A Response to Moojan Momen's Takfir & Slanderous Vilification

[Baha'i Censorship - See Website]

A Response to Moojan Momen's Takfir & Slanderous Vilification:
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm


"While in all past religious books and epistles, the world of humanity has been divided into two parts; one called the people of the
Book, or the Pure Tree, and the other, the Evil Tree. One half of the people of the world were looked upon as belonging to the
faithful, and the other as belonging to the irreligious and the infidel; one half of the people were consigned to the mercy of the
Creator, and the other half were considered as objects of the wrath of their Maker. But Baha'u'llah proclaimed the Oneness of the
World of humanity-He submerged all mankind in the Sea of Divine Generosity." --Abdu'l-Baha


Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
denomination based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the
last decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the
fictitious "group" he's concocted.

Moojan Momen and the Haifan Baha'i administration, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and issuing fatwas, denying the very existence of other Bahais and
denominations, all indicative of the worst in the Shiite Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically
repudiated, teaching tolerance of different religious views, largely congruent with modern Western custom. Nothing could be more
diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of Western civic and legal order than the jihad the Haifan Baha'is are conducting.

Momen's paragraph about me, a litany of hate, derision, and slander, under the guise of "scholarly content" and "factual
statements," is so thick with lies and misrepresentations that I am sure the rest of the "article" must be just as biased,
deceitful, and hypocritical.

My response to his various distortions follow at the link below....
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

[Viv]

A review of the website material shows no "slanderous vilification" by
Momen - Fred Glaysher, however, is shown to be a regular and
enthusiastic practitioner.

Viv.

[383]

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

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

The BAHAIM Technique

Caution - THE BAHAI TECHNIQUE

"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

[Viv]

Post by 383
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

Oh look, Nima's changing the header and starting his usual spam - he
seems to have realised that Fred is coming out of this thread very
badly, and wants to shut it down.

V.

[H***@aol.com]

Post by Viv

Post by 383
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

Oh look, Nima's changing the header and starting his usual spam - he
seems to have realised that Fred is coming out of this thread very
badly, and wants to shut it down.
V.

Nima is both a self-hating Jew and a self-hating Bahai-zadeh. That's
why he has to associate all these Hebrew endings to Baha'i words.

[diamondsouled]

Howdy all,

Denis MacEoin is writing a paper in answer to Moojan's fundamentalist
slandering and stereotyping of former and present corelgionists as
Baha'i apostates. It will be interesting as well as informative to see
Denis quite easily deconstruct and debunk Moojan's poor excuse for a
scholarly paper.

Yours

Larry Rowe

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by diamondsouled
Howdy all,
Denis MacEoin is writing a paper in answer to Moojan's fundamentalist
slandering and stereotyping of former and present corelgionists as
Baha'i apostates. It will be interesting as well as informative to see
Denis quite easily deconstruct and debunk Moojan's poor excuse for a
scholarly paper.
Yours
Larry Rowe

Hi Larry,

I'm writing a response to it too, in the form of my own glimpses of
the dialogue/Talisman chronicles, and experiences with the Talisman
liberal fellowship.

Jim

[Shahriar]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by diamondsouled
Howdy all,
Denis MacEoin is writing a paper in answer to Moojan's fundamentalist
slandering and stereotyping of former and present corelgionists as
Baha'i apostates. It will be interesting as well as informative to see
Denis quite easily deconstruct and debunk Moojan's poor excuse for a
scholarly paper.
Yours
Larry Rowe

Hi Larry,
I'm writing a response to it too, in the form of my own glimpses of
the dialogue/Talisman chronicles, and experiences with the Talisman
liberal fellowship.
Jim

Hopefully you would have a credible data set figured. I am not sure how a
scholarly penmanship may be recognized and pass trough the scrutiny of
Talisman, if there is any. but opinions, I understand, maybe allowed,
though may not be considered scholarly or credible. The good thing about
academic journals is that the submitted articles are measured against
credible data, structure of logic, and contribution to the field. I am
looking forward to read your article.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Shahriar

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by diamondsouled
Howdy all,
Denis MacEoin is writing a paper in answer to Moojan's fundamentalist
slandering and stereotyping of former and present corelgionists as
Baha'i apostates. It will be interesting as well as informative to see
Denis quite easily deconstruct and debunk Moojan's poor excuse for a
scholarly paper.
Yours
Larry Rowe

Hi Larry,
I'm writing a response to it too, in the form of my own glimpses of
the dialogue/Talisman chronicles, and experiences with the Talisman
liberal fellowship.
Jim

Hopefully you would have a credible data set figured. I am not sure how a
scholarly penmanship may be recognized and pass trough the scrutiny of
Talisman, if there is any. but opinions, I understand, maybe allowed,
though may not be considered scholarly or credible. The good thing about
academic journals is that the submitted articles are measured against
credible data, structure of logic, and contribution to the field. I am
looking forward to read your article.

