Tahirih's blessings in the conference of Badasht!

By former Baha'i Darrick T. Evenson

There are mountains of letters, books, manuscripts, in Farsi, some in Arabic, from the Central Figures, and from the Companions of the Central Figure, that have never been published. Mountains. The Universal House of Justice tries to gather them up, for "safety" and "research". But not to published. You will find in them a few tidbits such as:

*At the council of Behdasht (sorry, forgot the name, winging it today) Tahirih would expose both her breasts, pour henna on her naked breasts, and invite Babis to come up and she'd rub her henna covered breasts on the faces of the males, saying she was bestowing some sort of mystical wisdom on them. Quddus was so upset that he took a sword and was going to murder Tirhirih, but Baha'u'llah talked him out of it. This was, allegedly, the reason why one of the Babis cut his own throat. Her breasts were too much for him (I've been there).

*When the Maid of Heaven appeared to Baha'u'llah in the Siyah Chal, Baha'u'llah took out one of her breasts, and admired it in his hand. I realize, that many Baha'is interpret the Maid of Heaven as "only a metaphor" and that She never really appeared to Baha'u'llah, but is used by him as a "poetic fictional character". Still, that was a pretty strip club kind of thing to do (not condemning Baha'u'llah for being a man and admiring a nicely shaped female breast). Some Baha'is intepret Maid of Heaven as the "spirit of the Bab" (WTF????). The Bab visits Baha'u'llah in drag?

*The sister of Baha'u'llah, one of them, accept Subh-i-Azal as the true successor of The Bab, and wrote a book titled "Awaking the Sleepers" where she claimed that her brother, Mirza Husayn-Ali (Baha'u'llah) ordered the murder of at least 80 followers of Subh-i-Azal, and that the Euphrates River (or is it the Tigris?) "turned red" from the blood of all the Babis who had their throats cut and then were thrown into the River. I am NOT suggesting this is true, but that is what she wrote. She may have known that as a fact, or Azal may have told her a lie in order to get her from supporting Baha'u'llah. Either could be the case.

Unfortunately, I don't have sources to show you. I used keep notes, which I had to abandon long ago. But I'm being truthful in that is what I read. Perhaps this is one reason that the Universal House of Justice is gathering up all the original letters, books, writings, and not publishing or translating every one per cent of what they've gathered. They're placing all this stuff in the Archives, and throwing away the key.

Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/cv1rek/tihirih_and_her_naked_breasts/

Baha'i Peter: George Ibrahim Kheiralla

By former Baha'i Darrick T. Evenson

Kheiralla and his American followers.

The man that 'Abdu'l-Baha once called "Baha's Peter" was from Beirut, Lebanon, named George Ibrahim Kheiralla, the son of wealthy Maronite Christians in Beirut. Very rich family. They sent him to the Presbyterian College of Syria (American University of Beirut), where he learned good English. He went to Egypt after college, and there met a Baha'i. The Baha'i thought that the Baha'i faith taught reincarnation, so, he taught that to George. George should have went to Akka to meet the Baha'is, and find out what they really taught, but he didn't. George was an inventor of gadgets, like a spring-loaded "boots" that made it easier for soldiers to march longer. None of his inventions had any practical value at the time. Armies forced soldiers to march as long as they wanted them to march, or whip them or shoot them. So, no armies were interested.

George sailed to America to make his fortune. He was supported by something like a trust fund. By 1890 he found his way to Chicago, and fell in with a cult called "The Universal Temple". It was based on reincarnation, mystical healing, and offered people an "M.D." in "Doctor of Mysticism". George attended, got his 'M.D.' in Mystical Doctor (i.e. healing by a form of mind-over-matter Reiki), and started giving lectures at U.T. meetings. They met at a Masonic Temple (which rented out lecture halls to anyone willing to pay the fee). George did not have one Baha'i book. The Egyptian who taught him the Faith, probably never read any Baha'i book or Tablet. All George had was stories, some true, some not, some distorted, names, approximate dates, and some teachings (often distorted). There is also evidence the George was involved in at least on Rosicrucian Order, and Freemasonry.

George developed an esoteric religion, based upon reincarnation, secret doctrines, degrees, that he called "The Beha'i Religion". He started to invite members of the Temple of Universal Law (also called U.T.), and they got hooked. George was a magnificent orator, and left people wanting more. Secret names. He told them that the Father and Jesus had returned, first to Persia, but they were now in Palestine (oh my!) and ALIVE! Although Baha'u'llah died in 1892, George did not know that then. George wrote a long letter to Baha'u'llah c/o Acco, Palestine, Governorate of Syria, and, eventually, somehow, it eventually got to 'Abdu'l-Baha, who, of course, living in Arabic countries since he was 11, could read and write and speak Arabic just fine. 'Abdu'l-Baha, of course, had no idea that George was teaching "Behaism" which was a major distortion of the Baha'i Faith, but George did not know that. All 'Abdu'l-Baha knew was that some Lebanese man in America was making converts to the Baha'i Faith hand over fist, and that the converts wanted to know to what bank they could wire money (donations). To 'Abdu'l-Baha, it must have seemed like God was raining money on him.

At the time, 'Abdu'l-Baha was in terrible dispute with his young brothers, Mohammad Ali Effendi, and Badi'u'llah. The entire family of Baha'u'llah, except for a couple, sided with Mohammad Ali and Badi'u'llah. 'Abdu'l-Baha started to get money wired to a bank in Haifa. He started to get letters from Americans written in English, a language he did not know. But, lucky for him, one of the Baha'is in Haifa had lived in Cairo a number of years, and studied some English there. Also, Akka and Haifa had a few "physician missionaries to the poor" who were from America or Britain, who could read and write in Arabic as well as their own native language. At about this time, the Turkish courts ruled that 'Abdu'l-Baha had the right to inherit 100% of his father's estate (being the eldest son). So, poor Mohammad Ali Effendi and Badi'u'llah, and Diya'u'llah, had to get real jobs for the first time in their lives! No more trust fund babies! At least they could read and write Farsi and Arabic. But, oh, poor Badi'u'llah. He had a terrible time supporting his family. Horrible time. None of them had any useful skills. All their lives, black slaves had done everything for them, and the Baha'is supported them, paid for every morsel of food, but NOW, 'Abdu'l-Baha took away their "shares" of the Baha'i Pie. Oh my! Badi'u'llah was literally facing eviction and starvation for himself and his family. 'Abdu''l-Baha offered him financial help "if" he sided with him, and against Mohammad Ali. So, he did, got the help, then finally found a job, and switched allegiances again. Diya'u'llah got so malnurished that he caught a disease and died. His widow had to beg Mohammad Ali for help. So, yes, 'Abdu'l-Baha won everything in the Turkish courts, and also, George Kheiralla was converting dozens of Americans a week with his "Behaist Lectures" at a Masonic Temple in Chicago, and those people were making additional converts, and they were wiring 'Abdu'l-Baha money every month! Just as God had "blessed" Baha'u'llah but "cursed" Subh-i-Azal, God was "blessing" 'Abdu'l-Baha but "cursing" his younger brothers who thought they were defending the Revelations of Baha'u'llah.

(continued in Part II)

https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/cvy2o8/bahai_peter_george_ibrahim_kheiralla/

N. Wahid Azal's podcast with Dale Husband

Confronting Scott Hakala on Quora

Posted on August 22, 2019 by Dale Husband

Quora is a social media site where people can pose questions on all sorts of subjects and get answers from others. One of the most frequent posters on it is Scott Hakala, a Baha’i apologist.

Before I tell about my fight with him there, I must supply a bit of background.

For more than a year and a half after I made an account on reddit, Hakala, using the pseudonym “DavidBinOwen”, would often invade the ExBaha’i subreddit and relentlessly attack its members with counter arguments to things they would write. Then after wreaking havoc for a few days or weeks, he would disappear only to return weeks or months later. Things got so frustrating that Wahid Azal decided to do something to force the admin of that subreddit to deal with Hakala once and for all. So he posted these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/cnzclf/why_are_the_moderators_of_this_site_consistently/
https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/co4u0o/beware_non_and_exbahais_of_this_subreddit/
I knew this might lead to Azal being banned from the subreddit, so to prevent that, I sent private messages to all the admin, playing “good cop” to Wahid Azal’s “bad cop”. My efforts paid off; nothing was done to Azal, but Hakala was FINALLY banned permanently from the subreddit.

Later, another member posted this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/crntdh/when_will_bahais_open_up_their_minds_to_the_fact/
Never one to let something go unchallenged, Scott Hakala addressed this on Quora.
https://www.quora.com/When-will-Bahais-open-up-their-minds-to-the-fact-that-the-Bayan-is-full-of-verses-refuting-Bahaullahs-claim

Baha’is have open minds, but a Baha’i should never accept the assertion implied in the question since it is not true. Baha’u’llah proved He was the Promised One (Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest or Man yuzhiruhu’llah in Arabic) of the Persian Bayan, and provided such independent evidences and proofs that there is no such realistic argument.

The Bab in a number of places in His Writings referred to Baha’u’llah and Baha and anticipated the imminent appearance of Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest after year eight and His declaration around the nineteenth year of the Babi Dispensation (1844–1863). This is discussed at length by Professor Nader Saiedi (UCLA) in Gate of the Heart, 2008, throughout the text but particularly in Chapters 11, 12, and 13 and is also discussed in Taherzaden,The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, Volume 2, Chapter 17.

For these and other reasons, the followers of the Bab generally expected the imminent appearance of another Messenger of God relatively soon after the Bab’s martyrdom (which He also anticipated in His Writings and recorded statements). Consistent with this expectation, according to Dr. Momen in the Cyprus Exiles (The Cyprus Exiles), more than 90% of the followers of the Bab (Babi’s) that remained faithful and survived the persecution became Baha’is and recognized Baha’u’llah as the Promised Messenger of God mentioned throughout the Persian Bayan. Moreover, the Bab’s surviving maternal uncles and other relatives also recognized Baha’u’llah as the Promised One in the Persian Bayan.

Baha’u’llah, Himself, addressed this issue in the Kitab-i-Badi. (See Kitáb-i-Badí’ – Wikipedia; this is addressed at length by Professor Nader Saiedi (UCLA) in Logos and Civilization, 2000, Chapter 6 and by Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, Vol. 2 Adrianople 1863-68 (Oxford: Ronald, 1972), Chapter 17 The Kitab-i-Badi) Regarding this issue, Adib Taherzadeh writes:

“But the major part of the book [Kitab-i-Badi] is devoted to the exalted theme of ‘Him Whom God shall make manifest’, Bahá’u’lláh, the Promised One of the Bayán. Bahá’u’lláh quotes numerous passages from the Writings of the Báb in which He extols the station, the glory, the transcendental majesty and the authority of ‘Him Whom God shall make manifest’. It suffices to quote only a few passages from the Writings of the Báb all of which Bahá’u’lláh quotes in the Kitáb-i-Badí’. It should be noted that the Báb’s Writings are replete with similar statements about Bahá’u’lláh:

“I have written down in My mention of Him* these gem-like words: ‘No allusion of Mine can allude unto Him, neither anything mentioned in the Bayán.’…Exalted and glorified is He above the power of any one to reveal Him except Himself, or the description of any of His creatures. I Myself am but the first servant to believe in Him and in His signs, and to partake of the sweet savours of His words from the first-fruits of the Paradise of His knowledge. Yea, by His glory! He is the Truth. There is none other God but Him. All have arisen at His bidding.”5

The study of the Kitáb-i-Badí’ makes it clear that the purpose of the Báb in revealing Himself was none other than to prepare His followers for the coming of Bahá’u’lláh. There are many passages in the Writings of the Báb in which He makes a firm covenant with His followers concerning ‘Him Whom God shall make manifest’.” Taherzade, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, Volume 2, Chapter 17

The Bab, Himself, confirmed this indirectly in the Tablet to Mullá Muhammad Báqir-i Tabrízí wherein the Bab promised Mulla Baqir that the the Mulla would meet and recognize the Promised One and moreover alluded to Baha’u’llah’s name and the timing of His appearance. (See An Introduction to Tablet of Mulla Baqir.) The fact that Mulla Baqir did meet Baha’u’llah in Baghdad and recognized Baha’u’llah as the Promised One of the Bayan before Baha’u’llah’s Declaration in 1863 is both fulfillment of the Bab’s prophesy and proof that Baha’u’llah was the Promised One of the Bayan.

“He [Mulla Baqir} received a letter from the Báb saying he would attain “Him whom God shall make manifest” in the year ‘eight’ (1268 AH). Soon after Bahá’u’lláh’s release from the Siyáh-Chál of Tihran, Mullah Baqir obtained His presence and quickly became a believer and teacher of the Cause. Most of his teaching with was based in Adhirbayjan.” Letters of the Living – Wikipedia

Given a full and fair reading of the Writings and warnings of the Bab, I believe that it is impossible to believe in the Bab as a Messenger of God and not logically accept that Baha’u’llah is the Promised One (Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest or Man yuzhiruhu’llah in Arabic) repeatedly foretold of in the Bab’s Writings and Who is the focus of the Persian Bayan. Indeed, so clear are the Bab’s proclamations and warnings, to reject Baha’u’llah is to violate the Covenant of the Bab set forth in the Perisan Bayan (as He warned in that text; see Taherzadeh, Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Volume 1, Chapter 19 Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest).

Baha’i scholars (and even many scholars who are not Baha’i) unanimously recognize that Baha’u’llah is the Promised Messenger of God (Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest or Man yuzhiruhu’llah in Arabic) mentioned throughout the Persian Bayan. In a recent course in the first half of 2019 on the Persian Bayan (provided by the Wilmette Institute, one of the instructors, Shahrokh Monjazeb) additional provisional translations of the Persian Bayan were provided that demonstrated that much of the Persian Bayan was addressed to the Promised Messenger of God (Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest or Man yuzhiruhu’llah in Arabic) mentioned throughout the Persian Bayan. It was furthermore demonstrated that the Bab referred to Baha’u’llah in that text and in other texts (including in the Arabic Bayan). Moreover, the Persian Bayan explicitly warns the followers of the Bab to not dispute with the Promised One or contest any claimant and explicitly indicates that only the Promised One would be capable of fully understanding the Bayan. (Prof. Nader Saiedi, Gate of the Heart, p. 64, also footnote 60 to Chapter 1).

The false interpretations and assertions regarding the Persian Bayan were made by followers of Mirza Yahya (aka Azal). Contrary to Azali/Bayani assertions, Mirza Yahya made his own claim to be the Promised One but later withdrew that claim when it became apparent to many that Mirza Yayha lacked the abilities required. These false assertions and interpretations are addressed at length in the Kitab-i-Badi (Kitáb-i-Badí’ – Wikipedia) written by Baha’u’llah (discussed by Professor Nader Saiedi (UCLA) in Logos and Civilization – Spirit, History, and Order in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh (2000). “Chapter 6: The Kitab-i-Badi’: The Promise Fulfilled”, pp. 175–210.; also discussed by Adib Taherzadeh as discussed in Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Volume II, p. 373.

This was noticed and commented on here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/csg6q7/scott_hakalas_answer_to_the_question_when_will/
Which prompted me to go after Hakala.

All you are doing in quoting from the Baha’i Writings you already blindly accept as true. That is a non-starter.

If you constantly take at face value the CLAIMS made by religious leaders and propaganda writers, you will always blindly follow what they teach, which is exactly what they want you to do, even if they are outright con artists. That’s why there are so many religions and divisions within religions.

Claims are all you have EVER posted with regards to the “history” of the Baha’i Faith. Remember, Baha’is are under strict orders to shun “covenant breakers”. Since Baha’is of different factions are not allowed to talk to each other, that creates a situation in which they can live in their own universes created out of nothing by the propaganda writers that wrote all sorts of stories about Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, Mirza Muhammad Ali, Mirza Yahya, Shoghi Effendi, and numerous others. Truth is meaningless in this context.

He responded with this:

Whether you like it or not, the prohibition against associating with covenant-breakers exists in the Baha’i Writings in multiple places and, if I am a Baha’i, I must abide by it to not associate with covenant-breakers. I have had sufficient experience to know the wisdom in the guidance. That does not mean I also should ignore the arguments and be unaware of them, contrary to your suggestion.

In this case, I actually participated in a lengthy and detailed course on the Persian Bayan with persons fluent in Persian and Arabic at a scholarly level earlier this year. The so-called evidence and claims made in the Azali/Bayani texts are simply interpretations that are not credible and are clearly contradicted by the text itself and other Writings of the Bab. They take on interpretation of one passage based on an erroneous numerological calculation while ignoring multiple other passages that clearly are consistent with Baha’u’llah appearing after year 8 and declaring in year 19 of the Babi Dispensation. The Tablet to Mull Baqir alone answered the very same question clearly and promised Mully Baqir that the Mulla would meet the Promised One after year eight and, furthermore, would come to recognize the Promised One of the Persian Bayan. Mulla Baquir met Baha’u’llah in Iraq before Baha’u’llah declared and recognized Baha’u’llah as the Promised One.

Therefore, if I believe in the Bab (which I do) then the Bab’s own interpretation of His own Writings should be decisive in this matter. There are, in fact, numerous allusions to Baha’u’llah found in the authenticated Writings of the Bab.

First of all, I am entitled to give the most weight to those documents and testimonies that are credible and not the incredible or proven false. Everyone does this according to their understanding and beliefs. My sources are academic in nature and consistent with what most people agree with today (including neutrals who are not Baha’is but also not so hostile as to be prejudiced against Baha’is). You seem to give the most weight to the least credible and most discredited sources as long as they support your narrative to attack and discredit the Baha’i Faith and then support the most offensive positions asserted by others.

There is an internal consistency in the Baha’i Faith’s position throughout that is missing in the positions of the various covenant-breaker groups. Moreover, I have known of and associated with many of the scholars and individuals cited sufficiently to trust their judgement and knowledge and still have tested it accordingly.

Second, Baha’is can read and understand what the covenant breakers are saying, contrary to your assertions. Due to the spiritual effect, it is not something I recommend or do frequently, but I certainly attempt to understand all arguments. When a person breaks the covenant of Baha’u’llah (or even more extreme apostacy) I have found that person will be stripped of the moral and spiritual guidance and often hate the light and attack it. The Covenant of Baha’u’llah has been upheld in courts of law and recognized by certain countries now. I do not understand how a group of persons who violated the covenant that is so clearly written (and it was clearly written) by Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha can be found to be credible. This is especially so when the various covenant breakers of each generation often met and conspired with persons that they did not agree with and had previously or continued to condemn.

Finally, I have made clear the bases for my beliefs and at least outlined some fraction of the evidences and proofs both logically and from a personal experience (which I am entitled to rely upon based on the documented facts but don’t expect others to accept it). If I believe Baha’u’llah is the Messenger of God for this Day, then I have to accept and give the most weight to those conclusions and narrative consistent with His Writings.

Mirza Yahya, by his own behavior, discredited himself in numerous instances. He had, by all accounts, lost most of the Babis and even most of his family by the time of his death. See The Cyprus Exiles. He even made claims to be Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest and then retracted those claims when it became clear he had no loyal following willing to accept such claims (He even attempted to “complete” the Bayan which, in itself, is a claim to be the Promised One.). He directed persons to commit murder and then tried to deflect blame on others. Numerous persons witnessed these facts and attested to them. He demonstrated a consistent lack of evidence of leadership or knowledge and lack of courage in stark contrast with Baha’u’llah. He would labor for days to write a limited text or commentary that Baha’u’llah could reveal by recitation in mere hours without any aid, forethought, or preparation and in a language and style Mirza Yahya could never match.

Baha’u’llah anticipated the end of the Aghsan (male descendants of Baha’u’llah in good standing) in His Writings. Baha’u’llah warned the members of His family quite clearly in the Kitab-i-’Ahd. This is something Prof. Nader Saiedi (UCLA) wrote about in his Logos text around 2000. Mirza Muhammad Ali was warned by Baha’u’llah directly in person and again in a Tablet to Mirza Muhammad Ali that is well-known that he would be cast out and “dead” if he strayed from the Covenant. (This is discussed in Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Vol 1, Chapter 9, pp. 128–137), Mirza Badi’u’llah even testified in 1907 to some of what Mirza Muhammad Ali did in An Epistle to the Bahá’í World. The number of respected and credible documents supporting the fact that Mirza Muhammad Ali cursed ‘Abdu’l-Baha, was jealous and ambitious, altered and fabricated documents, and made false reports to the Ottoman and then British authorities is widely recognized.

The members of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s family were similarly warned, including in the Will & Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. It was made clear to them to not associate with those that violated the covenant. Yet, certain family members chose to marry into such families and then they and the remaining family chose to associate with covenant-breakers and also married into families hostile to the Faith. They privately were haughty and arrogant towards Shoghi Effendi, as is well-documented by Redmond in his books of accounts by the pilgrims and in Ruhiyyih Khanum’s accounts. They resented the fact that Shoghi Effendi married someone from the West instead of a related person or someone from Persia in the Faith.

The contrast between the happiness, joy, love, truthfulness, and respect I observe generally among faithful Baha’is and the anger, spite, hatred, envy, and deviousness among those attacking or disaffected from the Faith is quite clear. I make no pretense all Baha’is are that way or I am always that way, but I have witnessed enough in 40 years now to see the stark difference and note it fairly.

I made a comment in response and then made a copy of it in reddit, only to discover later that Hakala had my answers DELETED from where they were originally posted!  THE COWARD!
Anyway, here is that response:

“Therefore, if I believe in the Bab (which I do) then the Bab’s own interpretation of His own Writings should be decisive in this matter. There are, in fact, numerous allusions to Baha’u’llah found in the authenticated Writings of the Bab.”

Name ONE.

“I am entitled to give the most weight to those documents and testimonies that are credible and not the incredible or proven false. Everyone does this according to their understanding and beliefs.”

Truth and falsehood are not based on anyone’s biased “understanding and beliefs”, but on what one can see directly from reality itself. So far, you have given us nothing real to accept, only tons of dogmatic talking points.

“There is an internal consistency in the Baha’i Faith’s position throughout that is missing in the positions of the various covenant-breaker groups.”

My own research on the Faith has blown apart its credibility forever. And having done that, I see no “ internal consistency” to any of it.

“Baha’is can read and understand what the covenant breakers are saying, contrary to your assertions.”

What I said was, “Baha’is are under strict orders to shun ‘covenant breakers’.” By shunning them, you deny their basic humanity and thus make it easy to read anything they write and dismiss it without really thinking about it. And BTW, if you can do that to covenant breakers, why can’t I do that to YOU?

“When a person breaks the covenant of Baha’u’llah (or even more extreme apostacy) I have found that person will be stripped of the moral and spiritual guidance and often hate the light and attack it.”

“the anger, spite, hatred, envy, and deviousness among those attacking or disaffected from the Faith is quite clear.”

These are personal attacks that are fallacious on their face. Again, I could call you a bigoted, lying, scumbag who is extremely disrespectful and hateful towards anyone who rejects your claims and that would be just like what you did to us. Stop being a hypocrite!

“Mirza Yahya, by his own behavior, discredited himself in numerous instances.”

Yet you claim to believe in the Bab, who appointed him to be leader of the Babis after him and NOT Baha’u’llah? That’s an obvious contradiction. Why not admit the Bab made a colossal mistake and then deny his Prophethood?

“Baha’u’llah anticipated the end of the Aghsan (male descendants of Baha’u’llah in good standing) in His Writings.”

