In a recent mental defecation Gomer makes claims by citing the first page for the Arabic Bayan on Bayanic.com attempting to fabricate a case against me. But because he is such an arrogant and ignorant know-nothing twat, and doesn't know what he is
talking about, he makes a total fool of himself. To wit, he says:


At first glance, these claims look credible. To test them, I tried to follow the link provided above. And what did I find?

https://bayanic.com/lib/fwd/ABayan/ABayan-FWD.html

The introduction to this page is under construction.Please click here to view digital images of Arabic Bayan.Translation of the foreword on the first page of the book:Praise God, all efforts were made in order to obtain a copy of the Arabic Bayan
that fully corresponds with what was revealed by The Primal Point. One of the five original copies was used as a source and was compared with the original writing of His Holiness the Primal Point some of which has been included in this book.Unfortunately
the later copy ended with Chapter 19 of Unity 9 which matches with the fifth line of page 44. Therefore the first 9 Unities were matched with the later copy except that since most words were written without ‘points’ (used in Arabic alphabet such as
those in letters ‘i’ and ‘j’ ), those words which were not legible with certainity were left as they were without the ‘points’.The remaining chapters are however sourced from the 5 available copies which were carefully compared.

Firstly, we have the autograph copy of the Arabic Bayan in the Hand of the Primal Point which ends as of the 19th gate of the 9th Unity (published at the end of the same edition). Yes, this autograph is undotted and unvocalized. But so what? The
manuscript can still be read and other manuscripts not in the hand of the Primal Point from that early period exist, including the one in INBA 43 (which Baha'is published), that include the other two unities to the end of the 19th Gate of the 11th Unity.
What's supposed to be controversial about this? Nothing. It is merely Gomer pulling rabbits out of his gomer hat tripping over himself pulling again another version of this:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.religion.bahai/c/ZzmTJW-x-nc/m/y1fqqFIrAgAJ The British and the Soviets did not "invade" Iran, liar. They made an agreement with the Iranian government to use the land of that country to set up a supply line to send aid
to the Soviet Union while it was in a desperate struggle against Germany

-

The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, August 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

-

Now, Gomer claims this is evidence of me lying. How, especially since the very item he cites was FIRST TRANSLATED BY ME from Persian to English (i.e. the opening prologue of the Azali edition of the Arabic Bayan that occurs as the first page of it on
Bayanic.com)? Gomer then doesn't cite a single page or item from the very edition of the Arabic Bayan he claims he is sourcing, nor of anything else. Nor can his two handlers either.

My case stands because none of those so-called laws contended exist either in the autograph, the edition made from it, the one in INBA 43 or, for that matter, the first typescript edition made by `Abd al-Razzaq al-Hasani (an anti-Babi Muslim polemicist),
here https://www.h-net.org/~bahai/areprint/bab/A-F/b/bayana/bayana.htm . I possess complete scans of over 50+ individual manuscript samples of the Arabic Bayan (more than what MacEoin listed in his Sources: 1992*)* and have read through all of them
multiple times, and in none of them do these made up laws exist. But apparently some johnny-come lately white liberal Texan redneck with ADHD who couldn't read a single sentence of Arabic on his own if his life depended on it, somehow knows better and is
a judge, arbiter and expert on the whole subject and everyone has to defer to the opinion of this utter clown!

I give you the marja' (source of emulation) of the exbahai cause. Stop now, Gomer, because this is a nail in your coffin far, far worse than your Anglo-Soviet invasion faux pas of 2020, and I am never going to let you forget it. Whose damage control is
it now, Gomer Pyle-of-Turd?!

--

https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/1481vgn/comment/jo5nlpn/?context=3

My original post


No such law, and given the massive amount of literary output by the Bab in only a 6 short year period, this decisively proves that He never forbade questions. What He specifically forbade was asking "why" (lima) and "wherefore" (bima) of He whom God
shall make Manifest when He appears, i.e. interrogating Him, and this ordinance exists due to the bitter personal experience of the Bab when He arrived in Bushire from the hajj and subsequently when under custody because the subtext of this ordinance is
not to treat He whom God shall make Manifest the way the Shi'ite mullahs and their supporters treated Him. Contrary to the mullahs who regularly practiced book burning (as they still do), especially of the writings of their rivals and critics, there is
no law in the Bayan to burn non-religious books or books or any written material of any kind. In fact the very opposite. The effacement or destruction of any written material is explicitly forbidden in the Bayan per gate 13 of the 9th Unity:

أنتم أبدا كتابا لا تخرقون

"You are not to destroy any book [or any piece of writing, since in Arabic kitab/book in the accusative and indefinite case can refer to a book or any other piece of written material] under any circumstance!"

https://bayanic.com/lib/fwd/ABayan/ABayan-FWD.html

The claim originates with Haba' and his son which has been uncritically repeated by the Shiite mullahs and their supporters (like u/Investigator919), and now clueless and confused secular Anglo-European ex-Bahais as well. So either no such law exists in
the Bayan and the Baha'i founder and his son lied - as the textual evidence explicitly proves - or there is confusion about two different laws. In the 6th gate of the 6th Unity of the Bayan, the Bab says to efface all previous scriptures; meaning, to
cease allowing the scriptural books of previous dispensations to act in any form as a centerpiece in a subsequent dispensation, which He explicitly glosses as such in the Persian Bayan. However, this has nothing to do with the physical destruction of any
book or scriptural text, not to mention it explicitly echoes a verse of the Qur'an (13:39):

يَمْحُو اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيُثْبِتُ ۖ وَعِندَهُ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ

God effaces what He/It wills and establishes/confirms [what He/It wills]! And with It/Him is the Mother of the Book!

As well as the second theophanic sequence of the hadith kumayl (which acts as a proof-text to everything the Bab contextualizes):

محو الموهوم و صحو المعلوم

The effacement of supposition/conjecture and the realization of the Known!

As matter of fact, even though Abbas Effendi propagated this slur of Babi book burning, it was in fact Baha'is who went out of their way around the world to destroy and/or efface copies of the Leiden edition of nuqtat'ul-kaf by E.G. Browne when it was
published. Abbas Effendi even ordered the Baha'is to do so. In fact, I know of Baha'is in the past 30 years who went around public libraries throughout the United States and effaced or stole from shelves and then destroyed copies of William M. Miller's
The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings. So the destruction of books is in fact a practice literally engaged in by Baha'is themselves.

As for giving priceless gifts to the Point: again, this ordinance relates to He whom God shall make Manifest, and what exactly the problem is with this ordinance, is anyone's guess.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)