"?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????" <wahidazal66@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:63c33505-5632-442d-83bb-1f3053ff4589@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I predicted the Remeyites would win their case. They did. Baha'is in
I missed that one.
> My Backyard did irreperable damage to the reputation of your cult. And
Hahahahaha!
> it has. I have exposed every last one your games all the way into
The one about some lawsuit for performance consistent with the outcome of
the suit that Remey's people brought, and some game about Bahavyeyeyeyeys
in
your backyard.
> Iran. You people are beaten. Accept it! W
>
You are the Lardass, so if you say so, then you said it!
- All Bad
> --
> The fact that I have the evidence to bury your scarecrow as a fraud
> and your bosses who put her and you up to you scarecrowing, should
> bother you, hamhead. Bring back the Viv identity. Your Palu one has
> already been humiliated once too many times.
>
> W
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/t...
>
> Other than a few minor issues, I hereby repudiate most of what I wrote
> below in August 1999. But this post is yet more evidence as to where
> Starr Saffa/Jo Claudia/Paulette Johnston derives most of her ideas
> (albeit like the good bahaim that she is she whitewashes, sanitizes
> and dumb-downs received ideas): from moi! Of course the New Age
> industry is filled to the brim with charlatans, thieves, the
> thoroughly unscrupulous, the greedy and very bad imitators, esp. where
> there be specific American involvement.
>
> W
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/t...
>
> Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
> From: bereki...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: 1999/08/21
> Subject: Babi Theophanology
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
> | Re****t this message | Find messages by this author
> Dear Mark & Pat:
>
> Let's get the ball rolling on this wonderful subject very dear to this
> wrethches qalb and fu'ad. As to my assertion about the other two
> Manifestations of Allah (Quddus & Tahirih) of this era, Mark said:
>
>> First, didn't Quddus and Tahirih follow Baha'u'llah?
>
> Believe it or not this is actually a more complicated question than
> most
> people realize, but the short answer seems to be, no. Now, the general
> understanding that Hazreteh Quddus and Hazreteh Tahirih Qurratu'l-`Ayn
> followed Hazrateh Jamal-e Qidam Baha'u'llah during the Badasht events
> is
> based on Nabil Zarandi's somewhat garbled Wagnerian-esque
> narrative-history, i.e. *The Dawn Breakers*. Yet, as many scholars
> such
> as Browne, Mazandarani, MacEoin and Amanat have shown, Nabil should be
> considered a late source (given that he wasn't even a participant in
> many of the events he is recounting - which are mostly either oral,
> 2nd
> hand and 40+ years removed) and not all that interpretively reliable
> on
> certain key details of the revolutionary Babi period. And this is
> especially true about the numerous - seemingly to us - controversial
> ideas, notions and doctrines held by prominent Babis in that period.
> Hajji Mirza Jani Kashani's *Nuqtatu'l-Kaf* (whether or not Browne's
> edition of this work is to be considered the authentic text),
> Hamadani's
> *Tarikh-e Jadid/New History* (the English translation is still in
> print
> btw) and above all the third volume of the late Hand of the Cause
> Jenab-e Fazel Mazandarani's monumental *Tarikh-e Zuhur al-Haqq*
> (History
> of the Manifestation of Truth), which strings together some dozen plus
> otherwise unknown sources, paint an altogether different picture about
> the true nature of the relation****p between Quddus, Tahirih and
> Baha'u'llah which when sifted, juxstaposed, inter-contexulaized and
> analyzed depict a relation****p among equals.
>
> Pat said:
>
>>Prior to the conference at Badesht Tahirih was known as Qurratul Ayn, a
>> name used in the writings of the Bab in
>>what appears to be a reference to the Manifestation of Allah.
>
> Ditto! Who do you think the Maid of Heaven/the Divine Feminine in the
> writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah is?
> Also remember that in so many key im****tant aspects the prime mover
> of
> the events in Badasht - i.e. such as the abrupt and public break with
> the past - was initiated by none other than Hazrateh Tahirih. Even in
> Nabil the sense one gets is that Tahirih got the better of everyone in
> argument, eloquence and vision and thus pulled several of the
> recalcitrant prominent Babis in attendance, chief among them being
> Quddus, kicking and screaming into the Millenarian new age. Badasht
> was
> none other than the Hashr/the Gathering/the spiritual apokatastasis
> (for
> lack of a better word) promised in the Quran. What is conspicuous
> about
> her role is that Tahirih had been the primary theoretician of this
> break
> with dispensational Islam and the inauguration of the New Era from the
> very beginning of her career as a Babi while she was still in Iraq
> (see
> Mazandarani & Amanat). And notice how soon after these events the Bab
> completely deferred to Tahirih and dismissed all the complaints
> emanating against her as irrelevant (and it wasn't the first time he'd
> done this either) given this momentous decision/proclamation.
