Oneness of Humanity in Baha’i Teaching

Abstract

Among the twelve core teachings of the Bahá’í Faith, the principle of “the Oneness of Humanity” is one of the most prominently featured in Bahá’í promotional discourse. Bahá’ís not only embrace this concept as a central tenet but also present it as the foundational goal and intellectual cornerstone of their faith. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the second leader of the Bahá’í Faith and one of its pivotal figures, frequently emphasized this theme in his speeches and writings, identifying it as the axis of Bahá’í teachings.

Bahá’í missionaries often refer to human unity as the “masterpiece” of the Bahá’í Faith in their promotional literature. At first glance, this principle evokes notions of kindness, tolerance, and empathy toward all people. However, a closer examination of official Bahá’í texts and sources reveals clear contradictions with this ideal—contradictions that raise serious questions about the sincerity and practical feasibility of this principle.

This article adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to critically examine the principle of “the Oneness of Humanity.” The findings indicate that in religious traditions, calls for unity have historically revolved around the concept of monotheism. In contrast, the Bahá’í Faith diverges from this foundation and redefines unity in a different framework.

Moreover, certain other Bahá’í teachings conflict with the principle of unity. Documented behaviors of Bahá’í leaders also appear inconsistent with this ideal. These observations suggest that either the principle is not practically implementable—even by Bahá’í leaders themselves—or that it was designed primarily for external audiences, with little genuine commitment from the leadership.

Additionally, the intellectual influences of Eastern and Western philosophical schools on the Bahá’í Faith call into question the originality and authenticity of this principle. Ultimately, the Bahá’í Faith neither offers a practical roadmap for achieving global unity nor has it taken meaningful steps toward realizing it.

 

Oneness of Humanity: An Ancient Aspiration or a Modern Claim?

Throughout history, peace and harmony have been shared aspirations of humankind. People are inherently averse to war and violence, and thinkers across the ages have sought pathways to achieving global unity. Even today, despite ongoing crises, humanity continues to regard itself as peace-seeking—so much so that a global prize is awarded for the promotion of peace.

Divine religions have also promised a future marked by tranquility and unity. The Book of Isaiah Prophet foretells a time when weapons of war will be transformed into tools of agriculture, and conflict will cease. In Islam, the promise of global unity is tied to the advent of Imam Mahdi (peace be upon him), a unity founded upon monotheism and justice.

Within this context, the Bahá’í Faith—with its organizational structure—strives to present “the Oneness of Humanity” as its most important principle. Bahá’í leaders not only position this concept at the heart of their teachings but also regard it as a unique innovation of their faith. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá emphasized that prior to the appearance of Bahá’u’lláh, such ideas had not been heard in Iran [1].

This raises a fundamental question: Do these claims align with reality? Is unity in the Bahá’í Faith merely a promotional slogan, or is it a realizable ideal? The following analysis will critically examine these assertions.

 

Unity: Not Always a Virtue

When we speak of “the Oneness of Humanity,” it often evokes a positive image. Yet in reality, unity in itself is neither inherently good nor bad—it all depends on the foundation upon which it is built.

If unity is rooted in virtue, justice, and humanity, it is valuable. But if it arises from oppression, discrimination, or unstable interests, it is not only undesirable—it can be dangerous.

The durability of unity also depends on its underlying motives. Unity based on shared interests tends to collapse when those interests shift. In contrast, unity that stems from belief and conviction is far more resilient. Therefore, before praising any form of unity, one must examine the goals and ideologies that lie behind it.

 

Oneness of Humanity in the Bahá’í Faith: A Call for Peace or an Echo of Modern Ideologies?

When the Bahá’í concept of “the Oneness of Humanity” is discussed, it typically evokes a positive and peace-oriented image. Yet a critical question arises: On what foundation is this unity actually built?

In Bahá’í thought, unity is primarily presented as a solution to war and conflict. Bahá’í leaders have described its purpose as the attainment of global peace. However, little has been said about the intellectual or theological basis of this unity.

In reality, the notion of unity promoted by the Bahá’í Faith aligns more closely with modern ideologies such as liberalism, humanism, and even Marxism than with traditional religious frameworks or Abrahamic faiths. It is a unity grounded in shared material interests, public welfare, and the resolution of social disputes—rather than in monotheism, faith in divine teachings, or belief in divine justice on the Day of Judgment.

In Bahá’í sources and the views of its leaders, unity is often portrayed as a tool for improving certain material aspects of contemporary human life, rather than as a divine principle rooted in deep spiritual conviction and a holistic approach to individual and social existence. This marks a fundamental distinction. For example, Bahá’í leaders have stated:

“The essential purpose and true objective of the unity of humankind is that, through this union and harmony, all disputes and conflicts among humanity may be eliminated, and true unity may be witnessed in the assembly of the world…”[2]

Likewise, Ishraq Khavari quotes ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as saying:

“The unity of humankind stands in opposition to war—that is, it exists so that war may not occur.” [3]

Thus, one must ask: Is this unity a spiritual ideal, or merely a modern framework for managing human conflict? When the foundation is unclear, the function and integrity of unity itself come into question.

 

The Baha’i Approach to Oneness of Humanity: Big talk without little walk

The Bahá’í Faith presents itself as a religion whose primary goal is the realization of “the Oneness of Humanity.” However, upon examining Bahá’í sources, one finds that discussions around how this unity is to be achieved tend to be vague and generalized, rather than offering clear, actionable strategies.

Some writings mention the formation of a “Universal Assembly” (Doustdar, 2000, p. 180)—an institution envisioned to unite all nations, races, and religions under one roof, ultimately leading toward a “world government.” There is even talk of a legislative body, an international court, and a global police force (Doustdar, 2000, pp. 107–108).

Yet these proposals resemble utopian visions more commonly found in animated programs than executable plans. For such a structure to materialize, a majority of the world’s population would need to embrace Bahá’í principles—essentially requiring a significant portion of humanity to convert to the Bahá’í Faith. This is a scenario far removed from current realities. The Bahá’í community, whose influence is largely mediated through media outreach, remains far too small to support the establishment of a unified global government.

Moreover, the creation of institutions for legislation, enforcement, and adjudication demands a unified global worldview—something that is conspicuously absent from Bahá’u’lláh’s Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the messages of the Universal House of Justice.

Contradictions also appear within Bahá’í texts. For instance, while the United Nations is criticized in some writings, