Subh-i-Azal

Subh-i-Azal was born in 1831 to Kuchak Khanum-i-Karmanshahi and Mírzá Buzurg-i-Núrí, in the province of Mazandaran, and a younger-half-brother of Baháʼu'lláh. His father was a minister in the court of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar. His mother died while giving birth to him, and his father died in 1834 when he was three years old. His father is buried at Vadi-al-Islam in Najaf. He was orphaned at a very young age and taken into the care of his stepmother, Khadíjih Khánum, the mother of Baháʼu'lláh.[13]

In 1845, at about the age of 14, Subh-i-Azal became a follower of the Báb.[13]

Subh-i-Azal met Tahirih, the 17th Letter of the Living who had, upon leaving the Conference of Badasht, traveled to Nur to propagate the faith. Shortly thereafter, she arrived at Barfurush and met Subh-i-Azal and became acquainted once again with Quddús who instructed her to take Subh-i-Azal with her to Nur. Subh-i-Azal remained in Nur for three days, during which he propagated the new faith. [14]

During the Battle of Fort Tabarsi, Subh-i-Azal, along with Baháʼu'lláh and Mirza Zayn al-Abedin endeavoured to travel there to assist the soldiers. However, they were arrested several kilometers from Amul. Their imprisonment was ordered by the governor, but Subh-i-Azal escaped the officials for a short while, after which he was discovered by a villager and then brought to Amul on foot with his hands tied. On the path to Amul he was subject to harassment, and people are reported to have spat at him. Upon arriving he was reunited with the other prisoners. The prisoners were ordered to be beaten, but when it came time that Subh-i-Azal should suffer the punishment, Baha'u'llah objected and offered to take the beating in his place. After some time, the governor wrote to Abbas Quli Khan who was commander of the government forces stationed near Fort Tabarsi. Khan replied back to the governor's correspondence, saying that the prisoners were of distinguished families and should not be harassed. Thus, the prisoners were released and sent to Nur upon orders of the commander.

According to Baháʼí sources, shortly before the Báb's execution, one of the Báb's scribes, Mullā ʻAbdu'l-Karīm Qazvīnī, brought to the Báb's attention the necessity to appoint a successor; thus the Báb wrote a certain number of tablets which he gave to Mullā ʻAbdu'l-Karīm to deliver to Subh-i-Azal and Baháʼu'lláh.[15] These tablets were later interpreted by both Azalis and Baháʼís as proof of the Báb's delegation of leadership.[15] ʻAbdu'l-Bahá states that the Báb did this at the suggestion of Baháʼu'lláh.[16][17][18]

In an Azali history, Nuqtat'ul-Kāf, Hājjī Mirzā Jāni Kāshānī (d. 1852) states that after the death of Quddus, the Bab received letters from Subh-i-Azal and was inspired to write a testament nominating him as his successor.[19]

The French diplomat and scholar A.-L.-M. Nicolas maintains that Subh-i-Azal's claim to successorship is obvious;.[20] The Baháʼís hold that the Báb, for the purposes of secrecy, when corresponding with Baháʼu'lláh would address the letters to Subh-i-Azal.[21] After the Báb's death Subh-i-Azal came to be regarded as the central authority in the movement to whom the majority of Bábís turned as a source of guidance and revelation.[22]

During the time that both Baháʼu'lláh and Subh-i-Azal were in Baghdad, Baháʼu'lláh publicly and in his letters pointed to Subh-i-Azal as the leader of the community.[21] However, since Subh-i-Azal remained in hiding, Baháʼu'lláh performed much of the daily administration of the Bábí affairs.[21] Then, in 1863 Baháʼu'lláh made a claim to be Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest, the messianic figure in the Báb's writings, to a small number of followers, and in 1866 he made the claim public.[2] Baháʼu'lláh's claims threatened Subh-i-Azal's position as leader of the religion since it would mean little to be leader of the Bábís if "Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest" were to appear and start a new religion.[21] Subh-i-Azal responded to these claims with severe criticism, but his attempt to preserve the traditional Bábísm was largely unpopular, and his followers became the minority.[2]

Subh-i-Azal's leadership was controversial. He generally absented himself from the Bábí community spending his time in Baghdad in hiding and disguise.[2][21][9] Subh-i-Azal gradually alienated himself from a large proportion of the Bábís who started to give their alliance to other claimants.[2] Manuchehri states that Subh-i-Azal remained in hiding because he was primarily concerned with personal safety, due to a statement from the Báb in his will and testament that Subh-i-Azal should protect himself.[11]

