Baha'u'llah said
Michael McKenny
grace of God and with the aid of seemly words and praiseworthy deeds that
the unsheathed swords of the Babi community were returned to their
scabbards. Indeed through the power of good words, the righteous have
always succeeded in winning command over the meads iof the hearts of men.
Say, O ye loved ones! Do not forsake prudence. Incline your hearts to the
counsels given by the Most Exalted Pen and beware lest your hands or
tongues cause harm unto anyone among mankind."
stevebl...@yahoo.com
These words do not make Husayn-Ali anything different to what he was, a
pretender. While he was busy preaching these "good words", he was also
busy instructing his men to commit the unthinkable, murder and lie.
"It was through the grace of God and with the aid of seemly words and
This is of course nonsense. What those Babis believed they were doing
was to defend themselves at a time when the savagery and atrocities
against them had reached its peek. Now, Bahais skilfully can eat a
piece of cake in to ways. On one hand they present the heroism and
courage shown Babis as part of their own history and at the same time
come up with this sort of nonsense for obvious implications.
Firstly, the armed defence of the Babis was at a time when the whole
Iranian army initiated a systematic persecution of the Babis to uproot
them. Secondly, it happened at a time when their master was imprisoned
in the most inaccessible places with harshest conditions and his
immediate disciples and folowers were at the forefront of a struggle
during which majority of them lost their lives.
Now, compare this with Husayn-Ali sitting in his 5-star accommodation
with tens of maids and servants running around to provide for his
pleasure with a pipe to his lips sitting on a donated Persian rug
writing: "Strife and conflict befit the beasts of the wild."
Well, he fits exactly into that category because that is what he was
involved in.
One more thing, it was at least 15 years after the armed insurgencies
had settled and there was no more of that kind of struggle. Moreover,
the 'Mirror' of 'His Holiness, the Most High' had already instructed
his people to lay down arms. So the 'command' to 'put swords to their
scabbards' was just grand-standing as with the rest of his writings.
With Non-Bahai love and peace
Steve
Heather Carr-Rowe
Baha'u'llah also said the following:
O Shaykh! My Pen, verily, lamenteth over Mine own Self, and My Tablet
weepeth sore over what hath befallen Me at the hands of one (Mirza Yahya)
over whom We watched for successive years, and who, day and night, served in
My presence, until he was made to err by one of My servants, named Siyyid
Muhammad. Unto this bear witness My believing servants who accompanied Me in
My exile from Baghdad to this, the Most Great Prison. And there befell Me at
the hands of both of them that which made every man of understanding to cry
out, and he who is endued with insight to groan aloud, and the tears of the
fair-minded to flow.
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 69)
What he fails to mention is that his half brother Mirza Yahya was the Bab's
legitmate spiritual heir and that it was the Bab's W&T that gave that
legitimacy to Miza Yahya. The bait and switch, protection of Baha' argument
just doesn't wash when examined closely.
What he fails to mention as well is that his followers had murdered Siyyid
Muhammad and that he was privy to his followers plans to murder Siyyid
Muhammad before the act was comitted and did nothing to prevent those
murders from occuring.
Under the same circumstances today such a religous leader would be held
accountable for the actions of his followers and posibly even culpable
because he did nothing to prevent murders which he could have prevented by
alerting the proper authorities.
There is illumination to be found in some of Baha'u'llah's words but there
is a darkness as well to be found in his inactions, inactions which allowed
several men to be murdered.
Yours Larry
Michael McKenny
(stevebl...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Dear Michael
> These words do not make Husayn-Ali anything different to what he was, a
> pretender. While he was busy preaching these "good words", he was also
> busy instructing his men to commit the unthinkable, murder and lie.
Many thanks for your comments. I have also read the Byzantine historians
who alleged that the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, was given to
epilepsy and the Koran promises an orgy to believers in the next world.
There is no need to understand reality in such a manner, and even if one
does look at the world through such eyes, still it remains correct that a
belief in the spirituality of the Prophet, the Koran, all the great
religious teachings is more conducive to human harmony than a belief in
the despicable nature of them, even if this belief is factual.
What I mean is that if people are looking at the Koran or another sacred
text with spiritual eyes, understanding these religions as beneficial
means to human advancement toleration (as the great Islamic societies in
Spain and in the empire of Akbar), then these religions are advantageous
to humanity and the source of human prosperity, whatever one may imagine,
or even know, about the origins of these religions. The result is good.
If one use these religions, even if they have really come directly from
God as a means to create disorder in the world and inflict harm upon
fellow creatures of the All Merciful, then they are not beneficial.
In a Baha'i context, Baha'u'llah has said that it were better if there
were no religion at all, than that religion be used as an excuse to have
conflict between humans.
> "It was through the grace of God and with the aid of seemly words and
> praiseworthy deeds that ..."
> This is of course nonsense. What those Babis believed they were doing
> was to defend themselves at a time when the savagery and atrocities
> against them had reached its peek. Now, Bahais skilfully can eat a
> piece of cake in to ways. On one hand they present the heroism and
> courage shown Babis as part of their own history and at the same time
> come up with this sort of nonsense for obvious implications.
In the Koran the teaching is that offensive warfare is forbidden, and that
a community may defend itself. This teaching was followed by the
Babis. Baha'u'llah outlawed religious warfare, saying that in this age the
aim of a religious person is to understand the entire species of humans
are included in the brotherhood/sisterhood of the All Merciful. There are
to be no people perceived as enemies, so there can be no warfare.
> Firstly, the armed defence of the Babis was at a time when the whole
> Iranian army initiated a systematic persecution of the Babis to uproot
> them. Secondly, it happened at a time when their master was imprisoned
> in the most inaccessible places with harshest conditions and his
> immediate disciples and folowers were at the forefront of a struggle
> during which majority of them lost their lives.
> Now, compare this with Husayn-Ali sitting in his 5-star accommodation
> with tens of maids and servants running around to provide for his
> pleasure with a pipe to his lips sitting on a donated Persian rug
> writing: "Strife and conflict befit the beasts of the wild."
> Well, he fits exactly into that category because that is what he was
> involved in.
This is interesting, and even if it is completely true, in this time today
when humans have invented atomic bombs, terrible bacteriological warfare
capacity and other frightful means to exterminate the species, the
advancement of human interaction above bestial conflict and strife is so
demonstrably a desireable means of conducting human interaction, that this
pipe smoking gentleman with his maids and splendid carpet is correct, and
let this advice be followed, whoever said it, and however many pipes he
was smoking.
>
> One more thing, it was at least 15 years after the armed insurgencies
> had settled and there was no more of that kind of struggle. Moreover,
> the 'Mirror' of 'His Holiness, the Most High' had already instructed
> his people to lay down arms. So the 'command' to 'put swords to their
> scabbards' was just grand-standing as with the rest of his writings.
Thank you for the comment. Yes, the point that Baha'u'llah never commanded
the Babis to put up their swords and already they had done so is fine. If
these people could put up the sword much more than a hundred years ago,
then, let us hope the focus can be today by all people on communicating
verbally in a clear, harmonious and peaceful manner.
> With Non-Bahai love and peace
> Steve
>
And the same in return,
Michael
Michael McKenny
"Heather Carr-Rowe" (ro...@northwestel.net) writes:
> What he fails to mention is that his half brother Mirza Yahya was the Bab's
> legitmate spiritual heir and that it was the Bab's W&T that gave that
> legitimacy to Miza Yahya. The bait and switch, protection of Baha' argument
> just doesn't wash when examined closely.
Many thanks for your comments. I very much feel for all those who have
been led to consider the terrible performance of today's Baha'i leaders
and then work backwards looking for the historical origin of this
despicable behaviour.
Actually, in my estimation, it does not matter so much what details are
understood. The needs of the present require an application of that
harmonious inclusion that can also be found in Baha'u'llah's writings. The
point is that any vast body of inspired text can seem to contain an
enormous amount of contradictory material.
Baha'u'llah did say that the duty of every person was to be concerned with
the age in which s/he lives, and that in this age the duty was requiring
harmonious interaction among all humans. So, the efficacy and utility of
different visions of Baha'i can be assessed on this basis and in
conjunction with Baha'u'llah's own statement that religion exists for
concord, amity and friendship, and it were preferable for there to be no
religion than for religion to be a source of conflict and of strife.
> What he fails to mention as well is that his followers had murdered Siyyid
> Muhammad and that he was privy to his followers plans to murder Siyyid
> Muhammad before the act was comitted and did nothing to prevent those
> murders from occuring.
On the other hand, if someone stumbles into a ditch drunk, no one has
claimed it is the fault of Muhammad. A teacher teaches and a student has
the duty to pay attention to the beneficial teaching of his teacher.
> Under the same circumstances today such a religous leader would be held
> accountable for the actions of his followers and posibly even culpable
> because he did nothing to prevent murders which he could have prevented by
> alerting the proper authorities.
Ah, now this is a horse of a different colour. Well, even if it turns out
to be correct, the fact remains that today encouraging all people of all
faiths to be respectful to each other, to get along harmoniously and to be
examples of peaceful interaction is beneficial, productive and highly to
be prayed for.
> There is illumination to be found in some of Baha'u'llah's words but there
> is a darkness as well to be found in his inactions, inactions which allowed
> several men to be murdered.
You know, if there is a great teacher that says it is healthier to abstain
from alcohol and to be moderate in eating and to get a normally good
night's sleep, if the historians report that he himself attended all night
parties, drank heavily and feasted to excess, this does not erase the
efficacy of his teaching for one alive today. It continues to be true that
avoiding excessive food and drink, as well as avoiding all night parties
really is healthier. It is the same with this point about getting along
and avoiding religious contention. Whether or not one can complain about
Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (the theme of which seems to be to fight
against one's own family, but really an insightful spirit can read it as
struggling against one's own baser nature, and the same can be understood
of modern applications of Koranic references to spiritual struggle) and
argue historically such and such actually was so, now living a peaceful
life harmoniously with all fellow believers, those of other religions, all
humans on Earth is beneficial, constructive and worthwhile.
>
> Yours Larry
>
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
sma...@jam.rr.com
> What he fails to mention as well is that his followers had murdered Siyyid
> Muhammad and that he was privy to his followers plans to murder Siyyid
> Muhammad before the act was comitted and did nothing to prevent those
> murders from occuring.
Baha'u'llah knew that there was a believer who had come to Akka with
the intention of killing Siyyid Muhammad. But He sent that believer
back to Beirut with the following Tablet:
"Go hence and do not perpetrate
that wherefrom mischief will result! Put thy trust in God: verily He
will take whomsoever He will: verily He hath power over all things.
Verily
we have accepted what thou didst intend in the Way of God. Return to
thy
place: then commemorate thy Lord, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy."
(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 323)
When later other believers expressed their desire to do the same thing,
Baha'u'llah likewise forbade it. At one point He told His brother to
kick out the Baha'i who was talking this way.
>
> Under the same circumstances today such a religous leader would be held
> accountable for the actions of his followers and posibly even culpable
> because he did nothing to prevent murders which he could have prevented by
> alerting the proper authorities.
Do you really think that is the way it worked in 19th century
Palestine? The Ottoman authorities had put these contending people
together because they *wanted* them to kill one another! . Baha'u'llah
did whatever He could to prevent these murders, and removed from His
Presence anyone who was contemplating this act. What you fail to
mention is what Baha'u'llah Himself said about this act:
"My imprisonment doeth Me no harm, neither the tribulations I suffer,
nor the things that have befallen Me at the hands of My oppressors.
That which harmeth Me is the conduct of those who, though they bear My
name, yet commit that which maketh My heart and My pen to lament. "
stevebl...@yahoo.com
"I very much feel for all those who have been led to consider the
terrible performance of today's Baha'i leaders and then work backwards
looking for the historical origin of this despicable behaviour."
performance of the founders of Bahaism.
"The needs of the present require an application of that harmonious
inclusion that can also be found in Baha'u'llah's writings.... contain
an enormous amount of contradictory material"
You are either a Bahai or you are not. If you are not move your
discussion to another group which talks about harmony amongst all
sects, religion, etc. where the claim for the righteousness
sect/religion takes a back seat for the benefit of harmony and I will
walk with you.
But if your intention is to promote Bahaism throough presenting its
'message' then you are confined to the principals which Husayn-Ali's
master introduced and he rehashed. That is believing in the true
manifestation of the age takes the highest priority. That is if
hypothetically you have the most harmonious community and yet it fails
to recognise and follow the true manifestation of the age then it has
failed.
"Baha'u'llah did say that the duty of every person was to be concerned
with
the age in which s/he lives, and that in this age the duty was
requiring
harmonious interaction among all humans."
I can only repeat what I said before, such harmony was neither
practiced nor led by example by Husayn-Ali and his successors.
" A teacher teaches and a student has the duty to pay attention to the
beneficial teaching of his teacher."
Not if the teacher himself promoted the hatred and benefited from it.
The bulk of Husayn-Ali's writings is riddled with expression of hatred
for the assassinated Sayyed Muhammad Ali. Awara a one time secretary of
Abbas Effendi tells us Baha implicitly sanctioned the killings. The
killers were released before they do their time by 'prayers' of
Husayn-Ali and intervention of Abbas.
Now if you or s.o else tells me that Husayn-Ali was not implicated
because he said so then I would say, what else did you expect the man
to say.
"Well, even if it turns out to be correct, the fact remains that today
encouraging all people of all faiths to be respectful to each other, to
get along harmoniously and to be
examples of peaceful interaction is beneficial, productive and highly
to be prayed for."
No my dear. If it is correct (which it is) then you should correct
course, and take the "good words" from a good man.
"You know, if there is a great teacher that says it is healthier to
abstain from alcohol ...., this does not erase the efficacy of his
teaching for one alive today."
I have a suggestion. You agree with me that Husayn-Ali was not the
manifestation of God but a teacher preaching "good words" and lots of
it as you say then I will reconsider.
Your peace loving friend,
Steve
hong...@gmail.com
"Whatsoever passethe beyond the limits of moderation will cease to
exert a beneficial influence."
This applies as much to restricting freedom, as it does to unbridled
licence.
Moderation is the balance between two extremes, both of which fail to
be beneficial.
This applies as much to excessive dictation by the Universal House of
Justice and excessive obedience of anything at all from the Universal
House of Justice as it does to failing to legislate and refusal by
Baha'is to obey anything at all. Both extremes are covered in this
divine statement. It has priority above the supposition that everything
Baha'u'llah said is to be taken literally and nothing Baha'u'llah said
is to be taken literally. This one you can take literally.
Peace,
Michael
Polychrysos
accountable for the actions of his followers and posibly even culpable
because he did nothing to prevent murders which he could have prevented
by alerting the proper authorities. There is illumination to be found
in some of Baha'u'llah's words but there is a darkness as well to be
found in his inactions, inactions which allowed several men to be
murdered.
Larry,
Far be it from me to accuse you of anything. Let's not cast any
stones. I might ask you just what good you think it does to repeat
words of hate about someone that others love. I might ask how this
serves the notion that we are all "as one soul" to harp continously on
shortcomings that are not your own. And I might ask what is so
spiritually enlightened about making accusations of complicity in
murder. Is this the kind of message the world needs? Is this the
example of love and harmony we will set?
Brendan
stevebl...@yahoo.com
"I might ask you just what good you think it does to repeat words of
hate about someone that others love."
be what he pretended to be that is 'the manifestation of God). One of
the reasons was that his conduct did not match his "lots of good
words".
What good do you think it did when Husayn-Ali filled his writings with
expression of hatred for sayyed Muhammad Ali. My earlier post:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_frm/thread/f9f9224941fe9fb2/c38b9cd9fb07e0f8?hl=en#c38b9cd9fb07e0f8
"I might ask how this serves the notion that we are all "as one soul"
to harp continously on shortcomings that are not your own."
You are a much better man than Husayn-Ali, I can give you that.
"And I might ask what is so spiritually enlightened about making
accusations of complicity in murder."
You should be asking yourself this question when reading Baha'i
literature accusing just about everyone else.
Steve
Heather Carr-Rowe
The fact is that Baha'u'llah was told by Ustad the barber of his intentions
to murder Siyyid Muhammad and several other Bayanis. The fact is that he did
nothing with this information and the murders took place inspite of his
having foreknowledge of Ustad's plans for murder. When someone makes claims
of being the Most Great Infallibility and a unique Manifestation of God they
had better show through the integrity of their actions that they are at
least ethical and moral, especially when they are in a leadership role.
Thing is Brendan is still love Baha'u'llah just the same even though he
wasn't even close to being infallible. I love him simply because he is a
fellow man, a fellow human being and because I can relate to his dreams and
visions because I have personally had such dreams and visions myself.
Thing is I'm not claiming any sort of infallibility or any special
spiritual status because of those dreams and visions. Neither am I trying to
create a religion in which my interpretations are used as the basis for the
setting up of yet another superannuated tradition.
When people set up a man as an intermediary between themselves and God it
leads to all sorts of excess'. The excess of the way Michael, Alison and Sen
were treated by the U.H.J.because they didn't fit a House members personal
interpretation of Baha'i tradition, the way I've been treated by Alison and
Karen because my interpretations vary from their own.
This is cult behavior pure and simple and if it takes bringing the supposed
perfect man down to earth with the rest of us, where they've always been
anyways, then so be it.
It is such cultish aspects of religion which cause religionists to
dysfunction just as the supposedly holy family deeply dysfunctioned, this
inspite of their supposed holiness.
If a persons love of someone is based on an irreal picture of that person
just how true and real is that love?
Yours Larry
All Bad
Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
> Howdy Michael,
>
> Baha'u'llah also said the following:
>
> O Shaykh! My Pen, verily, lamenteth over Mine own Self, and My Tablet
> weepeth sore over what hath befallen Me at the hands of one (Mirza Yahya)
> over whom We watched for successive years, and who, day and night, served in
> My presence, until he was made to err by one of My servants, named Siyyid
> Muhammad. Unto this bear witness My believing servants who accompanied Me in
> My exile from Baghdad to this, the Most Great Prison. And there befell Me at
> the hands of both of them that which made every man of understanding to cry
> out, and he who is endued with insight to groan aloud, and the tears of the
> fair-minded to flow.
>
> (Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 69)
>
> What he fails to mention is that his half brother Mirza Yahya was the Bab's
> legitmate spiritual heir and that it was the Bab's W&T that gave that
> legitimacy to Miza Yahya. The bait and switch, protection of Baha' argument
> just doesn't wash when examined closely.
>
Let's look at 'bait and switch'. An heir becomes an equal. For
instance the Prince of Wales, heir to the British throne, in time,
becomes the occupant of the British throne. One someone does, many may
inherit, but _the_ heir, recives the chief titles, etc. such that Jesus
can be seen as the full heir of Moses, or, even better, Rasul Muhammad,
rather than Peter, might be seen as some as the full heir of Jesus
Christ. Peter's inheritance was a Guardianship; he was not, nor would
ever become, a peer of Jesus Christ.
The Primal Point was the Manifestation of God. Subhi Azal was not, and
might not have even claimed to have been, a Manifestation of God. He
was a Guardian of the Bab, rather than a full heir.
Even as a Guardian, how did Subhi Azal do? How well did he safeguard
the writings of his Lord? How well did he safeguard the household of
his Lord?
This is what Muhammad Zarandi wrote about Subhi Azal:
"He ordered the wife of the Bab,
To arrive in Baghdad from land of Sad,
With hundred treachery and contempt,
He took her for one full month,
Afterwards he gave her away,
To that bastard Dajjal from land of Sad,
Whose descendents are from the Devil,
Whose name is the same as mine,"
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/nabil.karbila.html
Subhi Azal passed around the Bab's wife, like a dish of candy!
> What he fails to mention as well is that his followers had murdered Siyyid
> Muhammad and that he was privy to his followers plans to murder Siyyid
> Muhammad before the act was comitted and did nothing to prevent those
> murders from occuring.
>
Perhaps you have the tablet to Ali Basra'i, telling him it would be okay
to bump off Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani? If not, you could just crank it
out...
> Under the same circumstances today such a religous leader would be held
> accountable for the actions of his followers and posibly even culpable
> because he did nothing to prevent murders which he could have prevented by
> alerting the proper authorities.
>
It varies with the viewers. In the eyes of some, it would be completely
acceptable for members of a religious comunity to kill off people with
different religious practices IF the victims are Baha'is, and the eyes
in question are yours. But it is not just your eyes, your hands key out
rationalizations for this oppression, and you have the hypocrisy to
piously prate about how we are all one, did ye but know.
> There is illumination to be found in some of Baha'u'llah's words but there
> is a darkness as well to be found in his inactions, inactions which allowed
> several men to be murdered.
He distanced himself from Subhi Azal, who, in "Mustaqiz" was ordering
the deaths of Babis, like Mirza Abu'l-Qasim Kashani.
Backwards, Larry, you have it bassackwards.
- All Bad
All Bad
Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
> To mention facts is hardly to give word to hate.
>
Lies can be hateful. A fact is something that is supported by evidence.
The fact of a lie, is false evidence.
> The fact is that Baha'u'llah was told by Ustad the barber of his intentions
> to murder Siyyid Muhammad and several other Bayanis.
Backwards, Larry. The fact was that Ustad told Baha'u'llah that he was
to murder Him for Subhi Azal!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One day, while I was attending at the bath, waiting for the
Blessed Perfection to arrive, Azal came in, washed himself and began to
apply henna. I sat down to serve him and he began to talk to me. He
mentioned a former Governor of Nayríz who had killed the believers and
had been an inveterate enemy of the Cause. Azal went on to praise
courage and bravery and said that some were brave by nature and at the
right time it showed in their conduct. He again mentioned Nayríz and
said that at one time there was left of the children of the believers
only one boy, of ten or eleven years. One day when the Governor was in
the bath, this boy went in with a knife, and as the Governor came out of
the water, he stabbed him in the belly and ripped him open. The cried
out and his servants rushed into the bath, saw the boy with the knife in
his hand and attacked him. Then they went to see how their mater was,
and the boy, although wounded, rose up and stabbed him again. Azal again
began to praise bravery and to say how wonderful it is to be courageous.
He then said, 'See what they are doing in the Cause; everybody has risen
up against me, even my brother, and in my wretched state I know nothing
of comfort.' His tone and implication were that he, being the successor
of the Báb, was the wronged one and his Brother an usurper and
aggressor. (I take refuge in God!) Then he again said that bravery is
praiseworthy, and the Cause of God needs help. In all this talk,
relating the story of the Governor of Nayríz and praising bravery and
encouraging me, he was really urging me to kill Bahá'u'lláh.
The effect of all this upon me was so disturbing that I had never
felt so shattered in my life. I felt as if the building were tumbling
about me. I said nothing, but in a very agitated state of mind went out
to the ante-room and sat upon the bench there. I told myself that I
would go back to the bath and cut off his head, no matter what the
consequences. Then I reflected that to kill him was not an easy matter
and perhaps I would offend Bahá'u'lláh. Suppose I kill this man, I said
to myself, and then go into the presence of Blessed Perfection and He
asks me why I killed him, what answer could I give? This thought
prevented me from carrying out my intention. I returned to the bath and
being very angry told Azal to 'clear off '* Azal began to whimper and to
tremble and asked me to pour water over his head to wash off the henna.
I complied and he washed and went of the bath in a state of great
trepidation and I have never seen him since.
My condition was such that nothing could calm me. As it happened
the Blessed Perfection did not come to the bath that day, but Mírzá Músá
(Bahá'u'lláh's faithful brother) came and I told him that Azal had set
me on fire with his fearful suggestion. Mírzá Músá said, 'He has been
thinking this for years; take no notice of him. He has always been
thinking in this way.' No one else came to the bath so I closed it. I
then went to the Master* and told Him that Mírzá Yahyá had spoken words
which had infuriated me and that I had wanted to kill him but did not.
The Master said this was something which people did not realise and told
me not to speak of it but to keep it secret. I then went to Mírzá Aqá
Ján (Bahá'u'lláh's amanuensis and secretary) and reported the whole
incident to him and asked him to tell Bahá'u'lláh. Aqá Ján returned and
said: 'Bahá'u'lláh says to tell Ustád Muhammad-'Alí not to mention this
to anyone.'
http://bahai-library.com/?file=balyuzi_bahaullah_brief_life&chapter=1
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The fact is that he did
> nothing with this information and the murders took place inspite of his
> having foreknowledge of Ustad's plans for murder.
Ustad Muhammad Ali did not murder Subhi Azal, as he was tempted to, and
as he told Baha'u'llah that he was tempted to do!
> When someone makes claims
> of being the Most Great Infallibility and a unique Manifestation of God they
> had better show through the integrity of their actions that they are at
> least ethical and moral, especially when they are in a leadership role.
Show me sometime. I'm in favor of it, but it means more when you do it,
rather than talking about it, and doing the opposite.
- All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com
Come to hate the hypocrisy; for the hypocrisy is the evil thought...
-- The Apocryphon of James
I say, no peace without justice. No compassion without equity! Down
with the fluff bunnies and their sedated and sedating doctrines serving
Belial and Moloch!
W
wahid...@gmail.com
"O phlebotomist of the divine unity. Throb like the artery in the body
of contingency, and drink the blood from the bloc heedlessness that he
turned aside from the aspect of thy Lord, the Merciful!"
Down with the fluff bunny hypocrite, michael mckenney!
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
Facts Pat not lies, facts that even Taherzedeh concurs with:
"The seven believers who, against the advice of Bahá'u'lláh and without His
knowledge, perpetrated such a ghastly crime, knew well that their action
would invoke the wrath of Bahá'u'lláh. They knew that He who had expelled
Mirza Rida-Quli from the community merely on the grounds of misbehaviour in
public, would disown them and drive them out of His presence for ever, if
they carried out their intention which was far more reprehensible than the
misdeeds of Mirza Rida-Quli. Indeed, some of them had concluded that by
committing such a crime and dishonouring the good name of the Faith, they
would never be forgiven by God and their souls would be damned in all the
worlds of God. But they could not bear to see Bahá'u'lláh and His loved ones
being so mercilessly attacked with slanders and false accusations. They
decided that they would rather sacrifice their spiritual existence by
committing this reprehensible crime than allow their Lord to suffer in this
way.
(Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 3, p. 235)
Note that Taherzadeh says: " against the advise of Baha'u'llah ", but then
goes on to say: "without his knowledge". The contradiction of Taherzedah's
words is glaring. How can someone give advise to someone against them doing
something and then not have knowledge of what he advised against? Duh.
Baha'u'llah may not have known the specific time and place that Ustad and
his fellow Baha'i thuggies planned to cut the throats of those seven Bayanis
but that he knew of their murderous intentions before they were carried out
is not in question at all. The real question Pat is why didn't Baha'u'llah
take the necessary steps to prevent those murderess from occurring at all by
going to the authorities or actually warning Siyyid Muhhamad and the other
Bayanis that some of his followers were planning to murder them? This is the
question Pat, a question which also brings into question Baha'u'llah's
claims of infallibility let alone most great infallibility.
Baha'u'llah did a big boo boo buy omission and it cost seven men their
lives, some supreme Manifestation of God!
I recommend you read the whole section on Murder of Three Azalis by
Taherzedaeh which can be found on Ocean when searching under: murder Azalis.
The story you speak of is from the Baghdad period I believe and predates
the murders of several Bayanis in Akka by many years.
Edward Browne reports from independent Baha'i sources that the numbers of
Bayanis murdered in Akka was actually seven. He also states that there was
also other murders of Bayanis by Baha'i in the Edirne and Baghdad period.
Abdu'l-Baha' himself while Baha'u'llah still lived, which means that it was
highly likely on Baha'u'llah's behalf, intervened on the Akka Baha'i murders
behalf so that they were released from custody only two years after the
murders were committed!
Not lies Pat, just the facts.
No hatred Pat, just reality.
Yours Larry
John MacLeod
"Heather Carr-Rowe" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote in message
news:35_sf.6063$l87.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> The fact is that Baha'u'llah was told by Ustad the barber of his intentions
> to murder Siyyid Muhammad and several other Bayanis.
I think some confusion can be caused because most of the well-known accounts
of the murders (including I think Taherzedeh's) don't name the perpetrators.
Balyuzi, however, has "Ustad Muhammad-'Aliy-i-Salmani" ..... "involved in
the episode of the murder of the Azalis and, after his release from
prison,...." though he doesn't actually say this was the well-known barber
the names are identical and the brief biog seems to fit.
I must say, having being accustomed to think of Ustad as "the barber" it is
rather disconcerting to think of Ustad as "the murderer".
I couldn't find any support for your idea that Baha'u'llah was told
specifically by Ustad of the intention to murder the Azalis. I realise that
that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Where did you find it?
I don't think the 'contradiction' you find ( in a different post) in
Taherzedeh saying ""The seven believers who, against the advice of Bahá'u'lláh
and without His knowledge, perpetrated such a ghastly crime, " is real. That
Baha'u'llah knew tensions were high and some of His followers were inclined to
violence seems to be generally accepted. The Baha'i story, at least, is that
He consistently advised against such violence. That is quite consistent with
having no foreknowledge of an actual plan to act.
As far as His sin of omission in not warning the authorities or the intended
victims, well it might be a close call but I don't think either the
authorities or the victims would have been in any doubt that tension between
the two camps was high and the potential for violence was there. Unless
Baha'u'llah had some reason to know that the danger was imminent He probably
had nothing new to say.
One thing I do agree with you on though is that, if we love Baha'u'llah, we
must love Him in terms of what He was (as best as we can find out). Part of
that is seeing him in the context of the leader of a small religious faction
composed of people with a fierce loyalty to Him and an equally fierce hatred
of His enemies - real or imagined. During Baha'u'llah's life, in the situation
He was in, murder, violence, and martyrdom as part of religion was common.
You have yet to prove He condoned it but I think His attitude to it was very
different to what ours would be today. There is the passage in the Aqdas
which according to the notes relates to this incident.:
"Behold! God hath laid hold on him who led thee astray."
What evidence I can find is that Baha'u'llah genuinely tried to prevent His
followers perpetrating violence against Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani but when
that violence happened He still saw it as God's judgement on the Siyyid.
I think most religions try to portray their prophet as a really nice guy in
the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" tradition. I don't think its true of Jesus
or Baha'u'llah. Prophets are fiery beings who stir up powerful feelings which
can be misdirected.
If your considered view of infallibility includes behaving in a manner
considered appropriate by all the most respectable people in our current times
then I would agree that Baha'u'llah wasn't infallible. For me, following
Baha'u'llah is a somewhat wilder ride than that.
sma...@jam.rr.com
> be what he pretended to be that is 'the manifestation of God). One of
> the reasons was that his conduct did not match his "lots of good
> words".
Is that true, Larry? Are you now in Nima/Steve's camp?
sma...@jam.rr.com
> to murder Siyyid Muhammad and several other Bayanis. The fact is that he did
> nothing with this information
Larry,
He did do something with this information. He forbade Ustad Salmani and
Aschi to carry out their plans and banished from His presence anyone
who persisted in talking along those lines.
Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> goes on to say: "without his knowledge". The contradiction of Taherzedah's
> words is glaring. How can someone give advise to someone against them doing
> something and then not have knowledge of what he advised against? Duh.
Larry,
How about because previous to this a Baha'i had let Baha'u'llah know
his intentions to murder this man and Baha'u'llah had sent in back to
Baghdad and told him he was to do no such thing. He also had his
brother kick out a Baha'i from His presence who was talking along those
lines.
The real question Pat is why didn't Baha'u'llah
> take the necessary steps to prevent those murderess from occurring at all by
> going to the authorities or actually warning Siyyid Muhhamad and the other
> Bayanis that some of his followers were planning to murder them?
Again, the Ottoman authorities had placed Azalis in the midst of
Baha'is in Akka and Baha'is in the midst of Azalis in Cyprus because
they *wanted* trouble. What good would it have done had Baha'u'llah
gone to anyone and said, "These guys are so mad they want to kill."
That would have only been perceived as threat. A lot of Baha'is were
talking about wanting to get rid of these guys. But most of them obeyed
Baha'u'llah and did nothing.
This is the
> question Pat, a question which also brings into question Baha'u'llah's
> claims of infallibility let alone most great infallibility.
So Baha'u'llah isn't infallible because some Baha'is committed murder?
Great logic. I suppose Jesus isn't infallible becuase Peter cut off
somebody's ear?
Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> of the murders (including I think Taherzedeh's) don't name the perpetrators.
> Balyuzi, however, has "Ustad Muhammad-'Aliy-i-Salmani" .....
Dear John,
Aschi was also involved. And we know from Aschi's own memoirs that he
acted contrary to Baha'u'llah's own wishes and feared he would never be
forgiven. Ahang has those memoirs. You might ask him about them.
> I couldn't find any support for your idea that Baha'u'llah was told
> specifically by Ustad of the intention to murder the Azalis.
I don't know whether Ustad Salmani told Baha'u'llah his intentions
either, but there were apparentally a lot of Baha'is who expressed a
desire to kill these guys. In the case of Nazir who had laid out
definite plans, Baha'u'llah sent him away before he could carry them
out. And then He had his brother kick out somebody else who was talking
along those lines. I think Baha'is must have gotten the message that if
they wanted to see Baha'u'llah they'd better not talk that way around
Him.
I don't think either the
> authorities or the victims would have been in any doubt that tension between
> the two camps was high and the potential for violence was there. Unless
> Baha'u'llah had some reason to know that the danger was imminent He probably
> had nothing new to say.
That's exactly right.
warmest, Susan
rossca...@shaw.ca
Susan wrote:
"So Baha'u'llah isn't infallible because some Baha'is committed murder?
Great logic. I suppose Jesus isn't infallible becuase Peter cut off
somebody's ear?
Susan"
Or because Jesus chose Saul as an apostle even while Saul was assisting
in the murder and imprisonment of Christian believers?
Ross
stevebl...@yahoo.com
We now had a taste of some of the "good words" in Bahai literature. The
limitless number of accusations in Husayn-Ali and his band are nothing
but their fabricated stories with no documentary evidence.
"A fact is something that is supported by evidence"
So where are the evidence provided by Husayn-Ali, his private historian
Zarandi, his son and his grand-son?
" So Baha'u'llah isn't infallible because some Baha'is committed
murder?"
You don't seem to want to get it. The minimum Husayn-Ali did was that
he promoted hatred against the murdered men and his men must have
believed they were doing "god" a favour. In any court today, a leader
who creates a fertile ground for such actions bears the responsibility
for the crime.
" The Primal Point was the Manifestation of God. Subhi Azal was not
.."
You do know that 'The Primal Point' amongst others gave him the title
of 'his Mirror'. Subh-i Azal claims the ' Primal Point' wrote to him 'I
am you and you are me' which is I suppose is explicit in what 'Mirror'
means. In effect he says if I say Husayn-Ali lied, then that is what
'the Primal Point' says.
" This is what Muhammad Zarandi wrote about Subhi Azal:"
Right? So this is the guy who has provided the facts supported by
documentary evidence? Please!
You do know his credentials. What we don't know is how much he was
going to get for his labour. What we do know is that he received what
the other Bayanis got when they finished with him.
"Subhi Azal, who, in "Mustaqiz" was ordering the deaths of Babis, like
Mirza Abu'l-Qasim Kashani"
Give me the page number and I will look up. Thanks.
Yours,
Steve
stevebl...@yahoo.com
was to murder Him for Subhi Azal!"
testimony given by the Barber can not be admissible. He was an assassin
by trade and a close associate of Husayn-Ali. Subh-i Azal was well
aware of the barber's association with Husayn-Ali and his animosity
against him. That Subh-i Azal to have asked the barber to kill his
master for his sake would be very very far fetched.
The Bayani camp says 'Subh-i Azal' found out about the barber's
intention with a knife in his hand at his throat and hence denied his
service. The barber finds out his plan is foiled, rushes outside and
makes a mockery.
"What did Subhi Azal do? How well did he safeguard the writings of his
Lord? "
There is a long list of them at their site www.bayanic.com
This is what they say about the writings:
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/fate/fate-2.html
"How well did he safeguard the household of his Lord?"
The accusation that Subh-i Azal married the "Lord"'s wife is made by
Husayn-Ali and distributed by his men. Subh-i Azal rejects is outright.
As for Husayn-Ali's accusation that Subh-i Azal violated God's
revelations concerning the household of the prophets, he is either
playing the ignorant or he is one.
The provision Husayn-Ali invoked was from Quran, a provision abrogated
by 'the Primal Point': A surviving husband or wife is to remarry 90 or
95 days after the death of the wife or husband respectively, Arabic
Bayan Unity 5 Chapter 10.
According to the Bayani camp, Husayn-Ali wanted to marry the "Lord's"
wife to strengthen his own claim. In the end, two of her brothers
(Qahid & Seraj) were killed by Husayn-Ali's men for not supporting him.
The Bayani camp says Subh-i Azal arranged for the marriage because of
such considerations and that the intention was for Sayyed Muhammad to
be at her service which would not have been possible without such
arrangement.
Cheers,
Steve
Steve Marshall
>Is that true, Larry? Are you now in Nima/Steve's camp?
I am NOT camp!
And I don't think Larry is in Nima, either.
All Bad
Steve Marshall wrote:
> sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
>
>
>>Is that true, Larry? Are you now in Nima/Steve's camp?
>
>
> I am NOT camp!
>
The OTHER Steve.
- All Bad
All Bad
Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
> Howdy Pat,
>
> Facts Pat not lies, facts that even Taherzedeh concurs with:
>
> "The seven believers who, against the advice of Bahá'u'lláh and without His
> knowledge,
Gosh Larry. Read what you just pasted, "without His knowledge". Read
what you had posted prevviously, "The fact is that Baha'u'llah was told
by Ustad the barber of his intentions to murder Siyyid Muhammad and
several other Bayanis."
I take it you are either acknowledging your error, or, trying to bluff
by it?
> perpetrated such a ghastly crime, knew well that their action
> would invoke the wrath of Bahá'u'lláh. They knew that He who had expelled
> Mirza Rida-Quli from the community merely on the grounds of misbehaviour in
> public, would disown them and drive them out of His presence for ever, if
> they carried out their intention which was far more reprehensible than the
> misdeeds of Mirza Rida-Quli. Indeed, some of them had concluded that by
> committing such a crime and dishonouring the good name of the Faith, they
> would never be forgiven by God and their souls would be damned in all the
> worlds of God. But they could not bear to see Bahá'u'lláh and His loved ones
> being so mercilessly attacked with slanders and false accusations. They
> decided that they would rather sacrifice their spiritual existence by
> committing this reprehensible crime than allow their Lord to suffer in this
> way.
>
> (Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 3, p. 235)
>
> Note that Taherzadeh says: " against the advise of Baha'u'llah ", but then
Sure. Did you ever read what Ustad Muhammad Salmani said about his
temptation to murder Azal? I had just posted it. He said Baha'u'llah
would condemn him - before he even told Baha'u'llah, a sort of "What
would Jesus Do?" thing running in his mind, his own personal
Manifestation of God.
"Then I reflected that to kill him was not an easy matter
and perhaps I would offend Bahá'u'lláh. Suppose I kill this
man, I said to myself, and then go into the presence of
Blessed Perfection and He asks me why I killed him, what
answer could I give? This thought prevented me from carrying
out my intention."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/ec98a6d1076aae3e
> goes on to say: "without his knowledge". The contradiction of Taherzedah's
> words is glaring. How can someone give advise to someone against them doing
> something and then not have knowledge of what he advised against? Duh.
>
So, you are going to ignore the fact that it was Azal who advised Ustad
Muhmmad Ali Salmani to murder Baha'u'llah?
> Baha'u'llah may not have known the specific time and place that Ustad and
> his fellow Baha'i thuggies planned to cut the throats of those seven Bayanis
> but that he knew of their murderous intentions before they were carried out
> is not in question at all.
Okay. Are you wandering off into some discussion of Free Will vs.
Predestination? I would think that an appropriate approach would be to
avoid using the Omniscience and Omnipotence in these matters. Otherwise
you indict the whole concept of God Who sits on the Divine Hands for
every murder.
> The real question Pat is why didn't Baha'u'llah
> take the necessary steps to prevent those murderess from occurring at all by
> going to the authorities or actually warning Siyyid Muhhamad and the other
> Bayanis that some of his followers were planning to murder them?
I would think that Siyyid Muhammad would know that Babis and/or Baha'is
would try to kill him; he was the third husband of one of the Bab's
wives. The thing is that Siyyid Muhammad really was in jail, there was
not a lot he could do about it.
> This is the
> question Pat, a question which also brings into question Baha'u'llah's
> claims of infallibility let alone most great infallibility.
>
It might be a question for _you_, but I don't see a conflict with
infallibility in that some people are murdered - the Divine Hands and
the semblance of Free Will.
> Baha'u'llah did a big boo boo buy omission and it cost seven men their
> lives, some supreme Manifestation of God!
>
Does God say that judging God is okay, or a boo boo?
> I recommend you read the whole section on Murder of Three Azalis by
> Taherzedaeh which can be found on Ocean when searching under: murder Azalis.
>
I don't have Ocean. I recomend you look up the entry for "fact" in the
dictionary.
> The story you speak of is from the Baghdad period I believe and predates
> the murders of several Bayanis in Akka by many years.
>
What story? The story of Ustad Muhammad in Turkey is not in the Baghdad
period, but just prior to the imprisonment in Akka, when the murder of
Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani took place.
> Edward Browne reports from independent Baha'i sources that the numbers of
> Bayanis murdered in Akka was actually seven.
Browne relied heavily on Babi sources; he was in the middle east to
study the Bab and the Babi faith.
> He also states that there was
> also other murders of Bayanis by Baha'i in the Edirne and Baghdad period.
>
Did you read this from Nabil?
He who considers himself the Mirror of Bayan,
Who has deviated from the intent of Bayan,
Will issue Fatwa against the life of whomever,
That dares to use this title again,
Or call to be He Whom God Shall Make Manifest,
He will capture, slaughter and murder,
Read his book entitled "Mustiqaz",[3]
It proves my point of view in clear,
Orders recorded in the book of Devil,
To murder several innocent souls,
His honour Dayyan who enjoyed,
Significant respect, vigour and glory,
What praise is written in his regard,
From the Pen of his Primal Beloved,[4]
Even one hundreth of that praise,
Is not directed to that jinxed mirror,[5]
He commanded Dayyan thus,
In His religion Kitab-I Panj Sh'an,
That this young bird has just flown,[6]
In the air of melodious joy he is thrown,
Train him in flying per your competence,
He counselled others in this regard,
To Vahid Akbar and Name of Azim,[7]
To Name of Asdaq and Name of Karim,[8]
He commanded all to be his mentors,
So that his poison may convert to good,
A person with such regard and such place,
How soon has become arrogant and crude,
Dayyan was killed per his command,
His body swamped in his blood,
For this injustice committed by that mirror,
Black storm began on that very hour,[9]
The world darkened to a cyclonic night,
Though the sun was shining at noon that hour,
And Ali Akbar, his devoted companion,[10]
Was murdered in Baghdad merciless,
His crime was devotion to Dayyan,
Likewise Abul-Qasim and others,[11]
Not secure from orders to kill,
He ordered the wife of the Bab,[12]
To arrive in Baghdad from land of Sad,[13]
With hundred treachery and contempt,
He took her for one full month,
Afterwards he gave her away,
To that bastard Dajjal from land of Sad,
Whose descendents are from the Devil,
Whose name is the same as mine,[14]
Although known as a thief and a beggar,
He claims God-hood and even beyond,
He is a shame not the Lord of heavens,
Shame is never the beloved Lord of the world,
How respected is the honour of the Bab,
He donated her fully to that Bastard !
Soon she had a son from that tramp,[15]
She was disgraced and abandoned grand,
Woman, If you were related to the Bab,
You would rush to Shiraz in the calm,
Sought refuge in the house of His grace,[16]
Maintain decent morals and your face
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/nabil.karbila.html
> Abdu'l-Baha' himself while Baha'u'llah still lived, which means that it was
> highly likely on Baha'u'llah's behalf, intervened on the Akka Baha'i murders
> behalf so that they were released from custody only two years after the
> murders were committed!
>
You really don't have a clue about when those murders were committed.
Using your scale, it could have been any time from 1870 through 1890!
The murders in Akka occured early in 1872. Juan Cole says the Baha'is
responsible were cut off for ten years.
"Muhammad `Ali Salmani helped murder the Azali Sayyid
Muhammad Isfahani in Akka, and Baha'u'llah cut him and
the seven or so other assassins off for a decade or so,
but after that they appear to have been accepted back
into Akka society. If murder does not create a permanent
pariah, few things would."
http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/8-12-01.html
> Not lies Pat, just the facts.
>
You post nonsense about the murders when you don't even concern yourself
with when they happened, because you have no interest in the facts; your
interest is in blaming Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is, for everything you
can blame them for. You did blame the Baha'is for their persecution in
Iran, Larry; that is the facts.
> No hatred Pat, just reality.
>
You blame the victims for their persecution, Larry; the reality is that
that is hatred. Start to get honest and accept your hatred; it is the
first step in your recovery.
- All bad
All Bad
stevebl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear all,
> We now had a taste of some of the "good words" in Bahai literature. The
> limitless number of accusations in Husayn-Ali and his band are nothing
> but their fabricated stories with no documentary evidence.
>
> "A fact is something that is supported by evidence"
> So where are the evidence provided by Husayn-Ali, his private historian
> Zarandi, his son and his grand-son?
>
> " So Baha'u'llah isn't infallible because some Baha'is committed
> murder?"
> You don't seem to want to get it. The minimum Husayn-Ali did was that
> he promoted hatred against the murdered men and his men must have
> believed they were doing "god" a favour. In any court today, a leader
> who creates a fertile ground for such actions bears the responsibility
> for the crime.
>
> " The Primal Point was the Manifestation of God. Subhi Azal was not
> .."
> You do know that 'The Primal Point' amongst others gave him the title
> of 'his Mirror'.
Yes, thanks for trotting that one out. The sun may appear in the
mirror, but the sun is not the mirror. The mirror can not contain the
sun in a full sense, but only in a superficial sense. In the same way,
Subhi Azal could not be a full heir of a Manifestation of God, w/o being
a Manifestation of God himself. Did he, or did he not lay such a claim?
> Subh-i Azal claims the ' Primal Point' wrote to him 'I
> am you and you are me' which is I suppose is explicit in what 'Mirror'
> means. In effect he says if I say Husayn-Ali lied, then that is what
> 'the Primal Point' says.
>
> " This is what Muhammad Zarandi wrote about Subhi Azal:"
> Right? So this is the guy who has provided the facts supported by
> documentary evidence? Please!
> You do know his credentials. What we don't know is how much he was
> going to get for his labour. What we do know is that he received what
> the other Bayanis got when they finished with him.
>
> "Subhi Azal, who, in "Mustaqiz" was ordering the deaths of Babis, like
> Mirza Abu'l-Qasim Kashani"
> Give me the page number and I will look up. Thanks.
Tragically, I have not yet studied the works of Subhi Azal for myself.
Perhaps you could scan for "Mirza Abu'l Qasim Kashani"? My statement
was based on the writings of Sepehr Manuchehri.
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/nabil.karbila.html
- All Bad
All Bad
stevebl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "Backwards, Larry. The fact was that Ustad told Baha'u'llah that he
> was to murder Him for Subhi Azal!"
> Not so fast. Your fact is simply a quote from an assassin.
I was quoting the barber. He would not be an assasin for a few more months.
> The
> testimony given by the Barber can not be admissible. He was an assassin
> by trade
Eh, you just said he was a barber. If he were an assasin by trade, who
all did he assassinate? I say "all", because a day does not make a trade.
Furthermore, as far as establishing who told him what, and what he told
whom, he would be the one to know that, the best source even, such that
you can't say his sttement is inadmissable!
> and a close associate of Husayn-Ali. Subh-i Azal was well
> aware of the barber's association with Husayn-Ali
That is what the quotation said. Azal was so aware that Ustad Muhammad
Ali Salmani was also Baha'u'llah's barber that Azal asked him to kill
Baha'u'llah (not vice versa). Shall I paste that in again?
> and his animosity
> against him. That Subh-i Azal to have asked the barber to kill his
> master for his sake would be very very far fetched.
I did not think it was far fetched. I figured this guy was cutting a
lot of hair, such that Subhi Azal could ask him to do this thing.
> The Bayani camp says 'Subh-i Azal' found out about the barber's
> intention with a knife in his hand at his throat and hence denied his
This is not plausible. A razor would cut to the vein faster than a knife.
> service. The barber finds out his plan is foiled, rushes outside and
> makes a mockery.
>
> "What did Subhi Azal do? How well did he safeguard the writings of his
> Lord? "
> There is a long list of them at their site www.bayanic.com
> This is what they say about the writings:
> http://www.bayanic.com/notes/fate/fate-2.html
>
This leads of with "Baha’s Version of Account". I scrolled down for
"Actual facts", but there was no next section. You stumped me on this
one. BTW, the Baha'is were in Akka after 1868, rather than after 1865,
though it certainly was after 1865.
> "How well did he safeguard the household of his Lord?"
> The accusation that Subh-i Azal married the "Lord"'s wife is made by
> Husayn-Ali and distributed by his men. Subh-i Azal rejects is outright.
>
It was made be Shaykh Muhammad Zarandi:
He ordered the wife of the Bab,
To arrive in Baghdad from land of Sad,
With hundred treachery and contempt,
He took her for one full month,
Afterwards he gave her away,
To that bastard Dajjal from land of Sad,
Whose descendents are from the Devil,
Whose name is the same as mine,
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/nabil.karbila.html
> As for Husayn-Ali's accusation that Subh-i Azal violated God's
> revelations concerning the household of the prophets, he is either
> playing the ignorant or he is one.
This quotation was from Shaykh Muhammad Zarandi:
He ordered the wife of the Bab,
To arrive in Baghdad from land of Sad,
With hundred treachery and contempt,
He took her for one full month,
Afterwards he gave her away,
To that bastard Dajjal from land of Sad,
Whose descendents are from the Devil,
Whose name is the same as mine,
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/nabil.karbila.html
> The provision Husayn-Ali invoked was from Quran, a provision abrogated
> by 'the Primal Point': A surviving husband or wife is to remarry 90 or
> 95 days after the death of the wife or husband respectively, Arabic
> Bayan Unity 5 Chapter 10.
>
No. Azal did not just marry the widow. He then married her off to
Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani, after he had her himself. What part of
"passed around like a dish of candies" is it that you just don't get????
> According to the Bayani camp, Husayn-Ali wanted to marry the "Lord's"
> wife to strengthen his own claim. In the end, two of her brothers
> (Qahid & Seraj) were killed by Husayn-Ali's men for not supporting him.
>
These guys have a lot of nonsense stories. The one about Ustad Muhammad
Ali wanting to kill Azal, but Azal just divining his intentions and
moving out, just makes no sense. How would Azal know that a barber was
going to cut his throat UNLESS he could read the guys mind? If he
could, why didn't he warn Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani????
> The Bayani camp says Subh-i Azal arranged for the marriage because of
> such considerations and that the intention was for Sayyed Muhammad to
> be at her service which would not have been possible without such
> arrangement.
If Siyyid Muhammad needed to be at her service, shouldn't she have been
married to him after the Bab? You are simply in denial, Steve. Azal
pimped the Bab's widow.
- All Bad
All Bad
Michael McKenny wrote:
> Hi, Steve.
>
> (stevebl...@yahoo.com) writes:
>
>>Dear Michael
>>These words do not make Husayn-Ali anything different to what he was, a
>>pretender. While he was busy preaching these "good words", he was also
>>busy instructing his men to commit the unthinkable, murder and lie.
>
>
> Many thanks for your comments. I have also read the Byzantine historians
> who alleged that the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, was given to
> epilepsy and the Koran promises an orgy to believers in the next world.
Good point.
- All Bad
> There is no need to understand reality in such a manner, and even if one
> does look at the world through such eyes, still it remains correct that a
> belief in the spirituality of the Prophet, the Koran, all the great
> religious teachings is more conducive to human harmony than a belief in
> the despicable nature of them, even if this belief is factual.
>
> What I mean is that if people are looking at the Koran or another sacred
> text with spiritual eyes, understanding these religions as beneficial
> means to human advancement toleration (as the great Islamic societies in
> Spain and in the empire of Akbar), then these religions are advantageous
> to humanity and the source of human prosperity, whatever one may imagine,
> or even know, about the origins of these religions. The result is good.
>
> If one use these religions, even if they have really come directly from
> God as a means to create disorder in the world and inflict harm upon
> fellow creatures of the All Merciful, then they are not beneficial.
>
> In a Baha'i context, Baha'u'llah has said that it were better if there
> were no religion at all, than that religion be used as an excuse to have
> conflict between humans.
>
>
>>"It was through the grace of God and with the aid of seemly words and
>>praiseworthy deeds that ..."
>>This is of course nonsense. What those Babis believed they were doing
>>was to defend themselves at a time when the savagery and atrocities
>>against them had reached its peek. Now, Bahais skilfully can eat a
>>piece of cake in to ways. On one hand they present the heroism and
>>courage shown Babis as part of their own history and at the same time
>>come up with this sort of nonsense for obvious implications.
>
>
> In the Koran the teaching is that offensive warfare is forbidden, and that
> a community may defend itself. This teaching was followed by the
> Babis. Baha'u'llah outlawed religious warfare, saying that in this age the
> aim of a religious person is to understand the entire species of humans
> are included in the brotherhood/sisterhood of the All Merciful. There are
> to be no people perceived as enemies, so there can be no warfare.
