Action Alert - Easy Reward from Allah(SWT), EnshaAllah
Kavosh Soltani
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 17:00:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Assalamu Aleikum - URGENT Action Alert
In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious
The Messenger of Allah(SAAW) said:
"Whoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it
with his hands; and if he is not able to do so, then
with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then
with his heart - and that is the weakest of faith."
Dear brothers and sisters,
You can help save countless souls by taking a few minutes
to read the following and taking immediate action...
For years, Bahais who moderate soc.religion.bahai newsgroup
have been unfairly blocking postings by people of other faith.
While they routinely allow posting of their inaccurate
interpretation of world religions and doctored history of
their movement, they have been censoring replies, difficult
questions, and clarifications from non-Bahais. The evidence
of such censorship can be found at:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm
Alhamdolellah, we have until 24th of December to bring some
justice and parity to the internet and provide a forum where
people of all faith and orientation can freely discuss the
doctrine and history of Bahaism.
I am urging you to take a moment and vote YES to the creation
of "talk.religion.bahai" newsgroup. This forum will be the
only widely accessible way for non-Bahais to reply to the
misinformation posted on SRB. If you care about this topic,
truth, justice, and the poor souls misguided by this
movement's propaganda, help create a newsgroup where all of
us can freely speak and exchange information on the topic.
As Allah(ta'alah) said:
"You are the best of the nations raised up for (the
benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid
the wrong and believe in Allah...." (Holy Quran, 3:110)
Take a minute to vote by EMail, fi sabilellah.
To vote, you need to send an EMail to vo...@dogwood.com with
the following three lines in the body of the message.
================== Cut and Paste Below =================
I vote YES on talk.religion.bahai
Voter name:John Doe
=================== End of Body ==========================
******* Don't forget to change "John Doe" to YOUR NAME! **************
Please do not assume that replying to this message will work.
Check the address before you mail your vote. Leave the
subject line blank and enter the three lines of the body
exactly as they appear above. The first line should read:
"I vote YES on talk.religion.bahai", the second line should
consist of a blank line (just press enter), and the third
line should read: "Voter name:" and be immediately followed
by YOUR NAME.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment in 3 days, EMail
your vote again.
I know that many of the individuals who would be interested
in talk.religion.bahai, do not read the postings in
news.announce.newgroups, where the announcement of this vote
was made. I hope that those who are interested in this topic
are benefited by this announcement and will vote.
For more information of Bahai doctrine, please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/main.htm
The Messenger of Allah(SAAW) said:
"Let not any one of you belittle himself. They said:
'O Messenger of Allah, how can any one of us belittle
himself'? He said: 'He finds a matter concerning Allah
about which he should say something, and he does not
say [it], so Allah (mighty and sublime be He) says to
him on the Day of Resurrection: "What prevented you
from saying something about such-and-such and such-
and-such"? He says: "[It was] out of fear of people."
Then, He says: "Rather it is I whom you should more
properly fear".'
Who will be Allah's helper?
Also, please forward this to all the people who might be
interested. Time is short... JazakAllah Khairon.
Ma Assalama.
DariushA
>
> Is this a "legal" thing to do, in terms of usenet voting?
No. As the idiot is saying himself the NG is "moderated".
DariushA.
r.woo...@bigfoot.com
May I put it to all those who read the original posting by Kavosh Soltani,
that interested parties should cast their votes depending on whether they
feel yet another unmoderated forum about the Baha'i religion is warranted,
and not on rhetoric posted by an admitted avowed opponent of this religion.
Rachel
In article <756vv1$f4a$1...@remarQ.com>,
"Kavosh Soltani" <kav...@muslimsonline.com> wrote:
> Dear brothers and sisters,
>
> You can help save countless souls by taking a few minutes
> to read the following and taking immediate action...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mah
soc.religion.islam? Try saying something these bastard Mullahs don't agree
with and see if it gets through.
DariushA wrote in message <36774D...@ix.netcom.com>...
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
Mr. Soltani has expressed the opinion that soc.religion.bahai has censored his
messages, which happen to be strongly anti-Baha'i, due to the fact that his
messages are strongly anti-Baha'i.
Well, he is substantially correct.
The charter of soc.religion.bahai prohibits postings which attach ANY
religion, faith, people, culture, race, group of people or individual. There
are no exceptions. If Mr. Soltani had posted an article which attacked Islam,
the result would have been the same. Exactly the same.
Soc.religion.bahai was voted into being for the purpose of creating a
newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of the Baha'i Faith, its history and
its teachings. Postings do not have to be written by Baha'is nor do they have
to be Pro-Baha'i to be posted, but they do have to adhere to a fairly high
standard of courtesy and respect, and they may not attack. There are numerous
postings by Buddhists which strongly reject Baha'i points of view or
principles. However, these postings are factual, they relate to the subject
and they do not single out individuals or groups for abuse or ridicule. They
are courteous. There are similar postings by Christians and Muslims, postings
which do not agree, but which do not attack either.
I encourage all who are interested in discovering the truth of this matter to
visit soc.religion.bahai. Find out for yourselves the truth of this matter.
If you wish, read the charter, and post an article. If it is on topic, and
meets the criteria, it will be posted. In this matter, I find little
difference between soc.religion.bahai and soc.religion.islam. Both are
moderated, and both have accepted and rejected my postings in the past, and
in every case, returned my rejected postings with a courteous explanation. I
can only assume that is the case with everyone else.
I enjoy reading postings from Muslims. I have learned a great deal about Islam
and the Koran, and especially, about the differences between Sunni and Shia
points of view this way. I hope to continue to learn.
With respect
Robert A. Little
In article <756vv1$f4a$1...@remarQ.com>,
"Kavosh Soltani" <kav...@muslimsonline.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 17:00:46 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Assalamu Aleikum - URGENT Action Alert
>
> In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious
>
> The Messenger of Allah(SAAW) said:
> "Whoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it
> with his hands; and if he is not able to do so, then
> with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then
> with his heart - and that is the weakest of faith."
>
> Dear brothers and sisters,
>
> You can help save countless souls by taking a few minutes
> to read the following and taking immediate action...
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>I am urging you to take a moment and vote YES to the creation
>of "talk.religion.bahai" newsgroup.
Good move.
Jeremiah McAuliffe/ ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Is this a "legal" thing to do, in terms of usenet voting?
>
Yeah. I think that's how new groups are formed.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Bismillahi arraHman arraHeem,
>
>May I put it to all those who read the original posting by Kavosh Soltani,
>that interested parties should cast their votes depending on whether they
>feel yet another unmoderated forum about the Baha'i religion is warranted,
>and not on rhetoric posted by an admitted avowed opponent of this religion.
Oh wait! Is there already an unmoderated group?!?!?!
Then why have another Kavosh?
Penfold
>>Is this a "legal" thing to do, in terms of usenet voting?
>
>Yeah. I think that's how new groups are formed.
--Okay, Kavosh's message said this:
Take a minute to vote by EMail, fi sabilellah.
To vote, you need to send an EMail to vo...@dogwood.com with
the following three lines in the body of the message.
================== Cut and Paste Below =================
I vote YES on talk.religion.bahai
Voter name:John Doe
=================== End of Body ==========================
******* Don't forget to change "John Doe" to YOUR NAME! **************
Please do not assume that replying to this message will work.
Check the address before you mail your vote. Leave the
subject line blank and enter the three lines of the body
exactly as they appear above. The first line should read:
"I vote YES on talk.religion.bahai", the second line should
consist of a blank line (just press enter), and the third
line should read: "Voter name:" and be immediately followed
by YOUR NAME.
--And the CFV says this:
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited
copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud. When in
doubt, ask the votetaker.
Now, say that again, this is legal?
Sue
Kavosh is not an official "proponent" of talk.religion.bahai--though he is
an "associate" of Fred Glaysher who is an official proponent. (They cross
link each others websites) I am assuming that Kavosh is calling for a YES
vote on his own (not on behalf of Mr. Glaysher), since he really wants to
use the newsgroup. The proponents are not doing this themselves. It would be
pretty hard to prevent individuals from doing as they like and therefore
subverting the Usenet process simply by spamming a call for YES or NO votes
and therefore, invalidating the process. If a "proponent" did this--that's
another story, I would venture.
Sue
Penfold wrote in message ...
r.woo...@bigfoot.com
ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) wrote:
> Oh wait! Is there already an unmoderated group?!?!?!
>
Yes.
alt.religion.bahai is an unmoderated forum for discussion about the Baha'i
Faith. The proponants of the new talk.religion.bahai claim that another
unmoderated group is warranted not because they are lacking freedom of
expression, but because arb is not one of the "Big 8" hierarchies and
therefore not as widely propogated.
In my opinion this does not warrant the creation of yet another unmoderated
forum which would duplicate arb, as arb can easily be accessed either through
a web-based service such as Deja News, or through their own news client using
a public newsserver, the list of which is as long as my arm.
> Then why have another Kavosh?
Only he and Allah knows!
Rachel
Sue
My apologies. It has been brought to my attention that the website that you
include in your posts is not YOUR personal website. Therefore, any
"association" that you may have with Mr. Glasher is based upon shared
promotion of viewpoint. I, therefore presume that you are entirely acting on
your own re: your call for votes, with no contact of any kind with any of
the proponents of talk.religion.baha'i.
Sue
Sue wrote in message ...
Padideh
afshin.a...@utoronto.ca wrote
>Peace be upon those that receive true guidance,
>
>
>Dear beloved brothers and sisters, talk.religion.bahai is needed by muslims
so
>they can allow those who have been misled by bahaism see the muslim point
of
>view.