No, he didn’t. He did appoint both Abdu’l-Baha and Mirza Muhammad Ali as leaders of the Baha’is after him, but that’s it. He said nothing about his descendants all being thrown out of the Baha’i Faith like what Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi did to their own relatives. So you stated a clear falsehood.

“The members of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s family were similarly warned, including in the Will & Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. It was made clear to them to not associate with those that violated the covenant.”

Except at some point, most of them must have figured out that

1. Shoghi Effendi was unfit to be Baha’i leader.
2. They had been lied to about the followers of Mirza Muhammad Ali being “covenant breakers”.

which is why most of them rebelled. You can’t hide fraud and hypocrisy forever!

“They resented the fact that Shoghi Effendi married someone from the West instead of a related person or someone from Persia in the Faith.”

So they were RACIST?! You realize that means Abdu’l Baha and his daughters sucked at being teachers of Baha’i virtues, right? Yeah, keep insulting Baha’u’llah’s descendants. That looks very appealing to seekers…….NOT!

BTW, you and Ken Ammi, a Christian apologist who has written an entire book against the Baha’i Faith, should compare notes. You both look equally ridiculous to me.

Then the axxhole made this:

I am not interested in conflict and contention. I have sound bases for my beliefs. You are just nitpicking and quibbling to argue, taking things out of context, not consider the facts as they are or as I have explained them with an open mind. I will only explain, therefore, my understanding.

Mirza Yahya was only one of a number of named Mirrors, contrary to your assertion and his claims. Why do you believe assertions by Azalis/Bayanis and Mirza Yahya who have no credibility today but not believe the majority of believers in the Bab that include scholars (who are Baha’is and scholars) some teaching in universities with expertise on this subject? The Bab explicitly said in the Persian Bayan and in a Tablet to Mirza Yahya not to follow the Mirrors and warned them not to contend with Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest when He appears. That is a fact, not some speculation. I just took part in an in depth series of courses on the Writings of the Bab, one of which covered in detail the Persian Bayan (including with provisional translations).

I have already mentioned multiple texts referring to Baha’u’llah by name and date in the Bab’s Writings. I don’t know what else to say if you refuse to recognize what I have already said and then deny I said it. Shoghi Effendi discusses this at length, so does Professor Nader Saiedi in Gate of the Heart, 2008, as well as in Logos, 2000. Baha’u’llah in Kitab-i-Badi discusses this as well, as Adib Taherzadeh discusses in Revelation of Baha’u’llah.

The fact that some persons failed their tests, even from the family of Baha’u’llah, was anticipated by Baha’u’llah Himself and by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, as I explained clearly before. As I explained in my answer, I believe that this is a standing lesson and illustration of the fact that Baha’is should learn from. “Pride goeth before the fall” as they say.

‘Abdu’l-Baha explains (as is known in Christian history) that Judas was reportedly the most educated and capable of the disciples, but became jealous and hateful of the favor bestowed on Peter. Jesus warned Judas and anticipated that Judas would betray Him, but, consistent with free will, allowed these events to play out.

The same occurred in Islam after the death of Muhammad, where the leaders ignored Muhammad’s clear warnings and urging to follow Imam Ali. ‘Abdu’l-Baha in Some Answered Questions explains an entire chapter of the Revelation of St. John as referring to the betrayal of the Covenant of Muhammad and the terrible consequences that followed.

The Bab wrote a Tablet to Mirza Yahya explicitly warning him not to reject the Promised One or to contend with the Promised One when He appears. The Bab explicitly explained in the Tablet to Mulla Baqir who asked the Bab about Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest the time of His appearance and promised Mulla Baqir taht Mulla Baqir would meet and recognize Him. As I explained, the Bab said that the Promised One of the Bayan would appear in year eight and declare in year nineteen and, furthermore, alluded to Baha’u’llah by name. I suspect you read right past what I wrote and ignore any facts or information that does not support your argument or narrative. Even N. Wahid Azal (aka Nima Hazini) knows about this Tablet and admitted to its existence but tries to explain it away or dismiss it. Also, the Order of Baha’u’llah appears in the Persian Bayan and there are additional references to Baha’u’llah in the Arabic Bayan. The Badi calendar sets the first day of the month as Baha in honor of Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest and the first month as Baha for the same reason, as stated in the Persian Bayan and in other Writings of the Bab. In retrospect, it could not have been more obvious.

That is EXACTLY WHY 90%+ OF ALL BABI’S THAT SURVIVED AND REMAINED FAITHFUL BECAME BAHA’IS INCLUDING THE FAMILY OF THE BAB, THE AFNANS. Moreover, the Bab predicted and asked that Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest teach the members of His family the Faith, which Baha’u’llah did fulfill as promised in the Kitab-i-Iqan, which was revealed in two days in 1861 for one of the Bab’s maternal uncles in answer to a series of questions. This is why the Bab’s family converted.

Knowing he could merely have any more comments of mine deleted, I returned to slam him in reddit. And others joined in the bloodletting.

Dale_Husband_HS

So once again he asserts that he takes at face value sources that tell him what he already assumes to be true (confirmation bias) accuses me and other critics of the Baha’i Faith of what he does (projection) and finally attacks us personally with regards to our opposition (ad hominem fallacy).

Hey, liar! I’ve seen clear cases of dishonesty from Baha’is online. Do I need to show the proof again?!

https://dalehusband.com/2018/07/04/muslim-bashing-and-libel-against-ex-bahais-in-reddit/

ZoroastrianMan

As always: Only quantity, but no quality in his large as usual messages.

Your comment I can’t see on Quora. The professional propagandist let it be deleted, because he is afraid of good written refutations.

i-Aqdas_Cola

I’m fully convinced that Scott is a fucking imbecile. I also find it impossible to not see fascist undertones fully throughout Baha’i censorship and shutting-down of Bayani (or “Babi”) views on the matter. Baha’i’s cannot tolerate those who only accept the Bab, which is really telling to how thin the string they’re hanging on it.

