Bahá’u’lláh had to endure a serious amount of trouble to become the leader after Báb. He was exiled numerous times to different places.

Is it possible to be a propagandist or pioneer of oneness of mankind but then face numerous domestic drawbacks?

Dolgoruki’s Aid to Bahá’u’lláh

After execution of Báb, the Russians tried to select one of his followers to be his successor, Kenyaz Dolgorukov((Prince Dimitri Ivanovich Dolgorukov – aka Kenyaz Dolgoruki – was the minister of Russian Tsar for the era of king Naser al-Din Shah Qajar. He was initially appointed as the Interpreter of Russia’s embassy. He came to Iran in 1834 and with being a Muslim he was able to penetrate some of the naive Muslims. With his influence he was able to associate with the Gilani monastery. He came familiar with people fit for his goals. After some time Dolgoruki went to the Holy Shrines of Iraq and found Siyyid `Ali Muhammad Shirázi ‘Báb’ at Sayyid Kazim Rashti’s courses. In his book ‘The Memoirs of Count Dolgorukov’, he has given details about his relationship with Siyyid `Ali Muhammad Báb and mentions that Báb went to the roof at the heat of the sun and stayed there for hours practicing Sheykhi spells and prayers.)) says:

I heard of Báb execution in Tehran, so I instigated Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri and some others who did not see Báb to make some uproar and confusion.

Mirza Hussein Ali (Baha’u’llah)

Mirza Ali Muhammad (Báb)

Mirza Ali Muhammad (Báb)

Yahya Nuri (Subh-i-Azal)

Kenyaz Dolgoruki

They started an armed rebellion and insurgency in the country but the government reacted with stern reprisal, which eventually beat the rebellion. Even after failing, they tried to assassinate the king Nasser-al-din for executing Báb, which also failed, therefore the king ordered to arrest all the Bábi-Bahá’is, including Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri and put them in prison.

Dolgoruki says:
I defended Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri, and with extreme difficulty convinced the government not to kill him. Therefore the government exiled him to Baghdad.

At another place Dolgoruki mentions:

I suggested Mirzá Husayn-Ali to take his brother Mirzá Yahyá  as his patron.

I gave them a sizable sum of money and later, I sent his wife, children, relatives and all those who were close to him.

Dispute Between the Followers of Báb.

After settling in Baghdad, Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri started to pave the way to take leadership of Bábis; however most of Bábis did not accept him and gave their leadership to his brother Mirzá Yahyá Núri because they believed Báb had appointed Yahyá Núri in his will as his successor. So they became two groups, struggling against each other. Due to this struggle the Ottoman government deported them to Edirne in Turkey (1281 A.H-1864 A.D.).

Even in Edirne the strife between the two brothers intensified; the followers of Yahyá came to be known as ‘Azalis’ as he was called Subh-i-Azal, and the followers of Husayn-Ali as ‘Baha’is’.

Husayn-Ali determined to get rid of his brother Yahyá, he tried to poison him but he failed, he attempted to assassinate him but it also failed. The two brothers took even cursed each other vehemently, too, calling each other as ‘sin’, ‘calf’, ‘bear’.

Intervention of Ottoman Government Between the Two Brothers

The extent of the chaos caused the Ottoman government to send the brothers to different places!

Azalis were sent to Cyprus and Bahá’is were sent to Akka in Palestine. Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri started with the claim of the trustee of Báb and his successor, and called himself as Bahá’u’lláh, later he claimed that he is a prophet, too. What’s more is that he also claimed himself as the perfect Manifestation of God, following him is paradise, and disobeying him is hell, he invalidated anything which did not suit him in Bábism.

Some of Azali Reasons to Their Claim

Because of Bahá’u’lláh’s anarchic claim that he has a new religion, many people turned away from him because no religion could be obsolete in such a short time (after Báb’s death until Bahá’u’lláh’s claim which was only 9 years). Meaning that Báb’s successor could not bring a new religion.

The definition made by Báb for the Manifestation of God was impossible to comply with Bahá’u’lláh’s year of birth i.e. many characteristics that Báb defined would apply for a person that would be born after Báb. For example Báb declared:

However Báb was born in 1819 and Bahá’u’lláh was born in 1817!

Báb has written “The new Manifestation would come only after all have been educated with the Bayán.”((‘Bayán‘ Wahid 5))

Now the Bayán, as we all know, was incomplete when death overtook Báb, and he had entrusted Mirzá Yahyá Núri (Azal, Bahá’u’lláh’s brother), his successor with the responsibility of completing it. But this desire of seeing the ‘Bayán’ completed remained just a dream for Báb and to this day it remains incomplete. Moreover, Bayán is a book that is not even accessible to all, let alone read or understood by the Bahá’is. It has never gone into print and even its manuscripts are rare. I don’t know about  Bahá’is but I find it very strange that books revealed thousands of years ago like the Torah, Bible and the Quran are available at the drop of a hat in just about every spoken language, but the Bayán which was ‘revealed’ less than 200 years ago is not even available in its original language! Do Bahá’is even know in which language the Bayán was written? Then how can they be Bahá’is and how can Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri be the ‘Promised/Manifested One’, when Báb has clearly stated that only after the universal acceptance of the Bayán will the ‘Manifested One’ arrive?

Báb had stated in the ‘Bayán’ in no uncertain terms, that “universal acceptance of Bábism was a prerequisite to the appearance of ‘the Promised One’”. In my view the Bahá’is would hard pressed to prove that, let alone the world, even a city or town had unanimously embraced Bábism prior to the advent of Bahá’u’lláh. Till date such an event has not come to pass. This automatically makes his claim groundless like all his other claims.

Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri continued to propagate his falsehoods and fabrications through the masonic establishment and the voice and propagandist of world Zionism which used him as a tool for achieving their goals. He was exhausted with diarrhea and he perished in Akka on 2nd Dhi Qadah 1309 A.H. (May 1892).

During the time of his living in Baghdad, Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri started to write some books which some of them are: Iqán- Aqdas- Ishráqát- Alwah- Mobeen.

Mirzá Husayn-Ali Núri willed that his elder son Abbas Effendi and after him, his other son Muhammad `Ali Effendi would succeed him.

Dispute over Leadership after Bahá’u’lláh Death

When Abbas Effendi (later known as ‘`Abdu’l-Bahá ’) announced that his father appointed him in his will, his brother Muhammad `Ali Efendi and his brothers contested this claim; each of them argued that they were meant by the will, which was very concise and ambiguous. As the result of the conflict each one raised his head against the other with fury, but finally `Abdu’l-Bahá became victorious and named his supporters as ‘Sabetin’ (covenants) and addressed the opponents as ‘Naghezin’ (covenants breaker).

`Abdu’l-Bahá  started to work to achieve the aims for Baha’ism, namely to change Islam and work for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. He claimed that a Bahá’i can combine all religions even though they contradict each other. He says:

You can be a Bahá’i-Christian, a Bahá’i Freemason, a Bahá’i-Jew, a Bahá’i-Muhammadan.((`Abdu’l-Bahá in London; Pages 97-98))

`Abdu’l-Bahá died in Monday, 6th of Rabi-al-Awal 1340 A.H. (November 8th,  1921) at the age of 78 and since he had no son, before his death he appointed his grandson Shoghi Effendi, son of his daughter.

We cannot make a crystal clear conclusion, because we don’t know what Báb meant when he appointed Subh-i-Azal but then Bahá’u’lláh took over, or for Bahá’u’lláh, which he said that Muhammad `Ali Effendi would be the successor after Abbas Effendi which they ended up fighting and Shoghi Effendi came to succession out of the blue!

It could mean that either they were not prophets or it could just be the mistaken interpretation of the article’s author!