There are a number of reasons:
1- In the middle of the eighteenth century a man called the Bab started making messianic claims in Iran. His laws were a mixture of extreme forms of violence and forced child marriage:
“the mass slaughter of non-believers, the destruction of books and shrines, compulsory marriage at the age of 11, the confiscation of the property of unbelievers, and the prohibition on travel except for purposes of trade.” https://bahai-library.com/maceoin_deconstructing_sharia
After his followers caused a great deal of mischief in Iran, he was executed and three civil wars ensued with his followers who were trying to implement his laws in Iran. Luckily the government crushed the fanatics. Baha’is greatly revere this man and pay tribute to him by celebrating his birthday and visiting his shrine.
2- After the Babis were crushed by the government, the remaining Babi leaders plotted to assassinate the Shah of Iran. All were executed except for one bloke by the name of Mirza husayn Ali Nuri, AKA, Baha’u’llah, the founder of Baha’ism. He was saved due to threats by the Russians of laying Iran to ruins:
“”If a hair is lost from His sacred Head, Iran’s future will be in ruins, the flames of war will rage, and they will burn even the stones and the bricks” https://bahai-library.com/ashchi…
Today Baha’is continuously spread propaganda against Iran claiming that they have historically been persecuted in Iran, while historically their leaders were a violent people who caused much mischief and suffering for the Iran populace. These are only a few of the reasons that Baha’is have a bad reputation in Iran.
Baha’u’llah contrary to his own laws that permits two wives, and contrary to the laws of his predecessor the Bab who only permitted a single wife, practiced polygamy and was married to three wives (officially). He also had another wife that Baha’is usually don’t speak about who was a young maid in his house.
Form the 3 official wives, two WERE LABELLED as covenant breakers. You see they didn’t break the covenant, they were labelled as covenant breakers due to their opposition to Abdu’l-Baha hogging power and usurping the right of his half-brother Muhammad Ali. The only wife that was not kicked out of the faith was guess who: Yes Abdu’l-Baha’s mother.
Unfortunately, people labelled as covenant breakers are treated very inhumanely in Baha’ism and are severely persecuted. No one is allowed to speak or socialize with them even their own children and spouses and if they do so they will be given the same treatment.
Further more in the words of Baha’i leaders they are referred to using very hateful words like contamination, haters of the light, and sufferers from spiritual leprosy:
“Announce to Hands and all National Assemblies that following the loss of the appeal to the Supreme Court, the Government expropriation order has been implemented, resulting in the complete evacuation of the remnant of Covenant-breakers and the transfer of all their belongings from the precincts of the Most Holy Shrine, and the purification, after six long decades, of the Ḥaram-i-Aqdas from every trace of their contamination. Measures under way to effect transfer of title deeds of the evacuated property to the triumphant Bahá’í community.”(Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Bahá’í World: 1950–1957, p. 124)Messages to the Bahá’í World: 1950–1957
“It is better not to read books by Covenant-breakers because they are haters of the Light, sufferers from a spiritual leprosy, so to speak.” (Helen Bassett Hornby, Lights of Guidance: A Baha’i Reference File (New Delhi: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1983), chap. XII, no. 628)
Unfortunately this is the true face of the Baha’i cult that is usually kept hidden from outsiders.
Let us examine each of these three possibilities from Bayani point of view:
- Many Bayanis did believe that Subh-i-Azal was the Promised One of Bayan, such as Mirza Jani and August J. Stenstrand; however, nowhere in the writings of Subh-i-Azal do we see that he ever made these claims. In practice, Subh-i-Azal denied that the Promised One of Bayan could appear so quickly, rebuking all people who claimed to be him. And once again, he never claimed to be him. It is clear he was not Azal.
- The Primal Point states in the Persian Bayan: “If He [whom God shall manifest] shall appear in the number of Ghiyath and all shall enter in, not one shall remain in the Fire. If He tarry until [the number of] Mustaghath, all shall enter in, not one shall remain in the Fire, but all shall be transformed into His light” (2:17). The numerical value of the word Ghiyath is 1511, and the numerical value of the word Mustaghath is 2001. These numbers refer to years on the Bayanic calendar, meaning that He can only appear after 1511 Bayanic years have elapsed. This is also confirmed by the fact that the Bayan presupposes that at least Persia will adopt Bayan as the state religion (see Persian Bayan 5:18; 5:19; 6:12; 7:3; 7:16. Arabic Bayan 9:3; 11:2); it is predicted Bayani sheikhs, imams, and judges, etc. will appear (see Persian Bayan 5:8). It is clear Bayan was meant to last a time similar to other dispensations such as that of Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad. It is clear he was not Baha.
