Talk:Azali

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Azali Community of Tehran photograph[edit]

This picture has erroneously been labeled as representing the Azali community of Tehran in the year 1910. Per the upload description from the Qamar Taj Dawlatabadi collection (sub-category Ahmad Hakim collection) of Harvard University's Women's World in Qajar Iran, it is actually the Azali Babi community of Isfahan. Although no date has been specified in that collection for when this photograph was taken, the apparel worn by the photographed assemblage clearly shows it to be from the 1930s or early 1940s. Additionally the Harvard University page clearly states that Qamar Taj Dawlatabadi is the second person from the first row in this photograph. Qamar Taj Dawlatabadi was born in 1908 or 09 and died in 1982. The woman in the second row from left in the picture is clearly a fully grown Persian adult woman in her late 20s or mid '30s which, again, places the timeline of the photograph in the 1930s/40s. Research of apparel worn by women during that era in Iran also demonstrates that this picture was taken during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi (1926-1941) or his son (1941-1979) as prior to this date it is rare to find women and men mixed in group photographs in Iran or for younger women to not be wearing the hijab.

Please amend this information accordingly per the information provided above. Here are the links to the relevant Harvard pages: http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/49864645?buttons=y&printThumbnails=true http://www.qajarwomen.org/en/items/13114A3.html http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/49864645?width=2400&height=1855&html=y http://www.qajarwomen.org/en/people/109.html

Also, FYI, this photograph was first placed in the public domain in 2009 and on the article of this page of the site Iranian.com: http://iranian.com/main/blog/nur/bayani-community-iran.html

95.90.237.35 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the work you did to pull this together it wouldn't require much more to bring these two the various places needed but I went ahead and incorporated much of this information on the photo's mediawiki page. Unfortunately the original contribution fixed the file name with Tehran in it and redoing that may require deleting and reloading the picture which is currently being used in several wikis. I put a note on the talk page and will try to bring it to someone's attention. Thanks for finding these details.--Smkolins (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1848 as against 1844[edit]

The Bab had three public claims each greater than the previous - In 1844, he claimed to be the Bab - the gate through which mankind could speak to the hidden Imam, then there were were two further claims that I always mix up, the most important of which was in 1848 where he claimed to abrogate Islamic law. Its mostly ignored by Baha'is as we believe he was always all three and that he was just gradually revealing his message. Also many prominent Babis knew of his claim.

Anyway, the point is it is significant to Bayanis that he only declared publically to abrogate islamic law in 1848. -- Tomhab 7 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)


Baha'i Monopolization of Bayani items on Wikipedia[edit]

It appears the Baha'i attempts to falsify history and monopolize subject matters related to Babism and the Bayani faith extends to all domains. People should know that the Baha'is are engaged in their typical ahistorical sectarian propaganda tactics on the listed items. I am happy to take this matter as far as it goes to get some kind of objectivity happening.

For the record, the Bab first title claimed was Remembrqnce (dhikr). This whole issue has been dealt with by Browne, Tumanskii, Nicloas and Todd Lawson. It boggles the mind that the Baha'is who are active reverting their propaganda as objective entries do not know this stuff.

-- Curandero101 11 October 2006

This is not the issue with your edits, but more the uncited Recent development section, as well as stating populations exist in Uzbekistan. Do you have any reliable sources for those statements. -- Jeff3000 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Azal's recent book has almost nothing to do with the Azalis, and he, himself, is not notable. His book is self-published, so it isn't a reliable source, even if you were to cite it. MARussellPESE 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just cited you an online source for Uzbekistan. If you want I'll find published harcopy journal material as well. Azal's book is citable and it does not in any way preclude in any manner, shape or form its not being cited. It includes a recent, published history of the Bayanis. But if you would like to cite specific criticisms out of Azal's book and why it does not meet such criteria, by all means, please feel free. -- Curandero101 11 October 2006
This text:
"Earlier in 2004 Australian based Iranian esotericist Wahid Azal had launched a yahoogroups list called Bayan19 specifically dedicated to discussions of the religion of the Bayan. But Wahid Azal's Bayani gnostic universalism reflects a radical antinomian departure from the Bayani creed. It is more of a Sufi and crypto-Isma'ili gnostic reinterpretation of the Bayani faith (with Azal's own ruminations on the mystical philosophy of Ibn Arabi as the background) rather than the Bayani faith in any standard orthodox formulation. His book Liber Decatriarchia Mystica (Library of the Most Great Name, Eastern Coast, Australia: 2006) does however dedicate an entire chapter to the early history of the Bayani faith from a standard Azali perspective."
is a review of Azal's book, and unless a reliable source has reviewed Azal's book, it is original research, which is not allowed. -- Jeff3000 05:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azal's book is a syncretic Gnostic/Sufi treatise of his. He has no reputation as an expert on Azali topics and his book as self-published is not a reliable source. This information is useless for the article. In fact he has no reputation at all. I Googled him and came up with about five hits. MARussellPESE 05:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your determination of reputation is based on a clear sectarian motivated assumption as a Baha'i, not on any criteria of objectivity. The fact that in an article on the Bayanis you persist in calling them Azalis is a dead giveaway. Your googling skills also require fine honing. Look in amazon.com and barnesnoble.com. Self-published is also no criteria here. There are plenty of academic resources that are self-published or PoD. The issue is that Azal's book is deliberately left out of the references here but referred in "recent" developments. Clearly you are barking at the wind! Now was there anything else?

-- Curandero101 11 October 2006

No, his obscurity stands all by itself. And it's pretty easy to type "Wahid Azal" into Google. It gets a whopping 63 hits, almost all of them blog entries of one sort or another. Including an empty blog of his: [1]
Please seeWP:Verifiable for the definition of a reliable source. Self-published works are, by definition, not published by reputable publishers. That is the basic criteria for inclusion here. MARussellPESE 05:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Jeff, it surprises that a person of your acuity fails to see what a review is. This,

''Earlier in 2004 Australian based Iranian esotericist Wahid Azal had launched a yahoogroups list called Bayan19 specifically dedicated to discussions of the religion of the Bayan. But Wahid Azal's Bayani gnostic universalism reflects a radical antinomian departure from the Bayani creed. It is more of a Sufi and crypto-Isma'ili gnostic reinterpretation of the Bayani faith (with Azal's own ruminations on the mystical philosophy of Ibn Arabi as the background) rather than the Bayani faith in any standard orthodox formulation.'

Has nothing to do with a review of Azal's book, but is describing Azal. This,

"His book Liber Decatriarchia Mystica (Library of the Most Great Name, Eastern Coast, Australia: 2006) does however dedicate an entire chapter to the early history of the Bayani faith from a standard Azali perspective.''"

Is not a review of it either. It is positing content. Was there anything else?

-- Curandero101 11 October 2006

Sorry your points don't make any sense. Let's look at the sentences one by one.
"Earlier in 2004 Australian based Iranian esotericist Wahid Azal had launched a yahoogroups list called Bayan19 specifically dedicated to discussions of the religion of the Bayan."
This needs a citation from a reliable source, does the book state this? I don't know, but regardless forums with less than 30 posts on average a month are not notable. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines.
"But Wahid Azal's Bayani gnostic universalism reflects a radical antinomian departure from the Bayani creed."
Who said this? You state it's about Azal himself, but it most probably comes from reading his book. Thus there needs to be someone else who reviewed his beliefs, or the book and says this. Without someone else stating it, there is no citation, and is original work, can can't be included.
"It is more of a Sufi and crypto-Isma'ili gnostic reinterpretation of the Bayani faith (with Azal's own ruminations on the mystical philosophy of Ibn Arabi as the background) rather than the Bayani faith in any standard orthodox formulation."
Same comment as above, it's about his beliefs, which most probably come from the book, and therefore a review of his beliefs (or the book is needed).
"His book Liber Decatriarchia Mystica (Library of the Most Great Name, Eastern Coast, Australia: 2006) does however dedicate an entire chapter to the early history of the Bayani faith from a standard Azali perspective."
Who said that a chapter is devoted to the early history from an Azali perspective. It needs a review of the book in a reliable source. -- Jeff3000 05:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan[edit]

Well according to this [2] from Curandero101 we can get rid of almost all of this article because it doesn't mention Subh-i-Azal at all and goes on to state: "The actual number of Babis is very small: their geography is now limited to Uzbekistan." Apparently they are extinct in Iran. Seriously, this entry is useless. MARussellPESE 05:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

The item re: Wahid Azal regarding recent developments has been removed, for now. Otherwise the current version is a far better entry than the badly written item of before. You will note that the issue of the Uzbek Bayanis has come up elsewhere, besides the Encyclopedia of the Orient entry. However, per your own criteria and that of Wikipedia it is verifiable information. This is the first order of business.

I would like to ask if the two good Baha'i gentleman could source me an impartial, academic peer reviewed article of Shoghi Effendi's "God Passes By" in a refereed journal that fits the definitions of impartiality and reliability that you are demanding for others.

User:Haqiqat101 12:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and fixed some problems, some concerning the Manual of style, others just better grammer, others to fix the red links, and also quoting the Encyclopedias directly relating to the population. Finally, I also combined the two versions of the recent developments paragraph.
Also note that we did not ask for an academic peer reviewed review of the Wahid Azal book, but just a review in a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Furthermore the statements, from that old paragraph had to do with Wahid Azal, and not about the Bayanis. I would also like to note, that using a different userid is sockpuppetry and is not allowed to evade a block. -- Jeff3000 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry is clearly the function of the Baha'i contingency here who are determined to foist their own sectarian slants and biases on virtually every Babi/Bayani related topic on Wikipedia. What is going on here is therefore a Baha'i propaganda war, pure and simple, and what the Baha'i contingency is responsible for doing here is abusing those privileges and the trust of Wikipedia by pursuing such clearly obvious underhanded propaganda aims on behalf of their authorities.

Now the claim that a son of Subh-i-Azal became a Baha'i is absolutely spurious, a claim made exclusively by Shoghi Effendi out of malice, therefore with no foundation or independent historical value at all. It is directly refuted by Badieh Mirati Nuri in herA True Account of Takur in Nur, also available online here at Babieh.com as well on H-Bahai. This myth is also directly contradicted as well as challenged by yet another source, namely Attiyyeh Nuri, who seems to suggest that the son in question (who is to have become a Baha'i) was already either in Iran on such a date, or possibly already dead; this, when his so-called fictional conversion in Acre is said to have occured by Shoghi Effendi. Also neither E.G. Browne nor the French Bayani scholar, A-L-M Nicolas, have reported such an incident. No mention by them anywhere is perceptible. Yet credence is given to a Baha'i pontiff's spurious claims in a Wikipedia article regarding members of the family of the rival creed.

Furthermore, Bayanic.com is not a website of the followers of Subh-i-Azal. Nor are the webmasters of Bayanic.com claiming to represent the Bayani community. Unless, that is, you wish to suggest also the Universal House of Justice in Israel is claiming to represent you Baha'is when there are several guardian contenders disputing the very legitimacy of your religious authorities in Israel. Bayanic.com is a website of the Bayani community and by the Bayani community therefore there is no claim to what is blatantly obvious. The typical flippant and sarcastic language, diction and phraesology being deliberately used here by you Baha'is to characterize the Bayanis, history and their holy figures (subject matters you have no business even editing), while sometimes subtle, is also transparently malicious and motivated purely by your hate and sectarian biases against the Bayani community programmed into you by your authorities.

Haqiqat101

Note that wikipedia policy is to remain civil and to assume good faith. Statements like "What is going on here is therefore a Baha'i propaganda war, pure and simple" are not tolerated. I have not yet reported your sockpuppettry, but are you claiming that User:Haqiqat101 and User:Curandero101 are different people?. -- Jeff3000 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that "claim" is appropriate used to describe entries that are not corroborated. Bayanic.com is itslef a self-reference, therefore, in English, "claim" is perfectly accurate and not a perjorative.
By comparison the Universal House of Justice is widely recognized as representing the Baha'is. You may start with various United Nations agencies for corroboration.
That there was confusion over who was the successor is verified by Browne. There was no confusion over whether Azal appointed one - he seems to have appointed several. Please read the source material before you consider removing it.
With respect to Azal's son (Ahmad Bahhaj) leaving the Bayani community and becoming a Baha'i, two points:
  1. Shoghi Effendi was a resident in Haifa during the time-frame in question, therefore an eyewitness. On this point God Passes By is a first-hand account, a primary source. "Peer review" is irrelevant. This is a valid source and going back in.
  1. Moojan Momen has independent confirmation of this here and is based on another first-hand account: Lady Blomfield. Thanks for the prodding. I've added it in.
That Azal's sons had some difficulty remaining in the fold is identified by both Momen and Browne. MARussellPESE 14:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Report me to whomseover you wish. I quoted you two non-Baha'i primary sources that directly contradict your assertion. There is more. Both sources have more credibility than the concocted propaganda nonsense of the Baha'is. Neither Browne, Nicolas, Jalal Azal, William Miller, Avarih, Sobhi or anyone other than Baha'i sources makes this spurious claim. The onus is on Baha'is to prove the verifiability that Ahmad Bahhaj became a Baha'i beyond sectarian sources of their own spurious canon. Ahmad Bahhaj, according to his own relative, died in the 00s of the last century. Shoghi Effendi would have been a child. This claim is nonsense and as such must be removed.

That neither Browne, et. al., make this assertion is proof that it didn't happen is specious. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Further, Jalal Azal, William Miller, Avarih, Sobhi, et. al., would be the last people to substantiate that Azal's own son left him. So, of course, they'd be silent.
These "sources" of yours are useless.
  1. You assert that Bayanic.com doesn't represent the current followers of Azal, when that's what it says on it's front page.
  2. You point at Bayanic.com sites (Your A True Account of Takur in Nur & Attiyyeh Nuri "sources".) and then call the Baha'i sources biased, even propaganda. The idiom in English is that's "the pot calling the kettle black".
  3. You point to two Arabic or Farsi texts (Your Babieh.com and H-Bahai "sources".) as sources and expect this to fly on English wikipedia.
  4. Your assertion that Shoghi Effendi's being a child makes him an invalid witness is likewise specious. I remember the members of my community from childhood thirty plus years ago. I'm sure you do too.
  5. You dismiss Shoghi Effendi, but are silent on Momen, who went to Cyprus and did actual fieldwork that formed the basis of his paper. This is better historical research than many "experts" on the Baha'i Faith in recent years.
  6. Your own English source (A True Account of Takur in Nur) says that Ahmad Bahaj died in Haifa during Shoghi Effendi's tenure, and after rebuffing requests to disavow his father, Azal, fell into disesteem — meaning prior he had been held in esteem by Shoghi Effendi? This is internally inconsistent. How would he have been held in esteem, yet held to his faith in his father? Why would Shoghi Effendi ask him to pen a rebuttal to his father unless he had some expectation that he would do so?
  7. You state that he died in the '00s, yet this last source says he lived into the '20s at least. The lack of any dates at all in the genealogy undermines its credibility as well.
  8. Your other English source (Attiyyeh Nuri) doesn't even mention Ahmad Bahhaj. How can it refute this when it's not even on-topic?
Finally, you seem to think that this episode has deep meaning to Baha'is. This episode is treated in a single line in a single book. The disintegration of the Azali community has ample evidence without this point. I put this in because it's sourced, per wikipedia policy, and is illustrative. That there's all of one Bayani website and about a score Baha'i sites that are significantly more robust, and probably a hundred others of similar quality, is evidence enough. But it does matter to Azalis that these "defections" be minimized wherever possible, so I understand your heat.
And why do you insist on reverting the passage to read membership "devolving" onto the remnants of the family? "Devolve" is perjorative, and its the Baha'is trying to remove it.
If you want contentious edits to stick, you need to do your homework and come in with verifiable sources. You also can't willy-nilly remove other sources, unless you can demonstrate that they are so biased as to be unreliable. This point has two different observers reporting the same event. Corroboration = reliability. MARussellPESE 05:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


That neither Browne, et. al., make this assertion is proof that it didn't happen is specious.

On the contrary the very fact that the most noteworthy non-Baha'i sources do not lend an iota of credibility to this assertion is proof that the claim is specious and motivated solely by a sectarian agenda. Funny that to lend support to your non sequitor, you should then say,

The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

In the future kindly remind the reader the source of this statement above as being Donald Rumsfeld, such non sequitors being used by the American secretary of defense as justification for the invasion of Iraq due to its so-called possession of weapons of mass destruction -- now solidly proven to be a spurious and specious claim for the American invasion of Iraq. You have just proven precisely why the line is to be taken out.

Further, Jalal Azal, William Miller, Avarih, Sobhi, et. al., would be the last people to substantiate that Azal's own son left him.

You say that based on sectarian bias. These sources have meticulously reported on every facet of the movement, its splinters and controversies. I also note that you leave out EG Browne and Nicolas. Nor do you deign to mention that Denis MacEoin has dismissed the claim in his Divisions and Authority Claims article. Moojan Momen is a biased source on Babi and Bayani history because 1) he is a Baha'i and 2) Denis MacEoin has already revealed the nature of such bias.

Finally, you seem to think that this episode has deep meaning to Baha'is.

Because it does. A myth fabricated and oft repeated with a spurious geneology of self-manufactured propagandistic literature lending support to such speciousness is designed solely as a means to discredit and tarnish; this, even though there is not an iota of fact or truth involved.

That Azal's sons had some difficulty remaining in the fold is identified...Browne

Nothing of the sort you are asserting is mentioned by Browne. Rizwan-'Ali, who is a different son altogether, changed his name to Constantine the Persian and made an outward conversion to Orthodox Christianity. In the religion of the Bayan dissimulation (taqiyyah) is permitted and such an act was merely an outward confession in an environment of a post-Turkish occupation in Larnaca hostile to Muslim elements. Bayanis are not like Baha'is who are held on a short confessional leash by their leaders. You will note that it is the progeny of Rizwan-Ali who are today the present caretakers of Azal's shrine.

Devolve also has the connotation of falling back or on to something.


Ahmad Bahaj[edit]

Jalal Azal was a descendent of Subh-i Azal and a cousin of Ahmad Bahaj who visited Palestine during the tenure of Abbas Effendi and married Ismat the daughter of one of Mirza Husayn-Ali’s son Badiullah. Concerning Ahmad Bahaj he says: Ahmad Bahaj was a playmate of Abbas Effendi during the Baghdad period and grew up in Baha’s house there. After the First World War Abbas Effendi invited him to Haifa. He accepted the invitation and visited him. He died in Haifa during Shoghi Effendi’s tenure of office and at his instance, Mirza Abd-al-Husayn Ayati surnamed Awara approached him [i.e. Ahmad Bahaj] several times to write a refutation of his father. This, Ahmad Bahaj refused, and he fell into disesteem. Shoghi Effendi’s statement in god passes by, P. 233 that Ahmad Bahaj expressed repentance, prayed for forgiveness, was graciously accepted by him [i.e. Abbas Effendi], and remained till the hour of his death, a loyal follower of the faith,’ is devoid of historical foundation.

To date, there is no evidence to suggest that Ahmad Bahaj became a Bahai. Shoghi also appears to have had other skewed impressions of Ahmad Bahaj:

In God Passes By, which is filled with foul language and expression of hatred for Subh-i Azal, amongst other false accusations, he says: “.. he (i.e. Subh-i Azal) deprived that son and his descendents of the successorship with which he had previously invested him”.

Shoghi must have confused himself with the Bahai style of succession where the son gets to succeed the father in taking the seat of prophet-hood. Never Subh-i Azal vested any status in his sons. He was the Mirat (the Mirror) of the Point of Bayan (i.e. Sayyid Ali-Muhammad) and held the command of the religion of Bayan whilst he lived and left no will and by that according to the Point’s testamentary tablet to Subh-i Azal the command of Bayan was returned to the Witnesses of Bayan (i.e the believers in Bayan).


