Was Tahirih "on intimate terms" with Quddus?

All research or scholarship questions
Dawud
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:59 pm

Was Tahirih "on intimate terms" with Quddus?

Postby Dawud » Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:27 am

William Miller writes of Tahirih / Qurrat al-'Ayn:

Hence her freedom of travelling about the country with the Babi chiefs scandalized many people, and there was probably some ground for criticism of her disregard of convention. It appears that some of the Babis considered this period a time of freedom, for they thought they had been released from the restrictions of Islam, and the new laws to be given by the Bab had not yet been revealed or made known to them. The Babi historian Mirza Jani, stating his own opinion and probably that of other Babis also, says that the Bab is master of all men and women, and has the authority to interchange husbands and wives at will, “and hath given his servant and his handmaid to one another,” probably indicating that he thought the Bab himself had united Qurratu’l-Ayn with Mulla Muhammad Ali of Barfurush with whom she was on intimate terms. Since she was a divorcee such a union would have been permitted by Muslim law. “And this is assuredly sanctioned by the Holy Law,” continues Mirza Jani, “for our Master hath certainly as much authority as every other master hath over his slaves and handmaidens.”(6)


Where is Miller getting this from? Does Jani say the two were intimate? It seems to me they were rather rivals.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:31 am

Can I ask what the reason for the pursuit? Does it make a point or is it just for the knowledge?

I have no problem either way. It does not dimish there potency if either is true. More important is there actions in the faith, then within they're private lives, dont you think?

But if your pursuit is purely academic then your pursuit is a bit akin to tabliod journalism dont you think?

Good luck in your pursuit.

Mat

Dawud
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:59 pm

Postby Dawud » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:26 pm

Uh, purely academic. (That is kind of what this site is for, right?) Come on, these people have been dead for 150 years. And considering that they were two of the most important Babi leaders, wouldn't this change the dynamic a bit to learn this? Is having another relationship after divorce (possibly culminating in marriage) really so scandalous?

Tony

Postby Tony » Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:05 pm

Dawud

In the interest of academic research you might also have pointed out that William Miller was an inveterate opponent of the Baha'i Faith.

His distortions and lies have been exposed by Baha'i scholars, and consequently he has no credibillity whatsoever as a reliable source.

Dawud
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:59 pm

Postby Dawud » Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:50 pm

Fair enough. In that case, what lie or distortion is he making? He attributes this observation to a certain Mirza Jani. Is this not correct, or is the problem with Jani?

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:45 pm

Baha'i historians are allergic to both Rev. Miller (for writing against them, and also for listening to their arch-enemies the Azalis) and Jani's history Nuktat al-Kaf (for being inconvenient). Juan Cole writes about the Jani issue:

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/notes/vol2/babihist.htm

I cannot tell whether any of these mss discuss a possible Tahirih / Quddus affair. If they do, they may or may not be correct. However "Jani" (or whoever the author was) was a Babi supporter, so we would not expect him to just make this up.

Walker
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: PA

Postby Walker » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:05 pm

This is amazing. But people actually can get along without having sex with each other. It is really possible. That is one of the reason these people were Dawnbreakers, because they were virtuous. Very, very virtuous. Another way to look at it is, is it any of your business? "Not every question...." ('Abdu'l-Baha)


Return to “Discussion”