The Baha'i Studies Listserv
Ok, then that makes Velvelehdarshahr.org's conclusion (Mirza Habibu'llah
removed from the rolls by 1932) all the more problematic. I did send
something about this to the World Centre at least two weeks ago, however,
and I will share the contents here when I receive a
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
I think this happened very rarely during the Guardian's time. As a way of
dealing with certain types of dissidence, it is an innovation of the last 11
years. (The first case was in 1998.)
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Adib Masumian adibmasum...@gmail.comwrote:
The
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
In the middle of 1940' Gerrard Sluter, a pioneer in Colombia was removed
from the rolls by the NSA of the United States, and this action was ratified
by Shoghi Effendi.
Sluter had appealed to the judicial courts of Colombia to demand the
cancellation of the legal status
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
We need to remember that there have only been a handful of such cases in the
history of the Faith - 7 or 8, I believe.
Just wondering, are all of these cases during the time of the House of Justice?
Did Shoghi Effendi ever do this?
Regards,
David
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
Just wondering, are all of these cases during the time of the House of
Justice? Did Shoghi Effendi ever do this?
I've been told by a Counsellor that there was one such case during the time
of the Guardianship. The other cases have all occurred within the last
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
I believe the idea of removing folks from roles is a recent innovation. I
seriously doubt that this idea existed before a decade ago. At least I'm
not familiar with any historical evidence supporting that.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Adib Masumian
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
david,
:This must mean that the House would be...
must??
really?
could it mean that it is a private matter between the House and an individual
and nobody else's anywhere on the face of the earth?
could it mean that, as eer so often in the last 1.8 million
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
sen
:-)
it evvver so frequently amuses me how u and i hit so much common ground from
160 or so degreesd apart.
Kull'Ul'shay.Tawhidas i would most egregriously butcher the arabic.
__
You are subscribed to
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
. Those who have already asked the UHJ, is it
this? or is it that? have been told no, it's not that.
I'm guessing that one of those who wrote and asked is it this? asked
if it was because you were calling yourself a theologian.
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
I've asked to be re-enrolled 3 times, and the answer was just a no:
Sen,
Did you ask the NSA of the Netherlands rather than the House of
Justice? In so doing you were basically asking them to resend the
decision of the House.
I
presume that if the UHJ wanted to
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
could it mean that it is a private matter between the House and an
individual and nobody else's anywhere on the face of the earth?
This is what I'm thinking. I mean, the impetus to make the decision is in
the hands of the Universal House of Justice. And if it is not
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
Dear David:
Have you asked the Universal House of Justice?
Have you received any private/personal information about Sen (or about
anyone else) that was not readily available publicly?
You might want to consider asking the House about privacy issues before
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
On Jun 14, 2009, at 4:32 37AM, David Friedman wrote:
I'm interested in what exactly the House of Justice considers
private information. Recently the subject of Sen being disenrolled
came up, and Susan suggested someone to write to the House if they
wanted
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
. Does being disenrolled take away the right to
privacy?
Dear David,
In the case of previous disenrollments the institutions have stated
that the publicity these persons gave to those disenrollments took
away their right to privacy.
warmest, Susan
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
David,
I have written the Universal House of Justice, to ask why certain people
were disenrolled from the Baha'i community, and the answer was effectively
we can't provide exact information due to the privacy of the individual
involved. I think that is the best answer
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:31 16AM, Matt Haase wrote:
and the real reason may be way too personal for the UHJ to be
running around and telling everyone about it. We may think it was
because of this or that, but it may be something extremely private.
OK, but we
The Baha'i Studies Listserv
To answer general questions: I haven't tried to keep anything
private, I simply don't know anything more than is already public in
the letter of the UHJ, which is on Bahai Rants at
http://bahairants.com/fahrenheit-145-77.html
So far as I am concerned, people are
17 matches
Mail list logo
