Mirza Jani.
errol9
supposed to write some literature on the Bab..............Errol
It is a daunting task to find a consistent, clear picture of Bahai
origins. Bahai historians and authorities have suppressed and denigrated the
earliest source materials and rewritten the early years of the Faith. One of
the earliest and most important historical documents of the time, the
Nuqtatul-Kaf, was written by the Babi, Mirza Jani. Jani personally knew
the Bab and died for the Babi faith in 1852. Thus, his history was completed
after the martyrdom of the Bab and before his own death. It clearly states
that the Bab declared Mirza Yahya as his successor while also presenting
Baha-o-llah in a favorable, though inferior position to his brother. Since
that time the Bahais have strenuously suppressed this fact, publishing
histories more favorable to their position. The history above may vary
from official Bahai versions but is consistent with original source
materials.Ifthe history of the Bahai Faith reveals anything it is that the
ethical injunctions of love and tolerance were not frequently applied at the
highest levels. The bitterness, rancor, assassinations and lack of
forgiveness amongst the very founders of this faith do not demonstrate the
reality ofits ethical teachings.
Full text:
http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/history_of_bahai.php
Matt Menge
I am not sure exactly how Baha'is could "suppress" this book, except
for the fact that few other people are potentially interested in it.
Nicola Towfigh offers several reasons why she (?) believes Mirza Jani
is not the author of this book, the Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf:
"There are strong indications that Haji Mirza Jani Kashani was not, in
fact, the author of the manuscript discovered by Browne and publsihed
under the title Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf.
"1. Mirza Jani is quoted twice in the text with the introductory
phrase: 'Haji Kashani reports that...' If Mirza Jani were the author,
he would not quote himself....
"2. It is also highly significant that the Bab's sojourn in the House
of Haji Mirza Jani in Kashan receives only cursory attention. If the
Haji were really the author, he would surely have reported at length
about this meeting with the Bab, the founder of his faith. Indeed the
Tarikh-i-Jadid indicates that Haji Mirza Jani Kashani did provide a
detailed account of the Bab's visit. This report is, however,
completely absent from the Kitab-i-Naqtatu'l-Kaf....
"3. In the published text of the Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf, two different
dates are cited for the composition of the work. As well as the year
1267 (1850-1851), the year 1270 (1853-1854) is given. Yet MIrza Jani
had already been martyred in Teheran on 15 September 1853 CE (1268
AH). Since the date is not written in numbers but in words, a copying
error can be ruled out.
"4. Furthermore, it is mentioned towards the end of the text that
there were many Babis in Istanbul, which cannot have been the case
prior to the death of Haji Mirza Jani Kashani, but around 1866 at the
earliest. Perhaps it is merely an exaggeration on the part of the
author. But, more probably, this statement should be regarded as
decisive evidence for determining the true date of the work. It may
well, therefore, have been written not at either of the dates
mentioned in the Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf, but possibly over 14 years
later. It is, of course, also possible that the original work was
expanded or interpolated at a later date.
"5. Finally, the Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf expresses the view that Mirza
Yahya Azal was the Man yuzhiruhu'llah foretold by the Bab. Had Haji
Mirza Jani Kashani indeed made such a statement before his martyrdom
in 1852, it would definitely not have gone unheard but would have
raised a considerable stir among the Babis, who at that time werw
disoriented and longing for leadership and guidance."
(Making the Crooked Straight, pps. 502-504)
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAB4BD16.1EB76%err...@ntlworld.com>...
Susan Maneck
>Nicola Towfigh offers several reasons why she (?) believes Mirza Jani
>is not the author of this book, the Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf:
Dear Matthew,
It is not just Nicola Towfigh who comes to this conclusion. (She might be
expected to given the fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha denounced it as a forgery.) But
even Denis McEoin came to that conclusion after very careful textual analysis
in which he was able to establish that both Tarikh-i Jadid and Naqutal-Kaf were
based on a common source, presumably Jani's original history.
However Towfigh's analysis would also call into question how accurate it is to
consider the work a forgery. If the author of the work never claimed to be Jani
then it cannot be a forgery.
warmest, Susan
NEMO418
history of Babism named the Kitab Nuqtat'ul-Kaf (The Book of the Point
of K) and was killed during the massive anti-Babi pogroms in 1851-52,
although there is some evidence to show it was written by one Zabih
and claimant to manifestationhood rather than by Mirza Jani Kashani
himself. His history contradicts key points in the later Baha'i
propaganda regrading the roles of Azal and his older brother in the
early period. It shows that Baha did not hold the role later assigned
to him by Baha'i hagiographers at such events as Badasht and Shaykh
Tabarsi, to name but two, and as such was not considered a senior
member of the Babi hierarchy whereas Azal to some degree was. This
account is important because it accurately reflects what the early
Babis thought of their own doctrines and the central roles of the Bab,
the Letters of the Living, the Witnesses and later Azal. The Baha'is
have gone out of their way to discredit this work and its apparent
author for obviously partisan reasons, but these efforts have largely
failed with unbiased scholars. MacEoin, for example, once observed
that efforts by Balyuzi to discredit Browne for producing an edition
of it are of the order of the pathological and clearly sectarian. He
is right.
Nima
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAB4BD16.1EB76%err...@ntlworld.com>...
Matt Menge
Could you please provide the source for this statement by
'Abdu'l-Baha. I am curious and would like to examine it for myself.
Best Regards,
Matt
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030405174227...@mb-fc.aol.com>...