All I see is conjecture in their comments, and as I posted a few weeks ago, it’s impossible to rationalize Bahaianity. It has no credibility and no spirituality, it’s literally the most empty (not in a Zen way, btw) religion there is. Aside from that, it put the Bab’s teachings through a shredder, it’s despicable imo.

Your quote from Scott is loaded full of intolerance, really, I’m appalled (angry face emoji)

Dale_Husband_HS

Did you see where Scott actually claimed Shoghi Effendi’s relatives resented his marrying a non-Persian? You know why I know that’s a damned lie? Because Shoghi Effendi himself put out a message to the Baha’is of the world attacking his own brother (who he had already thrown out of the Baha’i community) for marrying a “low-born Christian girl in Europe”, and called that a “disgraceful alliance”.

THAT MAKES THE “GUARDIAN” A HYPOCRITE!

Dale_Husband_HS

{{{ For these and other reasons, the followers of the Bab generally expected the imminent appearance of another Messenger of God. }}}

LOL. I think the only reason SOME Babis thought that was out of desperation. The revolt led by the Bab had failed and with the Bab being martyred, it was thought that only the coming of another Prophet would revive the fortunes of the Babis, which is exactly what Baha’u’llah promised once he declared his mission in 1863. Babis should have been asking themselves why the Bab was not as successful as the Prophet Muhammad was in overthrowing the pagan Arabs.

It was the influence of Christianity, with its depiction of the heroic martydom of Jesus by crucifixion, that led to the idea of the Bab’s own martyrdom being a heroic event too; if he was willing to die for his teachings, they must be worth living and fighting for, even with him gone. And that should have been enough. The Babis didn’t need Baha’u’llah, since they already had Mirza Yahya for their leader. If the Bab had intended for Baha’u’llah to be “Him Who God Makes Manifest”, why wouldn’t he have appointed Baha’u’llah to be the actual next leader of the Babis to give him crediblity from the start? The more you think about it, the more things just don’t add up.

Dale_Husband_HS

OMG, he DID have my comment deleted. I’m so glad I saved a copy of it here before he did that, the damned coward!

wahidazal66, what do you think of that?

HYPOCRITE, if you really didn’t want to stir up “conflict and contention”, you shouldn’t be invading places you are not welcome to and repeatedly defending a false religion!

News flash: Assuming that sources are true because they are Baha’i and denying them because they are not Baha’i is absolutely no way to find real truth. You could do the exact same with any religion or ideology and get the same useless result.

Assuming that sources are true because they are Christian and denying them because they are not Christian is absolutely no way to find real truth.

Assuming that sources are true because they are Muslim and denying them because they are not Muslim is absolutely no way to find real truth.

Assuming that sources are true because they are Communist and denying them because they are not Communist is absolutely no way to find real truth.

Assuming that sources are true because they are conservative and denying them because they are not conservative is absolutely no way to find real truth.

Assuming that sources are true because they are Nazi and denying them because they are not Nazi is absolutely no way to find real truth.

Assuming that sources are true because they are atheist and denying them because they are not atheist is absolutely no way to find real truth.

DO THE REST OF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN?!

I refuse to be intimidated by Scott Hakala’s long winded statements. His many, many, MANY claims can never make up for this:

https://dalehusband.com/2008/09/07/the-fatal-flaw-in-bahai-authority/

If the actual FACTS are on my side, entire novels worth of rhetoric can never make those embarrassing facts go away!

And I will end the blog entry with this:

 Source : https://dalehusband.com/2019/08/22/confronting-scott-hakala-on-quora/

Identity of God - Baha'i Gnosis (www.hajir.org)

Who is the Self of God?

The Self or Nafs (Arabic) of God is Baha'u'llah.

Who is Person of God?

The Person (Temple) or Haykal (Arabic) of God is Baha'u'llah.

What is the Essence of God?

The Essence or Zat (Arabic) of God is Baha'u'llah.

Outward and Inward?

Yes, Baha'u'llah claims to be God outwardly and inwardly.

Are all Manifestations God?

Generally speaking yes, but Baha'u'llah is distinguished in this regard and is exclusively reserved as God.

Who speaks to the Haykal?

The Tablet of the Temple Suriy-i-Haykal (Arabic) is written by God to the Temple (Baha'u'llah). So isn't God separate from Baha'u'llah in that it is someone else speaking to Baha'u'lllah? Actually, no. In a response to...

Tablet to Jamal-i-Burujirdi

In this Tablet Baha'u'llah does ...

4th Tajalliyat

Amazing proclamation that ...

Tablet of I am God

In this Tablet Baha'u'llah does something ...

A few Seals of Baha'u'llah

Amazing...

Brainwashed Baha'i Scott Hakala aka DavidBinOven learns a lesson on reddit! (Subject : Contradictions in Baha'u'llah's writings)

Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/ch8q42/it_is_still_not_possible_to_rationalize_bahaism/

and
https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/ckj3fl/refuting_davidbinowen/

DavidBinOven:

Actually No. Humans are often inconsistent and their understandings are different but the reality has always been the same. I studied comparative religions as a young, devout Christian and concluded that the major religions had to have come from the same Source and the differences were temporal or artificial before I ever heard of the Baha'i Faith.

There is a common core in variants on the Golden Rule, the concept of the Greater Covenant, variants of most of the Ten Commandments, and prayer and mediation across the major religions. As 'Abdu'l-Baha explained in some talks in North America, the differences between religions are temporal and not essential and due to human limitations and misunderstandings, superstitions, and blind imitation. Go read various talks on this in Promulgation of Universal Peace. What we also understand is many of the older religious traditions lack authority of the original texts and all have many divisions and sects and misunderstandings even within them.

