what convinced you your faith is the truth?

[arthra]

If the books were forgeries, how did the Bahais accept only some quotations from them and put them in Selected Writings of the Bab? Why was the entire book not scrapped. Why do we have one quotation from Dalaelus Sabah which is accepted and the other rejected?
....................................

Before scriptures are accepted by us they go through a process of review and translation... Our main emphasis has clearly been the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha because we are in fact Baha'is and not Babis.. b ut as resources allow scholarship and review will in time produce more translations of the Babi texts.

The "Selections from the Writings of the Bab" published first time in 1976 is an excellent compendium of translations and just because some were not included doesn't mean they have been "rejected"...

It is very evident that some manuscripts were interpolated and scewed in favor of various points of view. As a persecuted sect these works had to be copied and some that were hidden were not so well preserved. So you might as well blame those who were trying to stamp out the Babis for this!

As to the site that Imran touts it is about as biased a site as you'll find and hardly impartial.

- Art

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by arthra

If the books were forgeries, how did the Bahais accept only some quotations from them and put them in Selected Writings of the Bab? Why was the entire book not scrapped. Why do we have one quotation from Dalaelus Sabah which is accepted and the other rejected?
....................................

Before scriptures are accepted by us they go through a process of review and translation... Our main emphasis has clearly been the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha because we are in fact Baha'is and not Babis.. b ut as resources allow scholarship and review will in time produce more translations of the Babi texts.

The "Selections from the Writings of the Bab" published first time in 1976 is an excellent compendium of translations and just because some were not included doesn't mean they have been "rejected"...

It is very evident that some manuscripts were interpolated and scewed in favor of various points of view. As a persecuted sect these works had to be copied and some that were hidden were not so well preserved. So you might as well blame those who were trying to stamp out the Babis for this!

As to the site that Imran touts it is about as biased a site as you'll find and hardly impartial.

- Art

C'mon Art, when you talk about a process of review, I can understand if it were a book running into thousands of pages. Dalaelus Sabah as I know it and the copy I have is extremely small. And it is a complete copy. Why would they not release the book or complete the translation? Could they not complete the translation of the books since 1976?!

In fact that is true of all the other books as well. So let the Bahai administration release the books or come out with a statement saying that. You are not a Bahai authority as far as I can see. The UHJ is. So let the UHJ say that we consider the following xyz book of the Bab as a forgery and we consider the following abc book of the Bab to be complete and available for any independent seeker of the truth.

Secondly, you want to tell me that all boooks were forged? It appears so because SWB contains references from almost every book of the Bab. But not a single book in its entirety is complete. And you know what, I have read each and every book. All the passages I quote on my web site appear in logical sequences of context of the manuscript. Read Sahifae Adaliyah and you will know what I mean. bab first speaks about the pillars of faith - Oneness of God, then Nabuwwat (prophethood) and then he says the fourth pillar is Imamat (leadership after prophethood) in which he mentions the name and the title of the 12th Imam. But obviously you have never read Sahifae Adaliyah and conveniently consider it to be "forged".

Why is it that the Bahai administration while compiling SWB selected ONLY those sentences which suit the Bahai faith and disregarded ALL the others?

As regards your point about being Bahais - sure but you must remember, the Bahais came out of Babis. Babism is the foundation of the Bahai Faith. The official Bahai web site says so. With less than 200 years having passed from the inception of the faith, it is important to read both Babi and Bahai documents to understand the faith completely. Or atleast the option should be made available to any independent investigator of the truth. Simply saying that we were persecuted and hence ALL our books are forged appears in my view "an ostrich in the sand" approach.

And apart from the Bahais themselves, are there or not other independent historians who went through the books, secured them, preserved them, digitised them. I was not present when the books were brought or printed. But obviously some person at that time preserved the books and handed them down and made it available to us. So do we disregard the work of all those historians as well?

Incidentally, all the books of the Bab are available on the web site of the Bayanis - those who were Babis but did not accept Bahaullah for their own reasons. None of these books contain anything to support their claims against the Bahais. I make this point so that one should not say that the Bayanis altered the books. They did not. And they do not consider the books to be altered. Then why are only the Bahais making such a fuss about these books?

I repeat, the Bahai administration, if it has the books should release "official" copies of the books. If not, then it should issue a statement naming the books that are widely considered forgeries so that the air can be cleared once and for all.

As regards my web site, you should treat it with more respect.

1. I seem to have read more Bahai books and more importantly in their original source languages than most Bahais.
2. All statements on my web site are backed by references in their original source languages.
3. Not a single judgement has been given till it is backed by a comment with reference in source language from either the Bab or Bahaullah or Abdul Baha.

yet, you call it prejudiced?

Warm regards, as always
Imran

[arthra]

Essentially this is a Baha'i Board and I am just an ordinary Baha'i but I do recognize your site as essentially antithetical to my Faith and it does contain prejudiced remarks and innuendo.

Your remarks about Baha'i administration are also out of place and off topic here in my view.

- Art

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by imranshaykh

[W]hy are only the Bahais making such a fuss about these books?

Meaning no offense, we Baha'is are not. YOU are.

Peace,

Bruce

[arthra]

Imran wrote:

"Incidentally, all the books of the Bab are available on the web site of the Bayanis -"

My reply:

The Bayani site has an Azali version of the "books of the Bab" and is built around Subh-i-Azal and not the majority of Babis who later became Baha'is. Subh-i-Azal was opposed to the Proclamation of Baha'u'llah and attempted throughout the rest of his life to attack the Faith...so this site will give an Azali view.

To explain the complexities of the Babi records there's an essay by Juan Cole at

http://bahai-library.com/?file=cole_...-kaf_chronicle

which has a chart detailing how complex the subject is and probably one reason it takes a great deal of care to identify the various sources. But uppermost in the minds of people who study or consider this is the problem of the early attempts to eradicate the Babis and destroy them.

A close historical parallel I think would be the followers of John the Baptist becoming followers of Jesus later so most of the early Babis became Baha'is.

Imran's site is biased because of the long antipathy of the Shia eccleciastics to the Babis and later the Baha'is and there is use of innuendo as well as obvious slurs against the Baha'is.

- Art

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Meaning no offense, we Baha'is are not. YOU are.

Peace,
Bruce

Thank you. I recognise that. And rightfully so in my view. These books contain material which explicitly contradict the very foundation of the Babi and consequently, the Bahai Faith.

All I am asking is that one can easily dismiss the books as forgeries. That is fine. But given that the UHJ is in current times, the ultimate authority of the Bahai Faith, it must release a statement saying that the following books are forged. Or the following passages from these books are forged. This will put an end to the argument once and for all.

If the UHJ is the authority, then all Bahais must accept it. If the UHJ has not said anything about these books, then Bahais must accept that the books are fine. Just because they do not fit into their scheme of thought is not a good enough reason in my view to dismiss the books outright.

So between fussy and non fussy, I will choose to remain fussy about the status of the books of the Bab unless clarified by the UHJ.

And yes, no offence meant. No offense taken.

Regards
Imran

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by arthra

Imran wrote:

"Incidentally, all the books of the Bab are available on the web site of the Bayanis -"

My reply:

The Bayani site has an Azali version of the "books of the Bab" and is built around Subh-i-Azal and not the majority of Babis who later became Baha'is. Subh-i-Azal was opposed to the Proclamation of Baha'u'llah and attempted throughout the rest of his life to attack the Faith...so this site will give an Azali view.

To explain the complexities of the Babi records there's an essay by Juan Cole at

Nuqtat al-Kaf and the Babi Chronicle Traditions

which has a chart detailing how complex the subject is and probably one reason it takes a great deal of care to identify the various sources. But uppermost in the minds of people who study or consider this is the problem of the early attempts to eradicate the Babis and destroy them.

A close historical parallel I think would be the followers of John the Baptist becoming followers of Jesus later so most of the early Babis became Baha'is.

Imran's site is biased because of the long antipathy of the Shia eccleciastics to the Babis and later the Baha'is and there is use of innuendo as well as obvious slurs against the Baha'is.

- Art

So if there is an Azali version, can we please have the Bahai version of the books?

Bahaism is important to Shiahs. The Shiahs believe in 12 Imams. By claiming without any proof that the Bab was the 12th Imam, Bahais have ruffled the very doctrine of the Shia Faith. So yes, Shiahs will require proof from the Bahais and till they do not get it, there will be antipathy.

I have a huge section of the Bab versus the Mahdi on my web site. Plus an entire section of the Bab. it is from a Shiite point of view. Read it and let me know, once again if the Bab fulfilled even a single prophecy about the Mahdi in Islam. Then we can listen to comments about bias and prejudice.

Regards
Imran Shaykh

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by arthra

Imran wrote:

"Incidentally, all the books of the Bab are available on the web site of the Bayanis -"

My reply:

The Bayani site has an Azali version of the "books of the Bab" and is built around Subh-i-Azal and not the majority of Babis who later became Baha'is. Subh-i-Azal was opposed to the Proclamation of Baha'u'llah and attempted throughout the rest of his life to attack the Faith...so this site will give an Azali view.

To explain the complexities of the Babi records there's an essay by Juan Cole at

Nuqtat al-Kaf and the Babi Chronicle Traditions

which has a chart detailing how complex the subject is and probably one reason it takes a great deal of care to identify the various sources. But uppermost in the minds of people who study or consider this is the problem of the early attempts to eradicate the Babis and destroy them.

- Art

As regards Babi records, read E G Browne's comments. Unlike Juan Cole, he had the good fortune of being present while the movement actually took place. I will rate E G Browne higher than Juan Cole (much as I have respect for his views as well) simply because Browne was actually there - in the right place, at well, the right time.