It will be a frankly personal and subjective account, with no pretense
at being scholarly. There will be an appendix describing my own views,
with no pretense of substantiation, another one with links to
information about some of the people involved, and another one with a
time line of the chronicles and links to relevant information and
documents.

Jim

[Shariyar]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Shahriar
Hopefully you would have a credible data set figured. I am not sure how a
scholarly penmanship may be recognized and pass trough the scrutiny of
Talisman, if there is any. but opinions, I understand, maybe allowed,
though may not be considered scholarly or credible. The good thing about
academic journals is that the submitted articles are measured against
credible data, structure of logic, and contribution to the field. I am
looking forward to read your article.

It will be a frankly personal and subjective account, with no pretense
at being scholarly. There will be an appendix describing my own views,
with no pretense of substantiation, another one with links to
information about some of the people involved, and another one with a
time line of the chronicles and links to relevant information and
documents.
Jim

Sounds to me like another web site! would it be a pro or sans-Bahai web
page?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Shariyar

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Shahriar
Hopefully you would have a credible data set figured. I am not sure how a
scholarly penmanship may be recognized and pass trough the scrutiny of
Talisman, if there is any. but opinions, I understand, maybe allowed,
though may not be considered scholarly or credible. The good thing about
academic journals is that the submitted articles are measured against
credible data, structure of logic, and contribution to the field. I am
looking forward to read your article.

It will be a frankly personal and subjective account, with no pretense
at being scholarly. There will be an appendix describing my own views,
with no pretense of substantiation, another one with links to
information about some of the people involved, and another one with a
time line of the chronicles and links to relevant information and
documents.
Jim

Sounds to me like another web site! would it be a pro or sans-Bahai web
page?

Currently I'm thinking of putting it up on some Web pages.

I'm a shameless follower of the House of Justice on Mount Carmel, but
I'm trying to resist the temptation to use the story itself to promote
my views. I'll try to save that for the appendix. Even there it will
not be so much to promote my views as to answer questions people might
have about them.

I've wanted to write this story for years. Now I've finally decided to
write it, partly in response to smear campaigns against Talisman
liberals, and partly in the hope of offering a helpful perspective on
what has happened. Now that I've started, I would also like it to
provide links to all the information and documentation people might
want to see, in relation to the chronicles.

Jim

[383]

Post by H***@aol.com
Nima is both a self-hating Jew and a self-hating Bahai-zadeh.

As long as I am not a fat middle-aged self-hating yanKKKee trailer-
park cultist tramp like you, that suits me fine.

W

[Viv]

Post by 383

Post by H***@aol.com
Nima is both a self-hating Jew and a self-hating Bahai-zadeh.

As long as I am not a fat middle-aged self-hating yanKKKee trailer-
park cultist tramp like you, that suits me fine.
W

Thanks for reminding us of the part of the analysis of Nima that Susan
left out, the problems with women.

V.

[383]

Post by Viv
Thanks for reminding us of the part of the analysis of Nima that Susan
left out, the problems with women.

Qualification: Problems with racist or quasi-racist WASP rightwing
women (usually yanks or Brits) - of the Ann Coulter sort but of the
fat variety - with chips on their shoulders the size of Everest, yes
indeed!

W

[Baha'i Censorship - See Website]

"Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of individuals or groups (or tribes or states or nations or churches)
that he or she or they are in sole possession of the truth: especially about how to live, what to be & do-& that those who differ
from them are not merely mistaken, but wicked or mad: & need restraining or suppressing. It is a terrible and dangerous arrogance to
believe that you alone are right: have a magical eye which sees the truth: & that others cannot be right if they disagree. ...the
first people totalitarians destroy or silence are men of ideas & free minds." --Isaiah Berlin
--
The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/

Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
"While in all past religious books and epistles, the world of humanity has been divided into two parts; one called the people of
the
Book, or the Pure Tree, and the other, the Evil Tree. One half of the people of the world were looked upon as belonging to the
faithful, and the other as belonging to the irreligious and the infidel; one half of the people were consigned to the mercy of the
Creator, and the other half were considered as objects of the wrath of their Maker. But Baha'u'llah proclaimed the Oneness of the
World of humanity-He submerged all mankind in the Sea of Divine Generosity." --Abdu'l-Baha
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
denomination based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the
last decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the
fictitious "group" he's concocted.
Moojan Momen and the Haifan Baha'i administration, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and issuing fatwas, denying the very existence of other Bahais and
denominations, all indicative of the worst in the Shiite Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically
repudiated, teaching tolerance of different religious views, largely congruent with modern Western custom. Nothing could be more
diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of Western civic and legal order than the jihad the Haifan Baha'is are conducting.
Momen's paragraph about me, a litany of hate, derision, and slander, under the guise of "scholarly content" and "factual
statements," is so thick with lies and misrepresentations that I am sure the rest of the "article" must be just as biased,
deceitful, and hypocritical.
My response to his various distortions follow at the link below....
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

[Viv]

A review of the website material shows no "slanderous vilification"
by
Momen - Fred Glaysher, however, is shown to be a regular and
enthusiastic practitioner.


Viv.

[H***@aol.com]

Post by Viv
A review of the website material shows no "slanderous vilification"
by
Momen - Fred Glaysher, however, is shown to be a regular and
enthusiastic practitioner.
Viv.

Most of the other dissidents' complaint about this article is that
they shouldn't have been put in the same category as Fred and Nima.
But even they feel compelled to admit that Moojan description fits
those two.

[Baha'i Censorship - See Website]

A Response to Moojan Momen's Takfir & Slanderous Vilification:
“Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community.” Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm


"While in all past religious books and epistles, the world of humanity has been divided into two parts; one called the people of the
Book, or the Pure Tree, and the other, the Evil Tree. One half of the people of the world were looked upon as belonging to the
faithful, and the other as belonging to the irreligious and the infidel; one half of the people were consigned to the mercy of the
Creator, and the other half were considered as objects of the wrath of their Maker. But Baha'u'llah proclaimed the Oneness of the
World of humanity--He submerged all mankind in the Sea of Divine Generosity." --Abdu'l-Baha

Moojan Momen’s attempt to label people as “apostates” entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha’i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu’l-Baha. A
denomination based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the
last decade in the Baha’i Faith. The much flaunted “administrative order” constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the
fictitious "group" he's concocted.

Moojan Momen and the Haifan Baha’i administration, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic “takfir,” labeling people “kafir” or infidels, and issuing fatwas, denying the very existence of other Bahais and
denominations, all indicative of the worst in the Shiite Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith—practices Baha’u’llah specifically
repudiated, teaching tolerance of different religious views, largely congruent with modern Western custom. Nothing could be more
diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of Western civic and legal order than the jihad the Haifan Baha’is are conducting.

Momen’s paragraph about me, a litany of hate, derision, and slander, under the guise of "scholarly content" and "factual
statements," is so thick with lies and misrepresentations that I am sure the rest of the "article" must be just as biased,
deceitful, and hypocritical. My response to his various distortions follow below....

A Response to Moojan Momen's Takfir & Slanderous Vilification:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

[Viv]

A study of the article and of Fred Glaysher's response and website
show (a) no evidence of slander, or vilifiaction, or even "slanderous
vilification" by Momen (b) a lot by Fred Glaysher, hypocrite that he
is.


V.

[Asparagus]

Post by Viv
A study of the article and of Fred Glaysher's response and website
show (a) no evidence of slander, or vilifiaction, or even "slanderous
vilification" by Momen (b) a lot by Fred Glaysher, hypocrite that he
is.

Sweetie ... a wee hint of advice for you.

Don't slag Nimikins about his linguistic skills ... at least, not until
yours are up to par.

There is no slander of any kind whatsoever on Mr Glaysher's site.

[H***@aol.com]

Post by Asparagus
Don't slag Nimikins about his linguistic skills ... at least, not until
yours are up to par.
There is no slander of any kind whatsoever on Mr Glaysher's site.

Yeees, Dermod. It is called libel, not slander.
Amounts to the same thing, though.

[Asparagus]

Post by H***@aol.com

Post by Asparagus
Don't slag Nimikins about his linguistic skills ... at least, not until
yours are up to par.
There is no slander of any kind whatsoever on Mr Glaysher's site.

