HUBRIS! <Re: The Politically-Motivated Use of "Fundamentalism" by Bahai "Liberals">
Nima Hazini
Why are such ideologically motivated hubris and nonsense by known militant
Islamic fundamentalists and enemies of the Baha'i faith allowed to be posted
on soc.culture.bahai while challenging responses to such questions as "The
Calamity" are not? Wither did SRB moderator priorities go, or have some
online Bahai's become adherents of the Machiavellian motto, "My enemies
enemy is my friend."?
regards,
Nima
----- Original Message -----
From: Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 7:50 PM
Subject: The Politically-Motivated Use of "Fundamentalism" by Bahai
"Liberals"
Some would think that the word "fundamentalism" means a movement or a
proclivity towards following the "fundamentals" of a particular belief or
creed. But what the word "fundamentalism" really means and how it is used
does
not coincide with the linguistically correct sense of "following the
fundamentals." Often used to label a group or person as intolerant, bigoted,
superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates a
notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious beliefs
in
a "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just
plain crazy.
As for Bahai "liberals," they represent a group of mostly Western academics
and
scholars who felt discontent with the "appearance of a traditional religion"
in
the current Bahai movement. Many felt that the Bahai movement today lacks is
the original "liberal" spirit that initially set the Bahai religion apart
from
"traditional religions" early in its history. The "liberals" often confuse
the
dynamic nature of "liberalism" to certain beliefs incorporated into the
Bahai
faith which were at a certain point of human history were seen as "liberal"
but
were actually static beliefs not subject to change. Many of these Bahai
"liberals" have resigned from the Bahai faith, but are not true apostates
because most of them wholeheartedly believe that Bahaullah and the Bahai
faith
are divinely inspired and commissioned by God. Their "resignation" is really
a
falling out with the Bahai administration; since the Bahai administration
and
the Bahai faith are really one entity they are regarded as "ex-Bahais."
"Liberalism" is a dynamic belief system which often is manifested in a
movement. Liberalism often tries to redefine morality, religious beliefs,
mores, public sentiments, etc., in a way that would be in line to the
liberal
interest agenda and viewpoint on how things should be *at the moment of
time.*
For example, it is considered "liberal" to support same-sex marriages,
although
the majority of people would not agree with same-sex "marriages," liberals
try
to present to the society their viewpoint as progressive and fair. These
leave
the majority of people who do not support same-sex marriages as not
progressive
and fair but more intolerant and bigoted. This is a highly
politically-motivated movement bent on creating a society that they feel
should
exist in order to have a better world for all people. Their attempt at
creating their own utopia by redefining and overhauling beliefs, sentiments,
morality, and systems of the society shows how much they want to take over
the
world.
As with the previous example of same-sex marriages, a "liberal" would want
such
a thing to be allowed while a person who happens to adhere to religious
scripture would be against such a thing. This according to "liberalism"
makes
a person who believes in same-sex marriages a "liberal" while a person who
doesn't (because of adherence to religious belief) a "fundamentalist." This
use of "fundamentalist" for a person who believes in following religious
codes
creates the impression that such a person is a "literalist," intolerant,
bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just plain crazy person who wants to
subject society to backward, archaic laws that are anti-progressive and
oppressive.
The Bahai faith is a movement that has laws that are integral to its belief
system. These laws are definitely static; not subject to change or revision.
This fact alone is against what "liberal" Bahais are trying to do; i.e.,
revise
Bahai beliefs to be compatible with the "liberalism" movement. They in a way
want to negate the source of the Bahai faith which Bahais believe is from
God
and replace it with a man-made source where man not God determines what
should
be right or wrong. This type of behavior is definitely anti-religion and
shows
how much "liberals" want to take over the world and subject it to what they
believe is right and wrong. This is far from the image "liberals" try to
present themselves; as a tolerant, progressive group of people that believes
in
acceptance of different viewpoints in a way one is not trying to impose
their
beliefs on others. Liberals do not regard themselves as "fundamentalists"
because they believe "fundamentalism" is a literal adherence to religious
beliefs. Liberals also refuse to see themselves as fanatical and intolerant
bigots because they believe they are trying to make the society more
tolerant
and progressive; thus justifying many liberals' behaviors that are
definitely
fanatical and intolerant in many instances.
