µþÄ€µþ, SAYYED Ê¿ALĪ MOḤAMMAD ŠÄªRÄ€ZĪ (1235/1819-1266/1850), the founder of Babism. Born in Shiraz on 1 Moḥarram 1235/20 October 1819, he belonged to a family of ḤosaynÄ« sayyeds, most of whom were engaged in mercantile activities in Shiraz and BÅ«šehr. Conflicting accounts indicate that the BÄb’s father, Sayyed ReÅ¼Ä BazzÄz, died either when he was in infancy or when he was aged nine and that BÄb’s guardianship was undertaken by a maternal uncle, ḤÄjÄ« MÄ«rzÄ Sayyed Ê¿AlÄ«, who later became a disciple and was martyred in Tehran in 1850 (Balyuzi, The Báb, p. 32). The family had few direct links with the Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ, apart from MÄ«rzÄ Moḥammad Ḥasan ŠÄ«rÄzÄ« (the MÄ«rzÄ-ye ŠÄ«rÄzÄ« of the Tobacco Rebellion, q.v.) and ḤÄjÄ« Sayyed JawÄd ŠÄ«rÄzÄ« (an emÄm-e jomÊ¿a of KermÄn), but several of them were active adherents of the Shaikhi school (q.v.; ZarandÄ«, Dawn-Breakers, p. 30). After six or seven years schooling at a local maktab, the BÄb began work in the family business, entering into partnership at the age of fifteen, at which point he went to BÅ«šehr with his guardian. References in some of his early writings, however, suggest that he had little love for business pursuits and instead applied himself to the study of religious literature, including works on feqh. At some point during the five or so years he remained in BÅ«šehr, he began to compose prayers and sermons, an activity which seems to have excited unfavorable comment (Balyuzi, The Báb, p. 40). The BÄb’s short period of study in Iraq, his composition of ³Ù²¹´ÚÄå²õÄ«°ù and works on feqh and °ì²¹±ôÄå³¾, his references to theological literature in his early writings, and his idiosyncratic, ungrammatical Arabic all serve to paint a picture of him in his early youth as a would be Ê¿Äå±ô±ð³¾ with original aspirations and ideas, whose lack of madrasa education, however, excluded from the rank of the Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ.
In 1255/1839-40, he headed for the Ê¿²¹³Ù²¹²úÄå³Ù in Iraq, where he spent a year, mostly in KarbalÄʾ, where he regularly attended the classes of the then head of the Shaikhi school, ḤÄjj Sayyed KÄẓem RaštÄ« (q.v.) and where he became acquainted with several of the latter’s younger disciples, including a number who later became his own followers. This obviously crucial period in his development remains virtually undocumented, however, and it is difficult to define the exact dimensions of the BÄb’s relations with Shaikhism at this time. In 1256/1840-41, the BÄb returned reluctantly to Shiraz at the insistence of his family and in Rajab, 1258/August, 1842, married ḴadÄ«ja Begom, a daughter of his mother’s paternal uncle. A child, Aḥmad, was born in 1259/1843 but died in infancy or was, possibly, stillborn.
Some months later, Sayyed Ê¿AlÄ« Moḥammad had what seems to have been the first of a number of dreams or visions through which he was convinced of a high spiritual station for himself; on the following day, he began the composition of his first major work, a ³Ù²¹´Ú²õÄ«°ù on the sÅ«ra al-Baqara (see ²ú²¹²âÄå²Ô). A second such experience occurred on 15 RabÄ«Ê¿ II 1260/4 May 1844, which he describes as “the first day on which the spirit descended into his heart” (KetÄb al-fehrest, p. 286); this experience seems to have been accompanied or followed by a dream in which he imbibed blood from the severed head of the Imam Ḥosayn, to which he later attributed “the appearance of these verses, prayers and divine sciences” (á¹¢aḥīfa-ye Ê¿adlÄ«ya, p. 14). It must have been immediately after this that he began the composition of his first work of an unconventional nature, the unusual ³Ù²¹´Ú²õÄ«°ù on the sÅ«ra YÅ«sof entitled QayyÅ«m al-asmÄʾ. He continued to experience dreams or visions until at least RamażÄn, 1260/September-October, 1844 (see MacEoin, From Shaykhism, p. 153 n. 134) and possibly much later, but their significance dwindled as he came to believe himself in a state of perpetual grace and a recipient of direct verbal inspiration from the twelfth imam or God Himself.
