Iranian.Com Sourcewatched

Misdirection alert or are people not reading?

Souri khanum,

Obviously I have hit several nerves here with the dominant pro-Haifan Bahai clique, which obviously includes yourself.

Now you people continue to accuse me of being all of the persons critical of your creed here - a consistent position maintained by the various online operatives of your Baha'i Internet Agency all throughout the internet (esp. the Persian blogosphere) going on a couple of years now. Yet it only takes the webmaster to publish the IP addresses of all the accounts concerned to prove that decisively otherwise. Why don't you do that? Go ahead. Please publish my IP address, that of Sophia's, Covenant Breakers, Reza's and anyone else you all think might be me to prove once and for all who the paranoid parties really are here - and it's definitely not any of us.

Second, I specifically published two blogs just in the past seven days on subjects related to 'irfan:

God & Satan, Adam and Eve and the Kabbalah

 //iranian.com/main/blog/nur/god-satan-adam-eve-and-kabbalah

Not a single pertinent comment was given regarding the subject matter of the post other than the typical hatchet job of the pro-Haifan Bahai lynch mob here, which is typical of the behavior of you people elsewhere as well.

I earlier blogged a post on the Hadith Kumayl,

//iranian.com/main/blog/nur/ali-truth-ultimate-reality

Once again, hatchet jobs by the pro-Haifan Bahai lynch mob in the comments section.

Out of curiosity is 'irfan or the Kabbalah an anti-Bahai subject too? This is not a rhetorical question since you Baha'is believe that the highest teachings the world has ever seen is exclusively embodied with yourselves, so obviously when subjects such as 'irfan, the Kabbalah and similar come up it must be a threat since what they teach and the window they open to the Truth is far beyond anything Husayn 'Ali Nuri could possibly conceive in his wildest dreams - esp. since the 'irfan you Baha'is claim is nothing more than a watered down and sanitized version of the 'irfan of Iranian Islam in general (whether in its Sufi guise or otherwise) and that of the Bayan!

Now my first blog was on the Bayani community itself (with a dozen of my subsequent comments deleted by this site's censor),

The Bayani Community of Iran

//iranian.com/main/blog/nur/bayani-community-iran

And I also blogged about Sadiqa Dawlatabadi (daughter of Hajji Mirza Muhammad Hadi Dawlatabadi, the putative successor of Subh-i-Azal, and sister to Yahya Dawlatabadi):

//iranian.com/main/blog/nur/sadiqa-dawlatabadi-irans-first-modern-feminist

 So that erases that argument right there, unless, that is, you want to indirectly suggest that any discussion of the Bayani gnostic faith is automatically anti-Bahai - i.e. a curious, eye-opening position maintained by some Haifan Baha'is online in the past.

On the anti-Bahai material, all of it is specifically catered towards the Haifan Bahai propaganda, on the one hand, or to set the record straight on the greater Baha'i political propaganda - which are all valid issues of discourse, however much you Baha'is are attempting to kick such things under the carpet. That said, note that I have gone out of my way to act as an hoc advocate for the rights of the Remeyite Orthodox Baha'is, i.e. the followers of Joel Bray Marangella as the 3rd Guardian (and Nosrat Bahremand who is the 4th Guardian in waiting).

Would you like it any straighter than that?

413

[Comment and time of posting recorded in the event of deletion by the censor of this site]

NUR

Dear Q

Haha! I think I missed that part about the Pope. I just started reading at the first mention of Baha'is. I'll hand it to you, that was some great satire. Obviously I thought you were being serious since I didn't read the Pope part, not to mention many Iranians sadly believe such nonsense based on no real evidence whatsoever. But it's such a relief to know you're kidding. It's a sign that more and more of the world is seeing the sham of these conspiracy theories! Thanks for making my night. ;)

Meeeeeow

Nurali Joon, kherseh gondeh, so you're a pigeon and I'm a cat? I just LOVE your imagination.

Once in a while I scan through the crap you write and thank the almighty that this site keeps you busy weaving conspiracy after conspiracy.

Just imagine if there was no iranian.com? No one to read your nonsense. No one to give you the attention you so badly crave. No one to laugh at you...

So my little pigeon brain, remember you owe your whole existence to yours truly, the evil opportunist cat -- and of course the Asia Society, and the Rockefellers.

We're WATCHING you moosh mooshi...

Adib jan!

Well, I was hoping you would read it more closely than that. Did you miss the part that says the Pope is Jewish?

It is entirely Satire. I have no hostility to Bahais and defend their right to practice and even preach their religion. If you think you had a good laugh, you should see some of the emails I got (and still get) from people who responded!

This nutbag (NUR) is obviously a disturbed fanatic with all the pscyhology of the classic "fanatic convert". I.e. someone who is inharently an extremist and uses whatever intellectual and social vehicle he finds to express it. It's been well studied.

Unlike some, I do consider this essential hate-speech and demonization couched in entirely imagined victim complex. I do not think he belongs in this website and it certainly crosses free speech by a mile. There is no "pro Bahai" activity except in his mind. He's got it so twisted as to consider the very existence of Bahais an "affront" to freedom.

If the Bahai brothers and sisters care to, they should document his every racist statement in sourcwatch or whereever with links back to his comments. Once his essential agenda becomes clear, even sourcewatch wouldn't accept his material. Trust me, it's been done in the past. (Yes, NUR, it's another conspiracy you hadn't thought of before).

Nur: One question....

Regarding your post about JJ, let say all you said is true. I still don't see the relation between the Bahai leaders (that you called Haifan Bahais) and JJ's selectiveness of the freedom of speech. You said :

"he undisputable clique-i-ness of the Haifan Bahais here with JJ and
the uncritical support some are giving to JJ's selective implementation
of free speech and imposition of censorship on the detractors of the
Haifan Baha'is all directly points to it. .."

Would you please explain to us the contradiction between what you just said and this fact below:

You are posting blogs here since beginning of March 2009. You have posted 20 blogs, and they are all against the Bahai religion and Bahai leaders. (20 posts in 2 months, put aside all the comments you do in every blog posted about the Bahai religion)

Before you, there was this Covenant (let assume it's not you) who starting by december 24, had posted almost 12 blogs, all against the Bahais.......Putting aside all other comment by Covenant or other readers of the site against the Bahais.

How come, all those blogs, which are all full of the so called  "revelation"  by yourself or your alike friends, always been posted. None of them has been deleted. If you are right and JJ get advices/money from the Bahai leaders, how would you explain the fact that you and other people could post all those blogs against the Bahai faith, in this site (be at least 32 posts in less than 4 months) and JJ never objected to you? While I know how many times he has frizzed people's user name for having been offensive or saying absurdities here. He could do it to you too, isn't it? Why he did let you post all these blogs here?

Please give me just one straight answer, without going trough the past and future and the Azal and Bab differences and so on. Thanks

The nature of Husayn 'Ali Baha's arrest

…After the martyrdom of the believers [following the botched assassination attempt on Násiruddín Sháh], his eminence the Mírzá [Husayn ‘Alí] was called forth from the Russian embassy, and they [the government] said [to the Russians] that due to the fact that he is a reprobate towards the government, he should not be given shelter. Because of the incessant pleas of Mírzá Majíd [his brother who was working there] to the Russian consul, he [the consul] obtained assurances from the government that unlike the others, he [Husayn ‘Alí] would not be put to death, thereby [Husayn ‘Alí] was then delivered to the government and imprisoned.

My translation, B. Mirati Nuri vaqá’i-i-rástín-i-takúr-i-núr (A True Account of Takúr in Núr), p. 15.

[Comment and time of posting recorded in the event of deletion by the censor of this site]

Jaleho: An accurate, detailed account of Baha'u'llah's Arrest.

After the Bab declared that He was the promised Qaim, in 1844  “realizing that their own privileges were endangered, they( the Clergy) persuaded Nasiri'd-Din Shah that the Bab was a threat to the state. 

Although the Bab had shown every respect for civil authority, the Shah chose the side of his advisers. A campaign of terror was launched. Thousands of the Bab's followers were hounded throughout the country, betrayed, tortured, and massacred. Finally, on July 9, 1850, the Bab was executed.”

One of the Bab's leading supporters was a young nobleman named by the Bab "Baha'u'llah." the son of Mirza Buzurg Nuri, minister to te court of Muhammad Shah; Because of the prominence of His family and the respect which his own life had won him at the Persian Court, Baha'u'llah was not killed in the general massacres. His leadership of the persecuted "Bab'is," however, made him a marked man. Highly placed opponents of the Bab appeared determined to put him to death. There was, however, no believable pretext on which so prominent a personality could be could be condemned. Baha'u'llah was widely admired.

The pretext came in 1852 when two youths fired a shot at the king as he emerged on horseback from his palace. Immediately the responsibility was placed on all the followers of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Implacable hostility swept the nation. All attempts to inquire into what had really happened were cast aside.

Nasiri'd-Din Shah, his ministers, the clergy, and the people united in relentless hate, delighted to have at last an excuse for annihilating one whom they had come to fear as a danger to the state.

Many who were merely thought to be friendly or sympathetic to the new faith were arrested and slain, unless they were wealthy and could fill the coffers of their persecutors. In Baha'u'llah's case, the authorities knew that the sentence of death and his execution must be done with cunning. Baha'u'llah and his family were still highly respected in the land. Baha'u'llah's father had been a leading nobleman, a highly esteemed and honored minister of state.

During those hectic days when one of the waves of persecution reached its peak, Baha'u'llah was a guest of the new Prime Minister, Mirza Aqa Khan. He, should have been safe there. This same Prime Minister was understood to have promised the Bab that he would protect the innocent victims of the king's wrath if the Bab would help the minister. The Bab had done so. Now the new Prime Minister, Mirza Aqa Khan, faced the crisis of having to redeem that pledge.

No one knew better than the Prime Minister that Baha'u'llah was innocent of any crime. Unhappily for the soul of this troubled minister, his loyalties constantly fluctuated back and forth throughout his career. One moment he would be inspired to try and help the mistreated followers of the Bab, the next he would cringe in fear, dreading the loss of his position. He would then begin attacking them. In the end, fear pushed out courage and decency. It also precipitated the downfall and disgrace of the Prime Minister. At first, Mirza Aqa Khan tried to effect a reconciliation between the Shah and Baha'u'llah. He sent a warm letter to Baha'u'llah in Karbila, Iraq, where Baha'u'llah had been exiled briefly by the previous Prime Minister, telling him of these plans and inviting Baha'u'llah to return to the capital. For a month he was the honored guest of Mirza Aqa Khan. During this time a great number of notables and dignitaries from Teheran flocked to meet Baha'u'llah. So much attention and honor was paid to him that it aroused the envy and fury of his enemies.

Baha'u'llah was a guest in the village of Afchih when news came of the attempt made on the life of the Shah. He condemned the act in the strongest terms, but he also refused to listen to the pleadings of the Prime Minister's brother who urged him to flee into hiding in the neighborhood. Instead, Baha'u'llah set out on foot for the Shah's residence, and the headquarters of the Imperial Army in Niyavaran to prove his innocence. He refused even the offer of an armed escort.

When Baha'u'llah reached the village of Zarghandih he was met and conducted to the home of the Secretary of the Russian Minister, Prince Dolgorukov. The news of Baha'u'llah's arrival was conveyed at once to Nasiri'd-Din Shah. The king was greatly amazed at Baha'u'llah's boldness in coming directly to his encampment. Prince Dolgorukov proposed to the Prime Minister, Mirza Aqa Khan, that he protect Baha'u'llah in his own residence from the enemies who sought his destruction. The Prime Minister was afraid to extend any further consideration to Baha'u'llah for fear he might permanently lose his own position and prestige. Baha'u'llah was, therefore, delivered into the hands of a group of his enemies among the military.

They stripped him of his headgear. Barefoot and bareheaded, and in chains, Baha'u'llah was marched the full distance from Shimiran to Teheran under the blazing sun. Several times along the way, his outer garments were torn from his body by the soldiers and the mob. He was struck by the officers accompanying him, overwhelmed with abuse and ridicule, and pelted with stones and refuse.

As Baha'u'llah was approaching the capital, a fanatical old woman rushed from the crowd with a stone in her hand. Her whole frame shook with rage as she raised the stone, but the procession was moving too rapidly for her to keep pace. She tried to them, shouting, "I entreat you! Give me a chance to fling my stone in his face!" Baha'u'llah saw her hastening after him. He halted the guard long enough to give the old lady her chance, saying: 

"Deny her not what she regards as a meritorious act in the sight of God."

I implore any one who is genuinely interested, to examine in depth the historical accuracy ,purity of motive, and the opinion and findings of non partisan modern scholars, like the respected Dr Choubineh.

faryarm 

Cat amongst the pigeons...

Talk of the ASIA SOCIETY and its connection to this site is not paranoia. It is called linkage. After all it is not as if there is a connection assumed out of thin air. It is stated on this site itself. I find it interesting that instead of addressing the nature of such relationship people resort to red herrings, misdirections, ad hominems and argumentative indirections. This in itself says a lot and suggests there is something further to look into.

Now the relationship of the ASIA SOCIETY with iranian.com is real and so therefore is arguably guiding some agenda of this site. Liberal foundation funding and corporate donor relationships are a long established pattern of behavior and the way things are done in Anglo-European politics and the business community - not to mention the nexus between the two. If you continue to say I am paranoid over pointing this fact out, then every political scientist and pundit who has worked in this area is also paranoid. Perhaps it is  more the case that those who are hurling the paranoid accusations, to paraphrase Shakespeare, are simply protesting too much - i.e. are misdirecting! Haifan Bahais are masters at this sort of logical and argumentative fallacy, like AdibM here, since it is the guiding motif of their whole history and modus operandi. In critical and more open, objective forums you cannot get away with this sort of blanket dismissal. It will get people more suspicious about your motives in dismissing and labelling those who point it out to you.

That aside, as an FYI, the administrators of Sourcewatch have today reverted JJ when he yesterday (after coming over and opening an account for himself and then immediately beginning to edit the iranian.com entry) attempted to openly fudge referenced statistical information regarding this site in the sourcewatch article on it. Comment by another editor regarding JJ's creative editing:

//www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Bob_Burton

Hi Bob,

Could you please check/advise upon and or/revert the edits recently made by new user Jahanshah (who appears to be //www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jahanshah_Javid, editor of Iranian.com) to the Iranian.com article.

At the moment his edit stands as "According to its website, "Iranian.com is the largest online community for Iranians residing in North America. With more than 160,000 unique visitors and nearly 2.5 million page views per month."Demographics for Advertisers on Iranian.com, accessed April 7, 2009.

However, the reference I created directly quotes the referenced page (here //iranian.com/contact.html) as claiming that "With more than 620,000 unique visitors and nearly 6.5 million page views per month (March 2007 stats)". Granted, these statistics may be outdated, but as I understand it, as the editor/publisher of the site, Jahanshah should change the actual site statistics on Iranian.com first, prior to altering referenced material on Sourcewatch. If there is a discrepancy between the information on the page and the referenced link, I believe this should noted in the talk page (which Jahanshah has not done) in order not to create confusion with properly referenced material. Obviously, if the site statistics change at the source, then this will need to be altered, but as you can see, there is a significant discrepancy in usage numbers quoted here and the edit here has been made prior to any first hand updates on the site itself. Thanks very much. --Atomised 07:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

- 

Bob (the administrator of Sourcewatch) checked, reverted and left this comment on JJ's talk page:

 //www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Jahanshah

Hi Jahanshah, I reverted your changes as they were no longer faithful to the reference to the primary source. The fugures you added may be more recent but they do not match the reference.--Bob Burton 08:12, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

- 

Such zeeraki behavior by JJ has rightfully raised flags and has convinced some of us over there that he has something to hide. That he does this about referenced statistical information openly published obviously means that it is the case about other issues as well, particularly regarding the actual sources of funding for iranian.com - and then following from this, the influence of such funding on the openly pro-Haifan Bahai slant of this site and JJ.

Those who continue to dismiss this train of inquiry as paranoia are either 1) living in a la-la land and need to come back to reality and the real world or 2) are themselves in on the nature of whatever it is they are frantically trying to hide by dismissing. Remember the saying, bokhor bokhor! The undisputable clique-i-ness of the Haifan Bahais here with JJ and the uncritical support some are giving to JJ's selective implementation of free speech and imposition of censorship on the detractors of the Haifan Baha'is all directly points to it. And you don't have to be a supporter of the IRI to see it. I utterly detest the IRI, but I do agree with them on the Baha'i issue. One just needs keen detective skills to see what is going on and follow it to its conclusion. 

On that train of thought, let me ask: the Sufi community of Iran and several of the big Sufi Orders have, on and off, been relentless targets of the IRI's hardliners since 1979. Pray tell, why has there been hardly any mention of the persecution of Sufism by the hardline mullahs in Iran on iranian.com? Is this site and its webmaster suggesting some Iranian minority groups are more Iranian minorities than others? In fact, the Sufis are no minority at all. Although no numbers and statistics are available, there are far more Sufis than the Baha'is. Why have the Haifan Baha'is been allowed to dominate - and in many cases monopolize - virtually all discussions of human rights and persecution in Iran, not just here, but everywhere outside of Iran? Who's yanking whose chain here? I'll tell you: money talks and sh*t walks. Geddit??

Finally, please note, my legal name as of August 2004 is WAHID AZAL. I am no longer legally known as Nima Hazini. Thank you!

413

[Comment and time of posting recorded in the event of deletion by the censor of this site]

Non Partisan look at Babi/Bahai History

The sources you have read are well known , and by now discredited because of their highly prejudiced stance , discredited by  more modern research by non partisan scholars such as Dr Bahram Choubineh.

Kindly listen to Dr Bahram Choubineh's non-Partisan and balanced   account:

here is the full programme. 

//www.newnegah.org/audio/Choubineh-30-07-2005-Babieh-1.mp3

//www.newnegah.org/audio/Choubineh-30-07-2005-Babieh-2.mp3 

Thanks Ari

I've observed that blog, as I always read all Solo's writing, I'd just browsed this one and find it a bit long for the time I had in hand...I will read very soon, sure. Thanks a lot.

Souri

Dear AdibM, I am amazed

That you say there's no need for research of the types of Kasravi, Adamiyat, who are known to be among the VERY BEST IRANIAN HISTORIANS, just because we can read "matale-ol-anvar" (The Dawn Breakers!) What kind of an argument is that?!! With the same token, whatever I write for you from other Iranian historians like Esmaeel Raeen, or Shabazi, shykholeslami, safa, najafi...name it, you won't agree with anyone, no matter how respected they are just because they provide a narrative which shows the Russian and British empire connection to Babis and Bahais and Azalis!