>
>
>>Firstly, the armed defence of the Babis was at a time when the whole
>>Iranian army initiated a systematic persecution of the Babis to uproot
>>them. Secondly, it happened at a time when their master was imprisoned
>>in the most inaccessible places with harshest conditions and his
>>immediate disciples and folowers were at the forefront of a struggle
>>during which majority of them lost their lives.
>>Now, compare this with Husayn-Ali sitting in his 5-star accommodation
>>with tens of maids and servants running around to provide for his
>>pleasure with a pipe to his lips sitting on a donated Persian rug
>>writing: "Strife and conflict befit the beasts of the wild."
>>Well, he fits exactly into that category because that is what he was
>>involved in.
>
>
> This is interesting, and even if it is completely true, in this time today
> when humans have invented atomic bombs, terrible bacteriological warfare
> capacity and other frightful means to exterminate the species, the
> advancement of human interaction above bestial conflict and strife is so
> demonstrably a desireable means of conducting human interaction, that this
> pipe smoking gentleman with his maids and splendid carpet is correct, and
> let this advice be followed, whoever said it, and however many pipes he
> was smoking.
>
>
>>One more thing, it was at least 15 years after the armed insurgencies
>>had settled and there was no more of that kind of struggle. Moreover,
>>the 'Mirror' of 'His Holiness, the Most High' had already instructed
>>his people to lay down arms. So the 'command' to 'put swords to their
>>scabbards' was just grand-standing as with the rest of his writings.
>
>
> Thank you for the comment. Yes, the point that Baha'u'llah never commanded
> the Babis to put up their swords and already they had done so is fine. If
> these people could put up the sword much more than a hundred years ago,
> then, let us hope the focus can be today by all people on communicating
> verbally in a clear, harmonious and peaceful manner.
>
>
>>With Non-Bahai love and peace
>
>
>>Steve
>>
>
>
> And the same in return,
>
> Michael
>
Polychrysos
dysfunction just as the supposedly holy family deeply dysfunctioned,
this inspite of their supposed holiness.
Larry,
I won't even get into the accuracy of what you're saying. It should be
enough to BEG you to start talking about something positive instead of
throwing around nasty phrases. If you don't think Baha'u'llah was
infallible there are nicer ways than a morally revolting suggestion he
was complicit in murder.
Brendan
VAV
Michael McKenny wrote:
> Many thanks for your comments. I very much feel for all those who have
> been led to consider the terrible performance of today's Baha'i leaders
> and then work backwards looking for the historical origin of this
> despicable behaviour.
Yes Michael, they have opened eyes, enabling many to abandon the
fetters of ignorance. Tragically, by so doing many have become
sacrifices entrapped in the consciousness of old battles, lost their
own light, and no longer remember how to embrace what is beneficial or
progressive.
> Actually, in my estimation, it does not matter so much what details are
> understood. The needs of the present require an application of that
> harmonious inclusion that can also be found in Baha'u'llah's writings. The
> point is that any vast body of inspired text can seem to contain an
> enormous amount of contradictory material.
The people have the right to take from the body of writing what is
benefical and shape that into any configuration they so choose. The
problem is that because of the contradictory material the people can
not find agreement, consequently the body of writing inherently is a
source of conflict.
> Baha'u'llah did say that the duty of every person was to be concerned with
> the age in which s/he lives, and that in this age the duty was requiring
> harmonious interaction among all humans. So, the efficacy and utility of
> different visions of Baha'i can be assessed on this basis and in
> conjunction with Baha'u'llah's own statement that religion exists for
> concord, amity and friendship, and it were preferable for there to be no
> religion than for religion to be a source of conflict and of strife.
Conflict can serve the greater good if people tire of it and humanity
chooses to move beyond that old time religion. By so doing humanity can
learn to live in wholeness rather than be confined to ever clashing
contradictory material introduced by talking Heads of by gone days.
Considering the conflicts raging in the world today the quote you
provided expresses what humanity needs to do, which is abandon
religion. If that doesn't work they can always jump back in to it. As
you say they can assess what is beneficial for that day.
VAV
hong...@gmail.com
VAV wrote:
> Michael McKenny wrote:
>
>
> > Many thanks for your comments. I very much feel for all those who have
> > been led to consider the terrible performance of today's Baha'i leaders
> > and then work backwards looking for the historical origin of this
> > despicable behaviour.
>
> Yes Michael, they have opened eyes, enabling many to abandon the
> fetters of ignorance. Tragically, by so doing many have become
> sacrifices entrapped in the consciousness of old battles, lost their
> own light, and no longer remember how to embrace what is beneficial or
> progressive.
Many thanks for your comments, perception and analysis.
> > Actually, in my estimation, it does not matter so much what details are
> > understood. The needs of the present require an application of that
> > harmonious inclusion that can also be found in Baha'u'llah's writings. The
> > point is that any vast body of inspired text can seem to contain an
> > enormous amount of contradictory material.
>
> The people have the right to take from the body of writing what is
> benefical and shape that into any configuration they so choose. The
> problem is that because of the contradictory material the people can
> not find agreement, consequently the body of writing inherently is a
> source of conflict.
This is possible. Baha'u'llah himself said that if religion was a cause
of conflict then its non existence was better than its existence. If
you are correct, by Baha'u'llah's own words, the Baha'i Faith if it
can't accept to exist harmoniously internally and externally had better
not exist at all.
> > Baha'u'llah did say that the duty of every person was to be concerned with
> > the age in which s/he lives, and that in this age the duty was requiring
> > harmonious interaction among all humans. So, the efficacy and utility of
> > different visions of Baha'i can be assessed on this basis and in
> > conjunction with Baha'u'llah's own statement that religion exists for
> > concord, amity and friendship, and it were preferable for there to be no
> > religion than for religion to be a source of conflict and of strife.
>
> Conflict can serve the greater good if people tire of it and humanity
> chooses to move beyond that old time religion.
To the extent that Old Time religion is fundamentalist, such Old Time
religion is the opposite of what Baha'u'llah taught. To the extent it
is intolerant of every other view except its own fundamentalism, it is
the chief spiritual disease of humanity, and whatever cures humanity of
this disease is curing humanity of disease.
Baha'u'llah said he was the divine physician. I clearly see that his
harmonious remedy has not been taken, only other people claiming to
come from his medical school have renamed fundamentalism with his name
and decree that those who don't accept this definition are not doctors.
Those who do accept this definition, by Baha'u'llah's own diagnosis are
fundamentalists. I very much hope they can take Baha'u'llah's remedy,
instead of trying to pretend they aren't sick, that they are actually
doctors, instead of patients.
> By so doing humanity can
> learn to live in wholeness rather than be confined to ever clashing
> contradictory material introduced by talking Heads of by gone days.
You may be completely correct. I'm still looking. I think the option
exists for Baha'u'llah's healing medicine to be taken, the diseased
cured and humanity advance with spirituality, instead of having to pray
for the evaporation of religion.
> Considering the conflicts raging in the world today the quote you
> provided expresses what humanity needs to do, which is abandon
> religion. If that doesn't work they can always jump back in to it. As
> you say they can assess what is beneficial for that day.
I agree. If the Baha'is and others insist on being sick from religion,
refuse the remedy to the sickness of fundamentalism and contend in an
age when contention is stated as contrary to human health, then
religion itself (at least as defined by those suffering from the
fundamentalist malady would be better not existing). Let's see what
does happen in the future.
.
> VAV
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
hong...@gmail.com
in the world and of tranquility amongst its peoples."
"Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert
a beneficial influence."
This applies to all extremes, excessive suppression of freedom, as well
as to excessive licence, excessive refusal by the Universal House of
Justice to legislate and excessive legislating, excessive disregard of
the legislation of the Universal House of Justice, and excessive
obedience of the Universal House of Justice.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
Steve Marshall
>Eh, you just said he was a barber. If he were an assasin by trade, who
>all did he assassinate? I say "all", because a day does not make a trade.
Yeah, it's not like "suicide bomber" or "kamikazi pilot".
All Bad
Steve Marshall wrote:
They have special training to go through, licensing, apprenticeship,
union cards. We can't have just anybody blow themselves up, now can we?
Someone could get hurt!
- All Bad
stevebl...@yahoo.com
months."
one version of accounts told by with a nasty character.
There were many killings of Bayanis in Edirne in which the barber would
have most likely demonstrated his skills. It does not matter if the
Barber commited murder later, he must have had it in him, hence his
character.
"he would be the one to know that, the best source even"
Right! The barber can be the source but not the other party.
"That is what the quotation said. Azal was so aware that Ustad
Muhammad
Ali Salmani was also Baha'u'llah's barber that Azal asked him to kill
Baha'u'llah (not vice versa). Shall I paste that in again?"
You just like repeating yourself. The barber worked in the public bath.
The point I made was that it would be far-fetched if I asked your
friend to harm you specially when I know your friend has same feelings
towards me as you.
"I did not think it was far fetched."
I can understand that. It would help if Bahais start attempting to see
both sides of the coin.
"This is not plausible. A razor would cut to the vein faster than a
knife."
Sorry, let me correct myself: The Bayani camp says 'Subh-i Azal' found
out about the barber's intention with a razor in his hand at his throat
and hence denied his service.
"This leads of with "Baha's Version of Account". I scrolled down for
"Actual facts", but there was no next section."
Isn't that fair? Bahais could also include the other side's version of
account then it would help their 'investigation of truth'.
What they say is that the works of "Lord" including those that were
re-written by 'Subh-i Azal' was at Husayn-Ali's house. According to the
document, Husayn-Ali instructs his man to take them all and bring them
over.
Subh-i Azal appears to be saying the same thing:
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/fate/fate-8.html
If Bahais could ask their establishments and insist on asking to see
those writings, I ma sure they will be able to make them available,
that is if they see it appropriate for the 'mankind' to see them. On
second thought, it appears Bahais should think there is not any writing
of the "Primal Point" left, Shoghi says: "the body of the BAB's
voluminous writings, for the most part, a fate no less humiliating than
that which had befallen his disciples, many of his copious works were
utterly obliterated others were torn and reduced to ashes, a few were
corrupted, much was seized by the enemy and the rest lay a mass of
disorganised and undeciphered manuscripts, precariously hidden and
widely scattered among the survivors of his companions.
"No. Azal did not just marry the widow. .."
We are not talking about individual's personal conviction (no matter
what) concreted in the minds by reading the same thing a million times.
I told you about the other side's version of account. I also told you
about a Bayanic provision, fight it out with the "Primal Point".
" What part of "passed around like a dish of candies" is it that you
just don't get????"
See above.
" These guys have a lot of nonsense stories."
See above.
" If Siyyid Muhammad needed to be at her service, shouldn't she have
been married to him after the Bab?"
I said that Husayn-Ali's claim that "The Primal Point"'s widow should
not have remarried was crocodile tears and I pointed you to the
provision in which he should have believed. In this context, your
argument is irrelevant.
" You are simply in denial"
Same to you.
" Yes, thanks for trotting that one out"
Not a problem. Your use of the phrase 'guardian', 'heir', etc. was your
personal definition of what "the Primal Point" believed was the station
of Subh-i Azal.
" The mirror can not contain the sun in a full sense, but only in a
superficial sense."
That is your understanding of what the 'Mirror' meant. You are entitled
to yours except that it does not appear to be what "the Primal Point"
said.
Subh-i Azal was given the same ranking as his own. This is implicit in
"I am you and you are me" and saying that Subh-i Azal would reveal
divine verses.
As far as I know Subh-i Azal claimed to be what the "Primal Point" said
he was, his Mirror. I have not heard or read otherwise.
" Tragically, I have not yet studied the works of Subhi Azal for
myself."
Indeed it is.
" Perhaps you could scan for "Mirza Abu'l Qasim Kashani"? My statement
was based on the writings of Sepehr Manuchehri."
This is a classic "I heard X who heard from Y who heard from Z". I
suggest you go back to X and complete your homework. In the mean time
your suggested quote is considered baseless.
With much love and kindness
Steve
Michael McKenny
All Bad (All_BadN...@gmpexpress.net) writes:
> Michael McKenny wrote:
>
>> Hi, Steve.
>>
>> (stevebl...@yahoo.com) writes:
>>
>>>Dear Michael
>>>These words do not make Husayn-Ali anything different to what he was, a
>>>pretender. While he was busy preaching these "good words", he was also
>>>busy instructing his men to commit the unthinkable, murder and lie.
>>
>>
>> Many thanks for your comments. I have also read the Byzantine historians
>> who alleged that the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, was given to
>> epilepsy and the Koran promises an orgy to believers in the next world.
>
> Good point.
Many thanks for your comment. I think it is worth remembering that there
are various accounts of historical events, that those who consider
themselves unfriendly to someone or some group often have less than
favourable accounts of these others.
As I understand the teaching of Baha'u'llah, this is a time for quite
amazing accomplishments, including the achievement of a view of reality
that no longer contains inimical others. Baha'u'llah directed the focus of
his believers upon what is conducive to the harmony of humanity. He urged
them to learn to see that evil has no positive existence and there are no
opponents.
He did say, "Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease
to exert a beneficial influence." This, in my opinion, has very extensive
application. So, this teaching that there is no evil does not, as I see
it, mean that we assume that all is rosey. It does not mean that when it
happens that humanity has world peace that no education, vigilence and
care need be taken, even at such a fortunate time, that throwbacks do not
emerge, that the techniques that shall have been overcome are not
reintroduced to a peaceful society and the divisive consequences of
portraying others as enemies not emerge yet again.
So, today when, it is easy to see, almost everyone seems to be
participating in a mass chaotic contention, depicting various other groups
of peoples as enemies, surely there is likewise a need to be prudent. The
point is that prudence can correspond with an understanding that even if
others consider themselves our enemies, this does not necessitate our own
point of view, our awareness or our spiritual sensitivity as to what the
real life of humanity means.
Humanity is one species, even though it stumble about so sadly in its
thrashing against a multitude of ill conceived evil others. With this basic
perception, maybe some beneficial teaching, learning, advancement,
enhancement of the human species can occur.
Very Best Wishes, Michael
VAV
hong...@gmail.com wrote:
"I agree. If the Baha'is and others insist on being sick from religion,
refuse the remedy to the sickness of fundamentalism and contend in an
age when contention is stated as contrary to human health, then
religion itself (at least as defined by those suffering from the
fundamentalist malady would be better not existing). Let's see what
does happen in the future."
Michael - Here's two ways of looking at the possibilities:
On Change
Change, comes with the erosion of established ideas, like the tireless
gnawing at cliffs by the sea. Our concept of the future is often
felicitous, because we cannot foresee the emergence of new texture, of
new techniques and, consequently of new appearances.
Ustinov, Peter, "Quotable", (England, Chivers Press,1997, p. 152).
Change, comes with the erosion of established ideas, like the tireless
gnawing at cliffs by the sea. Our concept of the future is not always
felicitous, because we cannot foresee the emergence of new texture, of
new techniques and, consequently of new appearances
Here's another possibility for humanity:
The Parable Of The Coin
The beautiful angel of light was holding a coin. God
began to slowly spin the coin. I did not hear God
speak, though the word concepts poured into my head as
follows: "Liken the spinning coin to your walk through life. One
side shows and then the other as the dramas of life dictate your
emotions, for the mind is of a dual nature." God stopped the coin and
held the side of heads toward me. "Liken the side of heads to all
positive emotion." Flipping the coin to tails God said, "Liken this
side to all negative emotion."
As Angel of Light again flipped the coin again to heads, God said,
"This side
contains your love, faith, trust, reverence, honor, patience,
understanding, benevolence, kindness, sweetness, laughter,
forgiveness, love of life, valiance, charity, your goodness, mercy,
compassion, and wisdom. These are the feelings of your divine self,
the Christ in you. This is the gateway through which God manifests
good works upon the Earth through you. This is where God dwells
on Earth, in your hearts. This is the way the indwelling God moves
God's will through you."
Then again the coin was flipped to tails. "Liken this side of the coin
to
the gateway of the darkness within you. Through this gateway
darkness manifests its deeds upon the face of the Earth. Darkness
works through negative imagination then emotion. These are the
desires of the lower nature. This darkness manifests through your
hate, greed, lust, suspicion, anger, mistrust, fear, worry,
depression, false pride, envy, anxiety, dishonor, cowardice,
jealously, foolishness, murder, violence, arrogance, conspiracies,
plots, selfishness, sloth, revenge, covetous, your negative, dark or
evil side, the lower or animal self.
"To be free of the lower nature, learn to rebuke any use of the
negative spectrum of imagination and emotion. You must do this on a
moment to moment basis. Negative thoughts will come, but you must
light up the darkness from which they come. When you are moved to
use negative emotion acknowledge the thought then flip your coin
over to the positive spectrum of imagination. The longer you permit
your consciousness to dwell in negative emotion the more power you
give to it which permits more darkness to flow through you.
"Each emotion is the result of the images within the mind. A child
of light wills only the imaginations of the positive mind into the
universe. Will only positive thoughts. Imagination is the key.
Emotion is the tangible or physical manifestation of the intangible
imagination. Imagination is the primary manifestation of mental
activity. These images are many. The ones you choose, you then call
thought."
God then flipped the coin back to heads and continued, "Do not spend
any time with negative imagination. The positive imaginations are
where our consciousness must dwell to have your minds and hearts
parallel with the will of God. The imaginations of the positive self
are the builders of life where the Lord will open all His doors and
provide all your needs. Your positive imaginations will also develop
a more benevolent concept of your needs. You will experience an
awakening as your body begins a re-chemicalization process with
positive thoughts as the chemicals born of negative imaginations
fade. Negative thoughts produce harmful, toxic chemicals in the
body. Positive thoughts produce chemicals that contribute to higher
levels of thought, health, and awaken power centers within the body
that stay dormant until negative thought ceases.
"Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is within you, at hand, in
the midst. The constant dwelling of your mind in the positive
spectrum of imagination and emotion is your consciousness dwelling
in the kingdom of heaven as Jesus tried to teach you. Jesus told us
to humble ourselves as little children to enter the kingdom of
heaven. Within the little children's minds are the virtues of
acceptance and the sweetest innocence containing wonderful
imaginations. The kingdom of heaven is at hand, in the midst, within
you, in the imaginations of your most innocent thoughts, the
thoughts of your positive spectrum of imagination. Your guilt stems
from your negative spectrum of imagination. Keep your state of mind
positive and if the world falls down around you, you will rebuild it
and feel the love of God."
As the Angel of Light flipped the coin back on tails, it was said,
"Know that if
you resort to the use of the negative spectrum of imagination in any
fashion only further darkness can result of such use. Negative
imaginations are the absence of light, the absence of the will of
God, and the absence of the Christ consciousness.
"God has been concerned about your negative imaginations since
(Genesis 6:5-6) KJV, where it says that God was grievous because you
walked in the imaginations of your evil heart continually. Christ
was resurrected so you may be resurrected into the light."
The questions are: which side of the coin will win out?; Can the heads
side of the coin hit a crital mass sufficient enough to overtake the
tails minded?; Will the people evlove or will they drown in
fundamentalistic religious tail wagging? Like you say time will tell.
VAV
Heather Carr-Rowe
acquaintance that they plan to murder so and so it is that person's moral
responsibility, as well as their civil responsiblility to go to the proper
authorities and spill the beans so the murders don't take place. This isn't
rocket science Susan it is common sense.
Now when I say this I'm referring to each and every one of us not anyone
who is in a leadership position or who has claimed the station of most great
infallibility or supreme manifestation. When such an individual doesn't do
what would be expected of the average person it makes one wonder about their
claims to a special spiritual status and infallibility. It not only should
make one wonder it should make a person face the reality that claims of
infallibility on the part of that person is mere magical and mythical
thinking.
A person can be just as guilty of something through omission as they can be
through commission. I wonder if the fact that Baha'u'llah had a particular
hatred for Siyyid Muhammad effected the fact that he was aware his own
followers plans to murder Siyyid Muhammad but did nothing to prevent those
murders from occurring when all he would have had to do was say the right
words to the right authorities and the lives of seven men could have be
saved.
Face it Susan most Baha'i believe Siyyid Muhammad got what he deserved, it
is most likely that Baha'u'llah felt this way as well seeing that even after
Siyyid Muhammad was murdered by Baha'is Baha'u'llah kept bad mouthing him.
Yours Larry
hong...@gmail.com
VAV wrote:
>
> Michael - Here's two ways of looking at the possibilities:
>
> On Change
>
> Change, comes with the erosion of established ideas, like the tireless
> gnawing at cliffs by the sea. Our concept of the future is often
> felicitous, because we cannot foresee the emergence of new texture, of
> new techniques and, consequently of new appearances.
Many thanks for sharing your opinion on what I think is very
interesting. Change is a very key aspect of what we're talking about.
Now, humans are very used to change in the cyclical sense of the
constant jostling of contending individuals, group structures,
countries, ad campaigns, fads, etc. Of course, this is not the kind of
change that Baha'u'llah spoke of, when he said it was the Springtide of
the species of humans, the maturing of humanity and the transformation
of that attitude of contention to one of co-operation.
>
> Ustinov, Peter, "Quotable", (England, Chivers Press,1997, p. 152).
>
> Change, comes with the erosion of established ideas, like the tireless
> gnawing at cliffs by the sea. Our concept of the future is not always
> felicitous, because we cannot foresee the emergence of new texture, of
> new techniques and, consequently of new appearances
Yes, and you know it was an enormous shock for many Baha'is that there
was extracted from the words of Baha'u'llah the replacement of the
beneficial novelty about which he spoke the same old stereotypical
contentious patriarchal leadership He had said was about to be replaced
as the melting of the snows of winter in the bright light of the warm
spring sunshine.
> Here's another possibility for humanity:
>
> The Parable Of The Coin
>
> The beautiful angel of light was holding a coin. God
> began to slowly spin the coin. I did not hear God
> speak, though the word concepts poured into my head as
> follows: "Liken the spinning coin to your walk through life. One
> side shows and then the other as the dramas of life dictate your
> emotions, for the mind is of a dual nature.
This dual nature of the mind is something I'm not clear about. My
feeling is that mind is harmonious, a unity, multitiered in capacity,
and integrated as a unit.
" God stopped the coin and
> held the side of heads toward me. "Liken the side of heads to all
> positive emotion." Flipping the coin to tails God said, "Liken this
> side to all negative emotion."
Ah, emotions. I see. My perception is that the elevated teaching of the
mystics, reiterated by Baha'u'llah, is that there is one harmony here,
light; there can be a deficiency of light, a non-existence of light, as
for example, also it could be heat, and it is not a positive other side
of heat, rather an inadequate amount of heat. It is harmonious.
> As Angel of Light again flipped the coin again to heads, God said,
> "This side
> contains your love, faith, trust, reverence, honor, patience,
> understanding, benevolence, kindness, sweetness, laughter,
> forgiveness, love of life, valiance, charity, your goodness, mercy,
> compassion, and wisdom. These are the feelings of your divine self,
> the Christ in you. This is the gateway through which God manifests
> good works upon the Earth through you. This is where God dwells
> on Earth, in your hearts. This is the way the indwelling God moves
> God's will through you."
Ah yes. It's very interesting. How do humans moderately accept self
responsibility, self esteem, self accomplishment and avoid excessive
pride that they have themselves achieved something worthy, and how do
they avoid despair that success is impossible? My thought is that
fundamentalist religion is too suppressive of individual self esteem.
Believers are reduced to slaves and thence they are led to behave worse
than wild beasts, because they feel even though they feel something is
not a good deed, yet God who is all good commands it, so it must be
good and they otta do it anyway.
In my opinion, moderation exists in acceptance that humans are noble
beings, mature beings that have individual responsibility for actions
and they cannot blame God for commanding anything. If it is a good
deed, then let it be done. If it is oppressive, if it is divisive, if
it actually promotes pride of group (pride in being elite Baha'is or
Christians or anything else hence looking down at other groups, or a
sense of exclusivity) then it is not beneficial, it is not spiritual,
it is not desireable.
> Then again the coin was flipped to tails. "Liken this side of the coin
> to
> the gateway of the darkness within you. Through this gateway
> darkness manifests its deeds upon the face of the Earth. Darkness
> works through negative imagination then emotion. These are the
> desires of the lower nature. This darkness manifests through your
> hate, greed, lust, suspicion, anger, mistrust, fear, worry,
> depression, false pride, envy, anxiety, dishonor, cowardice,
> jealously, foolishness, murder, violence, arrogance, conspiracies,
> plots, selfishness, sloth, revenge, covetous, your negative, dark or
> evil side, the lower or animal self.
I thank you for sharing this. It is a way of observing, perceiving and
understanding reality. And also it can be seen thusly: the body is a
gift from Deity, or the current state of human evolution, for those who
look only at the natural world. It is healthy to eat when hungry, drink
when thirsty, to have basic needs met, to have education,
understanding, concern and care, to rest when tired, to do what is
beneficial instead of simply being busy because others command
busyness, or one is tempted to do something for some objective not
productive of actual happiness, well-being and health.
>
> "To be free of the lower nature, learn to rebuke any use of the
> negative spectrum of imagination and emotion. You must do this on a
> moment to moment basis. Negative thoughts will come, but you must
> light up the darkness from which they come. When you are moved to
> use negative emotion acknowledge the thought then flip your coin
> over to the positive spectrum of imagination. The longer you permit
> your consciousness to dwell in negative emotion the more power you
> give to it which permits more darkness to flow through you.
It is a way of looking at reality. As I understand Baha'u'llah, he also
speaks of the concept that perceives nothing there when there is what
some view as actual negativity. Training the mind to realize that there
is emptiness unless there is love, in my opinion, is more empowering
than considering anger, envy, greed, etc. to be something.
On topic, we have seen a lot of people in the past acting as if some
horrible monster was ruling from Haifa, some great behemoth of evil,
when Baha'u'llah's teaching, as I understand it, is that simply there
is nothing yet guiding Baha'is and they would do better to pray that
Baha'u'llah bestow the favour of allowing there to be something
beneficial created there to guide harmoniously those who really did
respond to Baha'u'llah than seeing some kind of substantial nightmare
and going through all the responses people can have to such nightmares.
I think I'll stop here and continue the rest separately.
I really do look forward to the birth of the Universal House of
Justice, the announcement that Baha'is are inclusive, open, tolerant,
recognizing the essential requirement that women have top Baha'i
leadership, in order for peace to be born on this planet.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
sma...@jam.rr.com
Steve Marshall wrote:
> sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
>
> >Is that true, Larry? Are you now in Nima/Steve's camp?
>
> I am NOT camp!
Not you. The other Steve.
hong...@gmail.com
The first part of this has already been posted.
VAV wrote:
> "To be free of the lower nature, learn to rebuke any use of the
> negative spectrum of imagination and emotion. You must do this on a
> moment to moment basis. Negative thoughts will come, but you must
> light up the darkness from which they come. When you are moved to
> use negative emotion acknowledge the thought then flip your coin
> over to the positive spectrum of imagination. The longer you permit
> your consciousness to dwell in negative emotion the more power you
> give to it which permits more darkness to flow through you.
I agree that if people, including Baha'is, focus on images of evil
(both the evil of terrible disobedient ones resisting the will of the
Universal House of Justice and the image of the evil King Kong sitting
on the throne in Haifa) then this image acquires power over them. It
keeps them from focusing on the light, on realizing that all are
created by the Most Munificent and very noble handiwork, that all are
meant to be harmonious in a fellowship of illumination.
The longer people, including Baha'is grasp, cling to, this image of
solid enemies, of a huge block of granite on Mount Carmel, the less
easy it appears to them to do what Baha'u'llah said was as easy as
breathing. People, Baha'is, have been holding their breath and they are
surprised that there are such difficulties, that they are blacking out
and cannot see the light that was promised.
> "Each emotion is the result of the images within the mind. A child
> of light wills only the imaginations of the positive mind into the
> universe. Will only positive thoughts. Imagination is the key.
> Emotion is the tangible or physical manifestation of the intangible
> imagination. Imagination is the primary manifestation of mental
> activity. These images are many. The ones you choose, you then call
> thought."
It is an issue of vision. There has long been the delusion that Baha'is
are divided, that there are nasty ones and the evil ones and how with
such attachment to delusions can Baha'is see what Baha'u'llah meant
when he spoke about the Great Peace and the harmony of humanity and the
light. He did say a lot about detachment and releasing muddy wings and
soaring in the heaven of understanding.
> God then flipped the coin back to heads and continued, "Do not spend
> any time with negative imagination. The positive imaginations are
> where our consciousness must dwell to have your minds and hearts
> parallel with the will of God. The imaginations of the positive self
> are the builders of life where the Lord will open all His doors and
> provide all your needs. Your positive imaginations will also develop
> a more benevolent concept of your needs. You will experience an
> awakening as your body begins a re-chemicalization process with
> positive thoughts as the chemicals born of negative imaginations
> fade.
Yes. You are correct and science has agreed that certain physical
reactions, as the Baha'i writings also say, occur when there is a
retension of anger, etc. The body is blessed by observing light upon
light, believing Baha'u'llah when he talked about the non existence of
evil, when he directed the eyes of his believers to what has
substantive existence: recognition of unfettered search for truth,
moderation so that fanaticism becomes history and no longer mud
restraining the wings of the Baha'i Faith, women recognized on the
Universal House of Justice, in order to allow the Faith and humanity to
reach up towards heavenly peace, tolerance, openness and understanding.
Baha'u'llah did say, "Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of
moderation will cease to exert a beneficial influence." And this does
include obedience of anything at all (fanaticism) as well as obedience
of nothing at all, and it does include excessive suppression of freedom
as well as licence.
Negative thoughts produce harmful, toxic chemicals in the
> body. Positive thoughts produce chemicals that contribute to higher
> levels of thought, health, and awaken power centers within the body
> that stay dormant until negative thought ceases.
See above. Yes.
> "Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is within you, at hand, in
> the midst.
Yes. I am pausing here, and much has already been posted. Enough indeed
to prove Baha'u'llah was correct, as would be obvious only were the
Baha'is to sip his remedy, hearken to his teaching and cease imagining
their images of evil had any substantive existence. Instead let them
detach themselves from such evil images, release themselves from the
fetters they have placed around their own souls, welcome women on the
Universal House of Justice and rejoice at the birth of that beneficial
institution, accept the munificent favours of the Creator of Heaven and
Earth and be healthily happy.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
wahid...@gmail.com
Narrative.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
First, let us see the original of Nabil Zarandi. What you have quoted
is Pseudo-Zarandi, i.e. an interpolated work by Shoghi Effendi bearing
Zarandi's name. The credibility of this source is 0. Until you cultists
actually cough up the original text of Zarandi, take your Dawn Breakers
and shove it up your collective backsides with the warmest baha'i
greetings!
Second, the murderer of Dayyan was Husayn 'Ali Nuri himself
masquerading as one Muhammad Mazandarani, who has never existed as an
independent entity. Note that later on Husayn 'Ali runs away like a
little girl to Iraqi Kurdistan and calls himself Darvish MUHAMMAD
Irani. Husayn 'Ali Nuri was Azal's consigliore - period. He was the
goodfella in charge of everything in 1852-3 when Dayyan was murdered.
Dayyan's death lays at your false avatar's door and it can very easily
be proven. I have read Mustaqayiz in entirety. I even translate the
relevent sections from the work in the next book following the upcoming
one. Azal merely condemns Dayyan as a fraud, quotes from his tablets,
and demonstrates why Dayyan was full of shit with his claim and then
denounces him even more strongly. But, withal, Muhammad Mazandarani is
Husayn 'Ali Nuri not an independent third party. The only other witness
to this murder was Musa Kalim, who kept his code of omerta over
Dayyan's murder.
Third, the murders of the Bayanis in Acre occurs in the early 1870s, in
fact between August 1869 to mid 1870, immediately when your false
avatar and his thugs land in Acre. This is why his Wholiness ended up
in the prison to begin with. He ended up there because he was the Don
responsible for ordering the murderers, and the documentation is rock
solid, despite his swan-song and violin protestations of being the
wronged one (i.e. mazlum nama'i) from his Wholiness notwithstanding.
Taherzadeh trips over himself. He clearly contradicts himself, not just
once, but a dozen times. Larry's picked up on it, as others have as
well. That said, the documentation from Our side is foolproof. Your
bogus avatar murdered his enemies. May his demonic soul burn in hell
eternally!
Perhaps it is time to present a full translation of Tanbih'ul-Na'imin
in order to demonstrate how the Great Aunt, Izziyyah Khanum, rips your
centre of the covenant a new asshole with the very same allegations you
are now making here.
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
Deprogramming requires that you get to the heart of the programming.
Deprogramming is an uncomfortable process at times because it dispels
illusions which are fondly as well as habitually held on to.
The present dysfunctioning in the Baha'is Faith which is centered around
It's administrative order and the Universal House of Justice in particular
has it's precedents.
I have personally, over the thirty five years that I was a Baha'i, traced
these precedents to the glaringly contradictory Baha'i teachings of "shun
no man" and "shun these men". You can't have your cake and eat it to
Brendan; you can't have God's Universality of "shun no man" as well as the
earthly limitation of "shun these men", even if your a supposed
Manifestation of God. These two directly opposing teachings that Baha'u'llah
gave voice to, which Abdu'l-Baha', Shoghi Effendi followed and the U.H.J.
follows in Baha'u'llah's stead, negate each other. The cognitive dissonance
of trying to reconcile the irreconcilable is what is causing the Baha'i
Faith to come apart at it's seams. Baha'u'llah's tent is dilapidated, worn,
threadbare, patched and ready for the refuse or compost heap. The Baha'i
Faith doesn't have the structural integrity to be whole because its
foundation is built on the contradictory teachings of "shun no man" and
"shun these men".
To vilify and castigate fellow religionists, Babis, because their personal
religious interpretations differ is contrary to the teaching of the oneness
of humanity and the reconciliation of religion. This is the root cause of
the Baha'i Faith's present day dysfunction and it started with Baha'u'llah
himself.
Letting go of myths and supernatural thinking is the hardest thing for
religionists to do when their world view is built on those myths and
supernatural explanations for natural events. It is far past time that
religionists began to deconstruct all the illusory walls that they have put
up to defend their precious illusions. This includes Baha'is as well as
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, all religionists who use their religious
beliefs as an excuse to shun any man, to denigrate any fellow human being as
spiritually corrosive, as expendable simply because their interpretations
differ.
Humanities survival depends on it; which to my mind makes the dispelling of
such religious illusions timely, appropriate.
Yours Larry
Heather Carr-Rowe
> as to excessive licence, excessive refusal by the Universal House of
> Justice to legislate and excessive legislating, excessive disregard of
> the legislation of the Universal House of Justice, and excessive
> obedience of the Universal House of Justice.
Figuring out just what and were the original source of all those excess'
and extremes is important as well Michael.
When we take an average, inspired, human being and elevate him to super
human status it leads to all sorts of extremes and excess because to defend
this irreal picture takes extreme measures; even murder and shunning of
family members, even shunning the children and grandchildren of those
shunned.
The Baha'i edifice is tainted with this mental illness right from its
foundation through to its administrative order and the religious zealots who
enforce this mental illness.
It is mental illness to cast a fellow human being as spiritually corrupt
simply because they refuse to quit a job, simply because they chose to go on
a trip to America, simply because they refuse to disassociate with others
who have been mistreated by those with that mental illness. Shoghi Effendi
suffered from this mental illness and even his own parents were not spared.
This mental illness of shunning is directly traceable to Baha'u'llah
himself and it undoes any good that Baha'u'llah's Universal teachings may
have done.
The mental illness of shunning is a contagion that renders the Baha'i Faith
as a negative spiritual influence in the world.
The sooner the world is rid of such mental illness the better.
