Subh-i-Azal[a] (1831–1912, born Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī[b]) was an Iranian religious leader of Bābism, appointed as head of the movement by the Bāb just before the latter's execution in 1850.

The Ottoman government further exiled the group to Edirne, where Subh-i-Azal openly rejected Baháʼu'lláh's claim of divine revelation and the community of Bābīs were divided by their allegiance to one or the other.

Mīrzā Yahyā Nūrī was granted such titles as al-Waḥīd, Ṭalʻat an-Nūr, and ath-Thamara,[2] Everlasting Mirror (Mir'ātu'l-Azaliyya), Name of Eternity (Ismu'l-azal), and Fruit of the Bayan (Thamara-i-Bayan).

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.

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.

[14] Subh-i-Azal was appointed by the Bāb to "preserve what hath been revealed in the Bayān", but the nature of his role has been the subject of debate due to conflicting sources.

In the period immediately following the Bāb's execution (1850), there were many claims to authority and Bābīs did not initially unite around Subh-i-Azal's leadership, but at some point Azal became the recognized leader, and remained so for about 13 years.

The disagreement is over whether he was appointed a spiritual successor who could write divinely-revealed verses, or a nominal figurehead who would maintain the community until the appearance of a greater prophet.

[9][17] The conflicting accusations, claims, and counter-claims of Azalī and Bahāʼī sources make it difficult to reconstruct an objective narrative of the splitting of the Bābī community into these two groups, one of which came to dominate and expand, while the other became almost defunct.

Its publication was encouraged by Muhammad Khan Qazvīnī, a Shi'ite scholar, and its authorship was attributed to Hājī Mīrzā Jānī, a Bābī who died in 1852.

The first portion of the manuscript is laid out as a doctrinal treatise, while the later sections contain what Browne assumed to be an early copy of Mirza Jani Kashani's history.

Although the two texts for the most part are equivalent, several passages in the Nuqtatu'l-Kaf that refer to Subh-i-Azal and his role in the Babi movement are not included in the Tarikh-i-Jadid.

This led Browne to conclude that the discrepancies between the two histories were the result of a deliberate plot of the followers of Baha'u'llah to discredit Subh-i-Azal's claims to leadership.

Thus, Abdu'l-Baha suggested that the Azalis had prepared a falsified version of Mirza Jani Kashani's history and had encouraged Browne to publish it.

[27] In Baghdad, Subh-i-Azal kept his whereabouts secret and lived secluded from the Bābī community, keeping in contact through 18 agents termed "witnesses of the Bayan".

The most significant challenger to Subh-i-Azal was Mirza Asad Allah Khu'i, known by the title Dayyān,[9] who made a claim to be He whom God shall make manifest.

Bahāʼī sources describe Azal as increasing in jealousy during this time, and Baháʼu'lláh's 2-year sojourn in Kurdistan as an attempt to avoid the growing disunity.

Cole describes the communication, The challenge document envisaged that Azal and Bahā’u’llāh would face each other there and call down ritual curses on one other, in hopes that God would send down a sign that would demonstrate the truth of one or the other.

[38] The Bahā’īs interpreted Azal's failure to appear at his own challenge as cowardice, and it caused the further deterioration of Subh-i-Azal's credibility.

[9][2] The formal exile of Subh-i-Azal ended in 1881,[9] when Cyprus was acquired by Britain in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), but he remained on the island for the rest of his life until his death on 29 April 1912.

Harry Luke, an official of the British Colonial Office, commented in 1913 that after Subh-i-Azal's arrival in Cyprus, Now occurred a curious phenomenon.

Cobham on 11 July 1912, [Subhi-i-Azal] before his death had nominated [as his executor or successor] the son of Aqā Mīrzā Muhammad Hādī of Dawlatābād.[42]H.C.

Lukach wrote to Browne on 5 September 1912, It appears that Subhi-i-Azal left a letter saying that he of his sons who resembled him most closely in his mode of life and principles was to be his successor.

The point as to which of the sons fulfils this condition has not yet been decided; consequently all the children would appear at present to be co-heirs... No steps have, as far as I am aware, yet been taken to elect a walī [i.e. successor or executor].

[46] Yahyā Dawlatābādī (d. 1939), the appointed successor of Subh-i-Azal, his younger brother `Alī-Muhammad, as well as Jamāl al-Dīn Esfahānī and Malik al-Motakallemīn were all associated with Azalī Bābism and influencing constitutional and secular reforms.

[47] However, Yahyā Dawlatābādī was stigmatized as a Bābī and, like his father, publicly distanced himself from association with the Azalīs while presenting himself as Muslim; he was nearly killed in 1908 and soon exiled from Iran as an anti-monarchist activist.

[50] By the time of Subh-i-Azal's death 1912, the Azali form of Bābism entered a stagnation from which it never recovered, as it has not had an acknowledged leader or central organization.

[52] 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.