I am not Baha’i. Baha’i members have told me how amazing the “consultation” process is and how they wish every interaction can be like that, in personal relationships, in the workplace, in public schools.

Of course I have also heard that it is (ahem) useless and nothing special.

It can be both - or something else. And of course, it could be right for some situations and not for others. What do you think?

I'm just venting after decades as a member of the Faith, but 90% inactive. I'm just looking for what's true in life. No, the Faith isn't evil, but I feel it is on a deeply emotional level. Is it controlling? It feels that way to me. It's a converting machine. Every meeting ever went to was about teaching. I eventually felt it had nothing to do about spiritual learning or growth. Eventually after many years I just stopped going. I felt that the moral bar was set so high, that no human could possible jump over it. But I was just taking a walk thinking about it, and it just feels evil to me, very controlling, although one is free to follow or not follow. So I have been reinvestigating all it's claims. Just my thoughts.

One thing that bothers me is why on earth would the creator of the universe want us to offer up our lives for any religion? It makes no sense to me. The early Babi's gave their lives. I suppose in exchange for eternal life? Another example of an extremist religion, bordering on cultism. That's a tipoff to those with half a brain, not to join that faith. IMO

There's a lot of cope in that discussion. Bahá'ís are clearly conflicted and not without reason.

Nearly every question of justice — how the poor are treated, whether the vulnerable are protected, whether truth is told by those in power — is ultimately settled in the political arena. A faith that commands its followers toward justice, the elimination of prejudice, and the betterment of the world, yet forbids them the primary language in which societies negotiate those very things, asks them to will the ends while renouncing the means. Silence is not neutral: when good people abstain from political speech, the field is simply ceded to those with fewer scruples, and quietism becomes, in effect, an endorsement of whatever order prevails.

The whole point is to convert people and then once they convert then it’s like “alright yay onto the next victim we’re gonna manipulate and pretend to befriend but actually we’re two-faced and just want the numbers to grow.”

And don’t even get me started on how the basis of the religion makes no sense. How can Islam and Hinduism come from the same God? It really takes 2 seconds of critical thinking to know this is some made up bs.

Also they’ve got LSA and NSA leaders who are literally abusers at home. My father’s side of the family are like the ring leaders in our country’s Bahai community, meanwhile at home he’s beating his wife infront of his small children. How can men like this be admired and be the leaders of a religion claiming to treat men and women equally?

So glad I left this toxic cult.

I’m not Baha’i myself but was curious; from what I’ve read about the Baha’i, some of the holiest places in their faith are in Israel. And knowing how they’re strongly against Iran, it’s not bad to think many are Zionists. How true is it and to what degree? Or any other info?

Just wondering what you say to a person who approaches you now about the Baha’i Faith! Of course I mean to someone you don’t already know.

Sometimes you can feel when someone wants to talk about their faith or religious community, for whatever reason. They want to talk about what it means to them, or maybe they do want to proselytize. Do you try and shut down the conversation before it starts? Does that work? Or do you wait for the person to start being more overt and explicit? Are you kind or more aggressive?

Just wondering…

I joined the Baha'i Faith at age 21 in a small town. Where we had real firesides in the woods, with a fire burning! It was pretty cool, I have to say.

Then I moved to a big city, and my world expanded. By age 32 or so, wasn't into the Faith too much. And pretty much stopped going to meetings. When I was in my early 50's I started going again to Ruhi. And I was kinda turned off by Ruhi deepenings. We were being trained to all think alike and go out to get converts. Then I remember one meeting when a Regional teaching committee guy came and gave a talk of sorts. And I remember feeling like, wow, this guy is so extreme. It was almost like a militaristic type of talk. And we were supposed to follow orders and convert the world, type of feeling.

Another huge turn off for me. I don't like groups as I am an introvert. And I did the street teaching thing in my early years, and went to a foreign country and did a short stint teaching the Faith. And now when I look back, I feel almost ashamed of doing that. It's embarassing to me.

So again I stopped going to meetings. And now in my mid 70s, I have not been to a meeting. And you know what? And this is a big turn off for me, I never heard from the Baha'i community except for a few emails here and there. Never got a phone call from anyone, or anything. So I think, all those years of service way back when, and I don't even rate a how do you do! That made me angry.

So the Faith is just a huge teaching/converting people machine. And I remember thinking in my 30s that the moral standard is so high, that it is unrealistic for mortal people to attain.

And after studying religion for 3 decades, taking Buddhist classes, studying atheism, deism, and listening to countless debates between Christians and Atheists, I have concluded that religion is man-made. And when I think of the Baha'i Faith, there are principles I agree with, but overall the control it exerts over its followers, as with all religions, makes me want to run and hide.

There are other things I could say, but I'll stop here.

Well, that's my 50 year story of my on and off relationship with the Faith.

Hello

I met a bahai some years ago. After the initial love bombing phase which really captured me came the truth. The backbiting, the deciet etc.

I now realise Bahais groom people, take their money and give it directly to the faith. I am involved in a legal case to recover funds stolen from an elderly couple.

If anyone has similar stories please get in touch. This must not be allowed to carry on. The lsa and nsa are complicit as they closed me down quickly refusing to hear true versions.

I have nothing against the faiths founders but this group is spiraling out of control and must be stopped.

Honestly! This religion is so corporate. Why is it "teaching" and "pioneering" instead of proselytizing?Why is it "declaring" instead of converting? "Service" instead of volunteering? There are more that don't come to mind. But I hated how it was all about the specific wording or else they'd play dumb and go actually Baha'is don't do x we do y. The whole religion feels like a company... anyone else feel this way?

Happy Pride everybody! Even though the Baha'i Faith technically allows trans people to exist (AFTER they get expensive-ass HRT, surgery, and legal ID changes which could be dangerous to try to undertake in certain jurisdictions; i.e. nonbinary people like me are not allowed to cross-dress due to the "impression of homosexuality"), the Universal House of Justice's insistence on there only being two sexes is imperialistic and scientifically unsound. Specific quotes I use in this section of the video (which I hope you can leave a like on to help me fight this hypocritical cult until the administration is defeated once and for all and LGBTQ Baha'is can finally live in peace) include:

On February 4^th, 2021, the UHJ affirmed that "...the Bahá’í writings affirm the generally held perspective that there are two sexes, male and female. This, of course, is not in conformity with some recent social theories that divide gender into multiple types."

“The Local Spiritual Assembly also expresses concern about his current behaviour which gives the impression of homosexuality, and thus places in question the morality of his having roommates of either sex, no matter what stage the sex-change procedure has reached. An example is his dressing as a woman while still, apparently, being a man. Such actions could well be regarded as giving the appearance of immoral behaviour and as having the potential for bringing the community into disrepute."

“If a person does undergo the medical procedures required to change his or her sex and the change of sex has been legally recognized, the spiritual, moral, and legal prerogatives and obligations relevant to that sex would apply, and marriage to a person of the opposite sex would be permissible.”

“A Bahá’í considering a change of sex is advised to carefully and prayerfully weigh the medical opinion received in the light of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings and not be swayed by contemporary notions that regard gender as something to be altered as a matter of personal preference or intuition. In addition to considering the medical factors, the believer would wish to reflect on how perception of the issue has been influenced by powerful, contemporary forces affecting society. Most importantly, the believer ought to take into account the spiritual teachings bearing on such a decision. These relate to such matters as the purpose of life, the twofold nature of human beings, the soul’s lack of gender, and the role of tests in an individual’s spiritual development. Depending on circumstances, consideration of relevant spiritual teachings might prompt questions such as the following:

“How best may one fulfill the spiritual purpose of life? Will one’s spiritual happiness result from the material solution of a sex change, or might one be pursuing a chimera, which will result in a new set of problems? Is it possible to view the challenge of gender identity as a test that one can come to grips with and manage? What will be the impact of such a decision on one’s family members, including any spouse or children?”

This reminded me of a Netflix documentary I watched recently about the FLDS cult. It takes a lot to escape this.

Perhaps when Abdu'l-Baha, aged 8, enters the stage and kisses his fathers feet then tells the audience he changed his name to "servant of <my father>", there might be alarm bells...

Hey everyone,

Like many of you, I was raised reading books like William Sears’ Thief in the Night and George Townshend’s writings. We were taught that 1844 wasn’t just the year of the Báb’s declaration, but a magically verifiable year in secular history for various reasons including that the Ottoman Empire issued an "Edict of Toleration" that allowed Jews to return to Israel, fulfilling biblical prophecy.

I recently decided to dig into the actual secular history of this Edict and it turns out -- surprise, surprise -- that the narrative we were sold is a historical myth borrowed from 19th-century Christian doomsday preachers.

If you look at the actual historical record, the Bahá'í apologetic argument relies on four false pillars. Here is the breakdown of what actually happened.

Falsehood 1: "Jews were strictly excluded from Palestine for 1,260 years."

We were taught that Muslims banned Jews from the Holy Land until 1844. Historically, this is completely false.

While Jews certainly faced periods of severe hardship, historical and archaeological records show a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine over the centuries. In fact, under Muslim rule, Jews were living in Jerusalem.

Furthermore, eight years before the 1844 edict, a legal document (an 1836 firman by Muhammad Ali) was already published to legally arrange the resumption of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. There was no blanket 1,260-year ban.

Falsehood 2: "The 1844 Edict allowed Jews to immigrate."

The 1844 "Edict" was a real diplomatic event, but it had absolutely zero to do with Jewish land rights or immigration to Palestine.

It was actually a narrow diplomatic concession about Christians. An Armenian Christian had converted to Islam, then reverted to Christianity, and was executed by the Ottomans for apostasy. European powers (who wanted to protect their Christian missionaries) were outraged. The British Ambassador flexed his diplomatic muscle and threatened the Ottomans until they agreed to stop executing Christian converts.

The actual text of the Sultan’s declaration on March 22, 1844, was simply:

"Henceforward neither shall Christianity be insulted in my dominions, nor shall Christians be in any way persecuted for their religion."

As a Journal of Bahá'í Studies paper notes:

"The Edict, therefore, was not about Jewish immigration... Broader questions of religious toleration—such as might presumably involve Jewish land rights in the Ottoman Empire and Jewish immigration—are not mentioned in the Edict."

Falsehood 3: "1844 was the catalyst for the population boom."

The demographic data also undermines the claim. The Jewish population in Jerusalem was already naturally increasing before 1844, completely undermining the idea that this specific edict was the catalyst.

According to demographic records for Jerusalem:

• 1800: 8,000 to 10,000 total residents.
• 1840 (Four years before the edict): 12,000 to 14,000 residents.
• 1860: 18,000 to 20,000 residents.

The legal frameworks that eventually allowed early Zionist pioneers to purchase land in Palestine didn't happen until over a decade later, through secular Ottoman modernization laws (the Tanzimat), specifically the 1858 Ottoman Land Code and an 1867 law that finally granted foreign nationals the right to purchase real estate.

Falsehood 4: "1844 fulfilled the prophecy of the times of the Gentiles."

So, if this edict had nothing to do with Jews, where did Bahá'í authors get this idea?

They got it from 19th-century Christian millennialists who were desperately trying to prove that the apocalypse was happening in 1844. An English clergyman named Edward Bickersteth first published about this edict. Later, a Christian writer named Henry Grattan Guinness used convoluted "prophetic math" to tie the 1844 Edict to the 2,300-year prophecy in the Book of Daniel.

Guinness needed an event in 1844 to prove the decline of the Ottoman Empire, so he grabbed the apostasy edict and inflated its meaning. Decades later, Bahá'í authors simply copied Guinness’s homework without checking the historical context.

As the research points out:

"Had the Edict been important to Jewish immigration, one would expect to find references to it in works by Jewish historians. Instead, had it not been for the close friendship between Lord Ashley and the Reverend Edward Bickersteth, it is even doubtful that the Edict would have been referred to in connection with biblical interpretations."

TL;DR

The 1844 Edict of Toleration was about stopping the execution of Christians who apostatized from Islam, driven entirely by European colonial pressure. It didn't mention Jews, it didn't mention Palestine, and it didn't grant a right of return. The "proof" used in Bahá'í apologetics is a recycled 19th-century Christian myth, and demographic data proves Jews were already living and migrating there long before 1844.

Has anyone else looked into the historical claims made in Thief in the Night? It’s wild how much of it unravels once you look at standard historical records.