Yours Larry
Polychrysos
As far as shunning goes, you're preaching to the choir. I wrote a
story about how stupid shunning is, and my ABM is furious about it.
You ought to know that I'd never defend shunning. But you also ought
to know that this business about "root causes" just leads to hurting
and offending people. If you wanted to criticise infallibility and the
current condition of the Faith without mentioning Baha'u'llah, you
could do so. But you don't seem to want to. Like it or not, the way
you are talking is going to hurt and anger a lot of people who might
agree with you if you expressed your comments differently. That may
not be rational, but that's how it is.
Brendan
Heather Carr-Rowe
It is Baha'u'llah's own words which are contradictory Brendan words such as
the following:
Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused
dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of
these words, been nullified and abolished
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 94)
He preached these words to all of mankind but failed to apply them in his
own life and ended up shunning his own half brother and his family members,
Abdu'l-Baha' followed his example and ended up shunning his half brother and
family as well, Shoghi followed suit and ended up shunning his entire
family, all in contradiction of the teaching: "Whatsoever hath led the
children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and
divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been
nullified and abolished."
When you nullify and abolish a practice for the rest of mankind you had
better be willing to refrain from that practice yourself if you want to be
taken seriously by thinking people.
As well Baha'u'llah lambastes Shiah Muslims for: "the shunning of the
followers of other religions."*
Thing is if the Babi Revelation was an independent Revelation as it is
maintained in Baha'i teachings it stands to reason that it was an
independent religion as well. So to shun Babis who didn't accept
Baha'u'llah's claim over what was clearly stated in the Bab's W&T itself is
the height of hypocrisy for a man who calls Shiah Muslims to task for "the
shunning of the followers of other religions."
This is the root cause of the dysfunctioning in the Baha'i Faith Brendan
and that it is the root cause is as evident as the sun at high noon. If
people chose to remain in the dark not much can be done to illumine them.
It is ignorance which has ever been the true spiritual enemy of humanity.
When people target people of other religions and other religious
interpretations as their spiritual enemies it is a sign of the work of
ignorance. Such ignorance has been at work in the Baha'i Faith since day
one. Why? Because Baha'u'llah failed to practice what he preached, it's as
simply as that.
Yours Larry
*The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things:
first, the shedding of blood; second, the burning of books; third, the
shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of
other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace
and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished,
these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal
dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes.Exalted is His
purpose; glorified is His power; magnified is His dominion! Now let us
beseech God -- praised be His glory -- to graciously guide aright the
followers of the Shi'ih sect and to purge them of unseemly conduct. From the
lips of the members of this sect foul imprecations fall unceasingly, while
they invoke the word 'Mal'un' (accursed) -- uttered with a guttural sound of
the letter ayn -- as their daily relish.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 91)
All Bad
Polychrysos wrote:
Hey Brendan,
Over the years we've had a few folks here who just did not like the
Central Figures any more, and we've managed. You are going to see this
in the real world, too.
- All Bad
Heather Carr-Rowe
Bayanis accounts of Ustad's and Baha'u'llah's pre-murder encounter has
Ustad asking Baha'u'llah if it would be O.K. for him and some Baha'i pals to
bump off those pesky Azalis at the gate. In that account Baha'u'llah gives
his O.K., not verbally but with a smile which gives Ustad the perfect
understanding that it is A O.K. with him. Which account is true who really
knows, the fact that Ustad approached Baha'u'llah before the murders took
place and put the question to him is not in question at all. Taherzadah
simply claims that Baha'u'llah advised Ustad against murdering the Bayanis.
There is not enough evidence to prove that Baha'u'llah actually condoned
the murders but the fact that he continued to dis Siyyid Muhammad long after
the man had his throat slit by fanatical Baha'is leads me to believe that he
believed that Siyyid Muhammad got what he deserved. It is not only in bad
taste, it is spiteful to continue to dis someone even after they were
murdered by followers of the person doing the dissing. You'd have thought
that Baha'u'llah would have let go of his hatred of Siyyid Muhammad after he
was murdered at the hands of fanatical Baha'is, his own followers.
Yours Larry
Heather Carr-Rowe
As I told Mosen Enayat, the Baha'i informer who was sent into my home under
false pretenses by my N.S.A. to be my doctrinal purity inquisitor, when he
dropped his true reason for his 'friendly' visit: "you would do well to
reconcider siding with those two people", meaning Juan Cole and Alison
Marshall; I emphatically stated: "that is not what this is all about, there
are no sides in this, no us vs. them, there is only us, we are them."
Clearly he didn't understand what I was saying because he reported back to
my NSA that I was doctrinally challanged, lol.
The only side I'm on is knowledge vs. ignorance. The ignorance and darkness
of the hypocritical Baha'i practice of shunning, a religious practice which
is in direct contradiction of Baha'u''lah Universal teaching: "Whatsoever
hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused
dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of
these words, been nullified and abolished."
Sounds nice in therory but unless you practice it, it remains mere words.
Yours Larry
sma...@jam.rr.com
> my NSA that I was doctrinally challanged, lol.
Gee, why would anyone think that someone who accuses Baha'u'llah of
complicity with murder to be doctrinally challenged?
sma...@jam.rr.com
> these precedents to the glaringly contradictory Baha'i teachings of "shun
> no man" and "shun these men".
Larry,
Except the Teachings never said 'shun no man.' What they prohibited was
the shunning of other religious communities, quite a different thing.
Baha'u'llah's tent is dilapidated, worn,
> threadbare, patched and ready for the refuse or compost heap.
Gee, now why would your NSA think you are 'doctrinally challenged'?
Must have been something that dastardly Enayat said about you!
> To vilify and castigate fellow religionists, Babis, because their personal
> religious interpretations differ is contrary to the teaching of the oneness
> of humanity and the reconciliation of religion.
Gee, it couldn't have any thing do with the fact that they were trying
to prevent anyone from even visiting Baha'u'llah by reporting them to
the authorities?
Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Ustad asking Baha'u'llah if it would be O.K. for him and some Baha'i pals to
> bump off those pesky Azalis at the gate.
In that account Baha'u'llah gives
> his O.K., not verbally but with a smile which gives Ustad the perfect
> understanding that it is A O.K. with him. Which account is true who really
> knows,
It's not like it is difficult to figure out that the Azalis' account
can't be credible. They have no way of knowing what happened between
Baha'u'llah and Ustad Salmani. It is not like somebody was wired. The
Baha'is on the other hand have both Salamani's and Aschi's memoirs
whcih make it quite clear that Baha'u'llah had prohibited any actions
along those lines and that they feared they would be excommunicated for
their disobedience.
>
> There is not enough evidence to prove that Baha'u'llah actually condoned
> the murders but the fact that he continued to dis Siyyid Muhammad long after
> the man had his throat slit by fanatical Baha'is leads me to believe that he
> believed that Siyyid Muhammad got what he deserved.
You know what? I think that Jefferey Dahmer got what he deserved. That
doesn't mean I was complicit in his murder or even that I approved of
it.
It is not only in bad
> taste, it is spiteful to continue to dis someone even after they were
> murdered by followers of the person doing the dissing.
I'm sorry it offends your sensibilities, but Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani
is still the anti-Christ of this dispensation no matter how he died.
Susan
John MacLeod
<wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136016639.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Browne names the murderers. Go to section W of his Travellers
> Narrative.
>
There seems t be no consistency in the accounts re the number of murderers and
even some disagreement on the number of victims. What's your best guess as to
the numbers involved?
John MacLeod
"Heather Carr-Rowe" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote in message
news:gyKtf.7848$l87.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Howdy John,
>
> Bayanis accounts of Ustad's and Baha'u'llah's pre-murder encounter has
> Ustad asking Baha'u'llah if it would be O.K. for him and some Baha'i pals to
> bump off those pesky Azalis at the gate. In that account Baha'u'llah gives
> his O.K., not verbally but with a smile which gives Ustad the perfect
> understanding that it is A O.K. with him. Which account is true who really
> knows,
I think I'd back that neither is true. This seems to be extremely factional
history and I wouldn't trust any of the accounts.
> the fact that Ustad approached Baha'u'llah before the murders took
> place and put the question to him is not in question at all. Taherzadah
> simply claims that Baha'u'llah advised Ustad against murdering the Bayanis.
For myself, I can't see where Taherzedeh says that, Each to their own reading
I suppose. I don't know that Tahersedeh woud have had any particular source
material that wasn't already used by Shoghi do you?
> leads me to believe that he
> believed that Siyyid Muhammad got what he deserved.
Yes, I agree with that. I can't see the comment in the Aqdas as anything else.
> You'd have thought
> that Baha'u'llah would have let go of his hatred of Siyyid Muhammad after he
> was murdered at the hands of fanatical Baha'is, his own followers.
As I said in my original post I think that Baha'u'llah would have had quite a
different attitude to religious violence than we do. For a start, He probably
did believe in eternal life and that this world and all that occurs on it
trivual. I don't think many of us believe that in a way that would influence
our actions and thoughts. Also, It is quite likely that He believed that, at
least at Manifestation time, God got quite literal and direct in dishing out
punishment. At any rate Shoghi seems to have believed that.
"Hajibu'd-Dawlih, that bloodthirsty fiend, who had strenuously hounded down so
many innocent and defenseless Bábís, fell in his turn a victim to the fury of
the turbulent Lurs, who, after despoiling him of his property, cut off his
beard, and forced him to eat it, saddled and bridled him, and rode him before
the eyes of the people, after which they inflicted under his very eyes
shameful atrocities upon his womenfolk and children."
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 83)
That's only one of the many incidents that Shoghi lists as being punishments
for God's enemies.
It's an attitude of mind I can't share.
>
> Yours Larry
>
>
sma...@jam.rr.com
> history and I wouldn't trust any of the accounts.
Dear John,
Doesn't it make sense that the Baha'is who were there are likely to
know the real story and not the Azalis who weren't there?
I don't know that Tahersedeh woud have had any particular source
> material that wasn't already used by Shoghi do you?
I think he did. A lot more had been gathered in the fifty years after
God Passes By was written.
> As I said in my original post I think that Baha'u'llah would have had quite a
> different attitude to religious violence than we do.
If He did John He never would have written that passage which begins,
"My imprisonment cannot harm me . . ."
Also, It is quite likely that He believed that, at
> least at Manifestation time, God got quite literal and direct in dishing out
> punishment.
That He did apparently believe.
warmest, Susan
John MacLeod
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136101939.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Except the Teachings never said 'shun no man.' What they prohibited was
> the shunning of other religious communities, quite a different thing.
>
So what about Frank Schlatter, for example? Seems an unfailingly polite
gentleman. I know nothing against him except that he belongs to a religious
community which on the vast majority of issues agrees with me completely but
has one particular obsession I find ridiculous. No-one in any kind of
authority has ever told me to shun him as a man.
What do you reckon, should I shun Frank?
John MacLeod
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136104506.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dear John,
>
> Doesn't it make sense that the Baha'is who were there are likely to
> know the real story and not the Azalis who weren't there?
Just to make myself clear, I'm talking about the accounts by ordinary Baha'is
not what Baha'u'llah Himself said.
They had a better chance to know the real story than the Bayanis but with
emotions running so high, no I don't think I'd trust their accounts. It is
well documented how much eye-witnesss accounts are affected by the assumptions
of the witnesses. Also, I'm not sure I'd trust them to tell the real story
even if they remembered it clearly. Hikmat you know. And certainly after a
few retellings it would be suspect.
Also I guess I have my doubts about murderers' accounts of their murders at
any time. I think there might be a bit of a tendency to put a gloss on
things, don't you?
>
> > As I said in my original post I think that Baha'u'llah would have had
quite a
> > different attitude to religious violence than we do.
>
> If He did John He never would have written that passage which begins,
> "My imprisonment cannot harm me . . ."
I presume you mean "My imprisonment doeth Me no harm, neither the tribulations
I suffer, nor the things that have befallen Me at the hands of My oppressors.
That which harmeth Me is the conduct of those who, though they bear My name,
yet commit that which maketh My heart and My pen to lament. They that spread
disorder in the land, and lay hands on the property of others, and enter a
house without leave of its owner," There is another similar one where He
laments the Bayanis pledging allegiance to one of His sons. I can't find one
that starts exactly as you say. Or is it "My captivity cannot harm me" as
quoted by Shoghi. I'm not sure if its a different passage or just a different
translation - its close enough to be a translation difference. What I notice
is that none of the three actually mention that murder or any other murder as
the things that cause Him harm.
Indeed the difference between Baha'u'llah's attitude and a modern attitude
seems to me that Baha'u'llah sees these wrong-doings as letting down the
reputation of the Cause whereas we would tend to see them from the victim's
point of view and not be terribly concerned with the religion of the
perpatrators. I think we've got the idea that people of all religions
sometimes do bad things.
Its I suppose another effect of "The vitality of men's belief in God is dying
out in every land..." For Baha'u'llah one doesn't slaughter Bayanis because
(rather regrettably) God has said one shouldn't and nothing else matters.
For us one doesn't slaughter Remeyites because that would be a most unkind and
impolite thing to do to people even if one disagrees with them about
something".
>
> Also, It is quite likely that He believed that, at
> > least at Manifestation time, God got quite literal and direct in dishing
out
> > punishment.
>
> That He did apparently believe.
To go back to the example I quoted from Shoghi:
"Hajibu'd-Dawlih, that bloodthirsty fiend, who had strenuously hounded down so
many innocent and defenseless Bábís, fell in his turn a victim to the fury of
the turbulent Lurs, who, after despoiling him of his property, cut off his
beard, and forced him to eat it, saddled and bridled him, and rode him before
the eyes of the people, after which they inflicted under his very eyes
shameful atrocities upon his womenfolk and children."
Do you think the "womenfolk and children" were also being punished or were
they just unlucky to have shameful atrocities visited on them in order to
punish their man? This concept that whole groups of people get punished for
the action of a few is a very dangerous doctrine. I've even heard a Baha'i
argue that the current war in Iraq is a punishment on Baghdad because it
didn't fully recognise Baha'u'llah. Not a common Baha'i view I'm glad to say
but uncomfortably close to the anti-semites' justifuication that the Jews
murdered Christ.
I googled "Lurs" and found it referred to the "London Underground Railway
Society" which I liked but found hard to believe. There is a suggestion that
it could be a variant spelling of an Iranian etrhnic group - is that right?
All Bad
John MacLeod wrote:
> <sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1136101939.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Except the Teachings never said 'shun no man.' What they prohibited was
>>the shunning of other religious communities, quite a different thing.
>>
>
>
> So what about Frank Schlatter, for example? Seems an unfailingly polite
> gentleman. I know nothing against him except that he belongs to a religious
> community which on the vast majority of issues agrees with me completely but
> has one particular obsession I find ridiculous. No-one in any kind of
I thought Frank was a Baha'i, which would put him in your religious
community. I also thought Frank was a Remeyite, either a declared CB,
or an associate of a declared CB.
> authority has ever told me to shun him as a man.
> What do you reckon, should I shun Frank?
I defer to 'Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi's guidance on these matters.
- All Bad
John MacLeod
"All Bad" <All_BadN...@gmpexpress.net> wrote in message
news:v7ednVRJ-ea...@catvexpress.net...
>
>
> I thought Frank was a Baha'i, which would put him in your religious
> community.
the list of factors producing a true community.
> I also thought Frank was a Remeyite,
As far as I know he is - a Hand of the Cause in the Othodox I believe.
>either a declared CB,
> or an associate of a declared CB.
>
One might suspect that, but one surely can't act on ones own suspicions. I
haven't seem any official document to say he's been declared a CB have you?
> I defer to 'Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi's guidance on these matters.
Well, it seems to me that the available guidance from the time of the Remey
split is to shun the Remeyites.
But Susan feels that the teaching is that we mustn't shun religious
communities. Of all the people who we are expected to shun, I can only
think of the Carre family who are not members of an easily identifiable
Remeyite group or followers (or at least relatives) of Muhammad Ali. Also I
am not aware of even one Remeyite who we are not supposed to shun (there may
be some but how would I know?). In practice, we shun small religious
communities that are splinter groups from our organisation. (Or I suppose
from a Remeyite point of view we are a giant splinter from the true trunk.)
I think if we shun Remeyites because they are Remeyites then we are shunning a
religious community. If we don't, I know of no reason to shun Frank.
All Bad
John MacLeod wrote:
> "All Bad" <All_BadN...@gmpexpress.net> wrote in message
> news:v7ednVRJ-ea...@catvexpress.net...
>
>>
>>I thought Frank was a Baha'i, which would put him in your religious
>>community.
>
> Not by any normal sense of the word community. I doubt if shunning is high on
> the list of factors producing a true community.
>
>
>> I also thought Frank was a Remeyite,
>
>
> As far as I know he is - a Hand of the Cause in the Othodox I believe.
>
>
>>either a declared CB,
>>or an associate of a declared CB.
>>
>
> One might suspect that, but one surely can't act on ones own suspicions. I
> haven't seem any official document to say he's been declared a CB have you?
>
When in doubt, I google. I googled "Orthodox Faith", "declared", and
"Covenant Breaker" and got the following:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Orthodox+Faith%22+declared+%22Covenant+Breaker%22&qt_s=Search
Following that first link,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_frm/thread/33b3a917aa59fb9/9c4c149f02ccd80d?lnk=st&q=%22Orthodox+Faith%22+declared+%22Covenant+Breaker%22&rnum=1#9c4c149f02ccd80d
I read,
"Saman asked who had been declared Covenant-breakers
without notice. I was, for one. So were most of those
who became Orthodox Baha'is at the same time as I."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/9c4c149f02ccd80d
So, if Frank says he was declared a Covenant Breaker, I figure he is
probably right. What do you think?
>
>> I defer to 'Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi's guidance on these matters.
>
>
> Well, it seems to me that the available guidance from the time of the Remey
> split is to shun the Remeyites.
> But Susan feels that the teaching is that we mustn't shun religious
> communities.
But I think that as Baha'is, we are all of one religious community, the
Baha'i community.
