The History of Criticism and Opposition to the Baháʼí Faith
Since its inception, the teachings of the Baháʼí Faith have consistently been subject to scrutiny and criticism. Religious scholars—particularly from Islamic and Christian traditions—as well as adherents of Abrahamic faiths more broadly, have voiced the most prominent objections to the legitimacy and doctrines of the Baháʼí Faith, which presents itself as the fulfillment and continuation of Islam and other divine religions. These critiques have often taken the form of extensive writings that challenge the theological foundations and historical claims of the Baháʼí movement. Among the most contested assertions is the belief that Baháʼu’lláh is the return of Christ has provoked strong theological resistance, especially from Christian and Muslim scholars who view such a position as incompatible with their eschatological doctrines.
Beyond religious circles, secular intellectuals and writers have also critically engaged with the Baháʼí Faith. From diverse philosophical and ideological standpoints, they have questioned the authenticity, origins, and sociopolitical implications of this modern Iranian-born religious movement, raising serious objections to its core tenets and historical narrative.
William Miller and His Critical Perspective on Baháʼu’lláh as the return of Christ
William Miller, an American Protestant Christian scholar, author, theologian, critic, and missionary, was born on December 12, 1892, in Middlesboro, Kentucky. He earned his Master’s degree from Princeton University in 1919 and later received his Doctorate in Theology from Washington and Lee University. That same year, he was sent to Iran as a Christian missionary by the Presbyterian Church, where he lived for four decades, primarily in the city of Mashhad.
Due to his long residence in Iran, Miller developed close contact with Bábís and Baháʼís, gaining deep familiarity with their teachings, doctrines, writings, and the ideas of their leaders. Observing the Baháʼí Faith’s missionary activities in Europe and America—and drawing on his extensive knowledge acquired in Iran—he sought to inform and enlighten audiences outside the country by critically presenting the historical realities and theological claims of the Bábí and Baháʼí movements.
Miller did not regard Bábism and Baháʼism as divinely revealed religions, but rather as political-religious sects. He considered Baháʼí scriptures to be altered and maintained that the historical texts of the Baháʼí Faith had been reconstructed, censored, and distorted over time to align with evolving narratives. Through his research, Miller concluded that the true successor of the Báb was Mírzá Yaḥyá Núrí, known as Ṣubḥ-i-Azal, and that his brother, through a calculated and gradual coup, usurped his position and took control of the Bábí community.
Miller also criticized ʻAbdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, the successors of Baháʼu’lláh, arguing that they failed not only to realize the ideal of “the unity of humankind” within society but were unable to establish such unity even within their own immediate family.
Furthermore, Baháʼís claim that Baháʼu’lláh is the return of Christ—a belief encapsulated in the phrase bahaullah return Christ—and that the Baháʼí Faith represents the fulfillment and completion of Christianity. It is even asserted that “whoever acts exactly in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Baháʼí!” (Miller, 1931, p. 140). This statement, attributed to ʻAbdu’l-Bahá, was reportedly repeated frequently during his time in the United States.
In what follows, we will examine this theological contradiction through the lens of Miller’s findings.
The Incompatibility of Baháʼí Teachings with Christianity Regarding Baháʼu’lláh is the Return of Christ
The Baháʼís claim that Baháʼu’lláh is the return of Christ and that the Baháʼí Faith is the fulfillment and completion of Christianity. It is even stated that “whoever acts exactly in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Baháʼí!”—a phrase ʻAbdu’l-Bahá reportedly repeated on numerous occasions during his time in the United States.
In his article, William Miller explains that accepting such a claim is impossible for a Christian, since becoming a Baháʼí requires complete submission to the Báb and Baháʼu’lláh. From his perspective, the assertion that Baháʼu’lláh is the return of Christ—bahaullah return Christ—not only contradicts core Christian doctrines but also marginalizes the unique and central role of Jesus.
In Chapter 12 of his 1931 book Bahaism: Its Origin, History and Teachings, published in New York under the title “Can a Christian Become a Baháʼí?”, Miller writes:
“According to Baháʼí leaders, being a Baháʼí entails certain requirements and preconditions that are fundamentally incompatible with Christian faith. It is not enough to merely accept the ethical principles of Baháʼu’lláh or ʻAbdu’l-Bahá—such as world peace, a universal language, or gender equality. Rather, one must unconditionally accept all the writings and teachings issued by the Báb, Baháʼu’lláh, and ʻAbdu’l-Bahá, and must clearly and unequivocally submit to Shoghi Effendi and the Baháʼí administrative order. No Christian can accept these conditions unless they are prepared to abandon the essential tenets of their own faith.”
To assist the reader, Miller offers a summary of the Bábí–Baháʼí beliefs and teachings that a Christian might find acceptable, as well as those that are fundamentally irreconcilable with Christian doctrine.