- It is clear from this evidence that, since Baha is not him, nor are the 14 other people who claimed to be him, and neither was he Subh-i-Azal, the Promised One of Bayan has yet to come, and the verses of the Bayan testify to this fact.
The Bayánís view Bahá as a usurper who pretended to be He Whom God shall make manifest in order to undermine his brother, Subh-i-Azal who he was jealous of, as he was granted leadership of the Bayání community by the Primal Point.
“After a while, Baha thought of making his own claim. He would often write what he called verses and then would have them washed out in the sea and would say that ‘they were the share of the fish!’ Elders of the Babi [Bayani] community went to Baghdad and admonished Baha for his improper behavior. As a result, he took to the Suleymaniyya where he stayed for two years. There, he also made fresh claims as a result of which he received death threats and saw no option but writing to Subh-i-Azal asking for permission to return which was granted” (Atiyya Ruhi, “A Brief Biography of His Holiness Subh-i-Azal”).
Even during the years before the Bayani-Baha’i schism, Baha in private created his own circle of friends constantly trying to undermine Subh-i-Azal. He was constantly flip flopping because he was at instances caught red handed making claims forcing him to retreat and recant.
“I swear by God that if any one of the People of the Bayan were to mention that the Book [the Bayan] is abrogated, may God smash the mouth of the speaker and the calumniator, and by him who holds my soul and myself in his hands one letter from the Bayan is the most loved with me than all that are in the heavens and on the earth” (1862 Letter of Bahá during the Baghdad Period).
And he also says:
“Consider bygone ages and reflect upon what god had inflicted on their peoples for having contended amongst themselves, for having turned aside from His Countenance, for having strayed away from His path, for having done wrong to His Cause, and for having associated any creature with the Sovereign of His Unity, for which they were of the perished. Have you ever heard religion of god to exist before it is confirmed, or commandment of god to be abrogated before it becomes manifest? … Nay, by my lord, the lord of heavens, no one can abrogate one letter from that which has been revealed in the Bayan” (Letter of Bahá to Sayyid Ibrahm, a Follower of Dayyán).
The Baha’i leadership have tried with all their might to slander and destroy the reputation of His Holiness Subh-i-Azal and have resorted to the most deceitful methods to discredit him, and the allegations they have made against His Eminence found in unsourced, unscholarly books of propaganda such as God Passes By authored by Shoghi Effendi are at times nothing short of foul language.
Bahá’s work, the Kitab-i-Badi, which the Baha’i administration has not yet translated contains the most severe of insults and foul language against His Holiness Subh-i-Azal and his followers:
“When the one who turned away from God halted (in accepting me) and fell off the path, in that moment his body left the garb of humanness and appeared and became visible in the skin of animals. Sanctified is He who changes the beings how he likes” (Kitab-i-Badi, p. 110).
“From this day, any individual that mentions as human [or humanness] a single person from those who deny me — whether that [denier] has a high or low stature — they will be excluded from all of (God’s) Merciful Graces, let alone trying to prove [those deniers] have dignity or stature” (Kitab-i-Badi, p. 140).
“Say, Oh you donkeys! Whatever God says is the truth and will not become void by the words of the polytheists (deniers of Baha’ism)” (Kitab-i-Badi, p. 174).
