Wikipedia

Talk:Baháʼí Faith

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tomhab (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 30 January 2005 (→three wives (concurrently)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 21 years ago by Rboatright in topic Independent religions
Learn more about this page

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Are Babists who didn't accept Bahaullah?

You know, it had never occurred to me - are there Babists who didn't accept Bahaullah? What grounds did he give for them to accept his revelation? What was the reaction in Islam?

I've examined the Bahai faith to some considerable extent, and as a personal opinion, if I was ever going to belong to an organised religion, this would be the one. A damn fine bunch of people.

As far as Babi's go, there was a small number who rejected Baha'u'llah, I don't remember their fate exactly, but they are written about in the book "God Passes By" by Shoghi Effendi. When Baha'u'llah died he specifically instructed that the Faith was to be led by his son "Abdul'Baha", but when Abdul'Baha passed away he left instructions for the Faith to be administered by his grandson Shoghi Effendi. When Shoghi Effendi died, he passed authority to an elected body called the "universal House of justice". A guy called Mason Remy declared in contrary that he was to be the ruler of the faith from then on, and he attracted a handful of followers, less than a few hundreds (compared to several million Baha'is). I considered including them in the article, but decided against it as they are such a tiny minority - it would also create a precedent for including every minute fringe group under every religion article.

His grounds for accepting his revelation were that he fulfilled prophecy in both the Bible and the Koran. The reaction by the Islamic faith was savage to say the least, the Baha'is have been persecuted and executed en masse ever since the 1860's. Over 100 000 Baha'is have fled Iran since the Islamic revolution, specifically to Canada and Australia (both countried passing resolutions condemning Iran for its treatment of the Bahai's).

You know, after all this comment, a lot of the above probably belongs in the article... some more research is needed (to validate some of my statements) before it goes in as "the facts". - MMGB

Manning, I'm afraid the precedent has been set and that we have the gnostics being presented as Christians, not to mention entries on every/some other group under the sun! Yep, the persecution does, explicitly (I remembered that, though not clearly), as does the architectural style (which is neat). I think you turned a sentence around - not his grounds for accepting his revelation, but theirs is what I was after. If the Bab was dead, who validated Bahaullah as the Promised One? --MichaelTinkler
He did I guess, and the Babi's accepted him. Apparently there was a fairly general consensus that he was the "one" even before he personally announced it in 1863. According to the Baha'i history I have read, Baha'u'llah was in prison in a place called the "Siyah Shal" which was a sewer where they chained up dissendents and he was told of his destiny "by God" in the late 1840's. (The Bab was executed by firing squad in 1844).
I think there is a difference between the Gnostics (who have a fairly significant number of believers in the Middle East and an established literature) and a fringe group such as the "Orthodox Baha'is". A better comparison would be with the "Potters of God" who I sincerely hope are not included under the article for Christianity. The may deserve their own article (again, questionable due to their size, they only have two web pages,both by the same guy) (BTW - I have revised some of my statements above after doing a bit of research) - MMGB

(a huge discussion about Gnostics and Chrisitanity was cut out and moved to talk:Christianity)

Maybe the Orthodox Baha'is deserve a page as well, but frankly there is so little evidence of their existence. I've been searching the web pretty hard and I'm almost willing to revise my estimate of membership down - there is a "Society of Indian OB" which seems to have 2 members, another in Australia which seems to have 1, and an American "National council" which only mentions 3 names. Their webpages make them out to be much more significant, but close examination doesn't bear this out. - MMGB
Ain't web-presence a wonderful thing? You used to have to have people who would stand on corners and pass out brochures to have a decent cult! I agree that gnosticism should be an autonomous thing, not a subset of Christianity. It is needling to the Christians and condescending to the Gnostics to not take seriously their differences. --MichaelTinkler

I think Mason Remy should be mentioned. Sure, his following was small, but he seems to be reasonably well known (or at least, this isn't the first time I've ever heard his name mentioned). We have no shortage of space to write on religious groups. And its not as if the Remy was just some lone individual setting up his own religion in his backyard. -- SJK

Someone added what looks like a cut and paste job from a usenet FAQ. Did they have permission? Else it should be deleted. (And even if they have permission, it needs to be seriously reworked if we are to retain it...) -- SJK

Where on earth did that come from? Have you seen a usenet FAQ that this looks like it was cut from? Maybe someone just wrote a decent article. (Later - oops, ignore that, I checked past history and I see what you meant now - MMGB

Article said: "The Bahá'í Faith also holds a (non-voting) seat at the United Nations." What on earth is that talking about? It sounds to me like it is claiming they are permanent observers to the General Assembly, but they are not. If all it means is that they are in consultative status with the Economic and Social Committee, it should say that. (And that isn't that big a deal -- thousands of organizations have that status.) -- SJK

Well why don't you research it, find out the actual state of affairs and put that in, rather than deleting something and complaining about it here. And a side comment meant nicely, this "delete and whine" behaviour is quite out of character for you, Simon - having a bad day? :) Manning

Sorry... actually I've got a end-of-year exam tommorow for one of my uni courses, natural language processing... :) -- SJK

fair enough Simon - I was just a bit surprised, you're normally much more cheerful :) Good luck with the exam. - MMGB

I cut out the Orthodox stuff... again! There are barely a handful of OB's in the world, and it misrepresents this religion of 5 million members to give a fringe group of a few hundred equivalent coverage. The page acknowleges the orthodox group, and links to the relevant page. Little else is needed. I'm not a Baha'i and don't particularly care about the issues under dispute, but it's a bit like putting "Polesitters of Christ" and Catholicism on equal footing. - User:MMGB

The opening sentence read that "The Baha'i faith is the world's newest major religion". As the history and the number of followers is discussed extensively elsewhere, I edited it to something hopefully a little less potentially controversial . --User:Robert Merkel

Had to reintroduce (MMGB) had agreed I think that a link to the Orthodox Bahai article would be appropriate. now link has been removed. So reintroduced link for promotion of the NPOV.

The Bábí Faith has its own scriptures and religious teachings, but its duration was very short. Are there not still Bábísts who believe that their Messiah has not yet arrived? Or are they what we are calling the Orthodox Bahai? -- Zoe

There are not independent Babi's who have not accepted Baha'u'llah. The Babi religion was ruthlessley suppressed in Iran in the 1860's and the seat of growth and development moved to Israel with the expulsion of Baha'u'llah to Acca. That said, this probebly belongs in the artcle too. Baha'u'llah's half-brother Mirza-Yahya was appointed by the Bab during his lifetime to be the formal head of the Babi religion until "him whom God shall make manifest" appeared "in the year 9" even before the Bab's death, Baha'u'llah was commonly accepted as the successor and for all practical purposes the Babi religion "rolled over" into the Baha'i religion. If I could come up with a good way to say that, I would put it in the article itself. The whole section on beliefs needs serious editing and I'll try to get to that soon.
rboatright

I did a pretty substantial edit and re-write of the section on beliefs. It still needs a LOT of work, but I have reduced the repetativeness, imposed some order on the chaotic order of that section, edited for NPOV as much as I can in one evening, and am thinking about how to fix the rest.

I have a question tho. At what point in a long article like this do you break into either sub pages, or reffered pages? Is this one approaching "break it up" size? I don't have a sense of how long a "long" article is for the wikipedia. Rboatright 07:12 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Nowadays, there is a notice when you open the edit box that says how long it is if it is over 32 kbs, the size at which some browsers have trouble editing. Above 20 kbs, it is worth considering if there is a convenient cut-off point but there is no hard and fast rule. If you want to see the warning when you click on edit this page, see Grammy Hall of Fame Award; this page doesn't have one, but a break-up may prove worthwhile if you can think of a good way of splitting up the information. Tuf-Kat
Ok, thanks - a break up is probebly in the offing then, 'cause this is confusing and unworkable. a one or two screen page with links to [bahai theology] and [bahai religious practice] and [bahai administration] and so forth, and moving the narrative from this page to the *EXISTING* pages for Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha with one paragraph summeries here would make an intro here far more useful and readable I think. Argh, now what have I said? As though I don't have anything USEFUL to do with my life.  :-) Rboatright

Um, I didn't do this, but the last "vandalism" brings up an important issue. Although it is not so prominent at this page, it is quite disproportionate I would say at other pages to give these miniscule splinter groups as was removed such prominent attention by allowing them to be listed everywhere. Would it be considered appropriate to have "See David Koreish" at every mention of Christianity? The numbers of such a group as just removed here are described by outside sources as being very small. This issue is particularly important given that the focal point of the Bahá'í Faith is unity and its clear Successorship which can deliver on that unity, at least for those who accept its provisions. The provisions are unambiguous, at least to the vast majority of those who either accept the (mainstream) Bahá'í Faith as is or those who might be inclined to leave or not join it. It is certainly not appropriate to suppress or vandalize the right of people to put up their own page in a proper venue (as on its own page if people want to create such a page), but I would say it is also not reasonable to have its references populated everywhere. - Brettz9 05:57 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

To give some examples of being populated disproportionately, see Bab, Bábís, Kitab-i-Aqdas, Bahaullah, Bab, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi to name a few

From User talk:AdamRaizen

I noticed your work on moving "Baha'i Faith" to "Baha'i faith". As I understand it, "faith" is part of the name of the religion in this case, and so should be capitalised. I've checked a couple of reference books, and the Baha'i web site and they use this format. Would you object to me changing it back again? Regards -- sannse 09:23 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, I thought I was making it conform with the naming conventions. Go ahead and change it back. -- AdamRaizen

end of moved text

I added back "brief" for years (while removing the redundant "only") because "only" can have a negative connotation here, as if the short period of time was somehow inadequate. It is a common linguistic phenomenon, accepted by linguists, that adjectives might not apply to the noun to which it is attached in a literal, exact manner (e.g., "short temper" does not mean the temper itself is short, but its time to onset). Here "brief" is particularly significant because to Bahá'ís, the short ministry of the Báb, preceding the coming of Bahá'u'lláh, both considered independent "Twin" Manifestations of God, testifies to the potency of this new Age. - Brettz9 18:37 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Baha'i Clothing?

