Zulfiqar110

Your rebuttle is pathetic

And your attempts at reverse psychology even more so. Typically RUHI-ed tactics.

SE married late and never displayed an iota of interest in women in his youth. According to all who knew him and his wife, they slept in separate rooms their whole marriage. They didn't have any children. And more than one commentator has drawn attention to Shoghi's totally effeminate characteristics.

Mildred Mottahedeh's reminiscences to Michael Zargarov only solidify what Sobhi and his own cousin Ruhi Afnan already stated and what the late archivist for the US NSA, Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, knew as a matter of course.

Bbbeeeeeeeeppppp! GAME OVER!

The answer is No he was not

.. but the fact that you bring the question of sexuality up perhaps says more about your own inner conflicts. Which explains why you are so angry, hostile and slanderous towards the race of bahais (among others) that you continually target with abuse on thi site.

Yakadoo

You and your ilk are the malignant sh*t of satan, since Husayn 'Ali Nuri/Nari was the manifestation of satan himself, i.e. the antichrist/dajjal.

Yes, the ways of God are unscrutable, which is why the All-High allows the deluded followers of the devil, such as you and your ilk, to think they are what they most definitely are not. The All-High even allows the followers of Iblis to even multiply, since multiplicity (kasrat) and dispersion is the sign of satanic malignancy tending towards dissolution and distance from the Unitary Principle. The Lord of all-being even allows this cancerous tumor to erect monuments to itself and appear to itself as if it is the victorious one. But as the truism goes, and as the Ways of the Most Wondrous Living Existentiator are unscrutable, such appearances are only that, deceiving placed there specificially to further deceive the already deceived such as you and your ilk.

Continue to worship your golden calf, Husayn 'Ali Nari. But in the end, you will be struck down by the very hand of the Almighty!

La'anat'ullah 'ala qawm-z-zalimin al-fasidin al-fasiqin!

Thank you Zolfeghar

Thank you Zolfeghar.

I was in need of this from a long time. I have some Baha'i friends and I want to show this to them.

Why don't you create a Blog for "Mulla Muhammad Jafar" of Naraq.

He was a great Iranian Babi Scholar.

excuse me but the author is

excuse me but the author is licking the malignant sh-t of satan.

He is expunged from creation and doesn`t know anything from beethovan 9th Symphony or the 4th or 5th.

The ways of GOD are most mysterious and unknowable to all. Even the prophets marvel at HIS mystery.

Onward spiritual soldier and let the enemy meet the most great fire.

Mulla Ja'far Niraqi

TADHKIRAT AL-GHAFILIN

In it he explicitly suggests that Husayn 'Ali Nuri/Nari engaged in the behavior of an "alvat." Fazl'ullah or Fayz'ullah Sobhi reminsces the same regarding Abbas Effendi.

Hi Wahid !

Can you provide some proofs of Baha'u'llah being a homosexual from Baha'i sources! I have searched the whole Baha'i Ocean but could not find any reference to this.

Zulfiqar

Is the sword of the Prophet given to 'Ali (whose numerology is 110) and which according to Shi'ite legend the Imam Mahdi and Qa'im will bring with him on his appearance, among other things, like the true, unexpurgated Qur'an. Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't the Mahdi or a true Imam, but a pretender and heretic who set his own power up in a Shi'ite caliphate. Ahmadinejad is a Jewish convert to Islam whose inner loyalties are arguably in the service of the global Zionist menace and its banking elites.

Now you obviously wrote your nonsense facetiously, with your tongue implanted in your cheek, so I will say this: as despicable as Khomeini was, it is still better to be his sword than a donkey in service of Zionists like Haifan Baha'is and fellow travellers.

How many organs have you harvested from dead Palestinians lately?

Q: What is Zulfiquar?

A: Holy sword of Grand Ayatollah Khamenei.

May Ahmadinejad our beloved president joyously get hold of Zulfiquar and break with this holy object the cospiracy to annhilated the sacred Islamic republic through a velvet uprising.

May peace be upon  our beloved supreme leader and his Lieutenant , his most holiness Dr Ahmadinejad. 

Ostaad, kiss my ass...

If you have a guilty conscience about the fact that you earlier socked it to the Baha'is and now your guilt-ridden conscience, not to mention your spineless attempt to remain a popular figure here by genuflecting all of a sudden to the herd consensus, has made you make an insincere back-flip on this point, then that ain't any of my concern whatsoever. Take it elsewhere, and buy yourself a spine and some real integrity in the process. I am an ex-Baha'i and I have an explicit agenda in puncturing holes the size of cosmic black holes into the largely deceitful, dishonest, hagiographical, mythic and completely backwards and inverted historical narratives of the Baha'is, especially as far as the contrived sanctity regarding its holy (read: wholly) figures are concerned - not to mention together with the Stalinist NWO agenda that comes with it. 

A couple of things:

1) This post has not remotely insinuated or otherwise deprecated homosexuality qua homosexuality. That seems to be what you're reading into it. Nothing here in Michael Zargarov's post remotely suggests it; so,

2) Your predication of 'garbage' is arguably where your own head is at because you are the one here making the assumption and judgement about the wrongness (or implied) rightness of the sexuality posited. No such imputation exists in the post since the person who actually wrote this, as the post prima facie demonstrates, is a gay man himself. There goes your argument there right down the loo, as they say.

3) A man who stands as the patriarch and central figure of an organization claiming itself to be a world religion with pretensions to world domination is indeed from every vantage point a historical figure. Therefore all facets of this person's life - especially controversial ones which said organization attempts to kick under the carpet and deny - are 100% fair game for total, no-holds-barred, anal-probe-like scrutiny. Capiche?

Given this if you don't like a little fire and controversy with your historical scrutiny, take yourself back to the Fayzieh in Qom or to the Baha'i World Centre where your uncritical and squeemish notions regarding the contrived sanctity of certain cherished historical cult-figures won't be challenged.

Now kindly take your two-faced, confused self and get the f*&^ out of my sight - and take your duplicitious brown nosing acolytes with you!

what's your point?

Are you against the Bahai's or against homosexuality? Does this issue affect your personal life? Is it supposed to mean something to the readers and affect their lives?

Ostaad said it well, read that again and try not to bring this site's image down all by yourself.

Zulfaqar111, edit this...

I don't know why are going through so much to explain something that is not an issue or the point of the article. The main point is you've looked through the garbage, seems to be your favorite week-end pastime, and found a piece of trash and sunk your teeth in it and can't let go.

You need to kick this habit of feeding on garbage and spending your worthless time spewing sewage. 

Whether someone, in this case someone far more human than you and intellectually far superior to you, is homosexual is not an issue at all. It is important that a two bit, single-cell bottom dweller like you should not be allowed to throw mud at a dead person who can't challenge your bullshit.

What kind of positive contribution do you think in your sick bigoted mind you are making to the people's understanding of the Bahai personalities?!!! All you have done is to spread gossip about a deceased person. Your post stinks so much you have had to cover the stench with a stupid "editorial" that does not mask your rabid bigotry.

As I said get a life, no better yet, find the nearest manhole and crawl back into the sewer where you came from. 

Do you know what an editorial note is?

An editorial note is a separate thing from an edited piece.The piece was posted as is, that is how the author posted it on the yahoogroups list in question. Do you know the difference between an editortial note and a fully edited piece? It would appear you require a life yourself with some consistency, telling me to get a life on a blog you can just as well not respond to at all. Now that's someone who seriously needs to get a life!

But just for you I'll edit Michael's post.

Zulfiqar111

You need to get a life. Seriously, dude. You're telling me this piece of crap that you have posted had and editor?!!! Who?!!!

Apparently, indeed...

Yes, quite a lot of people care, and it is also history, i.e. the collective memory, a pesky thorn and impediment Baha'is don't like very much. Also apparently you care a lot yourself since that was the fastest response to a post I've ever received on iranian.com.

Does anyone care?

EOM