' or 'fasl'), its only purpose was to signify 19. In the 5th Wahid he writes "We have made the year as 19 months so that you may proceed through it". The term for 'it' the Bab uses is 'wahid'. This is grammatically clumsy, the only reason to use it is to signify the number 19. The Persian sources have the Bab being taught Nuqtavism while imprisoned in Makuh. The Nuqtavis arose from the Hurufi movement (Pasikhani was expelled from the Hurufi movement for arrogance). The Nuqtavis arose in Kashan, an area dominated by Nizari Isma'ilism. The link between Isma'ilism and Hurufism is manifest. Isma'ilism, Hurufism, and Nuqtavism all place heavy (obsessively so) emphasis on numerical interpretation of letters and words (see The Bab's living letters), a cyclical view of time, and an esoteric method of interpretation (batini). This obsession with numerical values (specifically 19) is an Isma'ili theme one which is to be found in The Baha'i faith today (19 months, 19 days of fasting). These ideas are a manifest influences from the Bab upon The Baha'i faith (my apologies for using 'Baha'ism'). There are Baha'i scholars who have confessed the obvious link (Bounami was his name perhaps, I will dig up the article). The Isma'ilis, in their epistemological writings lambasted the philosophers, the same hostility to philosophy (falsafa) is to be found in the Bayan. And if I read the quotation extracted from Baha'ullah above, it seems that this theme is in the Baha'i writings as well. Baha'ullah (if one understands the semantic meaning of the name) is similar to Fazlallah Astarabadi's (founder of Hurufi movement) adopted name Fazl-i zaban (I think) this means (again I am not sure about the exact transliteration) Glory of God. This was adopted in the same fashion the title 'Baha'ullah' was adopted. To deny this link is illogical, whether or not to work into the article (with all relevant citations, which I will be happy to provide in the coming days) is acceptable. Leave the interpretation up to the reader. The article as it appears now is simply propaganda which seems to have been cut and pasted from Baha'i websties. Altrafton 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Al, I can't begin to penetrate this opaque line of reasoning. It has no discernable basis in the Bab's writings or teacings beyond the coincidental appearance of the number 19. That the Bayan also lambasts sophistry likewise doesn't establish any connection. The early Christian Church despised the philosophers. Does this mean that there is a "clear intellectual heritage" from, say, Constantine the Great in Ismaili thinking, or the Bab's?

To make the connection with the Ismailis, you'll have to establish a clear linkage between the Bab's teachings and Ismaili ones. You'll find this almost impossible, except in those cases where they also agree with the Twelvers. Babi's, and Baha'is if pressed, would consider the Ismailis heretics. You can't get to the central theme of the Bab's claim to be the return of the Hidden Imam through an Ismailli train of thought. All that's left are coincidences. MARussellPESE 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, for Wikipedia the discussion of the link between Baha'i origins and Ismaili beliefs based solely on numerical symbolism is a bit obscure. I think the topic of numerical symbolism in the Babi and Baha'i religions is quite interesting. If there were an article on the subject, then it would be appropriate to bring up similarities in other religions, especially those with closer links due to ethnicity and religion. However, it would increase the size of the main article without being a truely essential topic for a basic understanding of the religion. For the main historical discussion, both the Babi and Baha'i religions owe much more to Twelver Shia Islam and Shaykhi beliefs than to Ismaili beliefs. - Parsa 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to illustrate. The link is much more manifest with regards to Hurufi and Nuqtavi doctrines. There are many scholars who have cited Babism as 'neo-Isma'ili Shaykhism, however leaving that aside... The science of the letters is the primary issue, secondary is the numerical obsessions. Both the Hurufis and Nuqtavis saw the numerical and phonemic symbolism in the letters of the (Persian) Arabic alphabet as paramount (see: The Bab's Living Letters). The obsession remains (although perhaps to a lesser degree) in The Baha'i Faith . For instance I believe in the second to last paragraph of the Kitab-i Iqan Baha'ullah writes (likely delineating a name for himself) "The Ba' and the Ha'". There the link remains. The Hurufi movement had a great deal of influence on a number of movements, including the Bektashi sufi order (Anatolia). A certain Balim Sultan (Bektashi poet d.1516) wrote (this is my best attempt at the transliteration of the Turkish):

Istavayi ozler gozum My eyes seek out repose Seb'al-mesani'dir yuzum My face is the oft repeated seven (ie seven ayas of the surat al-fatiha) Ana'l-Hakk'i soyler sozum My words proclaim 'I am the truth' (ie I am God, spoken by al-Hallaj the Sufi in Baghdad) Miracimiz dardir bizim Our ascension is (by means) of the scaffold Haber aldik muhkemattan We have become aware through the firm letters Gecmeyiz zattan sifattan We will not abandon essence or attributes Balim nihan soyler Hakk'tan Balim speaks arcanely of God Irsadimiz sirdir bizim Our teaching is a mystery

(See Bektachiyya, Etudes sur l'ordre mystique des Bektashis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach. Les Editions Isis Istanbul. p. 49)

The simlarities this Bektashi poem shares with any of the Bab's writing can only be attributed to the influence of the Hurufis. Furthermore the esoteric understanding of words (Batini) is another similarity. At the very least (as far as I am willing concede to the state of denial in which the editors seem to cohabitate) I would say the connection to Nuqtavism is plain. Scholars have explicitly said so, the evidence supports this link. The fact that Nuqtavism sprang from Hurufism, in my opinion, provides further linkage, one which I will concede to get the Nuqtavism mentioned. However the idea os a seperate page may be beneficial.

As for the Baha'is serving the Shah, I count 13. Such as PM Hoveyda, General Abdol Karim Ayadi, Gen, 'Ali Mohammad Khademi, and Gen Sani'ee. These specific people were without question, involved in perpetrating the Shah's brutal oplicies of repression and murder. For further information see SAVAK archives Ref. H/765, H8/10871, H/19496, H/15272, H/7779, H/7596, H/14409/ H/6737 (that is off topic however).Altrafton 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, because Baha'is aren't suposed to hold government positions. I have no idea why you're upset at the guy who helped draft the UN declaration of human right either. Sounds to me like you're just trying to make Baha'is look bad. By the way, The Shah's policies were often directed at Baha'is as well. Claiming that they were in high positions is like saying Chirstians had high positions in the Roman empire, or that Jews did in Nazi Germany. It is nonsense. Zazaban 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The accusations that Hoveyda was a Baha'i are untrue and are documented in non-polemical sources; Hoveyda's paternal grandfather was a Baha'i and his father had returned to Islam after being expelled from the Bahá'í community. You can find this information in William Shawcross's book, "The Shah". In fact, Hoveyda, himself, denied that he was a Bahai and asked how could a Muslim wage war against his own god. [1] He actually initiated a whole bunch of anti-Baha'i laws and measures including special taxes on Baha'i properties and the dismissal of many Baha'is from the civil service. [2] Even the Shah states clearly that Hoveyda was not a Baha'i (see Ehsan Naraghi's Inside the Revolution).

As for SAVAK in general and the archives you mention; these are all polemics and propoganda created to spread hatred for the Baha'is, which has been confirmed by multiple United Nations documents and others (for example Affolter in "War Crimes, Genocide, & Crimes against Humanity"). In fact, there are mounds of evidence that SAVAK collaborated with others in persecuting the Baha'is. (among others see Iranica) Former agents of SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, say that government agents provoked anti-Baha'i hysteria to divert reactionary Muslims from turning their fury against the Shah. [3] Others examples include a copy of a letter sent by a secret service official to the director of SAVAK regarding Anjuman-i Tablighat-i Islami (the Islamic Propaganda Organization), dated November 1972 stating that the head of the organization "has requested necessary assistance from SAVAK to attack the Bahá’ís in a reasonable [logical] way". You can also find a similar statement in a letter sent by Parviz Sabeti to Minister of Court, Darbariyyih Ta'sis-i Markaz-iBarayih Maslak-i Zalliyyih Baha'i agreeing that the Anjuman-i Tablighat-i Islami should be allowed to carry out their anti-Bahá’í activities "so long as they do not create public disorder." You can find that information in Sanasarian, "Religious Minorities in Iran". Furthermore, Hojjatieh and SAVAK worked together in their anti-Baha'i agenda. See the Kazemzadeh article published in the New School Social Research Journal. That the popular notion in Iran was that the Baha'is were in high places is no doubt true, but that was because of the propoganda created by those anti-Baha'i policies that are referenced above. -- Jeff3000 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all to the claim that its crazy to say Jews worked in govt. in Nazi Germany is false. There is a new book out by a former US military officer and historian illustrating the Jews who served in the German army (SS as well). I will look into the unending mendacity of the evil Muslims in Iran. Let us not digress. The point was the place of intellectual history information being placed in the article. I just read through several chapters of the Bab's Arabic Bayan. In the course of maybe 6-10 pages the Bab mentions the importance of "The letters" (p.91), that women must be compensated 19 mithqals of gold in the city and 19 of silver in the villages (as dowry), one's wife may be forbidden for him for 19 days (he later contradicts himself saying 19 months), the importance of counting the 19 (ie in a period of 19), he talks about the yawm al-Nuqta (see Nuqtavis), he writes that it is an obligation for a pilgrimage to the maq'ad al-Nuqta (See Nuqtavis){All of these on page 92 alone}, on page 94 he rambles about the Istawa' (The settling upon the Divine throne, this is an obsession of both the Isma'ilis and the Hurufis as well as Nuqtavis), there are 19 signs of His command, he talks about the secret of the command (ie the esoteric interpretation), he writes that it is revealed from 'aynd al-nuqta (from the presence of the source, see Nuqtavis), he says the prayer is abrogated save for 19 from noon until noon, p.95; he writes from the "huruf al-wahid" ('the letters of the one... one=19 numerically), there are 19 pieces of paper from the sheet of paper on high (ie in the presence of the Divine), he writes for who signifies the nuqta (see Nuqtavis) that you (the believers) are unto the "huruf al-Haq" (Letters of the Truth ie God, in exceptionally poor grammar), P.96; the nuqta al-amr (the point of command, see Nuqtavi), regarding prayer he writes take the water you choose and make ablution, then say 19 times 'glory is you Allah that there is no god except thee' and 'glory be to you (ie Allah) that I am from the glorifiers (of God's name), in regards to travel he writes that the one traveling should go to (lit. ascend- 'anzala) a place to rest and prostrate once then affirm the glory of God (one time) then prostrate again and affirm tauhid and then glorify God 18 more times (grand total 19). Every one of his Wahids contains exactly 19 issues (or commands) Add this to the obsession with letters (Huruf) and points {nuqta(t)} and then link is so plain. This is in 5 pages only. If there is any doubt in your mind about this man's intellectual history let alone sanity, please join the Flat Earth Society, they appreciate such loyalty. I will look into the SAVAK documents, I don't put it past a government to forge documents to victimize a minority. Altrafton 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've already asked, would you please actually make an argument that draws something remotely resembling a connection between Ismaili thought and the Bab's teachings beyond the coincidental appearance of the number 19. Until you do so, there's nothing to discuss. MARussellPESE 04:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that the DIRECT evidence is limited, however the DIRECT evidence regarding the Bab and Nuqtavism and Hurufism is manifest. One journal making the link from Hurufism and Nuqtavism "Bektachiyya Etudes sur l'ordre mystique des bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach"Next: Article in Encyclopedia of Islam "Nuqtavism" makes the explicit link between Nuqtavi themes and the Bab. The Arabic Bayan; The similarities are obvious NOT JUST 19, but the 'science of the letters' the 'nuqta' (point) these are all there. If the connection were only 19, it would still be worthy of mention. The Bab is obsessive about the number 19 he mentions it no less that 15 times (explicitly) in the course of 4 pages. This is ridiculous, is this page that dedicated to apologetics? I have listed the sources, I have conceded that it would fall short of Wiki policy to include a direct link to the Isma'ilis. My contention remains that we include AT LEAST the Hurufi and Nuqtavi link. Scholars have made that link explicit. That should be in here or it should be another page with a link to it. Why is it that the editors of this page see the only course of action as semantic dip and dodge tactics? The faith of the editors is clouding their judgement to what counts as evidence. This is pathetic, every other page on religion contains criticism. The criticism of Islam is exponentially more obscure than what I am providing. Even Holocaust denial receives mention on The Holocaust article. Get it together. Altrafton 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but direct evidence is required; otherwise it is WP:OR.