Unless I am mistaken some or all Baha'i wear special clothing, which for men consists of a tailored all-white long sleeved shirt and pants with matching hat. Could someone provide some background on the Baha'i doctrine on this clothing?

There is no such thing as Baha'i clothing. I say this with reasonable certainty, sitting here in a plaid shirt and blue cotton slacks with no hat. I have been a Baha'i for 30 years, my daughter served in Haifa at the Baha'i World Center, and I noticed no distinctive dress there. As a matter of fact, at the recent dedication of the Baha'i terraces in Haifa the camera dwelled on the utter diversity of clothing in the crowd. Baha'i teaches that we should celebrate our cultural diversity. National dress, and cultural dress is constantly celebrated in Baha'i meetings and events. Being from Kansas, saddly, my national dress typically consists of button down shirts and plaid shirts.  :-) But no, there is no such thing as Baha'i Clothing. Rboatright 28 Aug 2003

Orthodox Baha'i Faith editwar

Belief Net rules require a neutral point of view when discussing topics. This is often times hard for us when we hold passionate viewpoints, however, I have had to change the wording somewhat on the link which was at first dropped and then changed to refer to another belief as "small, marginal and dissedent" this is not neutral, I persaonlly can live with small, but when addign the other color words to it, it intends to denigrate the group Orthodox Baha'i and is against belief net policy.

Well, a link to the Orthodox Baha'i Faith _belongs_ on this page. Now, based on best available estimates, their total membership WORLDWIDE is under 200, but still, as the most prominent dissident group on the web, they deserve mention, if only because people WILL encounter them in searches and stuff.
So, I agree with having the page there. I _do_think "small" might be appropriate ,but I'll live with the wording as it is.
Rick Boatright
Recently deleted by Anon without a summary. --Menchi 00:57, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Recently re-added to preserve a neutral point of view, I also have left the word small in. This tends to happen quite often getting beyond coinsidence isnt it? multiman

Well well the fellow just does nto udnerstand how wikipedia works, so restoring again as wekpedia does call for a neutral point of view and not deleting referencs to other articles where they are applicable. It can ultimately get you kicked off.

added it back in _again_ It's getting really old editing the OBF back in and in, and I _hate_ those people. Oh well, one of the burdons I suppose. Rick Boatright 11/27/2003


Well it is edited out again, I am editing it back in so have you more than once, how can we report this retard who just doesnt seem to get the rules about editing out refernces? Oh by the way sorry to hear about your hatred, but we all bear burdens.  :-) multiman

Yes, it is. You know, from where I sit, it's a fairly simple case of heresy.  :-) But that doesn't mean it isn't _real_. We have to deal with that every day on usenet. Why would people want to try to erase the existance of something. If it _is_ a heresy, the simplest thing to do is to EXPOSE that. this constant effort to hide them just calls attention to their cause. Arrrrrggghhhh anyway, thanks MM Rick Boatright 01DEC2003


Thanks for the re-edit, I also contacted Jimmy Wales about it to see what could be done if it continues. Read your edit comments, please make such a proposal, I really dont think CGd gets it and who ever the IP address fellow is, both seem to be doing it unless they are one and the same. They also saw fit on 2 other pages to make these revisions in the name of NPOV. I cut some slack for a while since I had some trouble myself int he early days on wikipedia understandign what was meant by NPOV, but my patiece is wearing thin. Again, while we may not agree I appreciagte you intellectual honesty. Multiman


Just took a look at latest revision which again removes the link to OBF,I therefore reverted back to the earlier article which has link, in order to preserve NPOV and eliminate possible link terrorism multiman 13Jan04

Small question. If you look in the Christianity article, you'll notice that whenever Christ is referred to in the third person, there's never a capital. However, for Babi, there is. Shouldn't this be standardised? I am (very, very) mildly put out that while people will give this mark of respect to one founder of a religion, they won't to another--and of course, it's not really very NPOV. Either small-letters Babi, i.e. he, him, his; or capitalise Jesus (He, Him, His). After all, Christians hold Jesus in at least as high regard as Baha'ists hold Babi and Bahaullah! Wooster 15:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well Baha'is at least certainly wouldn't have a problem with pronouns referring to Jesus being capitalized--as we do it ourselves for Him! The articles here depend on the whim of those editing the pages, I would say (unless you want to suggest to the powers-that-be here that some strict policy be made about it). On the one hand, religionists (or protagonists of a specific Faith tradition) feel that their view of a Divine Being is perfectly "neutral" view to hold (or more accuratley, an objective view), and they do not want to be disrespectful or apologetic of their beliefs by writing as if they did not believe it. However, I think most reasonably-minded people (at least of Faith) would realize that at a website such as this, that even though they may capitalize pronouns themselves in their writing, they are not going to get upset if other people of a different mindset--especially if it is a majority opinion--wish to change them. So, unless there is a specific policy about it, go ahead and make a change, if you wish, at either site and see what kind of reaction you get!  :) Brettz9 03:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Independent religions

Latest comment: 21 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bahá'í Faith is the second most widespread of the world's independent religions

I don't understand this-- what's an independent religion? Marnanel 05:52, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Baptists are a variety of christianity, not an independent religion. Ditto methodists &c. 12ver Islam, is a variety of Shia Islam, which is a peer to Sunni Islam which has a sub-sect of Wahabi Islam. But Islam is independent of Christianity or Judeism despite being decendent from them as Abrahamic religions. Similarly the Baha'i faith is not a sect of Islam as some persian clerics contend (a 12ver heresy), but is an independent religion. Rick Boatright 22:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion for a new opening paragraph.

Suggested new first paragraph

The original is straight out of Bahá'í literature and rather overplayed itself. I've tried to keep the facts. I would appreciate comments as I don't often contribute. So here it is, the suggested new paragraph:

"The Bahá'í Faith is a monotheistic religion, whose members follow the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, their prophet founder. The Bahá'í Faith is established in 236 countries and territories throughout the world, leading some people to claim that it is the second most widespread religion in the world. The only place where it doesn't have a presence is in the State of the Vatican City. Many followers live in the Middle East, especially Iran and Iraq. Worldwide 6 million followers come from over 2,100 ethnic, racial, and tribal groups. Bahá'í Scriptures have been translated into 802 languages."

"leading some people to claim that it is the second most widespread religion in the world.", this is actually a fact and not just what some people claim. "Many followers live in the Middle East, especially Iran and Iraq. " well, the 3 countries with most Bahai´s are India, Iran and USA. i think we should keep the current first paragraph. or at most add a few things (like the countries with more followers) - --Cyprus2k1 06:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The claim that it is the most widespread religion is presented as fact without any evidence. It would be good to see some stats on the number of believers in each state/country. If this means that they are organised enough to have a postal address in every town, we should know about it. It would also be good to know where the majority of the believers lived.

as i said above, the majority of believers live in (by order) India, Iran and USA., "The claim that it is the most widespread religion is presented as fact without any evidence." it doesnt say its the most widespread religion, it say its the SECOND most widespread religion, it also says "The Bahá'í Faith is the SECOND most widespread of the world's independent religions IN TERMS OF COUNTRIES IN WICH IS REPRESNTED". - --Cyprus2k1 09:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Update: just checked www.adherents.com wich claims that the countries with most bahais are India, USA, Iran http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_bahai.html , about the number of bahais, the figure most provided in current Baha'i publications is 6.5 milion, however in 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica reports 7.67 million, the reason for this is that the Bahai World Center refuses to "play games" of artificialy inflacting the number of believers, also notice that no one is "born" bahai, one can only become a bahai at age 15 or older and if it so wishes to. --Cyprus2k1 09:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have read what you write and I have also had a quick look at the sources.

Before I continue this discussion I would like to ask what your relationship is with the Bahá'í Faith. It would also be good, although perhaps intrusive, to ask what your faith is.

For your information, by heritage I am protestant Christian. By belief, humanist atheist, (whatever that means!)

I´am , as you can see in my user page a Bahai, but i dont see how that has any relevance to the discussion (or maybe your just curious :) ). anyway, the Baha'i Faith is the SECOND most (and not THE most) widespread religion in the world acording to Encyclopedia Britanica (and also the Bahai World Center). so i guess we could change, "acording to Encyclopedia Britanica" - --Cyprus2k1 14:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
btw, plese leave your signature.. --Cyprus2k1 14:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Problem

I noticed that Bahalluah is referred to in the 'proper pronoun' sence as in "He formally announced His mission to His family " Is there actually precident to do this? I am reading this article as a curious third party and the use of the 'proper pronoun' instantly told me that the writer is a follower of the faith. The rest of the text is factual and informative though (like others I would like to see some qualification for the "second most wide-spread religion claim"... as in how the spread of a religion is counted).

The text made me think that followers consider Bahalluah as the latest (final?) in a string of prophets from Moses to Jesus to Mohammed... etc.. and I dont think the proper pronoun would be used in referring to any of them.

I recommend to just use the lowercase form in the article.

-anonymous user 6-29-2004

Well, it is the case that Baha'i do tend to uppercase pronouns when refering to Baha'u'llah. But then, we tend to upper case pronouns when refering to Mohammed, Jesus, The Buddha, Zoroaster, & Etc. Moslems do the same thing. I note that christians are inconsistant in this matter. It really bothers you? Rick Boatright 23:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
about the seccond most widespread please see the section above. Baha´is consider Baha'u'llah to be the most recent but not the last of the manifestations of God. - --Cyprus2k1 13:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I raised this earlier this year (see discussion here a little further up) and was revisiting some old contributions to see what had happened afterwards (yeah, I know it takes a while...) I looked up policy, to see if there was one on this issue, and, as I suspected, there is.
The Manual of Style has a section on this very issue. Officially, Bahaullah and the others aren't meant to be referred to with capitals for pronouns. I guess someone with the will and the time could knuckle down and make sure we've got an article which is consistent here.
For the record, it doesn't offend me particularly, although I could well understand the reaction of someone who was offended. I was rather surprised to notice the discrepancy, and that's really my motivation for bringing this up. My concern is that the 'Pedia be seen to be being consistent in its usage--and this is an area where I would feel more strongly than some others. Wooster 17:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This just in. I decided to have a bash at making this article consistent with policy (frankly, I wonder whether it wouldn't be less hassle to make policy consistent with this article and give the folks over at Christianity what for...). I hope I got it right. If it was in quote marks, I left it. I decapitalised He, Him, His, Father, Grandfather. Probably a Himself, too. I didn't do Guardian or Messenger. I toyed with One and decided against it--The_Matrix being a precedent : ) Wooster 14:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Punishments for Arson and other crimes.

Well, the listed punishment for arson was certainly partially correct... the below from "Lights of Guidance"

1198. Penalty for Arson -- Laws for a More Evolved Society
"As regards the question you raised about the penalty for arson in the Aqdas, the penalty for arson is burning or life imprisonment; in other word the same penalty as for first degree murder.
"We must not question this, but studying the Bahá'í Faith and its Teachings in their entirety, realize that the Law of God for this Day is a healing for the nations, and that, at a future period when a purely Bahá'í society exists and these laws can be enforced, humanity may have reached a much higher point to evolution than at present, and the mere threat of them may be sufficient in most cases to protect the Community and protect the law from being broken."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, February 15, 1957)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 357)

as to branding homosexuals, that is simply false, period... There is NO MENTION of branding as a punishment in Baha'i literature except to DISCLAIM it, not to impose it. The following from "Messages of the Universal House of Justice 1963 - 1986" explains:

251.4d 3. The punishments prescribed for theft, murder and arson are given only in barest outline. It is explained in Note 42 on page 64 of the Synopsis and Codification that these punishments are intended for a future condition of 450 society and will have to be supplemented and applied by the Universal House of Justice. The punishment for theft, for example, says that for the third offence a mark must be placed on the thief's forehead (nothing is said about branding), so that people will be warned of his proclivities. All details of how the mark is to be applied, how long it must be worn, on what conditions it may be removed, as well as the seriousness of various degrees of theft have been left by Bahá'u'lláh for the Universal House of Justice to decide when the law has to be applied. Similarly, merely the fundamental principles of the punishments for murder and arson are given in the Kitáb-i- Aqdas. Wilful murder is to be punished either by capital punishment or life imprisonment. Such matters as degrees of offence and whether any extenuating circumstances are to be taken into account, and which of the two prescribed punishments is to be the norm are left to the Universal House of Justice to decide in light of prevailing conditions when the law is in operation. Arson, as you yourself can see from the newspapers, is becoming an increasingly frequent offence -- scarcely a day passes without some building being burned or blown up, often causing agonizing death to innocent people. Bahá'u'lláh prescribes that a person who burns a house intentionally is to be burned or imprisoned for life, but again, the application of these punishments, the method of carrying them out and the fixing of degrees of offence are left to the Universal House of Justice. Obviously there is a tremendous difference in the degree of the offence of a person who burns down an empty warehouse from that of one who sets fire to a school full of children.
(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 449)

As to your other edit, Cyrpus, Baha'is ARE obliged to support the faith with Material Offerings....

"And as the progress and extension of spiritual activities is dependent and conditioned upon material means, it is of absolute necessity that immediately after the establishment of Local as well as National Spiritual Assemblies, a Bahá'í Fund be established, to be placed under the exclusive control of the Spiritual Assembly. All donations and contributions should be offered to the Treasurer of the Assembly, for the express purpose of promoting the interests of the Cause, throughout the locality or country. It is the sacred obligation of every conscientious and faithful servant of Bahá'u'lláh who desires to see His Cause advance, to contribute freely and generously for the increase of that Fund..."
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 32)

But, that means giving money to the fund not burning sacrifices on the alter. Also, let us not forget the Huquq.....

18. The minimum amount subject to Huququ'lláh is reached when ones possessions are worth the number of Vahid (19); that is, whenever one owneth 19 mithqals of gold, or acquireth possessions attaining this value, after having deducted therefrom the yearly expenses, the Huquq becometh applicable and its payment is obligatory.
(Compilations, Huququ'llah)

Rick Boatright 18:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

im interested in knowing where 148.188.128.36 "learned" such things, as they are partial correct, but twisted , maybe he made it up, or who told him did.
1. as for the penalty for arson, is true but doesnt tell the "whole story"(as we can check in Shoghi Effendi letter above) probably on purpose to make a negative impression.
2. as for branding of homosexuals, this is clearly false, i think that this was twisted from the punishments prescribed for theft..
3. as for the Material Offerings thing, i think this was taken (twisted) from the Babi faith since "to offer priceless gifts to its founder" was a Babi Law (i think), but its not a Bahai law (the Aqdas abolishes it). anyway, it says "to contribute FREELY and generously for the increase of that Fund...", this contribution is a duty, but not a real obligation, Rboatright, if you are a bahai, you know that NO ONE will ever come to you saying "if you dont offer something you are not a bahai anymore", in fact this kind of thing (pressure) is forbiden, pratices of plates going around asking (pressuring) for funds as we can see in some churches are also forbiden.
Huququ'llah came to appliance by the Universal House of Justice some time ago, but for now, its still up to each Bahai to pay it or not, no one imposses anything...
anyway, 1. and 2.(on theft) are Bahai "State" Law, and not "Spiritual" Laws and ordinances, so they shouldnt be there anyway. if someone wants to create a article about Bahai "State" Law, good luck (it will require a lot of work) :) - --Cyprus2k1 19:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Schism section

Oh, hi Rick Boatright. Obviously, those minority orthodox bahai' sect being "covenant breakers" who "attack" the bahai faith is POV of the majority sect. Obviously if you follow majority sect, such POV is a fact/truth but this site is not the place to make such claim. I tried to make more proper attribution of such POV in this regard. As long as POV is correctly attributed, I have no problem. Also, if someone within the faith breaks away and forms another group, that would fall into the linguistic definition of schism. To say "some would claim a schism of the Bahá'í Faith has occurred" is going bit too far away from NPOV policy of this site. IMO, the correct attribution would be to state that for theological reason, some Bahai faithfuls deny such schism ever occured. Well, as for my POV, the quote made in the section seems to imply that prevention of schism is conditional to "the ordination and appointment of the Centre of the Covenant". But that seems to be the whole point of the Ramey thingy and this site is not the place to "judge" such matter. However, if anyone can explain the controversy, that would be a definite contribution to this site. FWBOarticle

Excommunicated vs. expelled

Hi, I'm Jonathan Menon and I am a Canadian living in Italy. I have just found Wikipedia and made a couple of changes today, including changing the word "excommunicated" to "expelled". In my opinion the term "excommunicated" is a very "loaded" word, carrying a great deal of residual assumptions with it from its history in the Catholic church, one of which is the power of the Pope and the way that power has been exercised over the centuries. Of course, the very definition of power in the Faith and the use of authority by the Institutions of the Faith, is very different from this particular reading. "Expelled" has less baggage with it, and I thought it would be more appropriate.

I also have some other things to add, which I will do over the next while.

I would like to see this article become a featured article, and am willing to help in achieving that.

Best wishes,


Jonathan

Jmenon 08:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About capitalization, reaching consensus

The article seems to be bouncing back and forth between capitalizing and not capitalizing the pronouns (or should I say Pronouns :-) ). It appears that the advocates for capitalization are mainly Bahá'ís who feel that capitalization denotes a proper level of respect for the central figures of the Bahá'í Faith and that, in some but not all cases, the non-capitalization position seems to be taken by others within the Wikipedia audience who feel that capitalization is either unnecessary, inappropriate, or not in line with the general preferences of the Wikipedia audience. In the hopes of coming to some final consensus on this, I would like to address this comment mainly to the former group. This concerns how, in my personal reading experience, pronoun capitalization is used in other Bahá'í publications.


In the authorized English translations of the writings of the Bahá'í Faith, and in the English letters of Shoghi Effendi if memory serves, the pronouns are generally capitalized. (This should be checked in the documents Shoghi Effendi addressed to the League of Nations and in connection with the official recognition of the Faith at the United Nations, since these may not be capitalized. One of these passages can be found on the inside back cover of any issue of the Journal of Bahá'í Studies, but I don't have one handy.)


However, in the contemporary letters of the Universal House of Justice both approaches are used. For example, in the Peace Message of 1985, one of the first documents to be addressed to the Peoples of the World, the pronoun (he) referring to Bahá'u'lláh is NOT capitalized. In letters to the Bahá'í community, it usually is. In the more recent letter to the world's religious leaders (April 2002), any use of the pronouns referring to Bahá'u'lláh appears to have been avoided, as it seems to have been in the Prosperity of Humankind statement (1994). However, in the April 2002 letter God, the Divine, etc., are capitalized, although I cannot find the use of the pronoun in this sense.


It seems to me that this difference of usage depends on the context of the communication, or the different audience that is being addressed. When a communication is addressed primarily to Bahá'ís or within the context of a religious dialogue with a recognized religious audience, the pronouns tend to be capitalized. This is also the case when referring to any of the founders of the major religions, such as Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. When a more general or non-religious audience is addressed, capitalization is often avoided.


Such variances in how capitalization is used, even within writings of the same author or institution, should not come as a surprise to Bahá'ís since, in several important works, Bahá'u'lláh emphasizes the importance of paying careful attention to the outlook and perceptions of the particular audience with whom one is communicating at any particular time. For example:

Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-89.html#pg176


Referring directly to the above comment by Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá emphasizes the point as follows:

Such is the consummate wisdom to be observed in thy pursuits. Be not oblivious thereof, if thou wishest to be a man of action under all conditions. First diagnose the disease and identify the malady, then prescribe the remedy, for such is the perfect method of the skilful physician.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAB/sab-215.html#pg269


In another place, Bahá'u'lláh writes

Every word is endowed with a spirit, therefore the speaker or expounder should carefully deliver his words at the appropriate time and place, for the impression which each word maketh is clearly evident and perceptible. The Great Being saith: One word may be likened unto fire, another unto light, and the influence which both exert is manifest in the world. Therefore an enlightened man of wisdom should primarily speak with words as mild as milk, that the children of men may be nurtured and edified thereby and may attain the ultimate goal of human existence which is the station of true understanding and nobility."
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/TB/tb-12.html#pg172


From a Bahá'í perspective, then, a few important points emerge.

  • First, it does not appear that we need to worry about belittling the figures being referred to by using small letters in pronouns, since this usage is common in official communications to particular audiences.
  • Second, since the audience of the Wikipedia is similar to the worldwide audience of the Peace Message in 1985, literally everybody and not primarily a religiously-inclined audience, small letters in pronouns would seem to be not only acceptable, but appropriate.
  • Third, within this audience, there are undoubtedly many people who might be offended or uneasy about seeing capitalized pronouns used to refer to religious figures in general, and we must pay careful attention to such sensitivities.


Given all of the above, I would like to propose that the use of uncapitalized pronouns in this article is appropriate. If everyone feels that what I have written here is enough to reach an agreement on this point, then in future I suggest we gently refer new readers and contributors who raise this issue to the foregoing discussion and revert the article changes accordingly.


I look forward to your responses.


-- Jonathan

Jmenon 08:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for that thoughtful and thought-provoking insight, Jmenon. It'll be interesting to see how the other (please forgive my lack of apostrophes) Bahais here respond to this. To be honest with you, although I made the change, I'm not really beating the drum for anything other than consistency, both internal and with established policy. At some point, I'm gonna bounce over to Bab and sort out that article; a complete mess, incapable of any internal consistency, never mind consistency with WikiPolicy.

The main problem, as I see it, isn't about what the policy actually says--that's pretty clear. It's not even really if some people don't like the policy--take it up elsewhere. It's the fact that there are so darn many of these articles to make consistent! I think that keeping this disucssion here would be useful--it would seem that Christianity and Islam don't have the same level of concern being expressed about policy (despite a couple of glaring lapses in Xianity I'm about to fix). Wooster 18:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what´s wrong with the Bab article? :) - --Cyprus2k1 14:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Try this paragraph.
Born on October 20 1819, in Shiraz to a well-known merchant of the city of Shiraz, his father died soon after his birth and the boy was raised by his uncle Hájí Mirzá Siyyid 'Ali, who was also a merchant. As a child He learned to read and write and was sent with other children to a teacher of religion. During these lessons the little boy showed uncommon wisdom and quickly attracted attention, since not only did He ask very difficult questions, but He answered them Himself. He did this so well that his teacher was dumbfounded. Upon reaching manhood, He joined his uncle in the family business, a trading house, and became a merchant. His integrity and piety won the esteem of the other merchants with whom He came in contact. He was also known for His generosity to the poor. In 1842 He married Khadíjih-Bagum and they had one son, Ahmad, who died in infancy.
Count the capitalisation errors. I make (ignoring beginnings of sentences) four pronouns and eight Pronouns. It's a mess and needs to be sorted out. However, I don't have time at the moment. Wooster 16:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
i agree. i was writing that, but i was more worried about writing the article and later fixing it (capitalization, NPOV, etc..) . anyway, in the meanwhile i got into a busy epoch, and then vacations :) will be back on september! - --Cyprus2k1 16:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More on schism

Brett9 removed the following:

Prior to the 1970s no such attempt survived beyond its founder's death.

This is simply historically true. The various Remeyite organizations were the first schismatic group of Baha'is to persist past the death of their founder. No followers of Mirza Yahya continued past his death, etc. Unless Brent can come up with an example, I'm going to keep reverting this one. Rick Boatright 21:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized my mistake. I had interpreted the statement for some reason as referring to no attempt surviving beyond the successive passing of authority in the Faith (e.g., the Muhammad 'Alí groups claiming authority from 'Abdu'l-Bahá's time outliving 'Abdu'l-Bahá and continuing their claims, which they did). My apologies. If you feel there is some reason to put it in, it is your prerogative. I don't think it is particularly remarkable given that any such movements would naturally try to find at least some remote, albeit unconvincing, connection to the times in which authority was passing. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 16:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverted to the earlier edition, as links were removed and to restore a more NPOV as user Saed removed links against Wiki rules, and removed any reference to any other point of view.

maybe the really question is, is really a matter of NPOV and wiki rules, or is wikipedia being victim of (just) one or two persons actively envolved in defamation?? - --Cyprus2k1 21:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This entire article reeks of a Baha'i pamphlet or a press release. There is almost none of the controversial issues about the Baha'i faith, and when these have been added Baha'i apologists remove them. Scientology, anyone?

nonsense, your just pissed off because you really cant find any arguments to necessarly include obf reference in the other articles so now you turned to a personal attack with a very false analogy. - --Cyprus2k1 09:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Cypress is violating the norms of wikipedia by removing content. I am a former member of the Baha'i faith and am posting anonymously to avoid reprisals against my family who are still members of the Baha'i faith and could face consequences. I was driven out of the Baha'i faith by members of the local spiritual assembly who threatened to remove my administrative rights. I have a right to add factual information of relevance to the readers of this article, even if such information is not appreciated by the Baha'i religious authorities.

Cypress, please quit removing factual content. You are welcome to edit factual content, not revert or remove it in toto. Continued reversions or mass deletions will result in me escalating this dispute to Wikipedia mediation and arbitration processes if necessary. Thanks!

