DIVISIONS & AUTHORITY CLAIMS IN BABISM - By Denis MacEoin

[Sock-Puppet'ullah]

Important (and hard to find) article by Denis MacEoin, published in
Studia Iranica 18:1 1989: pp. 93-129. Download pdf, here:

http://wahidazal66.googlepages.com/divisionsandauthorityclaimsinbabism

W

[John MacLeod]

Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Important (and hard to find) article by Denis MacEoin, published in
http://wahidazal66.googlepages.com/divisionsandauthorityclaimsinbabism
W

Thanks for this. I enjoyed it. I wish that we could all be as objective
and evidence-based as MacEoin.

[Sock-Puppet'ullah]

Post by John MacLeod
Thanks for this. I enjoyed it. I wish that we could all be as objective
and evidence-based as MacEoin.

Apparently David Hoffman and Fayzi didn't appreciate Denis'
"objective and evidence based" approach to things, since they ran him
out of your cult in the late '70s and then launched a massive whisper
campaign of slander and defamation against him that was picked up by
Douglas Martin, Hatcher, Afnan and Moojan Momen. That said, MacEoin's
DIVISIONS article is a good place to start to begin a presentation of
the general untenability of your cult's whitewashed and re-Imagined
historical narratives of Babism. However he does not go far enough,
and obviously he did not utilize many sources in the Browne collection
that could've made his position even more objective than the one
presented. One glaring problem with this article is that MacEoin
actually quotes from the actual Will and Testament of the Point but
without identifying it as such. He does however quote from the Baghdad
era will and testament of Husayn 'Ali Nari and other assorted
statements by him quoted by 'Izziyyah Khanum in her rebuttal of Abbas
Effendi that shows the "scarecrow theory" to be a sham.

W

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Important (and hard to find) article by Denis MacEoin, published in
http://wahidazal66.googlepages.com/divisionsandauthorityclaimsinbabism
W

This article highlights few things I have been arguing for:
- The station of Subh-i Azal in some of the Point's writings as the
sole authority after the Point
- The stupidity of the Bahai claim that Subh-i Azal was to act as a
shield behind which Husayn-Ali was to hide
- The syupid mis-translation of 'Source of command' to 'mystic source'
by Shoghi where Husayn-Ali makes a reference to Subh-i Azal as the
authority of Bayan.
- That the Point believed Subh-i Azal's words were inspired by God
- That all people of Bayan were to turn to Subh-i Azal after the Point
- The Point's emphasis on protecting Subh-i Azal
- That according to Point himself, the return of Imam Husayn was Subh-
i Azal not Husayn-Ali as he claimed to be.
- That "Subh-i Azal succeeded in escaping to Baghdad where he was
followed, in 1853 by his brother Husayn-Ali who chose to go there
after he had been released from prison".
- That it was made difficult for anyone to see Subh-i Azal in Baghdad.
We find from Bayani historians sich as Mirza Mustafa Katib who has
quoted pilgrims returning disappointed from Baghdad because Husayn-Ali
prevented them from seeing Subh-i Azal. Husayn-Ali planned on keeping
Subh-i Azal away from the eyes. After a few years the only one people
practically knew was Husayn-Ali.

[Sock-Puppet'ullah]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Important (and hard to find) article by Denis MacEoin, published in
http://wahidazal66.googlepages.com/divisionsandauthorityclaimsinbabism
W

- The station of Subh-i Azal in some of the Point's writings as the
sole authority after the Point
- The stupidity of the Bahai claim that Subh-i Azal was to act as a
shield behind which Husayn-Ali was to hide
- The syupid mis-translation of 'Source of command' to 'mystic source'
by Shoghi where Husayn-Ali makes a reference to Subh-i Azal as the
authority of Bayan.
- That the Point believed Subh-i Azal's words were inspired by God
- That all people of Bayan were to turn to Subh-i Azal after the Point
- The Point's emphasis on protecting Subh-i Azal
- That according to Point himself, the return of Imam Husayn was Subh-
i Azal not Husayn-Ali as he claimed to be.
- That "Subh-i Azal succeeded in escaping to Baghdad where he was
followed, in 1853 by his brother Husayn-Ali who chose to go there
after he had been released from prison".
- That it was made difficult for anyone to see Subh-i Azal in Baghdad.
We find from Bayani historians sich as Mirza Mustafa Katib who has
quoted pilgrims returning disappointed from Baghdad because Husayn-Ali
prevented them from seeing Subh-i Azal. Husayn-Ali planned on keeping
Subh-i Azal away from the eyes. After a few years the only one people
practically knew was Husayn-Ali.

Interesting that none of the propagandists of the IT committee have
raised a single voice in discussing this piece.

W

[Máirseáil Rí Laoise]

Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Important (and hard to find) article by Denis MacEoin, published in
http://wahidazal66.googlepages.com/divisionsandauthorityclaimsinbabism
W

- The station of Subh-i Azal in some of the Point's writings as the
sole authority after the Point
- The stupidity of the Bahai claim that Subh-i Azal was to act as a
shield behind which Husayn-Ali was to hide
- The syupid mis-translation of 'Source of command' to 'mystic source'
by Shoghi where Husayn-Ali makes a reference to Subh-i Azal as the
authority of Bayan.
- That the Point believed Subh-i Azal's words were inspired by God
- That all people of Bayan were to turn to Subh-i Azal after the Point
- The Point's emphasis on protecting Subh-i Azal
- That according to Point himself, the return of Imam Husayn was Subh-
i Azal not Husayn-Ali as he claimed to be.
- That "Subh-i Azal succeeded in escaping to Baghdad where he was
followed, in 1853 by his brother Husayn-Ali who chose to go there
after he had been released from prison".
- That it was made difficult for anyone to see Subh-i Azal in Baghdad.
We find from Bayani historians sich as Mirza Mustafa Katib who has
quoted pilgrims returning disappointed from Baghdad because Husayn-Ali
prevented them from seeing Subh-i Azal. Husayn-Ali planned on keeping
Subh-i Azal away from the eyes. After a few years the only one people
practically knew was Husayn-Ali.

Interesting that none of the propagandists of the IT committee have
raised a single voice in discussing this piece.

Not being a propagandist (salaried or otherwise) for the IT Committee, I
have no feckin' interest in the antics of some dysfunctional Iranian family
with delusions of divinity.

Is your family dysfunctional as well?

Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
W

[بسم الله القديم الأزلي المحيط الذي أحاط بعلمه جميع مخلوقاته القديم الأبدي الذي لا ابتداء لقدمه وليس له انتهاء]

On Aug 14, 6:00 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"

Not being a propagandist (salaried or otherwise) for the IT Committee,CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

Bullshit!

See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais

[Máirseáil Rí Laoise]

"??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????
???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??????" <***@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:2dc259ab-272f-460a-ae10-***@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 14, 6:00 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"

Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
Not being a propagandist (salaried or otherwise) for the IT
Committee,CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

SPA Bullshit!

MRL That's exactly what you spout here, there and everywhere

[بسم الله القديم الأزلي المحيط الذي أحاط بعلمه جميع مخلوقاته القديم الأبدي الذي لا ابتداء لقدمه وليس له انتهاء]

A frank admission that no such archive or link to the story submitted
by Susan Maniac exists, proving that item she put up as a fraud and a
hoax, just as I suspected and the editors of the Hindustan Times
stated, proving the Indian case is ongoing.

CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais