These are Baha’i Teachers. The case of Dilavara Mihrshahi is very popular in Panchgani. Each and every Baha’i knows about this. If Baha’is want to spread their religion with these moral values then they are requested to return back to their countries from where they are exported to India.
Baha’i figures have said different things at different times regarding Jesus.
For example, on June 24, 1947, Shoghi Effendi stated (also here) “The churches are waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ; we believe He has come again in the Glory of the Father. The churches teach doctrines–various ones in various creeds–which we as Bahá’ís do not accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in some creeds, the denial of the Immaculate Conception.”
Bahá’ís Must Have No Affiliation with Churches
“…we, as Bahá’ís, must not have any affiliations with churches or political parties. But he feels certain that when you meditate on this matter you yourselves will see the wisdom of it. We, as Bahá’ís, can never be known as hypocrites or as people insincere in their protestations and because of this we cannot subscribe to both the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh and ordinary church dogma. The churches are waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ; we believe He has come again in the Glory of the Father. The churches teach doctrines–various ones in various creeds–which we as Bahá’ís do not accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in some creeds, the denial of the Immaculate Conception. In other words, there is no Christian church today whose dogmas we, as Bahá’ís, can truthfully say we accept in their entirety–therefore to remain a member of the Church is not proper for us, for we do so under false pretences. We should, therefore, withdraw from our churches but continue to associate, if we wish to, with the church members and ministers.
“Our belief in Christ, as Bahá’ís, is so firm, so unshakeable and so exalted in nature that very few Christians are to be found now-a-days who love Him and reverence Him and have the faith in Him that we have. It is only from the dogmas and creeds of the churches that we dissociate ourselves; not from the spirit of Christianity.”
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the Bahá’ís of Vienna, June 24, 1947)
On May 28, 1984, the Universal House of Justice addressed a letter stating “From a Bahá’í point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples’ experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified (as would have the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His Dispensation.”
Concerning the Resurrection of Christ you quote the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the account stresses the reality of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples who, the Gospel states, at first took Him to be a ghost. From a Bahá’í point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples’ experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified (as would have the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His Dispensation (from a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, 28 May 1984).
Bahai’s in the West have historically argued that their religion is the fulfillment of Christian prophecy, particularly based on Seventh-dayAdventist literature and the teachings of Baptist preacher William Miller. William Sears, named a Hand of the Cause of God by Shoghi Effendi in 1957, was a popular radio and television personality, who wrote a best-selling book, Thief in the Night. William Miller, a Baptist preacher, predicted that on October 22, 1844, Christ would return to the Earth. Although the prophecy was not fulfilled, leading to what was called the Great Disappointment, the Millerites would go on to form the various Adventist churches.
Thief in the Night, argues that Miller’s interpretation of biblical prophecies for the signs and dates of the coming of Jesus were correct and fulfilled by the Báb who declared that he was the “Promised One” on May 23, 1844, and began openly teaching in Iran in October 1844. In 2016, a Baha’i movie came out loosely based on these events called The Miller Prediction.
Did the Baha’is in the Ottoman Empire and the following British Mandate cooperate with the Zionist movement?Posted: August 26, 2017
To give a brief timeline, the Bahá’ís, including Bahá’u’lláh and his family, arrived in Acre on August 31, 1868. Bahá’u’lláh lived in Acre until 1877, when he moved to a mansion in Mazra’a where he lived for two years. From 1879 until his death in 1892, he lived at the Mansion of Bahjí.
The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, from August 29 to August 31, 1897. The British conquered Palestine from the Ottomans during World War I in a series of campaigns lasting from March through November of 1917. It was only after the British occupation of Palestine that mass immigration of Jewish settlers occurred. Looking at census data for Palestine, for example, in 1922 there were 83,290 Jews and by 1946 that number had risen to 608,225.
On February 23, 1914, at the eve of World War I, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá hosted Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild banking family who was a leading advocate and financier of the Zionist movement, during one of his early trips to Palestine. This event was reported in “Star of the West” magazine.
On September 8, 1919, subsequent to the British occupation of Palestine, at a time when tens of thousands of Jewish settlers were arriving under the auspices of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, an article in the “Star of the West” quoted ‘Abdu’l-Bahá praising the Zionist movement, proclaiming that “There is too much talk today of what the Zionists are going to do here. There is no need of it. Let them come and do more and say less” and that “A Jewish government might come later.”
On January 24, 1922, Shoghi Effendi received a letter from Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner for Palestine. The receipt of the letter is mentioned in Amatu’l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum‘s The Priceless Pearl. As High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel was the first Jew to govern the historic land of Israel in 2,000 years, and his appointment was regarded by the Muslim-Christian Associations as the “first step in formation of Zionist national home in the midst of Arab people.” Herbert Samuel welcomed the arrival of Jewish settlers under the auspices of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and recognised Hebrew as one of the three official languages of the Mandate territory.
While Shoghi Effendi was thus occupied and was gathering his powers and beginning to write letters such as these to the Bahá’ís in different countries, he received the following letter from the High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, dated 24 January 1922:
Dear Mr. Rabbani,
I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of Jan. 16., and to thank you for the kind expression it contains. It would be unfortunate if the ever to be lamented death of Sir ‘Abdu’l-Bahá were to interfere with the completion of your Oxford career, and I hope that may not be the case. I am much interested to learn of the measures that have been taken to provide for the stable organization of the Bahá’í Movement. Should you be at any time in Jerusalem in would be a pleasure to me to see you here.
The below messages of the President and the Vice President of India is being circulated by the Baha’is of India in Social Media, Bahai Forums and Websites wherein they have taken pride that the topmost Government officials have wished them on the Bicentennial Celebration of Bab and Baha’u’llah.
The interesting part in these message is that they have smartly fooled them by providing them the fake information that they are 2 million in India while the Government of India census figure clearly states that Baha’is are only 4573 in numbers.( REF : “Data on Religion” by the Census Department of Government of India states the Baha’i population as 4,573. )
Bahais have deceived these personalities and exploited their contacts to extract such letters from them. There could be some rich and influential Baha’is who are in friendly contacts with Government officials through whom they had been successful in carrying out such works.
People of India must be careful about these recent development and must take a note that Baha’is in India are fooling the people through RUHI books, Youth Empowerment Programmes , Children Classes and other so called Moral Activities. Their hidden agenda is to convert more and more People to Bahai faith so that they could acquire Minority Status in India. I think that is also one of the reason that on their official websites they have highly exaggerated their numbers and now with the help of these messages they wanted to prove to the World that they are indeed 2 millions in India.
Ghulam Ahmad has often been compared with Baha’u’llah. There is a close affinity between the ideas and preaching of these two men. Baha’u’llah was born twenty-two years before Ghulam Ahmad, and died when the latter was past fifty and had yet eighteen years to live. Baha’u’llah and Ghulam Ahmad never met each other, but that circumstance cannot preclude influence of one upon the other. The Iranian is reflected in the Qadiani, and no protestations to the contrary can dislodge him from the hold he seems to have over Ghulam Ahmad’s mind. There is a marked family resemblance between the Baha’i and the Qadiani movements. The present chapter is an attempt to compare and contrast Qadianism and Baha’ism.
Baha’u’llah was a disciple of Ali Muhammad Bab, who belonged to the dervish order of Shekhis in Iran, distinguished by its expectancy of a divine messenger. Ali Muhammad declared himself to be the Bab or medium of divine grace. He claimed at first to be a harbinger, a John the Baptist, in relation to the impending advent of the Mehdi; later on he stepped into Mehdihood; and, finally, he meant to be regarded as the most privileged among the chosen, the expected of all expectants, and “the primal, pivotal and focal point ” of the universe. His claims naturally jarred upon his countrymen, who called in persecution to stamp out the heresy. But the blood of martyrs served only to cement the Babi church. The Bab was publicly shot in 1850. The central and inalienable part of his claim, notwithstanding its metamorphoses, was that he was essentially a man of the seed-time, and that he was preparing the way for a ‘Manifestation of God.’ He had no clear ideas upon the subject that engrossed him so entirely. He could say nothing as to the time of the new dispensation. But he could say with something like certainty that the advent he gloried in would not be delayed by more than two thousand years.
Hardly had the Bab’s voice ceased to vibrate when Baha’u’llah, who was two years his senior, declared himself to be the redeemer of the Bab’s prophecies. He called himself the ‘Manifestation of God.’ He claimed to be a law-giver with a message for the whole world. He represented his revelations as the latest arrivals from heaven, which rendered allegiance to the older faiths unnecessary. Baha’ism, in the eyes of its founder, is to Islam what Islam is to Christianity, or what Christianity is to Judaism. Baha’u’llah has set up a new religion which has its own canon law, its own scriptures, and its own holy land. He has seceded from Islam and would not have it even for his label.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad tried to do all that a secessionist would. But he is anxious to be called a Muslim and a founder of a sect. He is conscious of his prophethood being extraneous to Islam. At times he tries to explain it away by calling it metaphorical and a figure of speech. But he does, whenever he can, surreptitiously introduce references to his prophethood being superior to every other and second to none. He discourages the Haj pilgrimage by example rather than precept. The way he consecrates Qadian can leave us in no doubt as to his real intent. The spiritual compass of a Qadiani points to Qadian and not Mecca. It was Ghulam Ahmad’s boast that he had stilled the cry of Jehad for all time. He could not say that without implying that he had amended Quran in a very material respect, and yet he professes implicit faith in the Quran, nay, in every jot and tittle of it.
Baha’u’llah seems to have been Ghulam Ahmad’s ideal. The difference between these two men is only this: The Iranian is plain and direct; he has abandoned the religion of his fore-fathers, and makes no secret of it. Ghulam Ahmad is devious and roundabout; he cannot make up his mind to risk an open breach with Islam; he must, therefore, disrupt it from within. He professes a votary’s love for the Prophet and yet declares his own advent to be attended by more numerous and cogent signs than was the Prophet’s. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad does not draw the conclusion to which he is logically committed. Is it due to fear of consequences or to a sickly vacillation of mind?
Baha’u’llah does not question the Muslim doctrine of Finality of Prophethood. He calls himself ‘a Manifestation of God.’ His idea seems to be that prophethood has fulfilled its mission ; it is no longer necessary ; the future lies not with prophets, but with ‘Manifestations of God.’ The term ‘Manifestation of God’ has not been given an exact definition by Baha’u’llah, but certain it is that he does not apply it to Prophets like Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. He seems to place a ‘Manifestation of God’ higher than a prophet, and to present himself as the first incumbent of that more exalted office. A ‘Manifestation of God’ is nothing short of God incarnate.