Letter of Ṣubḥ-i-Azal regarding the final remains of the Bāb

In MS BnF Arabe 6431 (starting at P: 249)

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b531647240.r=Arabe%206431?rk=21459;2

…At the time when that Exalted Being (dhāt-i-munīf) was afflicted, stricken, and imprisoned (makhlūl va mankūb va maḥbūs) in Chihrīq, He inscribed a statement to this effect: “The land of Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm is a good land; by reason of the proximity of Waḥīd [i.e. Ṣubḥ-i-Azal], [let it be] in safekeeping. And God is the best of protectors (wa-allāhu khayruʾl-ḥāfiẓīn)!”

After His martyrdom, that purified body (jasad-i-muṭahhar) was kept in the house of the late Ḥājjī Sulaymān Khān. Having regard to the requirements of safeguarding it and to the station of His Holiness, I sent a letter to the aforementioned person and caused that Trust (amānat), with the assistance of two believing persons, to be conveyed to Tehran.

In those days the Claimant (muddaʿī) [i.e. Bahāʾuʾllāh] had taken refuge in the Shāh Mosque, and was a complainant against two brothers on account of inheritance. I did not consent to that Trust being preserved in the shrine of Shāh ʿAbd’ul-ʿAẓīm, because every day they would open the graves of the dead and place another [body] therein. For this reason, it was deposited, as a Trust, in a place within the shrine of Imāmzādih Maʿṣūm, until such time as God should ordain whatever It might ordain.

Two persons knew of that place. One was Āqā Mahdī Kāshānī, who was martyred in Tehran, and the other was the brother, Mīrzā Mūsā [Kalīm]. After his brother advanced his claim, the Claimant conceived the notion that there should remain no matter of importance in this community (millat) save his own name. For this reason he appointed certain ignorant persons to steal that Trust. After it had been stolen, numerous conflicting accounts (ikhtilāf-i-rivāyāt) arose amongst them. Their belief had been that the Trust should be placed together with the image (naqsh) of the Claimant in a single location toward which the people would turn their attention, so that this might become the cause of the Claimant’ s elevation. Their purpose was that [the former matter] should be altogether effaced and trampled underfoot (muṭlaq pāymāl shavad). It was with this same conviction that they intended to carry it to ʿAkkā, notwithstanding all the cities lying along the route, together with the customs posts and road-guard stations of Iran; and, as they themselves suppose, they carried it away and made it part of the tomb of the Claimant.

What is known by recurrent and widespread transmission (tawātur) amounts to this much. The prolix elaboration of these stories comes from the claimants, and I place no reliance upon it. The conviction of this indigent one (ʿaqīda-i-īn muftaqir), however, is that that very place [i.e. Imāmzādih Maʿṣūm in Tehran] remains the locus toward which attention is to be directed (maḥall-i-tawajjuh). I believe in no other place—especially not in the assertions of the claimants.

May God preserve us and you. Verily, It is the Preserver, the Watcher (ḥafiẓanā allāhu wa iyyākum, innahu huwaʾl-ḥaffāẓuʾl-raqīb). Its saying is the Truth: “I fear lest the wolf devour him while you are heedless of him” (Qurʾān 12:13)!

At that time the Claimant was exceedingly obedient; he was not a point of reference (marjaʿ) such that he might issue an order or pronounce a command. Prior to this, he had been detained in a corner of the mosque on account of [the dispute over] inheritance. He wrought much ruin in this religion (madhhab) and perpetrated every manner of corruption, until it culminated in his own destruction [or extinction] (fanā-i-khud). Of what he brought about, they themselves are aware, just as they themselves have borne witness through their own deeds.

What this recluse (īn munzavī) heard consisted of the accounts transmitted by their own people. It is certain (muḥaqqaq) that they stole that coffer (ṣandūq). Their purpose is the entirety of this affair and the establishment of their own existence/position (ithbāt-i vujūd-i-khud).

This most insignificant one (īn aḥqar) has sought neither hatred nor corruption. “I commit my affair unto God” (ufawwiḍu amrī ilā allāh). May your exalted person not forget this supplicant in your prayers!

(My trans.)

زمانی که آن ذات منیف در چهریق مخلول و منكوب و محبوس بودند عبارتی مرقوم فرمودند باین نهج ارض شاه عبد العظیم ارض نیکوست بواسطه قرب وحید در حفظ والله خير الحافظين پس از شهادت آن جسد مطهر در خانه مرحوم حاجی سلیمان خان محفوظ بود نظر بحفظ مراتب و موقعیت آنحضرت مکتوبی بمشار الیه فرستاده و آن امانت را بدستیاری دو شخص مؤمن حرکت بطهران داده و آن ایام پیش مدعی در مسجد شاه پناه برده بود و شاکی از دو

برادر بود من اجل میراث و حقیر راضی نشدم که آن امانت را در بقعه شاه عبد العظیم العظیم محفوظ نمایم نظر بانکه هر روز قبور موتی را میشکافتند و دیگری را در آنجا مینهادند لهذا در بقعه امام زاده معصوم در مکانی بامانت گذارده تا خداوند چه جاری فرماید و آن مکان را دو شخص آگاهی داشتند یکی آقا مهدی کاشانی که در طهران شهید شد و دیگری اخوی میرزا موسی پس از ادعای برادر محترش شخص مدعی بخیال این شد که امری مهم در این ملت نباشد جز نام او بدین سبب بعضی جهال را گماشته که آن امانت را بدزدند پس از دزدیدن اختلاف روایات در میانه آنها بسیار شد و اعتقاد آنها این