About the time of his second vision in RabÄ«Ê¿ II, 1260/early May, 1844, Sayyed Ê¿AlÄ« Moḥammad seems already to have been in contact with MollÄ Moḥammad Ḥosayn Bošrūʾī, a young Shaikhi who had come to Shiraz from KarbalÄʾ following the death there of Sayyed KÄẓem RaštÄ« on 11 Ḏu’l-ḥejja 1259/1 January 1844. In common with other Shaikhis, Bošrūʾī was searching for a possible successor to RaštÄ« (see babism) and, on 5 JomÄdÄ I/22 May, Sayyed Ê¿AlÄ« Moḥammad told him privately that he was indeed RaštÄ«’s successor as the bearer of divine knowledge and, more specifically, the channel of communication with (or “gate to”) the Hidden Imam (²úÄå²ú al-emÄm), a theme which is pursued in the pages of the QayyÅ«m al-asmÄʾ. This date is mentioned by the BÄb in several places, notably his Persian µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô (2:7, p. 30). Bošrūʾī accepted these claims after some consideration, as did several other Shaikhis who arrived in Shiraz from KarbalÄʾ shortly after this (see babism). A small group of disciples, to whom he gave the title ḥorÅ«f al-ḥayy (Letters of the Living) was thus formed around the BÄb, instructed by him, and sent out as missionaries on his behalf to various parts of Iran and Iraq.
The BÄb claimed to be the “gate” (²úÄå²ú) and “representative” (²ÔÄåʾ±ð²ú) of the Hidden Imam, succeeding Shaikh Aḥmad AḥsÄʾī and Sayyed KÄẓem RaštÄ« (QayyÅ«m al-asmÄʾ, fols. 41a, 64b, 139a; °ù±ð²õÄå±ô²¹ in Iran National Bahai Archives 6003c, p. 321; see also MacEoin, “From Shaykhism,” pp. 172-73). In his early works, he describes himself as the “remembrance” (á¸e°ì°ù) of the imam, the “servant of the baqÄ«yat AllÄh” (i.e., of the Hidden Imam), and the “seal of the gates” (ḵÄtem al-²¹²ú·ÉÄå²ú) and makes it clear that he has been sent by the Hidden Imam to prepare men for his imminent advent. An anonymous Babi °ù±ð²õÄå±ô²¹ dated 1848 speaks of how, during the lesser occultation of the imam, there appeared the “four appointed gates” (see ²úÄå²ú) while, in the greater occultation, there were in every age “gates not appointed by name or connection” until the appearance of two further specific gates—AḥsÄʾī and RaštÄ« (°ù±ð²õÄå±ô²¹ in Iran National Bahai Archives, MS 6006.C, p. 8). The BÄb himself is the third of these gates (Qorrat-al-Ê¿Ayn, °ù±ð²õÄå±ô²¹ in GolpÄyegÄnÄ«, Kašf, p. 2), after whom the QÄʾem will appear (ibid., pp. 14-15). In several passages, however, the BÄb already identifies himself effectively with the imam, while retaining a distinction of function (MacEoin, From Shaykhism, p. 174; for a full discussion of the earliest claims of the BÄb see MacEoin, ibid., chap. 5).
While his earliest disciples spread news of his appearance, the BÄb left Shiraz on 26 ŠaÊ¿bÄn 1260/10 September 1844, accompanied by MollÄ Moḥammad Ê¿AlÄ« BÄrforÅ«šÄ« and an Ethiopian slave, heading for Mecca by way of BÅ«šehr. After performing the ḥaÂáÂá and visiting Medina, he returned to BÅ«šehr on 8 JomÄdÄ I 1261/15 May 1845 and stayed there until around mid-Rajab/July. Before leaving for the ḥaÂáÂá, he had sent instructions to his followers to gather in KarbalÄʾ to await his arrival there, which would be a signal for the appearance of the imam and the waging of the final Âá±ð³óÄå»å. For reasons that are still unclear, but which may be linked to the arrest and dispatch to Istanbul of his emissary to KarbalÄʾ, MollÄ Ê¿AlÄ« Besá¹ÄmÄ«, the BÄb decided to return instead to Shiraz. An incident there involving some Babis (including BÄrforÅ«šÄ«, who had gone ahead from BÅ«šehr) about mid-June led the governor, MÄ«rzÄ á¸¤osayn Khan Moqaddam MarÄḡaʾī Ä€jÅ«dÄnbĚī, to seek the BÄb’s arrest; the latter was, accordingly, taken into custody while en route from BÅ«šehr at the end of June. Placed under house-arrest in his uncle’s home, the BÄb occupied himself with writing and with meeting a stream of visitors now making their way to Shiraz, many of them Shaikhis from KarbalÄʾ. Kept thus in communication with his followers in Iran and Iraq, he was able to direct the course of the growing movement which had by now taken its name from his principal title. Although the leaders of the Babi movement in the provinces played a significant part in the development of doctrine and the working out of policies, the role of the BÄb ought not to be underestimated. Successive imprisonments between 1261/1845 and 1267/1850 prevented him from active participation in the affairs of the sect, but his writings were copied and widely disseminated and large numbers of pilgrims succeeded in obtaining personal interviews with him, in spite of official disapproval. His authority over his followers remained supreme: Thus, during the controversies centered on the figure of Qorrat-al-Ê¿Ayn (q.v.) which rocked the Babi community of KarbalÄʾ in the early period, final appeal was made to the BÄb in person (Balyuzi, The Báb, p. 68; MacEoin, From Shaykhism, pp. 203, 207).
There is evidence that, in BÅ«šehr and again in Shiraz, the BÄb adopted a policy of ³Ù²¹±çÄ«²â²¹, which involved the public renunciation of his original claims (see Fayżī, ḴÄn±ð»åÄå²Ô, pp. 25-28; Balyuzi, The Báb, pp. 94-98; MÄ«rzÄ Asad-AllÄh FÄżel MÄzandarÄnÄ«, ´¡²õ°ùÄå°ù-²¹±ô-ÄåṯÄr I, Tehran, 124 B. (µþ²¹»åÄ«Ê¿)/1968-69, pp. 179-82). In writings dating from this period and the one following, he denies that there can be an “appointed gate” (²úÄå²ú manṣūṣ) for the Hidden Imam after the first four gates and argues that any “revelation” (·É²¹á¸¥y) claimed by him is not comparable to that given to Moḥammad (see ibid.). On one occasion, he was pressed to make a public appearance in the WakÄ«l mosque of Shiraz, in the course of which he denied all claim to ²úÄå²úÄ«ya (see Balyuzi, The Báb, pp. 94-98).
During an outbreak of cholera in Shiraz in September, 1846, the BÄb succeeded in escaping to Isfahan, where he had already sent a number of disciples to await his arrival, and where he was favorably received in the home of the emÄm-e jomÊ¿a. For a brief period, he was involved in public discussions of his claims, but growing opposition from the Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ ended in the issue of a ´Ú²¹³Ù·ÉÄå for his execution. At that point he was secretly transferred to the residence of the governor, ManÅ«Äehr Khan MoÊ¿tamed-al-Dawla, whose interest in the BÄb’s message may have also been tinged by political considerations. MoÊ¿tamed-al-Dawla’s plans, which included the introduction of the BÄb to Moḥammad Shah (possibly with a view to his ultimately replacing ḤÄjÄ« MÄ«rzÄ Ä€qÄsÄ« as the king’s advisor), collapsed on his death in February, 1847. The loss of his supporter, who had already protected him from the Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ of Isfahan by concealing him in his own residence, was a serious blow to the BÄb. GorgÄ«n Khan, MoÊ¿tamed-al-Dawla’s nephew and successor, discovered the prophet and sent him under escort to Tehran, notifying the court of his action. At Kolayn near the capital, however, instructions came that the BÄb was to be taken to the town of MÄkÅ« in Azerbaijan, where he arrived, after a stay of forty days in TabrÄ«z, about July, 1847. It has been suggested that the prime minister, ḤÄjÄ« MÄ«rzÄ Ä€qÄsÄ«, prevented the BÄb’s arrival in Tehran out of fear that he might supplant him as an influence on Moḥammad Shah (ZarandÄ«, Dawn-Breakers, pp. 231-32). In MÄkÅ« the BÄb was placed under what was originally close confinement in the castle overlooking the town, but before long conditions were sufficiently relaxed to permit the arrival of visitors and the resumption of communications between him and his followers.
The BÄb’s growing popularity and the ease with which he was still able to orchestrate the movement for which he was the figurehead gave considerable cause for concern to ḤÄjÄ« MÄ«rzÄ Ä€qÄsÄ«. At this point, the Russian Minister in Tehran, Dolgorukov, began to exert pressure on the Prime Minister to have the BÄb removed from MÄkÅ«, which was located dangerously close to the Russian border; a recent messianic movement in the Caucasus had caused serious problems for the Russians and their fears of renewed chiliastic agitation in the region seem to have been behind their request for the BÄb’s removal (see Momen, BÄbÄ« and BahÄʾī Religions, p. 72). From MÄkÅ«, the BÄb, was, accordingly, transferred to ÄŒahrÄ«q near Urmia, at a fair distance from the sensitive border region but still sufficiently far from the heart of Iran. He arrived there in early May, 1848, and was placed under strict confinement.
During the later period of the BÄb’s confinement in MÄkÅ«, he began to advance claims even more startling than those of ²úÄå²ú and ²ÔÄåʾ±ð²ú. In a letter written shortly before his transfer to ÄŒahrÄ«q, copies of which were soon distributed on his instructions among his followers, he proclaimed himself the Imam MahdÄ« in person and announced the abrogation of the laws of Islam (MÄzandarÄnÄ«, Ẓo³óÅ«°ù, pp. 164-66). Not long after his arrival in ÄŒahrÄ«q, he was brought temporarily to TabrÄ«z, where he was examined by a tribunal of religious and civil dignitaries, including NÄá¹£er-al-DÄ«n MÄ«rzÄ, the crown prince, then governor of Azerbaijan. At this hearing, the BÄb made public his claim to be the return of the Hidden Imam and was unofficially sentenced to death by several of the Ê¿´Ç±ô²¹³¾Äåʾ present. The charge of insanity was introduced in order to prevent his execution at this juncture.
