Baha'is arrested in Iran -- for being Baha'is

Why is it that every time Baha'is are mentioned on JW, you have to pop up like a hell-spawned demon or the proverbial salivating dog of Pavlov and start maligning these people ? We never hear anything from you otherwise.

Baha'is are NOT Muslims, although originally they were a subbranch of Shia Islam. Alí-Muhammad of Shiraz, Iran proclaimed that he was "the Báb", referencing his later claim to the station of Mahdi, the Twelfth Imam of Shi`a Islam. His followers were therefore known as Bábís. As the Báb's teachings spread, which the Islamic clergy saw as a threat, his followers came under increased persecution and torture. The Mahdi concept is significant in that it clearly points to the fact that the Báb was essentially a member of the Shi'ite clergy, and by claiming himself to be the Mahdi, he therefore incurred the wrath of the mainstream Shia clergy, along with the Qajar dynasty, who had granted the Shia clergy considerable privileges.

Bahá'ís see the Báb as the forerunner of the Bahá'í Faith, because the Báb's writings introduced the concept of "He whom God shall make manifest", a Messianic figure whose coming, according to Bahá'ís, was announced in the scriptures of all of the world's great religions, and whom Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, claimed to be in 1863.

Although Bahá'u'lláh was an early follower of the Báb, he did not claim his divine status until 1863, and by doing so he caused a rift between him and the successor of the Báb, leading the Báb movement at the time. Throughout the rest of his life Bahá'u'lláh gained the allegiance of most of the Bábís, who came to be known as Bahá'ís. The original Bábist movement with its Shi'ite origins turned into a marginal phenomenon. With the advent of Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahai movement became gradually 'de-islamified'.

Whereas many people believe the Bahai faith to be a syncretic religion, borrowing from many other faiths, such as Judaism, Christianity, Bhuddism,..etc, the Bahai faith has much more in common with Zoroastrianism than any other faith.

If we apply Islamic (Sunni or Shi'ite) logic to Bahai adherents, then a few things are immediately apparent:

1) Bahai's are regarded as both unbelievers by default AND apostates by default, because the Iranian government considers the Bahai faith as the continuation of religious (and therefore heretical) innovation within Shia Islam, initiated by the Báb, and the subsequent de-inslamifying of the movement to the point where it holds no key Islamic concepts. And apostates have to be punished more severely than mere unbelievers !

2) this is in marked contrast to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrians are unbelievers by default, but they can't be considered as apostates. Simply because the remaining Zoroastrians in Iran today are the direct descendants of the earliest Zoroastrians, particularly those who have never submitted to Islam throughout their history.

Which is why Zoroastrians have their own parliamentary representatives in Iran, alongside Christians and Jews, and can still gather in their own places of worship, whereas a Bahai adherent automatically incurs the wrath of the mullahs and can receive the death penalty for simply being one. (Although all throughout history, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians have been intermittently persecuted in Iran, and still are to some extent today) And it also explains why Bahai places of worship are destroyed.

Now, I should make a few things clear before anyone starts replying to what I have said on the subject:

1) I am an atheist and not a big fan of religions in general, however I have the common sense to recognize the fact that some religions are simply not deserving of the level of slander and persecution they are subject to, because many of them are infinitely more tolerant than Islamic ideology.

2) Some people really want to deliberately disregard historical contexts to prove their point and to denigrate others for whatever reason they see fit. Intellectual indolence is not the way forward when faced with a threat that concerns us all, it is divisive. It is the exact mirror image of the intellectual dishonesty of the PC/MC cultural relativists who claim that Islam is a religion of peace, disregarding all historical evidence to the contrary.

3) Putting things in context, I am trying to demonstrate the obvious internal logic Islamic ideology clings to, rather than making this an exercise in Islamic apologetics. In other words, in order to dispel Islamic mythology and the mollycoddling attitude of Western do-gooders, one has to be able to think like an Islamic supremacist first. Something which Robert Spencer has successfully demonstrated many times in the past, and we should be thankful for anyone providing us with such insights.

When Robert speaks out in support of Bahais, I sincerely understand why he does so, and I find myself absolutely flabbergasted as to why some people on JW seem to be so short-sighted on this matter, because it is totally uncalled for. Besides, all evidence points to the fact that Baha'is are not Muslims because essentially:

1) they don't reference the Quran
2) they don't adhere to the five pillars of Islam

which are by definition required to be considered Muslim in the first place. Which is what every Muslim understands and any Muslim clergyman will tell you.

