Talk:Kazim Rashti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Sayyid Kazim Rashti)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam / Muslim scholars  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force.
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.


Let's get this straight. Can you cite sources for the Bab staying with Siyyid Kazim. What Babi historical text are you quoting to say:

"Some sources report that they lived together for a year or two (Maulana p 2, E.G. Browne), which is not supported by any Bahá'í text, but is supported by texts of the Babis."

Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'Nasikh ut Tawarikh.' states it. Wjhonson 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Modified, since this particular quote seems to be from an Islamic historian of that period. However Browne's source obviously isn't Maulana who wrote many decades later. And I'm sure Browne didn't make it up, so we'll see if I can find something on that.Wjhonson 18:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Balyuzi's book states that he went on pilgrimage to Iraq for 7 months, to the cities of Najaf and Karbila.

"According to Mirza Abu'l-Fadl of Gulpaygan, He journeyed to the holy cities of 'Iraq in the spring of 1841, stayed in 'Iraq for nearly seven months and returned to His 'native province of Fars' in the autumn of that year.
"While in Karbila the Bab visited Siyyid Kazim-i-Rashti and attended his discourses. But these occasional visits did not and could not make Him a pupil or disciple of Siyyid Kazim. His adversaries have alleged that He sat at the feet of Siyyid Kazim for months on end to learn from him.
(H.M. Balyuzi, The Bab - The Herald of the Day of Days, p. 41)

These kinds of disputes are common and easy to resolve. Please provide your reference in more detail. Add the page number and quote the text where it says that he stayed there 2 years. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 18:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is already quoted Wjhonson 18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's right there, page 2, look it up, the book is online and sourced at the bottom of this article. Check for yourself if you don't believe that it says what I said it says.Wjhonson 18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The Browne article is also online, just click the link and read it. Wjhonson 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoa settle down. I just found it on the Shaykh Ahmad article. I'll add the references quoted in the article. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Raudhat-us-safa, or Rauzat al-Safa, or Raudzatus-Safa, or Rawdat al-safa (all different transliterations of the same Arabic words, the D in Arabic is pronounced like a Z when in Farci, similarly the definite article "al" when followed by an S is changed to "as") is a book, and , not an author. The author is unclear. Here are some references. [1] [2] [3]. For a better source see [4] under footnote 34. The same page gives this:

RS: Rawdat al-safa-yi Nasiri (Hidayat) NT: Nasikh al-tawarikh (Sipihr) DB: Nabil's Narrative/Dawnbreakers (Zarandi)