But, even if your read the ONLY source that you yourself consider reliable, that is Nabil Zarandi, it is full of examples of the said relations!You can find hefty relation of Russian embassy and "bank esteghraz roosieh" to Bahais. The story of Russian consulate going to Tabriz with the consulate painter to depict Bab's body in "khandagh"is in matel-ol-anvar.  The fighting of Zanjan Babis with troops sent by Amir Kabir's,  and their leader Mohamad Zanjani promising his followers that the Russian military would come to their help; the formation of the first Bahai propaganda center in Russia's Esgh Abad with the support of Russian empire; Baha's brother, sister's husband and more relatives worked for Russian Embassy and  in the unsuccessful terror of Nasserredin shah by Babis, Baha escaped to the Russian Embassy and only with the help of Prince Dalgorki, the Russian consulate, escaped the prison and capital punishment. he was then offered protection in Russia, but instead the russian representative took him to Iraq, safe and sound., for which Baha wrote a thank you "loh" for Tsar. You can find all of these in the Bahi sources, Shoghi Afandi's "gharn badii" among them, together with writings of Nabil Zarandi that you like. 

Thank you Adib Jaan, for the profile below...that alone should..

...be enough for anyone that really wants to know the status of each of the groups (if that is what they want to be called).

More interesting though is that NUR refuses to give any details regarding the group he associates himself with.  He keeps posting a link to a photo from a 100 years ago as proof that this group exists and is still living and breathing.

The tree is only known by its fruit and so far this one thankfully has only produced one, NUR.

Alborz

Rosie I think you understood

Rosie I think you understood what I said about charity on mental health should be spread around at i.com and not focused on NUR.

Now about the fun part. Well take a look around at the several blogs going on on and about NUR. Of those who disapprove him, 8 out of 10 includes multiple references to LOL, ROFL, LMAF and other somehow incredibly expressions of streaking laughter. Now isn't that fun? Seriously! LOL every other word.

Now I know you don't think their comments are really funny or they have touched on something really funny, do you? They just substiture substance with LOL! Right?

If you don't believe me look at our resident all-around certified funny woman, Marge. She has not typed one LOL here.

And now we have character holocaust. Now I leave it to you to LOL quietly or vocally. It is insane I tell ya! Madness all around and in abundance!

I'm not going to get involved in this too much more and will probably let them break each other skulls in the future. But this blog and few offshoots of it are HOT! Paris Hilton HOT! Everyone wants a piece of it! All over a loving, forgiving, "peace loving", bird signing, internet inventing religion. All the preaching about patience and virtue just BS and for show.

I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that the real Bahais are just looking at this and realize what fools some of us really are. The real ones just let it go and don't fan the flames. But not our pseudo scholars. They just dig in their (strippper high) heels deeper and deeper.

Anyway, you didn't say what Mendel mean. I googled it but all I got was some reference to peas and vegetables. What is a mendel?! If you don't say it I'm going to have to ask NUR! Come'on we can take it!

oh idiot!

just because YOU subscribe to the "do as i say, not as i do" theory doesn't mean i'm going to!  where oh where did i say racism was ok?  

yes, they are my observations!  how clever of you to recognize that i have an opinion which is every bit as credible as yours!!!!  although we don't really know what your opinion is because you slip in and out dropping your little stink bombs and disappear again, only to reappear under another anonymous name!!!!  why don't you just forget all this silliness and stay logged in! 

since you can't read properly, i rephrase my comments and speak a little s l o w e r.  i don't subscribe to ANY racism or bigotry.  i DO subscribe to the theory of freedom of speech.  it's an american thing, i know.  please don't pretend that anti-bahai is ANY diffferent than anti-anything else displayed here.

the people who are anti-religion are offensive to me.  so what...they've got a right to their opinion.

anti-americans are offensive to me, especially when they LIVE in america.  but hey, that's why we live here... right?  that freedom of speech thing again.

anti-semitics are offensive to me.  but again, iranian.com would cease to exist if THAT was disallowed.

anti-muslim, anti-bahai... all the same dude. 

why don't you talk to those who REALLY are racist or biased?  but again, that would include each and every single person on iranian.com. 

my point is simply that according to JJ himself by virtue of his slogan "nothing is sacred", nur has just as much right to voice his opinion as you or i do.  you don't like it... go ahead and discuss or debate it.  but no...  you just like calling people names instead. 

wow.

در بارۀ «کسروی و کتاب بهائیگری او»

By: Bahman Nikandish

//www.kasravi-va-bahaigari.com/

Regards.Mona

Oh Farhad will you blog that please:

It’s really sad that these IRI apologists and supporters engage in character assassination by calling this site “pro Bahai” in order to make this site look bad because it hosts many Iranians expressing their rejection of the IRI .