What really matters is whether Baha'u'llah and the Bab met the tests of a Messenger of God by demonstrating knowledge without learning. https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/smiths-bible-dictionary/prophet.html That is and has been the most convincing test and is found in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an as well as in other texts. To this day, only the Bab and Baha'u'llah proved capable to producing verses with such rapidity without research, assistance, substantial education, or practice. The Bab makes this point repeatedly and proved it before numerous witnesses (Mulla Husayn, Siyyid Yahya-i-Darabi, the Governor of Isfahan). This is discussed in the Persian Bayan, Vahid 2, Bab 1. http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/tb/SWB/swb-74.htmlBaha'u'llah discusses this at length in the Kitab-i-Iqan pages 180 to 221, which He revealed in two days. http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-7.html See also Proofs of Baha'u'llah's Mission, compilation by Paul Lample.

Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha made numerous predictions that proved true but were mocked or doubted that the time that were recorded between 1868 and 1920. This is discussed in Promised Day is Come by Shoghi Effendi and The Challenge of Baha'u'llah by Gary Matthews (2018 edition). Mirza Abu' Fad'l also discusses this and noted that, as an opponent of the Baha'i Faith, he converted based on one such prophesy of Baha'u'llah. They anticipated many scientific developments, including nuclear power and weapons and developments in medicine. They demonstrated much knowledge that could only have come from God, even though 'Abdu'l-Baha was derivative of Baha'u'llah's authority. Indeed, there are over 100 instances of statements that were contemporaneously recorded but proved true. None have been proven false if properly understood.

Additionally, in answer to many questions Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha explained many passages in the Bible and Qur'an concerning this Day, including whole chapters in Some Answered Questions. Unlike academic scholars, they did not spend hours studying many books researching and pondering such things. Baha'u'llah and the Bab did not practice these Revelations over and over and 'Abdu'l-Baha did not practice His many talks. They each spoke spontaneously and without reference to the texts they cited.

Then there are the many expectations regarding the Promised One found in the texts of each major religion that refer to Baha'u'llah by title, place, date, and key events associated with His coming.

komorikomori: 

In doing so you came to a rather elementary conclusion of which Baha’ism is certainly not the only corollary. What about Islam itself, from which this whole concept of ‘progressive revelation’ is ultimately derived, or Hinduism, where such a concept has not been more succinctly expressed as in the Bhagavad Gita, where it is said: “Whenever righteousness wanes and unrighteousness increases, I send myself forth […] I come into being age after age” (4:7–8)—What about all of this? There is nothing novel about the Bahāʾī concept. What Baha’ism does, which is entirely different to the noble concept of perennialism, is to blur the lines between the various Traditions and to subsume them all within its own framework, that is, to effectually destroy them. This is no better demonstrated than than in Saiedi’s Gate of the Heart where he tries to portray the Bāb as some kind of anti-clerical modernist who believed in the Protestant idea of ‘independent investigation’ as Baha’ism preaches it (see pp. 3–14)—God forbid! The reality is that Baha’ism itself lacks any kind of traditional authority in that it actively seeks to subvert the spirit of Tradition. Your argument that others don’t have such authority since they lack their original texts seems to be suggestive of physical taḥrīf, an idea which Baha’ism unequivocally rejects (see the Kitāb-i Īqān, para. 93), and you seem to ignore the fact that a religious tradition is much more than just a book or a collection of books (this is really a Protestant tendency) or that there might be deposits of Tradition which are superior the written word. Ce qui est écrit n'est rien (What is written is nothing).

Your other points are hardly even worth addressing. You’ve repeated them over-and-over again, and they’ve been refuted over-and-over again. Yes, Bahā’u’llāh did refer to books (see the Īqān, para. 203). He was born an aristocrat—it was a given that he would have received an excellent education from a private tutor—and we know from ʿIzziya Khānum that, well before his claim, he had amassed a large personal library of religious literature and frequented the company of those learned in such matters (Tanbīh al-Nāʾimīn [The Awakening of the Sleeper], pp. 4–8). There is no basis for his claim of ‘innate knowledge.’ He did practice ‘revealing verses,’ which he disposed of in the Tigris (see ʿAtiyya Rūḥī’s biography of Ṣubḥ-i Azal, cf. God Passes By, p. 138). In any case, the Bible does not even refer to ‘innate knowledge’ as a criterion for prophethood (Paul, for example, was a very learned Pharisee), nor does it say that a case of seemingly innate knowledge is even proof of a claim to prophecy. The Bible even allows for the possibility that God would test the people by sending them a false prophet who would nevertheless perform miraculous signs and make accurate predictions (Deuteronomy 13:1–5). Perhaps the text intends by this that God would give the false prophet the power to perform such signs and to make such predictions, but what seems more likely is that the text is referring to tricksters like those of Pharaoh’s court (Exodus 7:8–11, cf. Qur’ān 20:61–70). In his Seven Proofs, the Bāb seems to view these occurrences as literal and physical and contrasts them with the more abstract and figurative miracles which he viewed himself and Muḥammad as having performed (namely the revelation of their texts). Bahā’u’llāh’s ‘prophecies’ were nothing more than clever trickery, just like those of Joseph Smith and others. His prediction about the Ottoman Empire was written when everyone was already labeling it ‘the sick man of Europe,’ and anyone with insight who lived in that period could have noted the inevitability of a conflict between France and Prussia (the event which led to the downfall of Napoleon III), considering that the interests of the latter (a strong, unified Germany) were directly at odds with those of the former, which found itself wanting for allies and on a direct collision course with Prussia a year before Bahā’u’llāh made his prediction. There is nothing extraordinary in his letters to rulers. There is not even evidence that the majority of them were even seen by their addressees.

DavidBinOven :

I am off the forum for some time. I do respect your effort to at least reply with at least some substance. That is refreshing.

Much of what you are saying is really a mishmash of excuses, selective explanations much like the Jewish clerics did in the time of Jesus. The Bab, Baha'u'llah, and 'Abdu'l-Baha did not perform "cheap parlor tricks" like the opponents of Moses. The priests opposing Moses did cheap magic tricks if the story is to be believed. (There is a lot of evidence that the story of Moses and the Exodus is substantially embellished and inconsistent with archaeological and historical records, as noted by Finkelstein, Dever, and Freedman. By contrast, the Central Figures tended to dismiss simple miracles as reliable evidence except to those that witnessed them, even the miracle of the Bab's execution which was witnessed by perhaps 10,000 people and attested to in a report by a Western diplomat present.