Yeees, Dermod. It is called libel, not slander.
Amounts to the same thing, though.

It most certainly does not.

Slander is transitory; the spoken word does not endure as the written word
does. It is for that reason that UK law treats defamation in the broadcast
media as libel rather than slander.

Under UK law damages are not recoverable for slander unless the victim
thereof can prove that he suffered loss as a direct consequence thereof.
Damages are awarded for libel irrespective as to whether or not loss was
sustained as a consequence thereof.

If as you suggest, Mr Glaysher's site contains defamatory material and given
your organisation's propensity for recorse to the Courts in defence of its
interests, might one ask why he has not been made the subject of litigation?
In the UK it is a defence to show that the allegedly defamatory material is
substantively true.

[H***@aol.com]

Post by Asparagus
If as you suggest, Mr Glaysher's site contains defamatory material and given
your organisation's propensity for recorse to the Courts in defence of its
interests, might one ask why he has not been made the subject of litigation?

Patience Grasshopper. They are busy with another case right now.

[383]

Post by H***@aol.com

Post by Asparagus
If as you suggest, Mr Glaysher's site contains defamatory material and given
your organisation's propensity for recorse to the Courts in defence of its
interests, might one ask why he has not been made the subject of litigation?

Patience Grasshopper. They are busy with another case right now.

Unless the court be a Kangaroo court, a case they are about to lose.
Interesting how the case against the Remeyites is implimented as a
test case by the Ao-holes testing the waters on litigating against
others. Scientology has taught you well.

W

[Asparagus]

Post by H***@aol.com

Post by Asparagus
If as you suggest, Mr Glaysher's site contains defamatory material and given
your organisation's propensity for recorse to the Courts in defence of its
interests, might one ask why he has not been made the subject of litigation?

Patience Grasshopper. They are busy with another case right now.

You've missed the boat ... at least in the UK. In a defamation suit you
have to serve the Writ within one year of the alleged act of defamation.

The delay comes as no surprise. I have heard it reported that the NSA of
the UK lost a deal of property through its prevarication - it allowed
somebody to occupy the property, without challenge, thus allowing that
person to assert legal ownership through adverse possession for a period in
excess of twelve years.

[H***@aol.com]

Post by H***@aol.com
Patience Grasshopper. They are busy with another case right now.

You've missed the boat ... at least in the UK.  In a defamation suit you
have to serve the Writ within one year of the alleged act of defamation.

This isn't the UK and as long as this stuff is up on his website, it
is a continuing act.

[Asparagus]

Post by H***@aol.com
Patience Grasshopper. They are busy with another case right now.

You've missed the boat ... at least in the UK. In a defamation suit you
have to serve the Writ within one year of the alleged act of defamation.
This isn't the UK and as long as this stuff is up on his website, it
is a continuing act.

One step at a time, o dark of my lightness!!!!

You have first to prove that the material complained of is defamatory.

You will probably have to prove that it is untrue, not at all based on fact
and goes beyond legitimate fair comment.

And then you may well become the laughing stock of the establishment for
taking such action - folks always tend to see the big guys ganging up on the
wee guy as intimidation and bullying. There is also a perception, sometimes
justified, as with Robert Maxwell or Jeffrey Archer for example, that
defamation proceedings, or the threat thereof, are taken to obscure the
truth.

[Asparagus]

Post by H***@aol.com

Post by Asparagus
If as you suggest, Mr Glaysher's site contains defamatory material and given
your organisation's propensity for recorse to the Courts in defence of its
interests, might one ask why he has not been made the subject of litigation?

Patience Grasshopper. They are busy with another case right now.

PS I'm not a grasshopper!

I don't like grass ... neither as comestible nor hallucinogen.

I don't hop ... can't, as a matter of fact, due to injuries sustained.

[383]

The newest good cop/bad cop duo on TRB: Dermod Ryder aka AssInTheGuts
and Hasley aka Susan Maniac.

W

[All Bad]

Post by Asparagus

Post by Viv
A study of the article and of Fred Glaysher's response and website
show (a) no evidence of slander, or vilifiaction, or even "slanderous
vilification" by Momen (b) a lot by Fred Glaysher, hypocrite that he
is.

Sweetie ... a wee hint of advice for you.
Don't slag Nimikins about his linguistic skills ... at least, not until
yours are up to par.
There is no slander of any kind whatsoever on Mr Glaysher's site.

I think the matter hinges on what the lot would be. Clearly, their could
not be a lot of slander on a web site. There could be evidence of slander.
On the other hand, there could just be a lot on Fred's web site. At one
point several years back, as it moved around, I think he was offering up
zipfiled versions that seemed quite large and would give his readers ready
access to his files, regardless of whether they were currently connected.

Have you ever been traveling, disconnected from the internet, between meals,
and jus had a craving for some spam? Fred has been looking out for you!

- All Bad.

[Viv]

Post by Asparagus

Post by Viv
A study of the article and of Fred Glaysher's response and website
show (a) no evidence of slander, or vilifiaction, or even "slanderous
vilification" by Momen (b) a lot by Fred Glaysher, hypocrite that he
is.

Sweetie ... a wee hint of advice for you.
Don't slag Nimikins about his linguistic skills ... at least, not until
yours are up to par.
There is no slander of any kind whatsoever on Mr Glaysher's site.

I felt it most appropriate to use Mr Glaysher's own terminology.

[Asparagus]

Post by Viv

Post by Asparagus

Post by Viv
A study of the article and of Fred Glaysher's response and website
show (a) no evidence of slander, or vilifiaction, or even "slanderous
vilification" by Momen (b) a lot by Fred Glaysher, hypocrite that he
is.

Sweetie ... a wee hint of advice for you.
Don't slag Nimikins about his linguistic skills ... at least, not until
yours are up to par.
There is no slander of any kind whatsoever on Mr Glaysher's site.

I felt it most appropriate to use Mr Glaysher's own terminology.

So you Bahais are not into maintaining, if not improving standards?

[Shahriar]

“Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community.” Religion. Volume 37,
Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

Fred, why not write a scholarly article refuting Momen's academic
publication, and have it published in the same academic journal? May be its
that writing truthful scholarly articles is not in your line of business,
and knowing such slanderous article would have an impossible chance to get
admitted by any reviewer. Well on the other hand you may start your own
brand of journal and name it "reformed Elsevier".
Momen's article:
http://bahaisonline.net/marginality_and_apostasy.pdf

[Asparagus]

Post by Shahriar

Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
“Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community.” Religion. Volume 37,
Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

Fred, why not write a scholarly article refuting Momen's academic
publication, and have it published in the same academic journal? May be
its that writing truthful scholarly articles is not in your line of
business, and knowing such slanderous article would have an impossible
chance to get admitted by any reviewer. Well on the other hand you may
start your own brand of journal and name it "reformed Elsevier".
http://bahaisonline.net/marginality_and_apostasy.pdf

One cannot write a slanderous article.

[Shahriar]

Post by Asparagus

Post by Shahriar

“Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community.” Religion. Volume 37,
Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

Fred, why not write a scholarly article refuting Momen's academic
publication, and have it published in the same academic journal? May be
its that writing truthful scholarly articles is not in your line of
business, and knowing such slanderous article would have an impossible
chance to get admitted by any reviewer. Well on the other hand you may
start your own brand of journal and name it "reformed Elsevier".
http://bahaisonline.net/marginality_and_apostasy.pdf

One cannot write a slanderous article.

is this a statement or supposition?

[Asparagus]

Post by Shahriar

Post by Asparagus

Post by Shahriar

Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
“Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community.” Religion. Volume
37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

Fred, why not write a scholarly article refuting Momen's academic
publication, and have it published in the same academic journal? May be
its that writing truthful scholarly articles is not in your line of
business, and knowing such slanderous article would have an impossible
chance to get admitted by any reviewer. Well on the other hand you may
start your own brand of journal and name it "reformed Elsevier".
http://bahaisonline.net/marginality_and_apostasy.pdf

One cannot write a slanderous article.

is this a statement or supposition?

It is a statement - by definition, one cannot write a slanderous article.

Defamation comes in two forms - the spoken word which is slander and the
written word which is libel ergo one cannot write a slanderous article for
defamation, when reduced to writing becomes libel and not slander.

QED

[Shahriar]

Post by Asparagus

Post by Shahriar

Post by Asparagus
One cannot write a slanderous article.

is this a statement or supposition?

It is a statement - by definition, one cannot write a slanderous article.
Defamation comes in two forms - the spoken word which is slander and the
written word which is libel ergo one cannot write a slanderous article for
defamation, when reduced to writing becomes libel and not slander.
QED

excuse the french! though you emphasized on reading the intentions rather, I
would have expected you reading the intention. if the definition does not
convey the intention then let us release you from further vexation and
hereby change the slanderous to "libel".