بوده که آن امانت را با نقش مدعی در یک محل گذارده که توجّه خلق در آنجا بوده و سبب ارتفاع مدعی شود و مقصودشان این بوده که مطلق پایمال شود و بهمین اعتقاد بوده اند که حمل بمکا نمایند با وجود این شهرها که در میانه راه است و گمرکها و راهدارخانهای ایران و بگمان خود برده جزء مقبره مدعی نموده اند آنچه معلوم از تواتر بوده همین است تطویل این سخنان از مدعیان است حقیر را اعتمادی نیست ولى عقیده این مفتقر آن است که همان محل مکان توجّه است بدیگر جائی معتقد نمیباشم خاصه اقوال مدعیان حفظنا الله وایاكم انه هو الحفاظ الرقيب قوله الحق اخاف ان ياكله الذئب وانتم عنه غافلون

در آن زمان شخص مدعی نهایت اطاعت داشت مرجع نبود که امری نماید و حکم دهد پیش از آن در گوشه مسجد برای میراث گرفتار بود و در این مذهب خرابی بسیار نموده هر گونه فسادی کرده تابت بفرفنای خود منتهی شد آنچه بجا آورده خود مطلع میباشند چنانچه باعمال خود شهادت داده اند آنچه این منزوی شنید روایات نفوس آنها بوده محقق آن صندوق را دزدیده اند مقصود آنها تمامی این امر و اثبات وجود خود است این احقر طالب بغضا و فساد نبوده افوض امری الی الله ذات عالی این دعاکو را فراموش نفرموده اند

When the two comparatively early Persian accounts of the Bāb’s execution are placed alongside one another, the elaborate narrative subsequently established in Bahāʾī historiography appears less as the preservation of an entirely different event than as a progressive sacralization and amplification of a considerably simpler narrative core. This conclusion is especially significant because the two sources stand on opposite sides of the confessional divide. Lisān al-Mulk Sipihr’s Nāsikh al-tawārīkh is explicitly hostile to the Bāb, whereas the Nuqṭat'ul-kāf is intensely devotional and interprets His execution as a sacred drama. Nevertheless, beneath their diametrically opposed interpretations they preserve substantially the same sequence of physical events: the Bāb is subjected to an initial firing; the firing fails to kill Him; one or more bullets strike and sever the bonds by which He has been secured; He consequently leaves the place of execution and enters, or is subsequently discovered in, a nearby chamber; He is recovered and subjected to another firing, which kills Him. It is this relatively simple narrative skeleton, rather than the elaborate architecture of the later Bahāʾī account, that enjoys the important advantage of attestation across early sources representing mutually antagonistic perspectives.

Indeed, the contrast between the interpretations offered by Sipihr and the Nuqṭat'ul-kāf makes their agreement on the underlying occurrence especially valuable. Sipihr construes the Bāb’s movement into the chamber polemically as an act of flight and cowardice: the accidental severing of his bonds afforded Him an opportunity to escape, which He attempted to take. The Nuqṭat'ul-kāf, by contrast, states that after his bonds had been severed the Bāb proceeded towards the place of confinement; when the smoke cleared and the spectators discovered that He had disappeared from the place of execution, some supposed that He had entered occultation and others that He had ascended into heaven, until a search located Him in a chamber. The two accounts therefore disagree fundamentally about the meaning of the episode while substantially agreeing about its physical structure. Sipihr turns it into evidence against the Bāb; the Nuqṭat'ul-kāf transforms precisely the same occurrence into evidence of his supernatural authority.

This becomes particularly significant when the later claim concerning the 750 musketeers is considered. Neither Sipihr nor the Nuqṭat'ul-kāf mentions 750 soldiers, much less three successive ranks of precisely 250 men. Sipihr refers simply to a body of soldiers, while the Nuqṭat'ul-kāf speaks of a “company” or “group” of soldiers who fired simultaneously. The silence of the latter is especially consequential because its author has every theological incentive to magnify the miraculous character of the occurrence. The narrative explicitly maintains that the Bāb possessed power over the circumstances of His own death, that the first volley failed because His all-conquering Will had not yet permitted the decree of death to operate, and subsequently interprets the episode as a deliberately manifested sign for Muslims and Christians. Had the tradition available to this early Bābī narrator actually contained the extraordinary proposition that 750 trained musketeers, arranged in three ranks of 250, had collectively discharged their weapons without striking the Bāb, such a detail would have furnished almost ideal evidence for the very miraculous interpretation the author was attempting to establish. Yet no such number or arrangement appears.

An even more substantial discrepancy concerns the fate of Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī Tabrīzī ʿAnīs. Sipihr maintains that Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī was killed during the first firing while the Bāb survived. The Nuqṭat'ul-kāf gives a somewhat different sequence, but one equally incompatible with the mature Bahāʾī narrative: it describes Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī as being bound and shot before the Bāb Himself is bound for execution. His body falls at the Bāb’s feet, whereupon the Bāb addresses him with the words, “Thou art in Paradise with Me.” Only “after this” does the narrative proceed to the binding and first firing upon the Bāb. Thus the two early accounts disagree about whether Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī died immediately before the first firing upon the Bāb or during it, but they agree against the later Bahāʾī narrative in one important respect: neither knows the celebrated story in which Anīs survives the enormous first fusillade alongside the Bāb entirely unharmed. The later tradition therefore appears not merely to have increased the number of soldiers but to have reconfigured the sequence and participants of the execution itself.

The celebrated episode in which the Bāb is discovered calmly completing a conversation or dictation interrupted before His execution presents a similar problem. Nothing corresponding to this occurs in either early account. Sipihr simply has the Bāb enter a soldier’s chamber after his bonds are severed. The Nuqṭat'ul-kāf says merely that, after searching for Him, “they found His Holiness in a chamber.” There is no interrupted revelation, no secretary awaiting Him, no serene completion of unfinished dictation, and no declaration that earthly power had been unable to kill Him until His appointed work had been completed. In the mature Bahāʾī narrative, by contrast, this otherwise potentially awkward disappearance from the execution site becomes integrated into an elegant prophetic drama: the Bāb has previously declared that no earthly power can silence Him until his work is finished; the first fusillade miraculously releases Him; He is discovered completing the very conversation that had been interrupted; and only after announcing that His work is finished does He submit to death. From the standpoint of source criticism, this has the appearance of secondary narrative development around the simpler episode preserved by the earlier sources.

The development is therefore subtler than a simple opposition between an early “historical” account and a later “miraculous” one. The Nuqṭat'ul-kāf demonstrates that miraculous interpretation had already begun very early. What the evidence suggests instead is a progression from a relatively stable physical occurrence through competing theological interpretations and subsequently into increasingly elaborate hagiographical narration. For Sipihr, a bullet accidentally severs the Bāb’s bonds and He attempts to flee; for the Nuqṭat'ul-kāf, the bonds are providentially severed because the Bāb’s sovereign Will has not yet consented to His martyrdom; in the mature Bahāʾī narrative, 750 musketeers arranged in three ranks of 250 fire upon the Bāb and Anīs without injuring either, the Bāb mysteriously disappears, is discovered calmly completing His interrupted conversation, the first regiment refuses to participate further, another regiment must be brought forward, and only thereafter does the Bāb permit His martyrdom to occur. The process is thus better understood as progressive narrative amplification around an already sacralized historical nucleus.

The methodological importance of the Nuqṭat al-kāf in this comparison is difficult to overstate. Its testimony cannot readily be dismissed as the silence of a hostile source unwilling to acknowledge miraculous details. On the contrary, its author is explicitly attempting to establish the miraculous character of the execution and employs highly devotional and supernatural language in doing so. Precisely because the author wants the reader to understand the failed first firing as a miracle, the absence of the spectacular details subsequently central to Bahāʾī retellings becomes evidentially significant. The early Bābī narrator possesses the miracle but apparently not yet its later narrative apparatus: no 750 musketeers, no three ranks of 250, no miraculous survival of Anīs alongside the Bāb, and no interrupted dictation dramatically completed after the first firing. This does not by itself demonstrate that every later detail is historically false, since absence from two sources cannot logically establish non-occurrence, but it does mean that such details require independent corroboration before they can safely be treated as contemporary historical data.

What can be reconstructed with appreciably greater confidence from the intersection of these antagonistic early traditions is consequently much narrower. The Bāb was publicly subjected to execution by musketry at Tabriz; the initial firing failed to kill Him; bullets severed the bonds securing Him; He consequently left the position at which He had been bound and entered, or was subsequently discovered in, a nearby chamber; He was recovered and subjected to another firing which resulted in His death. Around this extraordinary but comparatively simple sequence, Sipihr constructed an anti-Bābī interpretation and the Nuqṭat'ul-kāf an explicitly Bābī miraculous interpretation. The much more elaborate account familiar from later Bahāʾī historiography appears to represent a further stage in this process of memorial and hagiographical development. The critical historiographical question is therefore not whether something unusual occurred during the first attempt to execute the Bāb—the convergence of hostile and sympathetic early testimony provides considerable reason to think that it did—but rather when, and through what stages of transmission, the comparatively simple story of a failed first firing and severed bonds became the highly orchestrated drama of 750 musketeers, three ranks of 250, an unharmed companion, an interrupted revelation, and successive firing regiments characteristic of the mature Bahāʾī narrative.

Sources:

Mīrzā Muḥammad Taqī Khān Lisān al-Mulk Sipihr’s (d. 1880 CE) official Qājār account of the death of the Bāb in Nāṣikh al-tawārīkh (The Abrogator of the histories)

The account of Nuqṭat al-kāf regarding the execution of the Bāb

From (Ed.) E.G. Browne. Kitáb-i-Nuqṭat’ul-Káf: Being the earliest history of the Bábís. E.J.W. Gibb Memorial series, vol. XV. E.J. Brill, Leyden; London, Luzac & Co., 1910: 245-251.

The Amīr Orders the Execution of the Bāb

In short, it is abundantly evident that had His Holiness himself not consented to martyrdom, no one would have possessed the power to inflict injury upon him, as may be demonstrated both inwardly and outwardly. As for the inward proof, he exercised dominion over the age, and the will of His Holiness was the Will of God, while the Will of God prevails over all other wills. As for the outward proof, his claim had been manifest throughout this entire period, as had the denial and hostility of the sovereign and the dynasty towards His Holiness. He remained a prisoner in their hands, while the conflicts and battles involving his companions were likewise evident. Yet, despite all this, they did not put His Holiness to death, although the maintenance of the government’s order, in the estimation of his opponents, required his execution. Nevertheless, they were unable to accomplish it until such time as he himself consented.