This is nothing less that Hitler and Khomeini did to minorities in Iran. This is a “character” genocide of an entire religious group. Hitler did that to Jews and Khomeini to Bahais and now Khomeini supporters come out and make these claims. First they make pro Bahai sound evil, and after they done that, they will label you as “pro Bahai” if you ever talk against the barbaric, savage, genocide loving war mongering Fascist IRI regime. It’s the same exact tactic the IRI uses.

It's shameful it's sad, it's inhumane.

____________________

Farhad, you do realize that the vast majority of the people closest to you ideologically on this site see it the other way around (Bahai issue aside), don't you? That the site is in collusion with the IRI supporters to suppress "you guys" and has been largely successful, as you are on the verge of extinction here, so "few", not so "many."

Of course, you would see it the other way because your news feeds get featured every single day with the most vitriolic anti-IRI titles imaginable, each and every one. frequently several each day.

Go figure.

And the elaborateness....the elaborateness...of the thought process...it's...credible...the capacity to elaborate countless, endless, more and more intricate valid arguments..

based on entirely false premises..

based on...thin air....

amazing.

iranian.cum, paranoia will destroy ya.

---------

(i know, i know, i said i wouldn't read anything unless it was addressed to me but there was only ONE new comment on my tracking and i thought it might be pawn and so i clicked and there was...farhad...and how could i resist reading..the unique... inimitable.. observations of farhad? and i was NOT disappointed.  :o) carry on.

This is really sad.  

This is really sad.

It’s really sad that these IRI apologists and supporters engage in character assassination by calling this site “pro Bahai” in order to make this site look bad because it hosts many Iranians expressing their rejection of the IRI .

This is nothing less that Hitler and Khomeini did to minorities in Iran. This is a “character” genocide of an entire religious group. Hitler did that to Jews and Khomeini to Bahais and now Khomeini supporters come out and make these claims. First they make pro Bahai sound evil, and after they done that, they will label you as “pro Bahai” if you ever talk against the barbaric, savage, genocide loving war mongering Fascist IRI regime. It’s the same exact tactic the IRI uses.

It’s shameful, it’s sad, it’s inhumane.

Marge, Jaleho, Pawn, and Q

Marge 

I understand what you're saying. I personally feel differently about
it being just another dependable substance and my reason for that
would be the old adage, "the proof is in the pudding." But I
understand why you disagree and I can respect that. Thanks for
explaining your position calmly and rationally; I really do appreciate
that.

Jaleho

This disappoints me. :(

>I do believe that historical roots of the Bahai faith lies in the colonial connections of their leaders first to the Russian Empire, and after the 1917 revolution, it shifted to British, and later to Zionism.

There's no historical evidence to back any of that up. If you do have
something to the contrary, then I request that you post it here so
that your argument can hold some water. I have refuted all of this
nonsense in my aforementioned book, Debunking the Myths, with
historical and other empirical evidence. I promise it's worth $9.95.

I'm pleased to hear that you acknowledge the suffering in Iran and
that you agree that it is wrong and totally unjustified. But moving on:

>he was forced to give the Bahais much more prominent positions as compared to their population percentage, even when he himself didn't want to.

Jaleho jan, I really hope you're not implying that Hoveida and
the like were Baha'is, because Abbas Milani has an account from
Fereydoun Hoveida which discounts this. Same goes for Sabeti, who only came from a Baha'i family in Sangsar but was actually a Muslim. None of these individuals were Baha'is themselves.

>people like myself tend to be bothered with repeated articles in the Iranian.com where the Bahis use it to propagate writings of Abdul Baha, or use the site to proselytize.

Well, I'm sorry that upsets you. This is a freedom that JJ has graciously given us on this site, and we're simply making use of it. Although lately of course, we've been talking and making blogs in defense of antagonists, as I'm sure you're aware.

>The sources that I have respected were Ahmad Kasravi's booklet on "Bahigari," and Dr Fereydoon Adamyat, both of whom I consider highly respectable historians. I know that Bahais do not respect either as a good historian.

Noooo :( before you misunderstand me, I'm sure Kasravi and Adamiyyat have conducted some fine scholarship. I know for sure that Adamiyyat was a greatly respected historian of the Constitutional Revolution. I will not deny that. However, with regard to Bahaigari, one cannot deny Kasravi's inherently anti-religious bias which acts as a subtext throughout the book. If we are to rely on Kasravi for a reliable account of Baha'i history, then we should rely on his Shi'igari for a reliable text about the history of Shi'ism, and I'm sure most Shi'as would object to that. ;)

With regard to Adamiyyat, the historical errors he made about the Baha'i Faith are also quite apparent. I'll give you an example. In his first edition of Amir Kabir va Iran, he recounts an incident in which a British general named Arthur Conolly met Mulla Husayn, the first disciple of the Bab, in 1830. I believe Conolly was allegedly traveling through Khurasan at the time. At this supposed meeting, Conolly convinced Mulla Husayn to meet up with the Bab and convince him to create a new religion (Babism) so as to create divisions within and ultimately undermine Shi'a Islam in Iran. Now, this did not happen for a number of reasons. For one thing, in the year 1830 when this meeting was said to have taken place, Mulla Husayn would have been a teenager of 17 and the Bab a child of 11. I'm quite certain that teenagers and children had no interest in political unrest. Another reason that this is totally incorrect is that Arthur Conolly died in 1842, two years before the Bab actually made his claim to being the Qa'im. But notwithstanding all of these errors, Adamiyyat then goes on to state that historical evidence for this "meeting" can be found in one of Conolly's books, Journey to the North of India Overland from England through Russia, Persia, and Affghaunistaun. However, someone found out that there is no mention of the Bab or Mulla Husayn in Conolly's book whatsoever, and when this lie had been exposed to Adamiyyat himself, he removed the fabrication from subsequent editions of Amir Kabir va Iran. Just find some first-edition copies of the book and compare it with later ones if you don't believe me. :)

At any rate, there is no need for Adamiyyat or Kasravi's "research" - and I use the term loosely - on the Baha'i Faith. Not when we have works like The Dawn Breakers written by Nabil-i-Zarandi, who was a close companion of Baha'u'llah and was actually there when he was writing down several of the events recorded in his book. He's a primary source, and by objective academic criterion, that makes him more reliable than Kasravi or Adamiyyat. I'm not trying to put them down totally. I'm just saying that their research of specifically the Baha'i Faith leaves way too much to be desired for any serious student of history - and that is not an insult to you, Jaleho jan.

Pawn

I'm glad you can appreciate the fact that I'm not afraid to give out my identity on the Internet. I'm also not saying that the chart is historically inaccurate - as a matter of fact, it is accurate. The only thing I disagree with are all of those groups' claim to legitimacy. You might find this memorandum interesting, which explains how everything went down after Remey broke away from the Faith:

//bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_mason_remey_followers.html

Q

Q, I shouldn't have even bothered to actually read what you've written because I have actually conducted the necessary historical research to know the difference between the truth and the lies originally fabricated by hostile secularists and mullahs alike. But for the sake of mutual respect, I did. And I am still not amused. It is all incompatible with history. You want me to refute it? I already have. Order my book and see how I did it.

By the way, the fact that you mention Lyndon LaRouche certainly doesn't help your case either. I assume you know that he helped Robert Dreyfuss publish Hostage to Khomeini, a ridiculous insult to historical analysis wherein he makes an attempt to analyze the origins of the Baha'i Faith. You know how much Lyndon LaRouche cares about the truth, sir? He doesn't. :) In that asinine hodgepodge of a book, Dreyfuss makes an idiot of himself by stating that the largest temple of the Baha'i Faith is in Haifa and that the worldwide headquarters of the religion is in Wilmette, Illinois. There are no Baha'i temples in Haifa but that's actually where the head of our religion is, not Wilmette which does contain a Baha'i temple. He also goes on to make the unfounded assertion that Al-Afghani was buddy-buddy with `Abdu'l-Baha and the Baha'i Faith in general. Yeah, that sure looks plausible when you juxtapose it with his polemical entries against the Bab and Baha'u'llah in the Butrus al-Bustani enyclopedia.

Anonymous fish

"respect", "let JJ handle it", "he's a big boy", "racism is OK", blah blah blah...

these are YOUR observations, YOU don't know anything. therefore you can be dismissed just like you dismiss everyone else who is bothered by racist bigotry.

think before you speak.

PAWN, it IS and ISN'T serious. /Marge

It is serious because as I explained below, paranoia is a serious illness when it gets to this degree. And also this affects the Bahai serously.  So why the HELL, if you'll excuse my French, do you think this should be FUN? And why do you speak so earnestly and at such great length about the Bahai and Nur, cross-referencing it with Ahmadinejad's Holocaust theories, etc. if you want it to be fun? if you want ifun, there's a photo essay right now on the homepage called Fun.  And quizzes. And music. And such. And you can find "porne narm" under the Experimental section, too.

It ISN'T serious because it's gotten ridiculous. As in the roots of the word: laughable. But only in a gallows humor sort of way.

As for whether Marge was referring to me when she said it's not fun, why don't you ask Marge instead of speculating to me? That is exactly the same kind of cr-p which is the basis of paranoia and its spreading of bizarre and often destructive ideas, very quickly btw in C-space.

oh and btw Pawn if you want a liiiiiiiiiittle bit of fun about this from me...posted just reeeeecently...and you want to play hunting for easter eggs(or looking for afikayman, as we Jews do on Passover), you can find it...somewhere on this site...and it's funny, so... have fun. but it's DEADLY serious, too.

PS Pawn, I haven't read the rest of this thread. Not even Fish below me. Not even Marge. Not even Q. And DEFINITELY not Nur. So don't refer me to any of it. I am ONLY reading things DIRECTLY addressed to ME. So if you want me to read something, copy it into a post directed TO ME.

PPS It's DEFINITELY not serious because it affects the site in any negative way. So any Caped Crusader who thinks it does, andis rushing to its defense, rest easy Trust me.

I was having a laugh

at the Mr. Bahai- obssesed nut-job, Nur, peddling his drivel and guess who decides to chime in all of a sudden to give his, oh so unbiased, "two cents"?

Yeah, that's right, the one and only dedicated Islamist, the proud IRI-supporter himself, Jaleho. And top it all off the other infamous iranian.com resident IRI defender Q has also joined in and he (ever so modestly you understand) considers himself an impeccable researcher too. LMAO.

You know, even though I've never had time for any religion, I'm begnining to think the Bahais must've done something right to get these three jolly characters to team up to bash them. LOL.

what is the big deal here?

I’m not sure I understand what everyone is so het up about.  JJ is adamant about “nothing being sacred”.  That would include himself as well.  he’s been at the forefront espousing freedom of speech and supporting difference of opinions.  If it’s directed at himself, is it less a freedom of speech?

I don’t know crapola about asia society.  Whats the big deal if they are or are not an advisor?  JJ accepts advise from many different forums, including individuals.  It’s unrealistic to promote the notion that he doesn’t accept advice from formal organizations, whether formally or not, or whether recognized by him or not. 

Is JJ not allowed to have an opinion either?  Does being editor mean that he must be 100% objective?  Be real…lol.  Whether or not he is pro or anti anything is beside the point.  He has opened a forum for ANYONE to speak about ANYTHING.

The fact is that not one of you, besides JJ himself, knows exactly how things are run.  You might think you do, but you don’t.  this guy might be disrespectful in YOUR mind but he’s got just as much right to voice his opinion as you do… pro or anti anything.  He could be absolutely telling the truth.  But what does it matter to you?  Why are you getting so defensive.  JJ is a big boy.  He can take care of himself.  It aint like this is the first lie that’s been spread on Iranian.com for god’s sake.

You want  him banned because he’s a bigoted racist???  The chances of that happening are slim to none because if JJ did that with every bigoted racist, there would be very very VERY few contributions to Iranian.com.

Anyone who is naïve enough to think that JJ is immune to bias is a fool.  He’s a human being and I don’t care how great you think he is, he’s not a saint.  He’s the editor and owner of a very successful website which encourages open dialog and articles about iran, your vatan.  He does a great job and he’s a nice guy.  but that's it.

You’re all wonderful friends for sticking up for him but don’t be naïve.  You really don’t “know” anything more than Nur does.  You just “think” you do.  And why?  Because JJ told you.

well, i told my son there was a santa claus too...:-)

i'm just saying... respect the philosophy behind iranian.com to include EVERYONE. 

Pawn

It's interesting that you bring up the issue of people trying to get asylum and claiming they were Bahais. I knew someone who tried to do this years ago. To their credit, the Bahai organization had wised up to this. They wouldn't "certify" him as a Bahai without showing proof of legal residence (green card) in the U.S (which defeats the purpose of that claim for asylum purposes). That's one of their criteria in order to discourage that practice.

T - that article is a joke

Are you taking it seriously? That was a great piece by the way! Salman, Larouche, the queen and Iran. It sounds like studio 54. Great job Q

Adib I actually have respect

Adib I actually have respect for you now because you actually wrote a book and put your name to it. Although I don't agree with the way you disected the Bahai sects.

//www.sectsofbahais.com/

This is a good visual tree of the whole shabang!

Dear Tahereh,

I have read less about Azal as about Baha and Bob. The sources that I have respected were Ahmad Kasravi's booklet on "Bahigari," and Dr Fereydoon Adamyat, both of whom I consider highly respectable historians. I know that Bahais do not respect either as a good historian. Here, I just beg to differ.

Adib and Tahirih

my research is impeccable as anyone can tell you. My article speaks for itself.
;)
talk is cheap. "Skimming" won't cut it. If you want to refute something, you have to read it carefully first.

Dear jaleo , just wanted to let you know that your reapeating..

What azal, Bahaullah's half brother has started. I know your highly educated , but it is a pity repeating the garbage that this feeble man has started 160 years ago!