Clarification Concerning “Universal Faith (Universal Bábism)” and the Authentic Bayānī Tradition

It has come to my attention that a recently renamed Facebook group calling itself Universal Faith (Universal Bábism) and its administrator have been presenting highly irregular, contradictory statements about the Bābī–Bayānī heritage—at times conflating it with Noahide, Tanakhic, or self-invented “universalist” doctrines.

For the sake of historical accuracy and respect for the Bāb’s revelation, it is necessary to make a few points clear:

1.     Bayānī Faith (Dīn al-Bayān or Ā’īn-i-Bayān) refers specifically to the community founded upon the revelation of Siyyid ʿAlī Muḥammad Shīrāzī, the Báb (1819–1850), whose scriptures—the Bayān in Arabic and Persian—constitute a distinct post-Islamic dispensation. It is neither a subset of Judaism nor Christianity, and its cosmology, eschatology, and law arise from its own revealed corpus. It also considers both Judaism and Christianity to be abrogated religions.

2.     The Bāb’s teachings cannot coherently be “re-interpreted” through the Tanakh or Zohar without erasing their metaphysical foundation. Such syncretic rebranding under the label “Universal Bábism” or “Bayani Judaism” has no historical, theological, or textual continuity with the Bayānī lineages.

3.     The authentic Bayānī tradition, preserved through the writings and leadership of Mīrzā Yaḥyā Nūrī Ṣubḥ-i-Azal (d. 1912), His successors and now myself maintains a continuous textual and initiatic transmission. Its scholarship has always upheld critical literacy of the original Arabic-Persian sources, not self-styled pseudo-revelations or derivative dogmas, especially by those who have never even read the corpus of its writings in the original languages.

4.     While spiritual universalism and inter-faith understanding are noble aims, they must not come at the cost of historical falsification or terminological appropriation. Genuine universality arises from gnosis and illumination, not from erasing difference in the name of some Western liberal end.

For researchers and seekers who wish to engage with the authentic Bayānī heritage, primary sources and academic studies are publicly available through reputable archives, libraries, and websites such as Bayanic.com. Any group or individual diverging from these textual foundations—especially one attempting a Noahide rebranding of it—while claiming the Bayānī name should be regarded as a troll, a fraud, and an agent provocateur.

Let the matter rest upon clarity.

— Wahid Azal


https://www.facebook.com/groups/3089069504457427/




 

Thanks for sharing the screenshots — they provide a lot of context. Based on what we can see, here’s an analytical breakdown of the individual you’re describing and a reasoned assessment of their possible motives or authenticity.

1. Identity and Ideological Drift

This person (“Paul,” apparently the group’s admin) exhibits a pattern of serial ideological mutation.
From the group history and his statements:

  • The group has changed names repeatedly: Bayani Faith → Bayani Judaism → Universal Judaism → Universal Faith (Alkwaniyya) → Universal Faith (Universal Bábism), etc.

  • His self-descriptions move from ex-Seventh Day Adventist → Noahide → quasi-Jewish monotheist → syncretic universalist with intermittent references to Bábism, the Tanakh, and Zohar.

This instability is not typical of serious seekers or scholars—it suggests a fluid, identity-performative religiosity, possibly motivated by ego, delusion, or an agenda to appropriate multiple traditions under a pseudo-universalist heading.

2. Doctrinal Incoherence

From his statements:

“Bábism contains a lot of errors with contradictions with Tanakh, the same Islam and Christianity.”
“We can be called Bayanis without following the Báb and his creed; it came from Bábism but now is not.”

These are contradictory assertions:

  • He dismisses Bábism as erroneous yet appropriates its name and vocabulary (“Bayani”) as a self-designator.

  • He rejects prophets yet uses Bayán, a prophetic revelation, as his etymological justification.

  • His “universalism” is filtered through a Judaic exclusivism (“Judaism and the Zohar are to be accessible to all people”), effectively colonizing the Bayānī lexicon into a Noahide–Zionist frame.

This mixture suggests a synthetic pseudo-religious construct whose aim is to project authority while voiding historical continuity.

3. Linguistic and Psychological Markers

His syntax and capitalization patterns (“G-D,” “Tanakh,” “Zohar”) are characteristic of Anglophone Noahide or Chabad outreach discourse.
He claims:

“God has given me the gift of teaching about God to all people and many others that you can’t comprehend … even the rabbis don’t believe me.”

This is a messianic self-ascription, combining:

  • Religious narcissism (a conviction of exclusive divine election),

  • Persecution complex (“the rabbis don’t believe me”), and

  • Missionary self-authorization (“I am here for G-D and for non-Jews”).

In online behavior studies, this profile aligns with delusional proselytizing types rather than paid operatives—though both can overlap.

4. Sociological and Network Clues

The Facebook group is small (82 members), private but visible, with frequent renamings—typical of solo-operator ideological vanity projects.
No signs of coordinated networked activity (e.g., cross-posting with political or sectarian pages, professional content design, or funding signals) appear in what you’ve shown.

That indicates he is more likely a self-appointed sect founder than a structured disinformation agent. However, the ideological blending (Noahide, Judaizing, anti-Bábí statements) could incidentally serve Zionist or missionary apologetic interests by appropriating or neutralizing heterodox post-Islamic currents like Bábism.

5. Possible Typology

If we map his behavior, he fits one or more of these known online types:

Type Traits Likelihood
Delusional prophetic claimant Grandiose revelations, instability, constant doctrinal shifts High
Religious troll or provocateur Uses theological mimicry to confuse or drain attention Medium
Low-level ideological saboteur Inserts distortions to dilute legitimate discourse on heterodox traditions Possible but low-organization
Paid or coordinated actor Evidence of network amplification, sock accounts, multi-language operations Unlikely (no evidence)

6. Assessment

In sum:

  • Not a sophisticated agent, but a charismatic-egoic self-styled teacher whose incoherent universalism cannibalizes other faiths’ terminology.

  • His contradictions and group-name instability show an unanchored theological improvisation, not a targeted campaign.

  • Nevertheless, his rhetoric could serve the effect of online sabotage—confusing search algorithms and casual readers about what “Bayani” or “Universal Bábism” means.

7. Practical Recommendation

  • Do not engage polemically; that fuels his performative loop.

  • Archive his statements for documentation, as he’s appropriating terminologies you’ve historically worked on.

  • Issue a clarification or counter-statement in scholarly tone elsewhere defining authentic Bayānī lineage and doctrine—that will algorithmically outweigh his distortions.

  • If defamation or misrepresentation escalates, you can report or request moderation from Facebook under “religious impersonation or misleading identity.”


 

Popular Posts