Paul Hammond
> supposed to write some literature on the Bab..............Errol
>
<snip>
>It clearly states
> that the Bab declared Mirza Yahya as his successor while also presenting
> Baha-o-llah in a favorable, though inferior position to his brother. Since
> that time the Bahais have strenuously suppressed this fact, publishing
> histories more favorable to their position. The history above may vary
> from official Bahai versions but is consistent with original source
> materials.
I don't agree with your source on this point. I learned, through
reading Baha'i histories, myself of the fact that Mirza Yahya had
been appointed by the Bab as his successor. It just ain't true
that the Baha'is pretend he wasn't appointed.
The trouble between them came much later, after Baha'u'llah claimed
his status as the One the Bab had promised. Yahya (Subh-i-Azal)
claimed that Baha'u'llah was not who he said he was, that he
was overstepping his authority by making such leadership
claims, and that he should submit himself to Yahya's
authority.
The fact that Yahya opposed Baha'u'llah is what Baha'is
hold against him.
I haven't read any Baha'i source that denies that he was
the official leader of the Babis after the Bab was executed.
---
As to your original question - here's an excerpt from Dawnbreakers
that mentions Mirza Jani:
"The first in Tihran to hear of the circumstances attending that cruel
martyrdom, after the Grand Vazir, was Mirza Aqa Khan-i-Nuri, who had
been banished to Kashan by Muhammad Shah when the Bab was passing
through that city. He had assured Haji Mirza Jani, who had acquainted
him with the precepts of the Faith, that if the love he bore for the
new Revelation would cause him to regain his lost position, he would
exert his utmost endeavour to secure the well-being and safety of the
persecuted community. Haji Mirza Jani reported the matter to his
Master, who charged him to assure the disgraced minister that ere long
he would be summoned to Tihran and would be invested, by his
sovereign, with a position that would be second to none except that of
the Shah himself. He was warned not to forget his promise, and to
strive to carry out his intention. He was delighted with that message,
and renewed the assurance he had given. "
http://bahai-library.org/books/dawnbreakers/chapters/23.html, Section
522
Most of Mirza Jani's writings apparently appear in EG Browne's book:
# Browne, E. G. New History (tarikh-i-jadid) of Mirza Ali-Muhammed the
Bab, The. London: Cambridge University Press, 1893. not proofread or
formatted; please email win...@bahai-library.org to help
Oh, and btw, would you believe I found *this* reference and link
at number fifty-one on the books page?
# Miller, William McElwee. The Bahá'í Faith: Its History and
Teachings. William Carey Library, 1974. (offsite) Note: this book
intentionally distorts much of Bahá'í history; readers are advised to
consult reviews by Douglas Martin and E.L. Sutton (who is not a
Bahá'í) before reading it.
(links to http://www.gospelcom.net/wclbooks/thebahaifaith/)
NEMO418
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAB4BD16.1EB76%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> > Any one heard of Mirza jani a Babi who died two years after the Bab? He was
> > supposed to write some literature on the Bab..............Errol
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >It clearly states
> > that the Bab declared Mirza Yahya as his successor while also presenting
> > Baha-o-llah in a favorable, though inferior position to his brother. Since
> > that time the Bahais have strenuously suppressed this fact, publishing
> > histories more favorable to their position. The history above may vary
> > from official Bahai versions but is consistent with original source
> > materials.
>
> I don't agree with your source on this point.
Not that you'd be in any kind of position to determine the issue one
way or the other.
Nima
Paul Hammond
Way to ignore my argument completely, Nima!
I have read official Baha'i histories that agree with the
fact that Subh-i-Azal was appointed by the Bab.
I say that makes this statement:
"Since that time the Bahais have strenuously suppressed
this fact, publishing histories more favorable to their position."
false.
If you have any evidence of the systematic suppression of
this version of affairs from the Baha'i histories, you
could talk about that. Otherwise, you are just giving
me a childish slap in the face - big surprise coming
from our resident Bahiyanniah bully.
Paul
NEMO418
> this version of affairs from the Baha'i histories, you
> could talk about that. Otherwise, you are just giving
> me a childish slap in the face
I'm giving you a slap in the face - period! And you do not know a word
of Arabic or Persian so you are in no position to determine the matter
with primary sources which you cannot read or understand.
Now piss off back to your little AO cell, limey.
Nima
Pat Kohli
NEMO418 wrote:
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message
> > If you have any evidence of the systematic suppression of
> > this version of affairs from the Baha'i histories, you
> > could talk about that. Otherwise, you are just giving
> > me a childish slap in the face
>
> I'm giving you a slap in the face - period! And you do not know a word
> of Arabic or Persian so you are in no position to determine the matter
> with primary sources which you cannot read or understand.
"Mirza Yahya, the nominal leader of the band that survived the Bab, had
ingloriously sought refuge in the mountains of Mazindaran from the perils
of the turmoil that had seized the capital."
"The Dawnbreakers" (around page 654)
Paul Hammond
> > If you have any evidence of the systematic suppression of
> > this version of affairs from the Baha'i histories, you
> > could talk about that. Otherwise, you are just giving
> > me a childish slap in the face
>
> I'm giving you a slap in the face - period! And you do not know a word
> of Arabic or Persian so you are in no position to determine the matter
> with primary sources which you cannot read or understand.
>
Nah, definitly "childish". The adjective is indispensible.
> Now piss off back to your little AO cell, limey.
>
"little AO cell", is that something like Saddam's
torture chambers?
Paul
NEMO418
> saosh...@yahoo.com.au (NEMO418) wrote in message
> Nah, definitly "childish". The adjective is indispensible.
Good for you. The nouns are pom and poof.
> > Now piss off back to your little AO cell, limey.
> >
>
> "little AO cell", is that something like Saddam's
> torture chambers?
You tell us since you're the one in Haifa's pay.
Nima