The Hasht Bihisht records an incident where Bahá himself attempted to murder Subh-i-Azal:
“The first juggle and trick of sorcery which he [i.e. Baha] outlined was this, that he brought to Hazrat-i Azal [i.e. Subh-i Azal] a dish of plain food, with one side of which he had mixed with some poison, intending to poison His Holiness. For hitherto the apportioned breakfast and supper of His Holiness the Fruit [Hazrat-i Thamara, one of the titles conferred on Subh-i Azal by the Point] had been from the house of Mirza Husayn Ali [i.e. Baha]. When that poisoned dish was placed before His Holiness, Mirza Husayn Ali pressed him to partake of it. By a fortunate chance the smell of onions was perceptible in the food, and His Holiness, being averse to taste it. Mirza Husayn Ali continued to press him urgently to eat. He replied, “it smells of onions, I will not eat it; if it is so good, eat it yourself. From this answer Mirza Husayn Ali supposed that His Holiness had divined his evil design, and, simply put the view of disguising the truth and putting a better appearance on the matter, ate a little from the other side [i.e. the unpoisoned side] of the dish, in order that the suspicion of His Holiness might perhaps be dispelled and he might eat the poisoned side. But His Holiness, because of the smell of onion would not eat.”
However, some of the poison had diffused into that side of the dish, and Bahá as a result was poisoned. Following this, he resorted to telling people that Subh-i-Azal had poisoned him.
Bayánís do not believe that Bahá is He Whom God shall make manifest.
All those who claimed this office based their pretensions on a misinterpreted passage in the Arabic Bayán (6:15) where it says:
فلتقو من انتم کلکم اجمعون اذا تسمعن ذکر من تظهره باسم القائم و لتراقبن فوق القائم والقیوم ثم فی سنة التسع کّل خیر تدرکون
“…in the year nine ye will attain unto all good.”
But there is nothing in this passage to invalidate the limit of time fixed by the Primal Point in the Persian Bayán for the appearance of He Whom God shall make manifest, a minimum period of 1511 years, and a maximum period of 2001 years in the Bayánic calendar.
It is clear from Bahá’s actions that his flimsy divine claims were put forward for the sole reason that he wanted to undermine his brother.
Subh-i-Azal, in his letter to Bahá, as quoted by the renowned Bayání scribe, Mirza Mustafa Katib, says the following:
“…O faithless brother, what has happened that in vain you joined hands to violate my honour, and to stain your own hand with my blood. You gathered round yourself a band of persons addicted to vice … you excited this gang of villains to hate me … I appointed you to act for me. I ordered my friends to obey you … you are now out to destroy me. I was your guest, you abused me. You swore at me in my face. That which you yourself deserved you ascribed to me. You inspired your servants with rancorous hatred of me. Even you taught your own barber your own falsehoods. He gave false evidence against the truth. You set in motion this great sedition …. Outwardly you pretended to be my friend. You attended my feast. You ate my meal of trust. Inwardly you manifested your falsehood until Shawal 23 [Presumably March 11, 1866] when I was keeping a fast you withheld bread and water from me. … By deceit you intercepted my epistles. Some of them which were to your advantage you paraded before the inhabitants of the city [i.e. Edirne]. At present I am in straitened circumstances and you are in affluence. And yet you pretend the contrary…” (In Response to Zayn-al Muqarrabin).
The following guidance was dropped in the U S in 1998.
Bahà’is are not permitted to single out Muslims from the Middle-East and North Africa, especially Iranian Muslims, to teach them the Faith. Should such a person become spontaneously attracted to the Faith he or she may, with caution, be taught. Enrolment in the Faith is, however, a different issue which must be considered on a case by case basis:-
The instructions of the beloved Guardian regarding teaching orientals from the Middle East are to be upheld, even more so at this time because of the present situation in Iran. Iranian Muslims in particular should not be sought out in order to teach them the Faith.
(letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, dated February 6, 1986)
There are certain principles governing association with persons from Middle Eastern Muslim countries. Bahá’is in the West are not to initiate any attempts to teach the Faith to Muslims from Middle Eastern countries. This includes Muslims from Iran, North Africa and Arab countries. Muslims from these countries who have become citizens of the United States or have acquired permanent resident status and who show a genuine interest in learning about the Faith may be taught the Faith but it is they who must take the initiative. If a Muslim should ask for information on the Faith, the information he seeks may be given according to the dictates of wisdom, but Baha’is should not exceed the request that has been made by attempting to convert the person, interest him further or invite him to Baha’i meetings. In short, Baha’is are not to make a project of teaching Muslims. Although there are certain restrictions about teaching Muslims from some countries and accepting them into the Faith, it is a different situation with Muslims from India or Pakistan as compared with those from Iran or the Near East.
(letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, dated September 22, 1983)
Access and download a completely free version of this handbook at: