Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith

Clockwise: Christian cross, Islamic star and crescent, Baháʼí nine-pointed star, and Jewish Star of David

Christians have been known to dismiss the Baháʼí Faith as a syncretic combination of faiths[8] or point to discrepancies between faiths to contradict the idea of unity of religion.[9] The Christian doctrine of atonement is commonly understood to exclude all other religions as a path to God.[10] Regarding the Baháʼí teachings of peace and unity, E.G. Browne argued that while they are admirable, they are, in his opinion, inferior to the simplicity and beauty of the teachings of Christ. He further argued that in the case of "Baha'ism, with its rather vague doctrines as to the nature and destiny of the soul of man, it is a little difficult to see whence the driving force to enforce the ethical maxims can be derived."[11]

Christian apologist Francis J. Beckwith wrote of the Baháʼí teachings:

The fact that the various alleged manifestations of God represented God in contradictory ways implies either that manifestations of God can contradict one another or that God's own nature is contradictory. If manifestations are allowed to contradict one another, then there is no way to separate false manifestations from true ones or to discover if any of them really speak for the true and living God…. If, on the other hand, God's own nature is said to be contradictory, that is, that God is both one God and many gods, that God is both able and not able to have a son, personal and impersonal, etc., then the Bahaʼi concept of God is reduced to meaninglessness.[12]

Baháʼí authors have written in response that the contradictory teachings are either social laws that change from age to age, as part of a progressive revelation, or human error introduced to the more ancient faiths over time.[13][14]

Islamic theology regards Muhammad as the Khatam an-Nabiyyin, the last prophet whom God has sent and Islam as the final religion for all humankind. In this view, it is impossible for either any prophet after Muhammad or any new religion to come into existence, and thus they reject the Baháʼí Faith.[15] Some Muslims claim that the idea of oneness of humanity is not a new principle; they claim that Islam espouses such a principle.[16] Many Islamic scholars reject all prophets after Muhammad, and regard Baháʼís as apostates if they had been Muslims before conversion.[17] Critics also argue that, despite the Baháʼí Faith's claim of unity, there are numerous theological differences between Islam and the Baháʼí Faith,[9] with one critic, Imran Shaykh, arguing that the disparities are evidence to the Baháʼí Faith not being a natural progression of Islam, as is claimed.[18]

While Baháʼí teachings assert that men and women are spiritually equal, author Lil Abdo says that the Baháʼí understanding of sexual equality is different from that of secular feminists. Abdo presented the following list of criticisms of the Baháʼí Faith from a feminist perspective at an annual gathering for Baháʼí studies in 1995:

the ineligibility of women to serve on the Universal House of Justice--this is of particular interest to supporters of women priests within the Christian tradition; the intestacy laws in the Kitab-i-Aqdas; the dowry laws with particular reference to the virginity refund clause; the exemption of menstruating women from obligatory prayers and the implication of menstrual taboo; the exemption of women from pilgrimage; the use of androcentric language and male pronouns in texts; the emphasis on traditional morality and family values...[19]

According to Juan Cole, the law of not allowing women to serve the Universal House of Justice is misinterpreted.[20]

There is some tension over the Baháʼí principle that religion and science should be in harmony. There are statements from the religion's founders of a scientific nature that could be interpreted as contrary to standard science. Prominent among them are references by ʻAbdu'l-Bahá that humans evolved over a long period, but were never animals. Many Baháʼí authors have commented[21] that the intention of the comments were in line with a modern understanding of evolution and that the apparent conflict is an unfortunate semantic mistake. The Baháʼí commentator Salman Oskooi acknowledged that the comments by ʻAbdu'l-Bahá are not in line with current scientific understanding, but that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá should not be regarded as infallible in scientific matters.[22]

Other scientifically controversial ideas from Baháʼu'lláh include that the universe is without beginning or end, that every planet has "creatures", and that copper can turn into gold.

Baháʼu'lláh claimed to be a Manifestation of God, which is the Baháʼí term for people like Jesus and Muhammad. William Miller says that the wording of Baháʼu'lláh's Kitáb-i-Aqdas made it difficult to distinguish between the words of the author and the words of God. He further opines that "Baháʼu'lláh felt no such distinction was necessary", as he manifested God as a reflection of a perfect mirror, and that "Baháʼu'lláh claims to be not merely a human Messenger of God, but a Divine Manifestation".[23] This claim of divinity has been criticised by Imran Shaykh who points to this as an example of a discrepancy between faiths.[18]

Denis MacEoin in The Messiah of Shiraz, Brill, 2009, p. 500, note 16 states

The precise nature of Bahāʾ Allāh's claims is difficult to establish. The official modern Bahāʾī doctrine rejects any notion of incarnationism and stresses instead his status as a locus of divine manifestation (maẓhar ilāhī), comparable to a mirror with respect to the sun (see Shoghi Effendi The World Order of Bahāʾuʾllāh, rev. ed. [Wilmette, 1969], pp. 112–114). Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that he himself made much more radical claims than this in parts of his later writings. The following statements are, I think, explicit enough to serve as examples: 'he who speaks in the most great prison (i.e. Acre) is the Creator of all things and the one who brought all names into being' (letter in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 2 [Tehran, n.d., being a repaginated reprint of a collection of writings originally preceded by the Kitāb al-aqdas, first printed Bombay, 1314/1896], p. 177); 'verily, I am God' (letter in Ishrāq Khāvarī Māʾida, vol. 7, p. 208); 'the essence of the pre-existent (dhāt al-qidām) has appeared' (letter to Ḥājī Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Khalīl Qazvīnī in ibid., vol. 8, p. 113); 'he has been born who begets not nor is begotten' ('Lawḥ-i mīlād-i ism-i aʿẓam' in ibid., vol. 4, p. 344, referring to Qurʾān sūra 112); 'the educator of all beings and their creator has appeared in the garment of humanity, but you were not pleased with that until he was imprisoned in this prison' ('Sūrat al-ḥajj' in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 4 [Tehran, 133 badīʿ/1976–77], p. 203).

The exclusion of same-sex marriage among Baháʼís has garnered considerable criticism in the western world, where the Baháʼí teachings on sexuality may appear to be unreasonable, dogmatic, and difficult to apply in Western society.[24] Particularly in the United States, Baháʼís have attempted to reconcile the immutable conservative teachings on sexuality with the otherwise socially progressive teachings of the Faith, but it continues to be a source of controversy.[25] Former Baháʼí William Garlington said the Baháʼí position in America, "can at most be characterized as one of sympathetic disapproval" toward homosexuality.[25]

Although polygamy is forbidden by Baháʼí law, Baháʼu'lláh himself had three concurrent wives.[26] Under Islamic law a man may have up to four wives, and Baháʼu'lláh wrote in 1873 that a Baháʼí may have two wives. His son ʻAbdu'l-Bahá had one wife and said that having a second wife is conditional upon treating both wives with justice and equality, and was not possible in practice. Baháʼís view the issue as a gradual transition towards monogamy.

Baháʼís view the Báb (1819-1850) as a predecessor to Baháʼu'lláh, whose claim to revelation established the Baháʼí Faith separate from the Bábí Faith. Before the Báb's death he appointed a caretaker leader named Subh-i-Azal (born Mírzá Yahyá) who was also the half-brother of Baháʼu'lláh. Tensions between Subh-i-Azal and Baháʼu'lláh grew in Baghdad and escalated in Istanbul and Edirne. While in Edirne Subh-i-Azal attempted to murder Baháʼu'lláh with poison, which caused a hard split in 1866 between those Bábís loyal to either Baháʼu'lláh or Subh-i-Azal. When the Ottoman government wished to eliminate the Bábís, they further exiled Baha'u'llah and his followers to Akka, and Subh-i-Azal and his followers to Cyprus, but left several of each in the other's city in an attempt to further stoke conflict. In Akka, a few followers of Baha'u'llah murdered the Azalí Bábís in the city.[27]

The Baháʼí scriptures intend for a line of Guardians to fill an executive role alongside the Universal House of Justice, each Guardian appointed by the preceding one from among the male descendants of Baháʼu'lláh. The first Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, had nobody eligible to appoint and died in 1957 without writing a will[28] and making an appointment. Six years later the first Universal House of Justice was elected and has functioned without a Guardian.[29] In 1960 Mason Remey announced that he should be regarded as the next Guardian, creating a schism in the Baháʼi Faith.[30]

The Baháʼí Faith has had several challenges to leadership, notably at the transitions after the passing of Baháʼu'lláh, ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, and Shoghi Effendi. Claimants challenging the widely accepted successions of leadership are shunned as covenant-breakers.[31]

Baháʼís have been accused, particularly by successive Iranian governments, of being agents or spies of Russia, Britain, the Shah, the United States, and as agents of Zionism—each claim being linked to each regime's relevant enemy and justifying anti-Baháʼí actions. The last claim is partially rooted in the presence of the Baháʼí World Centre in northern Israel.[17]

Juan Cole converted to the Baháʼí Faith in 1972, but later resigned in 1996 after conflicts with members of the administration who perceived him as extreme. Cole went on to critically attack the Baháʼí Faith in several books and articles written from 1998-2000, describing a prominent Baháʼí as "inquisitor" and "bigot", and describing Baháʼí institutions as socially isolating, dictatorial, and controlling, with financial irregularities and sexual deviance.[32] Cole accused the Baháʼí Administration of exaggerating the numbers of believers.[33] Central to Cole's complaints was the Baháʼí review, a process that required Baháʼí authors to gain approval before publishing on the religion.[32]

Soon after his resignation, Cole created an email list and website called H-Bahai, which became a repository of both primary source material and critical analysis on the religion.[34][35][32]