# Subh-i-Azal

Subh-i-Azal (1831–1912, born Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī) was an Iranian religious leader of Bābism, appointed as head of the movement by the Bāb just before the latter's execution in 1850. He is known for his later conflict with his half-brother Baháʼu'lláh over leadership of the Bābī community, after which his followers became known as Azalis.
At the time of appointment he was just 19 years old. Two years later a pogrom began to exterminate the Bābīs in Iran, and Subh-i-Azal fled for Baghdad for 10 years before joining the group of Bābī exiles that were called to Istanbul. During the time in Baghdad tensions grew with Baháʼu'lláh, as Bābī pilgrims began to turn to the latter for leadership. The Ottoman government further exiled the group to Edirne, where Subh-i-Azal openly rejected Baháʼu'lláh's claim of divine revelation and the community of Bābīs were divided by their allegiance to one or the other.
In 1868 the Ottoman government further exiled Subh-i-Azal and his followers to Cyprus, and Baháʼu'lláh and his followers to Acre in Palestine. When Cyprus was leased to Britain in 1878, he lived out the rest of his life in obscurity on a British pension.
By 1904, Azal's followers had dwindled to a small minority, and Baháʼu'lláh was almost universally recognized as the spiritual successor of the Bāb. After Azal's death in 1912, the Azali form of Bābism entered a stagnation and has not recovered as there is no acknowledged leader or central organization. Most Bābīs either accepted the claim of Baháʼu'lláh or the community gradually diminished as children and grandchildren turned back to Islam. A source in 2001 estimated no more than a few thousand, almost entirely in Iran. Another source in 2009 noted a very small number of followers remained in Uzbekistan.

## Name and title

His given name was Yahyā, which is the Arabic form of the English name "John". As the son of a nobleman in the county of Núr, he was known as Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī (Persian: میرزا یحیی نوری). His most widely known title, "Subh-i-Azal" (or "Sobh-i-Ezel"; Persian: یحیی صبح ازل, "Morning of Eternity") is derived from an Islamic tradition called the Hadith-i-Kumayl, a tradition the Bāb quotes in his book Dalā'il-i-Sab'ih.
It was common practice for the Bāb to confer titles or new names for his followers. Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī was granted such titles as al-Waḥīd, Ṭalʻat an-Nūr, and ath-Thamara, Everlasting Mirror (Mir'ātu'l-Azaliyya), Name of Eternity (Ismu'l-azal), and Fruit of the Bayan (Thamara-i-Bayan). Subh-i-Azal appears to have been a title adopted by Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī himself.

## Background

Subh-i-Azal was born in 1831 to Mīrzā Buzurg-i-Nūrī and his fourth wife Kuchak Khanum-i-Karmanshahi, in the province of Mazandaran. 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 1839 when he was eight years old, after which he was cared for by his stepmother Khadíjih Khánum, the mother of Baháʼu'lláh.
In 1845, at about the age of 14, Subh-i-Azal became a follower of the Bāb after the adoption of the faith by his elder brother.

### Early activities in the Bābī community

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.
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 Bābīs. 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.

### Marriages and children

According to Browne, Mirza Yahya had several wives, and at least nine sons and five daughters. His sons included: Nurullah, Hadi, Ahmad, Abdul Ali, Rizwan Ali (known as Constantine the Persian), and four others. Rizwan Ali reports that he had eleven or twelve wives. Later research reports that he had up to seventeen wives including four in Iran and at least five in Baghdad. Smith reports that he had "perhaps twenty-five children in all".
His granddaughter, Roshanak Nodust, was later known for starting Peyk-e Saadat Nesvan, the first woman's rights magazine in Iran.

## Appointment and leadership

Subh-i-Azal was recognized by the Bāb after receiving letters from him. The Nuqtatu'l-Kaf dates this event to the "fifth year of the manifestation" (1849). Shortly before the Bāb's execution, he was appointed to "preserve what has been revealed in the Bayān then what is revealed on his part" and to "recite of the verses of his Lord what God will inspire into his heart as a remembrance on His Part". The nature of his role has been the subject of debate due to conflicting sources. Shortly before the Bāb's execution, the Bāb wrote letters and gave them to Mullā ʻAbdu'l-Karīm to deliver to Subh-i-Azal and Baháʼu'lláh. These were later interpreted by both Azalīs and Bahāʼīs as proof of the Bāb's delegation of leadership to the two brothers. Subh-i-Azal was 19 years old at the time.
In the period immediately following the Bāb's execution (1850), there were many claims to authority and Bābīs did not initially unite around Subh-i-Azal's leadership. At some point, Azal became the recognized leader, and remained so for about 13 years.
Warburg states that, "It seems likely that Subh-i-Azal was designated to be the Bab's successor", and MacEoin states that, the Bāb regarded him as "his chief deputy" and the "future head of the movement" while Cole concludes he was a “first among equals”. The nature of that appointment differs according to which sources are believed. The disagreement is over whether he was appointed a spiritual successor who could write divinely-revealed verses, or a nominal figurehead who would maintain the community until the appearance of a greater prophet. ʻAbdu'l-Bahá reports that the Bāb did this to divert attention from Baháʼu'lláh, and that it was suggested by the latter in an accord with the Bāb.
The conflicting accusations, claims, and counter-claims of Azalī and Bahāʼī sources make it difficult to reconstruct an objective narrative of the splitting of the Bābī community into these two groups, one of which came to dominate and expand, while the other became almost defunct. Academic reviews are generally critical of the official Bahāʼī positions on the split; for example Edward Granville Browne, Denis MacEoin, and A. L. M. Nicolas. Notably, Browne and Nicolas both had extensive correspondence with Subh-i-Azal.

