“Every human being has the right to live; they have a right to rest, and to a certain amount of well-being. As a rich man is able to live in his palace surrounded by luxury and the greatest comfort, so should a poor man be able to have the necessaries of life. Nobody should die of hunger; everybody should have sufficient clothing; one man should not live in excess while another has no possible means of existence.”[1]

`Abdu’l-Bahā says:

People are of different [social] classes. Some are extremely wealthy others extremely poor. One lives in a splendid palace whilst another doesn’t even have a hole [to live in]. One has all kinds of food on his table another doesn’t even have a single loaf of bread . . . thus the means of livelihood for people must be remedied.[1]

He stresses that the Equalization of the Means of Livelihood, does not mean that everyone should have equal wealth, rather, it means that the wealthy should help the needy:

Remedying the means of livelihood for humans is necessary. [This does not] mean equality . . . Humans cannot be all the same  because they are different in creation. Some have first-degree intelligence, others have medium intelligence, and others are completely deprived of it. Is it possible for someone who has very high intelligence to be equal to someone who has no intelligence at all?[2] 

He believes that people of all social classes must live a tranquil life irrespective of their class and position:

All must become needless and everyone must have tranquility proportional to their position and status. Just as a ruler has honor and is immersed in blessings, the poor must too have daily sustenance and must not be left in great abjection and be deprived of this living world by starvation.[3]

`Abdu’l-Bahā states that there must exist different social ranks and classes:

We must strive for the eternal salvation of humankind. In this respect, laws are needed so [social] classes [and differences] remain and [at the same time] the members of the community be in complete peace. Because a community is like a [military] camp that needs generals, majors, lieutenants, and privates. All members cannot be generals or privates. There must be [different] classes and different ranks are needed.[4]

`Abdu’l-Bahā clearly expresses that social ranks and classes will not be abolished. The Baha’i vision is to create a community with moderate social classes:

It is better that moderation be introduced. Moderation means a series of laws and systems must be put in place which prevent some people from unnecessary accumulation of wealth and [at the same time] provide the necessary needs of the public.[5]

`Abdu’l-Bahā further iterates that this principle cannot be implemented unless laws are passed and legislation is introduced which oblige the wealthy to give some of their wealth to the needy:

It is not acceptable that some are extremely wealthy whilst others are extremely poor. Reforms must be introduced and laws must be implemented so that all enjoy welfare and well-being. It shouldn’t be such that one is poverty-stricken and another enjoys utmost opulence. For instance, a wealthy person who has great wealth must not allow another person to remain in a state of poverty and must consider his needs so that he reaches peace. This must be enforced by law and the wealthy must give the surplus of their wealth to the needy themselves. The laws of a country should be such that according to God’s tradition everyone has tranquility.[6]

`Abdu’l-Bahā repeats a few times that there must be a law or legislation that prevents the accumulation of wealth by the wealthy and causes them to give the surplus of their revenue to the needy. This clearly shows that this principle must be enforced through the use of legal means and possibly by using excessive force. In an unusual change of mind, he immediately claims that distribution of wealth by the wealthy must be performed out of free will not force:

The wealthy must have mercy on the poor, but out of free will not by force. It is useless if force is used. There must not be force but a general law by which everyone will know their duty.[7]

He then continues by presenting an example on how this should be implemented. Amazingly, the example he presents still relies on legal obligation like all the previous quotes. Whatever `Abdu’l-Bahā is saying, contradicts itself and does not make any sense, whether in theory or in action.

[1] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 134.

[2] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 134.

[3] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Khaṭābāt (Egypt), vol. 1, pp. 32–33.

[4] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 138.

[5] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 142.

[6] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 135.

[7] `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Payām-i malakūt, p. 148.

[1] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Paris Talks, pp. 131–132.