10-14 years ago, the bahai web site was full of quotations from Browne. In fact not just the official bahai web site, but even general bahai web sites used to begin wth quotations from Browne. Then I guess they actually read his books and then removed his name from almost the entire web site except for one place. His books are now considered to be unreliable by the Bahais despite the fact that 10-14 years ago he was considered as a "very reliable and independent" historian by the Bahais!!

Regards
Imran

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by imranshaykh

[G]iven that the UHJ is in current times, the ultimate authority of the Bahai Faith, it must release a statement saying that the following books are forged. Or the following passages from these books are forged.

IMHO you are in no position to dictate to the House what it "must" or "must not" do.

That said, to the extent that you honestly think this a legitimate concern, you of course have the option of writing them and asking them directly. I'm sure that if you do so, you'll get a reply.

Additonally, you appear to overlook the fact that Browne had his oen political agenda and wound up supporting the Azalis because he considered them more willing to adopt his views.

Nor do we rush to treat as valid documents that were in Azali hands given that some of those individuals had been demonstrated to have forged and/or misattributed works in the past, as recounted by various authors such as Taherdadeh.

Peace,

Bruce

[arthra]

Imran,

It's interesting you don't seem to like Dr. Cole's remarks in the paper I cited but seem to respect him... I don't really think this getting us anywhere. You are obviously antagonistic to Baha'i Faith... and your posts are way off topic...so again you seek to use this board to profer your wares. But no Baha'is are buying them....

- Art

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Additonally, you appear to overlook the fact that Browne had his oen political agenda and wound up supporting the Azalis because he considered them more willing to adopt his views.

Is there some documentary evidence for your statement? Something that establishes conclusively that Browne had his own political agenda? It seems to be an established fact. I would appreciate it if you clarified it further. The icing on the cake would be if you could establish it from an independent non-Bahai historian.

Regards
Imran

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by arthra

Imran,

It's interesting you don't seem to like Dr. Cole's remarks in the paper I cited but seem to respect him... I don't really think this getting us anywhere. You are obviously antagonistic to Baha'i Faith... and your posts are way off topic...so again you seek to use this board to profer your wares. But no Baha'is are buying them....

- Art

Once again, you have misinterpreted my words. Please do re-read them. I did not say that I dont like what Cole said. I said that I respect him, but as regards his views, he will come second to Browne, who was actually present as the movement unfolded. Nothing in this statement even hints at me not liking Cole.

I do not seek this forum to profer my wares. I have no wares. Only simple questions. The lack of an satisfying response is what makes me repeat the question leading to a perception that I am antagonistic to the Faith.

I only asked that:
1. The Bab is freely quoted as being the Mahdi. I ask what is the proof? Which prophecies did he fulfill. Is this a valid question?

2. Which are the books of the Bab which are considered valid and which are considered forgeries? Is this a valid question as well?

Both these questions are critical, for they establish the foundation of the Bahai Faith. At the same time, they are sticky as well, which is established by the way Bahais are irritated when these questions are raised.

Regards
Imran

[arthra]

Imran..

The "foundation" of the Baha'i Faith was the declaration of Baha'u'llah in the Ridwan Garden near Bagdad in April of 1863 and not the observations of E.G. Browne or Azali versions of Babi history.

Your "wares" are your views and perspectives.. If you are hoping for someone to accept them you are on the wrong board.

- Art

[Popeyesays]

Imran,

In 1850-1852 the Babi's themselves largely destroyed or hid away the works of the Bab to avoid incriminating themselves. Approximately 20,000 Babi's died around the time of Baha`u'llah's confinement to the Siyah Chal.

There were two major sources of the Bab's writings at the time, and both were in Baghdad. These sources were Baha`u'llah Himself, and His half-brother Mirza Yahya, know as Subhi-Azal (Dawn of Eternity). At the time of the exile to Baghdad, the affairs of the Babi's were in turmoil, More than 20 individuals claimed to be He Whom God Would Make Manifest. The conflict was so great that Baha`u'llah withdrew from the city to live two years in the mountains of Kurdistan rather than participate in it. After two years the leaders of the Babi's (except for Mirza Yahya) went out and found Him to bring Him back. He settled the controversy, Mirza Yahya decided that his brother was a threat to his own claim to lead the Babi's and the writings of the Bab in Yahya's possession were heavily altered, this fact is mentioned in lots of sources.

The Babi's of that period did not have much access to the Bayan, mostly the Qayyum'l'Isma (Book of Joseph).

Believe as you like, Imran, the real facts are clear and your website is only quoted by those who have made the Baha`i Faith the object of their hate. What you judge "convenient" or "inconvenient" is immaterial.

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Imran, I refer you to H. M. Balyuzi's E. G. Browne and the Baha'i Faith.

Peace,

Bruce