Moshe Sharon,Israeli State and Baha’i Faith

The name Moshe Sharon came up in relation to the psychotic-senile tablet of Husayn ‘Ali Nari, Lawh Mubdi’ Kulli Badi. Mr Badi Ahriman- Villar brought up this man’s name in relation to another translation of this work besides the ones completed by Jalal Azal, myself and the webmaster of

So who is Moshe Sharon?

moshey sharon bahai

Before proceeding let it be known that the character of Moshe Sharon proves the solid political connections of the haifan Baha’i Faith organization with the establishment-elite of the Israeli state and his policies. It also confirms all of the allegations made consistently whether by the Pahlavi state or the Islamic republic that the haifan Baha’i Faith organization is a lackey of Zionism. Moshe Sharon is a professor of Islamic history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
His area of specialization in Islamicwissenschaft (Islamic studies) is the Abbasid revolution and the Abbasid caliphate. Besides his normal academic appointment Sharon also is presently the Chair of Baha’i Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In 2000 Moshe Sharon convened a conference at the Hebrew University, the results of which were published in a volume edited by him and published by Brill Academic Publishers in Leiden in 2004. Technically Moshe Sharon is not a Baha’i but a secular Jew, albeit an academic specialist in Islamics.
Here are pictures of Moshe Sharon:

Some of Moshe Sharon’s political views, however, are quite to the right. Notice that Moshe Sharon is invoked as an authority and spoken with respect on the blog of that rabid-likkudnik Zio-Nazi Neo-Con lunatic Daniel Pipes:

Quaintly Moshe Sharon’s views of bahaism exhibit a very sharp angle of the sort of fundamentalist, ahistorical thinking articulated by the mainstream haifan cultist sub-culture. Here are two posts of Professor Sharon’s on H-Bahai last year. These were two posts in reply to J. Vahid Brown (a somewhat shifty chameleon, but someone who knows the score) on the question of the use of the term nabi (prophet) & rasul (messenger) by Husayn ‘Ali Nari. Brown had proferred evidence that Nari had indeed used the terms in relation to himself. But fundamentalist-cultist thinking in the haifan Baha’i Faith mileu has a reaction to such designations and what have you. In any case, here are Sharon’s two posts.

From: Moshe Sharon <msh…>
List Editor: Sen & Sonja <sen….@CASEMA.NL>
Editor’s Subject: Nabi / Rasul
Author’s Subject: Re: Nabi / Rasul
Date Written: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:49:13 +0200
Date Posted: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:49:13 +0200

Date sent:              Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:37:00 +0200

Dear Colleague,

I think that you are not wrong. I am almost sure that baha’u’llah never used the terms Rasul or Nabi for himself for the obvious reason:

Both terms are connected with the definition of Muhammad as “Bashar” namely a human being chosen to bring a message of God and destined to die like all humans after delivering it. The terms Rasul and Nabi are not fit therefore to the manifestation of God namely the revealed God Himself, as Baha’u’llah described himself. The usage by Baha’u’llah
of the tem Jamal-i-Qidam for instance is to be compared to Atiqa Qaddisha in Aramaic used by the Cabbala scholars to define the revealed side of the Devine Being.

All the best M. Sharon

From: Moshe Sharon <msh…>
List Editor: Sen & Sonja <sen….@CASEMA.NL>
Editor’s Subject: Nabi / Rasul
Author’s Subject: Re: Nabi / Rasul
Date Written: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:15:07 +0200
Date Posted: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:15:07 +0200

Date sent:              Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:06:08 +0200

Dear Mr. Terry

Your question was whether Baha’u’llah called himself Nabi or Rasul. I said that he did not, as far as I know, used these two specific titles among all the titles which he used for himself. The fact that he regarded the Rasuls and Anbia’ as the manifestation of God is obvious. This was not the question. I still think, but I am always happy to be corrected,  that he did not use these two specific terms for himself because they (particularly rasul)  were connected with the fact that in the Qur’an Muhammad use them in connection with bashar namely flesh human being which belongs to this world. I checked this with one of our colleagues in Haifa, one of the best experts on the writings of Baha’u’llah. He agreed with me that Baha’u’llah did not use either Nabi or Rasul for himself. But to be sure they are running for me the full index programme of the writings of Baha’u’llah to see if I am right. Again, everything that was written about the interpretation of Baha’u’llah to these terms, is absolutely correct, but as I said this is not the question. If indeed Baha’u’llah as I think did not use the terms in question to describe himself then it is very interesting to see whether I am right in my interpretation. Thank you for rising the question.

I shall let you know about the outcome of the search in the BWC search engines. As far as the Seal is concerned. I believe that this is quite clear.
Every prophet is the seal of his cycle of prophecy. In this way the idea of the Seal of the Prophets is kept as well as the validity of every a new prophecy which opens always a new cycle. This  also is old and known material.

All the best

M. Sharon

Additionally it should be mentioned that on the private list grok and in private email and telephone conversations Juan Ricardo I. Cole had disparaged Moshe Sharon as a “Zionist-Fascist-Likkudnik” to me personally and several other individuals (John Walbridge, Steve Scholl, Tony Lee, the Marshalls, William Garlington, Payam Afsharian and the late Linda Walbridge amongst them). This disaparagement had come as a result of my quieries to Cole regarding the 2000 conference in Jerusalem. Sharon had invited me to come after I had responded to an email posted 9-10 months previously on h-bahai. Unfortunately, for various reasons and also due to what Cole said at the time, I decided not to go. Yet when the volume of the 2000 conference was published Cole had included a largely ahistorical piece of anti-Bayani Baha’i Faith propaganda in Sharon’s volume, and prominently so, although he had not personally attended the conference or given a paper there.

Moshe Sharon and his Chairmanship of Baha’i Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem proves the extent to which the haifan Baha’i Faith establishment has its hands deep in the pockets of the Israeli state/ Zionism and vice versa.

However one cannot begrudge Moshe Sharon personally or professionally for doing what he does vis-a-vis the haifan Baha’i Faith. As a public academic in Israel with a responsibility to his interests he is merely pursuing the policies and interests of his own. The haifan Baha’i Faith organization, on the other hand, has a lot to answer for, not to mention a hypocrite and liar of the calibre of Juan R.I. Cole.

Back to Badi Ahriman Villar and his rantings about the Tablet of O Creator of All Creation qua Moshe Sharon! I find it quite interesting that Professor Sharon would involve himself in this debate and translate a piece of embarrassing historical waffle by Husayn ‘Ali Nari which the late Jalal Azal and William Miller saw for what it is: waffle! Given that the Israeli establishment has no qualms about publicly defending the indefensible vis-a-vis the haifan Baha’i Faith, I hereby publicly call for Moshe Sharon and any other colleagues he wishes to bring with him to debate me and my fellow comrade in arms Steve Blomberg regarding this item by Husayn ‘Ali Nari and any other items he so wishes to discuss.

Let us call this evet a modern Mubahilah sessions with two modern Babis. While we are on the subject,
I also wish to ask Moshe Sharon whether he would care to explain to the Israeli taxpayer – and especially those displaced settlers in Gaza removed at gun-point last year by his relative Ariel Sharon – why the Israeli state subsidizes the haifan Baha’i Faith to astronomical figures when it is not even prepared to do that for its own Israeli public.

Kindly come to any venue of your choosing, Mr Sharon. I am serious about wishing to debate you on this and other assorted matters, while also grilling you about your government’s support of the Baha’i Faith when it isn’t prepared to go out of its way for its own in the manner it has for this cult.

Ball in your court…

Wahid Azal


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s