I have told you this before. It seems to me you have a fundamental bone to pick with Baha'i adherents that stretches way beyond the merely philosophical and consequently consumes a disproportionate amount of your personal time that could be spent more constructively in many ways.

Grungy you certainly are. You should be proud of it (!)

Are Christians not Messianic Jews?

It's the same idea with the baha'i.

Too bad so sad, the baha'i are evil. they are evil because they work to promote the lie that islam is the progression on from Christianity.

there's that word "Progress"

The messianic muslim baha'i faith is the root of Progressivism

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,742079,00.html
Religion: Baha'i
Monday, July 20, 1931
To the International Congress of Religion at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893 went one Ibrahim George Khayru'llah to spread Baha'i in the U. S. Founder Baha'u'llah had died the year before and his son Abdu'1-Baha (servant of Baha) had become Expounder & Promoter. Born in 1844 on the very day when the Bab was making his great prediction, Abdu'1-Baha began expounding and promoting late in life, but under his able leadership the faith gained world following. In 1912 he followed Ibrahim Khayru'llah to the U. S., spoke in churches, synagogs, D. A. R. meetings, visited the late William Jennings Bryan who pontificated: "The Baha'i movement is the only power able to revive the Islamic world." Abdu'1-Baha, however, saw the movement serving a wider world. For Jews it could fulfill Old Testament and Talmudic prophecies; for Christians the visions of the Apocalypse; for Mohammedans the Redeemer, Imam-Mahdi.
============
Of Wilson, Shoghi Effendi wrote the following:

To. . . the immortal Woodrow Wilson, must be ascribed the unique honor, among the statesmen of any nation, whether of the East or of the West, of having voiced sentiments so akin to the principles animating the Cause of Bahá'u'lláh, and of having more than any other world leader, contributed to the creation of the League of Nations -- achievements which the pen of the Center of God's Covenant acclaimed as signalizing the dawn of the Most Great Peace, whose sun, according to that same pen, must needs arise as the direct consequence of the enforcement of the laws of the Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh.

=========

Baha'i can rot in hell.

''Too bad so sad, the baha'i are evil. they are evil because they work to promote the lie that islam is the progression on from Christianity.''

I would agree with Anushirvan; you appear to have an obsession with Bahai's, and with New Age daftness also, as seen in the Eric Alan Bell/Murfreesborough mosque thread.

Do the Bahai want to force sharia on the whole world ? Do they hate women, despise freedom of speech, freedom of conscience ? Do they want to murder people who reject Bahai'ism ? Do they want to stone people to death for adultery ? Flog them for breaking ramadan, or sharia ? Do they want to hang homosexuals ? Do they saw people's heads off, shrieking ''allahu akbar'' ?

I would submit, if they don't want to do any of these things, then they are entitled to whatever wacky beliefs they choose, as is anyone. And they are entitled *not* to be persecuted for them.

The tone of your posts makes me wonder, if you were ever in a position to do so, you would attempt to enforce *your* beliefs on others. I hope I'm wrong.

That says it all, really.

Jan, you have the main point: Bahais are entitled to whatever wacky beliefs they want, so long as they don't subscribe to jihad or sharia or other totalitarian methods and goals. I'd heard that Bahais reject violence, death for apostasy, and the other well-known evils of Islam. If Bahais are not totalitarian seekers of State power, then it's wrong for grungy old van to criticize them so harshly. He needs to prioritize and distinguish between merely having wacky beliefs on the one hand, and seeking to use violence to set up a wacky global theocracy on the other. All peoples need to unite to support the victims of Islam's global totalitarian ambitions, not hit them when they are down, in the way grungy old van did here. "If we don't hang together, we'll hang separately." We can't afford to mix up Islam with other faiths which, though perhaps wrong, are infinitely more benign.

I second your quote to Jan, traeh. I also second your quoting that great man from the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin (a shrewder individual in all of history would be hard to find).

Islam is the enemy of so much which is good and sensible and decent and logical and fair and.... So very much. Therefore, divisions among those who oppose Islam make no sense.