Teachings Incompatible with Christianity: A Critical Examination of the Baháʼí Claim that Baháʼu’lláh is the Return of Christ
Here is a summary of the Bábí–Baháʼí beliefs and teachings that, from a Christian perspective, are fundamentally unacceptable:
1. Baháʼu’lláh is the return of Christ
In Baháʼí doctrine, Baháʼu’lláh effectively supersedes Jesus Christ. From a Baháʼí viewpoint, the teachings of Christ are no longer sufficient to guide humanity in the modern age. Baháʼís assert that Christ has been set aside, claiming that a single word from Baháʼu’lláh surpasses the entire body of utterances and glad tidings of all previous prophets. Baháʼu’lláh’s words are likened to pure gold, while the teachings of earlier prophets are dismissed as little more than iron and wood (Miller, 1931, p. 183). Consequently, the teachings of Jesus are rendered obsolete, and no one is considered bound to follow them. Instead, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and other Baháʼí writings are presented as the supreme law for humanity for the next thousand years.
This is where the claim of Baháʼu’lláh as the return of Christ becomes the central point of contention between Baháʼí doctrine and Christian belief.
Baháʼu’lláh is comparable to Christ in only one respect: both claimed to be bearers of divine revelation. If Christ’s message and claim are true, then Baháʼu’lláh must be counted among the false prophets warned against in Matthew 24. Conversely, if Baháʼu’lláh’s claims are valid, then the truth of Christ must be called into question. Anyone who asserts that Christianity and the Baháʼí Faith are one and the same demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of both.
2. Polygamy and Family Discord
Baháʼu’lláh endorsed polygamy and himself had at least three wives simultaneously, with whom he fathered children. Many Iranian Baháʼís, following his example, also practiced polygamy. The bitter disputes among Baháʼu’lláh’s children over power and inheritance after his death serve, in Miller’s view, as evidence of the superiority of Christian moral teachings over Baháʼí laws. The Baháʼí laws on marriage and inheritance are riddled with inconsistencies and shortcomings. No rational Christian would willingly exchange the ethical and spiritual standards of the New Testament for the fragile and problematic regulations found in Baháʼí scripture. Thus, if the claim that Baháʼu’lláh is the return of Christ were true, such glaring contradictions in behavior and doctrine would not exist.
3. Sanctioning Violence Against Opponents
The Baháʼí Faith, according to Miller, permits the assassination and elimination of its opponents. No amount of eloquent rhetoric from Baháʼu’lláh about love for humanity can obscure the gravity of this allowance, for in such matters, actions speak louder than words.
Earlier chapters of Miller’s book detail how Bábís killed Muslims, Baháʼís assassinated Azalis, and followers of ʻAbdu’l-Bahá attempted to murder or threatened to kill supporters of his brother, Muhammad-ʻAlí. Such acts of violence were never committed by Christians during the first century of Christianity’s emergence, as Jesus explicitly forbade the use of the sword.
How, then, can Baháʼís, by their own historical accounts, justify such treatment of dissenters? Miller argues that either the Báb, Baháʼu’lláh, and ʻAbdu’l-Bahá were unable or unwilling to restrain their followers. It is assumed that these killings and assassinations were not only condoned but directly ordered by Baháʼí leaders, based on the belief that the “Manifestation of God” has the right to eliminate anyone who opposes him—just as a surgeon is permitted to amputate a gangrenous limb.
In any case, such actions undermine the Baháʼí claim that the persuasive power of the Manifestation’s word is proof of his divine authority. Baháʼu’lláh was unable to prevent even his most devoted early followers from cold-bloodedly murdering the supporters of his half-brother, Ṣubḥ-i-Azal.
4. Denial of Core Christian Doctrines
The Baháʼí Faith also denies and disregards many essential Christian truths and teachings. It rejects all the miracles of Jesus Christ, interpreting them as mere allegories. It denies His ascension and His intercession for the forgiveness of sins. It also denies His glorious return as foretold in the Gospels. Moreover, the Baháʼí writings offer little to say about the mercy of God, as Baháʼu’lláh consistently refers to humanity as his slaves.
It is evident that many Christian teachings have been appropriated by Baháʼí missionaries and presented in the West as Baháʼí doctrines. Thus, much of what is labeled “Baháʼí” is, in fact, borrowed from Christianity. In my previous writings, I have sought to present the true face of the Baháʼí Faith—one that is not visible in Baháʼí Magazine or in the promotional speeches and publications of Baháʼí leaders aimed at Christian audiences. Rather, it must be sought in the original writings of the Báb and Baháʼu’lláh themselves.
Conclusion
Here, we have limited ourselves to highlighting only a few Baháʼí beliefs and practices that, according to the research of William Miller, stand in direct contradiction to Christianity. While additional points could certainly be added to this list, the examples provided suffice to support the claim that no Christian can accept the demand for “unconditional submission to everything written by the Báb and Baháʼu’lláh.” In other words, no follower of Jesus Christ can embrace the Baháʼí Faith without first renouncing the core doctrines and principles of Christianity.
Moreover, the claim that Baháʼu’lláh is the return of Christ is not only theologically incompatible with Christian teachings, but has also failed in practice to demonstrate the spiritual and moral fulfillment it professes to offer.
By: Hamid Farnagh
