The dispute between Ruhiyyih Maxwell (Shoghi’s widow) and the Hands of the Cause with Mason Remey, the then president of the International Bahai Council.

Read about the Divisions in Bahais

2- Wars During the Bab’s Era
When the Bab was imprisoned in Chihriq, Mohammad Shah of Qajar passed away and the princes and nobles of the court became preoccupied with the issues of succession. This put the country in a state of chaos and turmoil. The Babis took advantage of this situation and began to riot under the orders of the Bab. These riots eventually lead to three bloody wars in three different regions of Persia.

The first war began in the first days of the reign of Nasir al-Din Shah in the Fort of Sheikh Tabarsi in Mazandaran and was led by Mulla Husayn-i-Bushru’i and after his death by Mirza `Ali Barfurushi. These clashes have been described in detail in The Dawn Breakers:

The day had not yet broken when at the signal, "Mount your steeds, O heroes of God!" . . . Mulla Husayn and two hundred and two of his companions ran to their horses and followed Quddus . . . He forced his way through the gate and rushed into the private apartments of the prince.

Mulla Husayn . . . mounting his charger, gave the signal that the gate of the fort be opened. As he rode out at the head of three hundred and thirteen of his companions to meet the enemy, the cry of "Ya Sahibu’z-Zaman!" again broke forth. Mulla Husayn first charged the barricade which was defended by Zakariyyay-i-Qadi-Kala’i, one of the enemy’s most valiant officers. Within a short space of time, he had broken through that barrier, disposed of its commander, and scattered his men. Dashing forward with the same swiftness and intrepidity, he overcame the resistance of both the second and third barricades, diffusing, as he advanced, despair and consternation among his foes. Undeterred by the bullets which rained continually upon him and his companions, they pressed forward until the remaining barricades had all been captured and overthrown.

The second clash occurred in the city of Nayriz with the uprising of Sayyid Yahya Darabi and this clash also left behind a large number of casualties.

The third clash occurred in Zanjan between the Babis and the government forces. The casualties in this conflict were at least 1800 from the Babi side:

I have heard it stated that one of the companions of Hujjat who undertook to record the names of those who had suffered martyrdom, had left a written statement in which he had computed the number of those who had fallen prior to the death of Hujjat to be a thousand, five hundred and ninety-eight, whilst those who had suffered martyrdom afterwards were thought to have been in all two hundred and two persons.

Was the cause of these wars and massacres, anything other than the religion of the Bab and the beliefs of a group of Babis? Did these individuals not cause their own destruction, as well as that of many others, because they rioted and fought for their faith and the love they had for the Bab?

Babism, which is the root of Bahaism, openly ordered its followers to start wars and cause bloodshed.

Read about the Violence of Babis

In contrary to what Bahais claim in their history books and want non-Bahais to believe, the Babis were not a group of oppressed and peace-loving people who were merely protecting their women and children from the Persian government:

That humiliating episode was soon followed by a number of similar attempts on the part of the supporters of the governor, all of which utterly failed to achieve their purpose. Every time they rushed to attack the fort, Hujjat would order a few of his companions, who were three thousand in number, to emerge from their retreat and scatter their forces. He never failed, every time he gave them such orders, to caution his fellow-disciples against shedding unnecessarily the blood of their assailants. He constantly reminded them that their action was of a purely defensive character, and that their sole purpose was to preserve inviolate the security of their women and children. "We are commanded," he was frequently heard to observe, "not to wage holy war under any circumstances against the unbelievers, whatever be their attitude towards us."

The peaceful and oppressed face of the Babis and Bahais, as well as the historical narratives presented in the books authored by Nabil Zarandi (many of which were later used by Shoghi Effendi) should be taken with a grain of salt. Nabil Zarandi was one of the many people who had falsely claimed to be "the One Whom God Shall Make Manifest." The words of someone who tries to falsely attribute such a supposedly high station to himself should be met with healthy skepticism.

Furthermore, contrary to Nabil Zarandi’s historical accounts, the orders of the Bab clearly advocated all forms of violence and blood shedding. The wars that the Babis were fighting were the direct result of the Bab’s orders to burn non-Babi books, behead and massacre those who did not believe in him, and to destroy all monuments. Most of these wars were not the result of government oppression against the Babis, and what has been narrated about them in Bahai books carry with them a high amount of distortions and exaggerations.