65.184.35.245 22:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


ok. first of all, please please please stop hipocritly using "wikipedia norms" as i way to state untrue(or twisted/misleading) facts on the articles .
if you were driven out, you probably did CONTINUOUSLY something VERY wrong(i.e endangering the community or trying to take control)
about the reprisals thing.., no one will come after you (on the contrary). this is obviously a Appeal to emotion and Appeal to fear(what is the use of posting anonymously if you then post your own website??)
__
ok. i absolutely hate edit wars, so lets discuss this:
__
things i deleted and why:
__
"Homosexual marriage and sexual activity is strictly forbidden." this is not tottaly factual and is misleading(read: twisted fact), sexual activity is forbidden BEFORE marriage, which is what "Chastity outside marriage is required. " means.
__
" -- the ultimate sanction to compel obedience and submission to Baha'i authority." is POV...
(see history for other POV to NPOV edits/added(added.. NOT deleted...))
__
"Some critics of the Baha'i Faith argue that the Baha'i religious authorities use the threat of declaration as a "covenant breaker" in order to stifle free speech"
what do you mean by "Baha'i religious authorities"? its a very weird thing to say since there is no clergy in the bahai faith and institutions are bahais themselves.
no one uses the "threat of declaration as a "covenant breaker" in order to stifle free speech" but since you say "some critics argue", hey, what can one do?
- --Cyprus2k1 11:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

65.184.35.245, I came here because of your note on Talk:Main Page.

  • If you pick a random username, you will be more anonymous than with your IP visible, which shows you are in the US
  • I find nothing scandalous in C2k1's reversion.

dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dbachmann, maybe I'll go out and revert some of your edits I disagree with then, since you don't disapprove of blanket reverts from critics.

Cyprus, if you think there are no religious authorities in the Baha'i faith, you are mistaken. Who do you think the UHJ, 4 North American Continental Councillors, 50+ Auxiliary Board members and 4000+ assistants do? Not sure how many where you live, but I suspect it is comparable. Mostly those "assistants" spy on the believers and report back anything "questionable" they hear.

Thanks for making much more reasonable edits this time. 63.106.106.2 20:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

everyone mentioned are also bahais, they are not "priests".i know many of those members myself, there is no "persecution" or any weird conspiracy theory. i will not bother to discuss this further since wikipedia is not a forum... - --Cyprus2k1 20:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Independent religion

The beginning section of this article says more than once that Baha'i is an "independent" religion. What does that mean? Also it says "according to some" it is the newest such religion. Who are those "some"? IbnRushd 04:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[[Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith#Independent_religions]] - --Cyprus2k1 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

eo: article images use

Is the Esperanto article's practice of direct incorporation of the remote images O.K. w.r.t. the copyrights and the Wikipedia policies? BACbKA 21:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be more specific

This article does indeed look like an advertisement pamphlet in some places. I think that giving factual evidence for all that praise would surely help. One example: "Bahá'ís have also become increasingly involved in projects of social and economic development around the world." is absolutely not factual. It's just a statement that is quite biased. Is this a claim of some Bahai guy or is it a fact? And if it's a fact, you need to qualify it by saying "Bahais spent 10 zillions of dollars building hydroelectric plants in poor countries" or "Bahais printed 10 trillions of copies of multiplication tables and gave them to poor children", stuff like that. :) Any evidence that Bahais are in fact involved, preferably with some references.

I would not dive in editing this article, because my knowledge of Bahai religion is limited, so I could only go through the text and delete all such unstubstantiated claims. It would be better if someone more familiar with the subject would try to locate some facts and references first. Paranoid 14:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FAC

I think something needs to be done before it can be a featured article. I am not saying there are factual errors in this article, but I think lack of external perspective prevents it from being of a featured article. There is an inherent bias in writing an article from the position of an insider. What do people outside of this religion think about Bahai Faith? Paranoid 17:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i want to help, but im afraid i dont understand what you mean... i tryed comparing other religon articles like Buddhism( which was a featured article) and see nothing like "what people outside think" - --Cyprus2k1 18:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Check out Scientology instead. :))) Of course, in no way do I imply that Bahai is an evil totalitarian sect, I just think that it would help you understand my point. Buddhism, IMHO, is slightly more neutral and factual, it doesn't say that the religion is "good" as often. Also, it's an established (so it's well known) religion and relatively uncontroversial. I should clearly state that I don't see any significant problems in the article, it's more a matter of style and the feeling when reading it. I thought that it's caused by the fact that the Buddism article was (probably to a large extent) written from the position of outsiders (and what bias was initially there was probably removed by intensive editing), while Baha'i Faith article was probably written mostly by people connected with this religion and wasn't edited that much. For me the impression that it's a slightly sugary and PRy text was noticeable.
So I think that an unbiased editor could really help this article to improve. Paranoid 19:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But where does it say the religion is "good" :)? note that a religion does not necessary has to be or have something "bad" (a common view, at least in someparts of europe), if the article has something stating (as a fact) the religion is "good" (or "bad") that such is POV and should be corrected, so please point out... :)
i think that an article on independent religion could clarify things, since it seems to confuse people.
just to clarify something( this is not criticism..),the term "sect" is often confused with the term "cult", a sect is a branch from a main religion (so technically we could say the catholic church is one of the sects of christianity), the Bahai Faith is not considered a sect (of islam) the same way Christianity is not considered a sect of Judaism. (and thus the term "independent religion") - --Cyprus2k1 20:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I said, there are no glaring POV errors, but it appears to me that there is bias (because the article was written by the supporters). BTW, personally I think that any religion is very bad and all believers should be reeducated (though, from what little I know about Bahai, it's much better than most religions), but that should not distract us. Let me say it again, there aren't glaring errors and most sections are actually fine. But overall the article looks to me like it could benefit from someone unrelated to Bahai carefully going through it and correcting the style (and possibly some content) slightly. Sorry, it's not very constructive. :(
Thanks for correcting my wrong use of "sect". In my native language the term "sekta" is usually used to mean cults like scientology, Moon's church, etc. Paranoid 22:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Changes made by 204.50.168.164

204.50.168.164 says he eliminated some unnecessary and very marginal information. Most of the information he removed regards the very small (tiny) division in the Faith and other negative attitudes towards the Baha'i Faith. Even though I'm a Baha'i and don't believe those negative viewpoints, I see them as necessary in the article to keep a NPOV. Thus in the spirit of being impartial I am reverting them. --Navidazizi 15:18, 06 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Picture request

I'd like to put this article on the main page, but I'd prefer someone add a copyleft (Creative common or GFDL licensed) picture first. →Raul654 22:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is a picture on the German Wikipedia article that is under the GFDL [1], how about using that. NavidAzizi 16:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Another picture is the one on the page for the Bab [2] which is released into public ___domain. It's of the Shrine of the Bab in the Baha'i world centre in Haifa, Israel NavidAzizi 19:01, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Both look good to me. When I get home from vacation next week, I'll add one or both to the article (unless someone beats me to it) and then schedule it for the main page. →Raul654 01:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Finnaly i found where i got the photo and its copyright status (when i uploaded it i was still a wikipedia newbie), its from the Bahai World News Website, and the copyright status of the photos can be found here: [3]
citing:
"All stories and photographs produced by the Bahá'í World News Service may be freely reprinted, re-emailed, re-posted to the World Wide Web and otherwise reproduced by any individual or organization, subject to the following restrictions:
1. They must at all times be attributed to the Bahá'í World News Service.
2. Photographs and stories cannot be used in any way (including, without limitation, suggesting an association with or endorsement of any product, service, opinion or cause) which conflicts with the intent and premise of the original source.
3. Photographs may be edited for size only. Captions must remain with the photographs at all times.
4. The Bahá'í World News Service will not be responsible to any person or organization for any liability for any direct, incidental, consequential, indirect, or punitive damages that may result from any access to or use of the stories and/or photographs on our site.
5. Although this blanket permission to reproduce BWNS stories is given freely such that no special permission is required, the Bahá'í World News Service retains full copyright protection for its stories and photographs under all applicable national and international laws. "
so, the current photo is finne i guess :)
p.s im currently very busy (exams, exams) , will be back on tuesday! - --Cyprus2k1 08:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

which empire?

"The machinations of the Persian and Ottoman authorities took Bahá'u'lláh further and further into exile, from Baghdad to Istanbul (Constantinople), then to Edirne (formerly Adrianople, also within the Ottoman Empire), and finally, in 1868, to the penal colony of Acre (in present-day Israel), on the very edge of the Empire."
Ottoman or Persian? -Lethe | Talk 08:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Actually both. Bahá'u'lláh's first exile was from Tehran to Baghdad and that was soley due to the Persian authorities banishing him from Persia (he was free to choose his destination, and he chose Baghdad). But them his exile from Baghdad to Constantinople was due mostly to the Persian authorities, even though Bahá'u'lláh was in Baghdad. According to Baha'i sources, the Persian authorities through the ministers of the Shah and the Persian Ambassador wanted Bahá'u'lláh to be moved further from the Persian empire. They succeeded in convincing the Ottomon authorities, especially the Grand Vizier, to send Bahá'u'lláh to Constantinople. Even in Constantinople, the Persian Ambassador persisted in arousing the hostility of the Ottoman authorities against Bahá'u'lláh, which led to his exile to Adrianople. The exile from Adrianople to Akka, however, was mainly due to the Ottoman empires. Fadeaway919 16:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
And there is not a single shred of reliable historical evidence for this claim. Edward Browne, as you may well know, was very sympathetic to both the Babis and Bahais (particularly to the Babis). He was (and is) a highly respected scholar. He personally met both Bahaullah and Subh-i Azal. He also, justifiably in my opinion, hated the Qajars (the ruling dynaty of Persia at that time). Why didn't Edward Browne say anything about Iran pressuring the Ottoman empire to move the Bahais farther away from Iran? This claim only exists in the Bahai literature. The fact that so many inaccuracies, falsehoods, contradictions, speculations and slanted interpretations and claims exist in the Bahai culture should be enough to make any intelligent person to think about this movement. --Amir 19:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Claim from authoritative Western source: 1988 Encyclopedia Brittannica, article Baha'i Faith: "He was released in January 1853 and exiled to Bag had. There Bahá'u'lláh's leadership revived the Bábí community, and an alarmed Persian government urged the Ottoman government to move both Bahá'u'lláh and the growing number of his followers farther away from Persia's borders." -- Fadeaway919 19:31, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that is based on Bahai literature. Can you point out to any hard authentic historical evidence to support that claim? Without existence of reliable evidence, it will be speculation at best. --Amir 21:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Akká was the penal colony of the Ottoman Empire. --Jmenon 19:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

pronunciation

I can't figure out how to say "Bahá'í". Can we get some guidance in this article? --Twinxor 19:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Bu-hi" - Bu as in but, and hi as in high. →Raul654 19:45, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
The first part is pretty close, remember it's a short "u" sound, not "oo". I would rather think it's like the "a" sound in "bar". The "hi" part is not one syllable, so it's more like "ha-ee". So in total "ba" "ha" "ee" -- Fadeaway919 19:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
And the stress is on the last syllable -- Fadeaway919 19:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

reasons

removed: "Bahá'u'lláh (meaning splendour or light of Allah) is the title that Mirza Husay Ali Nuri from Iran chose for himself as the new leader of the Bábí movement in Baghdad. His half brother, Mirza Yahya Nuri already had the title of Subh-i Azal (meaning Dawn of Eternity). These titles were not accidental. They both had to do with the Bábí symbolic concept and claim of "new light""

because this is already mentioned later.

removed: "Essentially, both Bábísm and Bahá'ísm are heavily based on an offshoot of the Shia branch of Islam."

it is POV.

"Baháism was one of the two sects of the Bábís when a split among the Bábís started, after Bahá'u'lláh challenged the leadership of the Bábí leader, his own half-brother, Subh-i Azal. The followers of Subh-i Azal became known as the Azali Bábís while the followers of Bahá'u'lláh became known as the Bahá'í Bábís or later just Bahá'ís."

this shouldnt be in the first paragraph but in "origins" or "history" or something. but still, its already mentioned in other related articles "Baháism" is a wrong term.

--Cyprus2k1 09:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1- I am going to put my contributions back into the article, because you decided on your own to remove them first, and then discuss (and even in discussion you are not discussing anything, just opining).
2- "Bahism" may be a "wrong" term in Bahai circles, but certainly in a historical context, put next to "babism" and "azalism" as a transitional movement, is valid and legitimate. This is a good example that you are incapable of divorcing from your mind the strictly bahai religious culture. This is why you have such a big problem accepting that wikipedia does not adhere to the language of a specific faith or culture, rather, it is a collaborative, open, online encyclopedia in which all people can contribute.
3- it is most certainly NOT POV to say that Babism, and by extension, Bahaism, came out of Shaykhi branch of Shia Islam. Please educate yourself on the origins of your faith. --Amir 09:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I want to take the opportunity to remind everyone of the Three-revert rule. If you revert more than three times in 24 hours, you will get blocked. Do not edit until you've sorted out your differences on the talk page. JRM 10:34, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

A solution to the last subject

There should be no objection to referring to Mirza Yahya in the article or the emergence of the Baha'i Faith from Islam. However, to make these two points dominate the opening description of the Faith is misleading since the first issue, that of Mirza Yayha, was settled over a century ago and there has not been any group of Azalis in existence since the early part of the 20th century. The comments are not fundamentally wrong in themselves, but their dominant position in the article is misleading. Therefore, I have added them with some minor adjustments, to the section on Covenant, etc. That may not be the perfect place for them, but I intend to rewrite that section shortly to make it more inclusive of these things--I just can't do it this morning.

The second issue, when emphasized in the opening paragraph, makes the Baha'i Faith appear to be primarily a branch of Islam. This is not correct. The independent nature of the Baha'i Faith has been established clearly by numerous sources. That it is not a branch of Islam was determined by two Islamic judicial rulings in Egypt in the 1920's and 1930's. The first was made on 10 May 1925 by the Appellate Court of Beba.

The verdict in this case states: "The Baha'i Faith is a new religion, entirely independent, with beliefs, principles and laws of its own, which differ from, and are utterly in conflict with, the beliefs, principles and laws of Islam. No Baha'i, therefore, can be regarded as a Muslim or vice-versa, even as no Buddhist, Brahmin, or Christian can be regarded as a Muslim or vice versa."

This ruling was later confirmed by a fatwa of His Honour the Grand Mufti of Egypt on 11 March 1939 where he stated in a letter to the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior that: "We hereby declare that this Community is not to be regarded as Muslim, as shown by the beliefs which it possesses. . . . Whoever among its members had formerly been a Muslim has, by virtue of his belief in the pretensions of this community, renounced Islam, and is regarded as beyond its pale, and is subject to the laws governing apostasy as established in the right Faith of Islam."

In additon to the above, some of my specific reasoning on particular points is as follows:

1. ". . . heavily based on the Shia branch of Islam" -- This is already mentioned in the section on the Bab where it says: "It is distinct from Islam but grew out of the Islamic matrix in the same way that Christianity grew out of Judaism, or Buddhism out of Hinduism." This is entirely accurate and is a commonly accepted understanding in academic and non-academic non-Baha'i circles. Especially when considered in the light of the ruling of the Grand Mufti of Egypt, this wording would appear to be more accurate than the "heavily based" wording.

2. The title "Baha'u'llah" was not chosen by Mirza Husayn-Ali in Baghdad, but given to him by the Bab in the course of a number of such titles conferred on his followers around the time of the Conference of Badasht which took place in 1848, I believe. It was around this time that Qurratu'l-Ayn was named Tahirih and, I believe, that Mulla Ali Barfurushi was named Quddus. The Bab confirmed the titles by addressing each of the recipients by that title in subsequent letters to them.

3. The issue of who challenged who's leadership in the case of Baha'u'llah and Mirza Yahya is an issue that can only be rendered NPOV by Wikipedia standards by avoiding a judgement in either direction. Therefore, I have changed "Bahá'u'lláh challenged the leadership of the Bábí leader" to a more neutral "split occurred between" them.

4. The term "Bahaism" in describing the Baha'i Faith raises similar objections from Baha'is as the use of the term "Mohammedanism" to describe Islam raises from Muslims. It is normally used, as is "Mohammedanism", by people who are not believers in the religion to describe it, and therefore it conveys a certain attitude towards the faith that is sometimes not acceptable to believers. Because of this, Baha'is would not consent to allow Islam to be called "Mohammedanism", and the use of the term "The Baha'i Faith" can, I think, be expected to receive similar respect from non-Baha'is in a forum such as Wikipedia.


I hope this solution is agreeable to everyone.

--Jmenon 14:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The Baha'i parts of Wikipedia have just been brought to my attention again by a vandal who made comments on my and Rick Boatright's User Talk pages, though I haven't had a lot to do with Baha'i articles since I started editing here.

I've just been looking around, and noticed that there is no article at Azali, and the only mention of the Bab at Babi is the one I just put there. If someone wants to write an informative essay on those Babis that chose to follow Subh-i-Azal rather than Baha'u'llah, then by all means write that article and put a link from here in the history section. But pro-Azal comments don't belong here, in an article devoted to explaining who the Baha'is are. PaulHammond 19:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Translating Baha'u'llah

I have noticed that the translation of Baha'u'llah has been changed from "Glory of God" to "Glory of Allah". I have done some limited searching and it seems to me that Allah is just just the Arabic word for God. See, for example, the comments in the following: http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=71. I also came across other websites stating the same thing, so I hope it is true. Since the purpose of the sentence is to translate the term "Baha'u'llah" to an English audience, I will change the translation back to "Glory of God". - Oazizi