MacEoin further states:

Baháʼí polemic has made much capital out of Azal's behaviour at this period, attributing it to a mixture of incompetence and cowardice. But it is clear that he actually continued to identify himself as the head of the Bábís, to write books, reply to letters, and on occasion meet with other leaders of the community His behaviour seems, therefore, to have been dictated less by cowardice than by the adoption of a policy of taqiyya [dissimulation]. Not only was this an approved practice in Shiʻism, but there was particular sanction for it in the seclusionist policies of the last Imams and, in particular, the original ghayba [Occultation] of the Twelfth Imam, who went into hiding out of fear of his enemies.[23]

In 1852, Subh-i-Azal was involved in an uprising in Takur, Iran, which was planned to coincide with the assassination attempt on the life of the Shah.[24] Following the attempt, he and other Babis chose to go into exile in Baghdad.[2] In Baghdad he lived as the generally acknowledged head of the community, but he kept his whereabouts secret from most of the community, instead keeping in contact with the Babis through agents, termed "witnesses", in Iran and Iraq to routinize the charismatic authority of the movement,[2] and echoing "the supposed appointment of agents by the twelfth Imam during the lesser occultation." One of the most important "witnesses of the Bayán" who represented Subh-i-Azal in Baghdad was Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani. Apart from Isfahani, Subh-i-Azal had written to six other individuals naming them all "witnesses of the Bayán." These witnesses are as follows: Mulla Muhammad Ja'far Naraqi, Mulla Muhammad Taqi, Haji Sayyid Muhammad (Isfahani), Haji Sayyid Jawad (al-Karbala'i), Mirza Muhammad Husayn Mutawalli-bashi Qummi, and Mulla Rajab 'Ali Qahir.[25]

In 1863 Bahá’u’lláh made a claim to be Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest, the messianic figure in the Báb's writings, to a small number of followers, and in 1866 he made the claim public. Bahá’u’lláh's claims threatened Subh-i-Azal's position as leader of the religion since it would mean little to be leader of the Bábís if "Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest" were to appear and start a new religion. Subhh-i-Azal responded by making his own claims, but his attempt to preserve the traditional Bábísm was largely unpopular, and his followers became the minority.

The most serious challenge to the authority of Subh-i-Azal came from Mirza Asad Allah Khu'i "Dayyán," whose activities incited him to write a lengthy refutation titled "Mustayqiz." The Hasht Bihisht refers to Dayyán as "the Judas Iscariot of his people." Following the Báb's death, Dayyán, who had a deep interest in the study of the occult in regards to such areas as alchemy and gematria, began to advance his own claims to be Him Whom God shall make manifest. MacEoin reports that Mirza Muhammad Mazandarani, a follower of Subh-i-Azal, murdered Dayyan for his claims in response to an order by Subh-i-Azal for him to be killed.[26]

Ṣubḥ-i-Azal at the age of 80, unknown photographer, Famagusta, 1911 circa.

In 1863 most of the Babis were exiled by the Ottoman authorities to Adrianople.[10] In Adrianople, Baháʼu'lláh made his claim to be the messianic figure of the Bayan public, and created a permanent schism between the two brothers.[2][10] Subh-i-Azal responded to these claims by making his own claims and resisting the changes of doctrine which were introduced by Baháʼu'lláh.[2] His attempts to keep the traditional Babism were, however, mostly unpopular.[2] During this time there was feuding between the two groups.

According to Balyuzi and some other sources, Subh-i-Azal was behind several murders and attempted murders of his enemies, including the poisoning of Baháʼu'lláh.[27][28][29] Some Azali sources re-apply these allegations to Baháʼu'lláh, even claiming that he poisoned himself while trying to poison Subh-i-Azal.[lower-alpha 1] The second attempt in 1864 was more severe and had adverse effects on Bahaʼu'lláh throughout the remainder of his life until 1892. Mírzá Yahyá invited Baháʼu'lláh to a feast and shared a dish, half of which was laced with poison. Baháʼu'lláh was ill for 21 days following this attempt and was left with a shaking hand for the rest of his life.

Finally the feuding between the two groups lead the Ottoman government to further exile the two groups in 1868; Baháʼu'lláh and the Baha'is were sent to Akko and Subh-i Azal and his family, along with some followers, were sent to Famagusta in Cyprus.[2]