Critique of Bahai Administration

El_Baquiano wrote on 23/12/05:

The thing is that the AO has plucked out of thin air this doctrine that 'things must go through channels'. ok, fine...pluck away! It sounds good, after all.

But here's the thing...the channels are blocked. They are filled with filth and garbage and all sorts of excrement. Nothing gets through them! Things are spilling out, in fact.

So by asking people to 'go through the channels' they are creating an impossible situation. Its like me telling you, you are poor? get more money!

lol

I have personally experienced this 'channel' thing. I have gone through channels. In fact, the incident that you allude to in your post above was an example of one. And we all know how that turned out.

I have other experiences of going through channels. And they each have one single common denominator: they resulted in zilch.

So here's my thinking: if you're going to tell people to go through channels...then you better make damned sure those channels work as conduits and as mechanisms to resolve problems. If they don't...they become problems in and of themselves!

This is what the vast majority of Baha'is and 100% of the AO are in denial about. They say, trust the AO...put things in their hands...go through channels...

Well, ask anyone who has done that and you'll get an earful...and maybe a few tears. Or you may get total silence because the person is no longer the community, having left it when the situation caused them such sadness and grief that they couldn't take it anymore.

And this is the thing, for everyone of us who are here, stomping our feet and screaming at the top of our lungs...there are 100s that have silently slipped into the night never to come back to the Faith.

This is one of the reasons why communities everywhere are stagnant. People don't usually fuss and demand justice and point out the injustice and fight for justice...they say, too much work, too much pain...I already have enough. And they move on.

This is what the AO doesn't understand. They think that a few nutcases like you and me have banded together and want to create a 'splinter group' (great name for a rock band by the way).

They just don't understand the frustration, they don't understand the pain that has been inflicted and continues to be inflicted.

El_Baquiano wrote on 23/12/05:


As to the 'Baha'i Technique', I don't really like that label. First of all, there is nothing 'Baha'i' about it. I prefer to call it intellectual dishonesty, because I can see in their words and subsequent actions (denial, ignoring when the tactic is pointed out, evasion, etc.) that they know very well what they are doing - they choose to be intellectually dishonest...as well as morally corrupt.

I don't for a second believe that people who use such tactics online are not intelligent enough to not know what they are doing. It is obvious to not just me but every objective observer. So lately I've decided to simply not play the game. I will no longer be baited. I will no longer play the role they foist on me.

I'm happy to leave what I write to speak for itself. If people have trouble with it and don't understand it, I will offer them the same advice that the chair of the NSA of the US (Nelson) offered the LA studies group when they asked for specifics and details of the charges of partisanship agains them: "it will be clear upon reflection"

The reason I'm not baited by 'we don't understand... please explain...' is because it is obvious that my words are quite clear when others, who do not bring a poisining attitude to the table, have no problem whatsoever in comprehending them.

So from now on, I will not engage in negative or insultive responses - be they borne of frustration or my weakness and lack of virtues. I will simply not respond if I feel that the person is being intellectually dishonest.

Larry Rowe 29/12/05:

To you and I Bible study classes may seem about as innocuous as things get, almost. My son came back from a Christian summer camp this year and declared that he was now a Christian. Indoctrination is indoctrination and none of it is innocuous and impartial religious education, there is an intent.

According to Iranian law non-Muslims are prohibited from holding such indoctrination meetings for a simple reason, because apostasy is illegal in Islamic jurisprudence and Iran is an Islamic governed nation.

We should never forget that Iran is the country that issued a world wide death warrant against Salman Rushtee simply for writing a book that was critical of aspects of Islam.

If you break the laws in such a country you have to be prepared to receive the consequences.

The U.H.J. has been using the Iranian Baha'i community for its own propaganda purposes for far too long. Using it as a means to get some free publicity and to get the name Baha'i into the press and the U.N. agenda.

The U.H.J. has actively discouraged emigration from Iran for Baha'is when it should have been supporting it and actively funding it.

Such a moral and ethical lapse on the part of the U.H.J. will have an ongoing karmic effect for the U.H.J. as well as the Baha'i Faith in general for many generations
to come.

Any sane person would do the correct thing and encourage and actively help people to get out of harms way; the U.H.J., thinking only of itself and Baha'i prestige, has been directly responsible for the deaths and sufferings of many Baha'is whom it could have helped to escape Iran if it had the integrity to do the proper thing instead of the thing they deludedly felt was best for their PR.


Yours Larry

Larry Rowe on 29/12/05:

When you hold public classes in a university classroom it is hardly private or intended for deepened Persian Baha'is. Ruhi is a bad joke to anyone who is literate or illiterate for that matter. The U.H.J's true intent is clear, cause a reaction and sit back and see how much free publicity it can garner as well as getting it's shallow PR attempts back in the U.N. lime-light.


The blood of any Baha'i who could have been encouraged and helped to emigrate but who have been discouraged from emigrating and then encouraged to break Iranian law is on the hands of the U.H.J. itself.


They fool no one but themselves and those who choose to be fooled.


Yours Larry

Fred Glaysher on 26/12/05:

Similarly, most of the Baha'i discussions groups on Yahoo that are moderated are used to identify and control dissenters, including "unenrolled" Baha'i, Bahai-Apologetics, and talisman9.

A concomitant result on all forums, as on BeliefNet, is preventing the development of serious critical thought, reflection, and discussion.

Further, the abuse liberals are subjected to convinces independently minded Baha'is to remain silent and keep a low profile, which is precisely the aim of fundamentalists.

A further tactic has been the use of false identities, many quite outrageous and flamboyant, which only extensive reading of talk.religion.bahai can begin to reveal, longer than the usual cursory non-bahai lurker will linger.

Susan Maneck 23/12/05:

> This is _not_ the 18th time you've lied here, is it?


LOL. I never denied they were doing Ruihi Sudy Circles n Iran in any case.
What I denied was this absurd charge that Western Baha'is were being brought in to tutor them and that this has something to do with the retirement of two House members.

Larry Rowe 22/12/05:

I had to laugh today. I noticed I wasn't getting any more e-mails from Irfan19 or unenrolledbaha'i so I went to yahoo mygroups to check my status and lo and behold I have been summarily excommunicated by Karen from both lists without the courtesy of even an e-mail to notify me.

Seems she's become just as fundamentalistic as the U.H.J., even more so, at least they have the courtesy to have the local N.S.A. send out a dear John letter.

I guess Karen believes I'm the source of the leaks from Irfan and unenrolled to TRB; she could have had the guts to ask me if it was me. Funny thing, it wasn't.
Ask Nima he's got his own sources and it wasn't me.


Dear Karen is you read this I hope you feel some degree of embarassment for doing to me what was done to Michael, Alison and Sen by the U.H.J..


Like I said I've known that liberal fundamentalists were a possibilty I just never expected Alison and you to display such levels of intolerance for the interpretations of others. To say the least I'm highly dissapointed.


I know I'm owed an apology from both you and Alision but like I mentioned before I dont expect one; fundamentalists rarely admit fault let alone apologize.


Funny thing as well I still truly believe that there is only us we are them; that includes both you and Alison as well as all the members of the U.H.J., too bad you're all such a bunch of block heads you can't see that we are all 'as one soul'.


Yours Larry

Wahid Azal 20/12/05:

Your wolf cries of "cultural genocide" are not only meaningless they are tout court bullshit, and as is about to be demonstrated publicly by human rights scholar Reza Afshari.

There is not a single group in the secular Iranian opposition that takes you people or your bogus "cultural genocide" cries seriously anymore, ergo why you are having to spend so much money on satellite airwaves with your silly paid programs (i.e. longwinded infomercials in actuality) no one takes seriously, like the one the other week with Husayn Amanat and his shahyad square (which was truly pathetic).

Iranian Baha'is are sitting and completing courses at Iranian universities throughout the length and breadth of Iran, so your claims that they are not being allowed into universities is, again, tout court bullshit.

The issue is that a bulk of Iranian Baha'is inside Iran are no longer cooperating with either Mr Khanjani's Ma'arif or UHJ policies. People wish to have lives, careers, educations, and the cult apparatus is telling them "die for us."

To the cry "die for us" by corupt assholes like Peter Con-man and similar in
turn people in Iran are telling Khanjani and the UHJ "to go fuck themselves!" and are thereby entering universities and completing courses! None of your claims recently have been verified by a single Western human rights organizations. Moreover the High Commission itself told you cultists to take a hike earlier in the year.

Besides the category "cultural genocide" is empty and meaningless.

There is either genocide or there is something else. There is "cultural cleansing" of the sort Mao initiated during the Cultural Revolution.

There is "ethnic cleansing" of the kind perpetrated by Bosnian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.

The term "cultural genocide" is not a valid typological category, nor is it - or its
author Moojan Momen - taken seriously by a single International Law expert who is not on paid handsomely by the uhj to espouse crap.


W

Wahid Azal 20/12/05:

>Tell me, which Iranian law forbids study circles?


So you finally admit to having these circles.

Susan Maneck finally agreeing Ruhi is used for teaching 20/12/05:

Sure. In fact the only reason I ended up subjecting myself to another
book was *because* I had a seeker who was getting something out of it.
(She has since declared.)

But they are doing study circles all over the world whether they are in countries where they can teach the Faith to others or not. And you can bet that in a country like Iran they are going to be *very* careful who they invite.


> Admittedly, when that didn't lead to much, the emphasis changed to (a) don't
> talk about Ruhi, and (b) its not about teaching its about raising human
> resources.

Oh, it was always about raising human resources. The basic idea was that the three core activities would create an infrastructure that would allow us to receive entry by troops when it occurs.


> But which way was it being used in Iran? Does anyone know? Were all the
> participants already Baha'is?

I don't know whether all of them were or not, nor do I think the
government really cared.

warmest, Susan

John MacLeod 20/12/05:

> Study circles aren't meetings aimed at conversions.


Well that depends a lot on the phases of the moon and which particular member
of the clergy is badgering you at the moment. There certainly have been periods when we were all encouraged to invite our family, neighbours, workmates, and any stray dogs we could find to study circles in the confident hope that once they had
experienced the joys of Ruhi nothing would stop them becoming Baha'is.

Admittedly, when that didn't lead to much, the emphasis changed to
a) don't talk about Ruhi, and
b) its not about teaching its about raising human resources.

But which way was it being used in Iran?
Does anyone know? Were all the participants already Baha'is?

Susan Maneck 20/12/05:

Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
> Holding Ruhi study classes in Iran is akin to poking a hornets nest with a
> stick.

Larry, you have got to be kidding. We are talking about a few people sitting around in the living room filling in blanks in a work book and coloring pictures. That is supposed to be some kind of threat?


> Thing is such non-Muslim religious meetings which are aimed at conversion
> are prohibited by law in Iran.

Study circles aren't meetings aimed at conversions. They are just a few
Baha'is getting together and filling in a silly workbook. Show me the
law that prohibits this.

Susan Maneck 19/12/05:

> through flagrantly disregarding the laws of Iran which
> do not allow for things such as Ruhi to be proselytized to Iranians, should
> not be overlooked.

They had Ruhi Study Circles in Iran? What a crime!

Tell me, which Iranian law forbids study circles?

Matt Menge 03/12/05:

Might" is an attribute of God. Another attribute of God is "Wronged One".

Best Regards,

Matt

Matt Menge 02/12/05

Dear Firestorm,

Obviously any Baha'i can be disenrolled and I was not attempting to say otherwise. My point is that I think it is significant that both Alison Marshall and Sen McGlinn were Baha'i scholars.

In my mind this means that the House of Justice gives a lot of weight to what scholars say and do.

Some scholars may pursue their careers out of curiousity and love of the object of their study. But believe it or not people DO read what scholars write and scholars DO have power and influence. I'm sorry.
Best Regards,

Matt

From Larry Rowe's last post on Talisman:

Dear Talismanians,

It appears that an agenda is being foisted on the subjects and topics that
are open for consultation here on talisman9; this, even above and beyond
topics not strictly in the Haifan Baha'i tradition.

It appears that it is now Steven and Alison Marshall which dictate the topics which are allowed to be openly discussed here on talisman at this moment.

Under these conditions I cannot, with intellectual, spiritual honesty and integrity continue my association with a talisman that has become so biased by the interpretations of so few.

I hereby tender my resignation from being a moderator on talisman as well as my membership as a contributor to talisman.

Perhaps I don't belong here any longer because I no longer hold to orthodox
Haifan Baha'i tradition, doctrine and dogma.

Perhaps I don't belong here any longer because, as Baha'u'llah dreamed, so to have I dreamed. I dreamt of his tent in tatters, worn and threadbare; I dreamt of His Taj Illuminating for all time. I dreamt of having Baha'u'llah commune with me directly from his soul to mine as I rose above the ruins of the Arc. In that communion I lost
all fear of God. As Baha'u'llah dreamed of the Maid of Heaven so to did I
dream; she lead me by the hand through all those veils which obscure us from
Her Beauty and Sensuality.

In my dreams I see and I hear the voices of all those that have gone
before us, I hear in clear and beauteous harmony: "WE ARE ALL AS ONE SOUL". In
my life I try my best to make it reality.


Yours


The ramblin Larry

Chris Buck on behalf of the AO:

Dear Cal:

Just how does the Baha'i Faith discriminate against women and gays?

First, define what you mean (or the ACLU means) by "discrimination."
Then cite instances.

If, for instance, you mean the fact that women are barred from election to the Universal House of Justice, under a Baha'i system they are also barred from armed combat. Since a number of secular (and religious) governments also bar women from combat, is that discrimination under your definition of it?

Not all "discrimination" is constitutionally impermissible under the American system. As one authority has explained:
What is wrong with discrimination, if it is wrong, is not the act of
hiring or firing, refusing to promote, etc., but the reason for which
it was done. If it was done on forbidden grounds, then it becomes
wrong. If it's done for a nonforbidden reason, then it's all right. [.
. .] [I]f we are serious about freedom, if we're serious about freedom

of association, then we will recognize that in looking at that concept,

it is the freedom not to associate that is the crucial concept in
freedom of association, or the right to associate only on terms that
are mutually agreeable, at least in the private sector. [...]
[P]rivate discrimination [...] is a right that was recognized under the

Privileges and Immunities Clause. Indeed, it's one of the basic
entailments of the right to be free.

The Civil Rights Act of 1868, reaffirmed in 1870, a month after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and the debates that surrounded that Act and surrounded the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment spoke of property, contract, the right to sue, and the right to give testimony, the right to personal security, and so forth.

These are our basic civil rights. There is nothing at all in those debates about any right not to be discriminated against. That is a right we have only against government. Because government belongs to all of us, unlike private parties, it cannot discriminate.
Source:

Cal, please understand that I am not advocating private discrimination.
If your goal is to get the U.S. government to revoke the tax-exempt status of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, remember that the ACLU has to work within the parameters of constitutional law in order to make its case. That's why I'm saying that you still have to make your case.

Finally, not all exclusions are acts of "discrimination" -- whether public or private.

Now to read Juan Cole's analysis of the Baha'i Faith as a "cult" ...

Best,

Christopher Buck

Posted by: New Yorker / 12/18/2005 08:48:00 PM

Peter Terry ranted on 14/12/05:

Dear Juan,

As for the individuals who have resigned from the Baha'i community or have been removed from membership, each of their stories is different, and to generalize about them as a group is to dishonor the individuality of each case as well as to misrepresent the facts of each situation.

While interviews with those individuals might well result in the discovery of some characteristics which are common to their psychological responses to estrangement from the Baha'i community, we will not know until someone undertakes that project.

Respectfully,

Peter Terry

Peter Terry steps in it again 08/12/05:


But most religious communities do not have female leaders, at least at the highest levels. This is because, like the Baha'i Faith, there are doctrinal reasons why leadership has been traditionally held by men, and in faith communities where traditional values are generally adhered to, this doctrinal preference for male leadership continues.

Whether this makes a religion look "good" or "bad" is a subjective determination--beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The fact is that leadership at the highest levels in religion, which is the only phenomenon which can be compared judiciously with the restriction of service on the Universal House of Justice to men, is generally occupied by the male gender.

Roman Catholics, most Protestants, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Orthodox Jews are in the same boat as Baha'is.

Peter

Peter Terry rants on 06/12/05:

It has become increasingly evident, in the past few years, that there are doctrinal requirements of enrolled members of the Baha'i Community, that is, there are limits to what they may publicly espouse as believers.

While some commentators have opined that such requirements do not exist in the Faith of Baha'u'llah, or that they are an innovation recently introduced by the Universal House of Justice, I would make the following observations:

1)Americans seeking to be admitted as Baha'is were required to write a letter affirming their belief to 'Abdu'l-Baha, and we have some of those letters, and they are not devoid of doctrine. On the contrary, converts were attracted to the Faith because they found Baha'i doctrines to be attractive and, in many cases, to mirror their own pre-existing convictions.

2)Speech is conceived of as a form of action in a Baha'i context, particularly public speech. When an enrolled member of the Baha'i Community speaks publicly contradicting the Head of the Faith, this consitutes an action which is strongly censored in the Baha'i source texts.

While the believer may publicly question, to challenge the authority of or ontradict the Head of the Faith is contrary to the provisions of the Baha'i Covenant.

Kheiralla did not merely express opinions which were different from those of 'Abdu'l-Baha. He challenged 'Abdu'l-Baha's authority, and contradicted His authoritative interpretations of the Baha'i teachings.

3)In Baha'i News I have discovered references to enrolled believers who were removed from membership in the Community by the Guardian. No explanation was given in that periodical for their removal. They were not declared Covenant-breakers at the time of their removal.

Indeed, neither was Ahmad Sohrab called a CB when the Guardian advised the American Baha'is not to have any further association with him.

It was only after the fact, perhaps when his opposition to the Faith had become crystalized and he had shown no willingness to repent and return to the Community that he was identified as such.

Removal from membership is not an innovation of the House of Justice.

4)If it were to be affirmed that because of the discontinuation of the Guardianship, it is not possible for unity of doctrine to be enforced by the Baha'i Administrative Order, there are a number of statements made by the Guardian to the effect that the House is empowered to take any action necessary for the preservation of the unity of the Community, and since unity of doctrine is a Baha'i principle along with unity of administration, the House is within its legal rights and beyond that obligated as Supreme Institution of the Faith to uphold that unity of doctrine.

Since the discussion of Sen's disenrollment continues, I am offering these few thoughts for your consideration.

With warm regards, Peter

Wahid Azal on 07/12/05:

Michael,

You are a phony. You have been exposed by me as a fraud. Put your sorry tail between your legs and take your long-winded rants, together your stupid views of accomodation with certifiable criminals and AO mafioso, and stick it as far as it will go into your fantasy-writing backside.

You are a bona fide kafir (i.e. one who hides and covers the manifest Truth with sugar coated words and imbecilities of which you are a prime example).

I question your integrity. I question the very veracity of your so-called expulsion. You and Alison Marshall are both servants of the demonic baha'i system, pure and simple.

I want nothing to do with spineless, sell-outs like you. Don't ever mention my name again.

W

Susan Maneck on 04/12/05:

>Well, to tell you the truth I once accidentally sent the World Centre a
virus. So maybe I'm not a Baha'i in good standing.

Wahid Azal on 06/12/05:

Interesting how viruses abound amongst and within "Baha'is in good standing. ;-}."
After all it is my contention that you lot are yourselves viruses!

Viruses whose only inoculation is yours truly and my fist pounding into your collective skulls.

wahidaza...@gmail.com wrote on 05/12/05:

> The Bottom Line, Ron, is that indeed I was being spied on. And, more importantly, I was being spied on by "the Institutions" from within my own extended family, i.e. the Stalinist modus operandi of the baha'i cult throughout. Other than some close family members, who under unguarded circumstances blabbed to others, I had not told very many people that I was at the time with the Nimatullahi Sufis.


Ron House on 06/12/06:

Yes, it is very unfortunate, but true, that the methods of the Rumanian communist party are being followed by a supposed enlightened and open organisation.

These methods involve the enlisting of a sizeable percentage of the total population to spy on each other(euphemistically, to "report"), and to include family members.

Attempts to deny the extensiveness and zealousness of this web of informing fly in the face of so many facts known to anyone with familiarity with the system as to justify a first assumption of lying on their part.

Wahid Azal on 03/12/05

But in any case, the whole minority-intellectual-elite argument is one
presented by Shapour Rasekh in Rag-i-Taak: a deliberate - and badly
written - work of colonialist nonsense, if there ever was, which the
baha'is have been touting alll around the place since 1999.

Abbas Amanat technically is not a baha'i. But I do agree with you that
the man holds solid baha'i biases.The new preface to the forthcoming
second edition of his Resurrection and Renewal is one example of this.

Susan Maneck on 04/12/05

would have talked about the Baha'i Institutions the way
he did in the second edition of his Resurrection and Renewal book"

Wahid Azal on 4/12/05

So what?

It hasn't stopped Juan Cole from secretly collaborating with the "Baha'i Institutions" while bad-mouthing them in public at the same time.
This is how your system and its "institutions" work.
Besides you all eat out of the same troff, talk or no talk.

Ron House on 01/12/05:

But of course, the truth is that condolences belong to the Haifa AO, which is killing itself in dribs and drabs.

To you I offer my heart-felt sympathy for the sadness that you are probably feeling now for what the Baha'i Faith might have and should have been; but after that, I must also offer my congratulations that your sterling name will not be connected with the downfall of an organisation that has betrayed its founder.

The UHJ has been engaging in activities of such enormity, such sheer hypocritical dishonesty and subterfuge, that nothing we have heard so far in the entire history of the administration can stand any comparison.

To protect innocents I simply can not explain any further unless the UHJ chooses to harm those innocents anyway; but God will bring their crimes to light at a time of His choosing, and the events that we all see reported day by day tell me that that time is drawing very close.

But I know, and offer thanks to God, that you are overwhelmingly lucky, blessed, and singled out for honour to be utterly free of them, to be able to devote your great mind and heart to the genuine independent search for truth that Baha'u'llah enjoined upon all His followers.

Craig wrote on 01/12/05

I dedicated 34 years of my life to something that has gone completely
off the rails. I do not see that there is any way back now. A line
has been crossed because a scholarly book has been written and
published out in the real free and open world and the consequences
will be very, very serious now for this punitive action.

It should have all been just a discussion of ideas among mature and fully civilized people. But that profile no longer fits in the Amateur New World Order being run by completely third rate people who are totally over their heads. History will decide who was worthy of serious consideration and who was a joke. Rest assured I fully
believe history will be on your side.

So far the Baha'i Faith has done absolutely nothing for mankind on these people's watch and time is running out. Absolutely nothing whatsoever in total shame.

Why? Because the AO has been a deranged cult for a tiny handful of people from Day One and has accomplished absolutely nothing. The Judgment of Almighty God is coming upon these people. So be it.

The Empowering Teachings of Baha'u'llah were the hope of so many. Especially of the generation that came of age in the 1960's and 1970's. The Great Wave and the wealth of the Persian diaspora built those buildins on Mt. Carmel for these people. But in matters of spirituality the rank and file of the world have largely passed us by.

A hundred thousand sites on the Internet are more intellectually and spiritually appealing in pure raw spiritual adventure in life than anything from us.

Why? Because they are spreading the Soul of the New World Age that is in the air from their whole hearts while we are controlled by nine spiritual amateurs on the path of life.

The Baha'i community is now largely sullen, completely burned out, zombie automatons who have zero spiritual insight and zero spiritual power as individuals.

No thinking person would ever join or stay in a religion this barren and unproductive in any way. The Ruhi Book One Cult Faith.

The hijacking is almost complete. The fill-in-the-blanks-in-life-as-you-are-told straight jacket "religion".

With more and more souls leaving we will have no writers, no thinkers, no movie makers, no actors, no musicians, no artists, no scientists, no people of any accomplishment whatsoever in the life of the world at all.

We will only have people in the ranks whose sole accomplishment in life is that they have completely turned over their souls to the total control of an external organization that will merely give them a lifetime supply of vasoline in return.

There is no dignity in life in that for anyone. Any community that does not have thinkers in it with the Internet growing across the entire world second by second will never survive.

Complete financial collapse is coming for the Baha'i Faith as people die off and no souls join something as poorly run as this.

The Ruhi Bogus Faith will not survive. Just watch. It is all on the horizon. It is not going to be pretty.

It is truly a sad day.

Craig

Mushroom wrote on 01/12/05:

Is it my imagination or is it a fact that a disproportionate number of
historians specialising in Iran's history of the past couple of
centuries are from religious minorities? Janet Afari, Abbas Amaanat,
Ervand Abrahamian, Mangol Bayat.......

Steve Marshall responded on 01/12/05

No, but a disproportionate number are refugees and exiles, who just
HAPPEN to be members of religious minorities. :-)

Maneck proving her credential as an online agent on 01/12/05

> Are you referring to Book One of "Church and State", Susan? Amazon
> incorrectly calls Kalimat the publisher. Kalimat is, in fact, the
> distributor.


Kalimat is more than the distributer, they had the book printed. And
I'll grant you that the only reason they didn't officially publish it
is because they would have been responsible for submitting the book for
review which was never done.


> The book itself says "Published by the Author", just above what I
> assume to be the imprint of the University of Leiden.


It says that, but in fact Sen is not registered in the Netherlands as
a publisher, he used his wife's registration and she did the paperwork.

warmest, Susan