Hidayat is for Rida Quli Khan Hidayat. Sipihr is for Mirza Muhammad Taqi Lisan al-Mulk Sipihr. The book is Naasikh al-tawarikh: Salatin-i Qajar, Tehran, 1385/1965, 4 vols. Sipihr finished the Qajar volumes of his history in 1274/1857-58, and the first edition was probably a continuation of the 1273 edition of the entire history. [5]. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 21:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statements seemed to be pov and not relevant. Jesus is not the issue, we're talking about whether the Bab knew the Shaktis members. Wjhonson 09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Wjhonson removed:
Opponents of the Báb and the Bábís state that the Báb was a close disciple of Siyyid Kázim Rashtí, insinuating that the Báb was a product of his times, the same way critics of Jesus point to the messianic fervor of the first century.
Without this it doesn't make sense why there is even an issue. I'm requesting a second opinion. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Amanat, in Resurrection and Renewal, presents the arguments (p140-1) for and against the Bab being a student of Siyyid Kazim. On the one hand Mulla Sadiq Muqaddas states that "...Mir Ali Muhammad Shirazi [the Bab] a student of Sayyid Kazim..." and that he (Muqaddas) was introduced to Siyyid Kazim by the Bab. On the other hand, a contemporary, Qatil Karbala'i, who later became a Babi, states that the Bab attended Siyyid Kazim's lectures only two or three times. Amanat argues that the Bab was not in Karbala long enough to fully grasp Siyyid Kazim's teachings; in fact, Muqaddas himself states that once in Karbala, he was asked to teach the Bab, and that he was also determined to convert the Bab to Shakhism. Amanat asserts that the Bab's reference to Siyyid Kazim as "the revered scholar and my intimate teacher" is a symbolic acknowledgement of their spiritual affinity and not a literal fact. Personally, I find Amanat’s analysis convincing, though I accept that others may prefer to accept at face value from Muqaddas that the Bab was a [full time] student of Sayyid Kazim. --Occamy 22:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to make a summarized statement of the above, say maybe 30 words or something and post that on the article. We can discuss it more then once we see what short version would be npov. Wjhonson 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Jesus bit, because the issue is not comparing the Bab with Jesus. The issue at conflict is whether finding the Bab was "miraculous" or whether he was known and therefore the miracle was in what he wrote or how he presented himself, not in whether he was found or not found. Wjhonson 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Well the issue should be clearly stated. I made up the part involving Jesus because that's how I see the opponents' arguments. Critics will point to a close relationship to insinuate that it was planned or created by the Bab in order to take advantage of the Shaykhi teachings, whereas Baha'is would say that it was God-ordained, and the Shaykhi teachings were a result of the Bab coming. If that's the case, then it's the same argument that Jewish people still use to deny Jesus, saying that he was in the midst of Messianic fervor, one of many people claiming to be the Messiah. If that comparison is faulty, I could live with something along the lines of your previous statement... "whether finding the Bab was miraculous, or whether he was known..."
By the way Occamy, good job finding all that. I hope you can put it in the article. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I also found that Esslemont, who you should recognize as an approved Baha'i writer, under the direction of Shoghi's notes, also says something interesting about this. Let me write up the quote so you can see, you might be surprised. Wjhonson 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to put what Esslemont says here, so Occamy (if he chooses to rewrite this section) can incorporate what he feels useful into a summary for the article. This should perhaps also go to the Bab article as well. "He learned to read, and received the elementary education customary for children." (footnote 1) "At the age of fifteen he went into business..." Now footnote 1 says this "On this point a historian remarks: 'The belief of many people in the East, especially the believers in the Bab (now Baha'is) was this: that the Bab received no education, but that the Mullas, in order to lower him in the eyes of the people declared that such knowledge and wisdom as he possessed were accounted for by the education he had received. After deep search into the truth of this matter we have found evidence to show that in childhood for a short time he used to go to the house of Shaykh Muhammad (also known as Abid) where he was taught to read and write in Persian. It was this to which the Bab referred when he wrote in the book of Bayan: 'O Muhammad, O my teacher!...'" There is no other source citation given for this long quote. I'm thinking it's probably Browne but I'm not sure. Wjhonson 01:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Bab did go to school, but the teacher kept sending him back to his uncle. His uncle, not accepting this, would send the Bab back to school. -- Jeff3000 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to Abdul's page on his wife memoirs. So we can now add that his wife Munirih states that her uncle used to often tell her the story about the Bab going to Siyyid Kazim's lectures and that when he entered he [Siyyid Kazim] "would always show him the utmost respect and deference". So that's pretty cut-and-dry since the Holy Mother states it herself and it came from her own uncle. I'd appreciate your opinions on that. Wjhonson 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say that this doesn't contradict any other Baha'i source. Maulana says that he stayed with Siyyid Kazim for a year or two, and others say that he was some kind of disciple, studying for months on end. Baha'i sources say he attended a few lectures and met Siyyid Kazim briefly. The issue is how long he stayed there, and how deep of a relationship developed between them. If Munirih recalls stories of the Bab going to Siyyid Kazim's lectures and being greeted, then that is really no big deal.
On a personal note, I think Baha'is will recall stories like this in a fanciful way, suggesting that Siyyid Kazim knew that he was the Promised One when he met him in Karbila. There are two sides to the issue: people are trying to suggest that Siyyid Kazim was approving of the Bab (to those Shaykhis who did not follow the Bab), and others are trying to suggest that they really had no connection (in response to people like Maulana). Munirih was thinking in terms of the Shaykhi believers. There is a story that during a lecture Siyyid Kazim said something like "the coming of the Qa'im is as evident as this ray of light shining in the lap of this young man". He was referring to a beam of sunlight that was shining on the Bab. Similar stories of the Bab, Quddus, and Mulla Husayn's special treatment of Baha'u'llah insinuate that they knew that he was the Promised One. I don't have the same conclusion from stories like this. It appears that the Bab didn't even know about his station until about a month before his declaration. I would assume that Siyyid Kazim showed everyone a high level of "respect and deference", and the Bab was one of hundreds or thousands attendees that Siyyid Kazim met briefly. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you read her story? She makes it quite clear, imho, that he was shown special deference, not typical deference. Wjhonson 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not as complicated as we seem to have made it out to be. People who are kind, intelligent, noble, and charismatic will always have some sort of perception following them that they are in some way important and to be respected. Perhaps these signs pointed to the greatness of the Bab even prior to Him receiving the intimations of His revelation. The fact that the Bab was attending some of the lectures or even participating is not so surprising; the fact that he had teachers is long-accepted. Recall the infant Jesus when He learned the art of carpentry from Joseph or when He discussed complex theological themes with the learned and wise of the time. Why must we categorize these observations into those things which "support" the Bab's validity and those things which "do not support" it? Is it not true that the forces of revelation operate in mysterious ways? Is it not reasonable to believe that a Messenger of God is not 'drawn' to these kinds of conversations and these kinds of people even before His ministry? Nmentha 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement about meetings with Siyyid Kazim[edit]

Wjhonson removed "Secondary sources critical of the Bábí movement" when refering to the statement that the Bab was a close disciple of Siyyid Kazim. Wjhonson in his edit comment wrote that "not 'critical' as Browne himself states it, and he wasn't a critic of the Babis". I don't believe this is true. I've searched Browne's statements in the Appendix of Traveller's Narrative related to the Bab and Siyyid Kazim and found these three quotes:

"Disinclined by nature to the calling for which he was destined, he proceeded at some time antecedent to the year A.H. 1259 (in which year Seyyid Kázim died, see p. 238, supra) to Kerbelá, where he resided for some time (two months, according to the Táríkh-i-Jadíd), occasionally attending the lectures of Hájí Seyyid Kázim of Resht."
"This hypothesis is supported by the narrative of the Táríkh-i-Jadíd, according to which Mullá Huseyn of Bushraweyh (who was, as is unanimously admitted, and as his titles 'the first Letter' and the 'First who believed' imply, the earliest convert) came to Shíráz shortly after the death of Seyyid Kázim, visited Mírzá 'Alí Muhammad (with whom he had been previously acquainted at Kerbelá), and, during this first visit, was surprised by his former fellow-student demanding of him 'whether he saw in him the signs which must characterize Seyyid Kázim's successor?' (see B. ii, pp. 902-903)."

And summarizing the Kisasu'l-'Ulamá, which he notes is a biography by Shi'ite divines, he writes:

" P. 37. Account of Mírzá 'Alí Muhammad the Báb - His diligent attendance at Hájí Seyyid Kázim's lectures. (See B. ii, p. 894.) P. 38. How the attention of the author was first drawn to the Báb (see B. ii, pp. 894, 895) - The Báb returned to Bushire and begins to practise austerities - He composes a 'Kur'án' - The heresy of his doctrines exposed."

In regards to the first two quotes, the first states "occasionally" and the second does not give any feeling of the amount of time that the Bab and Siyyid Kazim. The third writes about the "diligent attendece" of the Bab in Siyyid Kazim's lectures, but here Browne is summarizing a book by Shiite Divines who are no doubt enemies of the Babis as proven by their persecution of the Babis. I will change the text back in the next day or so to reflect this. -- Jeff3000 17:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And will you also reject the evidence of the Holy Mother? Or should I post her entire quote to refresh your memory on this point? In the link I posted to the Babism article, Browne states what I said he states. Read it again, it's right there. Wjhonson 23:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide the quote here instead of making me read the whole thing. -- Jeff3000 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
That quote does not indicate how long he met Siyyid Kazim. -- Jeff3000 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is Moneerah's quote p 11 "When they were attending the classes of Haji Sayyid Kazem, they repeatedly had met His Holiness the Bab, and had observed many wonderful traces and spiritual signs appearing from His Holy Temple. Amongst many stories, my uncle used to relate this:" [She then goes on to describe how they met the Bab, MANY TIMES, this was prior to the death of the leader of the Shakhis. And continues later (p12) with "...Whenever he [the Bab] entered the class, Haji Siyyid Kasem would show him the greatest respect and honor."
This is proof positive that the Shakhis, knew the Bab before he was "discovered" some time later. unsigned by Wjhonson.
I don't think there has been any doubt that the Bab attended Siyyid Kazim's lectures and the Shakyies knew of the person. This is not the point of the statement which originally read:
"Secondary sources critical of the Bábí movement state that the Báb was a close disciple of Siyyid Kázim Rashtí, debating whether the discovery of the Báb by Mullá Husayn was miraculous, or a result of the teachings of Shaykh Ahmad and Siyyid Kázim."
and now reads
"Other sources state that the Báb was a close disciple of Siyyid Kázim Rashtí, debating whether the discovery of the Báb by Mullá Husayn was miraculous, or a result of the teachings of Shaykh Ahmad and Siyyid Kázim"
The point of the statement is that some sources argue that the discovery was not miraculous. E.G. Browne and Munirih Khanam while noting the meetings do not argue that it was not miraculous. The point of miraculoucity or not (is that word) is not brought up, and we, while can make our own conclusions of the miraculous nature, based on the work of E.G. Brown and Munirih Khanam and others, can not bring that into the article since that would be original work. The sources that do argue against the miraculous nature are the ones that are critical of the Babi movement and thus the original statement was more correct. -- Jeff3000 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that is not correct. There are no sources whatsoever that argue against the miraculous nature of... whatever it is you're saying is miraculous. The whole point in this long debate was that originally the article and others made it seem like they were just wandering about and found a person by a miracle who turned out to be the Promised One. These new sources are stating that they didn't find him by a miracle. They went to see him purposely, they already knew him, they already wondered if he might not be the One (Moneerah), they stayed at his house. Wjhonson 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Earlier today I changed the transliteration of the siyyid to the correct form, sayyid, in the article on the Bab. I then discovered that by doing so I broke the link there to this page on Sayyid Kazim, since it is titled Siyyid Kazim. I gave my reasons for making that change in the talk page of the Bab article as follows: One other problem with the naming conventions; the Arabic title sayyid is transliterated here and in Baha'i literature generally as siyyid. The harakat, or markings in Arabic script that provide the reader with cues on how to vowel a word, are always applied to this word in such a way as to indicate that its correct pronunciation is sayyid, not siyyid. Thus, it is almost universally transliterated this way in academic literature. Most of the available literature on the life and teachings of the Bab is academic in nature, and one finds in these works that the title is usually transliterated correctly, as sayyid. So, this presents a certain quandary; if the WP naming conventions indicate that the most common usage is to be given, what sort of "common usage" is implied? As I said, if one looks at the serious scholarship on the Bab, one will find sayyid (this includes the works of A. Amanat, D. MacEoin, T. Lawson, S. Lambden, V. Brown, W. McCants, K. Milani and S. Manuchehri - in other words, every contemporary specialist on the Bab writing in English). In Baha'i literature, the word is generally transliterated siyyid. It would seem to me that, given the context, the usage established in the scholarly treatment of this subject should prevail here.

So, before I go through all the trouble of making this consistent throughout WP, can we please have some discussion here of this? If there's no discussion I'll assume there's no objection. Masarra 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through the WP Manual of Style for Arabic, and according to that page siyyid should be spelled sayyid. That is, the manual indicates "a" for the transliteration of fatha, which is the haraka over the sin (Arabic s) in sayyid. Also, googling "sayyid" gets one and a half million hits, while "siyyid" gets only 28,500. So, unless anyone poses some strenuous objection here in the next few days, I'll go ahead and make sayyid standard throughout WP. Masarra 00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many different versions of transliteration, all of which have different advantages/disadvantages. The Baha'i version uses "i", and the ALA I believe uses the "a". While sayyid is the transliteration most popular for the general use of the word sayyid/siyyid, for this particular personage of "Siyyid Kazim"/"Sayyid Kazim" I believe it is "Siyyid Kazim". Here are the followign google searches, (which takes out wikipedia and it's mirrors and connects the person we are searching for to the bab (there seem to be other Sayyid Kazim's)):
With Siyyid
  1. "siyyid kazim" -wikipedia bab link 473 hits
  2. "siyyid kázim" -wikipedia bab link 588 hits
  3. "siyyid kazim" -wikipedia báb link 409 hits
  4. "siyyid kázim" -wikipedia báb link 588 hits
With Sayyid
  1. "sayyid kázim" -wikipedia bab link 449 hits
  2. "sayyid kazim" -wikipedia bab link 428 hits
  3. "sayyid kazim" -wikipedia báb link 209 hits
  4. "sayyid kázim" -wikipedia báb link 317 hits