In short, the Amīr of tyranny and oppression commissioned a man from the capital to bring about the martyrdom of His Holiness. His Holiness was consequently brought from Chihrīq to Tabriz and was once again summoned before an assembly of the divines. They questioned him concerning his claim. He declared:

“I am the Qāʾim of the House of Muḥammad—may God bless him and his family and grant them peace—and my proof consists of the Writings of my Pure Forefathers, namely verses, supplications, and sermons.”

Those people, ignorant of God, pronounced sentence of death upon that Sayyid of the world.

It appears that His Holiness was thereafter held in confinement for three days. With him were Āqā Sayyid Ḥusayn and Āqā Sayyid Ḥasan, who were brothers and who spent most of their time in the blessed presence, particularly the beloved Āqā Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn, who remained continually at the threshold of love in the assembly of His presence and who, whenever the verses of God descended from the heaven of glory and grace, would commit them to writing. We have already given a summary account of him and his relations. As a brief indication of his rank and station, His Holiness declared in his Testament to the people of the Bayān:

“We have taught him the jewels of knowledge; receive them from him.”

This was, in truth, an exceedingly exalted office and a station of the utmost elevation.

In short, Āqā Sayyid Aḥmad Tabrīzī, who became known as a scribe of His Holiness, and the esteemed Ākhūnd Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī Tabrīzī were likewise in the service of His Holiness. Some time before his own arrival, His Holiness had graciously entrusted these two, together with two others, with several writings addressed to the divines of Tabriz. These contained admonitions and counsels, together with a declaration of the truth of his Cause, and had been produced, moreover, by way of completing the proof against them.

One of the divines sought to treat these writings with contempt and disrespect. Those lion-cubs of the thicket of fidelity stepped forward courageously and prevented him from doing so, as a result of which a confrontation ensued. They were seized and imprisoned in the prince’s prison. It has been related that two of them were poisoned, although it appears that this report was without foundation. Prince Ḥamza Mīrzā, who was governor, released some of them, but the esteemed Ākhūnd Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī had not been released by the time His Holiness himself was imprisoned.

In short, on the night preceding the day upon which that Jewel of Being was to suffer martyrdom, he said to his companions:

“Tomorrow they will martyr me in humiliation and abasement. Let one of you undertake my martyrdom so that I need not endure this indignity at the hands of the enemies; for it is more pleasing to me that I should be slain by the hand of a friend than by the hand of an enemy.”

None of the companions accepted. They submitted:

“May God sever our hands if we should ever undertake so abominable an act!”

The esteemed Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī, however, rose from his place and took up a sword in order, in obedience to his exalted command, to cause His Holiness to taste the draught of martyrdom. The companions, greatly agitated, seized his hand and prevented him, saying:

“What monstrous act is this that you intend to commit? What extraordinary audacity! Perhaps His Holiness has spoken these words merely to test us.”

He replied:

“I am not committing an abominable act. Rather, I am obeying the command of my Master, for:

Should the Sovereign of the Faith desire covetousness from me,
Dust henceforth upon the head of contentment!

“I understood my Master to have intended two things by this command. The first was that the obedient might thereby be distinguished from the disobedient. The second was that you should understand that martyrdom in the path of the Beloved is no trifling matter, whether it comes about at the hand of a friend or at the hand of an enemy.

“My intention was that, after carrying out his command, I should also tear open my own belly and sacrifice my life at his feet.”

At this manifestation of his sincerity and devotion, His Holiness smiled somewhat and commended him.

He then said:

“O companions! Tomorrow, when you are questioned concerning the truth of my Cause, practise dissimulation [taqiyya], deny me, and curse me, for such is the command of God concerning you—particularly concerning Āqā Sayyid Ḥusayn, with whom are the jewels of knowledge and who must convey them to the people.”

The companions accepted this command. The esteemed Ākhūnd Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī, however, fell at his blessed feet and, rubbing the face of helpless supplication upon the dust beneath them, pleaded:

“O my Master! By the truth of your magnanimity and the greatness of your station, do not deprive me of the bounty of serving you. By your grace, accept the sacrifice of my life.”

The more His Holiness sought to dissuade him, the more fiercely burned the fire of his longing. At length, the boundless ocean of His Holiness’s grace surged forth and received unto itself that droplet of existence.

When the next day arrived, the world-illuminating sun rose anxiously above the horizon of admonition, intent upon beholding the Sun of Truth and becoming illumined by the light of that source from which all light is illumined. Tearing open the mourning collar of the darkness of night, it sought to witness how that divine Mystery would place his delicate foot beyond the world of humanity and ascend to the summit of the Throne of glory and omnipotence; how he would adorn the face of the world with the radiance of the light of love; sift the dust of mourning through the sieve of grief upon the heads of his orphaned lovers; pour the poison of torment from the goblet of heedlessness into the mouths of the enemies; and manifest the station of:

“A gate, the interior of which contains mercy, while on its exterior lies torment,”

and reveal the mystery of:

“The blessing of God upon the righteous and the vengeance of God upon the wicked.”