Ridvan-Ali[edit]

Concerning Ridvan-Ali, Browne says he adopted Christianity and the name Constantine. It is not clear if Browne concluded he became a Christian because he adopted Constantine or whether he had asked him directly.

But the important thing to consider is that Ridvan-Ali copied much of the manuscripts that Browne held and was later passed to Cambridge and British libraries. At the back of each one of these copies, Ridvan-Ali does three things: 1- He uses the name ‘Ridvan-Ali’, nowhere he mentions Constantine

2- He dates the completion of the copying of the manuscript using mainly Bayanic calendar.

3- In some instances he signs as follows: Written by this servant, the Babi Ridvan-Ali (see Commentary on Surat-al Val-Asr copied by him and sent to Browne).


Taking Ridvan-Ali’s own words as to how he identified himself, his preferred name was Ridvan-Ali and he also knew himself as a Babi. It appears that he used the name Constantine in a similar way as Chinese these days adopt Western names. At home they use their Chinese name and their identification papers bears their Chinse name and they are not Christian either. It appears that Browne concluded that he must have changed his religion because he used a Christian name in public.

In any case, Subh-i Azal’s sons were only his sons and had no status in the religion of Bayan. This is in sharp contrast with the Bahai system where all sons were credited with “divine attributes” because they were “branches” branching from Husayn-Ali (i.e. Baha). Such associations in Bayan do not bring any status. Consider that even the Point’s maternal uncle who also became a martyr did not earn a divine attribute.

Haqiqat

Taqiyyah was a Shi`a doctrine that was abandoned as unvirtuous by the Babis, who gave their lives by the thousands instead of renouncing their Faith. The practice is not mentioned anywhere in the teachings of the Bab, and wasn't practiced by his followers. How is it then, that Mirza Hadiy-i-Dawlat-Abadi (appointed by Azal) proceeded to several times gain a public audience and renounce both the Bab and Subh-i-Azal, then modern Bayanis claim he was using Taqiyyah to cover up the embarrassment? It appears that several prominent Bayanis renounced their faith without being under the threat of death, and anti-Baha'is will claim Taqiyyah. And why is it that anyone wishing to defame the Baha'i Faith will instantly become supporters of Subh-i-Azal, becoming familiar with a bunch of polemic writers like Miller and claiming that they are the ultimate authority? This is nonsense, even EG Browne, possibly the best source among them, made enormous factual errors, and was an opium addict. MARussellPESE was right, this is not important to Baha'is, because the facts are simple: those who chose to follow Subh-i-Azal faded away into nothingness. A fact that is a mere footnote in the history of the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado - Talk 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These points of yours are argumentative and non-responsive. You accuse others of sectarian bias at the same time you remove opposing views and cite your own even more dubious sources. You make sweeping statements and provide no sources. You assert that Browne made no such statement when the citation is immediately in front of you.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is much older than Rumsfeld — try Aristotle. This is an axiom of logic and reason and exposes an argument from ignorance. That these figures you cite have "have meticulously reported on every facet of the movement" still doesn't get to the point that others have independent observations of the event.
If, of Azal's numerous sons, it's recorded that Rizvan Ali left to become Christian, Ahmad Bahaj became a Baha'i, and most of the rest of the family appeared to be pass as Muslim (Browne, MacEoin and others), then the sons did indeed have difficulty remaining in the fold.
Ahmad Bahhaj's conversion isn't "fabricted and oft repeated". It was witnessed and mentioned all of once, and even then, not by name. It takes Momen to put his name on it. But by the way, thanks for the reminder about Rizvan Ali. I can dig up a source and drop that in too.
By the way could you provide a source from the Báb for "dissimulation" being permitted? It would seem that from Azal forward this was a central tenent, practice, and even a way of life for him and his followers. However, as Cuñado points out, neither Mulla Hussein, Quddus, nor Tahirih would be impressed. The Báb Himself certainly never "dissimulated" his teachings. Only Azal could turn cowardice into a virtue and he did so with a vengance.
If you want to keep the connotation that the Azalis have "devolved", that's your call apparently, but it certainly makes the Baha'i case of the obscurity and influence of this sect.
Don't remove bona fide corroborating sources. This violates wikipedia policy. You'll get reverted without further comment. MARussellPESE 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Taqiyyah was a Shi`a doctrine that was abandoned as unvirtuous by the Babis, who gave their lives by the thousands instead of renouncing their Faith.

This is clearly nonsense, to wit,

"Do not reveal the word of your Lord to those who would deny it. Observe the practice of taqiyyah (dissimulation) in order to avoid persecution and imprisonment” Letter from the Bab adressed to Mulla Husayn, INBA No 91, IV, p 10-14, cited in Amanat, p. 200 See also Manuchehri, http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/notes/vol3/taqiya.htm


:#You dismiss Shoghi Effendi, but are silent on Momen, who went to Cyprus and did actual fieldwork that formed the basis of his paper. This is better historical research than many "experts" on the Baha'i Faith in recent years.

I wasn't silent on Momen. Momen is a biased source all around. MacEoin already exposed his selective treatment of sources over two decades ago.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is much older than Rumsfeld — try Aristotle.

This is a straw man, a non sequitor and an outright lie. I know Aristotle backwards and forwards. No such statement will be found in any of Aristotle's works on logic. Do you mind citing precisely which of the Stagirite's works such a statement comes from? Also quote the passage number. Thanks. Is the Prior or Posterior Analytics where this statement appears?? It surely is not in the canon of Aristotle's formal works.

The reversions are going to be made again. According to "Baha'i teachings" has no relevence to an entry on Bayanis. This is an entry on the Bayanis not the Baha'is. Stick to your own topics. Leave ours alone.

User: Haqiqat/Haqiqat

Argument from ignorance is still argument from ignorance and fallacial reasoning. Rhetoric is an ancient science that began with Aristotle. I suggested that you start looking there. Apparently you haven't found it yet. Try here.
Interesting that MacEoin "exposed" this work of Momen's years before he wrote it. Momen's paper is dated 1991. MacEoin hasn't been active in Babi research since the mid-eighties.
On dissimulation (taqiyyah): If you'd actually read Manuchehri you cite you'd note these:
  • . The Bab's use of it lasted a very short time, was tempered by necessity, and something he abandoned. From Manuchehri's conclusions [all emphasis mine]:
"4. At the time of the revelation of Bab, the ferocity of prejudice and hatred was such that He first revealed his position as the Deputy to the Hidden Imam. Taqiyyah was an essential requirement during the early phase of the revelation simply because the level of prejudice within the society could have totally crushed the movement before it had a chance to spread.
5. The Bab even ordered many of his followers to practice taqiyyah in order to spread the cause and carry out importance services for the faith.
6. As the Babi cause progressed and their numbers grew, the Bab revealed his true identity as the Hidden Imam and a manifestation from God. This claim effectively made the Babi faith independent from other Shi`ite sects. Mulla Husayn was now appointed to the position of Deputy of the Hidden Imam."
And when he did reveal his take on his identity, he did so spectacularly:
"I am, I am the Promised One! I am the One Whose name you have for a thousand years invoked, at Whose mention you have risen, Whose advent you have longed to witness, and the hour of Whose Revelation you have prayed God to hasten. Verily, I say, it is incumbent upon the peoples of both the East and the West to obey My word, and to pledge allegiance to My person."
  • This was a practice that was not encouraged:
"Prominent Babi leaders never encouraged other believers to practice taqiyyah.. In situations where a Babi questioned his loyalties or doubted his beliefs, they were advised to make a personal choice."
  • This (taqiyyah) was a difficult point of conscience for many:
"Many learned and respected Babis practiced taqiyyah before and after the martyrdom of the Bab in order to avoid involvement in various uprisings, persecutions and afflictions. Such Babis were fully aware of the significance of their actions. Many chose to assist their fellow Babis secretly in times of need. The scope of such assistance was limited to their degree of caution and taqiyyah.
It appears that these Babis were not ready to sacrifice their positions, titles and life comforts for their faith. taqiyyah amongst them was no longer a tool to protect the identity of the Bab or his position. This requirement was largely superseded after the execution of the Bab. These Babis represented the prosperous class of ulama and Bazari merchants who were in some way dependent on the ulama or the ruling establishment for their survival.
It is interesting to note that many from this group later changed their ways, declared their faith and lost their life for the cause. Clearly they had an internal struggle between conscientious belief and human desires. A struggle that resulted in them abandoning the practice of taqiyyah."
  • Finally, Manucheri has these conclusions:
"12. Bahaullah clearly announced that the recognition of the manifestation of God and ‘steadfastness’ His Cause is more important than observing any of the other teachings. Gradual abandonment of taqiyyah amongst the Baha’is was one of the distinguishing feature of the new religion from the Babi era. After this time the practice of taqiyyah became unofficially superseded.
13. In contrast the Azali Babis glorified taqiyyah in their literature. Taqiyyah was considered a virtue and classified into various levels of concealment. Prominent Azali leaders openly recanted their faith and even abused Bab and Azal in the process. The extent of taqiyyah in their words and actions caused Mirza Abu’l-Fadl to question Edward Browne’s method of portraying of Azali Babis. Taqiyyah became one of the distinguishing features of the Azali-Bahai split."
  • In fact, according to Manucheri, the practice was so widespread among Azalis that:
"Mirza Aqa Khan and other Azalis claimed loyalty to the Bab and his teachings. Yet they attributed such falsities and attacks on his character. This duality in approach reduced their moral credentials amongst the Babis and nullified their vehement campaign against Bahaullah."
Point, game, set, and match: Azal et. al. did indeed elevate cowardice into a virtue, and is a distiguishing characteristic of the sect. This skulking about stands in stark contrast, not only to the Bab and Baha'u'llah, but the thousands who died identifying themselves with this faith. This "cowardice as virtue" has always been widely known, but you presented a peach of a reference. Thank you. This will find a nice home here. And this has been fun. MARussellPESE 04:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.G. Browne's A Travellers Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab[edit]

A link was put in of E.G. Browne's A Travellers Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab in the bibliography. Why has this item been removed?Thamarih 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the item has been put back in the bibliography and this entry which is currently grossly slanted towards a specifically sectarian Baha'i bias will shortly be altered according to this source as well as those in French by A-L-M Nicolas as well as August J Strensand in English. Thamarih 13:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan and Bayani[edit]

The article pejoratively attests that the title "Bayani" is "self-styled." I would direct the gentlemen who believe this title to be self-styled to ask themselves why the central scripture of the Bab is titled the "Bayan" and why moreover does Mirza Husayn 'Ali Baha'u'llah refer to the "People of Bayan" (ahl al-bayan) within his own works and not Azali? "Bayani" is accurately a title refering to someone who believes in the Bayan, the scripture/revelation of the Bab. If the gentleman here dispute this, perhaps they can adduce adequate citation and evidence as to why they then find the pejorative "Azali" as more accurately "styled" than "Bayani," since "Azali" is a pejorative term styled by Abbas Effendi. Also if they would find evidence of the first usages of "Azali" as opposed to "Bayani" that would also be appreciated. Thamarih 13:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check your sources. E.G. Browne coined the term and refers to Azal's followers as "Ezelís" or "Azalis" prior to Baha'u'llah's death (1892):
  • Browne, E.G. (1889), "Bábism", Religious Systems of the World: A Contribution to the Study of Comparative Religion, London: Swann Sonnenschein
  • Browne, E.G. (1891), A Travellers Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab, Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. (See Notes D & W.)
  • Browne, E.G. (Ed.) (1918). Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion. Cambridge University Press. pp. (See the Table of Contents.).
"Azali" is also the term currently, and exclusively, used by non-Baha'i scholars including:
Cole
MacEoin (See Iranica below)
and others:
It's sufficiently pervasive that the mainline encyclopedia's use it:
Actually, "Bayani" appears to not exist until recently. "Bayani & Bab" generates about 1,190 google hits. (Where "Azali & Bab" generate about 9,560 hits. "Baha'i & Baha'u'llah" generate 136,000.) This is the best that I can do, because there are no academic references to Azal's followers using that name.
I'm not sure why "Azali" is pejorative as it's been in use for over a century by observers neutral and even hostile to Baha'is. Looks like a more than a little historical revisionism here.
Thank you, Thamarih. We should now be able to justify correcting the article's name. MARussellPESE 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The good gentlemen are still begging the question. The term "Azali" was not coined by E.G. Browne but by Abbas Effendi. See the second volume of the "Travellers Narrative." E.G. Browne is merely utilizing an academic taxonomy that was initially coined as a pejorative label. Perhaps the gentlemen would have no problem if all the articles on Bahaism on wikipedia were changed to Bahaists and "Bahai faith" to "Baha'ism"? In any case, the issue has not been answered and the gentleman are merely begging more questions. I pointed out that within the scriptures of the Bahais Husayn 'Ali Nuri himself refers to the "People of Bayan" (ahl al-bayan) and not to Azalis. Obviously the term "Bayani" is being conceded by the Baha'i founder himself, which then does not make the word "self-styled" as you are contending, whatever Britannica is stating. Do you dispute that Husayn 'Ali Nuri used the term or not? Yes or no? If yes, then the precedence for the use of "Bayani" as the people who believe in the Bayan is not a recent neologism and so not "self-styled" as you contend. The issue is as simple as that. If you dispute this, kindly proffer evidence of what the Bahai founder actually referred to his "Babi" rivals as. Thamarih 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thamirih, you make several points all of which are incorrect on the facts and one of which is an ad hominem attack.
1. "Abdul-Baha coined the term "Azali" in A Traveller's Narrative."
Incorrect on the facts. Abdul-Baha exclusively refers to Mirza Yahya by his name and does not use any title. (Search either of these online sources for "Mirza Yahya", "Azal", or "Ezel": [3] [4])
2. "E.G. Browne did not coin the phrase."
Incorrect on the facts. As noted previously, Browne does so in his article on "Babism" [5] and Travellers Narrative in Note U, p. 355. [6]
3. "Abdul-Baha coined the term as a pejorative."
Incorrect on two points.
First is logic: As Abdul-Baha didn't coin the term, he couldn't have done so pejoratively. This accusation is an ad hominem attack intended to discredit the use of the term "Azali".
Second is history: Azal's followers are easily referred to as "Azali Babis" or "Azalis" to distinguish them from Baha'u'llah's followers as "Baha'is" as a result of the contentious Babi/Baha'i split. This is why Browne coined the term.
4. "Baha'u'llah uses the term "People of the Bayan" perforce he, himself, "concedes" [whatever that's supposed to mean] the term "Bayani"."
This is "arguemnt from half truth" if you will. Both Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha use "People of the Bayan" in serveral instances with reference to the Azalis. But the term "Bayani" was never used, so the argument that this term is recognized ("conceded"?) by the central figures of the Baha'i Faith is non sequitur.
5. "Precedence for using "Bayani" for "People of the Bayan" is old so it's not "self-styled"."
Incorrect in that the term "Bayani" has not been used by anyone outside the Azali community with rare recent exceptions; and the only source purporting to be within the community is one anonymous website that uses the term.
If it naturally followed to use "Bayani", then it wouldn't have taken over a century to do so. Since its only being used recently by an unknown party claiming to represent that community, either it doesn't follow, or nobody's been doing so for decades, so "self-styled" is exactly the term to use.
As an aside, if someone in the Azali community is trying to use "Bayani" now in lieu of the name in place for over a century, one wonders what the motivation is for this re-branding.
The discussion of "Baha'ists" etc. is entirely tangential, and baiting, as nobody's suggesting that Azalis be referred to as "Azalists", or Azal's religion as "Azalism".
Each point has been asked and answered more than once. I consider the case closed. MARussellPESE 16:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also since you are quoting Cole's shouting-match with MaCeoin, in the interests of fairness, here are MacEoin's responses to Cole (as well as some of his other pertinent articles):

  • The Crisis in Babi and Baha'i Studies: Part of a Wider Crisis in Academic

Freedom? Denis MacEoin Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 17, No. 1. (1990), pp. 55-61. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0305-6139%281990%2917%3A1%3C55%3ATCIBAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies) is currently published by Taylor & Francis Ltd..

  • A Few Words in Response to Cole's 'Reply to MacEoin'

Denis MacEoin British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1. (1991), pp. 86-87. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1353-0194%281991%2918%3A1%3C86%3AAFWIRT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

  • The Crisis in Babi and Baha'i Studies: Part of a Wider Crisis in Academic Freedom?

Denis MacEoin Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 17, No. 1. (1990), pp. 55-61. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0305-6139%281990%2917%3A1%3C55%3ATCIBAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

See also,

  • Denis Maceoin “From Babism to Baha'ism: Problems of Militancy, Quietism and Conflation in the Construction of a Religion,”

Religion 13, 1983: 93-129 - “Baha'i Fundamentalism and the Western Academic Study of the Babi Movement,” Religion 16, 1986: 57-84 and - “Afnan, Hatcher and an Old Bone,” Religion 16, 1986: 193-95.

Thamarih 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above documentation of the falling out of two academics makes interesting reading and throws into high relief the maxim of academic life that "University politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small."[7] (Thank you Henry Kissinger.) However, it's tangential to the topic, so there's nothing to talk about. MARussellPESE 16:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't disagree with you about Academics and the Ivory Tower. Yes, it is indeed a political cesspool in there. But it is also typically gratuitous of you Bahais to cite and invoke academics and academic literature one-sidedly when it happens to suit an argument - or, a sleight-of-hand, rather - at any given time of advantage. When the tables are turned, or another side of the same debate is revealed, you start crowing about how corrupt the academy is. You dishonestly cited Cole's debate with MacEoin without even realizing that this was a two-sided argument that made Cole look the weaker party Thamarih 12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this whole article is disputed[edit]

I have tagged this article disputing its neutrality Thamarih 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

I'm requesting that this article be renamed to Azali for several reasons:

  1. The name Azali is, by far, the older and more common term. (Please see discussion above.)
  2. The term "Bayani" as it refers to this group is obscure and represented largely on an anonymous website.

So, per the WP:Name policy Azali is the correct article name. MARussellPESE 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article has been renamed from Bayani to Azali as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No move is necessary for this article. You are welcome to start an article called Azali and link it to this one. In fact it would fit nicely in all the other articles here to trace the historical trajectory and usages of this term Abbas Effendi coined. That aside, if you wish to move this article then I move to change Bahai Faith to Bahaism. Those who hold to the sacrality of the Bayan are called Bayanis not Azalis, whatever pejorative you Bahais insist on labelling them as. Believe me, in a fair, level handed academic setting under normal circumstances - which unfortunately is also becoming a rare commodity these days - you people would never get away with the systematic campaign of deception that is your modus operandi on all these articles. But note this, you're sleights of hand and orchestrated dishonesties, half-truths and deceptions here are being noticed far and wide, not to mention recorded for posterity. Keep it up. In the end, what goes around, comes around. Count on it! Thamarih 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These exchanges with you and your various sock puppets are rarely fruitful. It's ridiculous to insist that "Baha'i" should read "Bahaism" and at the same time argue that "Azali" should read "Bayani". As noted above, and at some length, "Babi" comes from the "Bab", "Baha'i" comes from "Baha'u'llah", and "Azali" from "Subh-i-Azal" — the titles of the groups' leaders — and used as short-hand by E.G. Browne to distinguish them.
In the mountains of papers and research on Babi/Bahai topics, much of it penned by people neutral to outright hostile to the Baha'is, I can find all of one paper that refers to "Bayanis"[8]. One instance out of hundreds is hardly worth mentioning, and certainly doesn't support the notion.
One needs to provide verifiable evidence to make things stick here. Ample opportunities have been available to you to meet or counter those arguments and citations presented previously. The best evidence you've been able to produce to date is to repeatedly state the assertion "'Bayani' means 'people of the Bayan'", accusations of dishonesty (which is quite rich considering), and now threats.
Repeatedly stating assertions without reasoning or supporting points of fact is not logical — it's argumentative. So is resorting to accusations and threats. If you have something substantive to contribute: do so. Otherwise, this is hardly worth the few minutes it take to answer. MARussellPESE 18:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What is even more ridiculous is that you Bahai Sock-Puppets here are insisting on stamping all of these articles with the sleight-of-hand stamp of your own skewed ahistorical sectarian narrative - as if this is real history or a remotely accurate portrayal of facts. The followers of Subh-i-Azal are called the People of the Bayan because the Bayan is that holy scripture sacred to these people. Per the scriptures of your own prophet-founder, specifically the Kitab-i-Aqdas, that is the term representing these people and the term they are specifically identified by (i.e. Ahl al-Bayan/People of the Bayan), i.e. those who adhere to the Bayan. Subh-i-Azal - as per the Will and Testament of the Bab - is the designated successor of the Bab. He did not found a new religion or a new sect. In fact the very opposite can be argued to be the case, and with you Bahais specifically. This term, since it was first coined by Abbas Effendi in the 1890s, has been used by you Bahais as an obfuscatory sleight of hand and term of derision to inaccurately portray these people who have been loyal to the religion of the Bayan as something else - that something else being what you yourselves actually are (i.e. incorrigible schismatics and so covenant breakers per the covenant of the religion of the Bayan). Yet that aside, this does not change the fact that the term Bayani is the actual term designating those who adhere to this religion. And however you people wish to fudge and obfuscate this issue, it does not change it an iota. I'm quite happy to quote directly from your "prophet's" Most Holy Book as the arbiter of what the correct term here is. Thamarih 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From the Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraph 140,

"O people of the Bayán, I adjure you by your Lord, the God of mercy, to look with the eye of fairness upon this utterance which hath been sent down through the power of truth, and not to be of those who see the testimony of God yet reject and deny it. They, in truth, are of those who will assuredly perish. The Point of the Bayán hath explicitly made mention in this verse of the exaltation of My Cause before His own Cause; unto this will testify every just and understanding mind. As ye can readily witness in this day, its exaltation is such as none can deny save those whose eyes are drunken in this mortal life and whom a humiliating chastisement awaiteth in the life to come." http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KA/ka-7.html

Clearly the Bahai founder is referring to the adherents of the Bayan as Bayanis (i.e. Ahl al-Bayan). Now the Bahais claim that this book was written in the early 1870s. E.G. did not write anything until the late 1880s, early 1890s. Clearly [Bayani]] trumps the derisive, pejorative term Azali coined by Abbas Effendi, and from the scriptural writings of the Bahai founder himself. It is in fact the earlier term as attested by the Bahai founder himself. The change of this article therefore from Bayani to Azali needs to be reconsidered. Thamarih 06:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request move back to Bayani[edit]

Per reasons specified above, this article needs to be changed back to Bayani. Thamarih 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning above is nonsense. Leave as Azali per MARussellPESE's comments. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered already.
It is a basic premise of Baha'u'llah's claims that he fulfills specific prophecies of the Bab's. As such he is addressing all of the Bab's followers collectively. There were three groups:
  • The vast majority followed Baha'u'llah — coming to be known as "Baha'is"
  • A minority (3% - 4% per Browne) followed Subh-i-Azal — coming to be known as "Azalis"
  • An even smaller minority who followed neither — most dispersing back into Islam
Had Baha'u'llah said "O people of Azal" he would have been neglecting those of that last group.
The above assertion that Baha'u'llah used/coined the term "Bayani" for the narrower (Azali) group is non-sequitur. MARussellPESE 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eminently, as I have demonstrated above, and which you are now attempting to fudge and bluster out of, your own reasons are utter nonsense and non sequitorial from first to last - and from your own proof-texts no less. When your prophet was composing his Kitab-i-Aqdas in the early 1870s there were no other people of the Bayan other than those who loyally clung to the Mirrorhood of Subh-i-Azal. And no one is insisting that Husayn 'Ali Nuri coined the term Bayani. You insisted that the term "Azali" was older. I demonstrated from your own sacred book that your assertion is tout court disengenuous as well as ahistorical, per the statements of your own prophet. Then you claim - per the hagiographies and white-washed sectarian (biased) histories of your own creed - that all Babis became Baha'is. Meticulous historical documentation (which is decidedly not Encyclopedia Britannica) proves the very opposite. Browne, Nicolas, Tumanski and Miller. These names are far more eminent and reliable than Shoghi Effendi. Now you say all Babis became Baha'is, outside of the questionable sources of your own creed, let us see corroboratory documentation to that effect. And if this is so, then, pray tell, why were Bahais going out of their way to assassinate and murder prominent Bayanis from 1867 to the mid 1870s - which Browne even documents??

The article as it stands presently reflects the "conflated" biases and historical white-washes of the Bahai sectarian propaganda, and specifically with the name. It MUST be changed back to Bayani - and one way or the other it will. Guaranteed! Thamarih 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's supposed to be persuasive here. Quoting the opposition (Baha'u'llah) when convenient, attacking neutral sources (Britannica) when they're inconvenient, engaging in ad hominem attacks with anybody who disagrees, and all the while repeating the same argument again and again is not what I learned in my academic or professional career.
Ah, but thinking of Henry Kissinger's "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."[9] certainly seems to apply. MARussellPESE 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common and well established tactic of the Bahais to attribute their own under-handed and dishonest tactics upon others whilst they continue with the tactic, all the while denying they're doing it. Perhaps this is what some have called the argumentum ad apophais (an argument from unsaying), a logical fallacy. The sectarian ad hominem of you [MARussellPESE] is on these pages for all to see (all who specifically do not belong to your creed and so are not amenable to your sleights of hand and diplomacies of pure deciet and deception deception). The Britannica article was long ago exposed by none other than Denis MacEoin (later echoed by Juan Cole, William Garlington and Walbridge) as a worthless apologetic and untrustworthy piece of pseudo-scholarship reflecting the propaganda of you Bahais. This position is now unassailable and within the Academy - which you people gratuitously uphold and then gratuitously bad-mouth - is axiomatic. Britannica has no independent value. Thamarih 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lies of the Bahai agents of obfuscation[edit]

It was mentioned - or sleight of handed above - that the website Bayanic.com is obscure and anonymous. This is another pattern of the lies and deceits by these Bahai agent provocateurs of the Bahai administration. Bayanic.com is neither obscure nor anonymous. The webmaster is Steve Blomberg - who has posted above - and it is the official website of the People of the Bayan. Obviously this bothers the Bahai agent provocateurs of obfuscation put up to their obfuscatory deceits and orchestrated lying by the Bahai administration. But this does not remotely change the fact that Bayanic.com is neither obscure nor anonymous. The site H-Bahai even links to our site twice on this page (on the first hyperlink to Qayyum al-Asma' and prominently at the very bottom of the page): http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/index/albab.htm

Obviously the webmasters of H-Bahai do not consider Bayanic.com as either obscure or anonymous that they link from their own digital library to our page, and twice. Don't you people get tired of the amount of lies, deciets and sleights of hand you are commissioned by the Bahai administration to spin, day-in, day-out? All of which, I may add, are increasingly becoming more and more transparent. Thamarih 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: please review WP:NPA.
Actually H-Baha'i refers to the manuscripts available at bayanic.com as "provisional"[10]. Hardly a ringing endorsement.


