Gomer thinks he understands logic, which he doesn't. Occam's Razor also only works when it isn't contradicted by evidence. He claims:
"Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation for an event is most likely to be true. So let's look at the following sequence of events:
a. The Bab wrote the Bayan, which contained some really absurd statements and laws for his followers."
Yet Gomer's evidence is what enemies of the Bab have claimed about these laws in the Bayan , and not what the actual laws themselves say. Evidence:
The autograph in the hand of the Bab Himself:
https://www.academia.edu/36798591/Codex_Arabic_Bay%C4%81n_pdf
The Azali lithograph edition from the autograph (whose editor's preamble was translated by me from Persian to English for Bayanic.com):
https://bayanic.com/lib/fwd/ABayan/ABayan-FWD.html
The INBA 43 text (a Baha'i publication):
https://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/INBA/INBA043.pdf
Muslim anti-Babi polemicist `Abd al-Razzaq al-Hasani's typescript edition:
https://www.h-net.org/~bahai/areprint/bab/A-F/b/bayana/bayana.htm
As such Occam's Razor does not apply here, and Gomer's logic possesses none.
"b. After the Bab was killed, Baha'u'llah was recognized by many as a Babi leader."
No, he wasn't, and who were the many Gomer claims? Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri's status was only as the brother of Subh-i-Azal, and not as a Witness of the Bayan, a Letter of the Living, or otherwise. This is attested to by all of Browne's scholarship, Nicolas'
s, MacEoin's, and others. Had Gomer the slightest knowledge of these texts beyond the tendentious Baha'i histories, he would already know this. This statement is also a statement of conflated Baha'i hagiography as attested to by all the names mentioned
and contradicted by all primary and secondary texts on the subject, especially Browne and MacEoin's . So Occam's Razor does not apply here.
"c. Baha'u'llah wrote the Kitab-i-Aqdas in which some of the laws of the Bayan were abrogated because they made the Babi Faith look rediculous. But at the same time he affirmed the Bab's status as a Messenger of God."
See below.
"Because Baha'u'llah replaced the Bayan with the Kitab-i-Aqdas, some Babis rejected him and were known as Azalis. But they were a minority and were never popular outside Persia/Iran."
Haba' wrote the kitab-i-aqdas in 1873. The Bayanis who rejected him rejected him prior to this date in writing, many of whom then went on to be murdered by Haba's goons. Gomer's argument has completely fallen apart at this point.
"d. In a desperate effort to make the Bab and the Bayan more credible to people like me in the 21st Century who don't know Arabic, some cultist made up revisions of the Bayan. Then got angry when his revisions were rejected because he lacked credibility
long before he made his claims."
This final argument reveals Gomer as the know-nothing ignoramus that he is who he is merely gaslighting. Since all of his arguments have fallen apart, this final element only reveals him as nothing more than a biased polemicist attempting to validate
Baha'i and the biased Shi'ite seminary narratives which follow them. QED
Gomer is thus a bigoted Babophobe like the mullahs and Bahais before him and is pushing a misinformation narrative with an agenda!
PS - u/Interogator919 does not possess knowledge of Arabic or Persian. Try Urdu or Hindi instead
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)