> Of all the people who we are expected to shun, I can only
> think of the Carre family who are not members of an easily identifiable
> Remeyite group or followers (or at least relatives) of Muhammad Ali. Also I
> am not aware of even one Remeyite who we are not supposed to shun (there may
> be some but how would I know?).
I have this recollection that Shoghi Effendi said that if we don't shun
Covenant Breakers, we are to be shunned, as well. Therefore, Baha'is
who do associate w/ Covenant Breakers are to be shunned, such that the
Remeyites get shunned, regardless of whether they've been specifically
designated as CBs or not.
> In practice, we shun small religious
> communities that are splinter groups from our organisation.
I think we are only shunning other Baha'is, and then, typically for
trying to foment schisms and power splits, etc.
> (Or I suppose
> from a Remeyite point of view we are a giant splinter from the true trunk.)
>
Saw dust?
> I think if we shun Remeyites because they are Remeyites then we are shunning a
> religious community. If we don't, I know of no reason to shun Frank.
I don't think of the Remeyites as a religious community. I think they
are Baha'is, Baha'is who a) are in denial that the Shoghi Effendi died
w/o appointing a successor, and b) have grasped onto someone to be that
successor Guardian (or substitute Guardian), in fashions inconsistent
with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l Baha, and typically c) try to
convince other Baha'is to accept their nth Guardian and reject the UHJ.
- All Bad
Michael McKenny
All Bad (All_BadN...@gmpexpress.net) writes:
>> authority has ever told me to shun him as a man.
>> What do you reckon, should I shun Frank?
>
> I defer to 'Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi's guidance on these matters.
Many thanks for your comments. What happened to Baha'u'llah's guidance?
Baha'u'llah said that one should be concerned with the time in which one
was living. Shoghi Effendi died in 1957 and his guidance can apply to
something he said in 1922. Abdu'l Baha's guidance would have come sometime
before 1922. Hmmm, it feels like a lot of this stuff can be considered
history, instead of the time in which we are living.
This is the Twenty First Century. There are broad universals of the Baha'i
Faith, as Baha'u'llah said, applying for all time. And there are things
that were said (especially in letters to individuals) that seem very much
to be specific to the person, group or time addressed and not meant to be
great universal truths.
Shunning does not seem to be a universal truth. Baha'u'llah forbade in his
Kitab-i'Aqdas as elsewhere the insistence on one exclusive interpretation.
Interpreting Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l Baha is interpreting. Baha'u'llah's
broad univwersal truths, such as associating with the followers of all
religions and His abrogation of whatever has caused shunning, seem to
apply across the ages, and to be reasonable policies in elevating humanity
out of its infantile contentions towards mature harmonious peace at a
global level.
>
> - All Bad
>
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
Finnegan's Wake
<wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135907159.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Down
> with the fluff bunnies and their sedated and sedating doctrines serving
> Belial and Moloch!
I'll cancel my subscription to Playboy at once!
>
> W
>
All Bad
Michael McKenny wrote:
> Greetings, Pat.
>
> All Bad (All_BadN...@gmpexpress.net) writes:
>
>>>authority has ever told me to shun him as a man.
>>>What do you reckon, should I shun Frank?
>>
>>I defer to 'Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi's guidance on these matters.
>
>
> Many thanks for your comments. What happened to Baha'u'llah's guidance?
I'm sure that it is good, too.
> Baha'u'llah said that one should be concerned with the time in which one
> was living. Shoghi Effendi died in 1957 and his guidance can apply to
> something he said in 1922. Abdu'l Baha's guidance would have come sometime
> before 1922. Hmmm, it feels like a lot of this stuff can be considered
> history, instead of the time in which we are living.
>
There seemed to be a lot of consistency in the shunning of CBs, though.
'Abdu'l Baha's guidance suggested that it would be durable guidance,
"fundamental principle" even.
> This is the Twenty First Century.
That would be the Christian calendar, though, rather than the Baha'i
one. The Baha'is are in their second century.
> There are broad universals of the Baha'i
> Faith, as Baha'u'llah said, applying for all time. And there are things
> that were said (especially in letters to individuals) that seem very much
> to be specific to the person, group or time addressed and not meant to be
> great universal truths.
>
Sure, this statement from 'Abdu'l Baha refers very much to the problems
with Ibrahim Khereilla and other Covenant Breakers of the day.
"In America, in these days, severe winds have
surrounded the Lamp of the Covenant, hoping that this
brilliant Light may be extinguished, and this Tree of
Life may be uprooted. Certain weak, capricious,
malicious and ignorant souls have been shaken by the
earthquake of hatred, of animosity, have striven to
efface the Divine Covenant and Testament, and render
the clear water muddy so that in it they might fish.
They have arisen against the Center of the Covenant
like the people of Bayán who attacked the Blessed
Beauty and every moment uttered a calumny. Every day
they seek a pretext and secretly arouse doubts, so that
the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh may be completely
annihilated in America."
http://www.bcca.org/ref/books/bwf/0919themasterslasttablettoamerica.html
> Shunning does not seem to be a universal truth.
As a general rule, I agree; we are to get along with people, in general,
and not shun them. Baha'is are only to shun Baha'is who break the
covenant, and that principle does appear to be durable:
"Bahá'u'lláh, in all the Tablets and Epistles, forbade the
true and firm friends from associating and meeting the
violators of the Covenant of His Holiness, the Báb, saying
that no one should go near them because their breath is
like the poison of the snake that kills instantly."
http://www.bcca.org/ref/books/bwf/0919themasterslasttablettoamerica.html
> Baha'u'llah forbade in his
> Kitab-i'Aqdas as elsewhere the insistence on one exclusive interpretation.
Is that your exclusive interpretation?
Before locking down on one exclusive interpretation on the shunning of
Baha'is, by Baha'is, check out this statement of 'Abdu'l Baha on practice:
"Bahá'u'lláh, in all the Tablets and Epistles, forbade the
true and firm friends from associating and meeting the
violators of the Covenant of His Holiness, the Báb, saying
that no one should go near them because their breath is
like the poison of the snake that kills instantly."
http://www.bcca.org/ref/books/bwf/0919themasterslasttablettoamerica.html
"And now, one of the greatest and most fundamental
principles of the Cause of God is to shun and avoid
entirely the Covenant-breakers, for they will utterly
destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and
render of no account all efforts exerted in the past. "
http://bahai-library.com/?file=abdulbaha_will_testament#2par10
> Interpreting Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l Baha is interpreting.
'Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi were the authorised interpreters of
Baha'u'llah, and what they said about shunning Covenant Breakers is
quite consistent
> Baha'u'llah's
> broad univwersal truths, such as associating with the followers of all
> religions and His abrogation of whatever has caused shunning, seem to
> apply across the ages, and to be reasonable policies in elevating humanity
> out of its infantile contentions towards mature harmonious peace at a
> global level.
>
Sure and shunning Covenant Breakers is a fundamental principle of His cause.
Happy New Year!
- All Bad
Heather Carr-Rowe
"Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath
caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation
of these words, been nullified and abolished."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 95)
'Whatsoever' Susan; not just religion, but race, ethnicity, nationality,
politics as well as religious interpretations.
'Nullified' and 'abolished' Susan. problem is that Baha'u'llah, as well as
Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in Baha'u'llah's stead, had just as much
difficulty putting this teaching into practice in their own lives as the
present day Baha'i administrative order and especially the Universal House
of Justice have putting this teaching into practice.
From my forty five years as a Baha'i child, youth, and adult my experience
was, and continues to be, that the greater majority of Baha'is actually have
a difficulty in understanding that the Universal teachings of the Baha'i
faith apply to them as well as the rest of humanity. I attribute this
inability to the inability of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi
to apply the non-shunning, oneness of humanity teaching, in their own lives
as well.
Just as Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi dellusionally believed that
they could espouse the oneness of humanity but not apply this principle in
their own lives, Baha'is are following in their footsteps.
The hypocrisy of calling on humanity to see the sense of the oneness of
humanity while at the same time advocating the shunning of those who have
been cast as spiritually contagious simply because their religious
interpretations differ from Baha'i dogmatism is not lost on those who see
with their own eyes and understand with their own hearts and minds.
The way that Ian Kludge deals with this glaring hypocrisy and the
contradiction in the lives of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha', Shoghi Effendi, and
today in the Universal House of Justice, is to write off all Baha'i
Universal teachings as mere 'councils of perfection'. Of course once you've
written off the Universal teachings of the Baha'i Faith what are you left
with? A religion that is indistinguishable from all the religions which
preceded it. This is the present state of the Baha'i Faith and it is
traceable to Baha'u'llah himself and his inability to apply his own
teachings of the oneness of humanity even within his own family, that
Abdu'l-Baha' Shoghi Effendi followed in Baha'u'llah's dysfunctional
footsteps doesn't come as any real surprise.
To preach the oneness of humanity is a good thing, to believe that somehow
you are exempt from applying it in your own life but that the rest of
humanity should fall into line is delusional.
Yours Larry
stevebl...@yahoo.com
These are the outpour of hatred passed down from Husayn-Ali to the
Guardian of falsehood:
"... allowing himself to be duped by the enticing prospects of
unfettered leadership held out to him by Siyyid Muhammad, the
Antichrist of the Baha'i Revelation.. that vile whisperer ... that
living embodiment of wickedness, cupidity and deceit .."
As for why Sayyed Muhammad was labelled 'Anti Christ':
Avara a one time secretary of Abbas says Abbas himself was involved in
the murder and for this reason he was the Messiah and Sayyid Muhammad
Antichrist. Because of an Islamic tradition Antichrist is to be slain
with the sword of the Messiah.
So the only thing that made Sayyed Muhammad "anti Christ" was the way
he was killed which boomerangs against Husayn-Ali and his son.
In case Husayn-Ali was allegedly the Christ, he himself was ignorant of
what his grand-son later managed to figure out. Shoghi's accusations
come down to what Husayn-Ali had alleged, that is "Sayyed Muhammad
duped 'Subh-i Azal' by the enticing prospects of unfettered
leadership".
This claim of Husayn-Ali can be nothing but pure garbage and he knew it
well:
"Subh-i Azal" was already the 'Head of the Faith'. There was nothing
more that 'Subh-i Azal' wished "to be held out to" and he wasn't.
"Subh-i Azal" had even previously warned Husayn-Ali to "shut up" from
very early on. He had also rejected other claimants such as Dayyan.
By all accounts "Subh-i Azal" had chosen to live in seclusion and had
the 'worldly' affairs managed by Husayn-Ali and others.
There is nothing to support that "Subh-i Azal" had interest in anything
but to live in seclusion, write his "divine verses", copy the works of
"the Primal Point" for distribution and rejecting the false claimants
including Husayn-Ali.
Sayyed Muhammad was a follower of the 'head of the faith' who chose to
reject Husayn-Ali and earned his wrath.
Another reason why Husayn-Ali states for hating Sayyed Muhammad was his
matrimony to "the Primal Point" 's widow and as I mentioned before no
Bayanic provisions was violated, to the contrary.
As for the return for name calling by Husay-Ali's clan, the Bayani camp
considers Husayn-Ali the manifestation of the Satan of the age.
There were seven to sixteen killers involved in the killings of the
Bayanic in Acre. The size of the number indicates a mass convergence of
Husayn-Ali's followers to so the same thing which can only reflect on a
central pointer.
While the murderers were in jail Husayn-Ali comes up with prayers and
tells his followers to recite them for the release of the killers (his
companions). Soon after, a miracle happens and the killers are
released. See Mirza Jawad's epitome for the text of the prayers. 'O
Lord ..... Save the companions'. There is nothing more shameful than
this.
As for the motivation for the killings, all you need to do is to read
Husayn-Ali's works (such as those concerning Sayyed Muhammad) and soon
you get the urge to kill somebody.
And if those accusations mentioned above are not enough to converge
them on committing murder, then you make up more. Bayanis have
reproduced Abbas's handwriring condoning the killings reasoning that
they ate pork and drank wine.
http://www.bayanic.com/notes/assas/as05.html
The obvious reason for the killings is far simpler. The three Bayanis
could jeopardise Husayn-Ali's career and were considered 'very high
risk' and had to be eliminated otherwise the cause of 'Satan' would not
flourish.
Cheers
Steve
John MacLeod
>
>
>
> When in doubt, I google.
>
> probably right. What do you think?
Yes, I'd take Frank's word for it. Or at least that he was under the
impression that he was declared a Covenant Breaker and that that hasn't been
changed. He seems to think that people being made covenant breakers is
announced in newsletters. I can't say I've ever seen such an announcement
but maybe I don't read closely enough.
I like the idea of using google to identify covenant breakers. There is a
worry that there may be devious covenant breakers out there who haven't
self-reported their classification but I'm sure we can find a workaround for
that. Perhaps in time google will be incorporated into the future Baha'i
commonwealth as the official archives of the Faith?
All I'm really saying is that, in practice, reluctantly, I do my best to obey
the authorities of my Faith by shunning those who appear to be Remeyites. I
don't do it by checking google or any other archive to see if there is some
evidence that they have been declared covenant breakers. I don't do it by
judging them as individuals and seeing if I detect an 'odour of mischief'. I
shun them because they are Remeyites. It sure feels to me like I'm shunning a
religious grouping (at least without getting into issues as to what is a
community).
If the teachings, as Susan says, preclude shunning other religious communities
I'd say I'm perilously close to breaking that. I don't feel comfortable
relying on the doctrine that the Orthodox are part of our community.
I would have thought that there are many examples of deep religious hatred,
shunning, and war that occur within what you call a religious community. Take
Northern Ireland for instance. Would you feel that Baha'u'llahs words
"Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused
dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these
words, been nullified and abolished." were not intended to apply in that
situation?
All Bad
John MacLeod wrote:
> "All Bad" <All_BadN...@gmpexpress.net> wrote in message
> news:iMGdnZ456fwbgSXe...@catvexpress.net...
>
>>
>>
>>When in doubt, I google.
>>
>>So, if Frank says he was declared a Covenant Breaker, I figure he is
>>probably right. What do you think?
>
>
> Yes, I'd take Frank's word for it. Or at least that he was under the
> impression that he was declared a Covenant Breaker and that that hasn't been
> changed. He seems to think that people being made covenant breakers is
> announced in newsletters. I can't say I've ever seen such an announcement
> but maybe I don't read closely enough.
There is something to be said for the formality, on the one hand, as
we'll see below, but the overwhelming point of ignoring someone,
unfortunately, tends against a public list.
> I like the idea of using google to identify covenant breakers. There is a
> worry that there may be devious covenant breakers out there who haven't
> self-reported their classification but I'm sure we can find a workaround for
> that. Perhaps in time google will be incorporated into the future Baha'i
> commonwealth as the official archives of the Faith?
>
The down side of googling is that you can be tripped up by the
wannabees. For instance, Darrick started his own rumor that he was
being sanctioned, such that folks should pester the US Baha'i Centre to
inquire as to his status (resigned). Dermod has applied, but not
exerted himself as Darrick has. Darrick's tried so hard that he
recently seemed to be a Remeyite, and I was deciding to shun him pending
some formal notification, but alas, they could not accommodate his far
more orthodox views.
> All I'm really saying is that, in practice, reluctantly, I do my best to obey
> the authorities of my Faith by shunning those who appear to be Remeyites. I
Just between you and me, I think you've done quite well, better than many.
> don't do it by checking google or any other archive to see if there is some
> evidence that they have been declared covenant breakers. I don't do it by
> judging them as individuals and seeing if I detect an 'odour of mischief'. I
> shun them because they are Remeyites. It sure feels to me like I'm shunning a
> religious grouping (at least without getting into issues as to what is a
> community).
Yes, the 'Duck Rule', does work.
> If the teachings, as Susan says, preclude shunning other religious communities
> I'd say I'm perilously close to breaking that. I don't feel comfortable
> relying on the doctrine that the Orthodox are part of our community.
>
I think it depends on how you define 'community'. No doubt most Baha'is
will consider them to be excommunicants, that is, not of our community.
If that is the case, though, they certainly would not be of the
Muslim, or Christian community, would they?
> I would have thought that there are many examples of deep religious hatred,
> shunning, and war that occur within what you call a religious community. Take
> Northern Ireland for instance. Would you feel that Baha'u'llahs words
> "Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused
> dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these
> words, been nullified and abolished." were not intended to apply in that
> situation?
I really don't think they shun each other over differences of religion.
I think they shun each other over ethnic rivalries and make up
religious differences to justify that. Some of the stories George would
tell of arse biscuits, being examples of manufactgured justifications.
- All Bad
sma...@jam.rr.com
> > know the real story and not the Azalis who weren't there?
>
> Just to make myself clear, I'm talking about the accounts by ordinary Baha'is
> not what Baha'u'llah Himself said.
Dear John,
I'm talking about the accounts of those who actually committed the
crime.
It is all in Aschi's memoirs.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
stevebl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear all,
> These are the outpour of hatred passed down from Husayn-Ali to the
> Guardian of falsehood:
By jove, he *is* Nima!
For a minute there, I thought there might be a real Babi out there.
John MacLeod
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136173951....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
> I'm talking about the accounts of those who actually committed the
> crime.
>
Maybe you didn't read my whole post. I said "Also I guess I have my doubts
about murderers' accounts of their murders at any time. I think there might
be a bit of a tendency to put a gloss on things, don't you?"
Up to as point, I would give credence in general terms to the Baha'i version
as the informants seem more directly concerned. But I wouldn't treat either
side's version with much respect.
Heather Carr-Rowe
punishments
for God's enemies.
It's an attitude of mind I can't share.'
It's more than an attitude John it's Baha'i dogma. Attitudes can change,
Baha'i dogma can't change because of the myth of infallibility.
Because Baha'u'llah shunned his half-brother Azal, Abdu'l-Baha' shunned his
half-brother, and Shoghi shunned his entire family it has to be OK to shun
because they couldn't make mistakes, they were infallibile after all. This
mental aberrasion has carried over until the present day with the U.H.J..