Also, I have rarely posted such things on the exBaha'i forum and only periodically on the Baha'i forum. A review of the exBaha'i forum shows a lot of repetition (without substance) of the same material over and over again with little originality. Besides, one cannot assume that persons visiting the site go back and read prior threads.

As to the more direct issue:

The test of a Prophet in Judaism is well-known and partially set forth in Deut. 18 and again in Isaiah 41;21-23 but more fully in other places in Jewish literature. Isaiah makes very clear that only a Prophet of God would be capable of such things. This is noted in Smith's Bible Dictionary Discussion of a Prophet (Nabi). In fact, the very definition of Nabi is derived from a spring that appears in a desert without a known source (implying that the source could only be from God).

You can manufacture excuses to explain away one or two specific events or predictions but not all. The Bab and Baha'u'llah repeatedly revealed verses before witnesses. They did so without reference to the underlying texts or other information. Often they were in prison or exile, without extensive libraries and assistance. Neither had evidenced any such abilities prior to becoming the Messenger of God and no human since Muhammad has done so.

The Bab did it before multiple witnesses multiple times. Baha'u'llah repeatedly challenged people to show where He had obtained such abilities, as did the Bab. Baha'u'llah also challenged repeatedly that He did not have such learning and had not attended such schools as to enable such abilities or knowledge.

As for the prophesies, it is not one or two, it is more than 100 by my count. It is not one ruler or vizar or country but multiple ones. Mirza Abul Fad'l attested to the fact that Baha'u'llah's prophesy regarding the Ottoman Empire was not foreseeable and was his personal test of Baha'u'llah. We also know historically that the Messages were received in many cases.

Beyond that, the prophesies of nuclear power and the League of Nations and United Nations, World Wars I and II, the rise and fall of communism and the fall of kings in 1917, medical developments, etc. are numerous, too specific, and sufficiently documented to be more than cheap parlor tricks. Some of these were then repeated or confirmed by 'Abdu'l-Baha in 1911 to 1913.

Finally, as for Joseph Smith, I grew up near a LDS church. Joseph Smith struggled to purportedly translate and write the Book of Morman. And he claimed to need a device (multiple conflicting stories) to do so. It is not particularly well written even in the original language (a lot borrowed from the Bible). He NEVER made such predictions as Baha'u'llah, the Bab, and 'Abdu'l-Baha about events in the greater world. If he had, the LDS missionaries would be repeating them over and over again as proofs, which they don't.

Anyway, I wish you the best.

komorikomori: 

You are ignoring the more important passage in this case, namely Deut. 13:1-5, which undermines your argument. Isa. 41:21-23 is not referring to simple events in the near future, which a clever impostor could easily approximate, as the author in Deut. 13 is aware of, but to the events before the world's creation (v. 22) and to the events of the Last Day (see Rashi's commentary on v. 23). Moreover, the challenge presented in this passage is not to people but to the idols (v. 22), which the people have created with their own hands (vv. 5-7). This is a polemic against idolatry (cf. Isa. 40:19-20, 44:12-13, 46:6, etc.), and so, in v. 26 the author asks "Who [that is, which of your gods], declared it from the beginning [that is, who predicted these events]?" It was only the God of Israel who predicted these things (see Torrey, Charles C., "Isaiah 41" [H.T.R. 44, 3: 121-136], p. 129). This is not describing the criteria for knowing a prophet, which were already laid out in Deut. 13 and 18, but demonstrating the superiority of the God of Israel over the false gods of all other nations. What you are doing here—and what a lot of Bahāʾīs tend to do when dealing with either the Biblical or Qur'ānic text—is called 'prooftexting,' and this is eisegesis, not proper, critical exegesis of a text. Moreover, your argument about the etymology of נביא (nābîʾ) is wrong. Even the source you cited says it is "derived from a verb signifying 'to bubble forth' like a fountain; hence the word means one who announces or pours forth the declarations of God" without any mention of a spring which appears without explanation; you seem, again, to be reading that into the text. In any case, Smith's Bible Dictionary is quite an outdated source, and John Huehnergard notes, drawing from more recent research in his article entitled "On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew Nābîʾ" (Eretz-Israel 26 [1999]: 88-93), that the likely origin of the word is the Akkadian nabû, meaning 'the one called.'

Now, as for Bahā'u'llāh's supposed prophecies, you are grasping at straws here:

You can manufacture excuses to explain away one or two specific events or predictions but not all.

The argument you are invoking is called the cumulative weight argument. I did not 'manufacture excuses;' rather, I provided very rational explanations as to how an astute observer could have easily made such predictions without any divine assistance. This obviously does not disprove his claim to prophecy. However, in light of this, there is only a slight possibility of each prediction being an actual prophecy, and a bunch of slightly plausible arguments taken together does not make a strong argument. Rather, as Steve Mason notes, "cumulative weight drastically reduces probability. That is, every additional proposition that I need to be true (i.e., certain), but is only probable, drags the argument down" (Orientation to the History of Roman Judaea, p. 77).

DavidBinOven:

Nope.

Besides, some of the prophesies of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha are not near-term prophesies. There are over 100 documented prophesies or statements confirmed by subsequent events, like the rise and fall of communism, fall of monarchs, World War I and World War II, League of Nations, and United Nations. Moreover, they are far more extensive than the Prophet Muhammad and Baha'u'llah and the Bab produced far more extensive revelations with far more documentation than the Prophet Muhammad. I know the source and background of the concept of a Nabi quite well and have an older, printed version of Smith's Bible Dictionary. You cannot prove Muhammad without accepting the Bab and Baha'u'llah provided superior and more extensive and documented proofs. That is the point.

You are just quibbling because you don't want to believe. You have that right but as a Baha'i I have no desire to merely argue if it bears no fruit. So, I am DONE.