- 1 = Haifan, Orthodox Bahai's etc
= Haifan, Orthodox Bahai's etc
There needs to be some kind of mention of the different Baha'is groups. There is not a single, unified Baha'i tradition. There is large Haifan group, headquartered in Israel, then there are the various Orthodox Baha'i groups. This article can be misleading. --Wahid 01:48, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Youngest World Religion
This is a loaded claim, and it one that the Baha'is make for themselves. Arguably there are younger world religions. Also the moniker "world religions" in relation to the Bahais needs to be thoroughly reexamined. Denis Maceoin has argued that it is misleading to call Bahai a world religion in the same way Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism are so designated. Just because a given organization has an international fellowship does not make them automatically a world religion. If this term is to be insisted upon, then likewise Scientology, the Church of Unification and many similar groups need to be so designated. Sociologists of religion have coined the term NRM (new religious movement) which is a more accurate descriptive for Bahai rather than world religion. The lead here is just verbatim repeating a Bahai line. --Wahid 04:04, 7 March 2009 (EST)
The material you added in the beginning needs to be referenced. Would you agree that E.G Browne is an appropriate reference for supporting historical claims such as these? See: http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/articles/A-E/browne/brbabism.htm Also, I added Juan Cole as a related sourcewatch link, but I believe he is no longer officially a Baha'i. Do you think this linking is appropriate? Cheers --Atomised 05:39, 7 March 2009 (EST)
E.G. Browne is the best reference for supporting these claims. Absolutely, go ahead and reference it! As for Juan Cole, this is a tricky one. He is no longer a Bahai himself but, so far as I know, technically a Unitarian Universalist. He has in past contributed critical material to the study of this organization and its history, like the Panopticon article (which I believe needs to be referenced here): http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm albeit some of his positions can become a little uncritical at times. Unless someone can provide a good enough reason as to why not, I would go ahead and keep him in here for the time being. Also on a taxonomy of the Bahai sects, I came across this website today: http://www.sectsofbahais.com/ --Wahid 23:17, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Thanks Wahid. I still need to work on the reference formatting for this article, but will use the relevant Browne material. I'll also take a look at the Baha'i taxonomy site you noted. Cheers --Atomised 03:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Woodrow Wilson's Daughter & Marie of Romania
There is substantial evidence disproving the contention that Woodrow Wilson's daughter was a Bahai. The same goes for Queen Marie of Romania, who was baptized and buried as an Eastern Orthodox Chrisitan. In fact the Bahais have never been able to prove that these people were members as opposed to casual, ad hoc sympathizers. I would not include these names in the article. They are also tangential to an article on Bahai here. --Wahid 20:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Source on Baha'i Organization
I was on TRB and read that the Baha’is are going to force everyone to practice their religion. The question was a followup to this bit of propaganda now being hosted here at the subject article. “>>> The principles and goals to which the Haifan Baha¡¯i Faith claims to >>> adhere include : … >>> The unity of all the world's religions under the umbrella of the >>> Baha'i Faith”
Someone had googled "The unity of all the world's religions under the umbrella" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+unity+of+all+the+world%27s+religions+under+the+umbrella%22&btnG=Search and it looks like the phrase may be coming from conspiracyarchive.com and pasted in to this article as well as a few other web pages. http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/social_change_agents.htm In turn, it looks like the conspiracyarchive.com version could be from Texe Marrs, a Christian evangelist and conspiracist, rather than an authoritative Baha’i source.
Other telltales include googling "World super state" "World Legislator" "World Parliament" and Baha'i: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22World+super+state%22+%22World+Legislator%22+%22World+Parliament%22++baha%27i&hl=en&start=10&sa=N This selection, listed as three separate bullets in the article, is a way to overemphasize Baha’i interests in world federalism as an excessively world government agenda. The google search does not show Baha’i sources for this, either, but again, it traces to the conspiracyarchive.com source. These are the folks who are exposing the Bavarian Illuminati for who they are. Are these the partners that sourcwatch.org wants to keep pace with? When Sourcwatch.org sources the Illuminati counter-conspiracists, that is bad, but when it is parroting their line and not even being up front about it, that is worse.--Owen 20:21, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
Baha'i Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency --Wahid 03:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
I would suggest to other editors here that the opinion of Owen (aka Pat Kohli) be taken with modest grains of salt. This individual is a member of the Haifan Bahai internet committee whose business it is to impose the propaganda narratives of the organization he belongs to and attack any outlets or individuals who either contradict it or attempt to question those santized narratives his organization shamelessly peddles. This individual is a functionary. Allow me once more to draw attention to the following,
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/e1a27acfdd0ee74a/09861e71db08f90b#09861e71db08f90b "AB: Who is the "they" who are wanting to write crap about you? Are referring to the thread I started as a data marshalling point for your SourceWatch web page? If so, the "they" would be "just me". What is the crap they want to write about? I thought I was clear about sticking to the facts."
--Wahid 20:28, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
- Wahid, you mention a "Haifan internet committee" - what is this committee? What evidence do you have that it exists? How do you know what its agenda is? Could you, perhaps, include your information about this Baha'i Internet propaganda operation in the main article? --PaulHammond 10:47, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Bahai Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency --Wahid 03:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Owen. You actually need to read all the references. If you look at my original edits going back to the 5th of March and compare versions, I have ensured that the phrases used are directly quotable from Baha'i sources, including 'world police', "World super state" "World Legislator" "World Parliament", etc. I have been scrupulous about this, and will recheck these references, and will put up more sources from Baha'i, or Baha'i affiliated authors if need be. Almost ALL of the references come from primary Baha'i related sources. Also, if you look at the edit from the 5th March, I originally included the UHJ reference that Bob has just reinstated. --Atomised 23:46, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
What needs to be noted here as well is the fact that it was Owen himself who made the inclusion of the http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/social_change_agents.htm link, not any of us, and then came here to complain about the credibility of an article based on the inclusion of the very link he himself has submitted. This is a classic underhanded set-up and sabotage tactic the Haifan Baha'i internet committee regularly employs on wikipedia. Editors as well as administrators need to be extremely aware of all such tactics being employed here by this individual, and any others of his brethern who will probably try to (dis)grace this site at some point: a tactic that falls under any notion of propagandistic hackery I know of. --Wahid 01:21, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
BUPC UHJ site not Haifan UHJ
This here, "A Universal House of Justice -- with the Davidic King, the great grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha, as its President -- is the medicine for this sick world. This body is the Supreme Institution of the Kingdom of God, established on earth as it is in heaven in fulfillment of the Lord's Prayer that Jesus gave and told the Christians to pray for. This body, the Supreme Institution of the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven, is the Universal House of Justice that all the nations of the world will joyously and unhesitatingly belong to."" needs to be changed and rephrased. It's sourcing is also wrong. Despite the name it comes from one of the BUPC (Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant) sites and not the Haifan organization. --Wahid 04:50, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I believe there is a legal issue currently being resolved regarding the www.uhj.net site (being a schismatic BUPC-Baha'is Under the Provision of the Covenant- site), and its relationship to the Haifan body, therefore, I have re-referenced the related material in accordance with material issued by what the Haifan Baha'is are claiming as their official body. --Atomised 07:37, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
The Bahá'í Faith or Bahá'í World Faith (the Movant NSA)
In the Sects and Divisions list, the word movant is a typo and mispelling and needs to be removed. I have done so. --Wahid 08:21, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Baha'i Internet Committee
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency --Wahid 03:35, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Hi Paul, You mention the Baha'i Internet Committee. In December 2002, Wahid Azal, then Nima Hazini, reported being told by Mark Foster that online agents of the satanic Baha'i cult were paid $10K per year to respond to enemies of their cult. He names Susan Maneck and Pat Kohli as two of these agents, but does not attribute his source for that. Note: Italicized quotations added 31 March, based on request from Wahid
"Mark Foster has admitted in the past that the presence of various individuals on the internet contains a financial dividend of up to $10,000.00 + per annum by the satanic AO cult to its various online agents. Susan Maniac has never explicitly denied that she recieves financial assistance for her internet presence, and neither has Pat Kohli. Obviously if these people had real jobs with real lives they would not be continually wheeled out to these sites to respond to every single post posted by any percieved given enemy of their corrupt, sleazy, satanic organization and cult which puts Scientology to shame. Know that your secrets are all out and you will be brought to account very soon."
"You cultists in your silly delusions thought you can stop me or the new Cause by trying to persecute and nip the new movement in the bud. Hah! The Bayaniyyah is growing by leaps and bounds and soon it will overshadow all of you. Therefore your own days are numbered and the crimes you have committed against humanity will soon be exposed for the whole world to see. As I said, I am the meteor here to cast you all out and I have drawn out my Sword of Truth to hack off the serpents head of falsehoods, deciet and lies which you sons and daughters of the Evil One represent. As I am the Master of the Moment (Sahib-e Zamaan), this time none of you will be getting off easy." - Wahid Azal, December 2002 http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/fe8c74a12c81ee48
Nima repeats the story with some variations in January, to include that Mark Foster admits the story.
"Of course it is a well known fact to people in the know that Kholi is a paid and hired agent of the baha'i cult administration, sent on the internet to police baha'i boards and battle those of its opponents. It is an even better known fact that Dr Maniac (the Antichrist of My Revelation) is paid by this cult as well, as confessed by Mark Foster who admitted the monies that he was being paid by the baha'i cult administration. These glaze eyed cultists speak with forked tongues and have the gall to talk about a credibility which they themselves do even not possess nor would they know what credibility was, since they have sold their souls collectively to the accursed Satan of materialism and Big LIE. Thus, their whole aim when uncomfortable facts are brought to them is to smear and call into question the integrities of those who dare question the flimsy foundations of their dangerous, malicious cult, rather than the issues. For the things it has done and is doing, any fair minded, objective person can assess who lacks credibility here, and it is the Haifan baha'i cultists and those who follow this pernicious and malicious creed whose agenda is nothing short of the imposition of a totalitarian New World Order (I ask people to read their "Revelations" and find out the aims of the Antichrist as spelled out in that Book)." -Wahid Azal, January 2003 http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/e96f20af8a24b6f0
A few weeks later Mark Foster appears on TRB and denies the story about hired agents on the internet. Nima has since changed his name to Wahid Azal, and despite the early evaporation of the factual basis of the story, he just keeps repeating it, and some of his readers get confused and believe it. It is a propaganda technique: lie and repeat. Oh, I see in 2004 he was still saying that Baha'is were paid to be on the internet, and named you as a Baha'i internet agent.
"Lurkers and non-baha'is should beware that Paul Hammond is a paid hireling of the baha'i administration in the UK. Hammond claims to be a bartender living in Cambridge, UK. The salary of bartenders in the UK does not make for much of a lifestyle or pay many bills. Hammond claims to be an atheist yet he is the most active, vocal thug of the baha'i administration on several lists. Do not buy into his hype." - Wahid Azal, July 2004 http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/f73750e0e95a37db
By this point in time, he'd been claiming it for so long, he had Cal Rollins speculating on who got paid how much, having forgotten it was all a misrecolletion, denied by the source it was attributed to. I would have put this story on the Wahid Azal page, but that page got deleted.
Hi Wahid, Atomised, what do you think ... a section on the Baha'i Internet Committee? --Owen 21:53, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
You are obviously here on SW to troll. Firstly, why haven't you provided a link to the piece you supposedly quote from me? Is it because you are deceptively cobbling together various posts? Second, why do you continue to call yourself Owen when, again, you have admitted to being Pat Kohli on TRB.
Third, you are no doubt aware of, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/62d71c4272dbaf5c
Fourth, if you have nothing to offer beyond the kind of skullduddgery and trolling you display on TRB, go away!--Wahid 01:56, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Hi Wahid, Firstly, I did not see that I was quoting you. I did see Paul appear to quote you with "Haifan internet committee" but I think he was really referring to you saying of me, "I would suggest to other editors here that the opinion of Owen (aka Pat Kohli) be taken with modest grains of salt. This individual is a member of the Haifan Bahai internet committee whose business it is to impose the propaganda narratives of the organization he belongs to and attack any outlets or individuals who either contradict it or attempt to question those santized narratives his organization shamelessly peddles." I would offer that my opinions are completely irrelevant, unless supported with the objective facts.
Again firstly, I did refer to statements you had made elsewhere, and I did provide links to those web pages with the supporting text. Those links are in the coloured text. It is called hypertext and it is found across the world wide web. Hypertext has both a text, and through markup, an embedded link which the reader can access by clicking the coloured text. Welcome to the web, in the mean time I will edit those passages above to try to bring out the quotes in italics and links for you.
Secondly, Owen is a handle I use here. You have a handle. I do hope I am not informing you of this. If we all had the same handle, what would be the point? So people have different handles. I feel like I just explained hypertext to you. How new are you to the web; had you spent all of the last seven odd years on usenet?
Thirdly, yes, I was aware of the BCCA. I believe they had been involved with soc.religion.bahai, perhaps maintaining an archive. Did you know that Mark Towfiq had some notoriety for bringing the internet to MS Windows computers? Okay, click the coloured text to read the story, and then hit the return button to come back here.
Fourthly, you advertised your activities here on SW, over there on TRB. Did you do that to drum up activity here, or just to order the folks who followed your links here to go back to TRB? I would suggest to you that if you can't sort out hypertext, you should stick to usenet. --Owen 21:37, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Hi Owen(Pat), my research suggests that such an agency exists, and its activities have been noted by numerous other parties. Thank you for the suggestion. --Atomised 09:48, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I did some research which I showed here and I see some more on talk.religion.bahai.
"Fill them in on whatever you want. I am taking your cultist ass down, Kholi, and there are a whole army of people behind me. You have 6 days until armageddon. Don't even entertain the slightest notion that I am kidding. I plan to sodomize the whole lot of you cultists this year."
- Wahid, February 2004, "To the AO-hole Agents of TRB" http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/fdca06544b571577
Hmmmm, since he says I am Kholi, it looks like he was threatening to sodomize me and others, five years ago. I wonder how that worked out? It does look like an attempt to intimidate those who he disagrees with, by threats of violence. I do think this belongs here on this disinfopedia. The Baha'i Internet Committee appears to definitely exist in Wahid's head, the BCCA and BIA just don't cut it; I'm not a member. --Owen 21:37, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
You've got some articles about the Baha'i Internet Agency, but you don't have these people from TRB in it. Your Baha'i Internet Committee, as you describe it, bullies people as described below, yet the Baha'i Internet Agency does not advocacte libel, argumentation by accusation, spamming, etc; it is rather boring, not that there is anything wrong with that.--Owen 19:19, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
It certainly advocates the policing of association on the social networking site Facebook. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency
In February, 2008, Matthew Weinberg, Program Director for the Baha'i Internet Agency, released the following email letter on behalf of the Haifan Baha'i administration (see Baha'i Faith). The letter refers to the activities of the "Covenant-breaker Martin Lavallee", a member of the schismatic Orthodox Baha'is and warns members of the Haifan Baha'i community against possible 'exposure' to this individual arising from contact on the social networking site, Facebook. "Covenant breaking" is a term employed by the Haifan Baha'is to refer to groups and individuals who challenge "the authority of the center of the Bahá'í Faith", which in this context refers to the authority of the Universal House of Justice, and is considered "the most serious spiritual offence that a Bahá'í can commit. It's called Covenant-Breaking and is considered to be a spiritual disease and is punished by expulsion from the community."
"28 February 2008
To All National Spiritual Assemblies
Dear Bahá'í Friends,
We have been requested by the World Centre to alert you to the current activities of the Covenant-breaker Martin Lavallee on Facebook.com. This individual administers the "Orthodox Bahá'is" page on Facebook and also has a personal page on the site. There have been recent instances where Bahá'í youth with accounts on Facebook have unwittingly accepted invitations from Lavallee to be a "friend" or to become "members" of the Covenant-breaker page. Further, as a consequence of the Facebook networking scheme, if an individual accepts a direct invitation from Lavallee or any other member of his group, the "Friends" list (with e-mail addresses) of that individual becomes exposed. In this way, those with insincere intentions have the potential to directly contact an increasing number of Bahá'is, interactions that could pose a threat to the spiritual well-being of youth and other believers who are not deepened in the Covenant.
Each National Assembly will need to determine the necessity and most appropriate manner of discreetly informing believers of this situation in consultation and with the assistance of the Counsellors. In doing so it will of course be important to avoid creating undue anxiety or curiosity about the nature of Covenant-breaker material on the Internet..
It is our intention to provide more general guidance in the near future about how online social networks can be constructively and safely used by Bahá'ís.