Abdul Baha clearly announces: The utterance of the [book or religion] of Bayan in the day of the appearance of his Highness A`la (meaning the Bab) was to behead, burn the books, destroy the monuments, and massacre [everyone] but those who believed [in the Bab’s religion] and verified it.

The savagery in the Bab’s laws can clearly be seen in Bahaullah’s words too:

The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things: first, the shedding of blood [beheading] ; second, the burning of books; third, the shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished, these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes.

Since the Babis denied Bahaullah’s station, he refers to them as: "unbelievers and the faithless." Regarding killing and savagery, Abdul Baha says:

If religion causes killing and savagery it is not religion and having no religion is better than that. For religion is meant to be a cure. If a cure causes sickness then of course, no cure is better than it. Thus, if religion causes war and slaughter, then of course, it is better to have no religion.

According to these words, since the Bab gave orders for war, massacres, and plunder, then Babism is not a religion. But then the question arises, if Babism is not a religion, then what is Bahaism? Did Bahaism not arise as a continuation of Babism and as a result of the tidings of the Bab to Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest? Does Bahaism not proudly present itself as the spritiual successor to Babism? If Babism is not a valid religion-which according to the current principle is not-then neither is Bahaism.

3- Conflicts During Bahaullah’s Era
After Bahaullah put forth his claim of being the Bab’s successor, he claimed the title of Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest and attracted a number of followers, disagreements arose between him and his brother Subh Azal, and their respective followers clashed and shed blood.

Bahaullah was forced to flee Baghdad and take refuge in the mountains of Sulaymaniyah near Mosul to escape his brother’s followers. Under the alias Dervish Mohammad, he lived with the lifestyle of a dervish there for two years. Bahaullah uttered the following statements about this journey:

By the Righteousness of God! Our withdrawal contemplated no return, and Our separation hoped for no reunion. The one object of Our retirement was to avoid becoming a subject of discord among the faithful, a source of disturbance unto Our companions, the means of injury to any soul, or the cause of sorrow to any heart. Beyond these, We cherished no other intention, and apart from them, We had no end in view.

Bahaullah confesses that the proclamation of his authority had caused conflict among his friends and followers of his creed. Thus, he had no choice but to go into hiding to prevent this and for two years there was no news of him or his claims. Some might claim that these actions were justified and in accordance with the principle that is under consideration, for Bahaullah, in order to prevent hatred and enmity, refrained from preaching his religion altogether.

This argument is unacceptable, for, even though Bahaullah himself knew that proclaiming his authority would cause conflicts among his followers, he still returned after two years, even though he had said "Our withdrawal contemplated no return, and Our separation hoped for no reunion." Why did he once again put forth his claims of being the successor to the Bab and claimant to the title of Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest? Why did he engage in conflicts and quarrels with his brother, until the situation reached the point that they exchanged all sorts of profanities? Didn’t Bahaullah himself not admit that

In these days, however, such odours of jealousy are diffused, that-I swear by the Educator of all beings, visible and invisible-from the beginning of the foundation of the world-though it hath no beginning-until the present day, such malice, envy, and hate have in no wise appeared, nor will they ever be witnessed in the future. For a number of people who have never inhaled the fragrance of justice, have raised the standard of sedition, and have leagued themselves against Us. On every side We witness the menace of their spears, and in all directions We recognize the shafts of their arrows.

According to Bahaullah’s own statements, his claims-instead of bringing about unity and fellowship-brought about such a degree of hatred and jealousy that was unprecedented and will never occur again. Thus according to Bahaullah and Abdu’l-Baha that, "if religion is a cause of enmity and a cause of war, its absence is better, and a lack of religion is better than religion," it is obvious that having no religion is better than being a Bahai.

4- Clashes After Bahaullah’s Death
If we analyze the issues of fellowship and hatred among Bahai's, we will see that even among the followers of Bahaullah there were many instances where there was no peace or love.

After Bahaullah’s death, disputes arose among his children over the succession of their father. Even though he had ordered them to refrain from conflicts and disagreements, to respect each other and the other family members, and to refrain from saying obscenities to one another, his sons became engrossed in conflicts and accusations.

It is natural for normal people to have differences amongst each other after someone’s death. What is difficult to understand is why should differences arise amongst individuals that preach the slogan of the Oneness of Humanity and those that claim they possess divine stations.

