Subh-i-Azal (1831âÂÂ1912, born MërzàYahyàNà «rë) was an Iranian religious leader and writer who was the second head of the BÃÂbë movement after the execution of the Báb, its founder, in 1850. The Báb named Subh-i-Azal leader of the movement after being the Báb's chief deputy shortly before the execution, and became a generally-acknowledged head of the community after their expulsion to Baghdad in 1852.
The BÃÂb believed Subh-i-Azal had an ability to write divinely-inspired verses and saw him as a mirror, providing the ability to explain the unexplained, in the time before the appearance of the messiah, known in the BÃÂbë religion as He whom God shall make manifest (). However, not all BÃÂbës followed his authority, and some of them also made claims of their own, including those to the position of the messiah. After his later conflict with his half-brother Baháüu'lláh, who became Subh-i-Azal's leading intermediary and later claimed the messianic status, over leadership of the BÃÂbë community, his followers became known as Azalis.
At the time of appointment in 1850, he was just 19 years old. Two years later, a pogrom began to exterminate the BÃÂbës in Iran, and Subh-i-Azal fled for Baghdad for 10 years before joining the group of BÃÂbë exiles that were called to Istanbul. During the time in Baghdad tensions grew with Baháüu'lláh, as BÃÂbë pilgrims began to turn to the latter for leadership. The Ottoman government further exiled the group to Edirne, where Subh-i-Azal openly rejected Baháüu'lláh's messianic claim and the community of BÃÂbës were divided by their allegiance to one or the other.
In 1868 the Ottoman government further exiled Subh-i-Azal and his followers to Cyprus, and Baháüu'lláh and his followers to Acre in Palestine. When Cyprus was leased to Britain in 1878, he lived out the rest of his life in obscurity on a British pension.
By 1904, Azal's followers had dwindled to a small minority, and Baháüu'lláh was almost universally recognized as the spiritual successor of the BÃÂb. After Azal's death in 1912, the Azali form of BÃÂbism entered a stagnation and has not recovered as there is no acknowledged leader or central organization. Most BÃÂbës either accepted the claim of Baháüu'lláh or the community gradually diminished as children and grandchildren turned back to Islam. A source in 2001 estimated no more than a few thousand, almost entirely in Iran. Another source in 2009 noted a very small number of followers remained in Uzbekistan.
His given name was YahyÃÂ, which is the Arabic form of the English name "John". As the son of a nobleman in the county of Núr, he was known as MërzàYahyàNà «rë (). His most widely known title, "Subh-i-Azal" (or "Sobh-i-Ezel"; , "Morning of Eternity") is derived from an Islamic tradition called the Hadith-i-Kumayl, a tradition the BÃÂb quotes in his book DalÃÂ'il-i-Sab'ih.
It was common practice for the BÃÂb to confer titles or new names for his followers. MërzàYahyàNà «rë was granted such titles as al-Waḥëd, Ṭalûat an-Nà «r, and ath-Thamara, Everlasting Mirror (Mir'ÃÂtu'l-Azaliyya), Name of Eternity (Ismu'l-azal), and Fruit of the Bayan (Thamara-i-Bayan). The title of Subh-i-Azal appears in the 1853 work of BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh titled Tablet of All Food.
Subh-i-Azal was born in 1831 to MërzàBuzurg-i-Nà «rë and his fourth wife Kuchak Khanum-i-Karmanshahi, in the province of Mazandaran. His father was a minister in the court of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar. His mother died while giving birth to him, and his father died in 1839 when he was eight years old, after which he was cared for by his stepmother KhadÃÂjih Khánum, the mother of Baháüu'lláh.
In 1845, at about the age of 14, Subh-i-Azal became a follower of the BÃÂb after the adoption of the faith by his elder brother.
Subh-i-Azal met Tahirih, the 17th Letter of the Living who had, upon leaving the Conference of Badasht, traveled to Nur to propagate the faith. Shortly thereafter, she arrived at Barfurush and met Subh-i-Azal and became acquainted once again with Quddús who instructed her to take Subh-i-Azal with her to Nur. Subh-i-Azal remained in Nur for three days, during which he propagated the new faith.
During the Battle of Fort Tabarsi, Subh-i-Azal, along with Baháüu'lláh and Mirza Zayn al-Abedin endeavoured to travel there to assist the BÃÂbës. However, they were arrested several kilometers from Amul. Their imprisonment was ordered by the governor, but Subh-i-Azal escaped the officials for a short while, after which he was discovered by a villager and then brought to Amul on foot with his hands tied. On the path to Amul he was subject to harassment, and people are reported to have spat at him. Upon arriving he was reunited with the other prisoners. The prisoners were ordered to be beaten, but when it came time that Subh-i-Azal should suffer the punishment, Baha'u'llah objected and offered to take the beating in his place. After some time, the governor wrote to Abbas Quli Khan who was commander of the government forces stationed near Fort Tabarsi. Khan replied back to the governor's correspondence, saying that the prisoners were of distinguished families and should not be harassed. Thus, the prisoners were released and sent to Nur upon orders of the commander.
According to Browne, Mirza Yahya had several wives, and at least nine sons and five daughters. His sons included: Nurullah, Hadi, Ahmad, Abdul Ali, Rizwan Ali (known as Constantine the Persian), and four others. Rizwan Ali reports that he had eleven or twelve wives. Later research reports that he had up to seventeen wives including four in Iran and at least five in Baghdad. Smith reports that he had "perhaps twenty-five children in all".
His granddaughter, Roshanak Nodust, was later known for starting Peyk-e Saadat Nesvan, the first woman's rights magazine in Iran.
Subh-i-Azal first came to the attention of the BÃÂb after receiving letters from Azal, and the two began corresponding. The Nuqtatu'l-Kaf dates this event to the "fifth year of the manifestation [e.g. of the BÃÂb]" (1849). The amanuensis of the BÃÂb and a Letter of the Living, Sayyid Ḥusayn Yazdë, described the response of the BÃÂb to that correspondence in a letter to Subh-i-Azal's amanuensis, MullàÿAbd al-Karëm Qazvënë, as such: "All that might be sent after this after the writings of that Eternity, that peacock of the primal heaven, whether in your hand or the hand of God shall be much appreciated by his holiness the Loved One." The BÃÂb himself also expressed his appreciation on his own: "Sent me whatever shines forth of the writings of Azal, for we love them." In Kitab-i-Panj Sha'n (Book of Five Modes), a late work of the BÃÂb, Subh-i-Azal is identified with the return of ImÃÂm Husayn and referred to as "the Fruit that ripened in the year six" (that is, 1850).
Shortly before the BÃÂb's execution, the BÃÂb wrote letters and entrusted them to MullàÿAbd al-Karëm to deliver to Subh-i-Azal and BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh. Both Azalës and BahÃÂüës later interpreted these letters as proof of the BÃÂb's delegation of leadership to the two brothers. In his letter to Subh-i-Azal, the BÃÂb instructs him to: "preserve himself, then preserve himself, then what has been sent down in the BayÃÂn, then what is sent from him," and to "recite of the verses of his Lord what God will inspire into his heart as a remembrance on His Part." BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh is instructed by the BÃÂb to protect Subh-i-Azal and the "verses treasured up within him." According to ûAbdu'l-Bahá, the BÃÂb did this to divert attention from BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh, and that it was suggested by the latter in an accord with the BÃÂb. This is a popular explanation of the matter for the BahÃÂüës, though it has faced ethical objections.
In the period immediately following the BÃÂb's execution (1850), multiple various claims to authority emerged, and BÃÂbës did not initially unite around Subh-i-Azal's leadership. At some point, Azal became the recognized leader, and remained so for about 13 years. Sayyid Ḥusayn Yazdë actively promoted the succession of Subh-i-Azal after the death of the BÃÂb. In a letter to ÿAbd al-Karëm Qazvënë, he alludes to the appearance of Azal as "the appearance of your lord in the ripe fruit", and in another letter, he instructs ḤÃÂjj á¹¢ulaymÃÂn KhÃÂn Tabrëzë that "whenever verses are revealed from the heaven of azaliyyat, enclose them with your own letters."
The nature of his role has been the subject of debate due to conflicting sources. Warburg states that, "It seems likely that Subh-i-Azal was designated to be the Bab's successor", and MacEoin states that, the BÃÂb regarded him as "his chief deputy" and the "future head of the movement" while Cole concludes he was a âÂÂfirst among equalsâÂÂ. The nature of that appointment differs according to which sources are believed. In particular, there is a dispute regarding whether Subh-i-Azal was permanently designated as the BÃÂbâÂÂs successor or merely appointed, as the BahÃÂâÂÂës officially assert, as a protective measure for BahÃÂâÂÂuâÂÂllÃÂh.
The conflicting accusations, claims, and counter-claims of Azalë and BahÃÂüë sources make it difficult to reconstruct an objective narrative of the splitting of the BÃÂbë community into these two groups, one of which came to dominate and expand, while the other became almost defunct. Academic reviews are generally critical of the official BahÃÂüë positions on the split; for example Edward Granville Browne, Denis MacEoin, and A. L. M. Nicolas. Notably, Browne and Nicolas both had extensive correspondence with Subh-i-Azal.
Edward Granville Browne studied the BÃÂbë movement in Iran and translated many primary sources from 1890 to 1920. One of these, Kitab-i-Nuqtatu'l-Kaf (, Book of the Point of the Letter Kaf), was of particular interest regarding the appointment of Subh-i-Azal. Its publication was encouraged by Muhammad Khan Qazvënë, a Shi'ite scholar. Browne enquired Azal about its authorship, who attributed it to HÃÂjë MërzàJÃÂnë, a BÃÂbë who died in 1852. A similar manuscript, written by MërzàḤusayn HamadÃÂnë, claimed to be based on the work of HÃÂjë MërzàJÃÂnë and circulating among BahÃÂüës, was Tarikh-i-Jadid. This version lacked extra text supportive of Subh-i-Azal's authority. In his introduction to its publication, Browne attacked the BahÃÂüës for trying to rewrite history. Later scholarship showed that the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf was circulating among BahÃÂüës, it wasn't being suppressed, and some material in it postdated the death of its assumed author.
Denis MacEoin made a detailed analysis of the question in his The Sources for Early Babi Doctrine and History (1992), summarized here by Margit Warburg:
In 2004, William McCants and Kavian Milani published their finding of an early manuscript of the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf dated to the year 1268 AH (1851-1852 CE) that contains only minor differences from the version published by Browne, despite the latter being based on a much later manuscript dated 1327 AH (1909 CE). Four years later, Milani uncovered two even earlier manuscripts, both written during the life of Mirza Jani, and both missing the extended sections on Subh-i-Azal present in the 1852 manuscript and Browne's edition. Based on his discoveries, Milani concludes that the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf is an early history finalized in 1852, written by multiple authors.
The BÃÂbë community was engaged in several pitched military confrontations with the government from 1848 to 1851. Subh-i-Azal allied himself with a faction led by Azëm, and in 1852 coordinated a new militant uprising in Takur, Iran. This new upheaval was apparently timed to coincide with an attempt to assassinate Naser al-Din Shah, which was organized by Azëm.
The uprising failed, and the botched assassination attempt resulted in the entire BÃÂbë community being blamed and severely punished by the government. Many thousand BÃÂbës were killed. Subh-i-Azal took up a disguise to escape Iran and joined a cohort of exiles in Baghdad.
After Azëm's death in 1852, Subh-i-Azal became the clear head of the remaining militant faction of the BÃÂbës, which remained wedded to a vision of radical political activism; representing what Amanat describes as a preoccupation with, "the Shi'ite vision of a utopian political order under the aegis of the Imam of the age".
In Baghdad, Subh-i-Azal kept his whereabouts secret and lived secluded from the BÃÂbë community, keeping in contact through agents termed "witnesses of the BayÃÂn". According to the BahÃÂüë historian, Sayyid Mahdë Dahajë, Subh-i-Azal appointed seven people to this role. Dahajë gives the names of three of them: Sayyid Muhammad IsfahÃÂnë, MullàMuhammad Ja'far NarÃÂqë, and his brother MullàMuhammad Taqë. According to Shoghi Effendi, there were 18 witnesses overall. BahÃÂâÂÂuâÂÂllÃÂh served as Subh-i-Azal's chief promoter and defender, expressed servitude to Subh-i-Azal, and even accused other people of exaggerating his position; this has led to him acquiring the position of leading intermediary between Subh-i-Azal and the BÃÂbës. This in accordance with the letter of the BÃÂb mentioned in the previous section, where he is commanded to protect Subh-i-Azal. BahÃÂâÂÂuâÂÂllÃÂh encouraged the distribution of Subh-i-Azal's most important work from that era, Kitab-i-Nur.
The BÃÂbë community in Iran remained fragmented and broken after the pogrom of 1852âÂÂ3, and new leadership claims developed. The most significant challenger to Subh-i-Azal was Mirza Asad Allah Khu'i, known by the title DayyÃÂn, who made a claim to be He whom God shall make manifest. Azal wrote a lengthy refutation of DayyÃÂn titled Mustayqiz, in which cites DayyÃÂn saying: "the heavens of the BayÃÂn have been rolled up; regard not its verses also, and regard not its words also." According to Mustayqiz, DayyÃÂn claimed the ability to raise the dead, and challenged Subh-i-Azal to do the same, maintaining that the latter won't be able to do so. The refutation contains passages implying that he wanted both DayyÃÂn and his follower MërzàIbrahëm put to death. DayyÃÂn was killed in Baghdad by Mirza Muhammad Mazandarani in 1856. According to BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh, the murder was at the order of Subh-i-Azal.
Later during the Baghdad period, tensions rose between Subh-i-Azal and BahÃÂâÂÂuâÂÂllÃÂh. BahÃÂüë sources describe Azal as increasing in jealousy during this time, and Baháüu'lláh's 2-year sojourn in Kurdistan as an attempt to avoid the growing disunity. BahÃÂâÂÂuâÂÂllÃÂh says, in his later work KitÃÂb-i-êqÃÂn, that he has originally not intended to return, and there is a controversy around the exact reason for his return. BahÃÂâÂÂuâÂÂllÃÂh states that he returned because of a decree from "the source of command" (maá¹£dar-i-þamr); whether this refers to God or to Subh-i-Azal is unclear. The BahÃÂâÂÂës understand it as referring to the former, and Shoghi Effendi translates it as "the Mystic Source". However, some researchers, like Browne, interpret it as the latter.
Subh-i-Azal gradually alienated himself from a large proportion of the BÃÂbës who started to give their alliance to other claimants. BahÃÂüë sources have attributed this to his incompetence and cowardice. MacEoin disputes this, attributing the isolation to the Shi'a practice of Taqiyya, drawing a parallel with the hidden twelfth Imam. Furthermore, he notes that Azal was merely acting on instructions given to him by the BÃÂb, and that the notion of a hidden walë would not have disturbed the BÃÂbës.
In 1863 most of the BÃÂbës were called by the Ottoman authorities to Istanbul for four months, followed by an exile to Edirne that lasted from 12 December 1863 to 12 August 1868. The travel to Istanbul began with Baháüu'lláh privately making his claim to be the messianic figure of the Bayan, which became a public proclamation in Edirne. This created a permanent schism between the two brothers. Subh-i-Azal responded to these claims by making his own claims and resisting the changes of doctrine which were introduced by Baháüu'llÃÂh. His attempts to keep the traditional BÃÂbism were, however, mostly unpopular.
According to Bahá'àaccounts, Subh-i-Azal was behind the poisoning of Baháüu'lláh while in Edirne in 1865. According to Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani (a son-in-law of Subh-i-Azal), he poisoned himself while trying to poison Subh-i-Azal. The poisoning had adverse effects on Bahaüu'lláh throughout the remainder of his life. A BahÃÂüë, SalmÃÂnë, reported that Azal again attempted to have Baháüu'llÃÂh killed in the late winter of 1866. In March 1866, Baháüu'llÃÂh responded with a formal written declaration to Subh-i-Azal in the Sà «ri-yi Amr and referred to his own followers as BahÃÂüës.
This began an approximately year-long separation that ended with a definite schism. The two brothers separated households, and the BÃÂbës in Iraq and Iran split into three factions: Azalës, BahÃÂüës, or undecided. In FebruaryâÂÂMarch 1867, all three factions gathered in Baghdad for debates, and soon the undecided mostly joined the BahÃÂüës, who were already in the majority. In Edirne, the group of about 100 BÃÂbës was still socially intermixed until the summer of 1867, when they lived separately based on their loyalties.
A crisis erupted in August/September 1867. Sayyid Muhammad IsfahÃÂnë, an Azalë, instigated a public debate between the two brothers to settle the disputed claims. On a Friday morning, Azal challenged Baháüu'llÃÂh to a debate in the Sultan Selim Mosque that afternoon. Cole describes the communication,
Baháüu'llÃÂh arrived at the mosque, with a crowd waiting, and sent a messenger to the home of Subh-i-Azal to remind him of the challenge, but Azal told the messenger that the confrontation would have to be postponed. That night, Baháüu'llÃÂh wrote to Azal, proposing that either Sunday or Monday they would complete the challenge, but Azal never responded to the request and never showed up on those days. The BahÃÂâÂÂës interpreted Azal's failure to appear at his own challenge as cowardice, and it caused the further deterioration of Subh-i-Azal's credibility. The news quickly spread to Iran, where the majority of BÃÂbës still lived.
Subh-i-Azal, along with Sayyid Muhammad Isfanani made accusations against Baháüu'llÃÂh to the Ottoman authorities, which resulted in both factions being further exiled in 1868; Baháüu'llÃÂh to Acre and Azal to Famagusta in Cyprus.
The formal exile of Subh-i-Azal ended in 1881, when Cyprus was acquired by Britain in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War (1877âÂÂ1878), but he remained on the island for the rest of his life until his death on 29 April 1912. He remained elusive and secretive, living off a British pension and being perceived as a Muslim holy man by the people of Cyprus, even receiving a Muslim burial. From Cyprus he seemed to have little contact with the BÃÂbës in Iran.
Harry Luke, an official of the British Colonial Office, commented in 1913 that after Subh-i-Azal's arrival in Cyprus,
On Cyprus, Subh-i-Azal was in contact with Edward Granville Browne, who visited him there during March 1890. Subh-i-Azal provided Browne with copies of some of the works of the BÃÂb in his possession and with his own succinct account of the history of the BÃÂbë movement. He also exchanged correspondence with A. L. M. Nicolas, a French diplomat in Iran, and for whom he wrote Conduct of The Heads of States (), a political treatise referencing events in France of the previous decade.
Subh-i-Azal started showing symptoms of an unidentified illness in July 1911. His condition then got worse in September of the same year, and he died on April 29, 1912. He was buried according to Islamic customs outside Famagusta, without the presence of the witnesses of the BayÃÂn.
There are conflicting reports as to whom Subh-i-Azal appointed as his successor, and there was confusion after his death. Azal originally planned to appoint his eldest son Ahmad, but a dispute between them caused the appointment to be withdrawn and he instead appointed HÃÂdë DawlatÃÂbÃÂdë (d. 1908). After the latter's death, Subh-i-Azal further appointed the man's son, YahyàDawlatÃÂbÃÂdë (d. 1939), but he had little involvement in the religion and any chain of leadership appears to have gone defunct with his appointment.
Subh-i-Azal's son, Rizwan ûAli, wrote to C.D. Cobham on 11 July 1912,
H.C. Lukach wrote to Browne on 5 September 1912,
Shoghi Effendi wrote in 1944 that Subh-i-Azal appointed HÃÂdë DawlatÃÂbÃÂdë as his successor, and that he later publicly recanted his faith in the BÃÂb and in Subh-i-Azal. HÃÂdë was targeted for death by a local cleric, and despite the public recantation, he continued being a leader of the Azalis in secret.
JalÃÂl Azal, a grandson of Subh-i-Azal who disputed the appointment of HÃÂdë DawlatÃÂbÃÂdë, later told William Miller between 1967 and 1971 that Azal did not appoint a successor.
A small shrine was built in the place of Subh-i-Azal's grave in Famagusta in the 1960s. According to a local BaháâÂÂÃÂ, its building was orchestrated by a wealthy Iranian woman, who claimed to be a relative of Subh-i-Azal. Later, in the 1990s, the shrine was in the care of Subh-i-Azal's grandson, Rida Ezel.
Subh-i-Azal's leadership of the BÃÂbë movement led to the formation of Azalism ( ), a distinct branch of BÃÂbism that followed his authority as the appointed successor of the BÃÂb. His followers, known as Azalës ( ), continued to uphold the teachings of the BÃÂb while rejecting the messianic claims of BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh and others who claimed to be "He whom God shall make manifest". The BaháüÃÂâÂÂAzali split in the 1860s resulted in the majority of BÃÂbës following BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh, who founded the BaháüàFaith, while a smaller group remained loyal to Subh-i-Azal, forming the Azalë community. By 1890, Edward Granville Browne estimated that only a small fractionâÂÂperhaps three or four out of every hundred BÃÂbësâÂÂwere Azalës, with the rest accepting BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh.
Azalës adhered to a conservative interpretation of BÃÂbism, emphasizing the laws and teachings of the BÃÂb as outlined in the BayÃÂn. They rejected BahÃÂüu'llÃÂh's claim to divinity in 1863 as premature, arguing that the world must first fully accept the BÃÂbâÂÂs laws before the promised messiah could appear. Denis MacEoin described Azalë BÃÂbism as representing "the conservative core of the original BÃÂbë movement, opposed to innovation and preaching a religion for a non-clerical gnostic elite rather than the masses." Unlike the BaháüàFaith, which adopted a quietist stance, Azalë BÃÂbism retained the BÃÂbë antagonism toward the Qajar state and a commitment to political activism.
Several Azalës played significant roles in secular and constitutional reform movements in Iran, particularly during the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905âÂÂ1911. Prominent Azalës, including Subh-i-AzalâÂÂs sons-in-law Sheikh Ahmad Rouhi and Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani, as well as YahyàDawlatÃÂbÃÂdë, his appointed successor, were influential in advocating for constitutional and secular reforms. Their writings and activities contributed to the push for ending the Iranian absolute monarchy. However, the Azalë community faced suppression as a perceived heresy, and accusations of being an Azalë were often sufficient to discredit individuals in the eyes of the public. The practice of taqiyya (dissimulation) among Azalës, discussed below, further complicated identifying their involvement in these movements.
The practice of taqiyya (dissimulation) was widespread among Azalës, justified as a response to the violent oppression faced by the BÃÂbë community. While some prominent BÃÂbë leaders discouraged taqiyya and openly declared their faith, often resulting in martyrdom, Azalës embraced it as an imperative requirement. This practice became deeply ingrained, with some Azalë leaders, such as Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani and Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi, openly recanting their faith or altering BÃÂbë teachings and history in their works to conceal their affiliations. Azalë literature glorified taqiyya as a virtue, classifying it into various levels of concealment, which allowed the community to operate covertly but also contributed to their obscurity.
Following the Constitutional Revolution, the Azalë community stagnated and gradually disappeared as an organized entity. By the end of the 20th century, their numbers had dwindled to at most a few thousand, primarily in Iran, significantly outnumbered by the millions of Baháüàadherents worldwide. The lack of an acknowledged leader or central organization after Subh-i-AzalâÂÂs death in 1912 contributed to this decline. Membership became secretive, often running along family lines, and converts were rare. Estimates in the 1970s suggested between 500 and 5,000 Azalës remained in Iran, with a small number in Uzbekistan by 2009.
Despite their small numbers, Azalës included several prominent Iranian political and literary figures. In addition to Rouhi, Kermani, and DawlatÃÂbÃÂdë, others such as JamÃÂl al-Dën EsfahÃÂnë and Malik al-Motakallemën were associated with Azalë BÃÂbism and influenced constitutional reforms. The seven witnesses of the BayÃÂn who remained loyal to Subh-i-Azal included Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani, Mulla Muhammad Ja'far Naraqi, Mulla Muhammad Taqi, Haji Sayyid Muhammad (Isfahani), Haji Sayyid Jawad (al-Karbala'i), Mirza Muhammad Husayn Mutawalli-bashi Qummi, and Mulla Rajab 'Ali Qahir. Baháüë sources claim that the remaining 11 witnesses later became Baháüës.
Subh-i-AzalâÂÂs leadership and the subsequent formation of Azalism left a complex legacy. While his followers played a role in IranâÂÂs constitutional reforms, their adherence to taqiyya and the lack of centralized leadership after his death limited their lasting impact. Ahmad BahhÃÂj (1853âÂÂ1933), one of Subh-i-AzalâÂÂs sons, later moved to Haifa and appears to have become a Baháüë, being buried in a Baháüë cemetery. Jalal Azal, his grandson, initially showed signs of aligning with the BaháüàFaith but later opposed ûAbdu'l-BahÃÂ. The small shrine built at Subh-i-AzalâÂÂs grave in Famagusta in the 1960s, cared for by his grandson Rida Ezel in the 1990s, remains a minor testament to his legacy.
One of the best known works of Subh-i-Azal is the Book of Light (), written in Baghdad during the first few years after the death of the BÃÂb (1852-1853). The Book of Light is a book in the style of the Qur'ÃÂn, composed of 77 suwar consisting of Arabic ÃÂyÃÂt, that is, in the first of the five grades of BÃÂbë revelation. Subh-i-Azal describes it as proof of his status of successor (waliyy) to the BÃÂb, in his later work named Sleeper Awakened (). The opening chapter, titled Chapter of the BayÃÂn (), consists of seven verses, in imitation of the Al-Fatiha.
Subh-i-Azal wrote multiple works referencing the BayÃÂn. Laws of the BayÃÂn () is an Arabic explanation of the laws and ordinances of the BayÃÂn, arranged into Unities (wÃÂḥid), similarly to the BayÃÂn itself. Supplement to the Persian BayÃÂn () is an extension of the original text of the Persian BayÃÂn, from 9th Unity, 11th Gate up to 11th Unity, 19th Gate (the same length as the Arabic BayÃÂn). The Mirror of BayÃÂn () is composed of 131 Gates (chapters) in four of the five BayÃÂnic modes (verses, prayers, sermons, addresses).
Large collections of Subh-i-Azal's works are found in the British Museum Library Oriental Collection, London; in the Browne Collection at Cambridge University; at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; and at Princeton University. In the English introduction to "Personal Reminiscences of the Babi Insurrection at Zanjan in 1850," Browne lists thirty-eight titles as being among the works of Subh-i-Azal, citing a bibliography prepared by Subh-i-Azal's son, RizwÃÂn ÿAlë. In "Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion", Browne lists works of Subh-i-Azal collected by him, with a short description of each one of them.
Subh-i-Azal's political views combine esoteric thought with modern ideas in what Juan Cole describes as "a strange amalgam of Isma'ili-like esotericism, approval of monarchy, and radical republicanism." Subh-i-Azal believed that a leader elected by the people should rule collectively, praising the French republican leader, Leon Gambetta. In a treatise written for A. L. M. Nicolas, Subh-i-Azal states that it is permissible for a tyrannical leader to be removed by a popular revolt, but it should be done without bloodshed if possible. According to Cole, this philosophy brought the interest of the reformist intellectuals of the Persian Constitutional Revolution.
For a leader with a divine mandate, Subh-i-Azal also considers absolute rule to be acceptable, under the condition of being just. The ideal leader, to Subh-i-Azal, is someone who combines temporal and spiritual leadership. Cole considers this possible evidence of his own political ambitions, and notes that some of his followers during the Constitutional Revolution wanted to bring him to Teheran and make him king.