[Asparagus]

Post by Shahriar

Post by Asparagus

Post by Shahriar

Post by Asparagus
One cannot write a slanderous article.

is this a statement or supposition?

It is a statement - by definition, one cannot write a slanderous article.
Defamation comes in two forms - the spoken word which is slander and the
written word which is libel ergo one cannot write a slanderous article
for defamation, when reduced to writing becomes libel and not slander.
QED

excuse the french!

No problem - everybody does ... excuse the French!

Post by Shahriar
though you emphasized on reading the intentions rather, I would have
expected you reading the intention. if the definition does not convey the
intention then let us release you from further vexation and hereby change
the slanderous to "libel".

No doubt Mr Glaysher will add this particular example of the Bahai technique
to those he has already painstakingly listed.

The most common mistake around here has been to confuse slander and libel.
This is indicative of sloppy minds. I go to the trouble of pointing this out
on the very sound basis that language being our only but a poor form of
communication it is preferable that we be exact (as we can be) in the use
thereof.

A wise mind would quietly imbibe of this knowledge and just as quietly
(without snide comment) correct his use of words descriptive of the type of
defamation to which he refers.

It is my experience that BIGS are incapable of this behaviour - those who
are so enlightened as to accept the manifestation for this age take it hard
that they are capable of any error in thought, word or deed. They lack the
essential humility to accept that sometimes they just might get something
wrong.

[Shahriar]

Fred, how about attempting to pen a scholarly response to Momen, for you
seems to believe have all the facts and follow a rightful logical path. I
would be very disappointed if the respected academic journal reject your
paper based on not being a qualified submitter. I don't think they
discriminate against expired ABDs, but they may reject your paper as
baseless fiction, which opens the door for offering your stories to comic
periodicals.

Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37,
Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
"While in all past religious books and epistles, the world of humanity has
been divided into two parts; one called the people of the
Book, or the Pure Tree, and the other, the Evil Tree. One half of the
people of the world were looked upon as belonging to the
faithful, and the other as belonging to the irreligious and the infidel;
one half of the people were consigned to the mercy of the
Creator, and the other half were considered as objects of the wrath of
their Maker. But Baha'u'llah proclaimed the Oneness of the
World of humanity-He submerged all mankind in the Sea of Divine Generosity." --Abdu'l-Baha
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what
is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious,
fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
denomination based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many
evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the
last decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order"
constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the
fictitious "group" he's concocted.
Moojan Momen and the Haifan Baha'i administration, while publicly hiding
behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and issuing fatwas,
denying the very existence of other Bahais and
denominations, all indicative of the worst in the Shiite Islamic heritage
of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically
repudiated, teaching tolerance of different religious views, largely
congruent with modern Western custom. Nothing could be more
diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of Western civic and legal
order than the jihad the Haifan Baha'is are conducting.
Momen's paragraph about me, a litany of hate, derision, and slander, under
the guise of "scholarly content" and "factual
statements," is so thick with lies and misrepresentations that I am sure
the rest of the "article" must be just as biased,
deceitful, and hypocritical.
My response to his various distortions follow at the link below....
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm

[j***@gmail.com]

Here's my response to Momen's article:

Glimpses of the dialogue/Talisman chronicles

Memories of a wandering apprentice

http://www.geocities.com/geotalk/glimpses/

Dedicated to the Gang of Four

After years of wavering, I finally decided to write this story, partly
in response to seeing some people stereotyped and depreciated, and
partly in the hope of offering a helpful perspective on what happened.
As the title says, these are only glimpses, from the memories of one
wanderer, in the form of personal experiences with Alison Marshall,
Susan Maneck, Karen Bacquet, Dermod Ryder, Michael McKenny, Steve
Marshall, Fred Glaysher, Juan Cole and Wahid Azal (formerly Nima
Hazini).

This is a purely personal and subjective, incomplete account,
undoubtedly full of misinformation and misrepresentations. I did not
witness most of the events in the dialogue/Talisman chronicles. Those
chronicles go back to 1976 at least, and I only learned about them in
2001. There is much more to the story, and to the people in it, and
many other people have been involved besides the ones in this account.
Some additional information is provided in the appendixes, along with
links to more.