You assert: "My contention remains that we include AT LEAST the Hurufi and Nuqtavi link. Scholars have made that link explicit." But

1. What link? Which scholars? You haven't listed any sources that can be checked. Please see WP:Sources, WP:V, and WP:RS.
2. You haven't shown something extant from the Bab's work that makes the connection. That 5, 9, and 19 are often repeated, doesn't establish a link with the Hurufis. These guys lived for numerology, so I'd expect that there would be more than three numbers important to them. Again: WP:Sources.
3. Your assertion has to do with the Bab. You haven't made the assertion, much less a case, that this has anything at all to do with Baha'i. Shouldn't you take this to the Babi or the Bab's article?

Lastly, your behaving as if the Baha'is are frightened or scared of this "intellectual linkage". What is there to be afraid of if there are similarities to two fifteenth century Sufi sects?

If all your trying to get across here is that there are strong similarites between Baha'i and Sufi thought, then that's a no-brainer. Baha'u'llah wrote several books on these topics. The Seven Valleys, The Four Valleys, Gems of Divine Mysteries, etc.

The fact is that I've never, in thirty plus years as a Baha'i heard of this specific "connection" you're asserting to the Bab. It is not fear that you are facing; it's incredulity. You will really need to make the case, and, unfortunately, you really haven't started to. MARussellPESE 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thought. Trying to draw a line between the Bab (19th century) and the Hurfis (14th century) and Nuqtavis (14th century?) is much like drawing a line between the American Founding Fathers likeThomas Jefferson, and Thomas Aquinas. Jeffersonian thinking is much more informed by an understanding of Locke, Voltaire and Rousseau. An Aquninian connection would be almost impossible to prove as Jefferson doesn't mention him; where he does acknowledge these Enlightenment figures. MARussellPESE 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I reject your analogy. There were instances of Nuqtavis resurfacing in the 19th Century (See Encyclopedia of Islam Nuqtavi article). I would not call the Hurufis and Nuqtavis Sufi orders at all. There were some Hurufi influences upon the Bektashi (ones that remain) order. I have repeatedly stated the terminology and theories in common. The Nuqtavis, the Bab's repeated use of the term nuqta. The repeated use of the theme of the letters. Not to mention the obsession with the number 19. This may be a topic increasingly similar to the one I raised on the Bab page. To compare the Nuqtavis to Thomas Aquinas is ridiculous. The Nuqtavis never had that great of an impact. The fact that they were obscure makes the connection all that more important. I would make the analogy if the founding fathers of the US included 3 themes which were in common with a Nordic group with only a few thousand members. That would be a better analogy. I included a list of sources on the Bab page. Altrafton 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through some of the references you provided on the Bab page, and I see that there are some who say there are some similarities. I will add some content to the Bab page regarding those things, hopefully tonight. They do not, however, have a place in this article, as they are related to the Bab's writings and Babism, and not the Baha'i Faith. -- Jeff3000 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Does the fact that at least one of those themes (I argue more but I will limit it to one) occurs in the Baha'i faith merit a mention or not? If not I will mention it in the upcoming Nuqtavi page. Altrafton 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not unless one can demonstrate a link, not coincidences, to Baha'u'llah's work. MARussellPESE 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not mention it in the Nuqtavi page. If I can cite a certain link I will, until then no. Thanks. Altrafton 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if there is a similarity or link between the Faiths of the Bab and Baha'u'llah with the groups you mention, it can't simply be put into the article as a statement of fact. That's the point we're making. There have to be reliable, verifiable secondary sources to support the statements. I have been visiting many different pages since I've started editing on Wikipedia, and there are far too many articles with unfounded, non-sourced statements (many times the whole article is original research or hearsay). In contrast, this article cites its sources and tries, as much as I've seen anywhere on Wikipedia, to be neutral. - Parsa 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I created a Nuqtavi page. Please read it and help to edit. I left out the Baha'i link although I included the Bab. Altrafton 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

new article over at Phil Lucas

Hope more can contribute! --Smkolins 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Overdoing the notes

I've taken it on myself to cull what I see as redundant notes in some of these articles. [4] I don't think that it's overkill to have a source cited multiple times in an article; but, I don't think it's appropriate to use the same note on consecutive sentences or even in the same paragraph. I think we have that problem here. e.g. the "Covenant" section cites Momen four times in two paragraphs. Nor do I think the Britannica Book of the Year needs fourteen, or Encyclopedia of Religion ten, separate citations. I'd be happy to cull these down, but don't want to without prior notice. MARussellPESE 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; given that this a featured articles, I feel that most statements, especially ones that are not obvious, need to be sourced. That sentences are consecutive I feel is not important in deciding when sentences need a reference, but instead that the sentences have some non-obvious statement that need to be sourced. -- Jeff3000 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not raising this for aesthetic reasons. It is not necessary to footnote each and every point being made. In fact, doing so is very distracting, and in my opinion poor form. As my Strunk & White, and Turabian are hard-copies and difficult to share, I'd like to share these observations from knowledgeable parties:

"Because long explanatory notes can be distracting to readers, most academic style guidelines (including MLA and APA) recommend limited use of footnotes/endnotes; ..."

The Online Writing Lab (OWL) in the English Department at Purdue University [5]

"The overuse of footnotes will make your work laborious to read: a reader who finds herself constantly directed away from your text to consult footnotes will lose the thread of your writing and possibly lose her place altogether. The use of avoidable footnotes is self-indulgent and sloppy, and it is contemptuous of the reader. Academic writers in particular are often guilty of this kind of objectionable behaviour."

The Informatics Department at the University of Sussex [6]

I'm particularly sensitive to the last's comment that overusing these can be "contemptuous" of the reader. It's a sentiment I share.

I've raised serious objections to editors nigh creating whole articles out of about two pages of E.G. Browne's notes and leaving no citation better than the book's title. However, I think we have gone well far to the other extreme. I'd like to see a more moderate approach. At first, I'd strike notes in consecutive sentences, and consolidate notes if possible to the end of a paragraph. A good before-and-after example is the Seven Valleys noted above. MARussellPESE 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. The footnotes that I think that you refer to are when there is more information found in the footnote, and the reader goes there to understand better. These footnotes are just citations, and are not distracting. In my own academic work, any statement that is based on previous work needs a citation, which is different than a footnote, and I don't think there is anything wrong with having more citations; it makes the text stronger. -- Jeff3000 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, could you bring a style guide or something similar to the table that supports your position. I've always considered excessive footnotes bad style: and not just explanatory notes. This is from the USussex notes cited above:

"The second rule about footnotes is also a prohibition:

Do not use a footnote merely to introduce a reference to work which you are citing."

They go on to say this about citing sources:

"There are several other ways of citing references, but they are all highly objectionable and should never be used. A few writers put complete references into the body of the text, which is both distracting to the reader and absurdly inefficient, especially when the same work is cited several times. Very many writers have the bad habit of putting references into footnotes and flagging them just like ordinary footnotes; not only does this practice clutter the page with pointless footnotes, but it wastes the reader's time by constantly sending her off to consult "footnotes" which are nothing but references. Do not use footnotes for references."

The Informatics Department at the University of Sussex [7]

While WP, and I, would disagree with the categorical exclusion of footnote-as-citation stated there, nevertheless it seems pretty clear that one can overdo footnotes-as-citations, as we have in some cases here. Anyone else want to weigh in? MARussellPESE 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that, I would say that all of these are references and not footnotes. On wikipedia, whenever someone sees that link in a paragraph they're expecting it to lead to a reference or citation, not a note. The luxury of marking it with a numbered link instead of a name and date makes it look like a footnote but since it's generally understood to be a reference I think the reference guidlines should apply, in which case I take Jeff's position. -LambaJan 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these are references notes and not true supplementary footnotes (as can be seen in the footnotes to the Dawnbreakers for example). Ideas that need a verifiable source should be referenced unless consecutive sentences are related and from the same source. Otherwise somebody can justifiably read the article and enter a {{fact}} tag. - Parsa 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should remove the 'man u suck' comment!!!