One fight at a time is ordinarily the optimum policy. I wish all those who comment here at JW and who invite divisions among those who oppose Islam would desist from their inapt and inept efforts. Hope you're doing well.

My sympathies extend to all of humanity suffering under the yoke of the profoundly diabolical islam. This includes people
who followthe teachings of the Baha'i and muslims themselves.

In my attempt, not do promote "divisiveness", but in an effort to distinguish islamo-naziesque groups from the harmless ones, I need to ask the following:
What role, position does muhammad play in the belief system of the Baha'is?

Prudently skeptic yours,

WW

Greetings WakingWest,

The "Simple Answer" would be....

1. The Baha'i Faith is as close to Islam as Christianity is to Judaism.

and....

2. The Baha'i Faith is as far away from Islam as Christianity is from Judaism.

That may not feel helpful at first, but it is to say that the Baha'i Faith does build upon traditions and beliefs in the Abrahamic tradition that are also found in Islam, much as Christ builds upon the core foundation of Moses' Teachings.

But Christ also dramatically shifts the spirit and practice of religion from the strict practices of Judaism 2,000 years ago that sought to demarcate believers from the surrounding peoples. Christ essentially Teaches though: 'You must love all humanity like the Samaritan on the road to Jericho and not be so bound up with the law. Similarly you must rescue the woman at the well who is about to be stoned for adultery.'

In the same spirit, Baha'u'llah makes dramatic breaks from the beliefs and traditions of Islam by stepping forward to proclaim in Word and deed, the Muhammad was only the seal of the lessor prophets (the Nabi - Surah 3:40) and not the seal of the Messengers of God (Rasul-allah - Messengers of God with a Book). Thus the Hand of God is not tied up as per Ali Translation, Surah 5:64. Further, the quotes from Baha'u'llah's Writings above are moving towards a new and distinctly different religious vision for this time?

Greetings WakingWest,

Both in belief and practice Baha'is turn towards and follow the Teachings, laws and ordinances of Baha'u'llah and not Muhammad or Islam. These can all be found and downloaded as Word.docs or PDFs for free at www.bahai.org at the top right corner of the website.

The life of Baha'u'llah is extensively documented at www.bahaullah.org

If the Baha'i Faith is not of God it will quickly fade into the oblivion of unworkable/obsolete doctrines. If it is of God it will grow in influence even as Christ was able to create a world wide civilization by breathing the breath of life into a band of fishermen and carpenters? The test of time is the ultimate judge?

Best wishes, TS

Hi Truthseeker,

You wrote,

If the Baha'i Faith is not of God it will quickly fade into the oblivion of unworkable/obsolete doctrines.

Islam did not quickly fade. Does that mean it is of God? Certainly no. So your statement above would seem to be mistaken.

I note that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, success on earth is definitely not always interpreted as a sign of goodness.

"All peoples need to unite to support the victims of Islam's global totalitarian ambitions, not hit them when they are down, in the way grungy old van did here. "If we don't hang together, we'll hang separately." We can't afford to mix up Islam with other faiths which, though perhaps wrong, are infinitely more benign."

My thoughts exactly, traeh.

*Exactly*, traeh. Your quotation sums up the issue admirably.

Oops. Given my tendency to produce typos, I suppose that was a fitting farewell. Correction in brackets: "I therefore choose to leave [this] comment section."

Bye folks. Have a good one.

Ouch! Well that's unfortunate. Anyway, I'm glad you are going to continue with all this in some other venue. Best of luck.

That's a shame, really. You will be sorely missed, in fact. On the other hand, I can't really figure out why this should be such a problem in the first place, though. I know Hesperado still runs his own blog, and quite frankly, I do think he has made quite valid points both there and here, in many cases. Just like quite a lot of others on JW, such as yourself. Maybe sometimes he lacks the subtlety to refrain from making it seem as if his discourse has an ad hominem attack aspect to it, but many of the conclusions he draws can stand on their own two legs, so to speak. That doesn't mean one has to agree with someone else all the time or most of the time. It has never bothered me to such an extent.

Let me make sure I was clear, Kinana, by adding that the "Ouch! Well that's unfortunate," in my 6:37 AM comment referred not to the typo, but to your decision to absent yourself from the proceedings at Jihad Watch, a somewhat painful prospect. But I wish you the best with your new horizons.