Dear afshin.afrashteh,
Considering that nobody is being held hostage on the Internet,
is it, in any way, possible for you to allow those misled people to seek
Islam on their own accord rather than having the muslim point of view
shown to them by your singularly and/or severally.
Also, would you please tell me why you are having kittens on
SCIran?
Padideh.
afshin.a...@utoronto.ca
In the last couple of days you have seen posts requesting that you vote for
talk.religion.bahai.
Let me explain yet again why it is IMPERATIVE that you vote NOW!!
If you visit http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm you will see a
partial archive of the dark history behind the censorhsip at
soc.religion.bahai
It is true that alt.religion.bahai an unmoderated newsgroup already exists
but it is VERY poorly carried by ISPs unlike the talk.* hierarchy. Many
people read the newsgroup via email also and don't have access to the web
regularly so don't have access to dejanews.com. This is why the proposal for
talk.religion.bahai has come up again and again and EVERY time baha'is have
voted it DOWN.
Ask yourslef WHY? WHY? WHY? WHAT are they hiding? WHAT are they afraid of if
they feel they have the truth?
I as a muslim am coming to all you brothers and sisters in the spirit of
Ramadan and am APPEALING to all of you to take a moment to VOTE for ISLAM
and for LOVE of the PROPHET PBUH!!
I and other muslims have been censured MANY times at soc.religion.bahai when
baha'is post articles attacking the finality of Islam and our beloved Prophet
PBUH and then reject muslim replies. The baha'is then try to distort the
picture by saying they allow buddhists to post. The fact is only ISLAM is a
serious threat to bahaism and this is FACT that muslim replies have been
REJECTED. Don't let these baha'is like Robert Little and Rachel to sugar-coat
it for you. soc.religion.bahai is run by fanatic baha'is who even didn't
allow posts by Frederick Glaysher because his signature has a link to a site
they DON'T LIKE. Check it our yourself by going to the above link or going to
dejanews.com.
The Prophet PBUH said:
"Let not any one of you belittle himself. They said:
'O Messenger of Allah, how can any one of us belittle
himself'? He said: 'He finds a matter concerning Allah
about which he should say something, and he does not
say [it], so Allah (mighty and sublime be He) says to
him on the Day of Resurrection: "What prevented you
from saying something about such-and-such and such-
and-such"? He says: "[It was] out of fear of people."
Then, He says: "Rather it is I whom you should more
properly fear".'
Dear beloved brothers and sisters, talk.religion.bahai is needed by muslims so
they can allow those who have been misled by bahaism see the muslim point of
view. If this vote doesn't go through it might be atleast a year before the
issue comes up again. In the meantime, how many souls would have been misled
into bahaism? How many souls will ALLAH swt hold us muslims partially
responsible for, for having failed to do our divine duty.
Brothers and sisters, Ramadan is coming up. The reward for taking such a small
step for the cause of Allah swt will be rewarded 70 times or more during
Ramadan.
If the proposal still fails then so be it but YOU DO YOUR BEST so you can
stand infront of Allah swt and say that you tried at the very least!
Now I have been told by the votetaker that he dosn't like me posting voting
instructions but that "he is the only legitimate source of these
instructions". So I can't post the exact voting instructions now.
Here's what you can do though:
1) Email vo...@dogwood.com and ask for the voting intructions OR 2) Read the
CFV (Call For Votes) posted by the votetaker at :
http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=420102929 3) Spread the action alert to
muslim mailing lists you are on and other brothers and sisters you privately
know
Remember voting ends by Dec 24th so there isn't much time
Also learn more about the bahai faith at my website and start doing to baha'is
you personally know or on the NET :
Answering Bahaullah
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm
May ALLAH swt reward in this effort and RAMADAN mubarak beloved brothers and
sisters!
Afshin Afrashteh
hy...@my-dejanews.com
> In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious
> For years, Bahais who moderate soc.religion.bahai newsgroup
> have been unfairly blocking postings by people of other faith.
> While they routinely allow posting of their inaccurate
> interpretation of world religions and doctored history of
> their movement, they have been censoring replies, difficult
> questions, and clarifications from non-Bahais.
Dear Mr. Soltani:
Since the act of censorship is of such grave concern, may I ask in your posts
on the usenet, that you equally voice your concern and opposition to the
censorship practiced in places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, where
totalitarian Islamic theocracies are absolutely intolerant of any differing
opinion and where dissension is met with brutal terror.
There are millions of _real_ people being brutalized in _real_ ways under
those horrible regimes. Please apply the same standards to your own camp.
Sohayl Shambashi
hy...@my-dejanews.com
> Bismillahi arraHman arraHeem,
>
> ...... interested parties should cast their votes depending on whether they
> feel yet another unmoderated forum about the Baha'i religion is warranted,
> ......
It is somewhat misleading to claim that a readily available unmoderated forum
exists for discussions on the Baha'i Faith. The existing unmoderated
newsgroup, alt.religion.bahai, is hardly accessible due to it being on the
obscure hierarchy of 'alt.' I for one cannot access this newsgroup directly
because my Internet Service Provider and its feed from usenet does not carry
this newsgroup. It is also extremely inconvenient, slow, complicated, and
costly to access this newsgroup via webpage services.
The proposal to create an unmoderated forum 'talk.religion.bahai' for the open
discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is essentially a proposal to rename
alt.religion.bahai to talk.religion.bahai. The 'talk.' hierarchy is much more
widely carried and hence available to Internet users, because it is considered
one of the big-8 hierarchies (e.g. soc., talk., news.)
Furthermore, there is no good reason why there can't be several unmoderated or
moderated groups in any serious and popular topic. And note that without a
widely accessible unmoderated group, all moderated groups in that topic are of
questionable legitamacy.
I would like to remind that the 'right to free and unfettered discussion' is
one of our fundamental and inalienable rights. I take exception at those who
call for limiting our civil liberties by opposing the creation of unmoderated
groups. Civil liberties are not subject to a (negative) vote. Voting against
the creation of unmoderated groups is an act of censorship, IMO.
It is only fair that usenet allow the creation of (one or more) unmoderated
groups on a widely accessible hierarchy, for any serious and popular topic in
which demand has been amply demonstrated. It is an error by usenet to apply
the same rules used for the creation of moderated groups to the creation of
serious and popular unmoderated groups.
Free and unfettered discussion is an inalienable right.
S. Shambashi
Saman Ahmadi
afshin.a...@utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> I and other muslims have been censured MANY times at soc.religion.bahai when .
> . .
Now if only we could get the moderators of s.r.b. to *censure* Bill Clinton.
-saman
hy...@my-dejanews.com
> ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) wrote:
>
> > Oh wait! Is there already an unmoderated group?!?!?!
>
> Yes.
>
> alt.religion.bahai is an unmoderated forum for discussion about the Baha'i
> Faith.
Incorrect. alt.relgion.bahai is not accessible by a large segment of the
user community, including myself. It is not a proper usenet forum, as far as
usenet newsgroups go.
> The proponants of the new talk.religion.bahai claim that another
> unmoderated group is warranted not because they are lacking freedom of
> expression, but because arb is not one of the "Big 8" hierarchies and
> therefore not as widely propogated.
No, when a newsgroup is inaccessible, then freedom of expression, freedom of
discussion, and freedom of assembly suffers.
> In my opinion this does not warrant the creation of yet another unmoderated
> forum which would duplicate arb,
I believe the proponets are happy to rename alt.religion.bahai to
talk.religion.bahai, if the objection is duplication. Besides, Usenet (or is
it UVV) has not objected to the duplication.
> as arb can easily be accessed either through
> a web-based service such as Deja News,
Web based access is inherently slow, error prone, incovenient, and costly. If
a good part of usenet were to access the 24 giga bytes per day of postings on
usenet via Dejanews, Dejanews would come to a standstill. Also Talkaway.com
does not carry all postings and threads are full of holes. Reference.com is
extremely user unfriendly and hard to use. Newsguy.com charges a hefty fee.
What's good for others is good for you ... Since a.r.b. despite its crippled
status has a lot more hits and postings than s.r.b., lets trade places -
a.r.b. will become s.r.b. and vice versa. The old s.r.b. subscribers can now
use dejanews ;~) .
> or through their own news client using
> a public newsserver
Please post the address of one or more free news servers, I am unaware of
any. RemarQ.com just recently shut down their news server service.
> Rachel
Sohayl Shambashi
r.woo...@bigfoot.com
I am supposing that most of you (readers) will have a modicum of sense and
know that when someone is an avowed opponent of something, their opinion is
hardly going to be unbiased. Therefore we must always check out the facts
they claim.
Sufficeth to say:
In article <75a3h1$sc3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
afshin.a...@utoronto.ca wrote:
<snip>
> Many
> people read the newsgroup via email also and don't have access to the web
> regularly so don't have access to dejanews.com.
That is why they have the option of using a normal news client and accessing a
public news server. alt.religion.bahai is hardly hidden. Let me ask each one
of you? Can *you* access the alt. hierarchy?
>This is why the proposal for
> talk.religion.bahai has come up again and again and EVERY time baha'is have
> voted it DOWN.
Firstly Baha'is as a group have done nothing. Some Baha'is vote YES, some
Baha'is vote NO. Some Baha'is try very hard to make people vote YES, some
Baha'is try very hard to make people vote NO. Some Muslims try very hard to
make people vote YES - does that mean there is a formal agenda within Islamic
groups and Muslim leadership for the creation of trb? IMHO Usenet simply
isn't *that* important in the scheme of things.
