Website Suggestion

[BruceDLimber]

Wil may also notice that the Baha'is (i.e., the group of around seven and a half million) endeavor to teach and spread the Faith--and indeed, have done so around the world, in every country on earth (except the Vatican)!

In contrast, these other groups--by whatever name--are either already extinct or seem to spend most (if not all) of their time merely attacking the Baha'is and their administration rather than performing any truly unific or constructive activities.

So I suggest the real difference is clear for anyone who actually wants to look.

Bruce

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by wil

However there are many similarities...

Of the various Bahai denominations, setting the will aside, what can you all agree on?

Wil,

The Haifan ideology has always held that it alone has the Truth. Following the Shiite interpretations of Shoghi Effendi, especially takfir, declaring a Muslim/Bahai has departed from the Faith, Haifan Baha'is aren't, shall we say, constitutionally capable of respecting the conscience of other Bahai believers, though Abdul-Baha taught, "The conscience of man is sacred and to be respected." Haifans, though most Western ones don't realize it, actually operate in the worst intellectual and spiritual framework of Islam, which Baha'u'llah Himself had specifically rejected and reformed into a moderate, universal Faith.

The three Haifan responses to your completely rational question is highly indicative of all of the above.

In the view of Reform Bahais, all of the several Bahai denominations largely share the broad, universal teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, revere largely the same corpus of writings, though select ones have been dropped out by the Haifans, those which clearly contradict their theocratic interpretation.

I believe it's fair to say that Abdul-Baha's Interpretation of Baha'u'llah's Teachings for the modern world was much more along the lines of the Quakers, Theosophy, Sufis, and Unitarian Universalists, than the Shiites and Sunnis, the califate or the papacy. He also emphasized "spiritual democracy," meaning a separation of church and state.

My review on my blog of Sen McGlinn's book might help in this context:

Church and State: A Postmodern Political Theology. Sen McGlinn. University of Leiden, 2005. 432 pages
The Globe Blog Archive Church and State. Sen McGlinn.

Incidentally, Reform Bahais do teach, as do Bahais of other denominations. Here I am talking with people at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London, UK July 26, 2009
http://reformbahai.org/Speakers_Corn...London_UK.html

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by Ruth White

McGlinn concedes in his attack on Mitchell that "I am not a forensic handwriting expert" and knowing a language is irrelevant to forensic experts. His assumptions about what Mitchell did are merely that.

Hi, Ruth White, after posting quotes from Sen's blog, I have notified him of your comments on this Baha'i forum. I'm hoping he will drop by.

I think Sen had some important points.

I will give one example: Mitchell thought the Will and Testament was written by three different people; he was unaware that the Will and Testament was written over a period of years. How could Mitchell have known? Afterall, he knew nothing about the Persian language.

I will give a second example: Mirza Muhammad-`Ali never claimed the Will and Testament was not authentic.

I will give a third example: for Mitchell to point out that, " in the authentic signatures the width of these characters, compared to their height, is much greater than in the signatures on the envelope [in which the Will and Testament was found]," further illustrates his ignorance of Persian. Sen points out four Persian writing styles: nasta`liq shekasteh, nasta`liq, naskh, and another style used for speed writing and everyday use. Therefore, Mitchell's point is pointless. The hanwriting in the Unity Church Bible and Will and Testament is nasta`liq shekasteh; however, in a long text like the Will and Testament, Sen notes it has more consessions for speed writing. Sen writes:

"in the sample from the Will and Testament one can see, top left, a short horizontal line. This represents two dots: they are usually written this way in people’s everyday handwriting, but they are not written this way in the Unity Church text, which follows the rules for formal decorative writing more closely. Allowing for the fact that the Unity Church text has been written with more care, in a ‘higher’ style, there is nothing here to indicate that the Will and Testament could not have been written by the same person. Most of the various flourishes that appear most striking are simply characteristics of the style, and not particular to Abdu’l-Baha."

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

...I think Sen had some important points. ... [/I]
[/INDENT]

To repeat, in my response to Sen McGlinn's mistaken attempt to discredit Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell's Report, I point out briefly the key fact:

What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.

No court of law would permit such a bogus "will and testament" to stand.

The documents Ruth White placed in the national archive of the Library of Congress unequivocally demonstrate that Shoghi Effendi was a calculating criminal, part of a criminal takeover of the Bahai Cause:

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
http://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

You seem to be impressed with what Sen McGlinn presents as scholarship. I urge you to look more closely and critically. Here again is a link to my review of his Church and State:

Church and State. Sen McGlinn.
The Globe Blog Archive Church and State. Sen McGlinn.

[Ahanu]

What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.

Where is your proof that handwriting analysis is 100% accurate? You act like the conclusions of handwriting analysis are unquestionable.

Here's what I got from a quick google search:

No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis--for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique--had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.