With loving greetings,
Matt Weinberg Program Director Bahá'í Internet Agency
cc: Members of the Continental Boards of Counsellors"
--Atomised 20:12, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency --Wahid 03:35, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Defamation & Threats
The correct context for this discussion should be noted. Having studied a wide range of internet exchanges recorded in newsgroups for the last 5+ years, I agree that the pattern identified by Frederick Glaysher here, http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm, and supported by numerous other individuals, including Professor Juan Cole is accurate (though the official Baha'i response to these issues would probably be to paint these people as unstable and bitter individuals with some sort of axe to grind-which itself is a classic technique of authoritarian propaganda worldwide). Also see here http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_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
Numerous observers have noted common methods many fundamentalists among my fellow baha'is use to avoid various issues or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
Writing in 1941, Mirza Ahmad Sohrab may have been the earliest observer to note the Baha'i Technique: "The writer of the article in Bahai News reaches the height of his slanderous vilification when he likens Mr. and Mrs. Chanler and their Bahai friends to those enemies that preceded them. . . and their like" (138). See Excerpts from Mirza Ahmad Sohrab's Broken Silence: The Story of Today's Struggle for Religious Freedom. New York: Universal Publishing, 1942. http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/SohrabEx.htm
Alison Marshall, 2002: "I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views of members it sees as a threat. This spying can go on for years without the member knowing and despite general assurances to the contrary. When it suits the administration to act, it can summarily disenrol the person at any time and without any notice. In such circumstances, 'counselling' will comprise any communication that member has had with the institutions, whatever its nature, purpose and timing. This action will be accompanied by a backbiting campaign designed to destroy the member's reputation in the community. I think members of the Baha'i community, and those contemplating joining it, have a right to know how the Baha'i administration behaves."  http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/AlisonMarshall.htm
Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan, June 12, 1998: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB [Covenant Breaker (heretic)] to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole10.htm
Professor Juan Cole, February 23, 1999: "There is nothing to be puzzled by. Right wing Baha'is only like to hear the sound of their own voices (which are the only voices they will admit to being "Baha'i" at all). Obviously, the world is so constructed that they cannot in fact only hear their own voices. They are forced to hear other voices that differ from theirs. This most disturbs them when the voices come from enrolled Baha'isor when the voices speak of the Baha'i faith. The way they sometimes deal with the enrolled Baha'is is to summon them to a heresy inquiry and threaten them with being shunned if they do not fallsilent. With non-Baha'is or with ex-Baha'is, they deal with their speech about the faith by backbiting, slandering and libelling the speaker. You will note that since I've been on this list I have been accused of long-term heresy, of "claiming authority," of out and out lying (though that was retracted, twice), of misrepresentation, of 'playing fast and loose with the facts,' and even of being 'delusional.' I have been accused of all these falsehoods by *Baha'is*, by prominent Baha'is. I have been backbitten by them. This shows that all the talk about the danger a sharp tongue can do, all the talk about the need for harmony, for returning poison with honey, for a sin-covering eye, is just *talk* among right wing Baha'is. No one fights dirtier than they when they discover a voice they cannot silence and cannot refute. Paul Johnson has seen all these things, as well, for the past five years. He can explain it to you." http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole71.htm
Professor Juan Cole, 12/5/2002: "The purpose of having this system where it is so easy to turn insiders into outsiders is to maintain very strict control over the community by its leaders. The idea is that everyone still on the inside will fear being made a non-person or being ostracized or being shunned, and so will keep quiet and let the leadership do as it pleases with them. Silent suffering of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders is the actual definition of a Baha'i in good standing. Of course, this requirement is cult-like...." http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole80.htm
Frederick Glaysher, November 21, 2007: "The so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, is essentially practicing Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious views, largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of the Western civic and legal order than the jihad the ao is conducting...." http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
Moreover, studying the implications of the document released by Susan Maneck, "Wisdom and Dissimulation in the Baha'i Faith: The Use and meaning of Hikmat in the Baha'i writings" http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/- suggests that such techniques for dealing with public criticism of the organisation are in fact sanctioned at an institutional level. Similarly, given the nature of the recent email released by Matthew Weinberg, current Program Director of the Baha’i Internet Agency, at the Baha'i World Centre, regarding the policing of online activity on Facebook, and stating that:
"We have been requested by the World Centre to alert you to the current activities of the Covenant-breaker Martin Lavallee on Facebook.com. This individual administers the "Orthodox Bahá'is" page on Facebook and also has a personal page on the site. There have been recent instances where Bahá'í youth with accounts on Facebook have unwittingly accepted invitations from Lavallee to be a "friend" or to become "members" of the Covenant-breaker page. Further, as a consequence of the Facebook networking scheme, if an individual accepts a direct invitation from Lavallee or any other member of his group, the "Friends" list (with e-mail addresses) of that individual becomes exposed. In this way, those with insincere intentions have the potential to directly contact an increasing number of Bahá'is, interactions that could pose a threat to the spiritual well-being of youth and other believers who are not deepened in the Covenant.
Each National Assembly will need to determine the necessity and most appropriate manner of discreetly informing believers of this situation in consultation and with the assistance of the Counsellors. In doing so it will of course be important to avoid creating undue anxiety or curiosity about the nature of Covenant-breaker material on the Internet.."
..the evidence for orchestrated and coordinated monitoring of members, and implementation of techniques of institutional control over their personal affairs is pretty cut and dry. I also believe there have been numerous cases of official correspondence from Baha'i institutions directly addressing the personal affairs of members in similar fashion. Responses to these techniques and the actions of those who have attempted to expose them should be taken in their proper context.--Atomised 21:32, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
No doubt Ms. Marshall's description reflects the tragic events that she personnally experienced, abruptly expelled without warning. Had you noticed that it is diametrically opposite of the description that Prof. Juan Cole provides, that he is constantly bullied and threatened by those who disagree with him? If there were a pattern of an adverse "Baha'i Technique" one could hope it was consistent, or at least not mutually exclusive. Instead we have the individual experiences of individual members, with other individual members. Frederick Glaysher used to post on TRB. After the 9/11 tragedy, like Cole, he made outrageous statements, then copied and repasted the reaction he elicited from others, posted to his website the examples of bad Baha'i behavior and reposted to TRB, repetitively. It reminds me of Wahid. You should go to TRB and see how he responds to Paul Hammond with some Eric Stetson quote from five years ago. Note - I wrote this last night and forgot to 'sign'.--Owen 12:05, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
While we're on the subject of threats, it is a matter of public record that Mr Wahid Azal was assaulted in September 2000 by Mr Soheil Abedian and his son, and other members of the Gold Coast Baha'i community, and that an official affidavit and police report were lodged regarding the incident. Mr Azal was subsequently defamed in the December edition of the Australian Baha'i bulletin. Owen, you are referring to threats made in online flame wars following extreme provocation. However, members of the Baha'i community have actually carried out similar threats. --Atomised 22:08, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I am sorry to read of Mr Azal's attack. I hope the perpetrators were punished to the full extent of the law. As far as the outrageous threats made by Mr. Azal on TRB, no, I don't see that at all that Wahid was provoked, rather, he was provocative. Let's look at the mass sod threat. You can see that Azal, posting as Freethought110, started a thread demanding that the accused members of the alleged Baha'i Internet Committee (Koli, Maneck, Sekhmet, and Hammond) prove that they are not being paid to post to TRB. He demanded full financial statements from them on one week's noticepromising to turn the people over to the respective tax authorities for revenue frad violations. So, he was provoking a response. The response from Sekhmet, was to laugh; from Maneck, to ask to see his financial statements first, and Koli had the temerity to say it was futile to try to satisfy his demands and take him at his word that he would contact the US Internal Revenue Service and advised Wahid of what he would tell the US IRS, that Wahid had made previous death threats, that is the Luca Brazzi remark. Koli reported an attempt by Azal to blackmail himand Azal responded with this thinly veiled death threat, [http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/ce88052d756b31ce this were N Ireland, you would be singing with Luca Brazi.]--Owen 19:19, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
Here is the link to the material I posted regarding the assault against me and defamation in 2000. Note the former name.
I draw attention especially to the following,
Australian Baha'i Bulletin, December 2000, Page 2.
"A number of Baha'is have expressed concern about statements being made by Mr Nima Hazini, who is presently resident in Queensland. Their concern arose from their belief that he is a member of the Baha'i community. In fact, Mr Hazini wrote the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States on November 25, 1996, during the period he was residing in that country, withdrawing from the Baha'i community. Unfortunately, Mr Hazini has for some time been engaged in attacking the integrity of the Cause. The friends are therefore advised to leave him to himself"
This item came out of the blue less than two months to the day from when I was assaulted in September 2000. It is quite interesting and should be noted that when Owen/Pat Kohli started the libelous article about me here he omitted to mention any of this. --Wahid 22:30, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
- Wahid, Why do you think it's significant that no mention was made of this assault on you in the year 2000 in an article about you on this site? What conclusion do you draw from that fact? Possibly, whoever started that article hadn't heard of this assault, or didn't deem it a significant fact about you. Does the SourceWatch article on Wahid Azal still exist? --PaulHammond 12:53, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
- Does anyone really think that speculations about one person's aims and motivations is a reasonable thing to be gone through on an article Talk Page about the Baha'i Faith? Besides the fact that Nima (aka Wahid Azal) has seemingly got his facts wrong. --PaulHammond 13:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
It should be noted that new contributor PaulHammond claims to be a non-Baha'i. Mr Hammond also states that he was President of the Baha'i Society at Keele University, and also claims to have been involved in other university Baha'i societies, including Liverpool:
PaulHammond 7/18/2003 11:13 AM http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=5608&discussionID=273027
Another poster here has mentioned what he thinks was the purpose of University Baha'i Societies, in the following terms:
from my own experience as an LSA member, our community supported the Baha'i Society in our Local University. However it was always Baha'i students who run and controled the society as a platform for teaching the Faith. The LSA. supported them and sponsored them financially with literature and at times organised speakers for some of their meetings.
This suggests that the major purpose of University Baha'i societies is as a proselytisation tool.