May I put it to you that the real reasons why people vote NO for trb are
these:
1) valid technical reasons: (e.g. trb would duplicate an already existing ng)
2) emotional reasons: (people object to the way this newsgroup has been
attempted to be formed: which includes slander, backbiting, and downright
nastiness)
3) reasons of conscience: (some people feel that to use the name "Baha'i" in
trb would be misapplied. That whilst the newsgroup would carry discussion
about the Baha'i religion, it would *in practice* violate all standards of
Baha'i consultation, that freedom of speech carries with it the
responsibility to practice fairness, wisdom and truthfulness)
On this last point, I ask you readers to pause for a moment and think how you
feel when you visit a site like http://www.thekoran.com ? This site, and
others like it, use Islamic terms but denegrate them and twist them into
something ugly. Do you have any emotional response to the fact this site
uses the word "Koran" to imply legitimacy of its views?
Whether that emotional response is good or bad, the real fact of human
psychology is that we don't *like* to see the things we love denegrated and
degraded. However I will readily admit that once we start censoring those
ugly and degrading things, it is too easy to move the boundries closer and
start censoring those simply with whom we disagree.
Usenet voting guides suggest that people should only vote NO if they feel
there are valid technical reasons, but if you vote YES as an uninterested
party because of rhetoric posted by proponants and supporters, then you too
are breaking Usenet voting guides. It works both ways.
> Ask yourslef WHY? WHY? WHY? WHAT are they hiding? WHAT are they afraid of if
> they feel they have the truth?
Jochen Katz (a Christian poster to soc.religion.islam) asks the same, and yet
time and time again groups of Muslims on sri call for the silencing of his
posts. Does the truth of Islam have anything to do with those calls?
<snip>
> I and other muslims have been censured MANY times at soc.religion.bahai when
> baha'is post articles attacking the finality of Islam and our beloved Prophet
> PBUH and then reject muslim replies. The baha'is then try to distort the
> picture by saying they allow buddhists to post. The fact is only ISLAM is a
> serious threat to bahaism and this is FACT that muslim replies have been
> REJECTED. <snip>
The point about postings from Buddhists who vehemently object to Baha'i
theology, is that *they* manage to do it respectfully. But I thought that I
would go and check out what srb allows in the way of posts by Muslims, about
Muslims and about Islam.
Here are some samples of headers. To read them you will need to access them
through Dejanews, but I assure you, you will find that in fact srb *does*
routinely pass posts BY Muslims, posts that DISAGREE with Baha'i theology and
claims, as well as posts ABOUT Islam (as relevant to the Baha'i Faith, and /
or current discussion) as per their charter. (Please note I've only listed
one of each thread)
98/10/13 018 Re: AW: Last Prophet? alhaque1400
98/10/01 017 bahaii revelation # 1 revealer
98/08/29 017 Re: Where two or three are g... K. Paul Johnson
98/10/02 016 Re: need proof kmkhan
98/07/27 018 Re: Martyrdom of the Bab#1/5 Amir Butler
98/04/02 018 Q: re diet of Bahais FIRTHRAM
98/03/09 015 Re: changing a message -- Re... Altaf Bhimji
97/12/13 017 Re: Islam Nijjhar, Rajind
97/04/15 016 Re: Baha'u'llah: serious dou... Ahmad Farid
97/10/28 015 Re: Joseph Smith (Part II) Ali
97/11/11 014 Reply to Christian Edward Gr... Imran Shaykh
97/02/20 014 Muhammad last prophet #3/3 afshin.afrashteh
97/02/20 014 Re: Muhammad last prophe#4/4 Nadeem A Malik
96/04/26 013 Re: Quran & calandars Ahmad Farid
96/04/23 013 Re: Why the unscientific 19... Ahmad Farid
I could go on, but you get the message...
Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."
Rachel
r.woo...@bigfoot.com
hy...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> r.woo...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> > Bismillahi arraHman arraHeem,
> >
> > ...... interested parties should cast their votes depending on whether they
> > feel yet another unmoderated forum about the Baha'i religion is warranted,
> > ......
>
> It is somewhat misleading to claim that a readily available unmoderated forum
> exists for discussions on the Baha'i Faith. The existing unmoderated
> newsgroup, alt.religion.bahai, is hardly accessible due to it being on the
> obscure hierarchy of 'alt.' I for one cannot access this newsgroup directly
> because my Internet Service Provider and its feed from usenet does not carry
> this newsgroup. It is also extremely inconvenient, slow, complicated, and
> costly to access this newsgroup via webpage services.
Then access it through a public newsserver - there are heaps of them. You
may have to take five minutes out of your life to find one that is suitable
for you - but it hardly means that arb is unaccessable.
Secondly AFAIK that a newsgroup would duplicate an already existing one is a
valid reason for voting NO - regardless of how nice it would be to have more
than one unmoderated group.
As always my opinion
afshin.a...@utoronto.ca
In article <75b0rk$j4s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
r.woo...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> Bismillahi arraHman arraHeem,
>
> I am supposing that most of you (readers) will have a modicum of sense and
> know that when someone is an avowed opponent of something, their opinion is
> hardly going to be unbiased. Therefore we must always check out the facts
> they claim.
>
And I would suppose the readers (especially muslims who are being addressed to
here) would have a modicum of sense to understand that an avowed baha'i
missionary like you would have reason to make baha'is look good.
Lets examine the facts shall we ?
1) The proponents of this talk.religion.bahai are BAHA'is and EX-BAHA'is NOT
muslims 2)talk.religion.bahai was proposed because many, many people had
complained of of the censorship at soc.religion.bahai. These people included
baha'is, ex-baha'is, buddhists, muslims, christians etc 3) There is a partial
archive of censored messages found at :
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm 4) Censored messages by
definition won't be found in dejanews.com archives so saying that a COUPLE of
muslim message (most of them relatively inocous compared to the articles that
have been rejected that were by me, Kavosh and other muslims) exist only goes
to show that the moderators of soc.religion.bahai are not total idiots. By
allowing a couple here and there (not the juicy posts) they will try to fool
others with a deceptive disguise of fairness 5) Frederick Glaysher has been
censored at srb for having a LINK (i.e http:/www.whatever.com)that has
ANOTHER LINK to web-sites the moderators don't like (one of them being mine)
. Infact the moderators changed the whole policy of srb for this reason.
Check this out:
**************************
From: srb-...@bcca.org <srb-...@bcca.org>
Subject: Moderator's Notice
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 1:59 AM
Moderators' Notice:
As some signature files contain advertising, which is against the
charter for this newsgroup, the moderators have decided that only a
subscriber's name and a return e-mail address will be allowed in
signatures. Longer signatures will be truncated.
***********************
6) Lets look at the charter of soc.religion.bahai for what is ACCEPTABLE (in
addition to the above added condition)(also remember - the moderators take
EXTREME liberty in interpreting what is and isn't acceptable) :
***************
MODERATOR POLICIES
o The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a
decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet
respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search
for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks
(flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory
attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use
offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only
the tone of the discussions, and not their contents.
o The moderators will weigh the guidance available from the Baha'i
Institutions such as the Universal House of Justice, National Spiritual
Assemblies, Continental Counselors, and Auxiliary Board members in
determining the appropriateness of postings to the newsgroup.
o To avoid confusion, articles should not contain unpublished,
unauthorized translations of Baha'i texts. Instead, authors should
paraphrase untranslated materials. A good model can be found in Adib
Taherzadeh's 4-volume work, "The Revelation of Baha'u'llah."
o Posts which argue for or promote a succession of authority
outside the Covenant of Baha'u'llah will not be posted. This
does NOT preclude posts which ask about, explain or elucidate
the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
o Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a
book reference) may also be rejected.
o The moderators will not intentionally accept posts from individuals who
can not be reached by email. Note that this policy does not preclude
anonymous mailers, but a back-channel must exist.
o Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation.
The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying
remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise
ratio.
******************
wow!!! If this is what they openly admit to doing then you can imagine how
much they are censoring behind the scenes.
Here's what the charter of soc.religion.islam says about what is acceptable :
**************
a) relevant to Islam
b) free from verbal abuse, name calling, and insults
************** 7) alt.religion.bahai is NOT readily accessible as Rachel
claims and a web-based service like dejanews.com is a) not available to
everyone b) slow and unreliable and sometimes even incomplete . Besides why
won't soc.religion.bahai switch places with alt.religion.bahai if its no
problem ?
8) In the last 2 attempts it was baha'is who voted NO to its creation and
mostly muslims and a few liberal baha'is and ex-baha'is who voted yes. You
would think the baha'is would be happy to have an extra forum. You would
think that baha'i missionaries like Rachel and Abir would be ecstatic to have
another forum but we find them the most vocal opponents.
9) This issue of duplicity of alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.bahai is a
sham for the bahais to have an excuse to vote no on "technical" grounds. If
talk.religion.bahai is created alt.religion.bahai can be scrapped for all we
care. The issue is propagation of the newsgroup not the name
10)Rachel in her posted ADMITTED that the baha'is vote no because they are
afraid their faith will be "denigrated".
11)soc.religion.islam has allowed Jochen katz to post articles so attacking
Islam that muslims have called for new moderators..and yet the moderators
remain objective and fair. In contrast the moderators of soc.religion.bahai
have acted in such a way as to infuriate non-baha'is and some baha'is for
their blatant violation of their rights.
Finally ask yourself, dear brothers and sisters....is all this hot air? Would
brothers like me and kavosh and others and these baha'is and ex-baha'is and
jews who are advocating the creation of talk.religion.bahai doing all this
because there is nothing substantive in what we have to say? Would this
proposal be going now for its 3rd attempt to be created (and probably 3rd
time baha'is would vote it down) if there was nothing there? Are we crazy?