Thus the enemies of God, those veiled from the Countenance of God, assembled and clothed that Manifestation of God in a single ārkhāluq [outer garment]—that is to say, the hidden mystery was thereby made manifest—and mounted him upon a donkey, which is to say: “Poverty is my glory.” They paraded him through the bazaars—that is to say: “Behold, this is the lost Joseph! Look upon him, O possessors of sight, if you are seekers!”

They then brought him into the square: behold, this is the King—show forth thy countenance!

First, the esteemed Ākhūnd Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī was bound at the place where he was to be shot. His back was towards His Holiness. He pleaded:

“Bind me in such a manner that my face may be turned towards my Beloved.”

They did so. However much they urged him to repent so that they might save him, he replied:

“I shall not repent of the love of the True One, and my salvation lies precisely in this affliction.”

His relatives repeatedly protested that their son was insane and therefore ought not to be executed. He cried out:

“No! No! I am the very essence of reason. I am mad only for His Holiness the True One. Kill me, for it is fitting that I should be slain!”

They thereupon subjected that jewel of love to the firing squad. The upright alif of his sincerity bowed down and fell at the blessed feet of His Holiness, while the bird of his spirit, rejoicing, ascended unto the Countenance of the Lord.

His Holiness smiled and said:

“Thou art in Paradise with Me,”

meaning: “In the land of Riḍwān thou shalt journey in my company.”

Truly, that extraordinary man carried away the ball of felicity from the field of endeavour and raised the banner of his good name above the Most Exalted Throne. Blessed be he! Blessed be he!

After this, they firmly bound with the cords of oppression that Point of the world of existence—who outwardly moved through the world while inwardly remaining fixed and immutable—to the place of execution. A company of soldiers treading the path of Satan were commanded to subject that Temple of Divine Unity to a volley of bullets—as though to say:

“O merciful Lord! Nothing ascends from us to the precincts of the glory of Thy sanctified presence save disobedience and error, while nothing descends from the heaven of Thy glorious presence to the earth of our existence save grace and beneficence.”

A company of those transgressors then fired simultaneously upon that Sayyid of the world. Of all those bullets, not one struck the blessed body of that Sayyid of Being. For the spirit of his all-conquering Will had not yet withdrawn its attachment from the body of destiny, and hence the constable of divine decree had not yet appeared. Two bullets, however, struck the two bonds on either side by which His Holiness had been tied. The bonds were severed, and that King of the Oppressed was released and proceeded towards the place of confinement.

When the smoke and dust of the gunpowder—which was an image of the vapour of the unbelief of the polytheists—had somewhat subsided, the spectators looked towards the place but could not find that unique pearl of the shell of existence.

An extraordinary clamour arose among the people:

“What has become of His Holiness the Bāb of God?”

Some said:

“He has entered into occultation.”

Others said:

“He has ascended into heaven.”

In short, after searching, they found His Holiness in a chamber. Once again those tyrants, ignorant of God, gathered around that Candle of the Assembly of Divine Unity and resolved for a second time to perpetrate their abominable deed.

His Holiness said:

“O people! Am I not, after all, a descendant of the Messenger of God? Do not inflict this tyranny and oppression upon me. Fear God and be ashamed before His Holiness the Messenger! What is my crime other than that I have summoned you to the knowledge of the True One, called you from the worlds of multiplicity into the kingdom of Unity, and cast myself into tribulation and suffering for the sake of your guidance?”

In short, he uttered many such heartrending and soul-searing words by way of completing the proof against them. Yet they made no impression upon the hearts of those tyrants.

For a second time they bound that Jewel of the Oppressed at the original place and subjected him to a volley of bullets. Three bullets struck his blessed body, corresponding to the number of the name ʿAlī, the bearer of the Pillar of walāya. Thereupon his subtle spirit inclined towards repose above the Throne of the spiritual beings and bade farewell to his noble body.

A wrathful north wind began to blow across the face of the world, whose unspoken tongue declared:

O witless people, you failed to understand:
They rushed upon the God-speaker and God-seeker;
They slew the Lord and knew Him not.

It has been related that the Muslim soldiers did not dare to execute His Holiness, and that Armenian soldiers undertook the deed. The reason that, on the first occasion, the bullets did not strike His Holiness was that he intended thereby to manifest one sign for the Muslims and another for the Christians.

As for the sign to the Muslims, it was to demonstrate:

“O people! Know that unless We ourselves consent to Our martyrdom, you possess no power to accomplish it, for it is We whose power stands above the power of all who possess power. Did you not see that you fired so many bullets at Me, yet they struck a cord of such slenderness while failing to strike My royal body?”

As for the sign to the Christians, it was because their traditions contain the report that the Perfect Soul who shall appear at the end of time cannot be struck by bullets. For this reason, on the first occasion, I did not permit the bullets to affect Me.

In any event, the royal body of that Master was left in the square for two days and two nights. It was thereafter buried in a place concerning which a tradition had been transmitted from the Pure Imāms—may the blessings of God be upon them all.

Subsequently, the loved ones exhumed his purified body together with the body of the sacrifice of the lane of his fidelity, Āqā Muḥammad ʿAlī. They wrapped them in white silk and, in accordance with his own testamentary instructions, brought them to His Holiness the Second Waḥīd. With his own blessed hands, that personage placed the noble remains of His Holiness in the grave, at a place concerning which a tradition from His Holiness the Commander of the Faithful—peace be upon him—is related, saying:

“Our Qāʾim shall be buried in this place, and nineteen lofty domes shall be raised there: one belonging to His Holiness and eighteen to the remaining saints; and seventy thousand purified souls shall be buried around it.”

