Religion Must be the Source of Unity and Fellowship in the World

A Summary and Conclusion

1) Is “Religion Must be the Source of Unity and Fellowship” a new principle?

All of God’s Prophets made effort to mend conflicts among humanity and cause unity and fellowship among them. Examples from Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam were brought forth. `Abdu’l-Bahā also confessed that this principle has existed in all religions. It is obvious that this principle is not a new discovery made by the Baha’is.

2) Did the leaders of Baha’ism act upon this principle?

According to the sayings of `Abdu’l-Bahā, if a religion causes war and enmity, its inexistence is better than its existence. The history of Bābism and Baha’ism displays a great deal of bloodshed and conflicts between the followers of these groups and those that opposed them. These conflicts even existed between Baha’i leaders in a bid to become successors to their predecessors.

3) Is this principle rational and logical?

Throughout history, many ignorant people have stood up against God’s prophets and have opposed them. These oppositions resulted in wars and conflicts. Can we say that because these religions brought about war, it would have been fundamentally better for these Prophets not to have come altogether?

Contradictions

Bahā’u’llāh:
“Contradiction has and will not ever have a way in the sanctified realm of the Divine Manifestations.”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Badī`, p. 126.

Is the Principle “Religion Must Be the Source of Unity and Fellowship in the World” New?

`Abdu’l-Bahā: This is a new principle brought forth by my father.

“He sets forth a new principle for this day in the announcement that religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement among mankind. If it is the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be preferable in the world,”

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 454–455.

`Abdu’l-Bahā: All prophets came to create love and kindness among the people.

“All the Prophets came to nurture the people so that the immature individuals could reach maturity and to bring about kindness and love among the people, not hatred and enmity,”

Reference:`Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 65.

Is Bābism a Religion?

`Abdu’l-Bahā: If religion causes enmity and war, it is not a religion.

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, pp. 44–45.

Ponder on: The conflicts among the Bābīs over the title of Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest.

Twenty seven people among the Bābīs brought themselves forth as the Promised One in the Book of Bayān, such as Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣubḥ Azal, Mīrzā Ḥusayn `Alī Nūrī (Bahā’u’llāh), Mīrzā Asad-Allāh Dayyān, Mīrzā Muḥammad Nabīl Zarandī, Mīrzā Ghughā Darwīsh, and Sayyid Baṣīr Hindī.

Reference: Muḥammad `Alī Fayḍī, Ḥaḍrat Bahā’u’llāh, pp. 103–104.

The massacres and bloody wars that were started on the Bab’s orders in three different parts of Iran.

Reference: Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, chapters XIX, XXII, XIV.

The Bab’s orders to behead and massacre those who did not believe in him.

“The utterance of the [book or religion] of Bayān in the day of the appearance of his Highness A`lā (meaning the Bāb) was to behead, burn the books, destroy the monuments, and massacre [everyone] but those who believed [in the Bāb’s religion] and verified it,”

Reference:`Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt: 1330 AH), vol. 2, p. 266

“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.”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Tablets of Bahā’u’llāh Revealed After the Kitāb-i-Aqdas, p. 91.

Were the Bābī Wars Solely Defensive?

Baha’i History books: The Bāb’s followers were a peaceful oppressed people who only defended their women and children against the evil Persians.

“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,”

Reference: Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, p. 546.

Bahā’u’llāh and `Abdul’-Bahā: The Bāb gave the order to massacre and behead all non-Bābīs.

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt: 1330 AH), vol. 2, p. 266.

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Tablets of Bahā’u’llāh Revealed After the Kitāb-i-Aqdas, p. 91.

Is Baha’ism a Religion?

`Abdu’l-Bahā: If a religion causes divisions it is not a religion.

“Religion should create unity and create links between the hearts. Jesus and the other divine prophets came to create unity and fellowship. If religion causes divisions, its non-existence is preferred.,”

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 59.

Ponder On: The conflicts between Bahā’u’llāh and his brother Mīrzā Yaḥyā.

The conflicts, feuds, and bloodshed between Bahā’u’llāh and his brother Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣubḥ Azal and their followers resulted in the exile of the Azalīs (the supporters of Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣubḥ Azal) to Cyprus and the Baha’is to Palestine.

The conflicts between `Abdu’l-Bahā and his brother Muḥammad `Alī.

Bahā’u’llāh had willed that his successor would be Ghuṣn A`ẓam (`Abdu’l-Bahā’) and after him Ghuṣn Akbar (`Abdu’l-Bahā’s brother Muḥammad `Alī): “God has destined the station [for] Ghuṣn Akbar after his position (meaning `Abdu’l-Bahā’), for He is the Commanding Wise. We chose the Akbar after the A`ẓam, an order from the All Knowing and Aware (God). All must show kindness towards the two Ghuṣns . . . All must respect and admire the two Ghuṣns,”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Majmū`iy-i alwāḥ-i mubārak-ih, pp. 302–303.

After Bahā’u’llāh’s death the two brothers differed on the amount of authority they had and fights ensued between them and their followers.

The disputes between Shoghi and those who opposed his successorship.

According to Bahā’u’llāh’s orders the successor after `Abdu’l-Bahā was supposed to be his brother Ghuṣn Akbar. `Abdu’l-Bahā disobeyed this decree and instead appointed his own grandson Shoghi Effendi as his successor. This resulted in many differences and conflicts between Shoghi and many Baha’is who didn’t accept his authority.

The dispute between Rūḥiyyih Maxwell and Mason Remey.

In contrast to what `Abdu’l-Bahā had prophesized, Shoghi was sterile and had no children to succeed him. In a bid to become his successor, an internal conflict erupted between Bahā’u’llāh’s followers. Amongst these conflicts, the most intense was the one between Shoghi’s widow (Rūḥiyyih Maxwell) and Mason Remey (President of the International Baha’i Council). Mason Remey claimed that the UHJ established by Rūḥiyyih Maxwell was illegitimate and in a countermove the UHJ excommunicated Mason Remey from the Baha’i community.

Is Baha’ism the Cause of Hatred and Having No Religion Is Better than Being a Baha’i?

`Abdu’l-Bahā: If religion causes enmity and hatred it is not a religion.

“Religion must be the cause of unity and fellowship. If religion causes enmity it will have no result and having no religion is better. For it becomes the cause of enmity and hatred between humanity and whatever causes enmity is hated by God and whatever causes unity and fellowship is accepted and praised. 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,”

Reference:`Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, pp. 44–45.

Bahā’u’llāh: When I claimed to be He Whom God Shall make Manifest, such hatred and envy occurred that had never existed to such a degree from the beginning of creation and never will occur again.

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, The Kitāb-i-Īqān, p. 249.

I want to incite the fire of hatred in the chest of non-Baha’is.

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Āthār-i Qalam-i A`lā, vol. 1, no. 97, p. 339.

Are Other Peoples’ Beliefs Any of Our Business?

`Abdu’l-Bahā: Other people’s beliefs are none of our business. Issues of faith are relevant to God and he will handle them on the Day of Judgment. God has not made us the police of the peoples’ actions.

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 2, pp. 284–285.

Bahā’u’llāh: Torment the deniers of Baha’ism.

“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 Baha’ism),”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Majmū`iy-i alwāḥ-i mubārak-ih, p. 216.

Befriending the Enemies or Being like Flame of Fire to Them?

Bahā’u’llāh: “If, God forbid, you have an enemy, do not see him as an enemy but rather a friend. Deal with your friends in the same way you deal with your enemy.”

Reference: Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Egypt), vol. 1, p. 154.

Bahā’u’llāh: “Be like a flame of fire to my enemies and a river of eternal life to my friends.”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Ad`iyyih-i ḥaḍrat-i maḥbūb (Egypt: Published by Faraj-Allāh Dhakī al-Kurdī, 1339 AH), p .184.

Kindness or Violence?

`Abdu’l-Bahā: When everyone was in utmost hatred and spite, Bahā’u’llāh invited the word to kindness and fellowship and brought about unity and agreement.

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 2, p. 54.

Bahā’u’llāh’s Sister: Bahā’u’llāh and his followers murdered many people in Baghdad.

Reference: `Izziye Khānum (Khānum Buzurg), Tanbīh al-nā’imīn, pp. 11–12.

Is Religion a Cause of Fellowship or Fear?

`Abdu’l-Bahā: Religion must be a cause of fellowship. It must cause kindness. It must cause links among humanity.

“The third principle of his highness Bahā’u’llāh is that religion must be the source of fellowship. It must cause links among humanity,”

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 2, p. 146.

`Abdu’l-Bahā: In Iraq, Bahā’u’llāh had caused such fear in the heart of the Muslims, that not a single person dared to protest against him.

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 2, p. 177.

Bahā’u’llāh: Once my followers conquer the lands they will cleanse them from non-Baha’is and everyone will fear them!

“God will soon take out from the sleeves of power the hands of strength and dominance and will make the Servant (Bahā’u’llāh) victorious and will cleanse the earth from the filth of every rejected polytheist (deniers of Baha’ism). And they will stand by the cause and will conquer the lands using my mighty eternal name and will enter the lands and they will be feared by all the servants,”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Āthār-i Qalam-i A`lā, vol. 2, no. 90, p. 587.

Courtesy: Twelve Principles – A Comprehensive Investigation on the Bahai Teachings

Conflicts During Bahā’u’llāh’s Era

After Bahā’u’llāh 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 Ṣubḥ Azal, and their respective followers clashed and shed blood.

Bahā’u’llāh 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. Bahā’u’llāh 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.”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, The Kitāb-i-Īqān (US Bahā’ī Publishing Trust, 1989 [pocket-size edition]), p. 251.

Bahā’u’llāh 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 Bahā’u’llāh, in order to prevent hatred and enmity, refrained from preaching his religion altogether.

This argument is unacceptable, for, even though Bahā’u’llāh 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 Bahā’u’llāh 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.”

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, The Kitāb-i-Īqān, p. 249.

According to Bahā’u’llāh’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 Bahā’u’llāh and Abdu’l-Bahā 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 Baha’i.

Clashes After Bahā’u’llāh’s Death

If we analyze the issues of fellowship and hatred among Baha’i’s, we will see that even among the followers of Bahā’u’llāh there were many instances where there was no peace or love.

After Bahā’u’llāh’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 `Abdu’l-Bahā refer to his brother with rude and impolite words like calf, dung beetle, the Devil, and Satan?

“When Mīrzā Yaḥyā Azal started opposing the works, deeds, and words of his esteemed brother (Bahā’u’llāh) in Edirne . . . he plunged from his [high] stature and the rank of union and agreement [that he had with Bahā’u’llāh] and was gradually— in the tablets, works, and revelations [from Bahā’u’llāh]— referred to with codes, references, and names such as the polytheist, the calf, the scarab (dung beetle), the tyrant, the Satan, the devil, the foul swamp, the buzzing of a fly, and similar names,”

Reference: Asad-Allāh Fāḍil Māzandarānī, Asrār al-āthār khuṣūṣī, vol. 5, p. 345–346.

Baha’i Attitude Toward Non-Baha’is

“We must avoid deniers in all affairs and must not become fond of them or sit and converse with them even for a moment, for by God the [effect of] evil individuals on pure individuals is like fire on dry wood and heat on cold snow,”

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Mā’idiy-i āsimānī, vol. 8, pp. 39

“Know that God has forbidden his friends from meeting with the polytheists (deniers of Baha’ism) and hypocrites.”

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Mā’idiy-i āsimānī, vol. 4, p. 280.

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Majmū`iy-i alwāḥ-i mubārak-ih, p. 216.

And finally, why do Baha’is treat covenant breakers in such a harsh manner?

Courtesy: Twelve Principles – A Comprehensive Investigation on the Bahai Teachings

Did the Founders of Baha’ism Act Upon These Principles?

According to this principle and the aforementioned statements from `Abdu’l-Bahā, if a religion causes enmity and hatred, its non-existence is better than its existence. Thus, it logically follows that if Bābism and Baha’ism caused enmity and hatred, they are subject to `Abdu’l-Bahā’s decree and their non-existence is preferred over their existence.

We will now proceed to show the many instances in which the Bābī and Baha’i creeds became a cause of enmity, hatred, and divisions.

Internal Disputes in the Bābī and Baha’i creeds

The history of Bābism and Baha’ism is filled with various enmities and conflicts between their leaders and followers. Much can be said about each conflict, but we will only refer to a small number of them below:

The conflicts among the Bābīs over the title of Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest.

See Muḥammad `Alī Fayḍī, Ḥaḍrat Bahā’u’llāh, pp. 103–104.

2. The conflicts, feuds, and bloodshed between Bahā’u’llāh and his brother Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣubḥ Azal and their followers that resulted in the exile of the Azalīs (the supporters of Mīrzā Yaḥyā Ṣubḥ Azal) to Cyprus and the Baha’is to Palestine.

3. The conflicts and clashes between `Abdu’l-Bahā and his brother Muḥammad `Alī Effendi.

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Majmū`iy-i alwāḥ-i mubārak-ih, pp. 302–303.

After Bahā’u’llāh’s death the two brothers differed on the amount of authority they had and fights ensued between them and their followers.

4. The disputes and arguments between Shoghi and those who opposed his successorship.

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

Wars During the Bāb’s Era

When the Bāb was imprisoned in Chihrīq, Muḥammad Shah of Qājār 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 Bābīs took advantage of this situation and began to riot under the orders of the Bāb. 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 Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh in the Fort of Sheikh Ṭabarsī in Māzandarān and was led by Mullā Ḥusayn-i-Bushrū’ī and after his death by Mīrzā `Alī Bārfurūshī. 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 (The original Farsi word used is jangjoo which means ‘combatant’ not ‘hero’.) of God!” . . . Mullā Ḥusayn and two hundred and two of his companions ran to their horses and followed Quddūs . . . He forced his way through the gate and rushed into the private apartments of the prince.”

Reference: Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation (US Bahā’ī Publishing Trust, 1932), p. 365.

“Mullā Ḥusayn . . . 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 “Yā Sāhibu’z-Zamān!” again broke forth. Mullā Ḥusayn first charged the barricade which was defended by Zakariyyay-i-Qādī-Kalā’ī, 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.”

Reference: Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, p. 379–380.

The second clash occurred in the city of Nayrīz with the uprising of Sayyid Yaḥyā Dārābī and this clash also left behind a large number of casualties.

Reference: Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, pp. 465–500.

The third clash occurred in Zanjān between the Bābīs and the government forces. The casualties in this conflict were at least 1800 from the Bābī 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.”

Reference: Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, p. 580.

Was the cause of these wars and massacres, anything other than the religion of the Bāb and the beliefs of a group of Bābīs? 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 Bāb?

Bābism, which is the root of Baha’ism, openly ordered its followers to start wars and cause bloodshed. In contrary to what Baha’is claim in their history books and want non-Baha’is to believe, the Bābīs 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.”

Reference: Nabīl Zarandī, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabīl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahā’ī Revelation, p. 546.

The peaceful and oppressed face of the Bābis and Baha’is, as well as the historical narratives presented in the books authored by Nabīl Zarandī (many of which were later used by Shoghi Effendi) should be taken with a grain of salt. Nabīl Zarandī 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.

`Abdu’l-Bahā clearly announces:

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Makātīb (Egypt), vol. 2, p. 266.

The savagery in the Bāb’s laws can clearly be seen in Bahā’u’llāh’s words too:

Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, Tablets of Bahā’u’llāh Revealed After the Kitāb-i-Aqdas, p. 91.

Since the Bābīs denied Bahā’u’llāh’s station, he refers to them as: “unbelievers and the faithless.” Regarding killing and savagery, `Abdu’l-Bahā 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.

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, pp. 44–45.

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

Coutesy: Twelve Principles – A Comprehensive Investigation on the Bahai Teachings

Religion Must be the Source of Unity and Fellowship in the World

Introduction

“The third principle of his highness Bahā’u’llāh is that religion must be the source of fellowship. It must cause links among humanity. It must be a blessing of the Lord and 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. Rather, it must be the opposite. Religion must be a cause of fellowship and a cause of relations between the masses of humanity.”

Reference: `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 2, p. 146.

The meaning of “Religion Must Be the Source of Unity and Fellowship” is that religion must be the cause of kindness between people and if, as a result of religion, a group comes in conflict with another and enmity arises, that religion has no value.

`Abdu’l-Bahā reiterates many times that if religion causes divisions instead of unity, its non-existence is better than its existence:

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, pp. 44–45.

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 59.

Baha’is claim that Bahā’u’llāh has brought a new religion whose main purpose is to bring about world peace and unity to the world of humanity; this peace and unity must occur under the shadow of kindness and fellowship. If a religion does not bring about kindness, peace, and unity, then it is not a religion.

Is the Principle “Religion Must be the Source of Unity and Fellowship in the World” New?

Did the previous Divine Prophets causes enmity and disunity? Did they urge people to be evil, oppress, use foul language, and to start wars? Is this principle as `Abdu’l-Bahā claims new:

Reference: Abdu’l-Bahā, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 454–455.

All divine prophets had appeared to overcome the divisions among humanity and to bring about fellowship among the people. `Abdu’l-Bahā confesses to this reality and says:

“All the Prophets came to nurture the people so that the immature individuals could reach maturity and to bring about kindness and love among the people, not hatred and enmity.”

Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 65.

Bible

“If you had known what these words mean, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent.”

Reference: Book of Matthew, 12:7 (New International Version).

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Reference: Book of Matthew, 18:21–22 (New International Version).

Zoroastrian

“I pledge myself to the Mazdayasnian religion, which causes the attack to be put off and weapons put down.”

Reference: Avesta, Yasna 12, section 9, translated by L. H. Mills, Sacred Books of the East (American Edition, 1898).

It is obvious that in contrast to what Baha’is claim this principle is in no way novel and even amongst atheists and those that do not believe in any religion, there are countless individuals that have made kindness and servitude to others the goal of their lives. So, what is the innovation of Bahā’u’llāh and his religion?

Courtesy: Twelve Principles – A Comprehensive Investigation on the Bahai Teachings