Check out http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm and see what over 20
non-muslims have experienced. This archive doesn't even include mine's and
kavosh's postings that have been rejected. Are we all making this up?
It seems more like soc.religion.bahai moderators and their cronies have a
motive in hiding the truth from you. Don't let them sugar-coat this for you
and don't be fooled by this Rachel coming and saying stuff like "bismillahi
a-rahmani ar-rahim". She is no muslim.. she's a full blown baha'i missionary
with a specific agenda.
Vote dear brothers and sisters for if this fails and another year passes even
more souls might be lost to bahaism.
I might add that because of my campaiging the votetaker has disqualified me
from voting so I am counting even more on my brothers and sisters!
Here's how to vote:
1) Email vo...@dogwood.com and ask for the voting intructions OR 2) Read the
CFV (Call For Votes) posted by the votetaker at :
http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=420102929 3) Spread the action alert to
muslim mailing lists you are on and other brothers and sisters you privately
know
Remember voting ends by Dec 24th so there isn't much time
Also learn more about the bahai faith at my website and start doing to baha'is
you personally know or on the NET :
Answering Bahaullah
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm
May ALLAH swt reward in this effort and RAMADAN mubarak beloved brothers and
sisters!
Afshin Afrashteh
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Sue
"Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows"--political satirist Frank Beard 1872
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm
Sue
afshin.a...@utoronto.ca wrote in message
<75bi78$32m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>snip>
>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm
>snip>
>http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm
>snip>
Abir Majid
A year ago, I voted "no" because I didn't think it was needed. This time
I will not vote "no". I think there are more important things in the
world to spend time on. This post is about the 28th of Sh'aban, and the
coming of Ramadhan.
afshin.a...@utoronto.ca (a.k.a. nukhudchi) wrote:
>
> I as a muslim am coming to all you brothers and sisters in the spirit of
> Ramadan and am APPEALING to all of you to take a moment to VOTE for ISLAM
> and for LOVE of the PROPHET PBUH!!
>
It's a rather common belief among followers of different religions, that
God's pleasure with us and His forgiveness of sins is linked to the way
we live, and the deeds we perform, the strength of our belief, and
ultimately His own Will and Pleasure.
Fasting and saying prayers, are among the ways we show our love for God
and our obedience to Him, and we hope that He would also forgive our
sins if we performed our duty towards him.
Somehow however, it has become the belief of some of the friends, that
it didn't matter what they did for the rest of the year, as long as they
fasted during the holy month of Ramadhan. They believe that if they
fasted, all their sins would be forgiven. I have known people who would
drink alcohol all year, and commit other acts deemed sinful in Islam,
then fast during Ramadhan so their sins would be forgiven.
One hundred and fifty three years ago, on the twenty eighth of Sha'ban,
of the year 1266 AH, (two days before Ramadhan started), the mujtahids
and divines of Persia, signed the fatwa to execute non less than the
Promised Mahdi, the Qa'im of Al-Muhammad, His Holiness the Bab. The
whole process was accelerated, so they would enter Ramadhan, with their
evil deed behind them. He was executed at noon that same day by a firing
squad of 750 soldiers.
[...]
>
> Brothers and sisters, Ramadan is coming up. The reward for taking such a small
> step for the cause of Allah swt will be rewarded 70 times or more during
> Ramadan.
>
> If the proposal still fails then so be it but YOU DO YOUR BEST so you can
> stand infront of Allah swt and say that you tried at the very least!
>
"Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one
another in sin and rancour: fear Allah: for Allah is strict in
punishment."
Qur'an: 5:2
>
> Also learn more about the bahai faith at my website and start doing to baha'is
> you personally know or on the NET :
> http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/..
>
Since when does one go to a rabbi to learn about Christianity, or to a
priest to learn about Islam, or to the "Pentagon !!??" to learn about
religion and peace?
>
> May ALLAH swt reward in this effort and RAMADAN mubarak beloved brothers and
> sisters!
>
> Afshin Afrashteh
May all enjoy a truely spiritual and blessed Ramadhan, of guidance and
mercy.
--
------------------------------------------------
Abir Majid
http://members.tripod.com/~abirm/
http://bci.org/islam-bahai
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
I would like to correct an error or two which Afshi Afrashteh has
inadvertently made.
Talk.religion.bahai has been under consideration for quite a while. The
current voting process is the third such, the first two having been voted
down. During nearly all of the discussion which has led up to the current
final proposal being put up for approval/rejection by the community, there
has been a nearly unamimous accord by those taking part in the discussion.
The foundation of the proposal is that alt.religion.bahai is not as widely
accessible as the proposed talk.religion.bahai. Virtually the only comments
that have been made against the proposal have been based on this aspect, and
have asserted that in fact alt.religion.bahai can be easily accessed. This is
effectively the only argument that has been put forward by anyone for either
voting against or abstaining from voting for the formation of
talk.religion.bahai. The majority of people (Baha'is for the most part) who
have made comments have stated they are in favor of t.r.b. and have already
voted.
The statement concerning the reason for the proposal of t.r.b. made below,
that "many, many people had complained of of the censorship at
soc.religion.bahai. These people included baha'is, ex-baha'is, buddhists,
muslims, christians etc" is incorrect. There are two Baha'i discussion
groups, one moderated (soc.religion.bahai) and one unmoderated
(alt.religion.bahai). Anyone may post anything to a.r.b., and this discussion
has in fact occurred on a.r.b., where nothing is moderated or held back.
Since an unmoderated discussion group does in fact already exist and
routinely gets more traffic than the moderated s.r.b., the claim of
censorship is incorrect.
Secondly, this issue of censorship is primarily the work of one individual,
and virtually all comments made concerning censorship either come from or are
repeated by that one individual, who may not be a registered Baha'i but who
in any event posts heavily on alt.religion.bahai and less frequently on
soc.religion.bahai. This individual has stated that he has been censored, and
he has lobbied against the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, Baha'i
institutions and individual Baha'is. I suggest that anyone interested in the
meaning of the word look it up in any good dictionary. According to the
dictionary, he is quite correct in his assertion. However, I do not believe
that he has been wrongfully deprived of any right or rights, as the charter
itself states clearly what the conditions are for the posting of letters, and
his (that have been returned unposted and that he has posted on a.r.b.) have
clearly not met those standards. This is the crux of the matter: Not that
censorship exists (it clearly does), but whether or not it is wrongful.
Consider: a submittal to soc.religion.islam which attacked Islam or Muhammad
or the Koran, using rude language, and submitted by a Christian. Would the
moderators of that newsgroup allow it to be posted? What would you say if
they did? Would you say that censorship was bad, and insist that the
moderators post it? I believe you would be highly offended, considering the
centuries of antagonism that has existed between Islam and Christianity, and
you would insist that it be censored.
I don't believe that an attack on Muhammad, the Koran or on Islam ought to be
permitted on either soc.religion.bahai or soc.religion.islam. In this case, I
am for censorship. In others, I would be against it.
With respect,
Robert A. Little
In article <75bi78$32m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Saman Ahmadi
Massoud Ajami wrote:
> Seyed Muhammadali Bob couldn't even write correct Arabic, much less being
> "Promised Mahdi!"
Siyyid Ali Muhammad, the Bab, used technically correct permutations
of Arabic grammar which were not in common usage - check with
any Arabic linguist that you like.
You may be interested in reading the literary analysis of the Qur'an
by some non-Muslims - they claim it has grammatical mistakes.
Rodwell, for example, makes some of these criticisms in his
introduction to his translation of the Qur'an.
-saman
Kavosh Soltani
>
>It's a rather common belief among followers of different religions, that
>God's pleasure with us and His forgiveness of sins is linked to the way
>we live, and the deeds we perform, the strength of our belief, and
>ultimately His own Will and Pleasure.
More important are sincerity of faith, submission to Allah, and
piety... Following a wrong prophet is akin to following a man who
claimed to be god. That is the sad condition Bahais find themselves
in. As Allah has said:
"Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's
way and oppose the Messenger after that guidance has
become clear to them cannot harm Allah in any way, and
HE WILL MAKE NULL THEIR DEEDS."
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger,
and MAKE NOT VAIN YOUR DEEDS!
(Holy Quran, 47:32-33)
"Say: "Shall we tell you of those who lose most in respect
of their deeds?-
"Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while
they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?"
They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the
fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain
will be their works, NOR SHALL WE, on the Day of Judgment,
GIVE THEM ANY WEIGHT."
(Holy Quran, 18:103-105)
"If anyone desires a religion other than Al-Islam, never
will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will
be in the ranks of those who have lost."
(Holy Quran, 3:85)
>One hundred and fifty three years ago, on the twenty eighth of Sha'ban,
>of the year 1266 AH, (two days before Ramadhan started), the mujtahids
>and divines of Persia, signed the fatwa to execute non less than the
>Promised Mahdi, the Qa'im of Al-Muhammad, His Holiness the Bab. The
>whole process was accelerated, so they would enter Ramadhan, with their
>evil deed behind them. He was executed at noon that same day by a firing
>squad of 750 soldiers.
This is all false propaganda by Bahai missionaries and writers. The
ulama actually recommended to the king that Ali Hussein (aka Bab)
not be executed because:
1. He repented in writing and said he never had claimed to be
Mahdi;
2. They excused any past mistake on his mental condition...
He was executed, not by the order of Ulama, but the order of prime
minister, because Bab's followers had killed thousands of innocent
people around the country and was aiming to free him from jail and
continue their uprising against the government... Bab was executed
for having had sinister ideas about the king and government...