> Looked at from one angle one can say that this event is unique in
> that it was the first time in religious history that a prominent
> disciple had been instrumental in defining, in almost denoument
> fa****on,
> the doctrinal raison d'etre for the movement/religion and what it was
> at
> core the movement really stood for - something that was so obvious but
> had been missed on so many Babi adherents all along. But imv there was
> something else even more im****tant and momentous going on behind the
> spiritual scenes, as it were. Pat has implicitly layed his finger on
> the
> very nerve of the issue imo. Tahirih was a Manifestation of Allah
> simultaneously co-participant with the Bab, Quddus and finally
> Baha'u'llah in the principal of Manifestationhood, which by
> metaphysical
> definition must transcend historical individualities and persons -
> this
> is a somewhat Docetist reflection, I know! Her human temple/haykal was
> nothing more than a Mirror and reflection of the transcendent Primal
> Point which was equally present in full splendor within the Bab,
> Quddus
> and Baha'u'llah: Tahrih was the Bab, the Bab was Tahirih; Quddus was
> the
> Bab, the Bab was Quddus; Baha'u'llah was the Bab (which incidentally
> he
> declared as much in Ridwan 1863), the Bab was Baha'u'llah, and all of
> them were nothing more than the mere theophanies/ emanations/
> self-disclosures of the Primal Point/the Universal Intellect/the First
> Will/Manifestation of Allah/ the Insan Kamil (Perfect Human Being) as
> the ontological ground of the universe.
> In tandem, something that should be taken into account in my
> "heretical" phenomenological presentation here is the principal of
> wilayah (friend****p/sainthood/spiritual vicegerency). A prophet
> endowed
> with constancy in history has a dual role: first, as legislator and
> then
> as God's elected vicegerent who transmits the infinite divine
> barakah/grace to humanity. Yet it is in virtue of his/her wilayah that
> makes the legislative role possible, and not the other way around (and
> the Bab following in the foot-steps of his august ancestors declares
> as
> much - see Lawson's forthcoming article on the Bab's notion of
> wilayah).
> Now at the commencement of each dispensational era/dawr there must
> exist
> a natiq/Speaking and samit/Silent wali who are ontologically co-equal
> but who occupy different functions (not equal). I submit that in the
> Babi dispensation in fact there were three samit walis to the Bab's
> function of natiqiyyat: Quddus, Tahirih and Baha'u'llah. But that in
> the
> Babi dawr the function of these three other walis was more active
> rather
> than passive as in the case of Muhammad and `Ali or Jesus and James/or
> Peter (depending on your preference) in previous dispensations. This
> for
> me represents the true batin/esoteric of the batin justification for
> the
> Bab's creation of the Letters of the Living hierarchy/system. The last
> two Letters - Tahirih and Quddus - are the chief wali/Manifestations
> after the Bab of the first Wahid and occupy a position within the
> primary layer of the hierarchy of All-Things/Kullu Shay' while
> Baha'u'llah remains outside of it yet goes on to complete the
> dispensation as well as to inaugurate a new chapter within it. And
> with
> this I find it profoundly im****tant that four personalities are
> involved: symbolic in that four represents the number of completion in
> the Islamic gnostic numerological system.
> Now to briefly turn to Hazrateh Quddus: the key to knowing the true
> station/maqam of Quddus is the super-commentary he composed apparently
> at Shaykh Tabarsi on the letter 'sad' of 'samad/eternity' of the
> Suratu'l-Ikhlas of the Quran. The full text of this commentary
> unfortunately seems to be lost to us now but according to Mazandarani
> in
> _The History of the Manifestation of Truth_ and the author of
> *Nuqtatu'l-Kaf* in it Quddus makes explicit theopathic claims to
> divinity, Qa'imhood and Manifestationhood. It also appears that during
> the events that transpired during the seige of the Fort Quddus had
> also
> made the proclamation of his station public. This imv goes a very long
> way in explaining the reason as to why Mulla Husayn (the Bab'ul-Bab
> and
> first believer in the Point, no less!) exhbited such complete
> self-effacing and deferential reverence towards Quddus - no to mention
> the general attitude of the rank and file Babis themselves present at
> the Fort towards their chief Leader. Quddus had declared himself
> point-blank a Manifestation of Allah, irregardless of what later
> histories say and make of the whole episode, and I for one believe in
> his Manifestationhood.
> As a side note: Dr. Ahang Rabbani has done some valuable research
> on this question (unpublished however) and - as far as Quddus is
> concerned - has reached pretty much the same conclusions as yours
> truly
> about the station of this im****tant Letter of the Living and
> Manifestation.
> So my response to Mesbah's original question is the following:
> yes,
> Baha'u'llah is 'man yuzhiru'llah/Him whom God will make Manifest'
> promised by the Bab. But so are Tahirih and Quddus in their own
> fa****on.
> Or, to rephrase the issue in a batini Corbanian fa****on by appealing
> to
> the principle of connaissance, say that Tahirih was the Maiden of
> Baha'u'llah's being and the Youth was the Quddus of Baha'u'llah's
> being.
> Thus speaketh this lowly, undeserving wretch and Quddusi/Qurrati/
> radical antinomian Baha'i Babi :)
>
> Ya Sahib'ul-Zaman!
>
> Berekiah
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
|