I concur with Oazizi. "Baha'u'llah", in Arabic, means "Baha'u'llah". In English, it means the Glory of God, or if you like, the Glory of the Lord. This is common knowledge, so I am surprised as to why this was changed. I have also removed the Persian reference to Baha'u'llah in the first paragraph since there is scarcely a paragraph in the whole history section of the article that does not mention it, and it makes the article seem repetitive and badly written. The Baha'is of Persian descent are today a minority in the Faith, approximately 5%, although deeply revered, loved, and respected. Out of about 7 million Baha'is worldwide, there are only about 300,000 Baha'is in Iran. Overall, the largest community, in India, is of primarily Hindu background, and the next largest communities are in sub-Saharan Africa and South America. --Jmenon 04:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jmenon, you can concur with our now anonymous friend all you want. Wikipedia is not a Bahai Faith promotional pamphlet. The articles here should be like encycolopedia articles, not written from the point of view of any particular groups, faith, party, etc. Also, I don't know how much you are familiar with Arabic, I guess not much since you translated Baha'u'llah as "The Glory of God", there is no "The", that would have been "Al-Baha'u'llah" .. but anyway, it is Allah, and any English dictionary contains Allah. For your information, in the Bahai Faith the proper salutation is "Allah-u Abha". The word they use, and this has even been emphasized in Bahaullah's writing is "Allah". Even in Persian language, in which the word for God is not "Allah", the Bahais use the word "Allah". Let's be honest, the only reason "Allah" is being removed from this translation here, is because these days "Allah" is less marketable than "God"!! hehe amazing how brilliant some people are!!  :-) --Amir 11:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Allah" is the arabic word for God, therefore the correct translation of "Baha'u'llah" is "Glory of God". - --Cyprus2k1 11:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Amir, I agree with you that Wikipedia is not to be a Bahai Faith promotional pamphlet. The articles should indeed be like encyclopedia articles. Further, it is true that Allah is a tricky word to translate (like you say, it is in the English dictionary). Having said that, I still honestly believe the proper translation for this article is God. Being a Persian, I can say with no hesitation that when Baha'is speak to one another in Persian, they refer to God as "Khoda", the Persian word for God; they do not use the Arabic word for God as you suggest. Similiarly, in English, Baha'is use the word God. It is for these reasons that I believe the correct translation is "Glory of God". - Oazizi


Agree with other comments here. "Allah" is arabic for "God". "Allah" is not an English word, it is just a word that is now widely understood by English speakers because of their exposure to muslims and Arabic in history. "Glory of God" is the correct translation. PaulHammond 20:03, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Section on Abdu'l-Baha

I have changed some elements of the section on 'Abdu'l-Baha that were added by Amir. Others I have incorporated in the article slightly higher up. In particular I have removed the polemical statements about whom 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi expelled, since these state strong opinions that cannot meet the Wikipedia criterion of a neutral point of view, and are not completely accurate. 'Abdu'l-Baha did not excommunicate all the members of Baha'u'llah's family; he expelled Mirza Muhammad-Ali. 'Abdu'l-Baha's position on this is recorded in his Will and Testament, which can be found here: [4]. If one is looking to find edicts of 'Abdu'l-Baha that expel from the Baha'i Faith by name the many people that this contributor is claiming, they will not find them.

Also, there is no indication that this expulsion "turned out to hurt the entire Bahai movement in a much greater dimension." If that was the case, one would expect its effect to be seen. However, despite internal opposition and external attacks, the growth of the Baha'i Faith only increased. The statement made in the article is an unsupported opinion only.

There is no shortage of published material available on this aspect of the Baha'i Faith, but to include it both out of context and as such a large element of a very small section about 'Abdu'l-Baha has the effect of distorting the history of the Baha'i Faith for the audience of the Wikipedia. If the contributor is able to incorporate this information in a way that is balanced, that conveys accurately the intricacies of the issue at hand and at a scale that does not distort the article, then I am sure no one here would oppose his posting this material here in the talk page so that we can discuss it and come to some general agreement, in the spirit in which the Wikipedia is meant to operate.

Furthermore, I cannot find any source for the comment that Shoghi Effendi expelled Diya Khanum, his mother, from the Faith. If this is the case, no doubt there will be decisive documentary evidence provided by the contributor.

Wives and children of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha

Recent additions have included paragraphs concerning the wives and children of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. I find that these paragraphs do not fit in very well in an article about the Baha'i Faith, which to me should be more focused on the religion. Inserting paragraphs about the wives and children of Baha'u'llah seem to detract from this purpose. Perhaps these paragraphs are better suited to the pages of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha respectively. I have not, as yet, removed these paragraphs, because I want to see what others think. So, what are your thoughts? --oazizi

I have moved the details on marriages to the Baha'u'llah article and made some adjustments, but you are right that they do not really fit here, with the way the article is currently written. However, to remove it completely would contravene some principles of Wikipedia, so I have tried to place it in as appropriate a context as I can, but the real solution is to expand the articles so they do have an appropriate place. I will work on that a bit, since the Baha'u'llah article, for example, doesn't yet have the scope to properly accommodate such information, and it should. --Jmenon 07:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article contained two separate sections on Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, and I contributed one small paragraph to each section about the lives of these two individuals. My contributions were factual, academically correct, and worthy of any encyclopedia article on this subject. If you have objections to my English, feel free to improve it, in fact I will appreciate it. But do not try to manipulate the article cunningly in that process to favour a certain perspective. --Amir 11:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
no one (maybe you) is trying to manipulate the article, the article is about the RELIGION not the individuals, as such, details as "wifes" and "marriages" should be in their respective articles of the individuals not in the religion article since they have to relevance. just because something you write may be factual, it can still be removed if its inrelevant/unnecessary to the current article and as a more suitable place to be (such is the case).
i will rv again, and please please do not revert again until this is discussed here WITH consesus achieved. - --Cyprus2k1 11:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am restoring it. You cannot just delete correct information out of articles just because YOU don't approve of them. This is a wikipedia article about the Bahai Faith, the article already contained sub-sections about bahaullah and abdul-baha, and i simply added some correct and useful (maybe not useful to you) information to those sections. You have no right to just decide on your own that you want to remove them. If you cannot respect wikipedia's stated policies, please feel free to go somewhere else. If you have decided to use wikipedia, please first read the stated policies of wikipedia, and then abide by those rules, otherwise, it will be a chaos here. --Amir 11:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
yes of course, and you can put information because YOU aprove it? :)
im sorry but, you just arent being constructive. reasons(oazizi,Jmenon,Cyprus2k1) have been given, and you just seem ignore them and keep saying the same thing.
i was kindly asking you not to revert again until a consesus could be reached, i will not follow your example and revert it again, instead i will wait that you discuss with something constructive... (besides, i have to go study calculus ;) ) --Cyprus2k1 11:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Amir, I do not object to the content of your additions (for the most part, anyways). Its seems from an encyclopedic point of view, however, that these facts should be listed under the articles of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. For example, the wikipedia page for Islam does not mention anything of the wives of Muhammad. The facts related to Muhammad's family are contained within the Muhammad article. That is the sort of organization that makes sense, and should be followed in this article as well. I am not suggesting the information you have added to be thrown away, just to be organized into the appropriate article. --oazizi
I think a brief mention of their family and marital status is well placed. Why would you want to exclude the women and the significant role they played in the lives of these Bahai leaders? The article already has separate sections for biographical synonpsis of their lives, what's a few additional lines to mention their wives as well? I am sure our Bahai friends would not appreciate the exclusion of the wives of these two Bahai leaders as the Bahais take pride in equality of men and women in their faith. I also think perhaps a mention of Shoghi is also not a bad idea. Why is he not included? --Amir 02:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A summary of other religious pages and how they deal with their history and specifically the history of personnages.
Hinduism: No history, no history of the founder
Zoroastrianism: History of where it was spread and how it declined. No history of the founder.
Islam: just pointers to the History of Islam and Muhammad, brief mention of Islam today.
Christianity: Link to History of Christianity and Jesus and then briefly (one paragraph) talks about who Jesus was (stating he was a descendent of Judah) and how he was persecuted. No mention of His mother Mary.
Buddhism: Large section on the Life of the Buddha (4 large paragraphs), one mention of his family "He decided to abandon his worldly life, leaving behind his wife and child"
Judaism: Gives history from Jacob to Moses to Samuel to David to Solomon. No mention of their family.
Given these standards it seems that the history of the faiths and their personages have generally been limited in the religion's main page and abrogated to other articles, and where there is history it is usually very limited. Thus that would point to limiting and possibly even removing the history of the Baha'i Faith from it's main page. What do other people who are not already involved in this discussion think? -- Jeff3000 03:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
It depends on the length of the article. I am guessing that the historical part of Islam was hived off because that article got long. I noticed just now that this article is getting long (the 35k warning came up when I took Baha'u'llah's picture out), so if someone wants to do the work of refactoring it, maybe the details of the Baha'i history could be made into a seperate article too. -- PaulHammond 20:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

A fresh perspective

As an outsider who has no bias, and someone familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution, I was asked to take a look at this dispute. I looked at this page diff. It seems to me that the only substantial differences here are:

