Take a look at this worthless crap:

https://wahidazal66.substack.com/p/the-maraji-sources-of-emulation-of

[[[A striking thing about a recent comment by Dale Husband on the controlled-opposition subreddit r/exbahai is not that he disagrees with ʿAbduʾl-Bahāʾ. He is perfectly entitled to—and absolutely should! It is the conceptual framework through which he experiences the disagreement:

“Even as a Baha’i, I questioned this and I put that issue on a shelf … Then at the end of 2004…my shelf broke.”

Taken alongside Husband’s stated religious trajectory—from Southern Baptist Christianity, through the Bahāʾī faith, eventually to Unitarian Universalism—the choice of this doctrine as something sufficiently troubling to put “on a shelf” is rather extraordinary. One would hardly expect a Unitarian Universalist critique of religion to founder upon the proposition that the resurrection need not mean the resuscitation of Jesus’ biological corpse! Indeed, Husband accurately reports the basic Bahāʾī position. ʿAbduʾl-Bahāʾ says quite unambiguously in Some Answered Questions that Christ’s resurrection “is not of the body” and interprets the three days as the temporary eclipse and subsequent revival of Christ’s Cause among the disciples.

<snip>

But Gomer then asks:

“so what happened to his body?”

That question only constitutes an objection if one has quietly retained the very corporealist Christian premise that the interpretation rejects. If resurrection is an ontological/spiritual event rather than the reanimation and transformation of a corpse, nothing in the doctrine requires the corpse to go anywhere extraordinary. It died; what subsequently happened to the remains is a separate historical question. In other words, despite his subsequent religious migrations, Husband’s objection here still seems structured by the Southern Baptist conceptual grammar he ostensibly left behind:

Resurrection → tomb → corpse → corpse must physically get up → if not, explain missing corpse.

Remove the first equation and “what happened to his body?” ceases to be a theological refutation. There is an additional irony. ʿAbduʾl-Bahāʾ’s interpretation is hardly some embarrassment that Husband has uncovered behind the curtain. It is stated explicitly in an elementary Bahāʾī doctrinal text: resurrection is mystical and spiritual; the “revival” is the renewed life of Christ’s Cause among the apostles. Husband has discovered exactly what the text announces itself to be saying.

But his account of Shaykh Aḥmad is worse. Husband begins:

“One of the teachings of Shaykhism was that there was no actual resurrection of the physical body after one dies.”]]]

Yes, that was exactly what I said and that was indeed what I read….from Baha’i sources. Wahid then goes on to argue that Shaykh Ahmad taught….something different (I don’t believe him). He also attacks MirzaJan for supporting me with a reference from Wikipedia.

Later:

[[[But this is the thing with Husband and MirzaJan: for over a decade and a half now they have both been engaged in systematically dumbing down proper intellectual opposition to the Bahāʾī faith. This dumbing down is deliberate and part of the reason I call them “controlled opposition.” “Controlled” describes the discursive limits of the opposition they cultivate: an opposition rendered intellectually harmless precisely because it substitutes slogans, recycled confessional grievances, Wikipedia-level historical generalizations and personal invective for serious engagement with the primary sources, languages and intellectual history of the Bābī–Bahāʾī phenomenon. Thus an extraordinarily complicated Shaykhī doctrine of resurrection becomes “there was no actual resurrection of the physical body”; the contested takfīr of Shaykh Aḥmad becomes his supposed “excommunication from mainstream Twelver Shiʿism”; and the immense transformation running from Shaykh Aḥmad through Sayyid Kāẓim, the Bāb and the Bayān to later Bahāʾī thought is reduced to the infantile formula, “Bahaism is coming from here.” This is not the formidable opposition to Bahāʾī apologetics I was engaged in during the ‘00s or the 1990s. This version by Husband and the Pajeet is a gift to Haifa!]]]

In other words, we are idiots compared to him, and only a supergenius like him can be a credible opponent of the Baha’i Faith. 

But it doesn’t take a genius to see that the contradictions within the Baha’i Faith are enough to discredit it, as shown clearly here:

https://dalehusband.com/2008/09/07/the-fatal-flaw-in-bahai-authority/

You have to appeal to people who are seekers of truth on their own level or you can never reach them. Wahid Azal’s approach is all about glorifying himself as superior to everyone else. That’s a major turn-off to those who have become wary of cults; they will see him as the leader of one, no better than Baha’u’llah! Humility is always a better approach, not arrogance.

And the concept of a “controlled opposition” is one he clearly made up to smear r/exbahai. He is really just butthurt that he wasn’t allowed to take it over and make it promote only his extremist agenda and disregard everything else, which would have actually destroyed the credibility of the subreddit as a place for people leaving the Baha’i Faith to find a path more suitable for them. Which is more than enough reason to keep such a toxic freak as Wahid Azal away from us!