I'm pretty sure you haven't even read a single page of Subh-i Azal's writings.
Baha'u'llah's writings give him no credibility, considering they're a jumbled mess of incoherent ramblings repeating the same few doctrines over and over again and which pale in comparison to those who he was...
And what credibility does this give Baha'u'llah? The majority of the Muslims recognised the pretender Abu Bakr as the successor of Muhammad. Basically all of the learned Babis who had actually read the Bab's writings rejected Baha'ullah and followed Subh-i Azal.
The reason for this was because very few Babis actually had access to the Bab's writings at that point, while we know Baha'u'llah did read those writings of the Bayan, since he quotes them in various works. The Bab's earlier laws, outlined in his Khasa'il al-Sab'a (Seven Directives), such as the...
To address a lot of the questions and arguments of distortions made by Bahāʾīs here:
If you don't know of this, then clearly you've only studied what your Bahāʾī leaders have allowed to be translated and distributed to the masses. Are you not fluent in Arabic or Persian?
The relevant text is...
There have been several biographical documentaries about Muhammad, including one on History Channel.
Or is this not the kind of thing you're looking for?
Baha'u'llah married Gawhar in 1862, before his "declaration," which Baha'is say happened in 1863 (though E.G. Browne dates it later). In either case, this was when he was still a self-proclaimed follower of the Bab, yet the Bab only allowed his followers to have two wives simultaneously.
Marxism is not a form of socialism; it's a mode of economic analysis. Even the socialists before Marx were opposed to private property. It's only recently that the term 'socialism' has shifted to merely mean government programs.
"Democratic socialism" is a tautology since socialism necessarily...
They 100% are. He's right. Socialism as defined by Marx is worker ownership of the means of production. It's not merely when the government does some stuff.
I would also probably develop some kind of mental illness if I was the greatest reformer my country had ever seen and the rest of the world was painting me as an evil dictator and trying to murder me.
Do you not understand what apartheid means? It necessitates diversity. There's just systemic discrimination. But I guess Jim Crow never existed because America was diverse
Rousseau says that it would have been better for us had we never left the wilderness at all. In any case, the whole "it's the best we have" argument is a tired one. It was no doubt uttered by the defenders of all previous forms of social organization and is more than enough of a reason for us to...
Perhaps the author should consider how this may not be as much of a reflection of the inadequacy of the Golden Rule as it is a reflection of the inadequacy of liberal democracy.
Fascists have always sung the virtues of freedom and liberty during periods when they weren't in power, but of course whenever they do attain power, they always abolish free speech. This is exactly why their invocation of these liberal platitudes should not be taken seriously.
I am not an 'Iran fanboy' by any means — I have my criticisms — but I would support them any day over the imperialist, apartheid settler-colony, ethno-state, and US puppet that is Israel.
Of course, let's just wait until the Nazis have already thrown everyone into concentration camps before we...
I've no problem with jailing Nazis, but what Israel clearly wants is for criticism of it to be illegal. Whenever Zionists talk about anti-Semitism, what they generally mean is anti-Zionism. To them, there's no difference.