My, or "our" support for the victims of islam is resolute and includes all of humanity, even muslims dying and suffering under islam because of islam.

Our contention is the manifestly evident truth that islam's trouble arises fundamentally from the ideology of islam most especially it's central figure muhammad, his teachings and the reverence his believers logically derive form the quran.
It is in this spirit that we are forced to set aside diplomacy and fussy platitudes mentioning inconvenient irrefutable truths which may be offensive to some.

By your admission, you follow a set of beliefs which inexorably and genetically are islamic. This AM by simply doing a cursory overview of Bahia precepts, I come upon some truths which apparently where very difficult for previous posters to to make. Bahia'i believe in mohamad as being a prophet, your belief in having two wives is God sanctioned, you orient towards mecca (for obligatory prayers only etc. No question the Baha'i tend towards peace and universal harmony, unfortunately in doing so, the dogma they set forth are reduced to not so much as "complicated" relationships but more like compromises of convenience rendering the absolutes of the divine dilute elixirs contaminating it's principles and ideals.
Is mohamad, or islam an unbroken chain of Divine revelation
leading form Moses, Buddha, Christ down to the Baha'i?
Unless the divine was psychophrenic with a twisted malevolency, the answer is obvious but to the blind.

Thank you grungy but old wise van.

Thanks to your discernment I educated myself a bit in the last 12 hours and to my chagrin, was able to discover for myself that indeed there was something fishy, reminiscent of a eccumentality aspect to the Bahia. They have defanged the monster but in doing so thay keep it alive leaving it capable of morphing back it's tail to came back at any time in it's more natural fierce glory.

"They endure suffering with Christlike meekness, in the belief that God rewards patient longsuffering, and out of a determination to avoid conflict, enmity, hatred or contumely to any soul. Some of you will remember how the Dalai Lama reacted when Oriana Fallaci asked him about his enemies: "A Buddhist cannot have enemies!". Nor can a Baha'i."

Now, basically, this is what we see happening in Iran all the time, according to the reports. Although in a sense this is an admirable trait on the one hand, you'd have to admit though that it doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever. Besides, I tend to believe that Bah'a'ullah more or less inculcated this doctrine of impartiality and low profile because historically speaking, he would've been well aware of the fact that his followers were going to be treated as default apostates in the long run. Islam being what it is however, any non-believer will automatically incur the wrath of the Islamic clergy and adherents , no matter how much one wants to advocate Transglobal Goodwill to people of all creeds. This could never apply to Islam, it is totally unrealistic. There is in fact no hiding from it possible. This simply doesn't mix or can be reconciled with Islam, point final. No matter how much you want to refer back to the roots of the Baha'i faith in Bábist Shi'ism, even. You can't appease Muslims that way. Scrap all of that, because that's basically the biggest conundrum your religion is presenting its adherents with. It will never materialize.

Sorry, this was addressed to Funky Child, of course. I pushed reply on the wrong commenter.

No, not a pariah, this was just a minor difference of opinion and an appeal for unity against the aggressor.

I have to admit, historically it makes an awful lot of sense what you say. I know about all of this (like the imprisonment in Siyah Chal, etc.), because I take a keen interest in history in general. That's also basically why I tend to believe that above all else, adherents of the Baha'i faith do not deserve to be slandered or persecuted like they have been up til now. If anything, I find it quite strange that a minority of Christians seems to be unable to emphasize the commonalities, whereas they seem to be quite quick off the mark to criticize the Baha'i faith for its universalist tendencies, which are perceived as a threat by them. The historical analogies you make do make a lot of sense that way. Which is why I can't possibly perceive Baha'is as a problem that should divide the Counterjihad movement internally.

Thank you for your fair minded and thoughtful commentary Anushirvan. There are many evolutionary paths that can be developed to work with the challenges of "War, Religion and Peace". On one side is the "Roman Approach" of 2,000 years ago. Another is the "Wall of Separation" that now exists in Israel. We can be patient as we have done with Communism in Russia, China and Vietnam (fairly successfully in the last two case). A range of other options then the Baha'i approach. My sense of anthropology there were many primate strains before it came apparent that homo sapiens would become the dominant approach?

