Introduction: The Succession Crisis After the Báb
In the turbulent religious landscape of mid-19th century Persia, the execution of Sayyid ‘Ali Muhammad Shirazi, known to his followers as the Báb, in 1850 created a profound leadership vacuum. His nascent movement, was thrown into a crisis over the critical question of his legitimate successor. This essay explores that contentious succession crisis by analyzing the evidence presented by A.-L.-M. Nicolas, a French diplomat whose long posting in Tehran afforded him over twenty-five years of deep, immersive, and, as his writing reveals, deeply personal study of the Babi faith.
According to Nicolas's historical analysis and the pre-Baháʼí sources he champions, Mirza Yahya, known as Subh-i-Azal, was the Báb's explicitly designated successor. His analysis builds a compelling case that his elder half-brother, Mirza Husayn-'Ali, who would later adopt the title Baha'u'llah, systematically usurped this leadership, an act which required fundamentally altering the Babi faith to establish his own authority.
To substantiate this thesis, this analysis will examine the key lines of evidence presented by Nicolas: the official and widely recognized nomination of Subh-i-Azal; Baha'u'llah's own professed ignorance of the Báb's foundational texts; the strategic re-characterization of the Báb's mission by the Baháʼí movement; and a stark comparison of the two claimants' actions in the years following the Báb's death.
The Explicit and Notorious Nomination of Subh-i-Azal
For any nascent religious movement, particularly one facing existential threats from state and clerical authorities, the clear designation of a successor is paramount for survival and continuity. In the case of Babism, the evidence for Subh-i-Azal's legitimate claim is founded on just such a clear appointment by the Báb himself.
Nicolas's research heavily relies on the work of the renowned British orientalist E.G. Browne, whose findings he presents as decisive. According to Browne, the Báb officially nominated Mirza Yahya (Subh-i-Azal) as his successor in 1849, a full year before his martyrdom. This was not a subtle or ambiguous act. Browne, as cited by Nicolas, describes the nomination in the strongest possible terms, calling it:
"explicite et notoire" (explicit and notorious)
The significance of this appointment was immediately clear. It was accepted by the vast majority of the Báb's followers, who, upon the founder's death, looked to the young Subh-i-Azal for guidance. As Browne notes, he received the recognition and homage of almost the entire Babi community.
This historical record establishes a clear and unbroken line of succession. According to the evidence compiled by Browne and presented by Nicolas, Subh-i-Azal's initial leadership was an "indisputable and absolute power over the Babi Church." This fact solidifies his position as the Báb's intended heir and provides the essential context for understanding the subsequent challenge to his authority.
Baha'u'llah's Disavowal of the Báb's Core Teachings
A successor's legitimacy is intrinsically tied to their mastery of the founder's teachings and scriptures. To claim to fulfill a divine mission while being ignorant of its foundational text would be a profound contradiction. Yet, according to Nicolas, this is precisely the position Baha'u'llah adopted regarding the Báb's central work, the Bayán.
In his analysis, Nicolas quotes directly from Baha'u'llah's own "Epistle to the Son of the Wolf," where Baha'u'llah makes a startling admission:
"God is witness and knows that I have never read the Bayân and have not seen its propositions"
(Shoghi translates thus - "God testifieth and beareth Me witness that this Wronged One hath not perused the Bayán, nor been acquainted with its contents.")
For Nicolas, this was an irreconcilable contradiction. He questions how Baha'u'llah could, in the same breath, claim total ignorance of the Bayán while proceeding to cite the very work he claims to have never read. This contradiction is compounded by a significant factual error that reveals a fundamental lack of familiarity with the text's structure. In the epistle, Baha'u'llah refers to the the sixteenth Wahid of the Bayán. However, as Nicolas points out, this is an impossibility; the Persian Bayán contains only eight Wahid.
The implications of these statements are critical. By his own account, Baha'u'llah was unfamiliar with the scripture that formed the bedrock of the Babi faith. This professed ignorance critically undermines his claim to be the Báb's spiritual heir and designated fulfillment. For Nicolas, this disavowal is not an incidental detail but the very key to understanding how Baha'u'llah could so completely alter the course of the Babi religion—one cannot be bound by a revelation one claims not to know, making its transformation not only possible, but strategically necessary.
The Hijacking of a Prophetic Mission: Demoting the Báb to Herald
To supplant a religious founder, a strategic and compelling narrative shift is required. Nicolas views this doctrinal revision not as a clarification but as a dethronement. He argues with palpable frustration that Seyyd Ali Mohammed, whom he venerates as a complete prophet, was being deliberately demoted to make room for a usurper. The Báb was no longer presented as a prophet in his own right but was recast as a mere forerunner whose sole purpose was to prepare the way for a greater manifestation.
Nicolas points to the writings of Baha'i authors like Gabriel Sacy and Isabella Brittingham, who consistently characterized the Báb as an "announcer" and a "herald". Brittingham, for instance, writes that the Báb's entire purpose was "to prove to the people that he was only the messenger of a great one who was to come."
This portrayal stands in stark contrast to the Báb's own self-conception and the station he claimed. As Nicolas forcefully argues, the Báb was a "a complete prophet, a Lawgiver, like Jesus or Muhammad". His holy book, the Bayán, was not a temporary prelude but his own complete and independent revelation, intended to stand for centuries until the distant arrival of "He Whom God Shall Make Manifest."
By reducing the Báb's station from that of an independent Manifestation of God to that of a herald, Baha'u'llah effectively dethroned him. This radical transformation created the necessary theological space for Baha'u'llah's own claim to supreme authority. In Nicolas's view, this narrative transformation was the essential mechanism for hijacking the original Babi movement and legitimizing a new leadership.
A Tale of Two Brothers: Obedience versus Ambition
For Nicolas, the final proof lies in the character and conduct of the two men. By contrasting their documented actions after the Báb's martyrdom, he presents a stark dichotomy: one of fidelity to the Master's will, the other of an ambition that required weakening that same Master's prestige.
Nicolas constructs a clear, two-part analysis based on historical accounts and his own personal observations:
- Subh-i-Azal: The Faithful Successor His actions were characterized by what Nicolas calls obedience and respect for his [the Báb's] will. Rather than seeking public acclaim, he lived in quiet exile in Famagusta, Cyprus. Crucially, he dedicated himself to fulfilling the Báb's unfinished work by completing the Persian Bayán. Nicolas, who spent two years with him, adds a personal testimony: "I affirm that I never heard him speak ill of anyone," including his half-brother.
- Baha'u'llah: The Ambitious Usurper His actions, in contrast, contributed to the weakening of the prestige of the Báb. He leveled severe accusations against Subh-i-Azal, claiming his brother had ordered the martyrdom of followers. Furthermore, in the "Epistle to the Son of the Wolf," Baha'u'llah recounts how the Báb's collected writings were abandoned in Baghdad after he had tasked Subh-i-Azal with transporting them to Persia—an incident that reflects poorly on both, yet which Baha'u'llah uses to incriminate his brother.
This stark contrast in conduct—one man preserving the founder's text, the other denigrating the founder's chosen successor—leads Nicolas to pose a simple but powerful rhetorical question that encapsulates his entire analysis:
"Lequel des deux est dans la vérité ?" ("Which of the two is in the truth?")
Check: https://archive.org/details/nicolas-qui-est-le-successeur-du-bab-1933
Posts
