In Baha’ism, a very harsh and tormenting punishment exists for those Baha’is that act against the decrees and teachings or orders of the Universal House of Justice. These individuals are labeled as covenant breakers. Their punishment is referred to as ṭard, meaning excommunication, shunning, or banishment. All of Bahā’u’llāh’s descendants have been shunned by Shoghi and `Abdu’l-Bahā and not a single Baha’i exists today that is related by blood to Bahā’u’llāh.

`Abdu’l-Bahā gave the following order:

The Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against the Guardian of the Cause of God, cast him out from the congregation of the people of Bahā and in no wise accept any excuse from him. How often hath grievous error been disguised in the garb of truth, that it might sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men!^[1]

Baha’is are ordered to deal with covenant breakers in the same way one deals with someone afflicted with a plague; such that the closest people to them, even their father, mother, children, and spouse, are strictly prohibited from speaking or having any contact with them.

In Baha’ism there are two kinds of excommunication. One is administrative and the other is spiritual:

• Administrative Excommunication: The punishment of administrative excommunication applies to a Baha’i that acts against the Baha’i rules and teachings and does not pay attention to the warnings of spiritual assemblies, and does not compensate for these actions. For example, they do not have an active presence in feasts and elections, or they do not act according to the Baha’i teachings (such as the rules relating to marriage and divorce). Determining this is up to the local or national spiritual assemblies. An administrative covenant breaker that is excommunicated is excluded from administrative and social Baha’i rights, such as taking part in elections, being a member of spiritual assemblies and administrative committees, attending feasts, and giving donations.
• Spiritual Excommunication: If a Baha’i violates the orders and prohibitions of the Universal House of Justice and dissents from the fundamental and certain tenets of Baha’ism or turns his back to Baha’ism, he will be subject to the punishment of spiritual excommunication. No Baha’i, not even the closest members of their family such as their father, mother, and spouse, have the right to speak or socialize with a Baha’i who has been spiritually excommunicated. Any Baha’i who disobeys this order, will automatically be regarded as a covenant breaker and will be given the same treatment.

The order below, has been issued by Shoghi Effendi, and refers to both kinds of covenant breaking:

A question was asked about the friends that, as a result of their ignorance and neglect, had been excluded from administrative affairs about whether they should be invited to public assemblies or not? He (Shoghi) said, “inviting them is not permitted.” And it was asked about those that had been excluded from the community, whether greeting and speaking with them was permitted? He replied, “if they have been spiritually excommunicated, speaking with them is not permitted in any way.”^[2]

In some occasions, the order of spiritual covenant breaking was given for very trivial reasons. For example, if a Baha’i wishes to go on a pilgrimage to visit the shrine of Bahā’u’llāh in Palestine, they should go in coordination and with the planning of Baha’i organizations and the Universal House of Justice. They are not allowed to travel there without their consent and permission. If this matter is not heeded, the transgressing individual will become a spiritual covenant breaker. For instance, a Baha’i by the name of Ṣādiq Āshchī visited Palestine without Shoghi’s permission. When Shoghi was informed, he issued a spiritual covenant breaking decree for Āshchī and ordered the swift implementation of this order. A part of this message is cited below:

Regarding the issue of Ṣādiq, the son of Āqā Muḥammad Javād Āshchī, he ordered to write that “this ill-mannered and innately lowly person recently traveled to Palestine against the orders of this servant and entered the Holy Land. A telegraph regarding his excommunication and his banishment from the [Baha’i] community has been sent to that assembly. Clearly tell and warn his father that communication with him is not permitted by any means and disobeying and opposing [this order] will have severe results.”^[3]

Such cases are not rare. Here are two more examples:

In regards to Rūḥī Ghanī, who traveled from Mashhad^[4] to America without informing the assembly, he ordered me to write, “this individual, because of his dissent and deviation, is also excommunicated from the community and because he contacted the son of Dihqān in England and both traveled to America . . .” He also stated, “write that the spiritual excommunication of Nuṣrat-Allāh Bāhir—after I consulted his mother—is necessary and obligatory.”^[5]

It is evident from what we quoted that `Abdu’l-Bahā and Shoghi are advocates of shunning and excommunication. As usual their stance contradicts the words of Bahā’u’llāh:

Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished.[6]

Yet, Bahā’u’llāh is contradicting himself too:

Shun any man in whom you perceive enmity for this Servant, though he may appear in the garb of piety of the former and later people, or may arise to the worship of the two worlds.[7]

How can someone who preaches the Oneness of Humanity justify excommunication? `Abdu’l-Bahā’s words are even more disturbing:

One thing remains to be said: it is that the communities are day and night occupied in making penal laws, and in preparing and organizing instruments and means of punishment. They build prisons, make chains and fetters, arrange places of exile and banishment, and different kinds of hardships and tortures, and think by these means to discipline criminals, whereas, in reality, they are causing destruction of morals and perversion of characters.[8]

If the communities punish and banish it is bad, but if the Baha’is do it there is no problem in doing so?! He then claims that people must be educated so that crime may not occur:

The community, on the contrary, ought day and night to strive and endeavor with the utmost zeal and effort to accomplish the education of men, to cause them day by day to progress and to increase in science and knowledge, to acquire virtues, to gain good morals and to avoid vices, so that crimes may not occur. At the present time the contrary prevails; the community is always thinking of enforcing the penal laws, and of preparing means of punishment, instruments of death and chastisement, places for imprisonment and banishment; and they expect crimes to be committed. This has a demoralizing effect.[9]

When the best form of education—being Baha’ism—was given to its followers but many of them still got banished, how can `Abdu’l-Bahā insist that education solves the problem and people should not be banished?

Banishing and excommunication reached such an extent that by the time of Shoghi almost every single direct descendant of Bahā’u’llāh had been labeled as being corrupt and been banished by either Shoghi or `Abdu’l-Bahā. Why was it that most of Bahā’u’llāh’s branches and leaves—i.e. family and descendants—became corrupt and suffered this fate? The answer can be found in Bahā’u’llāh’s own words:

You are like a spring of water. When its source becomes corrupt so do the streams that separate from it. Fear God and be pious. Likewise, look at man. When his heart becomes corrupt so do all his limbs and organs. Likewise, if the root of a tree becomes corrupt so do its branches and twigs (aghsan and afnan) and its leaves and its fruit.[10]

[1] `Abdu’l-Bahā, The Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahā, p. 12.

[2] Shoghi Effendi, Tauqī`āt-i mubārak-i (1945–1952), (n.p. [probably Tehran]: Mu’assisiyi Millī Maṭbū`āt Amrī, 125 B.), pp. 94–95.

[3] Shoghi Effendi, Tauqī`āt-i mubārak-i (1945–1952), p. 41–42.

[4] A city in northeastern Iran.

[5] Shoghi Effendi, Tauqī`āt-i mubārak-i (1945–1952), p. 78–79.

[6] Bahā’u’llāh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahā’u’llāh, p. 95.

[7] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Bahā’ī World Faith—Selected Writings of Bahā’u’llāh and `Abdu’l-Bahā (`Abdu’l-Bahā’s Section Only), p. 431.

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

[9] `Abdu’l-Bahā, Some Answered Questions, p. 272.

[10] Bahā’u’llāh, Āthār-i Qalam-i A`lā (Canada: Mu’assisiyi Ma`ārif Bahā’ī, 2002), vol. 2, no. 90, p. 603.