  • Whether or not to say if Bahá'u'lláh is from Persia. That sentence (as it exists in the diff) was particularly clunky, so I rephrased it without changing it in any substantial way. I don't think it's a big deal whether or not to mention his nationality, but if I had to pick I'd say that it's better to err on the informative side.
  • Bahá'u'lláh's wives and children - since this paragraph makes no mention of the religion itself (it's wholly biographical) it should be in article on the man rather than the faith. I recommend taking it out.
  • I do agree with Amir that the information about the excommunications belongs here, since it apparently did impact the religion. However, I think you need to cite a source on this before you can make the claim - preferably quoting a reputable source. →Raul654 04:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there is no hard evidence (e.g., paper document) which shows that Shoghi excommunicated his own parents. He certainly did excommunicate all his siblings and their families (in most cases, because they married, or remained married to, Covenant Breakers). However, as in Bahai religion consent of parents is required for marriage, how could they have married Covenant Breakers without their parents' (which would also be Shoghi's own parents) consent? Therefore, logical conclusion is that Shoghi did also excommunicate his own parents, without leaving hard evidence. Regarding his excommunicating his own siblings, I don't think any Bahai would dispute that claim. --Amir 06:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I've just read a paragraph that claims Abdu'l Baha excommunicated all his siblings, which then gets into a whole lot of non-NPOV stuff that tries to make him out to be a pretender making a power grab (which is what Muhammad Ali, who incidentally was named by Baha'u'llah as AB's successor, was claiming back in 1910ish). In fact, Ali attempted to get him killed when he was in dangerous situations just before the Young Turks released him. Sure, there can be a controversy over whose interpretation of the facts during these troubles was right, but I don't think the casual encyclopedia reader is that bothered about the details of the leadership controversies of the past when they have only just heard the name Abdu'l Baha. Right now, this section reads like what it is, a piece with controversial sentences levered into it by someone who wants to argue with the mainstream Baha'i interpretation of their own history. not the kind of thing people should expect to see in a Wikipedia featured article. PaulHammond 20:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Finally someones said it... -- Tomhab 20:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ahem - Wikipedia:Cite sources. →Raul654 07:26, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Could one solutions merely be that a bit more explanation be made? Why they were excommunicated etc. That way it remains factual - they were excommunicated for a reason (which I won't go into in case I get my facts wrong :D).
Personally I don't think that any of Amirs comments are actually wrong and and I do feel a bit about the excommunication have a place in a section about the history of the faith, but I reckon the entire history section should be gutted and made be an article in itself. Someone wanting to know what Baha'is are all about doesn't need all this. Perhaps a mention about starting in 1863 in Persia in he first paragraph. Just an opinion heh. -- Tomhab 21:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think you are right Tomhab, a seperate section on the history of the Baha'i Faith is probably the right way to given that the article is already larger than 32kB. Once I have the time, I'll take it out, if no one objects. -- Fadeaway919 22:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I've just added a few small edits (that will clear up a few things) and grammar and semantic fixes which I hope no-one will argue with. In my opinion they don't remove emphasis from any parts of the sentences. I can see its a bit of a contentious paragraph so if you do have a problem with the small edits part could you leave the grammar bits in at least! -- Tomhab 15:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reference removed to Baha'u'llah as "prophet-founder" of the religion

Raul654 made an adjustment to the first paragraph that omits the mention that Baha'u'llah is the prophet-founder of the Baha'i Faith, stating only that he is a Persian whose name means the Glory of God. Was there a reason for that omission, or is it an oversight? If the former, could you please explain? If the latter, then may I propose the following wording:

"The Baha'i Faith is a monotheistic religion whose members follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah (1817-1892), the faith's prophet-founder. Born Mirzá Husayn-Ali, into a family of Persian nobility in Tehran, his name is Arabic for "the Glory of God."

Could everyone please comment. Thanks. --Jmenon 01:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reference to him as the religion's founder was removed (incorrectly, in my opinion) serveral days ago. I have remedied it. →Raul654 03:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sanctioning the removal, but... I thought general consensus was that Baha'is don't see Baha'u'llah as a Prophet, because he didn't prophesise or something along those lines? Maybe all those years of Bahai class are failing me, but isn't there a distinction between prophets and Manifestations of God?
oh and as for the founder bit - yeah no reason to change that. Tomhab 15:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In Baha'i literature there is a difference among prophets and Manifestations of God. Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, Moses, Krishna, and some others who are not in history books, due to the amount of history the world contains, are Manifestations of God, and prophets, for example, are prophets of the Old Testament (not including Moses), among others. The word prophet outside of Baha'i literature however, I feel, represents both the Baha'i idea of prophet and the Baha'i idea of Manifestation of God. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general populace, I think the word prophet is correct. -- Fadeaway919 22:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Definitely. "Prophet" is a good shorthand for what Baha'is mean by "Manifestation". The general reader wouldn't understand "Manifestation" without explanation. Baha'is definitely think of Baha'u'llah as a prophet... -- PaulHammond 20:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Administrative order: Small point about elections

Aren't Baha'is "required" (or is the word obligated?) to vote in Baha'i elections, not just "eligible" as the documents says. Might be worth adding that its not enforced. I know its just nit picking, but might as well keep it as accurate as you can. I didn't want to change it myself just in case I'm wrong. :) Tomhab 15:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes Baha'is are required to vote, just as they are required to pray each day and fast during the month before Naw-Ruz (since they accept Baha'u'llah and his laws), but these are personnal obligations that Baha'is have between themselves and God, and thus there is no enforcement of these things. Also the word eligible in the paragraph relates to who is eligable to be voted for and who is eligable to vote. Hope this addresses your concerns. -- Fadeaway919 18:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
You don't think its worth changing then? I guess its only a subtle difference. -- Tomhab 21:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so, because even in a democracy it is a citizen's responsibility to vote, but not all citizen's vote. While not exactly the same thing, I think it's similar. What do you think? -- Fadeaway919 22:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


Baha'u'llah's picture in this article

This article is on the Baha'i Faith and is not on Baha'u'llah. His picture is on that page, and given that other religious pages such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism do not have pictures (or drawings) of the main prophet, but instead have other pictures, I think that the picture of Baha'u'llah should be removed. I was going to leave the picture up (PaulHammond took it down) until we could have some sort of consensus and not just blind/reasonless deletes. So before we make any more changes, either picture up or picture down, let us discuss it here? -- Jeff3000 20:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've already got firefox to block all images from wikipedia over this issue... As I've said somewhere above I think we should just gut everything thats not to do with what Baha'is are all about (which is what this page should have) and make a new article about it. Namely the whole history section, but also whatever else turns up. Actually I'd do it now except I don't know enough about wikipedia.
As for the image itself, I'd really like people to put a link up in every place it turns up (like the Baha'u'llah page) as any Baha'is (must make up a fair amount of the people visiting the page) might be offended by it. -- Tomhab 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to debate it here, but can people stop adding it back while we talk about it? PaulHammond 21:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000, can you please comment on the talk pages why you think the picture should be in the Baha'i Faith page given the comments that above that the Baha'i Faith article is about the Baha'i Faith and not on the founder, and that all other religious pages don't have pictures (or drawings) of their founders. -- Jeff3000 21:12, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

three wives (concurrently)

OK, OK, I can see this is going to get dodgey. Is there some way we can agree on making sure it doesn't imply he was married to one wife at once without whilst keeping it neutral. I was under the impression that saying "He had three wives" would be enough (if someones divorced you'd say they were "married three times"), and seemed to me that adding "(concurrently)" was unneccessary but I guess not... How about one of these:

  1. According to Islamic tradition and before the Bahá'í faith came into being and introduced a ban on polygamy he had three wives
  2. According to Islamic tradition he had three wives

I reckon they're both neutral, factual and don't sound like they're trying to credit nor discredit the guy. Personally I prefer the second as it flows better but comments are welcome. If no-one complains I'll change it in a couple of days. Please submit an alternative if you do though.

Oh and cheers for the 14->7 mistake -- Tomhab 20:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


When he married his third wife, one of his house maids, a young girl who was the personal maid of his first wife, he was not a Muslim, he was a Babi, and according to his own claim, some 10 years before that time, he was already "inspired" by God of his new mission (implying that he was already a Bahai, waiting to declare his "mission" to the world soon.) To say that his three concurrent wives was just "normal Islamic practice" would be dishonest. Martin2000 20:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
btw - the claim that he had three wives is controversial. He had two, and the status the the third is disputed. I've also heard stuff about another alleged wife, Navvab, but information on her seems to be sketchy indeed. If we are going to put this stuff in at all, we need better research on it. Two wives was the rule that Baha'u'llah gave for his followers. Abdu'l Baha later interpreted this law such that Baha'is can only marry one wife. (Marrying two was meant to depends on being able to treat them equitably. Abdu'l Baha ruled that this was an impossible condition for any normal human being to meet) PaulHammond 21:05, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not mixing up with his first wife Assieh Navab?
Baha'u'llah did indeed had three wives. I don't disagree with that. The point of this discussion is that should this information be in an article on the Baha'i Faith or Baha'u'llah (it's already in Baha'u'llah). As indicated above in the talk page, all other religious pages do not talk much about the history of their founder (especially with regards to family), and instead take it to the other pages (i.e. History of Christianity). Also for example, the the marriages of Muhammad have their own page. -- Jeff3000 21:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baháʼí_Faith&oldid=9804143"