In an account of the BÄb’s interrogation possibly written by AmÄ«r Aá¹£lÄn Khan Majd-al-Dawla, it is stated that, following his bastinado, the BÄb recanted his claims and gave a “sealed undertaking” that he would not repeat his errors. What appears to be the original of this latter document was discovered in the Iranian state archives after the deposition of Moḥammad-Ê¿AlÄ« Shah in 1909; it is now understood to be preserved in the Majles Library. The authenticity of the recantation document seems to rest, not only on the handwriting, which bears comparison with that of the BÄb, but also on the explicit denial in it of specific viceregency (nÄ«Äba ḵÄṣṣa) on behalf of the imam, something the BÄb had already denied several times before. (Facsimiles of both these documents are reproduced by Browne in Materials, pp. 248-56.) The implications of his claim to ±çÄåʾ±ð³¾Ä«²â²¹ had already been made clear to the authorities when he was brought through Urmia en route to TabrÄ«z. Several accounts, including some by American missionaries, indicate that large numbers of people turned out to greet him with an enthusiasm bordering on acceptance of him as the imam in person (Momen, op. cit., pp. 73-74). Repeated scenes of this kind, were they to be allowed, could only lead in one direction. That direction was further indicated (almost simultaneously with the BÄb’s examination in TabrÄ«z, see above) at a gathering of some eighty Babi activists in the village of Badašt in MÄzandarÄn, where the BÄb’s claim to be the Hidden Imam was announced together with a proclamation abrogating the Islamic &³§³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;²¹°ùÄ«Ê¿²¹. The Badašt gathering seems to have acted as a signal, in concert with the BÄb’s own announcement of his more developed claims, for the successive Babi-led risings in MÄzandarÄn, NeyrÄ«z (NÄ«rÄ«z) and ZanjÄn, between 1848 and 1850 (see babism).
Following his return to ÄŒahrÄ«q in August, 1848, however, the BÄb devoted himself to the elaboration of a yet more radical development of his position. In the works written between then and his execution in July, 1850, notably in the later parts of the Persian µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô, he claimed to be, not merely the Imam MahdÄ«, but a theophanic representation of the godhead, a divine manifestation (maẓhar-e elÄhÄ«) empowered to reveal a new &³§³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;²¹°ùÄ«Ê¿²¹, the basic outline of which may be found in the Persian and Arabic µþ²¹²âÄå²Ôs. It is unlikely that these claims of the BÄb were widely known to his followers in the period before his death (the µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô, for example, was not much distributed before then), but they proved an important influence on later Babism with its numerous theophanic claimants, and, in particular, on Bahaism as it developed this strand of the BÄb’s teaching from the 1860s. Several of the BÄb’s writings during this period, such as the KetÄb al-asmÄʾ and KetÄb-e panj šaʾn indicate growing doctrinal idiosyncrasy and a preoccupation with the amplification of ritual practices largely unrelated to the actual circumstances of the Babi community.
The struggle between a group of Babis and state forces in MÄzandarÄn (September, 1848-May, 1849) caused considerable anxiety in the early months of NÄá¹£er-al-DÄ«n Shah’s reign, but its eventual suppression and the fact that it had been restricted to a rural area lessened the fear of the government. When, however, violence broke out in the urban centers of NeyrÄ«z and ZanjÄn in May, 1850, MÄ«rzÄ TaqÄ« Khan AmÄ«r NeẓÄm decided to take the extreme step of having the BÄb put to death. He was, accordingly, brought to TabrÄ«z at the end of June, 1850, and executed by firing squad in the barracks square there at noon on either July 8 or 9. (The Bahais celebrate this event on 9 July, stating that it occurred on 28 ŠaÊ¿bÄn 1266, but several contemporary sources give the date as 8 July—see Momen, op. cit., p. 78 and n.) Accounts of the execution exist, but none is a direct eye-witness description, although there are a few second-hand versions based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. The BÄb survived the first volley, when the bullets cut ropes suspending him and MÄ«rzÄ Moḥammad-Ê¿AlÄ« ZonÅ«zÄ«, a disciple, condemned to death with him; a second regiment had to be brought in to complete the task. The corpses of the BÄb and his fellow-victim were thrown together into a ditch, where they were said to have been eaten by dogs, an action which prompted Justin Sheil, then British Minister in Tehran, to address a note to the prime minister expressing outrage at its barbarity (Momen, Babi and Bahaʾi Religion, p. 79). Babi sources maintain, however, that the bodies were removed from the ditch through the efforts of a certain ḤÄjÄ« SolaymÄn Khan MÄ«lÄnÄ« and eventually brought to Tehran, where they were buried in secret at the EmÄmzÄda Ḥasan, in which location some modern Babis believe them to remain (Nicolas, Sayyed Ali Mohammed, pp. 379-85). Bahai accounts, however, state that the remains were at one point removed from the EmÄmzÄda on the instructions of MÄ«rzÄ á¸¤osayn-Ê¿AlÄ« BahÄʾ-AllÄh and transferred from hiding-place to hiding-place for almost fifty years before being brought to Palestine in 1899. A shrine to house the remains was begun on Mt. Carmel by Ê¿AbbÄs EffendÄ« Ê¿Abd-al-BahÄʾ, who interred them there in 1908 (Balyuzi, The Báb, pp. 189-92). Some time later, a marble superstructure topped by a gold-tiled dome was erected over the original shrine and is today a well-known landmark in Haifa, forming the central feature of the complex of Bahai buildings there.