### Nuqtatu'l-Kaf

Edward Granville Browne studied the Bābī movement in Iran and translated many primary sources from 1890 to 1920. One of these, Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf (or Noqtat al-Kāf), was of particular interest to the appointment of Subh-i-Azal. Its publication was encouraged by Muhammad Khan Qazvīnī, a Shi'ite scholar, and its authorship was attributed to Hājī Mīrzā Jānī, a Bābī who died in 1852. A similar manuscript attributed to Hājī Mīrzā Jānī and circulating among Bahāʼīs was Tarikh-i-Jadid, but the Bahāʼī version lacked extra text supportive of Subh-i-Azal's authority. In his introduction to its publication, Browne attacked the Bahāʼīs for trying to rewrite history. Further scholarship showed that the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf was circulating among Bahāʼīs, it wasn't being suppressed, and some material in it postdated the death of its assumed author.
Denis MacEoin made a detailed analysis of the question in his The Sources for Early Babi Doctrine and History (1992), summarized here by Margit Warburg:
   In 1892, Browne acquired the Babi manuscript named Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf from a collection of Babi manuscripts originally owned by de Gobineau and sold to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris in 1884. The first portion of the manuscript is laid out as a doctrinal treatise, while the later sections contain what Browne assumed to be an early copy of Mirza Jani Kashani's history. Browne considered his discovery to be of immense importance, since at that time no other copies of this history were known. However, Browne also discovered that the manuscript was at variance with the version of Mirza Jani Kashani's history that made up the core text in the Tarikh-i-Jadid. Although the two texts for the most part are equivalent, several passages in the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf that refer to Subh-i-Azal and his role in the Babi movement are not included in the Tarikh-i-Jadid. This led Browne to conclude that the discrepancies between the two histories were the result of a deliberate plot of the followers of Baha'u'llah to discredit Subh-i-Azal's claims to leadership. The Baha'is hotly rejected Browne's conclusion and accused the Azalis of distorting the sources. Thus, Abdu'l-Baha suggested that the Azalis had prepared a falsified version of Mirza Jani Kashani's history and had encouraged Browne to publish it. This hypothesis was restated many years later by the Baha'i historian Hasan M. Balyuzi...
Further investigation by McCants and Milani (2004) found another early copy of the manuscript and concluded that it was written in the early 1850s, though not by Hājī Mīrzā Jānī, and that it was "not markedly different from Browne’s edition".

### Takur uprising

The Bābī community was engaged in several pitched military confrontations with the government from 1848 to 1851. Subh-i-Azal allied himself with a faction led by Azīm, and in 1852 coordinated a new militant uprising in Takur, Iran. This new upheaval was apparently timed to coincide with an attempt to assassinate Naser al-Din Shah, which was organized by Azīm.
The uprising failed, and the botched assassination attempt resulted in the entire Bābī community being blamed and severely punished by the government. Many thousand Bābīs were killed. Subh-i-Azal took up a disguise to escape Iran and joined a cohort of exiles in Baghdad.
After Azīm's death in 1852, Subh-i-Azal became the clear head of the remaining militant faction of the Bābīs, which remained wedded to a vision of radical political activism; representing what Amanat describes as a preoccupation with, "the Shi'ite vision of a utopian political order under the aegis of the Imam of the age".

### Baghdad

In Baghdad, Subh-i-Azal kept his whereabouts secret and lived secluded from the Bābī community, keeping in contact through 18 agents termed "witnesses of the Bayan".
The Bābī community in Iran remained fragmented and broken after the pogrom of 1852–3, and new leadership claims developed. The most significant challenger to Subh-i-Azal was Mirza Asad Allah Khu'i, known by the title Dayyān, who made a claim to be He whom God shall make manifest. Azal wrote a lengthy refutation of Dayyān titled Mustayqiz. Dayyān was killed in Baghdad by Mirza Muhammad Mazandarani in 1856 at the order of Subh-i-Azal.
Subh-i-Azal's leadership was controversial. He generally absented himself from the Bābī community, spending his time in Baghdad in hiding and disguise. Subh-i-Azal gradually alienated himself from a large proportion of the Bābīs who started to give their alliance to other claimants. Bahāʼī sources have attributed this to his incompetence and cowardice, but MacEoin also attributes the isolation to the Shi'a practice of Taqiyya.
During the Baghdad period of 1853–1863, tensions rose between Subh-i-Azal and Baháʼu'lláh. Bahāʼī sources describe Azal as increasing in jealousy during this time, and Baháʼu'lláh's 2-year sojourn in Kurdistan as an attempt to avoid the growing disunity.