The versions with Siyyid (first four) are all more popular than their counterparts with Sayyid (last four), for this person; in total by more than 46%. Thus I recommend keeping the current transliteration, as it is not wrong, just a different type of transliteration, and is most common. -- Jeff3000 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff3000, I don't quite understand your reasoning here. First of all, you note that there are different systems of transliteration. Of course, this true, but WP has a manual of style for Arabic transliteration which asks that the fatha be transliterated as "a," not "i". The word is in frequent, standard usage in Islamicist and Arabist literature as "sayyid," and almost never in such contexts as "siyyid." So, the fact that there are different transliteration systems is irrelevant here; WP has recommended that we use that system in general use in English-language social science literature. In the case of some Baha'i-specific terms, of course, the "Baha'i" system of transliteration would be used; e.g., Baha'u'llah is used in WP rather than Baha' Allah. However, that has absolutely no relevance to this case, as Sayyid Kazim Rashti is a prominent figure in Shi`a Islamic history, is not a Baha'i, and should by no means be presented in an encyclopedia from the sole or even most-prominent standpoint of what significance he has in later Baha'i narratives. So, appeals to Baha'i usage have really no bearing here. Which brings me to my second point; your google statistics are flawed by the Baha'i-angle bias. Sayyid Kazim is an important figure in the history of Shi`a Islamic thought, and his historical importance in that regard does not rest solely or perhaps even mostly on the fact that one of his students was Sayyid `Ali Muhammad. Ever since he wrote, there have been scores of commentaries on his works in Iran and `Iraq. A large secondary literature by Western Islamicists has accumulated around his life and thought, including the lavish attention given to him in the work of Henri Corbin, one the twentieth-century's most important Islamicists. In none of these contexts is the Babi connection relevant, is rarely mentioned and is never emphasized. To limit your search to contexts in which Sayyid Kazim is mentioned on the Internet in connection with the Bab is, in my opinion, not a useful way of determining actual usage. And, as you'll see if you repeat your searches without the "+Bab" qualifier, Sayyid Kazim and *not* Siyyid Kazim is the more common on the Web. So, it seems that you were incorrect in your conclusion that Siyyid rather than Sayyid Kazim was the more popular usage "for this particular personage." Note also that bibliographic entries in libraries predominate in the first few pages of the "Sayyid Kazim" search. In light of all of this, what do you think? Masarra 09:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The search without the Bab qualifier brings about a whole bunch of hits that has nothing to do with this Siyyid Kazim. Notice that a search for "Sayyid Kazim" -wikipedia will bring about other people, the first hit being someone that was born in 1938. So there has to be someway of distinguishing the hits between this Siyyid Kazem, and other Sayyed Kazim. My method does that. If you don't think that using the Bab as a keyword is good enough, find another way, but without some other qualifier, the results are no good. Also the Wikipedia MoS on naming conventions always states that the common names always win out of full or correct names. Regardless, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) for arabic naming schemes is not even a guideline, so it can't be used to state what should be done. Consensus has to be made for a change from the status quo. -- Jeff3000 15:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff that Siyyid should be used. As I posted on Talk:Báb, siyyid is used because of a particular accent of Persian that pronounces it that way, and that's the way the Baha'i standard of transliteration has been set. All Baha'i-related articles on wikipedia use that standard, and all the conventions that come with it, and that is not against any WP standard. The guidelines do state that it doesn't matter as long as it is used consistently across all the pages (Baha'i pages). If you want to pick on proper transliteration standards, Wikipedia is a mess when it comes to Arabic transliteration. There are thousands of pages that need attention, and people will fight you if you try to clean it up. The Baha'i pages are extremely well organized and maintained because there is a set standard, which doesn't exist in the academic world. There are two major extremely different sets of transliteration used in Wikipedia, and the MOS for Arabic is only a proposed guideline. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 17:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to address the other point. I agree that Siyyid Kazim is far enough removed from the Baha'i Faith that he falls into another category. However if it were not for the Baha'i Faith he would not have an article or have any notability. From the time of Shaykh Ahmad, the same group of people converted to the Bab's religion, and almost every Babi converted to the Baha'i Faith, so it's hard to argue that they are academically distinct from each other. I suggest changing the current page to Sayyid Kazim under the proposed MOS for Arabic, and using the Baha'i standard for any Babis, including the Bab himself. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Gentlemen. Jeff3000, the problem with your method of searching is that it has a logical flaw. The issue is whether sayyid or siyyid can be considered a better candidate for "common" or "general" usage. We know from the beginning that Baha'i texts usually follow Shoghi Effendi's "siyyid." By adding "Bab" to your search, you are naturally going to find a higher incidence of "siyyid" because you are going to get mostly pages related to Babi-Baha'i stuff. As a narrowing qualifier, it does not help us resolve the original issue; we already know that Baha'i usage often prefers "siyyid." If you try again with {"Sayyid Kazim Rashti" -wikipedia} and the "siyyid" counterpart, you get 95 and 50 hits, respectively. Sayyid is twice as common, in other words, if we don't skew the sample up front toward Baha'i-related hits. On that basis, as well as on the system of transliteration in widespread use in academic and journalistic literature, we should go with sayyid. Now, while Cuñado agrees that we should go with Sayyid, he offers an observation that might be considered an objection by others - that Sayyid Kazim has notability because of the Baha'i Faith. I disagree with this assessment. It *is* true that the vast majority of Baha'is have heard of him, but I would respectfully submit that they know little to nothing of Shaykhism beyond what is available in the Dawnbreakers. So, because of the Baha'i Faith Sayyid Kazim is known vaguely to a few million people as a Shi`a teacher who played some role in the emergence of the Babi religion, and to these people he is usually known as Siyyid Kazim. However, as I said before, Henry Corbin and his students brought a far greater amount of notoriety to Sayyid Kazim and Shaykhism than the Baha'i Faith has ever done. A far greater number of people are familiar with Corbin's work than with the Dawnbreakers, and probably even than with the Baha'i Faith itself. It is because of the importance attached to Shaykhism by this giant of Islamic studies that Islamic-studies libraries at research universities maintain collections of Shaykhi works (Princeton, UMich and UCLA all have large ms collections devoted to Shaykhism). While a number of Baha'is have contributed to our knowledge of Shaykhism - such as V. Rafati and T. Lawson - most scholarship on this movement has been done by non-Baha'i academics. Even those Baha'is who do work on Shaykhism nowadays commonly follow the general usage and go with Sayyid rather than Siyyid. Thus, for instance, in Vahid Behmardi's recent edition of Kazim's Risalat al-suluk fi'l-akhlaq wa'l-a`mal (Beirut, 2004), he uses Sayyid in the English-language abstract. Cuñado's other point is that "siyyid" orthographically represents a certain Persian pronunciation. I don't know about you, Cunñado, but I speak Persian and Arabic, and I'm familiar with various Persian accents - Tehrani, the heavily Arabicized Qummi, the rough Gulf dialects - and do not recall ever hearing anybody say the word in such a way as to justify "siyyid." What you say is true of some of Shoghi Effendi's transliteration choices - Mazindaran, for instance, rather than Mazandaran - but I don't think that applies to this case. (There is a North African usage by which sayyid becomes sidi, however). So, I believe the above has addressed Jeff3000's objections (and at considerable length! - sorry about that). What say you, my friends? Masarra 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
While I don't disagree on point that it may be best to have Sayyid in this article, I disagree how easily the general Baha'i literature, and orthography is discounted. Siyyid Kazim has received the commonality he has received because of the Baha'i Faith, regardless of if you agree with the continuation of succession or not, and thus the Baha'i literature cannot just be discounted. It may be "wrong" in the general ALA sense, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong in the Baha'i transliteration system, other than it's not the norm. I would note that even with the 50 and 95 hits, Siyyid is the most common transliteration, and given the mounds of Baha'i literature it is most likely the most common transliteration in published texts. Nominally, these things should not be discounted, but I'm not looking for a fight.
So go ahead and change the transliteration of this article, but please don't go ahead changing all the other Baha'i related articles. They follow a specific transliteration that is used consistently and correctly throughout the Baha'i related articles. -- Jeff3000 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a native Anglophone's perspective: I've seen/heard "Islam" pronounced so that it rhymes with wigwam and lamb, with either syllable emphasized. I've seen the proper name pronounced: "Ahmahd", "Akhmahd", "Akhmed" and "Akhmet", and spelt: Ahmad, Ahmed. There are a fair number of spellings of Muhammad, Mahommet, Muhammed, etc. My point here is that I seriously doubt that there is a "correct" Arabic transliteration because I seriously doubt that there is a "correct" Arabic pronunciation. If Anglophonic academics have "standardized" transliteration, which variety of Arabic pronunciation is closest?
Frankly, speakers of both Arabic and Persian seem to be as vulnerable to biases based on idiomatic pronunciation as anyone. (Ask an American who's not from the Deep South how smart these people are and they'll assert in all seriousness that they're about 10 points dumber than they really are. And one tends not to think of Cockney as the lingua franca of British intelligensia. Peter Jennings waltzed into U.S. broadcasting only having to soften his Canadian english a tad; while Dan Rather was desperate to purge his west Texas drawl.)
The WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English seems pretty clear that the language used should reflect the subject. Extending that to transliteration seems natural. So the idiosyncratic Baha'i transliteration should apply there, as they represent a Persian(?) pronunciation; but should not necessarily apply elsewhere. This article is a good example. MARussellPESE 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
