Subh-i-Azal
Subh-i-Azal was an Iranian religious leader and writer who was the second head of the Bābī movement after the execution of the Báb, its founder, in 1850. The Báb named Subh-i-Azal leader of the movement after being the Báb's chief deputy shortly before the execution, and became a generally-acknowledged head of the community after their expulsion to Baghdad in 1852.
The Bāb believed Subh-i-Azal had an ability to write divinely-inspired verses and saw him as a mirror, providing the ability to explain the unexplained, in the time before the appearance of the messiah, known in the Bābī religion as He whom God shall make manifest. However, not all Bābīs followed his authority, and some of them also made claims of their own, including those to the position of the messiah. After his later conflict with his half-brother Baháʼu'lláh, who became Subh-i-Azal's leading intermediary and later claimed the messianic status, over leadership of the Bābī community, his followers became known as Azalis.
At the time of appointment in 1850, he was just 19 years old. Two years later, a pogrom began to exterminate the Bābīs in Iran, and Subh-i-Azal fled for Baghdad for 10 years before joining the group of Bābī exiles that were called to Istanbul. During the time in Baghdad tensions grew with Baháʼu'lláh, as Bābī pilgrims began to turn to the latter for leadership. The Ottoman government further exiled the group to Edirne, where Subh-i-Azal openly rejected Baháʼu'lláh's messianic claim and the community of Bābīs were divided by their allegiance to one or the other.
In 1868 the Ottoman government further exiled Subh-i-Azal and his followers to Cyprus, and Baháʼu'lláh and his followers to Acre in Palestine. When Cyprus was leased to Britain in 1878, he lived out the rest of his life in obscurity on a British pension.
By 1904, Azal's followers had dwindled to a small minority, and Baháʼu'lláh was almost universally recognized as the spiritual successor of the Bāb. After Azal's death in 1912, the Azali form of Bābism entered a stagnation and has not recovered as there is no acknowledged leader or central organization. Most Bābīs either accepted the claim of Baháʼu'lláh or the community gradually diminished as children and grandchildren turned back to Islam. A source in 2001 estimated no more than a few thousand, almost entirely in Iran. Another source in 2009 noted a very small number of followers remained in Uzbekistan.
Name and title
His given name was Yahyā, which is the Arabic form of the English name "John". As the son of a nobleman in the county of Núr, he was known as Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī. His most widely known title, "Subh-i-Azal" is derived from an Islamic tradition called the Hadith-i-Kumayl, a tradition the Bāb quotes in his book Dalā'il-i-Sab'ih.It was common practice for the Bāb to confer titles or new names for his followers. Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī was granted such titles as al-Waḥīd, Ṭalʻat an-Nūr, and ath-Thamara, Everlasting Mirror, Name of Eternity, and Fruit of the Bayan. The title of Subh-i-Azal appears in the 1853 work of Bahāʼu'llāh titled Tablet of All Food.
Background
Subh-i-Azal was born in 1831 to Mīrzā Buzurg-i-Nūrī and his fourth wife Kuchak Khanum-i-Karmanshahi, in the province of Mazandaran. His father was a minister in the court of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar. His mother died while giving birth to him, and his father died in 1839 when he was eight years old, after which he was cared for by his stepmother Khadíjih Khánum, the mother of Baháʼu'lláh.In 1845, at about the age of 14, Subh-i-Azal became a follower of the Bāb after the adoption of the faith by his elder brother.
Early activities in the Bābī community
Subh-i-Azal met Tahirih, the 17th Letter of the Living who had, upon leaving the Conference of Badasht, traveled to Nur to propagate the faith. Shortly thereafter, she arrived at Barfurush and met Subh-i-Azal and became acquainted once again with Quddús who instructed her to take Subh-i-Azal with her to Nur. Subh-i-Azal remained in Nur for three days, during which he propagated the new faith.During the Battle of Fort Tabarsi, Subh-i-Azal, along with Baháʼu'lláh and Mirza Zayn al-Abedin endeavoured to travel there to assist the Bābīs. However, they were arrested several kilometers from Amul. Their imprisonment was ordered by the governor, but Subh-i-Azal escaped the officials for a short while, after which he was discovered by a villager and then brought to Amul on foot with his hands tied. On the path to Amul he was subject to harassment, and people are reported to have spat at him. Upon arriving he was reunited with the other prisoners. The prisoners were ordered to be beaten, but when it came time that Subh-i-Azal should suffer the punishment, Baha'u'llah objected and offered to take the beating in his place. After some time, the governor wrote to Abbas Quli Khan who was commander of the government forces stationed near Fort Tabarsi. Khan replied back to the governor's correspondence, saying that the prisoners were of distinguished families and should not be harassed. Thus, the prisoners were released and sent to Nur upon orders of the commander.
Marriages and children
According to Browne, Mirza Yahya had several wives, and at least nine sons and five daughters. His sons included: Nurullah, Hadi, Ahmad, Abdul Ali, Rizwan Ali, and four others. Rizwan Ali reports that he had eleven or twelve wives. Later research reports that he had up to seventeen wives including four in Iran and at least five in Baghdad. Smith reports that he had "perhaps twenty-five children in all".His granddaughter, Roshanak Nodust, was later known for starting Peyk-e Saadat Nesvan, the first woman's rights magazine in Iran.