Truth on Bahaism: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/main.htm
>Since when does one go to a rabbi to learn about Christianity, or to a
>priest to learn about Islam, or to the "Pentagon !!??" to learn about
>religion and peace?
Brothers and sisters, anytime a Bahai missionary tries to sweet talk
you or quote you selected passages of the Quran which they picked
up from Muslim forums, remember this attitude of theirs and realize
why they have not found guidance. They mock at the word of Allah
and His Messenger(pbuh). As Allah has said:
"It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a
matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger
to have any option about their decision: if any one
disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a
clearly wrong Path."
(Holy Quran, 33:36)
"If any one contends with the Prophet even after guidance
has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path
other than that becoming to men of faith, We shall leave
him in the path he has chosen and land him in Hell, what
an evil refuge." (Holy Quran, 4:110)
Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) has taught:
"The chain of Messengers and Prophets has come to an end.
There shall be no Messenger nor Prophet after me."
(Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, Anas bin Malik)
"I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am the effacer and infidelity
shall be erased through me; I am the assembler. People shall
be assembled on Doomsday after my time. And I am the last
in the sense that no prophet shall succeed me."
(Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Muatta')
"No Prophet will come after me and there will, therefore,
be no other community of followers of any new Prophet."
(Baihaqi, Tabarani)
"My position in relation to the prophets who came before
me can be explained by the following example: A man
erected a building and adorned this edifice with great
beauty, but he left an empty niche, in the corner where
just one brick was missing. People looked around the
building and marveled at its beauty, but wondered why a
brick was missing from that niche? I am like unto that
one missing brick and I am the last in the line of the
Prophets." (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad)
"There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and
each one of them will pronounce to the world that
he is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of
the Prophets of God and no Prophet will come after
me." (Abu Dawood, Tirmizi)
"In the latter Days, there will come forth men who
will deceive the world by religion, clothed before
men in sheepskin because of gentleness, their tongues
sweeter than sugar, and their hearts the hearts of
wolves." (Tirmidhi)
=============================================
"But as to those who rejected Allah, (to them will
be said): "Were not Our Signs rehearsed to you? But
you were arrogant, and were a people given to sin!"
(Holy Quran, 45:31)
Kavosh Soltani
>
>Dear afshin.afrashteh,
>
>Considering that nobody is being held hostage on the Internet,
>is it, in any way, possible for you to allow those misled people to seek
>Islam on their own accord rather than having the muslim point of view
Do you suppose, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad(pbut) sat in their
houses hoping that people would see the light?! Obviously, not.
They knew their duty and they cared enough about their fellow
man to take the initiative...
All of us Muslims owe brother Afshin and others like him a great
deal, because they donate their valuable time to do what is Right,
True, and Just, and help discharge the duty of all believers. If the
truth were not put out there by individuals like Afshin, then all of us
would be held accountable on the Day of Judgment for having
neglected our mission. As Allah said:
"...It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in
this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for
you, and you be witnesses for mankind!..."
(The holy Quran, 22:78)
"You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of)
men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe
in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would
have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and
most of them are transgressors."
(The holy Quran, 3:110)
In particular, we can not remain quiet, when Bahai missionaries
routinely misrepresent Islamic teachings on their newsgroups and
unethically block replies or corrections from Muslims on the same
topics...
I hope br. Afshin does not mind my response.
Kavosh Soltani
>
>From: srb-...@bcca.org <srb-...@bcca.org>
>As some signature files contain advertising, which is against the
>charter for this newsgroup, the moderators have decided that only a
>subscriber's name and a return e-mail address will be allowed in
>signatures. Longer signatures will be truncated.
This is just so sad! No doubt, some Bahai missionaries will
still try to cover for their colleagues at soc.religion.bahai,
change the subject, or put a twist on what is another obvious
attempt by the Bahai moderators to block and censor any idea
which does not benefit their propaganda newsgroup... The
vocal defenders of the shameful practices of soc.religion.bahai
will also try to discount this action...
There is no doubt that we need a talk.religion.bahai to spread
the truth, since noone can hope to post anything on
soc.religion.bahai which is even remotely seen as threatening
to the interest of those who run it...
Answering Bahaullah
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm
Kavosh Soltani
>
>Now if only we could get the moderators of s.r.b. to *censure* Bill
Clinton.
They would likely *censor* him, if he dared write anything that
was seen by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai to be remotely
a threat to the house of cards they have raised about the teachings
and history of their movement...
Just like they being censoring so many of us for years...
Kavosh Soltani
>>well, at this time?
I am afraid that some people are confusing exposing censorship
at soc.religion.bahai and becoming active in the voting process
with attempting to "skew the polls" (whatever that means)...
Read what I wrote again:
>> ...Alhamdolellah, we have until 24th of December to bring some
>> justice and parity to the internet and provide a forum where
>> people of all faith and orientation can freely discuss the
>> doctrine and history of Bahaism.
>>
>> I am urging you to take a moment and vote YES to the creation
>> of "talk.religion.bahai" newsgroup. This forum will be the
>> only widely accessible way for non-Bahais to reply to the
>> misinformation posted on SRB. IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS TOPIC,
>> truth, justice, and the poor souls misguided by this
>> movement's propaganda, help create a newsgroup where all of
>> US CAN FREELY speak and exchange information on the topic.
>> ....
>> I know that many of the individuals who WOULD BE INTERESTED
>> in talk.religion.bahai, do not read the postings in
>> news.announce.newgroups, where the announcement of this vote
>> was made. I hope that those who ARE INTERESTED IN THIS TOPIC
>> ARE BENEFITTED BY THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AND WILL VOTE.
>>....
I do not want to help our Bahai missionary friends to once more
change the topic from their inability to defend their ideology and
censorship of soc.religion.bahai. But, how is this an attempt to
"schew vote" when it clearly addresses people who are interested
in the topic and mentions where the original announcement has
been made?
I still do not understand why Bahais who control soc.religion.bahai
are so vehemently opposed to creation of an unmoderated
newsgroup (talk.religion.bahai) where the truth can be freely
spoken? Anything we need to know about their true doctrine,
history, and claims about other faiths (specially Islam) that you
prefer to keep on your moderated list?
Padideh
Kavosh Soltani wrote
>Do you suppose, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad(pbut) sat in their
>houses hoping that people would see the light?! Obviously, not.
>They knew their duty and they cared enough about their fellow
>man to take the initiative...
>
Good grief, Kavosh! Do you atrocious people never discuss anything other
than your adopted mon0-syllables?
It is a curious thing, I think, that every creed including your Islam
promises a paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for anyone of
civilized taste. And quite frankly, I can't see any of you with your ideas
of shoving your ideas down people's throats getting passed the gate of the
Islamic heaven.
Hell is allright! The human mind (in this case yours) is inspired enough
when it comes to inventing horrors. It is when it tries to invent a heaven
that it shows itself up. In short, I would not credit you (in plural) with
no more than a figure of farce.
LIMBO is the place to be. In limbo one has natural happiness without
the beatific vision. No communal orders BUT wine and conversation and
imperfect humanity.
Limbo for the unholy, for the pious heathen. - the sincere skeptic.
In limbo bAshid,
Padideh.
P.S. Please, please take your ideas to alt.religious.islam
>
>
>
>
Kavosh Soltani
>Friends:
>Kavosh is not an official "proponent" of talk.religion.bahai--though he is
>an "associate" of Fred Glaysher who is an official proponent. (They cross
>link each others websites)
Which web site of mine are you referring to?!!! I am not an
"associate" of Mr. Glaysher, nor do I have a web site...
However, your EMail points out why some people readily accept
the inventions of Bahai missionaries about the history of their
doctrine and their status in the light of the teachings of Islam.
Instead of investigating the truth, some people will believe what
they WANT to believe.
Peace.
Robert A. Little
Mr. Soltani has quoted extensively from the Koran and from, I believe
(please correct me if I am wrong) the Haadith.
For example, ""In the latter Days, there will come forth men who
> will deceive the world by religion, clothed before
> men in sheepskin because of gentleness, their tongues
> sweeter than sugar, and their hearts the hearts of
> wolves." (Tirmidhi)
We have here a case of two messages: One tells of Muhammad, and the Koran,
and says it is the Truth, that no truth has come after it, and that it is
superior to all truths which have come before it. It is the ultimate truth.
The other message says that Truth is progressive, that God has once again,
as in the past, come to mankind to renew His religion. That He has given to
us Baha'u'llah - the Glory of God - and that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled the
promises given to mankind by God in past dispensations by Moses, Christ and
by Muhammad.
It is very clear. There is but one God, who knows all things. There can be
no usurper of God, no power greater than God, no denial of God, no rejecter
of the will of God.
Therefore, pray to God for guidance, ask for assistance, cleanse your heart
of all but God, and He will lead you arright!
Or, perhaps, you do not believe that God will answer your prayers. After
all, it has been over 150 years, and now there are Baha'is everywhere. More
Baha'is every day, in more towns and villages and forests and plains and
mountains and islands and meadows. These Baha'is pray to God every day. They
fast every year. They strive to attain the virtues of God. They are obedient
to their governments, and they work to better the lot of their neighbors.
They strive to rid their hearts of racism and prejudice and materialism,
they leave their homes in the cities and journey into places where no
Baha'is have ever lived. They settle down, and soon more people are Baha'is,
and new communities come into being.
Do you believe that God answers your prayer, Kavosh? After all, what does
"Kavosh" mean? Does it not mean SEEKER?
Robert A. Little
Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <75cf71$qek$1...@remarQ.com>...
Robert A. Little
deprive elderly Baha'is of their hard-earned pensions and homes, strip
working-age Baha'is of their family businesses, farms and homes, and
prohibit the education of school age youth and children. It is permissible
to jail, sentence to death, and hang Baha'is (latest: Mr. Rowhani, July
1998) who you falsely accuse of the heineous crime of leading someone to the
Baha'i Faith. It is permissible to kill teenage girls (Mona) for not denying
their love for Baha'u'llah.
And finally, you are saying that not only is it permissible to do these
things but if the Baha'is have the temerity to object to this, or remind you
of past murders, you say "Please stop insulting Shia and Islamic
communities. This is very bad habit and it may not serve you well!"
You can only kill people once.
Are you a student of history? Do you remember the events of nearly 1000
years ago?
At that time, the Holy Roman Empire launched a series of holy crusades
(Jihads) against the "infidels" who had taken possession of Jerusalem (637
a.d.). The Christians managed to rape and kill every living human being
within the city. They succeeded in their goal. However, Islam continued to
grow and spread, continued to win new converts to the much higher spiritual
message of Muhammad. Christians found in the Koran a higher level of truth,
and a continuation of the revelation that had begun with Abraham. The Holy
Roman Empire was spiritually dead, and Islam was vibrant, alive, spiritually
powerful. Islam knew that it would win the war for the hearts of the people,
and was little concerned about the war of swords.
Today, Who are the leaders Muslims have chosen or been given? Do your Muslim
countries exemplify the same spiritual energy and reverence and humility and
obedience to God as they did 1000 years ago? Think about this question. It
is not meant to insult or denigrate either the Koran or Muhammad. It is
meant to make you contemplate. The Koran is the perfect word of God. It is
eternal. Do you believe that means that Islam is also perfect?
Who do you admire? Men and women who call you to the love of God and His
creation? Or do you admire men who call for war, who thirst for blood?
Which do you aspire to: the acquisition of greater understanding of the
message of God? Or, the destruction of your enemies?
I'll make it simple:
Love?
Hate?
Robert A. Little
Massoud Ajami wrote in message ...
>X-no-archive: yes
>In article <36796B...@geocities.com> Abir Majid <ab...@geocities.com>
writes:
>>From: Abir Majid <ab...@geocities.com>
>>Subject: Ramadhan, (was O MUSLIM! Do your duty!)
>>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:35:42 -0600
>
>>This post is not about the vote for t.r.b.
>
>>A year ago, I voted "no" because I didn't think it was needed. This time
>>I will not vote "no". I think there are more important things in the
>>world to spend time on. This post is about the 28th of Sh'aban, and the
>>coming of Ramadhan.
>
>So why don't you bound yourself not to post in the group that you voted NO!
>
>
>>One hundred and fifty three years ago, on the twenty eighth of Sha'ban,
>>of the year 1266 AH, (two days before Ramadhan started), the mujtahids
>>and divines of Persia, signed the fatwa to execute non less than the
>>Promised Mahdi, the Qa'im of Al-Muhammad, His Holiness the Bab. The
>>whole process was accelerated, so they would enter Ramadhan, with their
>>evil deed behind them. He was executed at noon that same day by a firing
>>squad of 750 soldiers.
>
>Please stop insulting Shia and Islamic communities. This is very bad habit
>and it may not serve you well!
>
>Seyed Muhammadali Bob couldn't even write correct Arabic, much less being
>"Promised Mahdi!"
>
>I know you are trying to serve your purpose, so am I.
>
>Have a nice Christmass!
>
>
ko...@mail.ameritel.net
"Kavosh Soltani" <kav...@muslimsonline.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 17:00:46 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Assalamu Aleikum - URGENT Action Alert
>
> In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious
>
> "Whoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it
> with his hands; and if he is not able to do so, then
> with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then
> with his heart - and that is the weakest of faith."
>
> Dear brothers and sisters,
>
> You can help save countless souls by taking a few minutes
> to read the following and taking immediate action...
>
> For years, Bahais who moderate soc.religion.bahai newsgroup
> have been unfairly blocking postings by people of other faith.
> While they routinely allow posting of their inaccurate
> interpretation of world religions and doctored history of
> their movement, they have been censoring replies, difficult
> of such censorship can be found at:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm
>
> Alhamdolellah, we have until 24th of December to bring some
> justice and parity to the internet and provide a forum where
> people of all faith and orientation can freely discuss the
> doctrine and history of Bahaism.
>
> I am urging you to take a moment and vote YES to the creation
> of "talk.religion.bahai" newsgroup. This forum will be the
> only widely accessible way for non-Bahais to reply to the
> truth, justice, and the poor souls misguided by this
> movement's propaganda, help create a newsgroup where all of
>
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=423230325&search=thread&threaded=1&CONTEXT=
913942335.47579341&HIT_CONTEXT=913942078.49414207&HIT_NUM=2&hitnum=2
"A 4th violation has taken place calling for YES votes and not
presenting people with less than the full CFV.
I denounce all attempts to sway the vote to YES or NO....
Please refrain from such actions.
I am accused below of having been the impetus behind this
development which I categorically deny. A fair-minded reading
of my messages at the links below will perceive that, while I do
agree with the people concerned that it would be in Muslims
best interest to understand and support talk.religion.bahai, I do
not in any way whatsoever call for violating voting guidelines
as has been done. It must be remember that Muslims have as
much right to vote YES for talk.religion.bahai as anyone else,
if, as with anyone else, it is done in accordance with the rules.
We should not allow current events to cloud our eyes....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter
ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai,
or email the votetaker da...@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV." "
"ko...@mail.ameritel.net wrote in message
<759dk5$a86$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <75870q$k...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> "Frederick Glaysher" <fgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Guy Macon wrote in message <754657$r...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>> >
>> >Exactly so. I miself called for NO votes on the home church newsgroup
>> >proposal.
>>
>> The votetaker has notified the proponents that apparently someone's
>> called for a YES vote. I unequivocally denounce such attempts to sway
>> the interest poll and ask everyone to stay calm and let it procede in a
>> fair manner.
>>
>
>I can show you a "yes" call using Dejanews at:
>http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=422694920&search=thread&threaded=1&CONT
EX
>T=9 13847770.201588948&HIT_CONTEXT=913847631.203096240&hitnum=0
>
>It would appear that someone is appealing to Muslims to vote in this matter
>in accordance w/ a religous interest.
>
>I can show you where the idea for such a religious based "yes" call came from:
>
>http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416796153&search=thread&threaded=1&CONT
EXT=9 13848120.201523472&HIT_CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&HIT_NUM=49&hitnum=5
> "I'd like to suggest that it's really in your and other Muslims best
> interest to help create an unmoderated forum, talk.religion.bahai."
>
>
>http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=417100020&CONTEXT=913847750.202965186&h
itnum=97
> "And this is why you and other Muslims really should help
> create an unmoderated forum on the Bahai Faith
> --talk.religion.bahai"
>
>Do you unequivocally denounce these attempts to skew the poll, as well, at
>this time?
>
>Since it appears that a Baha'i may have suggested this call for a "Yes"
>vote, will you note his activities in the updates to "the Baha'i Technique"?
>Will you again blame the Baha'is at large if you are not happy with the outcome
>of the vote, or will you single out this individual for special attention as
>an obstacle to the formation of t.r.b.?
>
>I think they could be considered an obstacle.
>
>v/r
>Pat
Brian F. Walker
Kavosh Soltani wrote:
> >>Do you unequivocally denounce these attempts to skew the poll, as
> >>well, at this time?
>
> I am afraid that some people are confusing exposing censorship
> at soc.religion.bahai and becoming active in the voting process
> with attempting to "skew the polls" (whatever that means)...
Dear Mr. Soltani,
Skewing the polls refers in essence to a form of vote rigging. Take a
this group which is to be formed, and to which you are opposed. Find the
convening assembly of 100 interested persons. Bring along a thousand of
your supporters who have no interest in the group, but are opposed to
the group. Vote as a bloc. And Lo! You have a 10:1 vote in your favour.
Then leave the meeting. Such is one form of rigging the vote.
> Read what I wrote again:
>
> >> ...Alhamdolellah, we have until 24th of December to bring some
> >> justice and parity to the internet and provide a forum where
> >> people of all faith and orientation can freely discuss the
> >> doctrine and history of Bahaism.
You assert in the name of justice? Supporting vote rigging is justice?
Parity, by involving as many non-interested or opposing parties as
possible? Why not just leave the forum to those who have an interest in
the forum? Oh, I see - not enough justice?
> >> I am urging you to take a moment and vote YES to the creation
> >> of "talk.religion.bahai" newsgroup. This forum will be the
> >> only widely accessible way for non-Bahais to reply to the
> >> misinformation posted on SRB. IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS TOPIC,
> >> truth, justice, and the poor souls misguided by this
> >> movement's propaganda, help create a newsgroup where all of
> >> US CAN FREELY speak and exchange information on the topic.
> >> ....
So, you want Baha'is to vote for a forum which is to be dedicated to
opposing the Baha'is? Oh, I see, you are calling on NON-Baha'is to vote
on a Baha'i forum. OK. I suppose that is fair. Perhaps it should be done
the other way around too ... Oh, that would not be fair, that would be
missionaries proselytizing? I see....
> >> I know that many of the individuals who WOULD BE INTERESTED
> >> in talk.religion.bahai, do not read the postings in
> >> news.announce.newgroups, where the announcement of this vote
> >> was made. I hope that those who ARE INTERESTED IN THIS TOPIC
> >> ARE BENEFITTED BY THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AND WILL VOTE.
> >>....
>
> I do not want to help our Bahai missionary friends to once more
> change the topic from their inability to defend their ideology and
> censorship of soc.religion.bahai. But, how is this an attempt to
> "schew vote" when it clearly addresses people who are interested
> in the topic and mentions where the original announcement has
> been made?
1. The ideology of the Baha'i Faith can be very erffectively
demonstrated to those of insight and pure heart. It does not require
this topic to do so.
2. Censorship is not the issue. Adhering to the stated rules of the
group is the issue.
3. skewing the vote is your attempt to drum up support from those who
have no inherent interest in the group.
As an Iranian, you will be able to defend the need to obey the rules. I
recall defending my brother-in-law who had been assaulted by an Iranian
Moslem on the grounds of his beliefs, and finding that gentleman so
perplex that he should have been stopped. He was of course breaking the
rules of Britain. He then reported me to the Iranian government as an
enemy of the nation. Mind you, he committed the assault on British
territory, so I was not too much in danger. Lucky there was no fatwa
sent against me I suppose. But you see, I suppose I should have realised
that I had broken the rules, as they are palyed in Iran - namely that
Baha'is are fair game for the hunt.
> I still do not understand why Bahais who control soc.religion.bahai
> are so vehemently opposed to creation of an unmoderated
> newsgroup (talk.religion.bahai) where the truth can be freely
> spoken? Anything we need to know about their true doctrine,
> history, and claims about other faiths (specially Islam) that you
> prefer to keep on your moderated list?
As far as I know:
1. they are not vehemently opposed, simply opposed.
2. An unmoderated group is a place where the untruth can be easily
spread as well as the truth. Why should the unmoderated group be a
truthful group? Oh, because it now is an islamic group? OIC
3. Anything you need to know? ... well, just read the Baha'i books - the
ones you have not burned yet.
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
We have heard through a series of postings that Baha'u'llah and His followers
are on the path of error. We have heard that Baha'is lie about Muhammad, that
they lie about the Quran, that they lead astray the people of Islam.
In reply, I ask you to consider the following: In Iran, the country where the
Baha'i Faith was born, it is legal for a Muslim to assault a Baha'i. It is
legal to hang a Baha'i. It is legal to hang girls who refuse to deny their
faith in Baha'u'llah.
I do not say this to complain, but rather to make a point: If it is a lie, why
is it that generation after generation of Iranians not only maintain their
faith in the Glory of God - Baha'u'llah, but thousands upon thousands of their
countrymen join them. They are obedient to God, they pray to God daily, they
fast, they turn the other cheek when they are assaulted, when their homes and
businesses are stolen from them, and their husbands, wives, sons and daughters
are murdered. They love each other, they love God, they love His creation.
Why is it that today hundreds of young girls have been given the name of
Mona? Mona, after all, was a young girl in Shiraz, who was jailed and
threatened with death if she did not recant her faith in Baha'u'llah. That
threat was enforced. Today, there are hundreds of Monas. Mona lives, you
cannot kill her, you cannot kill the Baha'is fast enough.
Baha'is sing the praises of Abraham, Moses, Christ and Muhammad. They say that
to reject one of these Holy beings is to reject them all.
Who is it who rejects?
Robert A. Little
In article <75cf71$qek$1...@remarQ.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Gary L. King
<kav...@muslimsonline.com> wrote:
>Abir Majid wrote in message <36796B...@geocities.com>...
>>
>>It's a rather common belief among followers of different religions, that
>>God's pleasure with us and His forgiveness of sins is linked to the way
>>we live, and the deeds we perform, the strength of our belief, and
>>ultimately His own Will and Pleasure.
>
>
>More important are sincerity of faith, submission to Allah, and
>piety... Following a wrong prophet is akin to following a man who
>claimed to be god. That is the sad condition Bahais find themselves
>in. As Allah has said:
..as the Christians also said about Muhammed. Since the beginning of
time few have believed in the prophet during his time with us.
Mankind never recognizes the prophet because man forms an image of
what HE thinks the next prophet will say, look like, etc.
Unfortunately Allah and the prophet do not feel compelled to comply
with man's preconcieved notions about them. Why is Baha'u'llah the
prophet when Muhammed said he was "the Seal of the Prophets"?
question the meaning of "seal". Or, more simply, because Baha'u'llah
is not a new prophet, nor was Muhammed or Jesus,Moses,or Adam (among
others). They are not new because they are all ONE! Allah is about
unity. Unity of faith, unity of vision, unity of prophecy.
"If you feel you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong." -Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged"
How odd that a quote from an athiest would be so apt in this case.
Salaam.
Gary L. King
ore...@bigfoot.com
<http://www.bigfoot.com/~oreocat>
Gary L. King
<kav...@muslimsonline.com> wrote:
>This is all false propaganda by Bahai missionaries and writers. The
>ulama actually recommended to the king that Ali Hussein (aka Bab)
>not be executed because:
>
> 1. He repented in writing and said he never had claimed to be
> Mahdi;
>
> 2. They excused any past mistake on his mental condition...
>
>He was executed, not by the order of Ulama, but the order of prime
>minister, because Bab's followers had killed thousands of innocent
>people around the country and was aiming to free him from jail and
>continue their uprising against the government... Bab was executed
>for having had sinister ideas about the king and government...
Actually, this is the propaganda. This is what the ulamas spread to
justify thier bloodthirst.
>Truth on Bahaism: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/main.htm
>
>>Since when does one go to a rabbi to learn about Christianity, or to a
>>priest to learn about Islam, or to the "Pentagon !!??" to learn about
>>religion and peace?
>
>
>Brothers and sisters, anytime a Bahai missionary tries to sweet talk
>you or quote you selected passages of the Quran which they picked
>up from Muslim forums, remember this attitude of theirs and realize
>why they have not found guidance. They mock at the word of Allah
>and His Messenger(pbuh). As Allah has said:
I have never seen any Baha'i treat the Qur'an with anything but
respect. And we read it.
> "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a
> matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger
> to have any option about their decision: if any one
> disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a
> clearly wrong Path."
> (Holy Quran, 33:36)
>
> "If any one contends with the Prophet even after guidance
> has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path
> other than that becoming to men of faith, We shall leave
> him in the path he has chosen and land him in Hell, what
> an evil refuge." (Holy Quran, 4:110)
>
>Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) has taught:
>
> "The chain of Messengers and Prophets has come to an end.
> There shall be no Messenger nor Prophet after me."
> (Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, Anas bin Malik)
See my prior post on this.
> "I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am the effacer and infidelity
> shall be erased through me; I am the assembler. People shall
> be assembled on Doomsday after my time. And I am the last
> in the sense that no prophet shall succeed me."
> (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Muatta')
>
> "No Prophet will come after me and there will, therefore,
> be no other community of followers of any new Prophet."
> (Baihaqi, Tabarani)
We are the same community.
> "My position in relation to the prophets who came before
> me can be explained by the following example: A man
> erected a building and adorned this edifice with great
> beauty, but he left an empty niche, in the corner where
> just one brick was missing. People looked around the
> building and marveled at its beauty, but wondered why a
> brick was missing from that niche? I am like unto that
> one missing brick and I am the last in the line of the
> Prophets." (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad)
>
> "There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and
> each one of them will pronounce to the world that
> he is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of
> the Prophets of God and no Prophet will come after
> me." (Abu Dawood, Tirmizi)
>
> "In the latter Days, there will come forth men who
> will deceive the world by religion, clothed before
> men in sheepskin because of gentleness, their tongues
> sweeter than sugar, and their hearts the hearts of
> wolves." (Tirmidhi)
I'm sorry! I just realized my error. These are not from the Qur'an
but from hadith. Two different things, as many Muslims will argue.
In many instances the isnad were manufactured to justify political
intrigue or ambition. The Qur'an is God's Holy word. hadith is not.
>=============================================
>
> "But as to those who rejected Allah, (to them will
> be said): "Were not Our Signs rehearsed to you? But
> you were arrogant, and were a people given to sin!"
> (Holy Quran, 45:31)
>
>
>
Gary L. King
ore...@bigfoot.com
<http://www.bigfoot.com/~oreocat>
Scott Birch
Gary L. King wrote
>
>
>Mankind never recognizes the prophet because man forms an image of
>what HE thinks the next prophet will say, look like, etc.
>Unfortunately Allah and the prophet do not feel compelled to comply
>with man's preconcieved notions about them. Why is Baha'u'llah the
>prophet when Muhammed said he was "the Seal of the Prophets"?
>question the meaning of "seal".
Oh. You mean he could balance a beachball on his nose and
bang his flippers together?
So much for my preconceived notions,
Scott.
Gary L. King
<scott...@mcmail.com> wrote:
>
>Gary L. King wrote
>>
>>
>>Mankind never recognizes the prophet because man forms an image of
>>what HE thinks the next prophet will say, look like, etc.
>>Unfortunately Allah and the prophet do not feel compelled to comply
>>with man's preconcieved notions about them. Why is Baha'u'llah the
>>prophet when Muhammed said he was "the Seal of the Prophets"?
>>question the meaning of "seal".
>
>Oh. You mean he could balance a beachball on his nose and
>bang his flippers together?
>
>So much for my preconceived notions,
>
>Scott.
>
I was trying so hard to resist doing that out of respect. Thank you
for lightening the mood a bit. No offense to Muhammed (pbuh).
ko...@mail.ameritel.net
Pat Kohli had previously asked Fred Glaysher:
> >>Do you unequivocally denounce these attempts to skew the poll, as
> >>well, at this time?