### Edirne

In 1863 most of the Bābīs were called by the Ottoman authorities to Istanbul for four months, followed by an exile to Edirne that lasted from 12 December 1863 to 12 August 1868. The travel to Istanbul began with Baháʼu'lláh privately making his claim to be the messianic figure of the Bayan, which became a public proclamation in Edirne. This created a permanent schism between the two brothers. Subh-i-Azal responded to these claims by making his own claims and resisting the changes of doctrine which were introduced by Baháʼu'lláh. His attempts to keep the traditional Bābism were, however, mostly unpopular.
Subh-i-Azal was behind the poisoning of Baháʼu'lláh while in Edirne in 1865. An Azali source later re-applied these allegations to Baháʼu'lláh, even claiming that he poisoned himself while trying to poison Subh-i-Azal. The poisoning had adverse effects on Bahaʼu'lláh throughout the remainder of his life. A Bahāʼī, Salmānī, reported that Azal again attempted to have Baháʼu'lláh killed in the late winter of 1866. In March 1866, Baháʼu'lláh responded with a formal written declaration to Subh-i-Azal in the Sūri-yi Amr and referred to his own followers as Bahāʼīs.
This began an approximately year-long separation that ended with a definite schism. The two brothers separated households, and the Bābīs in Iraq and Iran split into three factions: Azalīs, Bahāʼīs, or undecided. In February–March 1867, all three factions gathered in Baghdad for debates, and soon the undecided mostly joined the Bahāʼīs, who were already in the majority. In Edirne, the group of about 100 Bābīs was still socially intermixed until the summer of 1867, when they lived separately based on their loyalties.
A crisis erupted in August/September 1867. Sayyid Muhammad Isfahānī, an Azalī, instigated a public debate between the two brothers to settle the disputed claims. On a Friday morning, Azal challenged Baháʼu'lláh to a debate in the Sultan Selim Mosque that afternoon. Cole describes the communication,
   The challenge document envisaged that Azal and Bahā’u’llāh would face each other there and call down ritual curses on one other, in hopes that God would send down a sign that would demonstrate the truth of one or the other. This custom, called mubāhalih in Persian, is a very old one in the Middle East, and appears to have evoked the contest between Moses and Pharaoh’s magicians.
Baháʼu'lláh arrived at the mosque, with a crowd waiting, and sent a messenger to the home of Subh-i-Azal to remind him of the challenge, but Azal told the messenger that the confrontation would have to be postponed. That night, Baháʼu'lláh wrote to Azal, proposing that either Sunday or Monday they would complete the challenge, but Azal never responded to the request and never showed up on those days. The Bahā’īs interpreted Azal's failure to appear at his own challenge as cowardice, and it caused the further deterioration of Subh-i-Azal's credibility. The news quickly spread to Iran, where the majority of Bābīs still lived.

### Cyprus

Subh-i-Azal, along with Sayyid Muhammad Isfanani made accusations against Baháʼu'lláh to the Ottoman authorities, which resulted in both factions being further exiled in 1868; Baháʼu'lláh to Acre and Azal to Famagusta in Cyprus.
The formal exile of Subh-i-Azal ended in 1881, when Cyprus was acquired by Britain in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), but he remained on the island for the rest of his life until his death on 29 April 1912. He remained elusive and secretive, living off a British pension and being perceived as a Muslim holy man by the people of Cyprus, even receiving a Muslim burial. From Cyprus he seemed to have little contact with the Bābīs in Iran.
Harry Luke, an official of the British Colonial Office, commented in 1913 that after Subh-i-Azal's arrival in Cyprus,
   Now occurred a curious phenomenon. Although doctrinally there was little to distinguish the two parties, the basis of the schism being a personal question, the one waxed exceedingly while the other waned. Rapidly the Ezelis dwindled to a handful, and soon were confined, almost entirely, to the members of Subh-i-Ezel's devoted family.

## Succession

There are conflicting reports as to whom Subh-i-Azal appointed as his successor, and there was confusion after his death. Azal originally planned to appoint his eldest son Ahmad, but a dispute between them caused the appointment to be withdrawn and he instead appointed Hādī Dawlatābādī (d. 1908). After the latter's death, Subh-i-Azal further appointed the man's son, Yahyā Dawlatābādī (d. 1939), but he had little involvement in the religion and any chain of leadership appears to have gone defunct with his appointment.
Subh-i-Azal's son, Rizwan ʻAli, wrote to C.D. Cobham on 11 July 1912,
   [Subhi-i-Azal] before his death had nominated [as his executor or successor] the son of Aqā Mīrzā Muhammad Hādī of Dawlatābād.
H.C. Lukach wrote to Browne on 5 September 1912,
   It appears that Subhi-i-Azal left a letter saying that he of his sons who resembled him most closely in his mode of life and principles was to be his successor. The point as to which of the sons fulfils this condition has not yet been decided; consequently all the children would appear at present to be co-heirs... No steps have, as far as I am aware, yet been taken to elect a walī [i.e. successor or executor].
Shoghi Effendi wrote in 1944 that Subh-i-Azal appointed Hādī Dawlatābādī as his successor, and that he later publicly recanted his faith in the Bāb and in Subh-i-Azal. Hādī was targeted for death by a local cleric, and despite the public recantation, he continued being a leader of the Azalis in secret.
Jalāl Azal, a grandson of Subh-i-Azal who disputed the appointment of Hādī Dawlatābādī, later told William Miller between 1967 and 1971 that Azal did not appoint a successor.

### Aftermath

Several Azalī Bābīs were influential in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. For example, the writings of two sons-in-law of Subh-i-Azal, Mīrzā Āqā Khān Kirmānī (d. 1896) and Shaykh Ahmad Rūhī Kirmānī (d. 1896), both influenced the movement. Yahyā Dawlatābādī (d. 1939), the appointed successor of Subh-i-Azal, his younger brother `Alī-Muhammad, as well as Jamāl al-Dīn Esfahānī and Malik al-Motakallemīn were all associated with Azalī Bābism and influencing constitutional and secular reforms. However, Yahyā Dawlatābādī was stigmatized as a Bābī and, like his father, publicly distanced himself from association with the Azalīs while presenting himself as Muslim; he was nearly killed in 1908 and soon exiled from Iran as an anti-monarchist activist.
The 7 "witnesses of the Bayan" that remained loyal to him were Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani, 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. Bahāʼī sources claim that the remaining 11 witnesses later became Bahāʼīs and abandoned Subh-i-Azal.
Ahmad Bahhāj (1853–1933), son of Subh-i-Azal and Fatima (sister of Baqir), later moved to Haifa. He appears to have become a Bahā'ī and was buried in a Bahā'ī cemetery. Jalal Azal (d. 1971), the son of `Abdu'l-`Ali and grandson of Subh-i-Azal, also showed signs of being a Bahā'ī around 1920 and married a granddaughter of Bahā'u'llāh. However, Jalal Azal joined Mīrzā Muhammad ʻAlī's opposition and turned against ʻAbdu'l-Bahā.
By the time of Subh-i-Azal's death 1912, the Azali form of Bābism entered a stagnation from which it never recovered, as it has not had an acknowledged leader or central organization.
There may have been between 500 and 5,000 Azalis in Iran in the 1970s. A source in 2001 estimated no more than a few thousand, almost entirely in Iran.

## Works

One of the best known works of Subh-i-Azal is the Book of Light (Persian: کتاب نور, romanized: kitāb-i-nūr), written in Baghdad during the first few years after the death of the Bāb (1852-1853). The Book of Light is a book in the style of the Quran, composed of 77 suwar consisting of Arabic āyāt, that is, in the first of the five grades of Bābī revelation. Subh-i-Azal describes it as proof of his status of successor (waliyy) to the Bāb, in his later work named Sleeper Awakened (Arabic: مستيقظ, romanized: mustayqiẓ). The opening chapter, titled Chapter of the Bayān (Arabic: سورة البيان, romanized: sūrah al-bayān), consists of seven verses, in imitation of the Al-Fatiha.
Subh-i-Azal wrote multiple works referencing the Bayān. Laws of the Bayān (Persian: احکام بیان, romanized: aḥkām-i-bayān) is an Arabic explanation of the laws and ordinances of the Bayān, arranged into Unities (wāḥid), similarly to the Bayān itself. Supplement to the Persian Bayān (Persian: ذیل بیان فارسی, romanized: dhīl-i-bayān-i-fārsī) is an extension of the original text of the Persian Bayān, from 9th Unity, 11th Gate up to 11th Unity, 19th Gate (the same length as the Arabic Bayān).
Large collections of Subh-i-Azal's works are found in the British Museum Library Oriental Collection, London; in the Browne Collection at Cambridge University; at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; and at Princeton University. In the English introduction to "Personal Reminiscences of the Babi Insurrection at Zanjan in 1850," Browne lists thirty-eight titles as being among the works of Subh-i-Azal.