Finally we must understand the difference between liberalism and the Bahai
faith. The Bahai faith has beliefs and principles that were regarded as
liberal but the creed of the Bahai faith is not based on liberalism. Just
like
when a "conservative" (another loaded, politically-motivated term) has a
"liberal belief" on an issue, that doesn't make that person have his
philosopical viewpoints all of a sudden based on "liberalism." The fact is
that a belief that is considered now as "liberal" will be considered the
norm
in a few decades from now. The belief hasn't changed to make it go from
liberal to commonly accepted; what has changed is the public sentiments on
that
belief. What liberal Bahais have a hard time understanding is that a belief
that was considered "liberal" when the Bahai faith first appeared does not
mean
that the creed of the Bahai faith is based on liberalism; on the contrary,
it
is based on a static creed that has decided to include beliefs that are
considered by the people at that time period as "liberal."
The evolution of the dynamic, inconsistent, and erratic nature of public
sentiments is proof that man is not capable of creating an ideology that
agrees
with human nature. Such a belief system cannot properly organize man's
affair
in the proper way; it has a hard time just to determine what should part of
law
and what shouldn't. Just like the death penalty and Prohibition, man has
made
the erratic decisions of allowing something, then banning it, then allowing
it
again; and still the debate on the death penalty for example rages on where
each side it trying to uphold their viewpoints. Such a thing is what
liberals
like to hide and deny from the public; because liberals want to present
themselves as consistent and understanding of what the majority of people
want,
and to make inconsistent erratic decisions on a issue is to prove how much
of a
sham man-made attempts at discerning what is right or wrong is.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>Why are such ideologically motivated hubris and nonsense by known militant
>Islamic fundamentalists and enemies of the Baha'i faith allowed to be posted
>on soc.culture.bahai while challenging responses to such questions as "The
>Calamity" are not?
Sort of what Fred documents on his website but reverse. Instead of
ultra-fanatics from amongst the bahai faith censoring liberal-inclined people,
Nina wants people to censor people who doesn't share his view and naive
aspirations of a world controlled by "liberals." Nina like most bahai
"liberals" view the freedom to not agree with the bahai liberal extremists as
an anathema to their philosophy. As Nina and other liberal fanatics have
proven again and again, they want to impose their hegemonic views upon the
world while silencing the ones who hold contrary views.
I rest my case.
Mahdi
Nima Hazini
on Baha'i lists and NGs when you are a fundamentalist Muslim who believes
Baha'is are heretics, should be killed? Why therefore particularly is the
liberal/conservative issue in the Baha'i faith of any concern to you
whatsoever??? What business is it of yours at all to poke your nose in that
which does not concern you in the slightest???
Furthermore, while Fred, Juan, myself and others are in no wise enemies of
the Baha'i faith (contrary to what certain closed minded, myopic individuals
in high places might think) you most definitely fall under very concievable
definition of an Enemy of the Baha'i faith - not that you have even
disabused the slightest notion that you aren't.
Furthemore, as far as hegemonic goes (btw, a word I started using on this NG
and in typical monkey-see-monkey-do fashion Mahdiality has now
appropriated), hegemonic is a worldview that seeks to impose a single
overarching "ideology" and hence negate those of others, if possible
disenfranchise those that do not agree with this "ideology" and even
advocate their death and seek to impliment it when and if necessary. That is
hegemonic, not a rational philosophy and discourse which advocates pluralism
and respect and dialogue for all non-militant and non-extremist creeds,
faiths and beliefs.
Finally, in case the SRB moderators decide not to post my reply to this
deluded nutcase of a Sunni Islamic ultra-fundamentalist khalifatist looser
without a life, I append it below.
regards, Nima
--
Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sd276.5045$%b.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
> Often used to label a group or person as intolerant, bigoted,
>superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates a
>notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious
beliefs in
> "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just
>plain crazy.
While certain fundamentalists of the Hindu, Jewish, Chrisitian and
especially Islamic cloth have demonstrated violence, rampant intolerance,
bigotry, superstition, fanaticism and just plain craziness in the past, that
does not mean that all fundamentalists are necessarily that way, since these
things are an effect not the cause or description of fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism, at its basis, is about a set of beliefs, ideological
priorities, assumptions and a certain attitude about religion in the modern
world. Many have analysed its presence in the global village among us, but
none as poignantly and in analytical and typological detail as the team of
scholars and specialists assembled by Martin E. Marty (University of
Chicago) and R. Scott Appleby (University of Notre Dame) for what has come
to be christened as the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT. The FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT
has already produced 8 fat, thick volumes of detailed articles and
monographs on the phenomena of religious fundamentalism wordlwide spanning
traditions from Christianity to Islam and Judaism to fundamentalist
responses in the South Asian and Far Eastern traditions. In the 1st volume
of the Fundamentalism Project: *FUNDAMENTALISMS OBSERVED* (Chicago: 1991),
the editors have identified 9 common typologies of fundamentalism. To wit,
1) It mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion in
secularizing societies.
2) It selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it may represent
itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact it picks
and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of modernity
while rejecting others.
3) It sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and evil.
4) It emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures (and thus
rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
5) It has a millennialist emphasis.
6) It has an elect, chosen membership.
7) It draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.
8) It maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership structure.
9) It has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
In another important work on the fundamentalist phenomena in
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, i.e. _The Defenders of God: The
Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age_ (Columbia SC: 1995),
Professor Bruce B. Lawrence of Duke University (Religious Studies) points
out that,
Fundamentalism is the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and
absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed
through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates
derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced (p. 27).
Earlier he pointed out,
Fundamentalism is shaped both by its interaction with modernity and its
reaction against modernism. It is a two-way, not a one-way, exchange. It
affects "secular humanists" as well as their fundamentalist opponents. And
it is an exchange that has taken place, and continues to take place, on a
global scale, drawing into its orbit all religious traditions not just Islam
[Judaism or Christianity] (p xiv).
Later on he notes,
...Fundamentalist challenges have arisen in several traditions. One could
locate cadres that are Sikh or Buddhist, _Baha'i_ [he references Denis
Maceoin's "Baha'i Fundamentalism and the Western Academic Study of the Babi
Movement"] or Hindu (p. 6).
On pp. 100-101 Lawrence delineates the common "traits" of fundamentalists:
1. Fundamentalists are advocates of a pure minority viewpoint against a
sullied majority or dominant group. They are the righteous remanant turned
vanguard, and even when the remanant/vanguard seizes political power and
seems to become a majority, as happened in Iran in 1979, they continue to
perceive and project themselves as a minority.
2. Fundamentalists are oppositional. They do not merely disagree with their
enemies, they confront them. While the evil Other is an abstract sense of
anomie or uprootedness, it is located in particular groups who perpetuate
the prevailing "secular" ethos. Fundamentalists confront those secular
people who exercise political or judicial power. Often they also confront
"wayward" religious professionals [or percieved "wayward" scholars or
intellectuals].
3. Fundamentalists are secondary-level male elites. They claim to derive
authority from a direct, unmediated appeal to scripture, yet because
interpretive principles are often vague, they must be carried by charismatic
leaders who are invariably male. Notions of a just social order in Iran, or
a halakhic polity in Israel, or a Christian civilization in America require
continuous, repeated reinterpretation. In each instance what seems to an
outsider to be arbitrary retrieval of only some elements from a common past
is to fundamentalists the necessary restoration of an eternally valid divine
mandate. And it is a mandate mediated through exclusively male interpretors.
4. Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary. Reflecting the
polysemy of language, they use special terms that bind insiders to each
other, just as they prempt interference from outsiders. Halakha for Jews,
shari'a for Muslims, [the "covenant" or "infallibility" for Baha'is], and
"creation" for Christians represent...[four]...terms, each of which would be
open to several interpretations but which fundamentalists invest with
particular meaning that exceptionalizes, even as it appears to validate,
their ideological stance.
5. Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological precursors.
As Marc Bloch warned, one should never confuse ancestry with explanation.
Though the antecedents of fundamentalism are varied and distant - Maccabean
revolt for Jews, the Protestant Reformation for Christians, the Wahhabi
revolt for Sunnis Muslims, the martyrdom of Husayn for Shi'is -
fundamentalism as a religious ideology is very recent. It did not emerge in
Protestant America until the end of the last century. It has only become
apparent in Judaism during the last fifty years, and since it represents a
delayed reaction to the psychological hegemony of European colonial rule, it
could only occur in majoritarian Muslim countries after they had become
independent nation-states, that is, in most instances, after World War II.
So given all this, it is a rather big non sequitor (i.e. fallacy of
reasoning) to assert that fundamentalism is merely a Western boggeyman ploy
or that Armstrong and others who are studying the phenomena are conflating
or misconstruing nationalism and religious identity assertion and lumping
them all under a tenuously common rubric. For the reasons stated above, the
global phenomenon of fundamentalism is a very real one and one only need
look at the the IRI or the Taliban regime as two sore thump examples of its
presence and existence.
>"Liberalism" is a dynamic belief system which often is manifested in a
>movement.
The discourse of Liberalism makes the following set of assumptions,
1. Discursive dynamicity (i.e. liberal discourse) is the product of a
continuous process of rational discourse.
2. Rational discourse is possible even among those who do not share the same
culture, religion, belief system nor even the same ideological
consciousness.
3.Rational discourse can produce mutual understanding and
cultural/philosophical consensus, as well as sometimes agreement on
particulars.
4. Consensus permits of stable social arrangements, and is the rational
basis of the choice of coherent strategies.
5. Rational strategic choice is the basis of improving the human condition
possibly through collective action.
6. Liberalism as such can exist only where and when its social and
intellectual prerequisites exist.
<snip>
Given that the Baha'i teachings uphold such principles as 'An ever advancing
civilization' and the progressive unfoldment of religious truth in history,
liberalism by definition is not incompatible with the Baha'i faith.
Fanatism, rigid ideological dogmatism and especially that which advocates
violence to achieve certain political ends, which certain religious
fundamentalists such as the Taliban and Khomeinists continually advocate,
are however incontrovertibly incompatible with the Baha'i faith and its
teachings.
As far as the issue of same-sex marriages or homosexuality and the Baha'i
faith, this is casting hubris on an issue not all liberals agree on, and
which does not define liberalism as such. Liberalism at base is about a set
of philosophical assumptions made about the world. Furthermore, liberal
believers can be found in all the major world traditions. There are Islamic
liberals, Chrisitian liberals, Jewish liberals, so on and so forth. By
virtue of subscribing to the priorities of the Open Society and hence
liberalism does not automatically exclude a believer from being a believer.
Such hubristic arguments, regularly trounced by bona fide religious
fundamentalists (especially of the Islamic stripe) are pure red herrings.
regards,
Nima
patk...@my-deja.com
"Nima Hazini" <lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote:
> NOTE to SRB MODERATORS
>
> Why are such ideologically motivated hubris and nonsense by known
militant
> Islamic fundamentalists and enemies of the Baha'i faith allowed to be
posted
> on soc.culture.bahai while challenging responses to such questions as
"The
> Calamity" are not? Wither did SRB moderator priorities go, or have
some
> online Bahai's become adherents of the Machiavellian motto, "My
enemies
> enemy is my friend."?
(background music - Suite Judy Blues singing "Send in the Clowns")
This is an easy one, and consistent with the hypothesis that the MrMahdi
persona is simply the cretin (my bad, that should be creation) of one or
more PR wizards to benefit the BF in the west. MrMahdi is a larger than
life neon billboard advertising for the Baha'i Faith in a unique style -
the anti-Baha'i hack. I would think that the pro-Baha'i mods would
welcome anthing and everything from that virtual persona. If people
have doubts (despite your doubts of open-mindedness w/in the BF) about
open-mindedness in general, they can read the MrMahdi persona in action
and see what close minded folks look like, and however wishy washy
open-minded may seem, it looks really good in comparison. Ditto the
rest of the Baha'i ideals.
At the risk of hurting the feelings of some of the readers; MrMahdi does
just as much for the prestige of the cause, as Al Marbig and BNW, IMHO.
The more he rants, the better we look; the math is simple. (background
music fades out, with volume increasing on "There already here!" and
cut.)
I've heard that in the world of the blind, the one-eyd man is king.
Presumably, in the world of the mentally challenged, someone with an
IQ of 90 is in charge. In a world of intelligent people, sometimes a
Bozo can be in charge; maybe that is just a reflection of current US
politics, but that would be off-topic.
Did they really stifle your calamity discussion?
Was it really Niccolo who came up with that "enemy of my enemy" thing?
If he could have done that, he could have done, "the jester is the
prince's friend".
Khoda Negadahr,
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Nima Hazini
<patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93ltbe$e19$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
In article <93lfeh$j0p$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au
>Did they really stifle your calamity discussion?
Yes. The reponses I sent to my inital post where rejected.
>Was it really Niccolo who came up with that "enemy of my enemy" thing?
No, I was using Machiavellian as a descriptive...
cheers,
Nima
Mr Mahdi
extremism:
>Please answer the following question: why are you expending so much energy
>on Baha'i lists and NGs when you are a fundamentalist Muslim who believes
>Baha'is are heretics, should be killed?
I do not believe that bahais should be killed. This is slander beyond a doubt
for suggesting such a thing.
>Why therefore particularly is the
>liberal/conservative issue in the Baha'i faith of any concern to you
>whatsoever???
I wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the ultra-extremist liberals who whine like
little girls about "fundamentalism" and intolerance when they are the ones who
want to prune what they call "fundamentalism with the bahai faith" from
existence.
To make it clearer, the liberal extremists never gave an exact definition of
either "bahai liberalism" or "bahai fundamentalism." What they did do is give
vague descriptions and interpretations via complaining, whining, crying, fake
threats, and so on. So the impartial observer and academic cannot exactly
define or understand the rally cry of liberal extremists when they say
so-and-so is a "fundamentalist" unless they actually spend time like I have in
a enviroment where such name-calling occurs.
What I learned about "bahai liberalism" has little to do with a more
"metaphorical" or "pragmatic" approach to religion, but an actual overhaul of
this false, struggling man-made religion through the liberalization of its
moral values and even creed. Man not God in the world of bahai liberalism
determines what is right not wrong, man not God is the source of religious
belief. This is main goal of "bahai liberals," and their utterly naive and
pitiful attempt at liberalizing a false, dying, and obscure cult is nothing
short of day-dreaming and madness. You think bahais are going to let their
religion be overhauled by a bunch whining EX-BAHAIS???
>That is
>hegemonic, not a rational philosophy and discourse which advocates pluralism
>and respect and dialogue for all non-militant and non-extremist creeds,
>faiths and beliefs.
Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along: that you guys want
to prune away the "non-militant, non-extremist creeds, faiths and beliefs" and
advocate a funny alliance of LIBERAL beliefs, creeds, and so on. I never seen
in my entire life a bunch of upper-class silver-spoon naive crybabies until I
came to this disfunctional world called TRB. You guys are more militant, more
extremist, and more hegemonic than anybody from the ultra-fanatic bahai camp.
This place is pure entertainment!
And as for your interpretation of "fundamentalism," you seem to forget that
that word is such a loaded expression that a mad-man who goes on a shooting
rampage in a mall can be labeled a "fundamentalist" if he said he killed in the
name of God. That is where the argument that "fundamentalism" can only apply
to non-secularists falls short. To be a fundamentalist, you must adhere to a
beliefs and practices of a creed. That creed can be secular or religious.
Moreover, extremism and fundamentalism are two different things. The
politically-motivated use of the terms is used to bring out a disdain and
hatred for people who are not secularists.
If you study the origin of the word fundamentalism, it was meant to describe
Christians who followed a "literal interpretation" of the Bible. In other
words, fundamentalism was a basicly a literal approach made by Christians to
the Bible. It had nothing to do with extremism or militancy.
What the word fundamentalism brought out was a negative feeling amongst people
who didn't agree with people who took everything literally. So later on, esp.
during the Islamic awakening happening around the world, anybody who did
anything "for the cause of religion," (esp. things that were considered "bad')
was labeled a fundamentalist, even though he could be violating the very
fundamentals of his religion or belief. At the meantime, the atheistic secular
Communists were never labeled "fundamentalists," because many people who used
fundamentalism to attack religion were of course secularists themselves, and to
call a fellow secularist a fundamentalist would not look good for secularism.
So when a secularist like an extremist Communist does something extreme, he is
not called a "fundamentalist" but when a person who is not secularist does
something extreme, he is called a fundamentalist. That is why the term is not
only loaded but politically-motivated.
Mahdi
patk...@my-deja.com
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) recursively asserted:
> The whining wuss of all of cyberspace gripes:
>
> Sort of what Fred documents on his website but reverse.
The conspiracy to put you in the front window is the "reverse" of having
Fred tell the world that the BF is censoring him? I don't follow this;
can anyone explain it to me?
> Instead of
> ultra-fanatics from amongst the bahai faith censoring liberal-inclined
people,
> Nina . . .
It is nice to see that you can capitalize proper nouns, but I still see
the scars of the playgorund bullies who taunted you when you were a
child. Did you vow then and there to be just like them? Is this why
you use the 'taunt and abuse' missionary style, because it works on you?
> wants people to censor people who doesn't share his view and
naive
> aspirations of a world controlled by "liberals."
Nima was simply asking for a fair shot and responding to hypocritical
gibberish. The use of "liberals" is just as knee-jerk (i.e. brain-dead,
cliched, hackneyed, as the use of "fundamentalism".
> Nina . . .
It is nice to see that you can capitalize proper nouns, but I still see
the scars of the playgorund bullies who taunted you when you were a
child. Did you vow then and there to be just like them? Is this why
you use the 'taunt and abuse' missionary style, because it works on you?
> like most bahai
> "liberals" view the freedom to not agree with the bahai liberal
extremists as
> an anathema to their philosophy.
In the big scheme of things, do you really suppose those SRB mods are
Bush-backing, Rush Limbaugh listening, card carrying NRA-members, who
boycott or bomb abortion clinics? Most likely it is liberals who
approve your rants on SRB; you make them look like disciplined
activists with your ricochet rants. Your extremist rants, particularly
given your track record of hounding Muslims on SRB and non-religious
fora, makes them look like free-speech champs.
> As Nina . . .
It is nice to see that you can capitalize proper nouns, but I still see
the scars of the playgorund bullies who taunted you when you were a
child. Did you vow then and there to be just like them? Is this why
you use the 'taunt and abuse' missionary style, because it works on you?
> and other liberal fanatics have
> proven again and again, they want to impose their hegemonic views upon
the
> world while silencing the ones who hold contrary views.
Sure, I can just picture Baha'is forcing freedom of religion on folks;
some will object that it is against their religion for others to
practice some other religion. Care to guess who that may be?
> I rest my case.
>
Thanks for resting mine.
Randy Burns
I believe the Byzantines were early practitioners of the "enemy of my enemy"
thing. I once heard that Kissinger wrote his PhD dissertation on politics
during Byzantine times and that is where he got all his ideas for playing
the China Card and Detente. The Byzantines used to bribe some Muslim groups
to wage war against other Muslims and that is one of the way's they survived
for so long.
Cheers, Randy
--
> <patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93ltbe$e19$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <93lfeh$j0p$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au
>
>
Nima Hazini
<patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93m02k$g4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Nima Hazini
>The wussie hypocritically stated in his response to my essay on bahai
liberal
<extremism:
There is only one wuss and hypocrite here, and as all agree, it ain't me,
chump!
>I do not believe that bahais should be killed. This is slander beyond a
doubt
>for suggesting such a thing.
You are an unashamed liar. You have upheld on more than one occasion the
death penalty for "apostates" and used "baha'is" in the same sentence. Shall
I get Pat to dig up your posts, freakin munafiq?!
Nima
Susan Maneck
>doubt
>for suggesting such a thing.
Mahdi,
Then why did you say "death to Baha'is" to me in a chatroom in Persian the
first time I met you? And are you willing to state categorically that you do
not believe that a Muslim who becomes a Baha'i should be killed in a truly
Islamic state?
warmest, Susan
"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Susan Maneck
>
>Yes. The reponses I sent to my inital post where rejected.
So why don't you post those here?