"Kavosh Soltani" <kav...@muslimsonline.com> wrote:
> I am afraid that some people are confusing exposing censorship
> at soc.religion.bahai and becoming active in the voting process
> with attempting to "skew the polls" (whatever that means)...
soc.religion.bahai is a moderated newsgroup; not everything that gets
submitted gets printed. I've been rejected by soc.religion.bahai.
Censorship at soc.relgion.bahai would be a charge I would want to take
seriously. Someone other than yourself makes the charge that they are being
censured by the Baha'is. They write extensively about it on newsgroups and
they have a website dedicated to their purported loss of freedom of speech.
Now if someone told me about a third party being censured, I'd be inclined to
consider the possibility, but when the world hears about the censorship from
the very hand which is supposedly being censored, the statement is self
contradictory.
I can understand that srb does not want to further embarass some party by
further disseminating the claim that they are themsleves being gagged by the
Baha'is. Your case is an entirely different matter.
I would be concerned that you, or anyone else is being censored at srb,
simply because of their faith. I can accept that possibly you have not
submitted anything that meets their standards. They like to see quotes from
Baha'u'llah; I don't read you quoting Baha'u'llah. They are receptive to the
questioning of Baha'i beliefs; you tend to conclude that Baha'i beliefs are
just baloney. Perhaps it is just a matter of saying what you want in a
certain way, as if it were subject to editorial review.
I would be happy to work with you on an article for soc.religion.bahai. I
would even write one that you could respond to, or try to help you with a
response. ko...@mail.ameritle.net.
If you can't get published at srb, even when you adhere to their guidelines, I
will be very concerned. That they don't publish everything that a certain
Baha'i might send them is no surprise at all to me, another matter entirely.
I see censorship at s.r.b as a different, though perhaps to some a related
matter, than talk.religion.bahai. There is no talk.religion.islam.
> Read what I wrote again:
>
> >> ...Alhamdolellah, we have until 24th of December to bring some
> >> justice and parity to the internet and provide a forum where
> >> people of all faith and orientation can freely discuss the
> >> doctrine and history of Bahaism.
> >>
> >> I am urging you to take a moment and vote YES to the creation
> >> of "talk.religion.bahai" newsgroup. This forum will be the
> >> only widely accessible way for non-Bahais to reply to the
> >> misinformation posted on SRB. IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS TOPIC,
> >> truth, justice, and the poor souls misguided by this
> >> movement's propaganda, help create a newsgroup where all of
> >> US CAN FREELY speak and exchange information on the topic.
> >> ....
> >> I know that many of the individuals who WOULD BE INTERESTED
> >> in talk.religion.bahai, do not read the postings in
> >> news.announce.newgroups, where the announcement of this vote
> >> was made. I hope that those who ARE INTERESTED IN THIS TOPIC
> >> ARE BENEFITTED BY THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AND WILL VOTE.
> >>....
>
> I do not want to help our Bahai missionary friends to once more
> change the topic from their inability to defend their ideology and
> censorship of soc.religion.bahai. But, how is this an attempt to
> "schew vote" when it clearly addresses people who are interested
> in the topic and mentions where the original announcement has
> been made?
Since the message was posted to alt.religion.islam, soc.culture.iranian and
uk.religion.islam as well as alt.religion.bahai, and since the message seems
to address Muslims, some may conclude that you have addressed people who are
not interested in the topic, though they may appreciate some heavenly reward.
I should point out, though, that it is Fred Glaysher, not I, who has
"unequivocally denounced" attempts at skewing the polls. I asked him the
question since I had seen him put you up to this and I was apalled at how he
seemed to have completely forgotten his role in the matter. You know what the
title to Surah 63 is; you seem to be quite sincere. On the other hand, Mr.
Glaysher, who unequivocally denounced your call to Muslims for a 'yes' vote,
after he, himself had suggested it, seems to be another matter.
> I still do not understand why Bahais who control soc.religion.bahai
> are so vehemently opposed to creation of an unmoderated
> newsgroup (talk.religion.bahai) where the truth can be freely
> spoken? Anything we need to know about their true doctrine,
> history, and claims about other faiths (specially Islam) that you
> prefer to keep on your moderated list?
I've heard nothing at all from the srb Baha'is about talk.religion.bahai. I
doubt you will see any discussion there. An unmoderated newsgroup for
discussion of the Baha'i Faith is already in use and your message was posted
to it. The truth is seldom spoken on a.r.b. though. For information on true
beliefs and parctices of the Baha'is, see http://www.bahai.org/, for English
translations of the writings of the Central Figures and central institutions,
see http://www.bcca.org/~kalantar/writings/, for a brief history see
http://www.interlog.com/~winters/encyclopedia/history.html
I understand that you believe you were censored on srb. I suspect that there
is a misunderstanding. I would be concerned if srb is censorsing your
messages, rather than simply applying their standards equally. I have
offered my assistance so that I myself may experience censorship if it is
occuring. I encourage you Agha Soltani, if you wish to continue to claim
that you were censored, to get some substantiation. I, and I would imagine,
other Baha'is will be happy to cooperate to determine if this is or is not
really happening, regardless of the outcome of the trb poll.
Khoda Hafez!
Kavosh Soltani
> [snip]
I was very impressed by how Mr. Walker is able to read mind
and knows one's unstated intentions! I guess he is entitled to
his conjectures... However, I am more interested in the following:
> ... well, just read the Baha'i books - the ones you have not burned yet.
Would you care to produce any evidence for what you have written
about me or does you doctrine allow you to resort to any kind of
unfounded accusation to demonize people? Sir, these kinds of
strategies may work on naive people, but they belong among immoral
politicians and not with those who claim to believe in a Supreme Entity.
Information on Islam:
http://www.discoverislam.com
http://www.beconvinced.com
http://www.it-is-truth.org
Information on Bahaism:
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm
Brian F. Walker
I was very impressed by how Mr. Walker is able to read mind
and knows one's unstated intentions! I guess he is entitled to
his conjectures... However, I am more interested in the following:
:) Many thanks. I do take a pleasure in practising communication
skills, which I teach medical students in my role as a doctor - the ability
to precisely define what is really meant to enable a better standard of
medicine to be practised.
> ... well, just read the Baha'i books - the ones you have not burned yet
Would you care to produce any evidence for what you have written
about me or does you doctrine allow you to resort to any kind of
unfounded accusation to demonize people? Sir, these kinds of
strategies may work on naive people, but they belong among immoral
politicians and not with those who claim to believe in a Supreme Entity.
Certainly, glad to oblige.
1. The reference was to a generic "you", as applied to the Muslim sacking
of Baha'i premises, and the burning and destruction of Baha'i books on
large-scale pillage and destruction. The references are well documented
by Western and Iranian press
2. Certainly it is true that the Baha'i doctrine forbids unfounded
accusations and personal attacks. Many thanks for giving the opportunity
to reiterate this. I am certain the same applies to Islam.
3. Why do you believe that I think you naive? Is there any way in which
I have suggested this? If so, I apologize sincerely.
Information on Islam:
http://www.discoverislam.com
http://www.beconvinced.com
http://www.it-is-truth.org
Many thanks for the information about Islam, about which I have extensively informed myself. I do in fact take pleasure in being able to teach non-Muslims about the beauty of Islam, and its Divine origin. As a Baha'i I feel obliged to be as well informed about other faiths as my own.
Best regards,
Brian Walker
MindSpring User
Wayne wrote in message ...
>What is the good news of Islam ?
>
>
>
Sub-Zero
MindSpring User wrote in message <7803b9$jqq$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
Wayne
Tariq
6:48
"We send the apostles only to give good news and to warn: so those who
believe and mend (their lives),- upon them shall be no fear, nor shall they
grieve."
22:34
"To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might
celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals
(fit for food). But your Allah is One Allah. Submit then your wills to Him
(in Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves,- "
39:17
"Those who eschew Evil,- and fall not into its worship,- and turn to Allah
(in repentance),- for them is Good News: so announce the Good News to My
Servants,- "
57:12
"One Day shalt thou see the believing men and the believing women- how
their Light runs forward before them and by their right hands: (their
greeting will be): "Good News for you this Day! Gardens beneath which flow
rivers! to dwell therein for aye! This is indeed the highest Achievement!"
"
Quotations from TMQ (Translation of the Meanings of the Qur'an) by A.Yusuf
Ali.
Wayne <gr...@orcon.co.nz> wrote in article <newscache$lypr5f$cp4@news>...
PaulG
Wayne wrote:
> What is the good news of Islam ?
Bismillah ir-Rahmaan ir-Raheem
There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah. This is
the good news, and the truth.
Further, is it not good news that we were created to worship Him alone
and will return to Him on the Last Day?
Regards and Salaam,
Br. PaulG
8{)
Metta
what's happening..!
I think what he means is, REAL good news.
PaulG wrote in message <36A98A26...@hotmail.com>...
PaulG
belief that Jesus (pbuh) is God. Does that make them truly Christian? Some
would say so, but they would be wrong.
When people on this group attack Islam, they usually use the worst examples
of adherents of the faith and attempt to tar all Muslims with that same
brush.
I imagine it's the same with those attacking other faiths on other groups,
but it is a lousy way to attempt to make a point.
A Muslim who would try to justify heinous acts is just as wrong as a
Christian trying to justify the bombing of abortion clinics, or a Jew trying
to justify terrorism by the worst examples of Judaism.
False premise. Try something else.
Regards,
PaulG
8{)
Metta <ru...@jazzandjava.com> wrote in message news:78elhc$hl2@indo-news...