Any anonymous website is one where the responsible party isn't identified. www.bayanic.com identifies nobody at all. For all anyone could tell it's on a server in somebody's basement.


By way of comparison, the Baha'i International Community's site[11] has clear statements of copyright[12], and a contact page[13]. The American Baha'i's website posts street addresses and phone numbers[14]. The UK Baha'i's post these on their front page[15]. Even privately operated websites[16] provide contact information directing to the community.
Now who's obfuscating what exactly Wahid? MARussellPESE 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You are, as always. Who other than you malicious cultists obfuscates!

Hah! Endorsement or not, this is precisely the verifiability that you Bahais consistently demand of everyone else. And it also proves your assertion to be a rank lie - like everything else. The website http://bahai.com/ does not identify any persons either, copyright or not. And copyright is no standard by which wikipedia demands verfiability FYI. You asserted that Bayanic.com was an anonymous site, which both the webmaster and I have proven to be a lie and fraudulent statement. You then asserted the site was of no consequence. I pointed out that H-Bahai has linked to our site - whatever you think personally or whatever is your ideological position is irrelevent here. They have linked, therefore it has been considered significant for linkage and citation. Now since you brought up basements, perhaps http://bahai.com/ is located in the basement of the offices of the MOSSAD in Tel Aviv or one in Langley, Virginia? Tell us! It is not apparent where the server is at all. And as far as copyrights go, pretty shortly a US Court will determine your shrill cries of copyright when you lose your case to the Orthodox Bahais. Then I'll be here to put your copyright claims where they belong. Wahid Thamarih 08:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking quite silly. No-one is coming away from this looking respectable. Perhaps it's worth discussing what a group should be called? If I had started a group or participated in that group, I'd appreciate it if people called me by the name that I identified myself. I presume that if I called myself a baptist and someone wrote an article about "Christian offshoot - protestant division #14" I'd be a little annoyed. Thamarih, can you please give some reference to use of the name "Bayani", as early as possible?
Other info, such as number of members, geographical spread, ideologies, etc., would also go down very well here I think. As to whether others should be allowed to make edits to the page (the example of telling baha'is not to edit this page), why don't we just put down what we all have from our references and work from there? I'd be very interested in seeing some content from yourself (Thamarih) going onto the page, rather than everyone wasting time in arguments. I'm sure you'd also like to publish central tenets of your beliefs and can do so rather better than an outsider. Happy editing, k1-UK-Global 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly put up content on this page. Repeatedly whenever it has gone up, these Bahai cultist hacks of the Bahai administration have come and put back their own propaganda, with no regard whatsoever on content. When the issue has become heated, they have attempted to have me labeled a Sock-Puppet and banned from contributing further to wikipedia. We put up www.bayanic.com as well as the yahoogroups site Bayan19 here long ago. The Bahais gratuitously and dishonestly (as you may note above) attempted to dismiss it, raising hubris about verifiability and other such assorted sleights of hand that have absolutely nothing to do with actual wikipedia policies. What it has to do with is the fact that these sites poignantly contradict the content of the deceptive Bahai propaganda being foisted by these malicious glaze-eyed cultists monopolizing wikipedia articles and out to maintain their propaganda narratives by any and all means necessary, and against everybody and everything! My own book, for instance, delineates in detail the whole Bayani historical narrative. These so-and-sos immediately took down any references to this book, albeit the verifiability of this book is unassailable. No bother. I'll wait for the upcoming reviews and use them as a weapon against these cultists when they come out to poke them in the eye with, just to make them look stupid. In short, these boards on wikipedia represent a larger information war, and one which we the Bayani community are quite happy, willing and able to pursue with this corrupt organization and its adherents to the bitter end. Thamarih 05:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FBI, CIA Scriveners Edit Wikipedia Entries[edit]

Proof that Haifan Bahai wikipedia hacks are working hand-in-glove with American Intelligence

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=954

Thamarih 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=958

Figures.

Thamarih 03:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Checking out anonymous Baha'i administration editing of WP is easy:
Using Wiki Scanner and:
Searching: "Baha'i" Results: 1 edit.
Searching: "Bahai" Result: Same edit.
Searching: "Baha" Results: 2 edits.
Hardly anything connecting Baha'i editors to Baha'i administration, much less intelligence services. That accusation betrays a profound ignorance of Baha'i teachings. We are to "Shun politics like the plague, and be obedient to the Government in power in the place where we reside." (Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 57) But such accusations are par for the erudite arguments from the blogosphere. MARussellPESE 05:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=192.115.144.0-151.255

You are a liar, like the rest of your other co-cultists. The Wikiscanner shows that the computers of the Bahaim WC have edited articles on wikipedia: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=192.115.144.0-151.255

This is only from computers at their WC in Haifa, Israel. Seeing that the Internet Committee of the respective National Satanic Assemblies utilizes and hires people on all ends, the individuals here are obviously appointees of the National Satanic Assemblies of Canada and the USA. This clearly violates wikipedia policies and confirms what Kurt Nimmo has been stating overall and what I have been asserting that wikipedia is being actively used as a propaganda and misinformation platform for agents of the Haifan Bahai organization. Thamarih 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{npov}} Tag[edit]

I've struck the {{npov}} tag, and the one on Báb. All of this article's sources are either the products of historians or direct personal accounts. All but one of the sources used in this article are non-Baha'i; and several are critical — even hostile to that religion.

The Baha'i editors have gone out of their way to avoid using Baha'i sources in this and other Babi & Azali articles. The accusation thtat his is a Baha'i spin-job just doesn't carry water. MARussellPESE 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bahai editors - who are all sock-puppets of the Bahai administration and whose bias is well known - have shoved down their spin and propaganda on these articles. Thamarih 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the tags here and on the Bab are based more on personal accusation than meaningful contributions, I removed them. If Thamarih can at least articulate concerns that don't involve wild and belligerent accusations, then I'll leave the tags and discuss the issues. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the tags at your peril. The above articulates the concerns. The articles Bab, Subh-i-Azal and Azali verbatim articulate Bahai propaganda and ahistorical falsifications, therefore the neutrality of these articles is tout court disputed. These articles have also been reported to what is fast becoming the ombudsman of the sort spin and propaganda wikipedia is being utilized for by bigger organizations Thamarih 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your statements just don't pass water. Virtually all the sources are from MacEoin and others who are critical of the Baha'i religion. Please provide specific concerns. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azali&oldid=1199251696"