Talk:Shaykh Ahmad

Maulana
It wasn't that bad, I just thought you downplayed the Bab by making him a reformer and putting him on an equal level with some guy from Kirman that really did nothing. That's exactly what I would expect Maulana to do. As far as academics, Maulana and The Dawnbreakers are opposite extremes, and you were leaning toward Maulana.

I think we should mention that 6 million people consider Shaykh Ahmad as part of their spiritual heritage. It sets him apart from just some no-name Arab guy from 2 centuries ago. Cunado19 00:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nah I see your point, but its not cuz of Maulana. He has a single mention of this character, but I think its important to mention him. The Dawnbreakers however has little on pre-Ali-Muhammad shaykhism unlike Maulana. I was trying to word it that the Bab had a real impact on mid 19th century Persia with its radical/revolutionary nature (how often do sects take up arms against a whole country?). Anyway, its not much different now so I'm quite happy. -- Tomhab 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh I agree, he's mentioned in the Dawn-breakers actually a few times I remember. He tried to publish work and asked Siyyid Kazim to approve of it, which he didn't. I think he's important enough to mention. Anyway I like the article how it is now, I don't plan on spending any more time here since there's 50 other articles I want to work on. Cunado19 00:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this before or after your wiki-break? ;) -- Tomhab 21:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Work in references plus rewrite for clarity
Hey all. I just did a medium-ish rewrite of several pieces, mostly within Succession, as well as did more referencing. I converted the Cole references and spread specific Nabil references throughout various areas of the text. I'd love it if we had other sources that could balance Nabil (see above conversation), but at least it's verifiable source material. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I went way further than I had originally intended, but hey. I have some referencing to do, and some improvement/expansion on the text, but this is starting to look like a real article. :)  --Christian Edward Gruber 23:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work Christian, the article is much better now. -- Jeff3000 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jeffeezy (small ATHF reference, if you're in the know). It still needs work, but it's getting there.  I wish the english site that has lots of Shaykh Ahmad's stuff on it were actually more than a stub, 'cause the Arabic site seems like it has tons of material.  Being limited to Nabil, Cole, and a few others (as good as they all are) is really frustrating.  --Christian Edward Gruber 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

there is no language tag to the Arabic article. You should add the link, or post it here and I'll add it. Cuñado  -  Talk  15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Today
This article is written as if the Shaykhi movement is dead. I would have thought it is very active even today - many many people in Kerman belong to it. Refdoc 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are still people who claim to be Nazis, but the movement is dead. The Shaykhi movement of 19th century Persia is dead. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  18:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the most braindead answer I had so far on any question here... If there are many people who describe themselves as Sheikhis/Shaykhis then the movement is very much alive. AFAIK large poarts of Kermani population are Sheikhis. Their leadership had some trouble under Khomeini, but nothing widespread and significant. The article appears to be grossly biased towards a Shaykhi-as-pre-Bahai POV. Refdoc 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL. If there are Shakhis still in Iran who believe in the same beliefs as the movement that Shaykh Ahmad then there shouldn't be too difficult to find some non-self published verifiable and reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff. I apologise for my "braindead" comment, must say though if Goodwin is brought in within the very first response a sensible discussion becomes hard. Sheikhi/Sheykhi/Shaykhi - I do struggle with literature. Google is pretty dead as a source - apart from the links leading to Bahaism. What I know would all fall down under "original research" and is therefore not useful for here. Essentially it seems to me (and this is from conversations with non-sheykhi Kermani friends) that large numbers of modern day Kermanis are Sheykhis, that there is no (obvious) connection to Bahaism, that the movement is very secretive and quietistic (hence little or no lieterature in th eWest), that the movement owns large parts of the modern Kermani infrastructure, that there had been some serious trouble at the begin of the revolution for the leader of the movement (killed?) and that it is still going strong. Now this is my personal knowledge, but in this form it can not enter the encyclopedia, obviously. Something big is missing but so far I can not verify it. Hence my initial question. And my upset with silly Nazi quotes. Refdoc 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Shaykhi movement is very much alive today and there is some significant scholarship in Western languages on contemporary Shaykhis in various parts of the Muslim world. A number of articles on contemporary Shaykhism can be found in Rainer Brunner and Werner Ende, eds., _The Twelver Shi’a in Modern Times_,  Leiden:  Brill, 2001. There are significant Shaykhi communities in Iran, `Iraq, the Indian Subcontinent and elsewhere, with very large collections of Shaykhi materials maintained at European and North American libraries. I agree with Refdoc about the Baha'i bias, something which has been a continual pattern in Wiki articles relating in any way to the history of the Baha'i religion. Wikipedia is not a "teaching opportunity." Masarra 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, assume good faith; the fact that the other sources other than Baha'i sources are not used in article is not a bias. The fact is that no other sources have thus far been presented, and it is not the fault of Baha'i editors who used what is known to them to document the life of Shaykh Amhad.  If you have sources, use them to better the article assuming bad faith of the editors.  -- Jeff3000 20:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the book mentioned above, and there's plenty here in this one book in the way of verifiable and reliable reference on contemporary Shaykhism in various parts of the Muslim world. One article with a particularly contemporary focus is Syed Hussain Arif Naqvi's "The Controversy About the Shaykhiyya Tendency Among Shia 'Ulama in Pakistan," pp. 135-49. The article notes that Shaykhism is nearly as old in the Subcontinent as in Iran, a student of Kazim Rashti having introduced the school to Lucknow in the first half of the 19th century. The article is interesting for a number of other reasons, including the fact that the controversies surrounding Shaykhism had little or nothing to do with the characteristics of Shaykhism emphasized in Baha'i writings, such as Shoghi Effendi's Dawnbreakers. The central issue in this case was that of tafwid, which indeed was the cause for the opposition to Shaykh Ahmad during his own lifetime. It is also interesting to note that the defenders of Shaykhi tenets in Pakistan in the 1960s argued that the opponents of Shaykhism were covertly missionizing for Wahhabism and that their disdain for the Shaykhi view of the status of the Imams was Wahhabi-inspired. Masarra 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can source things, add to the article. Baha'is created this page, along with Sayyid Kazim and other similar events of the time because it is important to Baha'i history. Please don't insinuate that it is the duty of Baha'is to perform exhaustive and comprehensive research on the Shaykhi movement. As far as my comment above about the movement being dead, I've never heard of the Shaykhi movement having followers after the 19th century. They are usually only mentioned in historical accounts due to their connection with the Babi and Baha'i religions. Even the religion of the Bab, which historically outweights Shaykh Ahmad, is only known casually (if at all) as being the precursor to the Baha'i movement. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly straight - I did not insinuate anything when I said the article is biased. Bias as such is a neutral term describing a fact of an incomplete and lopsided article. I most certainly do not and did not accuse Baha'is as introducing bias - which would be an unfair accusation. I think if everyone mentions what they know, this will lead over time to good articles - with intermittent periods of bias and lopsidedness, quite naturally.

I am grateful for Massara's quote and contribution because this is the kind of thing I was looking/asking for. Are there any internet links as I am far from any library? Refdoc 09:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think when I first wrote part of this article a while ago (upon which others have expanded) I was writing it under the impression that it was no longer a (significant) movement. I apologise if I was inaccurate. As it happens the source I was using wasn't a Baha'i source but a Muslim one (which wasn't pariticularly keen on Babis, Baha'is or Shaykis to be honest). I can't remember ever reading a Baha'i source about the Shaykis after 1844.


 * If anyone knows much about today's Shaykis then including it can only improve the article. As always good sourcing is helpful. -- Tomhab 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And just a quick endorsement - I've seen Refdoc in and out of the Baha'i pages ever since I started here around 2 years ago. Along with a couple of other administrators I've known, I'd very much trust his opinion of an article's bias. Nevertheless, Baha'is would tend to know about Baha'i history... -- Tomhab 12:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank, Tomhab. I wouls suggest two things 1) separation of the Shaykh Ahmad article from a new article on Shaykhis in general and 2) expansion of the latter to introduce material on current state. Refdoc 14:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I reckon we should include a little about Siyyid Kazim who succeeded Shaykh Ahmad (as far as I'm aware uncontested, although I'm hardly an expert) -- Tomhab 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shi'i, Shi'a etc.
Cunado, my minor change had nothing to do with Baha'i spelling conventions. Shi'a or Shi'ah is a collective noun meaning, in CNN terms, "the Shi'ites" (it can also of course have a more general meaning, "the partisans," "the followers"). Shi'i (but never Shi'ih, as there's no ta marbuta or ha' here) is an adjective meaning "Shi'itic" and a noun for a single member of the Shi'a.  Ahmad al-Ahsa'i's movement was Shi'i, i.e. it was Shi'itic in character. Masarra 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I know that Shoghi Effendi transliterated ta marbuta endings as "ih" when they are normally "ah" due to the Isfahani accent that he came from. Example: Tahirih instead of Tahirah. I thought this was the issue, and I was trying to correct it. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  00:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gone from Iranica
I followed the link to Iranica, and they seem to have removed the article on Shaykh Ahmad (unless I am particularly obtuse today). J S Ayer (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shaykh Ahmad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318175927/http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SHAYKHISM/SHAYKHISM.htm to http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SHAYKHISM/SHAYKHISM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)