From my personal Baha'i perspective, I think that there is a place to repeatedly invite Muslims to lay on the table their vision of where the world needs to be heading and how we are going to get there, and how they propose enlisting others to join in. Baha'is are focused significantly on developing alternatives for people to evaluate.

Best wishes, TS

It is acknowledged that the Bahia islamic sect has been persecuted, at times quite brutally by the broader islamic community surrounding it.
The inherent violent streak generated by the teachings and example of mohamed manifest themselves universally and broadly even amongst their own coreligionists, no doubt.
What any objective observer is able to discern from this thread is that in answer to a previous poster’s simple question regarding the prominence of mohamed amongst the Bahia’s revered prophets, only lengthy obfuscating answers have been put forward, selectively mentioning where the Bahia and its progenitor islam differ.
You do speak of points of communality between the Bahia and Christianity but avoid the major points of similarity between islam and the Bahia. Despite your claims toward an enlightened pursuit of world harmony is telling the truth not also part of the Bahia ideal?
Anurshivan alleged that those mentioning the Bahia mohamad connection are “unable to emphasize the commonalities” It is interesting to note that while not truthfully answering the simple question first posed you write of the difference, and distance between
Christianity and Judaism, coincidentally diversionary? are you not bringing into the discussion differences ? So is if the truth is not acknowledged or accepted are we dealing with lies of simply individuals in denial or quite simply deluded. Is mohamad bahis prophet? Yes or no?

Greetings WakingWest,

I acknowledge your frustrations that have occurred, but we share some common beliefs, such as...

- We both want to see concepts of Jihad (holy war) removed from both the practice, but most importantly the psyche, of the human species?

- The elimination of grotesque practices?

- The elimination of subjugation and murder (and war, with war being the greatest form of murder) in the long term of human development.

This discussion, though, is touching on the most significant of nerves about how God and humans are working in the World. I am going to list a range of scenarios that I suggest are seemingly very similar but not the ultimate end of where I would hope we would be. That said, it feels to me that, as uncomfortable as it may seem, there are a lot of similarities in the way war and discipline is practiced over time:

JUDAISM

Moses taught in Deuteronomy:
17,11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 17,12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel. 17,13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously. {S}

Deuteronomy 20:10-18
10 When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. 13 And when HaShem thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; 14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which HaShem thy God hath given thee. 15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16 Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that HaShem thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, 17 but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as HaShem thy God hath commanded thee; 18 that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against HaShem your God.

(WW you suggest that these were evil people that would burn their women and children, and that deserve what they get.

DE: Baha'u'llah teaches that Messengers of God "doeth whatsoever They willeth" based on the "exigencies of the time". As we believe in Moses we accept that this level of Draconian rules were necessary to lift the Jewish people up to a higher level and to establish the belief of One God in the geographic heart of the planet. Times were rough back then. It was essential as well that Moses prevail over Pharaoh.)

------
ISLAM:

Punishment for those who "wage war" against God.
33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, of the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

34. Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 5)

The first 30 Verses of the 9th Surah which are some of the most powerful verses in the Qur'an re. fighting. Muslims would maintain that these verses were necessary to subdue the continually waring tribes of Arabia that buried their daughters alive.

I acknowledge that Muhammad did call out for people to go and assassinate two Jewish poets of Medina who were ridiculing him.

I acknowledge that Muhammad did watch the killing of the 600 members of the last Jewish clan that remained in Medina, but it is also true that this clan had become traitors while Muhammad was fighting the idol worshipers during the Battle of the Trench.

---------------
US HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRACTICE OF WAR:

Processes with Native Americans:
The long term practice of subduing the Native Americans through armed force, ethnic cleansing and in the case of passing out small pox infested blankets - genocide?

Processes in WWII:
British and American Generals, and possibly even Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to firebomb Dresden even though it has been stated that it may not have any major military value. 22,000++ died, obviously including many women and children. This operation was defended as a way to break the fighting will of Nazi Germany.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima (66,000 dead) and Nagasaki (39,000 dead - as per Internet data). These attacks were deemed justified to break the will of the Japanese leadership which I acknowledge did happen.

Processes since 2001:
Shock and Awe

Targeted drone assassinations

---------------------
---------------------

All of this is to suggest that in addition to Jihad that all war be removed from the planet. That there have been processes of war that have occurred throughout the ages that have a lot commonalities.

Can specter of war be removed? Actually I am hopeful, based on European History. The burning passions that have fueled so many wars throughout the continent, inspiring Napoleon and Hitler in the most extreme cases, have been totally abandoned/burnt up in ultimate conflicts. But equally significantly is the development of the institutions of the EU to keep those passions from being rekindled.

-----

WHAT ABOUT THE GROWING FLAME OF A GLOBAL JIHAD/SECTARIAN/RELIGIOUS WORLD WAR:

I acknowledge that virtually all of the pieces are in place to ignite such a conflict.

- Israel greatly fears Iran
- Iran hates Israel and wants to destroy it
- The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah hate Israel and want to destroy it.
- There are numerous verses in the Qur'an that inspire people to fight those who "drive you from your home".
- Israel though has prevailed in repeated attacks in 1948
- The US and Europe fear a nuclear Iran
- Russia and China support Iran in order to weaken the US and Europe.

The probability of an all mighty conflict is very high, and it would take a miracle to stop this run-away freight trains from colliding head on. If such a conflict does occur openness to setting aside the passion for religious conflict would be greatly decreased, as per Germany in WWII.

Does it have to be this way?

I acknowledge that while the Baha'i Faith has courageously stood up against Jihad and religious conflict, its voice is very small.

The only hope that I can see at this time is to dramatically challenge peoples thinking about where we are headed going into the future. I have done this in an InterFaith panel entitled: "Looking for creative new Middle East Policies" that did bring to light the dangers we face and need to quickly seek new possibilities. I also challenge thinking in my home town with virtually monthly letters to the Editor in our local paper.

The power of ideas did ultimately prevail in the case of Communism. In addition to ideas, there was also the attractiveness of the West relative to the Communist states. The states, like Rumania ultimately imploded. Are the processes in the Middle East a form of implosion that will prepare the way for major changes in the future, though regrettably such a waiting process may be overwhelmed by the pressures listed above that you are aware of.

We live at the juncture of the greatest kind of change the planet has ever faced in terms of the interplay of ideas, beliefs and practices? Good luck in your efforts to promote more peaceful practices.

Respectfully yours, TS

One can achieve a gargantuan task by simplifying the elements, please limit your point(s) so as not to obscure them with confusion.

The primary points now established mutually and accepted are the following

1) Baha'i believe that muhammad is a messenger of God

2)Subjugation and murder are not right nor have ever been.

Since you use Biblical reference, albeit as I shall prove later modified from the actual, to substantiate the basis of your conclusions, I will assume therefore that you will equally accept the following scriptural references to discover the flawed assumptions you are making.

One of many scriptural references clearly invalidating the precept that muhammad is a messenger of God are the following:

Is42:1-8 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry out, nor raise His voice, Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench; He will bring forth justice for truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands shall wait for His law."
5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:
6 "I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles,
7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

My elect One!. I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles,
….My glory I will not give to another!!! no mohamad, no other….

MT 7:15 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?
17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Mohamadean fruit=Murder, mercilessness,plunder, conquest by the sword….death , much death, etc. etc.

Accepting simultaneously the premise and believing that mohamad and Jesus Christ are both messengers of God is easily proven to be spiritually impossible and logically self-invalidating mutually exclusive premises.

It is curious to note that you misquote Deuteronomy in your attempt to equivocate everything under the sun in order to make Baha’is religion acceptance of mohamad and the legitimacy of islam a little more palatable.
You write “17,12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel. 17,13
Shall exterminate? The word in Hebrew is בִֽעַרְתָּ֥
And in all translations this is interpreted as Purge, must/shall die put way evil, since this is so why incorrectly use the word exterminate?
You also wrote” WW you suggest that these were evil people that would burn their women and children, and that deserve what they get.”

This was in my reference to your characterization of Moses command to defeat the Canaanites, who where noted to be exceptionally cruel and you may have realized this if you would educate yourself a bit more than obviously throwing a bunch of smoke hiding and justifing your reverence to evil mohamad.
De 12:31 "You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

You unfortunately have been hopefully in irreversibly into a world view constructed of deliberately modified and selective bits of propaganda which lead those lasy of intellect and thought away form the the sometimes painful truth of our world. I for one are grateful for the European "conquerors" long ago who freed many of my ancestors in America from mohammedan-like tyrants sacrificing people and children for whatever belief they had.

Ts, the truth will set you free.

typo, disassociate, not "associate4"

TS, please indulge my curiosity and tell me about your background.

May you find the courage you need not to compromise that which is universally sacred with that which is just culturally local

No4U,

Your moniker appears to be new (2012 only), but you appear to have some kind of baggage or hostility or grudge against me. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

Your post seems half an attempt at lampoon of my post, and half an attempt to smuggle in various absurd and unsupported allegations.

Why did you wait until now to comment on one of my comments?

"An unfortunate aggravating factor that has edged me to leave a bit sooner than I might have, otherwise, has been commentators such as k of k who force me to contest a seemingly endless series of incorrect contestable points which almost always arise from a tendency to attempt to steerJW's central mission by way of his/hers personal agendas."

Examples, evidence please. [Present case excluded; I think I'm allowed to (a) let my fellow commenters know when I'm leaving and (b) defend myself from someone who so rudely and cowardly uses the occasion to heap up absurd and baseless allegations. I'll ask for you to attempt to substantiate these allegations, or is that too much to ask of you?].

"Although I trully appreciate k of k's company as we fight shoulder to shoulder defending our very lives against the jjihad, his other interests and intolerance of those who politically aim elsewhere continually are the factors which truly impede the rest of us from going on."

Again, what specifically are you talking about?

"Dissent, different viewpoints and unflinching conviction to the point of annoyance enrich our dialogue and understanding"

..which has nothing to do with my above-stated objection to Hesperado's (LL's) conduct.

"...making LL, Hesp certainly a nuisance sometimes to some, but yet make him an invaluable voice in our discussion."

Where are the examples of this "invaluable" content contributed by Hesperado/LL? Do you have any idea how hostile he has been toward Robert over the years?

"Learn on K of K, you'll be back, at least you fessed up to your self- applauding tactic using different monikers for security reasons."

Not "confessing," just telling; there is nothing wrong with changing from one moniker to another in succession. Moreover, I've already informed my fellow commenters when I've made such changes.

Not "self-applauding". That doesn't even make sense in light of what we are talking about. How could mentioning my changing monikers over the years for security reasons possibly be construed as "self-applauding" here? Almost everyone on the site uses a moniker for security reasons among others. It's nothing to brag about. I'm simply explaining above that while I've been here since 2005 I haven't used the moniker Kinana of Khaybar for that whole period, in case anyone was wondering why they haven't seen the moniker as early as that.

-"Kinana of Khaybar" (late 2007/early 2008 to present)
-"Khaybar Oasis" (roughly 2006 - late 2007)
-2nd moniker (later part of 2006)
-1st moniker (Oct 2005 - later part of 2006)

I don't mention the first two names to most other commenters, unless I trust them. I was threatened and cyber-stalked by an angry Muslim (who was taking an unhealthy interest in my location) under my first one, and a friend accidentally connected me to the first one when I was using the second one. That said, someone who really wanted to put things together could probably do so, and at this point I'm not terribly worried about it.

traeh,

Thanks traeh. BTW, I changed emails some time ago when Google changed aspects of its policy, so I have misplaced a bunch of emails. How can I contact you? Through one of your blogs (Dune Rune or Quoting Islam)?

I'll come back to this thread.

Anushirvan,

Thanks. As I have written elsewhere about this I don't have a problem with substantive or genuine disagreement. In fact I enjoy debate, as anyone who's followed this site over the years who knows me would also know. One of the main problems with Hesperado/LL concerns misrepresentation. Don't just take my word for it; he's been doing that to Robert for years as well--even more so to Robert than to me. But that's not even the main reason I'm leaving, which as I've said is due to time considerations and what I think I can most effectively accomplish. I think I'll accomplish more if I work more on long-term projects and cut down on the commenting.

Minor correction:

It looks like "No4U" has a comment in 2010. The small number of his/her other comments that come up on Google are in 2012.

Not sure why someone with whom I've apparently never previously interacted, and who hardly ever comments, suddenly comes in guns-a-blazin' to defend Hesperado and attack me on the occasion of my exit. Of course, he (?) may have interacted with me under some other moniker.