However, in my experience the University Baha'i Societies that I have been personally involved in, this have not operated in this manner.
Sure, a major aim of a Baha'i Society is to let people know who Baha'u'llah was, but at Keele and Liverpool, I would say that we saw our aim more as a society that would foster debate about Baha'i principles, and invite speakers that would lead students to think about the effect and usefulness of Baha'i principles on society in general.
Certainly, at Keele, those of us non-Baha'is who were involved in the running of the society had a great deal of respect for Baha'i principles, and for our Baha'i friends who had taught us about these principles in the first place.
Also, it was important to us to ensure that we were seperate from the local LSA in the area - aside from anything else, there is a problem with accepting funding from the Student Union if the Baha'i Society is thought of as a Baha'i organisation, seeing as how the University Union is a *non-Baha'i* organisation, and Baha'is aren't allowed to accept outside funding.
Anyway, the Baha'i Society of Keele University, during the time that I was associated with it, did not see its primary aim as being "the gaining of converts to the Baha'i Faith" - and, when we met people who ran other Baha'i Societies, in other universities, they seemed to think similarly, that the main aim was rather to promote awareness of the Baha'i Faith, and the Baha'i Principles, rather than as some kind of "University Branch of the LSA".
In Liverpool, there was a much closer involvement of the LSA with the running of the Guild Baha'i Society.
Does anyone else have any opinions and experiences of running University Baha'i societies, and the aims that should be relevant to such organisations?
7/15/2003 7:36 PM 21 out of 36
Hearing an Atheist called Paul Hammond was a President of a bahai society is the best joke I heard this week.
Nevertheless, it is true.
There is no reason why the officers or members of University Baha'i societies have to be Baha'is. There were only 4 Baha'is on the campus at Keele University, and yet we had about 50-odd members.
At Liverpool Uni, I can't remember how many of our other Society officers were actually Baha'is, I think two of the four names on the sheet were. If you were really that bothered about it, I expect my name is still written on whatever record the Student Guild of Liverpool University keeps of their society officers - that is, if they have still got the information for 9 years ago, when I was an MSc student there.
PaulHammond 7/15/2003 7:48 PM 22 out of 36
Reply: Well its obvious from what you say * You did not attend a proper Feast * Neither did you know the rules otherwise you would not have forced yourself on other Baha'is of Liverpool. They never turned you away out of politeness. Likewise if a Baha'i invited you to a feast they were very much in the wrong.
Errol, if you were bothering to read what I have written, you would note that I said *Bristol*, not Liverpool was where I attended the feast. This is just too ridiculous.
I was visiting my Baha'i friend, who is a cradle Baha'i, and whose whole family are Baha'is, and this was about 3 years before I was an MSc student at Liverpool. It so happened that the 19-day feast co-incided with the time of my visit, and the family were faced with the choice of either leaving me alone in the house while they attended the feast, or asking if it was okay to take me along. Considering that I was at the time (I think) Treasurer of the Keele Uni Baha'i Society, and was clearly very interested in the Faith, and insisted that I would not be bored, no objections were raised to my coming along, so long as I understood that I would not be permitted to attend the business portion of the feast.
I'm sure the Bristol LSA will be very concerned to hear that an ex-Baha'i who now cannot seem to find a single good word to say about the faith, and spends his every spare moment running it down in public thinks that they did something "very wrong" over a decade ago when they let an interested seeker attend their feast along with his Baha'i hosts that they had known for years and years. If you are really concerned, write to the Bristol LSA about it now. I'm sure no-one will be able to remember it.
This is too ridiculous. I guess *you* won't be satisfied unless I call up Jeanette now, and get her to come on the net to this thread to swear on the Iqan that my story is true. Oddly enough, I'm not going to be doing that, since my only reason for disclosing these facts about my past Baha'i experiences is to give the lie to your assumption about me that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I don't have enough Baha'i experience to back me up. I'm sure you can see now that you were very wrong in that assumption.
Now, having settled all this, can we get back to the question that you are avoiding answering?
Mr Hammond also presented a paper on the theme of "Scientific and Religious Knowledge" at a Special Interest Groups meeting of the Association for Baha'i Studies (ABS(ESE) - see also http://abs-uk.manvell.org.uk/) at Keele University.
http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/abs/associate/a22/a22-03.htm ABS(ESE) SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP REPORTS
Membership in the Special Interest Groups is free to all ABS (ESE) members. To find out more about their activities please contact the person named at the end of each report.