Appointment
Subh-i-Azal first came to the attention of the Bāb after receiving letters from Azal, and the two began corresponding. The Nuqtatu'l-Kaf dates this event to the "fifth year of the manifestation ". The amanuensis of the Bāb and a Letter of the Living, Sayyid Ḥusayn Yazdī, described the response of the Bāb to that correspondence in a letter to Subh-i-Azal's amanuensis, Mullā ʿAbd al-Karīm Qazvīnī, as such: "All that might be sent after this after the writings of that Eternity, that peacock of the primal heaven, whether in your hand or the hand of God shall be much appreciated by his holiness the Loved One." The Bāb himself also expressed his appreciation on his own: "Sent me whatever shines forth of the writings of Azal, for we love them." In Kitab-i-Panj Sha'n, a late work of the Bāb, Subh-i-Azal is identified with the return of Imām Husayn and referred to as "the Fruit that ripened in the year six".Shortly before the Bāb's execution, the Bāb wrote letters and entrusted them to Mullā ʿAbd al-Karīm to deliver to Subh-i-Azal and Bahāʼu'llāh. Both Azalīs and Bahāʼīs later interpreted these letters as proof of the Bāb's delegation of leadership to the two brothers. In his letter to Subh-i-Azal, the Bāb instructs him to: "preserve himself, then preserve himself, then what has been sent down in the Bayān, then what is sent from him," and to "recite of the verses of his Lord what God will inspire into his heart as a remembrance on His Part." Bahāʼu'llāh is instructed by the Bāb to protect Subh-i-Azal and the "verses treasured up within him." According to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, the Bāb did this to divert attention from Bahāʼu'llāh, and that it was suggested by the latter in an accord with the Bāb. This is a popular explanation of the matter for the Bahāʼīs, though it has faced ethical objections.
In the period immediately following the Bāb's execution, multiple various claims to authority emerged, and Bābīs did not initially unite around Subh-i-Azal's leadership. At some point, Azal became the recognized leader, and remained so for about 13 years. Sayyid Ḥusayn Yazdī actively promoted the succession of Subh-i-Azal after the death of the Bāb. In a letter to ʿAbd al-Karīm Qazvīnī, he alludes to the appearance of Azal as "the appearance of your lord in the ripe fruit", and in another letter, he instructs Ḥājj Ṣulaymān Khān Tabrīzī that "whenever verses are revealed from the heaven of azaliyyat, enclose them with your own letters."
Controversy
The nature of his role has been the subject of debate due to conflicting sources. Warburg states that, "It seems likely that Subh-i-Azal was designated to be the Bab's successor", and MacEoin states that, the Bāb regarded him as "his chief deputy" and the "future head of the movement" while Cole concludes he was a “first among equals”. The nature of that appointment differs according to which sources are believed. In particular, there is a dispute regarding whether Subh-i-Azal was permanently designated as the Bāb’s successor or merely appointed, as the Bahā’īs officially assert, as a protective measure for Bahā’u’llāh.The conflicting accusations, claims, and counter-claims of Azalī and Bahāʼī sources make it difficult to reconstruct an objective narrative of the splitting of the Bābī community into these two groups, one of which came to dominate and expand, while the other became almost defunct. Academic reviews are generally critical of the official Bahāʼī positions on the split; for example Edward Granville Browne, Denis MacEoin, and A. L. M. Nicolas. Notably, Browne and Nicolas both had extensive correspondence with Subh-i-Azal.
Subh-i-Azal in contemporary sources of early Bābī history
studied the Bābī movement in Iran and translated many primary sources from 1890 to 1920. One of these, Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf, was of particular interest regarding the appointment of Subh-i-Azal. Its publication was encouraged by Muhammad Khan Qazvīnī, a Shi'ite scholar. Browne enquired Azal about its authorship, who attributed it to Hājī Mīrzā Jānī, a Bābī who died in 1852. A similar manuscript, written by Mīrzā Ḥusayn Hamadānī, claimed to be based on the work of Hājī Mīrzā Jānī and circulating among Bahāʼīs, was Tarikh-i-Jadid. This version lacked extra text supportive of Subh-i-Azal's authority. In his introduction to its publication, Browne attacked the Bahāʼīs for trying to rewrite history. Later scholarship showed that the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf was circulating among Bahāʼīs, it wasn't being suppressed, and some material in it postdated the death of its assumed author.Denis MacEoin made a detailed analysis of the question in his The Sources for Early Babi Doctrine and History, summarized here by Margit Warburg:
In 2004, William McCants and Kavian Milani published their finding of an early manuscript of the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf dated to the year 1268 AH that contains only minor differences from the version published by Browne, despite the latter being based on a much later manuscript dated 1327 AH. Four years later, Milani uncovered two even earlier manuscripts, both written during the life of Mirza Jani, and both missing the extended sections on Subh-i-Azal present in the 1852 manuscript and Browne's edition. Based on his discoveries, Milani concludes that the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf is an early history finalized in 1852, written by multiple authors.