According to Baha’i law, a mother’s share from inheritance is smaller than a father’s and a sister’s share is smaller than a brother’s.[1] This discrimination shows itself in another form when dividing the deceased’s wealth amongst his or her children. The oldest living son has complete rights to the residence of the deceased and no other inheritors have a right to this property. Bahā’u’llāh says in the Book of Aqdas:

We have assigned the residence and personal clothing of the deceased to the male, not female, offspring, nor to the other heirs.[2]

It is further explained that:

He specifies that if there be more than one residence, the principal and most important one passes to the male offspring.[3]

Regarding this law `Abdu’l-Bahā states:

The living residence belongs to the oldest living son, whether or not the deceased has any other wealth. The oldest living son also takes his share from the other belongings.[4]

Thus, if the deceased has left nothing behind but the home he lived in, it belongs to the oldest son and the other heirs have absolutely no share whatsoever! The discrimination doesn’t end here.
If the deceased has any debts, they must be settled from the other remaining properties and the eldest son’s share can only be used if the other properties are not enough to settle the debt:

QUESTION: If the deceased hath not settled his obligation to Ḥuqūqu’llāh, nor paid his other debts, are these to be discharged by proportionate deductions from the residence, personal clothing and the rest of the estate, or are the residence and personal clothing set aside for the male offspring, and consequently the debts must be settled from
the rest of the estate? And if the rest of the estate is insufficient for this purpose, how should the debts be settled?
ANSWER: Outstanding debts and payments of Ḥuqúq should be settled from the remainder of the estate, but if this is
insufficient for the purpose, the shortfall should be met from his residence and personal clothing.[5]

 The discrimination between male and female heirs goes down one more generation:

Should the son of the deceased have passed away in the days of his father and have left children, they will inherit their father’s share.[6]

Now, what happens if the passed-away child of the deceased is a female? Her children don’t take all her share and it must be re-divided amongst all heirs:

This aspect of the law applies only in the case of the son who predeceases his father or mother. If the daughter of the deceased be dead and leave issue, her share will have to be divided according to the seven categories specified in the Most Holy Book.[7]

As we can see, in contrast to the principle of “Equality of Men and Women,” there is neither equality nor unity in the laws of inheritance regarding these two sexes.

To justify this discrimination, Baha’i leaders have brought forth an argument:

In a Tablet, ‘Abdu’l-Bahā indicates that the residence and personal clothing of a deceased man remain in the male line. They pass to the eldest son and in the absence of the eldest son, they pass to the second-eldest son, and so on. He explains that this provision is an expression of the law of primogeniture, which has invariably been upheld by the Law of God. In a Tablet to a follower of the Faith in Persia He wrote: “In all the Divine Dispensations the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright.”
With the distinctions given to the eldest son, however, go concomitant duties. For example, he has the moral responsibility, for the sake of God, to care for his mother and also to consider the needs of the other heirs.[8] 

This justification has four flaws:

First, pay attention to the word distinction which has been used twice in the quote. Remember this is the same creed that claims God has made absolutely no distinction between people[9] and between male or female (we already showed this in the introductory quotes of this chapter).

Second, there was supposed to be equality between men and women. This justification still fundamentally contradicts this principle.

Third, whilst the laws of inheritance are legally binding, moral responsibilities are not. Thus, a Baha’i can legally acquire the living residence and freely neglect his moral responsibilities.

Fourth, suppose that we accept this justification. Now consider the case where the deceased only has female children. One would expect the living residence of the deceased to be passed on to the eldest female offspring and along with that the moral responsibilities.
Unfortunately another discriminative law has been legislated:

Two thirds of the residence and personal clothing pass to the female offspring, and one third to the House of Justice, which God hath made to be the treasury of the people.

Why discriminate against the female offspring and give a third of their share to the UHJ, while if the same share was for the eldest son it would be solely for him to keep? Why can the eldest female offspring not inherit the house? Who has to fulfill the moral responsibilities?

If you are wondering if any belongings of the deceased are solely passed to the female offspring, the answer is yes. They get to keep their mother’s rags and old clothes:

In the case of the deceased mother all her used clothing is to be equally divided amongst her daughters.[10]

If you are still wondering what happens to the mother’s unused and new clothes, well the girls do not get to keep them and they are divided between all the groups of aforementioned inheritors:

Her unworn clothing, jewels and property must be divided among her heirs.[11]

And finally, let’s see how `Abdu’l-Bahā being the oldest son, acted towards the moral responsibilities that he himself introduced. In the following table we have listed the wives and
children of Bahā’u’llāh who `Abdu’l-Bahā was morally responsible for. 

Table 6: The people that `Abdu’l-Bahā was morally responsible for and their fate.

 Out of the eight people that `Abdul’-Bahā was responsible for—other than his sister—all others were labeled as covenant breakers and shunned them from the Baha’i community by `Abdu’l-Bahā and Shoghi!

Is this is the meaning of “moral responsibility” and “considering the needs of the other heirs”?!

The discriminations in inheritance are not limited to these instances. We will move on as to not elongate this section.
But before that, a final note must be mentioned:

As we already said, Bahā’u’llāh proclaimed that, “We have assigned the residence and personal clothing of the deceased to the male, not female, offspring”[12] and “He specifies that if
there be more than one residence, the principal and most important one passes to the male offspring.”[13] Now here is the catch, Bahā’u’llāh does not say that these belong to the oldest male, but states they belong to the male offspring. The Arabic text of the Aqdas too clearly shows this meaning. Now why would `Abdu’l-Bahā change this law and limit the heirs of the deceased’s living residence to only the oldest living male instead of all the male offspring? Are we supposed to believe it has nothing to do with the fact that he himself was Bahā’u’llāh’s oldest living male offspring?