The BÄb’s personality remains elusive in the absence of detailed contemporary descriptions and the presence of so much later hagiographical material. According to Dr. William Cormick, an Irish physician who treated the BÄb following his bastinado in TabrÄ«z in 1848, he was “a very mild and delicate-looking man, rather small in stature and very fair for a Persian, with a melodious soft voice, which struck me much. Being a Sayyid, he was dressed in the habits of that sect . . . . In fact his whole look and deportment went far to dispose me in his favour” (quoted in Browne, Materials, p. 262). This picture of the BÄb is borne out by more concrete evidence, such as a portrait preserved in the Bahai archives in Haifa, clothing and other personal effects, and examples of penmanship all testify to a highly-developed aesthetic temperament. The influence of this love of delicacy and fine things is apparent in many of the BÄb’s injunctions in the Persian µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô and elsewhere, including regular bathing and depilation, the use of perfumes, rose-water, and henna, the wearing of precious stones, the use of the best paper and calligraphy for writing the scriptures, the detailed rules for the washing, adornment, and burial of the dead, and even in the prohibition on beating children. Such an image must be balanced, however, by reference to the BÄb’s obvious harshness in such matters as Âá±ð³óÄå»å, the treatment of unbelievers and their property (including religious shrines), and the destruction of non-Babi books.
During the nineteenth century, something of a myth of the BÄb was perpetuated in some intellectual and literary circles in Europe, largely owing to the widespread influence of the Comte de Gobineau’s Religions et philosophies dans l’Asie centrale (Paris, 1865), which presented an extended and somewhat inaccurate picture of the BÄb not unlike that of Moḥammad popular during the French Enlightenment. This phenomenon is best described by the French journalist Jules Bois, who wrote of the BÄb’s death: “All Europe was stirred to pity and indignation. . . . Among the litterateurs of my generation, in the Paris of 1890, the martyrdom of the BÄb was still as fresh a topic as had been the first news of his death. We wrote poems about him. Sarah Bernhardt entreated Catulle Mendes for a play on the theme of this historic tragedy” (“Babism and Bahaʾism,” Forum 74, 1925, quoted in Momen, op. cit., p. 50). Among others attracted to the BÄb in this period figured Matthew Arnold, Ernest Renan, and, in Russia, Turgenev and Tolstoy; little of this enthusiasm survived into the twentieth century (for further details, see Momen, op. cit., pp. 3-56).
The BÄb’s fame has endured chiefly within the context of Bahaism (see bahai faith) in which he plays an important role as an independent divine manifestation in some respects equal, in others subordinate to, MÄ«rzÄ á¸¤osayn-Ê¿AlÄ« BahÄʾ-AllÄh, for whom he is held to act as a herald (mobaššer). Although Bahai accounts of the BÄb are more reliable than those of Gobineau and other early European writers, they are frequently edited in order to fit into the wider perspective of Bahai history and are often hagiographic. The standard account, on which all later versions are based to a greater or lesser extent, is MollÄ Moḥammad NabÄ«l ZarandÄ«’s history available only in English translation as The Dawn-Breakers and subtitled Nabil’s Narrative of the Early Days of the BahÄʾī Revelation. Among Western Bahais the image of the BÄb is frequently compared to the Christ of popular devotion and made to figure as the saint par excellence of the religion. Few references are made in the published materials to his early claims, his laws, his ritual innovations, or other matters felt to be inconsistent with this image.
For details of the BÄb’s works, see ²ú²¹²âÄå²Ô.
Doctrines. It is difficult to summarize the doctrines taught by the BÄb, largely because these changed substantially between the earliest and latest periods of his career. In works written during the first years following his claim to be ²úÄå²ú al-emÄm, considerable stress is laid on the theme that his teachings represent the “true Islam” (al-dÄ«n al-ḵÄleá¹£). Thus, “this religion is, before God, the essence of the religion of Moḥammad” (QayyÅ«m al-asmÄʾ, fol. 78a), while God has “made this book the essence of the Koran, word for word” (ibid., fol. 72b; cf. fol. 53b) and “The pure faith is the Remembrance in security; whoever desires Islam, let him submit himself to his cause” (ibid., fol. 2a). The laws of Moḥammad and the imams were to remain binding “until the day of resurrection” (ibid., fol. 185b): Islamic injunctions as to what was ḥa°ùÄå³¾ and ḥa±ôÄå±ô were to remain in force (á¹¢aḥīfa-ye Ê¿adlÄ«ya, pp. 5-6; cf. Balyuzi, The Báb, pp. 97-98). At the same time, the BÄb claimed authority to clarify obscure issues relating to the details of the &³§³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;²¹°ùÄ«Ê¿²¹, such as á¹£a±ôÄå³Ù, ³ú²¹°ìÄå³Ù, and Âá±ð³óÄå»å, and also introduced some ordinances extending or intensifying the standard Koranic regulations. According to one of his followers, in his early letters, the BÄb “put desirable matters (³¾´Ç²õ³Ù²¹á¸¥a²ú²úÄå³Ù) in the place of obligatory (·ÉÄåÂá±ð²úÄå³Ù), and undesirable matters (³¾²¹°ì°ùÅ«³óÄå³Ù) in the place of forbidden (³¾´Çḥa°ù°ù²¹³¾Äå³Ù). Thus, for example, he regarded it as obligatory to have four tablets (mohr) from the soil (from the shrine) of the prince of martyrs, [i.e., Imam Ḥosayn], on which to place the hands, forehead and nose during the prostration of ²Ô²¹³¾Äå³ú; he considered the pilgrimage of Ê¿Ä€&²õ³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;Å«°ùÄå a duty; he laid down prayers (²¹á¸Ê¿Ä«a) and supererogatory observances (³Ù²¹Ê¿±çÄ«²úÄå³Ù); he proclaimed the obligation of Friday prayeá¹› . . . ; and he fashioned amulets (³ó²¹²âÄå°ì±ð±ô), charms (²¹á¸¥rÄå³ú), and talismans (á¹e±ô²¹²õ³¾Äå³Ù) such as are prepared among the people . . . . All his companions acted with the utmost circumspection according to the ´Çṣūl and ´Ú´Ç°ùÅ«Ê¿ of Islam” (Moḥammad-Ê¿AlÄ« ZonÅ«zÄ«, quoted by MÄzandarÄnÄ«, op. cit., pp. 31-32). Several important supererogatory injunctions are to be found in the Ḵaá¹£Äʾel-e sabÊ¿a, written by the BÄb during his ḥaÂáÂá journey, and in another work of this period, the á¹¢aḥīfa bayn al-ḥaramayn.
A wider picture of early doctrines may be found in the á¹¢aḥīfa-ye Ê¿adlÄ«ya, which, among other things, condemns the concept of waḥdat al-wojÅ«d as šerk (p. 16), lists the seven bases (´Çṣūl) of ³¾²¹Ê¿°ù±ð´Ú²¹ as ³Ù²¹·Éḥīd, ³¾²¹Ê¿Äå²ÔÄ«, ²¹²ú·ÉÄå²ú, ±ð³¾Äå³¾²¹, ²¹°ù°ìÄå²Ô, ²Ô´Ç±ç²¹²úÄåʾ, and ²Ô´ÇÂá²¹²úÄåʾ (pp. 20-31); states that prayer through the imam or others is kofr (p. 20); denies that either AḥsÄʾī or RaštÄ« prayed through Ê¿AlÄ« or thought him the Creator (p. 22); regards the station of the imams as higher than that of the prophets (p. 24); states that most Twelver ShiÊ¿ites, because of their ignorance of the station of the ²Ô´Ç±ç²¹²úÄåʾ, will go to hell (p. 31); declares the enemies of AḥsÄʾī and RaštÄ« to be unbelievers like the Sunnis (pp. 32-33); refers to the necessity of belief in a physical resurrection and ³¾±ðÊ¿°ùÄåÂá (p. 34); condemns the idea of spiritual resurrection and maintains that AḥsÄʾī did not speak of it (p. 34); and, finally, speaks of obedience to himself, as the “servant” of the twelfth imam, as obligatory (p. 41).
Finally, it is worth noting that messianic expectation, although far from dominant in these early works, finds a place in them, notably in the QayyÅ«m al-asmÄʾ, where it is frequently joined with exhortation to wage Âá±ð³óÄå»å, a fact to which reference must be made in any attempt to understand the Babi-state conflicts of 1848-50 (for full details, see MacEoin, “BÄbÄ« Concept of Holy War”).
