Even though Baha’is express opposition to polygamy, their leader was a polygamist and had three wives. Bahā’u’llāh even allowed his followers to have two wives and an unspecified number of virgins at their service:

God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two. Whoso contenteth

himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquillity. And he who would take into his service a maid may do so with propriety [He who takes a virgin to serve him it would be permissible for him].[1]

What we have quoted is the official Baha’i translation. Unfortunately the correct translation of the last sentence has
been deliberately distorted. This is the original Arabic text: “man ‘ittakhadha bikran li khidmatih lā ba’sa `alayh.” Which translates to: “He who takes a virgin to serve him, there is no problem with that.” We have placed this in square brackets at the end of the quote.

Why do Baha’is distort their scripture? What are they trying to hide? How does it make sense to speak about taking a
virgin for service—or a maid according to the flawed translation—in the middle of a discussion about marriage? Are wives solely seen as an instrument to perform house choirs who can be replaced with a serving virgin or maid? Or does
one who cannot marry, can simply satisfy himself with a virgin who serves him? The context of Bahā’u’llāh’s words when viewed within the undistorted translation, imply another meaning which we will leave to the readers to judge.

When Bahā’u’llāh (or `Abdu’l-Bahā) is asked about this specific verse he gives an answer which further endorses polygamy:

QUESTION: Concerning the verse: “he who would take into his service a maid may do so with propriety.”
ANSWER: This is solely for service such
as is performed by any other class of servants, be they young or old, in exchange for wages; such a maiden is free to choose a husband at whatever time she pleaseth, for it is forbidden either that women should be purchased, or that a man should have more wives than two.[2]

Strangely, Baha’is insist polygamy is not allowed in the Baha’i creed. To prove this claim, they bring forward one of
`Abdu’l-Bahā’s sayings, which in clear contradiction to his father’s orders and using flawed reasoning, tries to prove that polygamy is not allowed:

(1)Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. 
(2)Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. 
(3)However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. 
(4)The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition.
(5)Therefore it is not permissible for a man
to have more than one wife.[3]  

We have marked the five sentences with numbers for easy reference. 
(1) Bahā’u’llāh had in no way stipulated that men must only have one wife. He had merely said that having one wife will bring about tranquility. What `Abdu’l-Bahā is attributing to Bahā’u’llāh is purely baseless.

(2) Bahā’u’llāh had in no place mentioned that taking a second wife depends on equity and justice under all conditions, neither in the book of Aqdas and nor anywhere else. Again, `Abdu’l-Bahā is attributing something to Bahā’u’llāh which is
false and not a shred of evidence has been brought forward to backup this claim.

(3) First, there is no evidence to support the claim that observing justice between two wives is impossible.
Second, pay attention to the phrase utterly impossible. This phrase means something is absolutely impossible. Like how it is absolutely impossible for 2 times 2 to equal to something other than 4.`Abdu’l-Bahā is saying it is absolutely impossible to observe justice between two wives. Here’s the catch, something that is absolutely impossible becomes possible for Bahā’u’llāh, meaning 2 times 2 can equal to 5, and Bahā’u’llāh can observe equity between not two, but three wives.

(4) `Abdu’l-Bahā claims bigamy has been made allowed based on an impossible condition! For all we know, Bahā’u’llāh put absolutely no conditions for bigamy. Furthermore, is it not absurd to make a law which can only be implemented under impossible conditions? Where is the common-sense in that?

(5) Based on the four previous assumptions—that are all wrong—it is concluded that polygamy is forbidden in the Baha’i creed!

To justify why Bahā’u’llāh had three wives, Baha’is usually put forth the argument that since Bahā’u’llāh was practicing Islam before he became a Baha’i, he was legally allowed to have three wives. In a letter from the Universal House of Justice
dated 23/10/1995 to an individual believer[4] it has been mentioned:

Regarding the wives of Bahā’u’llāh, extracts from letters written on behalf of the beloved Guardian set this subject in context. They indicate that Bahā’u’llāh was “acting according to the laws of Islām, which had not yet been superseded”
according to the laws of Islām, which had not yet been superseded”, and that He was following “the customs of the people of His own land”:
“. . . as regards Bahā’u’llāh’s marriage it should be noted that His three marriages were all contracted before He revealed His Book of Laws, and even before His declaration in Baghdād, at a time when Bahā’ī marriage laws had not yet been known, and the Revelation not yet disclosed (25 May 1938 to a National Spiritual Assembly).”
“Bahā’u’llāh had no concubine, He had three legal wives. As He married them before the “Aqdas” (His book of laws) was revealed, He was only acting according to the laws of Islām, which had not yet been superseded. He made plurality of wives conditional upon justice; ‘Abdu’l-Bahā interpreted this to mean that a man may not have more than one wife at a time, as it is impossible to be just to two or more women in marriage (11 February 1944 to an individual believer).”
. . . Bahā’u’llāh married the first and second wives while He was still in Tihrān [sic], and the third wife while He was in baghdād. At that time, the Laws of the “Aqdas” had not been revealed, and secondly, He was following the Laws of the previous Dispensation and the customs of the people of His own land (14 January 1953 to an individual believer).

All the above justifications are fundamentally flawed. We already showed the fallacy in`Abdu’l-Bahā’s justification. The second justification presented here simply states that since Bahā’u’llāh had married his three wives when he was still a
Muslim it was perfectly legal for him to do so. This is a blatant lie:

The Bāb announced his new religion in 1844. The exact date that Bahā’u’llāh became a Bābī is unknown but it is definite that it occurred before 1848 when he attended the conference of Badasht—in which Islamic law was officially abrogated and superseded—and he took on the name Bahā. So by 1848 he was definitely a Bābī. Now let us review the years when Bahā’u’llāh married his wives: Bahā’u’llāh married his first wife Āsīyih in 1835 while he was still a Muslim. He married his second wife Fatimih in 1849 when he was no longer a
Muslim but a Bābī! What was Shoghi thinking when he had uttered: “He was only acting according to the laws of Islām, which had not yet been superseded.”?

In Shoghi’s translation of Dawn Breakers it has been mentioned that Ṭāhirih, a great advocate of the Bāb had openly preached the Bāb’s ideas, one of which was
monogamy:

She began to correspond with the Bāb and soon espoused all his ideas. She did not content herself with a passive sympathy but confessed openly the faith of her Master. She denounced not only polygamy but the use of the veil and showed her face uncovered in public to the great amazement and scandal of her family and of all the sincere Mussulmans but to the applause of many other fellow citizens who shared her enthusiasm and whose numbers grew as a result of
her preaching.[5]

Other Baha’i authors have also echoed this belief in their writings:

The Bāb’s laws abolished polygamy except in the case of infertility.[6]

Bahā’u’llāh was openly practicing bigamy while according to Shoghi it was not legal and Ṭāhirih was actively denouncing it in accordance with the Bab’s beliefs.

From this point onwards, matters become even more interesting. Bahā’u’llāh married his third wife Gawhar in 1862 when he was still a Bābī and this third marriage too was completely illegal according to what Shoghi claims are Bābī laws.
Apparently, in the Baha’i creed, `Abdu’l-Bahā, Shoghi, and the UHJ are all allowed to utter false facts to justify Bahā’u’llāh’s illegal actions.

The story does not end yet. Buried deep within untranslated Baha’i scriptures, exist quotes from `Abdu’l-Bahā in which he explicitly states that those who claim I have stated that polygamy is illegal are liars. We will repeat the quote from Aqdas first:

(1)Know thou that polygamy is not permitted
under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. 

(2)Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and
justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. 

(3)However,observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. 

(4)The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. 

(5)Therefore it is not permissible for a man
to have more than one wife.[7]

Concerning polygamy, this has been decreed and will not be abrogated. `Abdu’l-Bahā has not abrogated this law and [accusation of abrogation] is a lie [made up] by the friends. What I said is that He has made polygamy bound on the precondition of justice. As long as someone does not attain certitude that he can practice justice and his heart is not certain that he can practice justice, he should not marry a second [wife]. But if he becomes certain that he can practice justice on all levels, then marrying a second [wife] is permitted. Just as has been the case in the Holy Land: the [Baha’i] friends wished to marry a second [wife] but on this
precondition, and this servant (meaning himself) never abstained [from giving permission], but insisted that justice must be implemented, and justice is the peak of abstention; but they said, that they will practice justice and wished to marry a second [wife]. Such false accusations (meaning charges that `Abdu’l-Bahā prohibited bigamy) are the whisperings of those who wish to induce
doubts and [see] how much they are making matters ambiguous. The purpose was to state that polygamy without justice is not allowed and that justice is very difficult [to achieve].[8]

In a previous quote from the Book of Aqdas `Abdu’l-Bahā had stated that “However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible.”[9] But he contradicts himself here by stating that “The purpose was to state that polygamy without justice is not allowed and that justice
is very difficult [to achieve].” Justice is no longer utterly
impossible it is only very difficult to achieve! He had also stated,
“Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God . . . The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. (5)Therefore it is not permissible for a man to have more than one wife.”[10] Pay attention that he
uses the words “not permitted,” “absolute prohibition,” and “not permissible” while in the recent words we quoted from him, he explicitly states that there is no prohibition in having two wives! The contradictions are glaring.

Let us take a look at another letter which he apparently sent to a Baha’i who was practicing bigamy:

You asked about polygamy. According to the text of the Divine Book having two wives is lawful and legal and was never prohibited, rather it is legitimate and allowed. Do not be unhappy, but take justice into consideration so that you may be as just as possible. What has been uttered is that since justice is very difficult [to achieve], therefore peace is in having one wife. But in your case, of course you should not be unhappy.[11]

This quote further contradicts Baha’i claims about the illegality of polygamy. What is more interesting is the fact that `Abdu’l-Bahā clearly tells the Baha’i person to not be unhappy on account of his practice of bigamy! He advices him to be
“as just as possible.” This takes the subject to a whole new level. Whereas up to now he had insisted that practicing justice is impossible or very hard to achieve and bigamy is only and only, allowed on the precondition that justice be implemented on all levels, he is now clearly putting aside this precondition and merely reducing it to being as just as possible!

It is obvious and clear that polygamy is allowed in the Baha’i creed and all arguments stated by the Baha’i administration to deny this fact are invalid and contradictory.

Regarding the subject of polygamy, `Abdu’l-Bahā, Shoghī, the UHJ, and their followers are clearly altering the evident meaning of Bahā’u’llāh’s decrees. An act that is completely forbidden and carries with it grave consequences:

Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from the heaven of Revelation, and altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of them that have perverted the Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost ones in the Lucid Book.[12]

In any case, there remains one last question: If there is really equality between men and women, then why are women
not allowed to practice polygamy? Not that we want to advocate this act, but there was supposed to be complete equality in rights, was there not?