`Abdu’l-Bahā denies victims of abuse the right to self-defense. He believes that an abuser can only be punished by social institutions after they have committed their crime and the victims must make no effort to defend themselves during these heinous acts:

(1) If someone oppresses another, shows him injustice, and abuses him, and the [oppressed] counters likewise, then this act is revenge and is despicable. (2) For instance, if A kills B’s son, then B is not allowed to kill A’s son for this is revenge and despicable. Rather, B must counter by opposite actions [to what has been shown to him]. He must forgive and even if possible, offer his help to the abuser. Humans are worthy of [these actions].[1]

Number (1) simply means that if a person is attacked, abused, or oppressed, then they must not defend themselves, because this defense is revenge! The fallacy in (1) is that self-defense is equated to revenge. Number (2) is an example used for justification which is not in harmony with (1). Because (1) is about self-defense but (2) is really about revenge, which are two different things.

If a group of people attacks us and our family, must we simply wait and watch them do what they wish and not defend ourselves through what will most probably be violent actions? Or in the case that we decide to defend ourselves, should our only weapons be our bare hands because `Abdu’l-Bahā insists that in this era weapons have been abolished?[2]

Where is the common sense in Bahā’u’llāh’s strict orders that being slain is better than slaying, even in self-defense:

As a religious body, Baha’i’s have, at the express command of Bahā’u’llāh, entirely abandoned the use of armed force in their own interests, even for strictly defensive purposes. In Persia, many many thousands of the Bābīs and Baha’is have suffered cruel deaths because of their faith. In the early days of the Cause, the Bābīs on various occasions defended themselves and their families by the sword with great courage and bravery. Bahā’u’llāh, however, forbade this. ‘Abdu’l-Bahā writes: “When Bahā’u’llāh appeared, He declared that the promulgation of the truth by such means must on no account be allowed, even for purposes of self-defense. He abrogated the rule of the sword and annulled the ordinance of ‘Holy War.’ ‘If ye be slain,’ said He, ‘it is better for you than to slay . . .’”[3]

And where is the common-sense in similar words from `Abdu’l-Bahā:

But the communities must protect the rights of man. So if someone assaults, injures, oppresses and wounds me, I will offer no resistance, and I will forgive him.[4]

Rapists, murders, criminals, thugs, hooligans, and enemy soldiers can freely do what they wish with Baha’is if they get hold of them in a place where the community cannot protect them. They are neither allowed to have weapons nor allowed self-defense. Is this logical and rational?

After all these preachings against war and not defending oneself, `Abdu’l-Bahā suddenly declares that war can bring about good:

A conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war becomes the powerful basis of peace, and ruin the very means of reconstruction. If, for example, a high-minded sovereign marshals his troops to block the onset of the insurgent and the aggressor, or again, if he takes the field and distinguishes himself in a struggle to unify a divided state and people, if, in brief, he is waging war for a righteous purpose, then this seeming wrath is mercy itself, and this apparent tyranny the very substance of justice and this warfare the cornerstone of peace.[5]

This quote single-handedly contradicts most if not all the quotes we previously mentioned. The same `Abdu’l-Bahā who was claiming that his father allegedly prevented Bābīs from using the sword even for strictly defensive purposes now claims that waging war for a righteous purpose is justified! Is defending one’s women and children not a righteous act that the Bābīs were allegedly prevented from doing so?! If war can bring peace then why are Baha’is not allowed to defend themselves when they are attacked? If war is allowed then why is being slayed better than slaying? Where is the logic in all these contradictory laws and commands? 

Yes, war can be a basis for peace, but why can “A conquest be a praiseworthy thing”? Remember what he previously said: “Using the sword has been completely abrogated and invasion has been completely prohibited. Even quarreling with other nations is not permissible.”[6] What is more interesting is the original Farsi text which has been distorted in the English translation. The Farsi text says jahāngushāie wa kishwaristānī mamdūḥ which means “attacking [another country] to conquer their land is praiseworthy.” Is there any sense in what `Abdu’l-Bahā is saying? Is this how universal peace is to be achieved, by attacking other countries and taking their land?!

What is even more contradictory is what he says elsewhere about wars for conquering the lands of others:

It is clear that man lives on this land for a few years [and once he dies] will go under it (i.e. buried in it) forever and it is his eternal grave. Is it worth it to go to war over this eternal graveyard?[7]

As usual, since `Abdu’l-Bahā’s orders about not defending one’s self were so irrational and farfetched, they became a source of confusion and perplexity among the Baha’i community and gave rise to many questions. In a bid to answer these questions, Shoghi and the Universal House of Justice gave answers which contradicted the words of `Abdu’l-Bahā’. We will quote all the section on Self Defense in the Baha’i creed from Hornby’s Lights of Guidance. Notice how none of Bahā’u’llāh and `Abdu’l-Bahā’s irrational orders about not defending oneself have been mentioned and instead new concepts have been introduced and self-defense has been justified:

1. Bahā’ī Justified in Defending his Life in Emergency

“Regarding the question you raised: In an emergency, when there is no legal source at hand to appeal to, a Bahā’ī is perfectly justified in defending his life.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 24, 1943)

         2. Self-Defense

“From the texts you already have available it is clear that Bahā’u’llāh has stated that it is preferable to be killed in the path of God’s good-pleasure than to kill, and that organized religious attack against Baha’is should never turn into any kind of warfare, as this is strictly prohibited in our Writings.

  “The House of Justice does not wish at the present time to go beyond the guidelines given in the above-mentioned statements. The question is basically a matter of conscience, and in each case the Bahā’ī involved must use his judgment in determining when to stop in self-defense lest his action deteriorate into retaliation.

  “Of course the above principles apply also in cases when a Bahā’ī finds himself involved in situations of civil disorder. We have, however, advised the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States that under the present circumstances in that country it is preferable that Baha’is do not buy nor own arms for their protection or the protection of their families” (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada, May 26, 1969: Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, p. 26).

        3. Pioneer Living in a Remote Area Lacking Protection: Circumstances Under Which a Bahā’ī is Justified in Defending Self

  “We have your letter of March 2, 1972 asking if … a pioneer couple living in a remote area lacking police protection may have a weapon in their possession for defending themselves as thieves have broken into their house twice and robbed them. “A hitherto untranslated Tablet from ‘Abdu’l-Bahā points out that in the case of attack by robbers and highwaymen, a Bahā’ī should not surrender himself, but should try, as far as circumstances permit, to defend himself, and later on lodge a complaint with the government authorities. A statement in a letter written on behalf of the Guardian indicates that in an emergency when there is no legal force at hand to appeal to a Bahā’ī is justified in defending his life. Although we have advised certain National Assemblies in countries facing increasing civil disorder that it is preferable that Bahā’īs do not buy or own arms for their protection or the protection of their families, we feel that in the circumstances you have outlined in your letter it would be permissible for the pioneer family to keep a weapon in the house, provided the law permits.” (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Honduras, March 20, 1972)

It is up to you to draw your own conclusions!

[1] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Mufāwaḍāt, pp. 186–187.

[2] “Using the sword has been completely abrogated,” `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Ganjīniy-i ḥudūd wa aḥkām, chap. 36, p. 272.

[3] J. E. Esslemont, Bahā’u’llāh and the New Era, pp.169–170.

[4] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Some Answered Questions, p. 271.

[5] J. E. Esslemont, Bahā’u’llāh and the New Era, p. 172.

[6] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Ganjīniy-i ḥudūd wa aḥkām, chap. 36, p. 272.

[7] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, pp. 104–105.