The Straight Dope: Is handwriting analysis legit science?

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by Ruth White

What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
http://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

NOTE WELL, What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries...

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
http://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

[Ahanu]

NOTE WELL

Note well prejiduce masked as science.

And the only way the Will and Testament can be authenticated is by handwriting analysis, a questionable method?

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

...prejiduce masked as science.

...sic.

Ludicrous... No lawyer or judge would in the United States or the Western, indeed much of the world, would consider a perported, unprobated will and testament authentic, especially when it was translated by the very person who was its beneficiary, as Ruth White observed, Shoghi Effendi!

Forgery masked as the will of Abdul-Baha...

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by Ruth White

The documents Ruth White placed in the national archive of the Library of Congress unequivocally demonstrate that Shoghi Effendi was a calculating criminal, part of a criminal takeover of the Bahai Cause.

Who was it who was carping recently about ad hominem attacks?

:-(

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

ad hominem attacks?

It's false to characterize criticism of criminal acts as ad hominem. You might want to look up the meaning. But one of the oldest tactics of apologists, when confronted with a truth they cannot handle, is to try to change the subject:

"No lawyer or judge would in the United States or Western countries, indeed much of the world, would consider a purported, unprobated will and testament authentic, especially when it was translated by the very person who was its beneficiary, as Ruth White observed, Shoghi Effendi!

Forgery masked as the will of Abdul-Baha..."

[Ahanu]

Ruth White, your evidence is weak.

Yes, Mitchell declared the Will and Testament a forgery.

However, as has been noted above, Mitchell did not know Persian. This led him to make faulty conclusions (such as thinking the Will and Testament was written by three different people because he did not know it was written over a period of time). If you accept Mitchell's evidence, then why is Shoghi Effendi the only conspirator? Neither is handwriting analysis a surefire method to conclude the Will and Testament is a forgery. You're not standing on concrete ground. Handwriting analysis is questionable.

Also, as Sen notes, Abdu'l-Baha died in November 1921, the time Shoghi Effendi, the alleged conspirator, was studying in Oxford! The Will and Testament was found in Abdu'l-Baha's safe in November. Gasp! Did Shoghi Effendi plot this long before Abdu'l-Baha's death? How did the Will and Testament get in Abdu'l-Baha's safe?

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Ruth White, your evidence is weak.

Yes, Mitchell declared the Will and Testament a forgery.

However, as has been noted above, Mitchell did not know Persian. This led him to make faulty conclusions (such as thinking the Will and Testament was written by three different people because he did not know it was written over a period of time). If you accept Mitchell's evidence, then why is Shoghi Effendi the only conspirator? Neither is handwriting analysis a surefire method to conclude the Will and Testament is a forgery. You're not standing on concrete ground. Handwriting analysis is questionable.

Also, as Sen notes, Abdu'l-Baha died in November 1921, the time Shoghi Effendi, the alleged conspirator, was studying in Oxford! The Will and Testament was found in Abdu'l-Baha's safe in November. Gasp! Did Shoghi Effendi plot this long before Abdu'l-Baha's death? How did the Will and Testament get in Abdu'l-Baha's safe?

What was weak was Shoghi Effendi's response to Ruth White when she and other early Bahais figured out what his family and he had done. Evading her charge confirmed it. Shoghi Effendi's "evidence" for the authenticity of the purported will and testament was and is the weakest link in the chain of lies, distortions, and half-truths advanced by him and subsequently deceived and brainwashed Baha'is. Ruth White, others, and I have always maintained that it was quite possibly that initially the forgery was the work of his family. Either way, the spurious document is nothing like the teachings of Abdul-Baha, whether in public or private.

The analysis of handwriting has been and remains recognized by the courts as a valuable forensic tool. That you dreg up a quotation to the contrary doesn't change that fact. Mitchell and Ruth White go beyond that.

Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell. Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

Ruth White
Ruth White

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

NOTE WELL, What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by Ruth White

The analysis of handwriting has been and remains recognized by the courts as a valuable forensic tool. That you dreg up a quotation to the contrary doesn't change that fact.

Don't worry; I can search scholarly sources. I would like to see your sources to support your claims.

[Ahanu]

Also, where is your source for the quote below from Abdu'l-Baha?

"The sun of truth rises in each season from a different point of the horizon—today it is here, yesterday it was there, and tomorrow it will appear from another direction. Why do you keep your eyes eternally fixed on the same point? Why do you call yourselves Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Bahais? You must learn to distinguish the sun of truth from whichever point of the horizon it is shining! People think religion is confined in an edifice, to be worshiped at an altar. In reality it is an attitude toward divinity which is reflected through life."

When I did a search online, a bunch of Reform Baha'i pages pop'd up.

[Ahanu]

"Data from proficiency tests and other examinations suggest that forensic errors are not minor imperfections . . . Handwriting error rates average around 40% and sometimes approach 100%."

Source:

Michael J. Saks and Jonathan J. Koehler. "The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science." Science, New Series, Vol. 309, No. 5736 (Aug. 5, 2005), pp. 892-895

"The writer of a forged signature can be identified from examination of his known handwriting but only under rather special circumstances.

The qualifying portions of this statement may surprise many readers.
There is a rather widespread belief that document examiners can identify
the writer of any forgery from specimens of his handwriting. Unfortunately,
in a great many instances this is far from true. It seems appropriate,
therefore, to consider this problem, paying particular attention
to those cases in which the forger can be identified, but also looking

into those more common instances when he cannot."

"There are two requirements which must be satisfied before a positive

identification can be made. First of all, the forged signature must have
been written in the natural handwriting of the forger. Signatures for
the most part are short, and even a moderate degree of disguise may
prevent accurate identification of a single specimen. The second condition
is the need for a very large quantity of the forger's known writing. One
or two specimens of his signature alone are virtually useless for solving
the problem. If a large quantity of day to day general writing is not
available, then naturally written request specimens of the forged name
must be obtained. Only under these conditions is identification of the

forger possible."

"In considering this subject it is only proper to look carefully at the

various pitfalls which confront the examiner when he is called upon to
identify the forger from his handwriting. It has already been stated
that this identification problem is among the most difficult and is a more
frequent source of error than almost any other handwriting problem.
Disregard of the dangers that confront the examiner can easily cause
him to be mistaken. These include:

1. Inadequate standards.

2. A tendency to discount differences as either being representative of disguise or chance variation.

3. An identification based only on general handwriting habits and not upon
individual ones.

4. The influence of the surrounding circumstances, that is, factors which

have no part in the handwriting identification."

"Let us consider these points briefly.

"Inadequate Standards. With only a very limited amount of known
handwriting the standards may not be truly representative of the suspect's writing habits. This would be especially true if they were written
under unusual writing conditions. Chance variations in these standards
may assume undue importance, causing error in the identification;

while if a larger quantity of known handwriting was available, it would

appear at once that the suspect could not have written the forged signature. More often, though, when the standards are limited the error is
one of not identifying the guilty person. Identification of the forger
from his handwriting requires far greater quantities of handwriting than
are necessary to show that the signature is not genuine,1 and it is always
risky to base an opinion on a rather limited amount of handwriting.
Unless the similarity between the forged signature and the forger's
writing is so great that no significant differences exist, an identification
must be cautiously approached.

Differences Are Disguise. In any fraudulent signature in which no
attempt is made to imitate another's writing, there is always a likelihood
that the writer may attempt to change his own handwriting. In
a signature made up in a large measure of capital letters he can be
quite successful. If the fraudulent signature contains disguise the
chance of his identification is greatly lessened. On the other hand, differences which might be attributed to disguise because of their poor
quality of execution may actually be the natural writing of a writer of
less skill than the present suspect. If there are indications that the
forged signature contains elements of disguise, there is less likelihood
that the forger can be identified, and the conservative and scientific
document examiner may find it necessary to qualify his identification or
refrain from any at all.

General Writing Habits. By far the most common errors in the

identification of the forger arise out of overemphasis of general writing
characteristics which are common to both the suspect's writing and the
forged signature. By general characteristics are meant those writing
habits which are part of a basic writing system or which are modifications
of the system of writing found among so large a group of writers
that they have only slight identification value. These might include an
open top "o" and "a" or a looped "t" form, which occur in many rapid,
careless handwritings. When an unexperienced or unscientific examiner
discounts the differences between the known and forged signature as
disguise and then makes his identification on the basis of three or four
general similarities, error is almost certain. General similarities can
certainly form a part of the basic identification, but there must be a
very unique combination of them and of the individual or personal
writing habits, with no fundamental differences, in order for the identification to be accurate.

Surrounding Circumstances. It is not uncommon for an aggressive
investigator to submit a signature forgery case to the examiner pointing
out evidence other than the handwriting which seems to clearly establish
the suspect's guilt. The investigator will want to detail all of these
extraneous circumstances to show how clear and convincing is this proof.
More than one case is on record in which a person was accused by eyewitnesses of writing a forged signature when it could be shown clearly
from an examination of his handwriting that he did not write it. Furthermore, these findings were subsequently substantiated by the confession of the guilty person.

Extraneous factors which incriminate the suspect have no place in
the document examiner's consideration. He must base his identification
entirely upon the handwriting and those conditions under which it was
written. If he cannot find sufficient similarity between the suspect's
writing and the forged signature for him to make an identification without
the assistance of other evidence, then he has no place as a witness
against the suspect."

Source:

Ordway Hilton. "Can the Forger Be Identified from His Handwriting?" The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Nov. -Dec., 1952), pp. 547-555