SCIENCE INTEREST GROUP: FIRST MEETING The first meeting of the Science group was held at Keele University on 15th February 1997. The day started with a paper by Mr Paul Hammond on the theme of "Scientific and Religious Knowledge". This paper presented some fundamental ideas on the commonality and connections between science and religion. The second paper by Dr Masoud Afnan was titled "Working with Human Embryos - Dilemmas and Opportunities". This paper offered a brief glimpse into one of the more controversial areas of science, where the moral and ethical issues are paramount, and religious belief is certainly relevant to many people. Dr Masoud outlined the technical issues involved, before discussing his personal approach as a Baha'i to the moral dimensions of the field. After lunch Dr Roger Kingdon presented a paper on "Two Logical Proofs of the Existence of God", with specific reference to the work by William Hatcher "Logic amp; Logos". This was the most intellectually demanding paper of the day with formal logic and higher maths liberally sprinkled throughout the theological content of the paper! The final paper of the day was by Dr Munirih Mali on. "A Baha'i Perspective on Drug Misuse". This paper reviewed the medical and social nature of drug abuse in the UK and offered some insights from the Baha'i Scriptures which served to highlight the severity of the problem in termS of its human costs.
Approximately 24 people attended the meeting, from a wide range of backgrounds, which emphasised the potentially wide appeal of the group. Significantly more interest was expressed via e-mail in the meeting, including many from abroad who stated how they would have liked to attend. Most people present expressed a keen desire to see the group continue and for further meetings, although with greater publicity being required and at an earlier date.
In parallel with the aim of general meetings for presenting papers the Science group now has an email discussion fonum, with over 80 subscribers. The active role of this e-mail list should significantly enhance the scope and maturation of the Science special interest group, (particular thanks are due to James Herbert for arranging the list).
Along with Pat Kohli, Paul Hammond has maintained a long standing internet presence as a voice against criticism of the Baha'i Faith.--Atomised 20:02, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
As Atomised has already detailed, it should be noted that Paul Hammond is a hack and propagandist of the Baha'i Internet Agency of longstanding reputation. In September 2003, the following was stated to me in an email by Eric Stetson regarding this individual,
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO [ i.e. Baha'i administrative order - WA], that he is probably working for them."
Other editors as well as the administrators should be aware of the activities of this individual and also note that this individual is paired up online with Pat Kohli -- yet another corroboration (as if any more was needed) that the user Owen is in fact Pat Kohli --Wahid 22:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
Hi Atomised and Wahid,
It looks to me like you are using argument by accusation: you accuse someone of something, like membership in the Communist Party, with little or no evidence on your part, and expect someone to deny, and disprove, or stand convicted. That was the approach I documented Wahid using years ago (in the internet committee section) in demanding financial records of those he asserted to be members of the Baha'i Internet Committee.
As to Wahid's assertion on Paul's associates, I've already pointed out that I read TRB and I see Paul active there. Wahid asked Seon, another poster, link to deny that he is now, or ever was supporting an alleged sectarian agenda of the BF. I found it yet another example of argument by accusation. BTW, you can see Paul Hammond also denying support, FWIW.
Paul Hammond has repeatedly denied being a Baha'i. As far as I know, he doesn't beleve in God, much less any given manifestation of God. He criticisizes the Bahai position on homosexuality whenever he sees it, and I don't think he is keen on shunning, either. He has gotten along well with Steve Marshall, husband of Allison who was expelled, as well as former Baha'i Dermod Ryder, and unenrolled Baha'i Karen Bacquet - these relationships are inconsistent with the carictured 'Baha'i Internet Committee" list of activities. W. Azal asserts Hammond is a defender of the BF simply and solely because Hammond argues against him, and that is often on stylistic matters, such as argument by accusation. Hammond prefers a more solid, fact based basis of discussion. Maybe that is what makes a TRB poster a Baha'i Internet Committee member, a failure to rely on prejudice?
No, it looks like you guys are running a witch hunt and you really belong on TRB, not Sourcewatch.org, but I don't make these decisions. --Owen 12:05, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Owen, it looks very much to me like you are using techniques of argumentation that have been used before. The pattern of your activties here seems more suspicious by the day. Your use of the term "Witch Hunt", and your attempt to connect the discussion here to accusations of membership of the communist party is significant in this regard. When PaulHammond comes here accusing editors working on Baha'i related pages of conducting some kind of 'propaganda war', given the nature of this resource, this user's history and connections to previous Baha'i related discussions/forums is of particular importance--Atomised 17:50, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Owen/Pat Kohli said, "Paul Hammond has repeatedly denied being a Baha'i."
Methinks the lady doth protest too much --Wahid 04:57, 6 April 2009 (EDT)