User talk:Smkolins/Archives/2015/August

Baha'i Faith
Funnily enough - the latest Troll does in fact (like most such people) have a tiny grain of truth on his side! The immediate justification that would have been given for the arrest of the Blessed Beauty (and many other early Babis) in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt would indeed have probably included the idea that ALL the Babis were involved - in fact a very large number of them were martyred (without further investigation or trial) on just those grounds. This does not seem to be mentioned at all in the current article. Without drawing our friend's conclusion that the Shah's regime didn't have any religious objection to the Babis as such (presumably they had executed the Bab in a fit of absent-mindedness or something)- a concise factual account of the assassination attempt and its aftermath, in the proper context, might be a good idea? (Or perhaps not?). The nonsense about the Israelis actually persecuting the Baha'is is plain silly - in fact if this were the case it would mean a few red faces among the current Iranian regime, one supposes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Soundofmusicals the Babi related articles cover the situation and later/more recent scholarship tends to look upon the whole affair as a religiously based genocidal process or ethnic-cleansing and Baha'u'llah played no part in it itself but was swept up in it along with many thousands of others most of whom were killed. Then you'd have to narrowly avoid all the conspiracy theories and forgeries. It would be a lot of detailed work for something he had nothing really to do with. The brutality is far more noteworthy than what role Baha'u'llah had in it all - the significant part being only what it did for him personally and the development of the Baha'i Faith from it. Not saying it's impossible but keeping due weight would be hard I think. --Smkolins (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries really - I am familiar with the background, and know why it hasn't had great weight here - direct relevance is very thin on the ground. On the other hand I remain a little concerned with the article not just being fair - but being very obviously fair. I mentioned "proper context" - this remains important in any case, of course. Since the gentleman likes Shoghi Effendi, apparently, what does God passes by say? A very quick one sentence statement about the attempt on the life of the Shah - who was (and who wasn't) involved, and what happened in the aftermath might fit the bill here, especially, as you say, as it get fuller treatment elsewhere. Thanks for backing me up so promptly, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I happened to be editing elsewhere and when I checked the watchlist it was clear something was up. As for what God passes by says - "…a sorely persecuted Faith was about to be subjected through the shameful act of a fanatical and irresponsible Bábí, to a humiliation such as it had never before known." Baha'u'llah isn't mentioned for many pages afterwards in God passes by. I would elaborate that Momen has published an article in a journal (and a talk online) about this irresponsible Bábí and traces this to an irregular presence coming to the community literally "a young weaver from the northwest province of Adharbayjan" (or I might say "out of the hills"). See citations 38/39/40 at . I believe these to be the best available scholarly examinations of the details. --Smkolins (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)