The BÄb’s doctrines, which exhibit many of the gnostic and Neoplatonist features common to earlier ShiÊ¿ite sects such as the IsmaÊ¿ilis and ḤorÅ«fÄ«s, tend to become more abstruse in the later periods. The crucial change occurs with the BÄb’s abrogation of Islamic law in 1264/1848, followed by the elaboration of his own &³§³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;²¹°ùÄ«Ê¿²¹ and doctrinal system. This highly elaborated body of ideas, frequently expressed in oblique and allusive language and lacking any real organization, is not easy to summarize. There have been no later Babi theologians to analyze or systematize the elements of the BÄb’s scattered thoughts. At the heart of the system is the belief that the divine or eternal essence (á¸Ät-e elÄhÄ«, á¸Ät-e azal) is unknowable, indescribable, and inaccessible (µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô-e fÄrsÄ« 3:7, p. 81; 4:1, p. 105; 4:2, p. 110). The revelation of God (ẓohÅ«r AllÄh) in this world is that of the Tree of Reality (šajara-ye ḥaqÄ«qat) (ibid., 2:8, p. 37), a term frequently used for the Primal Will (mašÄ«yat-e awwalÄ«ya) (ibid., 4:6, pp. 120-21) which has appeared in all the prophets (DalÄʾel-e sabÊ¿a, pp. 2-3). The BÄb compares the Primal Will to the sun which remains single and unchanged, although appearing under different names and forms in the persons of the prophets in whom it is manifested, as if in a mirror (ibid.; ÄŒahÄr šaʾn, quoted in Āʾīn-e BÄb, pp. 48-49; untitled á¹£aḥīf²¹, quoted ibid., p. 49). This manifestation of the Primal Will is frequently referred to as the Point of Truth (noqá¹a-ye ḥaqÄ«qat) (µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô-e fÄrsÄ« 3:7, p. 81) or Primal Point (noqá¹a-ye Å«lÄ)—the latter term being the most common title used of the BÄb by his followers—from whom all things are originated (ibid., 1:1, p. 4; 3:8, p. 37) and by whom the prophets and books have been sent down (ibid., 2:8, p. 37). This Point possesses two stations; a divine station in which it is the manifestation of the divinity (maẓhar-e olÅ«hÄ«yat), and a human station in which it manifests its servitude (ibid., 4:1, pp. 105, 107). In his human form, the prophet is the apex of creation and the perfect man, since all things progress until they find their perfection in man and man develops until he culminates in the prophet (ibid., 2:1, pp. 14-15). It is only by meeting this theophany that man can be said to meet God (ibid., 2:7, p. 31; 2:6, p. 63; 3:7, p. 81); thus, references in the Koran to the meeting with God (leqÄʾ AllÄh) are, in reality, references to meeting Moḥammad (ibid., 3:7, p. 81). All things have been created to attain to this meeting (ibid., 6:232, p. 222; DalÄʾel-e sabÊ¿a, p. 31). Since the time of the revelation of Adam to that of the BÄb, 12,210 years have elapsed, although God undoubtedly had unnumbered worlds and Adams before this cycle (µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô-e fÄrsÄ« 3:13, p. 95); but in every world, the manifestation of the Primal Will has always been the Point of the µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô, the BÄb, for he is identical with Adam (ibid.); thus, “in the day of Noah, I was Noah, in the day of Abraham, I was Abraham” (untitled á¹£aḥīf²¹ quoted in Āʾīn-e BÄb, p. 49). Indeed, this same Point will appear again and again in future manifestations of the Primal Will (ibid.). Nevertheless, there is progress from one manifestation to the next: In each succeeding theophany, the appearance is nobler than in the one before; hence, all the revelations of the past were created for the appearance of Moḥammad, they and the revelation of Moḥammad were created for the appearance of the BÄb (QÄʾem), and so on into the future (µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô-e fÄrsÄ« 4:12, p. 136). Adam is compared to the human being in the state of a seed in the womb, the BÄb to a twelve-year old child (ibid., 3:13, p. 95).
One of the most important elements in the BÄb’s thought is his elaborate symbolic interpretation of eschatological terms. Thus, resurrection (±çÄ«Äå³¾²¹) is the appearance of the Primal Will in its latest manifestation (ibid., 2:7, p. 30); just as all things were originally created in one person, so all will be resurrected in one person, whereupon they will be individually resurrected in their various places (ibid., 2:11, p. 47). Physical resurrection of bodies from their graves, however, will not take place (ibid.). The Day of Resurrection extends from the moment of the appearance of the Tree of Truth in each age until his disappearance; thus, the resurrection of Moses took place from the appearance of Jesus until his Ascension (ibid., 2:7, p. 30). The resurrection of Islam began with the BÄb’s announcement of his mission two hours and eleven minutes after sunset on the evening of 5 JomÄdÄ I 1260 and will end at his death (ibid.). In this resurrection, the return (°ù²¹ÂáÊ¿²¹) of Moḥammad, the imams, FÄá¹ema, and the four ²¹²ú·ÉÄå²ú, has taken place in the persons of the eighteen ḥorÅ«f al-ḥayy, the BÄb’s first disciples (ibid., 1:2-19, pp. 6-10). After the death of the prophet, a fatrat intervenes, during which there are witnesses (&²õ³¦²¹°ù´Ç²Ô;´Ç³ó²¹»åÄåʾ) until his return (ibid., 2:3, p. 22); during this fatrat, the Primal Will is within creation, but is not recognized outwardly (ibid., 2:9, pp. 44-45). When, however, the Point is again manifested, belief in him is paradise and unbelief hell (ibid., 2:9, p. 44); indeed, the first to believe is himself the essence of paradise and the first to disbelieve the essence of hell (ibid., 2:17, p. 68). All things are in a condition of either belief or denial (ibid., 2:3, p. 23), belonging to the “Letters of Exaltation” (ḥorÅ«f-e Ê¿elÄ«yÄ«n) or their opposite (ḥorÅ«f-e dÅ«n-e Ê¿elÄ«yÄ«n) (ibid., 2:2, pp. 20-21). In another sense, all things find their paradise in their perfection (ibid., 5:4, p. 155). Other eschatological terms such as qabr, á¹£e°ùÄåá¹, ³¾Ä«³úÄå²Ô, ḥe²õÄå²ú, °ì±ð³ÙÄå²ú, ²õÄåÊ¿²¹ are given similar interpretations (ibid., 2:10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18).
A constant theme of the Persian µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô—and one which was to have important implications for later developments—is that of man yoẓherohoʾllÄh (him whom God shall make manifest) the next embodiment of the Primal Will, whose appearance is anticipated sometime between 1511 and 2001 years in the future, or sooner if God wills. Many of the prescriptions of the µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô are connected in some way to respect for man yoẓherohoʾllÄh or preparation for his appearance. The BÄb also developed a complex legal system, much of which was clearly intended for implementation in the theocratic Babi state he anticipated; there is a marked contrast between regulations directed towards unbelievers and those applicable to Babis, the former being harsh, the latter milder than in Islam. There are regulations for marriage, burial, pilgrimage, prayer, and other devotional and ritual practices, often in detail. (Full descriptions of these may be found in MacEoin, “Ritual and Semi-Ritual Observances.”)
Bibliography:
No really adequate biographical study on the BÄb exists. A. L. M. Nicolas, Séyyèd Ali Mohammed dit le Bâb, Paris, 1905, is a study of the movement more than the man. Similar in scope, but with rather more about the BÄb himself, are H. M. Balyuzi, The Báb, Oxford, 1973, and M. Ê¿A. Fayżī, Ḥażrat-e Noqá¹a-ye ŪlÄ, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973-74, both of which depend largely upon MollÄ Moḥammad NabÄ«l ZarandÄ«, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’i Revelation, ed. and tr. Shoghi Effendi, Wilmette, Ill., 1932.
On the BÄb’s family in general, see M. Ê¿A. Fayżī, ḴÄnadÄn-e AfnÄn, Tehran, 127 µþ²¹»åÄ«Ê¿/1349 Š./1970-71.
On the BÄb’s first wife, see H. M. Balyuzi, Ḵḫadíjih Bagum: The Wife of the Báb, Oxford, 1981.
See also A. Amanat Resurrection and the Renewal of the Age: The Emergence of the Babi Movement in Qajar Iran (1844-1852) (forthcoming).
Anonymous, Āʾīn-e BÄb, n.p., n.d. E. G. Browne, ed., Materials for the Study of the BÄbÄ« Religion, Cambridge, 1918.
J. A. de Gobineau, Religions et philosophies dans l’Asie Centrale, 10th ed., Paris, 1957.
MÄ«rzÄ Abu’l-Fażl Moḥammad GolpÄyegÄnÄ« and MÄ«rzÄ MahdÄ« GolpÄyegÄnÄ«, Kašf al-ḡeá¹Äʾ Ê¿an ḥīal al-aÊ¿dÄʾ, Ashkhabad, n.d.
F. Kazemzadeh, “Two Incidents in the Life of the Báb,” World Order 5/3, 1971, pp. 21-24.
S. Lambden, “An Incident in the Childhood of the Bab,” in P. Smith, ed., In Iran: Studies in Bábí and Baháʾíí History III, Los Angeles, 1986.
D. M. MacEoin, From Shaykhism to Babism: A Study in Charismatic Renewal in Shīʿī Islam, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1979 (University Microfilms 81-70,043).
Idem, “The BÄbÄ« Concept of Holy War,” Religion 12, 1982, pp. 93-129.
Idem, “Ritual and Semi-Ritual Observances in Babism and Bahaʾism,” paper read to the BahÄʾī Studies Seminar 1980, University of Lancaster.
Idem, Early Babi Doctrine and History: A Survey of Source Materials (forthcoming).
Idem, “Early Shaykhí Reactions to the Báb and his Claims,” in M. Momen, ed., Studies in Bábí and Baháʾí History I, Los Angeles, 1983.
MÄ«rzÄ Asad-AllÄh FÄżel MÄzandarÄnÄ«, KetÄb-e ẓohÅ«r al-ḥaqq III, Cairo, n.d.
Sayyed Ê¿AlÄ«-Moḥammad ŠÄ«rÄzÄ«, µþ²¹²âÄå²Ô-e fÄrsÄ«, [Tehran], n.d.
Idem, Ṣaḥīfa-ye ʿadlīya, [Tehran], n.d.
Idem, QayyÅ«m al-asmÄʾ, Cambridge University Library, ms., Browne Or. F. 11.
Idem, ResÄla-ye ´Ú´Ç°ùÅ«Ê¿ al-Ê¿adlÄ«ya, Iran National Bahai Archives 5010.C.
Idem, KetÄb al-fehrest, Iran National Bahai Archives 6003.C.
(D. M. MacEoin)
Originally Published: December 15, 1988
Last Updated: August 18, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. III, Fasc. 3, pp. 278-284
D. M. MacEoin, “µþÄ€µþ, Ê¿Ali Moḥammad ŠirÄzi,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, III/3, pp. 278-284, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bab-ali-mohammad-sirazi (accessed on 30 December 2012).
