`Abdu’l-Bahā says:

If religion is a cause of enmity and a cause of war, its absence is better, and a lack of religion is better than religion. Rather, it must be the opposite. Religion must be a cause of fellowship and a cause of relations between the masses of humanity.^[1]

If religion causes divisions, its non-existence is preferred.^[2]

If God sends a prophet and group of people reject Him and resort to conflicts and enmity, can it be said that God has sent a religion in vain, and the non-existence of that religion is better than its existence? Or can the conflicts caused by the opponents be a cause to doubt the divinity of the message?

Were many Prophets not forced to resort to war in the process of bringing about divine goals? Were many not tortured or killed in the process of spreading their message? Should we doubt all these religions and question their validity because of these conflicts? Are the reactions of people toward a religion a criterion for determining its validity?

For all we know, every single religion that was announced by God, became a cause for war and conflict because people automatically took sides and opposed each other. Most religions even had laws and orders about the methods and means of going to war with their opponents. According to the current Baha’i teaching, all these religions are void and rejected. This is totally illogical, irrational, unjustified, and unacceptable.

It is up to you to draw your own conclusions!

[1] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Tehran), vol. 2, p. 146.

[2] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 59.