If religion must be a cause of fellowship and unity, then why did Abdul Baha refer to his brother with rude and impolite words like calf, dung beetle, the Devil, and Satan?

5- Bahai Attitude Toward Non-Bahais
We showed Bahai orders regarding non-Bahais and covenant-breakers in the previous chapter. Was there even a speck of unity and fellowship in those words? Why is it that Abdul Baha insists that his father caused unity and fellowship while all facts show the contrary:

We consider Bahaullah to be the highest mentor of the human world. At a time that the darkness of division had overwhelmed the East and the nations of the East were in utter enmity and hatred, the religions were in utter avoidance with each other and thought of each other as impure and were always busy with war and quarrels, it was as this time that Bahaullah rose like the sun from the Eastern horizon. He invited all to kindness and socialization and commenced on advising and nurturing them, and guided [people] from all nations and faiths. He healed the different nations and faiths and made them reach utter unity and harmony, such that when you enter their communities you wouldn’t know which is an Israelite and which a Muslim.

What do Bahais really believe in: interacting with followers of other faiths with kindness and affection or refraining from having any relations with non-Bahais?

How is it that the same Bahais that declare in their proselytization materials that the religion of every person is a personal matter, and our duty is to be kind to everyone, regardless of their religion or creed have their Prophet declare that:

Know that God has forbidden his friends from meeting with the polytheists (deniers of Bahaism) and hypocrites.

How is it that Bahaullah orders his followers to be kind to all in one place, but in another orders them to seek distance from non-Bahais and to be certain torment for them:

And you, oh friends of God, be clouds of grace for those who believe in God and his signs, and be certain torment for those who do not believe in God and are polytheists (deniers of Bahaism).

Why does Bahaullah-who claims religion must be a source of unity and fellowship-openly incite hatred in non-Bahais’ hearts:

We did not want to meet you except to complete God’s proof upon you and those who are around you so that the fire of hatred would dwell in your chest and the chest of those who do not believe in the Lord of the Lords.

And finally, why do Bahais treat covenant breakers in such a harsh manner?

6- Bahaullah and Peace
In contrast to what Bahais claim, Bahaullah had a violent history. Bahaullah had claimed to be a manifestation of Husayn the grandson of the Prophet Mohammad. Husayn was ruthlessly murdered by Yazid in cold blood. Bahaullah’s actions were so violent while he was in Baghdad that according to his aunt, the people would recite the following verse of poetry when referring to him:

If Husayn Ali (Bahaullah) is the manifestation of Husayn the son of Ali (Prophet Muhammad’s grandson), then a thousand blessings be upon the pure soul of Yazid [for killing him].

This attitude can clearly be seen in a letter that Abdul Baha wrote to his aunt. He unintentionally reveals his father’s violent actions in the midst of praising him:

He threw an earthquake upon the pillars of Iraq and always left the people of discord (the Shia) in fear and apprehension. His grandeur had infiltrated the arteries and nerves to such an extent that not a single person dared to disapprove of him nor had the audacity to speak bad of him in the middle of the night in Karbala and Najaf (two cities in Iraq).

As his aunt explains, the reaction shown by the people was not due to Bahaullah’s grandeur, but because of him and his followers’ violent acts:

They gathered a group of hooligans from different provinces of Iran and from the same places fugitives who had never believed in any religion and had no faith in any prophet and had no work but manslaughter and had no occupation but stealing peoples’ property. Even though they claimed they were following [the customs] of Husayn (the grandson of the Prophet Mohammad who was ruthlessly murdered by Shimr on the orders of Yazid) they summoned a group of Shimr-like people around themselves. The breath of any soul who uttered anything but what they were satisfied with was suffocated. They beat any head which made the slightest sound other than accepting their guardianship. They cut every throat which showed other than humbleness towards them. They pierced every heart which had love toward other than them . . .

• Religion Must be the Source of Unity: Introduction
• Is This a New Principle
• Did the Founders of Bahaism Act Upon These Principles?
• Is This Principle Correct From a Rational and Logical Perspective?
• Contradictions in Bahai Faith?
• Conclusion

The articles have been based on the book "Avaze Dohol" - the Beating of the Drum by Masoud Basiti, Zahra Moradi.