MARussellPESE, could you please clarify your position here. Are you saying yea or nay to my proposed change of Siyyid to Sayyid for this and other Shaykhism pages (I'll be adding some, including one for "Shaykhism")? If you are saying yea, then we have reached a consensus. (On wigwam/lamb; most Persian-speakers pronounce the alif as in father, while in Arabic it is more commonly pronounced like cat. So Persians say Bab just like the name Bob, while Arabs will say it rhyming with tab. There are many other differences to the Persian pronunciation of Arabic words, and there is an accepted system of transliteration in use for this, but it is not at all like the Baha'i system. In the academic system for Perso-Arabic, the Arabic word tawakkul in a Persian text will have a transliteration of tavakkol. The Arabic word ridwan becomes rezvan, which is just like it sounds in Baha'i pronunciation. Note, though, that the Baha'i system has Rid.wan, so it is not actually the case that the Baha'i system always or even usually represents a Persian pronunciation. In the Baha'i system, Shoghi would be Shawqí, while Effendi is a Turkish word, a language for which there is no official Baha'i translit system.) To Jeff3000, I'm sorry that I came off as dismissive of Baha'i literature. It's true that I'm interested in Shaykhism for itself and not because of the Baha'i Faith, but please know that I am not personally hostile or unsympathetic to the Baha'i Faith or its adherents. Masarra 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be obtuse. I do think Sayyid is the appropriate one here — consensus. That's what his immediate associates would've called him, no? You've a valid point here. The articles around the Shaykhi movement likely have a, perhaps, inordinate amount of Baha'i perspective, as we're likely the ones who started these. They'll do well to receive your attention. No offense taken regarding the Baha'i works. It is a religion, but most of us do recognize its authority is on things spiritual, not necessarily historical. I've appreciated your thorough and even-handed approach. Grazie. Ciao, MARussellPESE 13:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that Jeff3000 has already instituted the change here. I'll look around to see if I need to make changes elsewhere and will create a redirect, if Jeff3000 hasn't done so already. Masarra 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Masarra, I think we've reached a conclusion, but I just want to say two things: 1) I have never even heard of Henry Corbin, and outside of the Baha'i context I've never heard of anyone even knowing of Shaykh Ahmad. I recently finished a course on the modern Middle East and we studied the Bab briefly. We spent approximately 40 minutes on this topic, and the professor only mentioned Shaykh Ahmad in passing, never mentioned Sayyid Kazim, talked about the Bab as one of several reformers, and it was always clear that we were studying the Bab because of the notability of the Baha'i Faith today, not because he was he had stand-alone notability. Without the Bab, Shaykh Ahmad would not be known, and without Baha'u'llah, the Bab would hardly be known.
2) I have studied Arabic quite a bit, and I've been involved in trying to format the MOS for Arabic. I've been trying very hard to standardize Arabic transliteration on Wikipedia. Exactly what the "proper" way is to transliterate Arabic is different for several major organizations. The US library of congress uses one standard, with a laundry list of details covering different grammatical situations, the United Nations has another standard for geographical naming, there's a DIN international standard, and in general academics and orientalists all use a variety of methods. Some of the older European academics came back from Europe with their own personal method, which was not even consistently used in their own books. There are more than 30 ways to spell Muammar al-Gaddafi. The point is, the method Shoghi Effendi adopted was the most common of his time (1950's), and it's very close to the ALA-LC standard used today. It's not perfect, but it's a standard, and every standard has problems. The "Sayyid" vs "Siyyid" is one of a few cases where the Baha'i standard doesn't work well, and as I mentioned, it comes from the Isfahani Iranian accent. Sayyid is sometimes pronounced "Cid", "Sa'eed", or like you said "cidi". I've seen Persians fight over how to pronounce "Muhammad" (as if there's a "Persian" way to pronounce it). Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that transliterations used in Baha'i publications are used in the article; e.g., "Sayyid Káẓim" (accent acute over the a, dot under the z). My own preference is for this kind of transliteration in clearly Baha'i articles, but it would be better not to force the usage in an article that is not obviously (only) Baha'i. So wouldn't it be something like "Seyed Kazem", etc.? modify 14:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My appologies. I missed the previous set of posts on the topic. modify 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maulana Muhammad Ali as a Source[edit]

Maulana Muhammad Ali's book is not an appropriate source. WP:V requires reliable sources from reliable publishers. Inclusion fails both criteria:

  1. Maulana Muhammad Ali is an Ahmadi apologist rendering him an unreliable source.
  2. The book is published, in the U.S. by an Ahmadi publishing house: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore, Inc., effectively making it self-published.

The only wiggle room for self-published authors is in ¶2 of WP:SELFPUB which allows for inclusion if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". No other third-party uses him or his book as a reference. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)