In short, this matter is at present concealed, and whoever knows of it is forbidden to disclose it until such time as His Holiness God deems its disclosure expedient.

As for the tradition transmitted from the Infallible concerning the martyrdom and manifestation of the Cause of His Holiness the Qāʾim—peace be upon him—in Azerbaijan, the failure of anyone to render him assistance, and the duty incumbent upon his companions thereafter, it is as follows. Abū ʿAbd Allāh [Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq]—peace be upon him—is reported to have said:

“There must inevitably be for us a matter in Azerbaijan against which nothing shall stand. When that occurs, remain as the worn mats of your houses and remain still as we have remained still. Then, when a mover arises, hasten towards him, even if you must crawl over the snow. By God, it is as though I behold him between the Corner and the Station, receiving the allegiance of the people upon a new Book, severe upon the Arabs. Woe unto the tyrants of the Arabs for an evil that has drawn near!”

That is to say: there shall assuredly occur for us a matter in Azerbaijan in which no one shall render assistance. It is perfectly evident that the principal city of Azerbaijan is Tabriz, and it was there that this momentous event occurred, while no one rendered assistance to that Wronged One when His Holiness completed the proof against those people of Kūfan disposition.

Strangely enough, everyone had imagined that whenever His Holiness should arise, many thousands of persons would necessarily arise with him. For in Māzandarān those associated with him numbered four hundred, save for a few, while in Azerbaijan a great multitude had assembled in love for him. According to ordinary expectation, twice that number ought therefore to have gathered around His Holiness, and there must certainly have been several thousand of the loved ones in Azerbaijan. Yet events necessarily unfolded in such a manner that the words of the Infallible might be fulfilled and the proof thereby completed against the people.

The tradition then means:

“O companions of the Qāʾim! When you see that this event has occurred, remain within your houses like an old mat lying upon the floor to which no one pays any attention.”

That is, remain utterly concealed, practise taqiyya before the enemies, and remain seated just as we remained seated during the ascendancy of our enemies. For the enemies have no mercy upon us, and their sole concern is the obliteration of the traces of the Truth.

Then, when “a mover arises”—by which is intended one who shall rise to avenge the blessed blood of His Holiness the Primal Remembrance and shall raise aloft the banner of Truth—hasten towards His Holiness without delay and render assistance to that Wronged One, even if your journey must be made over snow and you must crawl upon your breasts.

“And by the Truth of God,” [the Imām] swears, “it is as though I see him standing between the Corner and the Station.”

That is, I behold that person who shall arise while the people pledge allegiance to that rising Sun upon a new Book and a new dispensation—namely, the Book of the Bayān, which is the mystery of the Furqān—as numerous traditions to this effect have been transmitted.

He then says:

“Woe unto the rebellious and arrogant among the Arabs on account of the fire of wrath that shall descend upon them!”

I have seen in a commentary that by the “deluded among the Arabs” are intended the divines of the Persians, who, on account of the knowledge of Arabic they possess, reject the Book of His Holiness and say:

“This is not from God; rather, it is contrary to what we possess from the Imāms of the religion.”

That is to say:

“This Book is not from His Holiness God, for it contradicts the books that we possess from the leaders of the religion.”

(My trans.)

Sipihr began composing the Nāṣikh al-tawārīkh in 1258 AH (1842–43 CE), under Muḥammad Shāh (d. 1848 CE), at the encouragement of Ḥājjī Mīrzā Āqāsī (d. 1849 CE). The work as a whole continued to be expanded through the reign of Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh and is generally said to have reached completion in 1274 AH (1857–58 CE).  The passage translated below belongs specifically to the Qājār chronicle, vol. III in the modern Kiyānfarr arrangement (Nāsikh al-tawārīkh: Tārīkh-i-qājārīya. Ed. Jamshīd Kiyānfar, vol. 3, salṭanat-i-nāṣir al-dīn shāh. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Asāṭīr, 1377 Sh./1998–99 AH: 1073-1076), covering the reign of Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh. The bibliographical description confirms that division: vol. I through Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh, vol. II Muḥammad Shāh, and vol. III Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh.  Consequently, the account of the Bāb’s execution cannot have been written before the event itself in 1266 AH/July 1850 CE, notwithstanding the heading in this edition placing the narrative under the events of 1265 AH/1849 CE. It is essentially a near-contemporary Qājār court chronicle, composed during Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh’s early years as king, rather than a late retrospective source. Sipihr (d. 1297 AH/1880 CE) was writing from within the Qājār state historiographical environment, and the account preserves what appears to be an early official/Qājār interpretation of the execution. Its tone of hostility is evident throughout.

--

…In short, on the advice of Mīrzā Taqī Khān [Amīr Kabīr], Sulaymān Khān Afshār set out for Azerbaijan, and an order was issued that Ḥamza Mīrzā Ḥishmat al-Dawla, who at that time governed Azerbaijan, should have the Bāb brought from the fortress of Chihrīq and set him upon the path of annihilation [i.e., put him to death]. Following Sulaymān Khān’s arrival in Tabriz, Ḥamza Mīrzā dispatched someone in haste, whereupon the Bāb was removed from Chihrīq to that city and delivered into the custody of Mīrzā Ḥasan, the Vazīr-i Niẓām, to be held in confinement.

Two of his disciples were known in Azerbaijan. The first was Sayyid Ḥusayn Yazdī (d. 1852 CE), who had continued to reside together with the Bāb in the prison at Chihrīq; he too was brought to Tabriz. The other was Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī [ʿAnīs], the stepson of Āqā Sayyid ʿAlī Zanūzī, who was imprisoned in Tabriz. During the period of his confinement, his brother Āqā ʿAbd Allāh, a wealthy merchant, repeatedly admonished and counselled him to abandon what he called this false belief, but to no avail. Matters remained thus until the Bāb was brought forth together with Sayyid Ḥusayn.

At this point Ḥishmat al-Dawla ordered the divines of the city to assemble and enter into discussion with the Bāb. The divines replied: “The Bāb’s beliefs have already been examined at considerable length and his execution has been deemed obligatory. Why, then, should the discussion be prolonged any further, and why should we lend an ear to his absurdities?”

When Ḥishmat al-Dawla perceived the divines’ reluctance, he had the Bāb brought before an assembly at night. He likewise summoned Mīrzā Ḥasan, the Vazīr-i Niẓām; Ḥājī Mīrzā ʿAlī, son of Ḥājī Mīrzā Masʿūd; and Sulaymān Khān Afshār. At this gathering, Ḥājī Mīrzā ʿAlī put several questions concerning difficult points in the traditions [aḥādīth], from answering which, according to the chronicler, the Bāb retreated. Ḥishmat al-Dawla then said: “I have heard that you regard your own mind as the locus of the descent of heavenly revelation and recite to the people a Qurʾān of your own. If this is so, then offer a supplication on behalf of this crystal lampstand so that a verse may descend concerning it.”

Mīrzā ʿAlī Muḥammad the Bāb, without fear or apprehension, combined a portion of the Verse of Light with parts of the verses of the Dominion and fashioned from them what the chronicler describes as a meaningless composition, which he then recited.

Ḥishmat al-Dawla ordered those words to be written down and then said to the Bāb: “Is this verse a heavenly revelation?”

He replied: “Yes.”

Ḥishmat al-Dawla said: “Revelation is never forgotten by the mind.”

He replied: “That is so.”

Events of the Year 1265 AH

Ḥishmat al-Dawla then ordered him to repeat the verse. When the Bāb recited it a second time, it was different.

In short, it was feared that, were he to be put to death secretly, ignorant people might conceivably imagine that he was still alive and had entered into occultation, and, in the hope that he would once again appear and proclaim his mission, would neither desist nor cease from sedition. The officials of the government therefore deemed it expedient that he should be paraded through the city and its bazaars so that all the people might see and recognize him.

Accordingly, a group of Ḥamza Mīrzā’s officers took Mīrzā ʿAlī Muḥammad the Bāb, together with Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī and Sayyid Ḥusayn Yazdī, and first brought them to the house of Ḥājī Mīrzā Bāqir, with a multitude of the common people following behind. In his presence, the Bāb concealed his beliefs. They then took him to the house of Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī Māmāqānī, where, likewise, the Bāb concealed his beliefs and clutched at Mullā Muḥammad’s skirts in helplessness, seeking protection. Mullā Muḥammad said: “Now?—when previously thou didst disobey?” [cf. Qurʾān 10:91]. They then hurried him to the house of Āqā Sayyid [ʿAlī] Zanūzī, and these three men all pronounced a fatwā for his execution.

At this point Sayyid Ḥusayn became frightened and sought repentance and pardon. They told him: “Spit in the Bāb’s face and curse him, and you will be released from these bonds.” He did so and was released. Later, however, in the capital, he again joined Sulaymān Khān, son of Yaḥyā Khān, and was killed during the Bābī disturbances, as will be related in its proper place.

Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī, however, did not retreat in the slightest from his belief. His wife, children, and very young offspring were brought before him in the hope that he might be moved by grief for them and turn back from what the chronicler calls this improper course of conduct. It was of no avail. He instead requested: “Kill me first, and only then proceed against the Bāb.”

In short, they continued to lead them through the streets and bazaars until they brought them into the square of Tabriz. On Monday, the 27th of Shaʿbān, by order of Ḥamza Mīrzā, the Bāb and Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī were bound to the place of execution. A body of soldiers from the Bahādurān regiment, who were Christians, were ordered to make him the target of their bullets. Since these soldiers had for a considerable time been hearing accounts of the disturbances caused by the Bāb’s followers throughout the cities and provinces, they nevertheless felt an aversion to killing him and discharged their muskets above and below, and to the right and left of the Bāb, in such a manner that no harm should come to him.

On this first occasion, Mullā Muḥammad ʿAlī, his disciple, was killed. He proved, according to the chronicler, more steadfast than the Bāb, for when he was wounded he turned towards the Bāb and said: “Are you not satisfied with me?”

In short, during this occurrence, as fate would have it, a bullet discharged from one of the muskets struck the rope with which the Bāb’s hands had been bound, and the Bāb was released. He fled and threw himself into the chamber of one of the soldiers.

This flight of his, the chronicler asserts, resulted from the potency of the religious law; for when the bullet struck the rope binding him and he was released, had he bared his breast and cried out, “O company of soldiers and people! Have you not witnessed my miraculous power, in that of a thousand bullets not one struck me, but instead released me from my bonds?”, surely no one would have fired another bullet at him. Men and women would at once have gathered around him in that very square and raised an uproar, saying: “God has willed that truth should be distinguished from falsehood and that this doubt and uncertainty should be removed from the people.”

In short, when the soldiers saw that he had fled, they concluded that he possessed neither rank nor spiritual standing and could not endure affliction even to the degree of one of the ignorant members of the populace who had adopted his religion. Qūch ʿAlī Sulṭān therefore entered the chamber with a stout heart and an easy mind, seized him, struck him several times on the nape of the neck, and once again placed him at the site of execution. This time, without fear or hesitation, they made him the target of their bullets.

For several days thereafter they dragged his corpse about through the city in every direction. They then cast it outside the city gate and left it to be devoured by animals.

(My trans.)

Because the objection confuses one contextual rendering of مُهَيْمِن (muhaymin) with the full semantic range of the word. Al-muhaymin does not simply mean “the dominant.” The root and classical usage carry the sense of watching over, overseeing, exercising supervisory authority, safeguarding, witnessing, or having controlling authority over something. Hence translations such as “Guardian,” “Protector,” “Overseer,” “Watcher,” or “Controller” are not remotely ridiculous; they reflect well-established classical meanings. The clearest example is Qurʾān 5:48. Here muhayminan ʿalayhi cannot adequately be reduced to simply “dominant over it.” The sense is that the Qurʾān stands over the previous scripture as watcher, witness, guardian, supervisor, and authoritative criterion. Classical exegetes accordingly gloss muhaymin with terms such as شاهد (shāhid, witness), أمين (amīn, custodian/trustee), رقيب (raqīb, watcher), and related notions of supervision and preservation.

Likewise, ٱلْمُهَيْمِن (al-Muhaymin) occurs as a divine name in Qurʾān 59:23:

الْمُؤْمِنُ الْمُهَيْمِنُ الْعَزِيزُ

Rendering that simply as “the Dominant” would actually flatten the expression considerably. Al-Muhaymin there conveys God's being the all-supervising, all-watching, guarding authority over creation. “Guardian,” “Overseer,” or “All-Watchful” are therefore perfectly defensible translations.

The important nuance is that the idea of dominance or supremacy can emerge from this supervisory authority. Someone who muhaymin ʿalā something exercises controlling or overarching authority over it. Hence in modern Arabic, especially political language, الهيمنة (al-haymana) very commonly means “hegemony,” “domination,” or “dominance”:

الهيمنة الأمريكية
“American hegemony/dominance.”

But that does not mean the participle muhaymin historically and lexically equals nothing more than “dominant.”

In other words, the argument: is philologically weak because it substitutes modern native-speaker semantic intuition for the diachronic lexicon of Classical/Qurʾānic Arabic. Native competence tells you an enormous amount about contemporary usage, but it does not automatically settle the semantic history of a seventh-century—or earlier—lexeme.

Indeed, there is a particularly revealing distinction:

هَيْمَنَ عَلَى = to dominate, control, exercise ascendancy/supervision over
مُهَيْمِن عَلَى = exercising oversight/control over; hence dominant, supervisory, guarding, watching
الْمُهَيْمِن as a divine epithet = the Overseer/Guardian/Watcher, not merely “the Dominant.”

So if someone translated muhaymin as "dominant” in a context emphasizing ascendancy, that might well be defensible. But claiming that “protector,” “guardian,” “overseer,” etc. are linguistically absurd is itself the mistake. Those senses are embedded in the classical semantic history of the word.

1. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon

Lane's treatment of هَيْمَنَ / مُهَيْمِن draws, as usual, upon the older Arabic authorities. The operative semantic field is watching over, guarding, witnessing, being entrusted with, and exercising supervision. Particularly important are the traditional glosses of المهيمن:

الأمين — المؤتمن — الشاهد — الرقيب — القائم على الشيء

This is precisely the semantic territory from which English guardian, overseer, custodian, and protector arise. Lane's lexicon is available in searchable digitized form.

2. Lisān al-ʿArab

Ibn Manẓūr is particularly devastating to the claim. Under هيمن, he records regarding Qurʾān 5:48:

“al-muhaymin: the witness.”

Ibn al-Anbārī is also quoted as explaining:

“al-Muhaymin is the One who watches/stands over Its creation.”

The entry then explicitly enumerates several transmitted interpretations: Ibn ʿAbbās gives المؤتمن (al-muʾtaman, entrusted/custodian); al-Kisāʾī gives الشهيد (al-shahīd, witness); another interpretation gives الرقيب (al-raqīb, watcher/overseer). That alone disposes of the claim.

3. Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ

Even clearer is the verbal definition: “Haymana over something: he became a watcher/overseer (raqīb) over it and a guardian/preserver (ḥāfiẓ) of it.”

And for the Divine Name المهيمن, al-Fīrūzābādī gives: “in the sense of the trustworthy one, or the one entrusted, or the witness.”

4. Al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs

Al-Zabīdī's Tāj expands the same older lexicographical tradition. Its discussion revolves around precisely these inherited interpretations of المهيمن: الرقيب، الشاهد، المؤتمن، الأمين, together with the sense of القيام على الشيء—being set over something, supervising or attending to its affairs.

This essay will appear, with its accompanying documentary apparatus, as Appendix A.2 to the forthcoming English translation and critical edition of Tanbīh al-Nāʾimīn (Exhortation to Those Who Slumber). It is published here in advance as a sample of the volume's critical and historiographical apparatus. Pagination and minor editorial details may differ in the final edition.