When you mention any questionable action of the U.H.J. to the majority of
Baha'is they don't even begin to examine that action they simply state:
"well they must have deserved to be excommunicated." , "well they must
deserve to be shunned", "well the U.H.J. must know what it's doing". After
all if you're infallible you can never make a mistake and this is exactly
the reason that the Baha'i Faith is stuck in the past, it can never learn
from the mistakes of it's Founder, of the Master, of the Guardian, of the
Universal House of Justice.
The Baha'i Faith is forever stuck in the past because of it's inability to
learn from mistakes because of the myth of infallibility. How sad!
Yours Larry
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Maybe you didn't read my whole post. I said "Also I guess I have my doubts
> about murderers' accounts of their murders at any time. I think there might
> be a bit of a tendency to put a gloss on things, don't you?"
A gloss where they admit they disobeyed God's Manifestation? That
doesn't make much sense.
sma...@jam.rr.com
> gentleman. I know nothing against him except that he belongs to a religious
> community which on the vast majority of issues agrees with me completely but
> has one particular obsession I find ridiculous.
Dear John,
When Baha'u'llah talked about religious communities He was talking
about completely separate religions such as Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, etc. We don't consider the Remeyites as a seperate community.
No-one in any kind of
> authority has ever told me to shun him as a man.
> What do you reckon, should I shun Frank?
I suggest you ask your ABM. I personally do not associate with anyone
who admits being a member of a Remeyite organization such as the
Orthodox Baha'is. That doens't mean I have anything against them as
individuals. Some of them appear to be behave decently while others
are total jerks. Like Pat, I avoid Covenant breakers simply out of
obedience.
warmest, Susan
John MacLeod
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136176531....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dear John,
>
> When Baha'u'llah talked about religious communities He was talking
> about completely separate religions such as Judaism, Christianity,
> Islam, etc.
But in this case it was you who talked about religious communities not
Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah's words seem to me broad enough to include
schismatic groups. I think its at least arguable that Baha'u'llahs advice
was:
Never shun someone because of their avowed religion.
Shun (avoid) individuals whose actions and habits are nasty irrespective of
their religion.
> We don't consider the Remeyites as a seperate community.
This is a word game. "Community" can have different meanings. But they are
certainly separate from us to the extent that we don't know them and all we
know about them is their religious affiliation.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
John MacLeod
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136175517.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oh no, everybody knew they disobeyed God in one form or another. Possibly a
gloss where they didn't mention it was basically a drunken brawl? I don't
know - I haven't read it but as I say I'm uninclined to put much weight on
true confessions.
>
123Infinity
All Bad wrote:
>
>
> There seemed to be a lot of consistency in the shunning of CBs, though.
> 'Abdu'l Baha's guidance suggested that it would be durable guidance,
> "fundamental principle" even.
>
> Happy New Year!
> - All Bad
>
Pat, the shunning directive started with Baha'u'llah.
Bahá'u'lláh, in all the Tablets and Epistles, forbade the true and firm
friends from associating and meeting the violators of the Covenant of
His Holiness, the Báb, saying that no one should go near them because
their breath is like the poison of the snake that kills instantly.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 429)
sma...@jam.rr.com
> One might suspect that, but one surely can't act on ones own suspicions. I
> haven't seem any official document to say he's been declared a CB have you?
Dear John,
We are asked to avoid anyone spreading the views of the Covenant
breakers whether or not they have been officially declared as such.
> > Well, it seems to me that the available guidance from the time of the Remey
> split is to shun the Remeyites.
That's true.
> But Susan feels that the teaching is that we mustn't shun religious
> communities.
By religious community is meant a separate religion. The Remeyites
don't qualify as this.
> I think if we shun Remeyites because they are Remeyites then we are shunning a
> religious community.
That's not the way Baha'u'llah used the term.
warmest, Susan
123Infinity
Michael McKenny wrote:
>
> Shunning does not seem to be a universal truth. Baha'u'llah forbade in his
> Kitab-i'Aqdas as elsewhere the insistence on one exclusive interpretation.
> Interpreting Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l Baha is interpreting. Baha'u'llah's
> broad univwersal truths, such as associating with the followers of all
> religions and His abrogation of whatever has caused shunning, seem to
> apply across the ages, and to be reasonable policies in elevating humanity
> out of its infantile contentions towards mature harmonious peace at a
> global level.
>
>
> Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
>
"Bahá'u'lláh, in all the Tablets and Epistles, forbade the true and firm
friends from associating and meeting the violators of the Covenant of
His Holiness, the Báb, saying that no one should go near them because
their breath is like the poison of the snake that kills instantly.
In the Hidden Words, He says: "Esteem the friendship of the just, but
withhold both mind and hand from the company of the wicked."
Addressing one of the friends, He says: "It is clear to your honor that
before long Satan, in the garb of man, will reach that land and will try
to mislead the friends of the Divine Beauty through temptations which
arouse the desires of self, and will cause them to follow the footsteps
of Satan away from the right and glorious path, and prevent them from
attaining the Blessed Shore of the King of Oneness. This is a hidden
information of which we have informed the chosen ones lest they may be
deprived of their praiseworthy station by associating with the
embodiments of hatred. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all the friends
of God to shun any person in whom they perceive the emanation of hatred
for the Glorious Beauty of Abha, though he may quote all the Heavenly
Utterances and cling to all the Books." He continues -- 431 Glorious
be His Name! -- "Protect yourselves with utmost vigilance, lest you be
entrapped in the snare of deception and fraud." This is the advice of
the Pen of Destiny.
In another address, He says: "Therefore, to avoid these people will be
the nearest path by which to attain the divine good pleasure; because
their breath is infectious, like unto poison."
In another Tablet, He says: "O Kazim, close thine eye to the people of
the world; drink the water of knowledge from the heavenly cup bearers,
and listen not to the nonsensical utterances of the manifestations of
Satan, because the manifestations of Satan are occupying today the
observation posts of the glorious path of God, and preventing the people
by every means of deception and ruse. Before long you will witness the
turning away of the people of Bayan from the Manifestation of the Merciful."
In another Tablet, He says: "Endeavor to your utmost to protect
yourselves, because Satan appears in different robes and appeals to
everyone according to each person's own way, until he becomes like unto
him -- then he will leave him alone."
In another Tablet, He says: "Shun any man in whom you perceive enmity
for this Servant, though he may appear in the garb of piety of the
former and later people, or may arise to the worship of the two worlds."
In another Tablet, He says: "O Mahdi! Be informed by these utterances
and shun the manifestations of the people of hell, the rising place of
Nimrods, the rising place of Pharees, the fountain of Tagut, and the
soothsayers."
Again He says: "Say, O my friend and my pure ones! Listen to the Voice
of this Beloved Prisoner in this Great Prison. If you detect in any man
the least perceptible breath of violation, shun him and keep away from
him." Then He says: "Verily, they are manifestations of Satan."
In another Tablet, He says: "And turn your faces to the Great
Countenance for before long the foul odors of the wicked persons will
pass over these regions. God willing, you may remain protected during
these days."
In the 18th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, 6th to 9th verses, 432
His Holiness Christ says: "But whosoever shall offend one of these
little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone
were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the
sea. Woe unto the world because of offenses, for it must needs be that
offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. Wherefore
if thy hand or thy feet offend thee, cut them off and cast them from
thee; it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather
than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And
if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 431)
John MacLeod
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136178388....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I think if we shun Remeyites because they are Remeyites then we are
shunning a
> > religious community.
>
> That's not the way Baha'u'llah used the term.
>
the sense you and Pat seem to be using it, Baha'u'llah's injunction ""Consort
with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and
fellowship." Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and
hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the
example, to any divisions between Shia and Sunni or Catholic and Protestant.
Is that really how you understand that quotation from Baha'u'llah?
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Is that really how you understand that quotation from Baha'u'llah?
Yeah, definitely because I know how Shi'ites treated religious
minorities in Iran in the 19th century and the way Baha'is went out of
their way not to do this.
John MacLeod
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136186912.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oh come on Susan, that's not the question.
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that Baha'u'llah wanted all the main
religions (Jewish, Zoroastrian, Islam, Christian, Buddhist, Baha'i etc) to
consort in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.
The question is did He also want Sunnis to consort with Shiites, Zen
practitioners with Mahayana practitioners, Catholics with Protestants etc.
I find it very hard to believe He didn't.
I suspect the Remeyites are only kept going by their staunch old believers who
are not going to be there for ever, but if they do manage to hang on as a
minority group will there come a time when we accept that the origin of the
group doesn't matter, we must consort with them too? In my view yes. I
really personally don't understand why we shun them now as I can't see them as
a serious threat to the Faith but once all the ones who were involved in the
split are gone, I sincerely hope the UHJ will say - they are people too lets
be sociable.
Just out of curiosity I googled 'religious communities'. It seems to me that
most people who use it (e.g. adherents.com) are quite happy to regard an
independent group within a religion as a religion community.
All Bad
123Infinity wrote:
This looks like The Master's Last Tablet to America.
- All Bad
Heather Carr-Rowe
One has only to look at what the reason for such a mindset is to see that
it has nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality at all.
Take John Carre for an example. In my Baha'i Canada a year or two ago I
read a warning from the Universal House of Justice about John and the fact
that they consider him to be a covenant breaker and thus shunnable. The
mental illness of this shunning is even more evident with the fact that this
shunning extends to John children and even their children.
Any person who is aware of this mental aberration in the Baha'i Faith but
remains within the religious community which perpetuates this mental
aberration is a true blue cultist. People who could even be incited to
murder through hatred of those they see as enemies of their faith.
Yours Larry
All Bad
Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
> Howdy John,
>
> One has only to look at what the reason for such a mindset is to see that
> it has nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality at all.
>
The mindset being, "don't kill the CBs; just ignore them"?
> Take John Carre for an example. In my Baha'i Canada a year or two ago I
> read a warning from the Universal House of Justice about John and the fact
> that they consider him to be a covenant breaker and thus shunnable. The
> mental illness of this shunning is even more evident with the fact that this
> shunning extends to John children and even their children.
>
Okay. I think that John's children get shunned when they start talking
Remeyism, and such.
> Any person who is aware of this mental aberration in the Baha'i Faith but
> remains within the religious community which perpetuates this mental
> aberration is a true blue cultist. People who could even be incited to
> murder through hatred of those they see as enemies of their faith.
It would be hard to murder someone you are ignoring. How you come up
with this non sequitor, suggests to me that you are deluded. But tell
me that it is a fact that I am deluded if it makes you feel better.
- All Bad
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136174158....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fine and dandy! Now why don't you refute his statements paying close
attention to source material whilst keeping your prejudices and instructions
from the Fuhrerbunker well under control?
Finnegan's Wake
> Okay. I think that John's children get shunned when they start talking
> Remeyism, and such.
I just heard that they got shunned for being ... em! er! ... his children.
Years back I read how his daughter was asked to remove her offspring from
Bahai functions because ... em! er! ... of whose grandchildren they were.
>
>> Any person who is aware of this mental aberration in the Baha'i Faith
>> but
>> remains within the religious community which perpetuates this mental
>> aberration is a true blue cultist. People who could even be incited to
>> murder through hatred of those they see as enemies of their faith.
>
> It would be hard to murder someone you are ignoring. How you come up with
> this non sequitor, suggests to me that you are deluded. But tell me that
> it is a fact that I am deluded if it makes you feel better.
Come now, AB! The instilling of fear and hatred based on religious
prejudices is a most potent recipe for mayhem and murder ... as I know,
having lived my life in a society riven by religious hatred. And as a
Covenant Breaker (Second Class) myself - all that "spiritually corrosive"
and left to their own devices" jazz - well and truly treated in that fashion
by the local BIGS, as is SWTSOTBO ... because she is mine spouse ... looks
like your argument has just gone sailing over the cliff!
Will you be buying books from Kalimat now?
>
> - All Bad
>
All Bad
Finnegan's Wake wrote:
> "All Bad" <All_BadN...@gmpexpress.net> wrote in message
> news:daednYN58Pj...@catvexpress.net...
>
>>Okay. I think that John's children get shunned when they start talking
>>Remeyism, and such.
>
>
> I just heard that they got shunned for being ... em! er! ... his children.
Perhaps there are a few like that, but would anyone really want them for
friends anyway?
> Years back I read how his daughter was asked to remove her offspring from
> Bahai functions because ... em! er! ... of whose grandchildren they were.
>
>>> Any person who is aware of this mental aberration in the Baha'i Faith
>>>but
>>>remains within the religious community which perpetuates this mental
>>>aberration is a true blue cultist. People who could even be incited to
>>>murder through hatred of those they see as enemies of their faith.
>>
>>It would be hard to murder someone you are ignoring. How you come up with
>>this non sequitor, suggests to me that you are deluded. But tell me that
>>it is a fact that I am deluded if it makes you feel better.
>
>
> Come now, AB! The instilling of fear and hatred based on religious
> prejudices is a most potent recipe for mayhem and murder ... as I know,
Shunning is not about fear and hatred; it is about ignoring people.
Have you never had a child attempt to throw a tantrum in public? Sure,
it might work to slap their bums a blistering red, but it can also work
to ignore them.
> having lived my life in a society riven by religious hatred. And as a
> Covenant Breaker (Second Class) myself - all that "spiritually corrosive"
See, John!
> and left to their own devices" jazz - well and truly treated in that fashion
> by the local BIGS, as is SWTSOTBO ... because she is mine spouse ... looks
> like your argument has just gone sailing over the cliff!
>
> Will you be buying books from Kalimat now?
Do they have any after Xmas sales?
- All Bad
John MacLeod
> And as a
> > Covenant Breaker (Second Class) myself - all that "spiritually corrosive"
>
> See, John!
>
I take it this is a back reference to our discussion re making Google the
official archive of the Baha'i Faith and your comment that the record could be
confused by wannabees making unsubstantiated claims to covenant breaker
status?
Poor Mr Wake has little chance of promotion to first class, I fear. He is
fundamentally too honest to pretend he believes in third guardians and the
like. Perhaps we could shun him purely as an act of service? I feel he would
appreciate the gesture even if did not come with the official title.
All Bad
John MacLeod wrote:
That's a tricky one. I'm not sure if we are BIGS enough.
Tim, would it help if we ignored you for a fortnight? You'd have to be
here regularly though. Then you'd be a Finn again to us.
- All Bad
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Okay. I think that John's children get shunned when they start talking
> Remeyism, and such.
Dear Pat,
Carre's daughters don't talk Remeyism,. the talk ' a new Manifestation
is about to appear.' Carre broke with Mason Remey soon after he
accepted him.
> It would be hard to murder someone you are ignoring. How you come up
> with this non sequitor, suggests to me that you are deluded. But tell
> me that it is a fact that I am deluded if it makes you feel better.
What gets me is that he has the nerve to justify the murder of Baha'is
in Iran and then accuses us of being capable of murder because we avoid
someone.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Years back I read how his daughter was asked to remove her offspring from
> Bahai functions because ... em! er! ... of whose grandchildren they were.
Dear Dermod,
If she hadn't been trying to spread her father's views no one would
likely have even known she was Nancy Carre. She was married by then and
going under
And as a
> Covenant Breaker (Second Class) myself -
Sorry, Dermod, you never even made that grade.
all that "spiritually corrosive"
> and left to their own devices" jazz - well and truly treated in that fashion
> by the local BIGS, as is SWTSOTBO ... because she is mine spouse ... looks
> like your argument has just gone sailing over the cliff!
You mean someone tried to kill you?
>
> Will you be buying books from Kalimat now?
I figured I'd wait until their sold to a jobber and I can get them
half-price.
Susan
All Bad
sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
Welcome to TRB? I'd thought you were an old timer, and had seen this
all before?
Criminy. Look at all the noise about shunning, and I think it's been
six or seven years since Fred's had a response for me beyond "the Fred
technique." Fred doesn't get a peep from some quarters for _practicing_
shunning on his "fellow bahais", on his own volition, and the same folks
are obstreperating about the practice being called for in certain
circumstances. Welcome to TRB!
- All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com
W
wahid...@gmail.com
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>know the real story and not the Azalis who weren't there?
No, because as Browne, Tumanski, Nicolas, Avarih, Sobhi, Niku and
countless others have established, Baha'is are bald faced liars and
will pull rank and lie collectively for each other. The last ones who
are ever to be trusted are baha'is (la'antullah 'aleyhim kullhim
ajma'in).
W
Finnegan's Wake
> Welcome to TRB? I'd thought you were an old timer, and had seen this all
> before?
>
> Criminy. Look at all the noise about shunning, and I think it's been six
> or seven years since Fred's had a response for me beyond "the Fred
> technique." Fred doesn't get a peep from some quarters for _practicing_
> shunning on his "fellow bahais", on his own volition, and the same folks
> are obstreperating about the practice being called for in certain
> circumstances. Welcome to TRB!
Fred does not shun you ... he simply ignores you!
Should we all do that? I think we should be tolled!
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1136264261.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I just heard that they got shunned for being ... em! er! ... his
>> children.
>> Years back I read how his daughter was asked to remove her offspring from
>> Bahai functions because ... em! er! ... of whose grandchildren they were.
>
> Dear Dermod,
>
> If she hadn't been trying to spread her father's views no one would
> likely have even known she was Nancy Carre. She was married by then and
> going under
I wasn't referring to your friend, Nancy!
> And as a
>> Covenant Breaker (Second Class) myself -
>
> Sorry, Dermod, you never even made that grade.
But I did make the "spiritually corrosive" grade!
>
> all that "spiritually corrosive"
>> and left to their own devices" jazz - well and truly treated in that
>> fashion
>> by the local BIGS, as is SWTSOTBO ... because she is mine spouse ...
>> looks
>> like your argument has just gone sailing over the cliff!
>
> You mean someone tried to kill you?
Yup! Years ago!
>> Will you be buying books from Kalimat now?
>
> I figured I'd wait until their sold to a jobber and I can get them
> half-price.
I suppose that's why you back old Bobalong is his efforts to suppress
Kalimat.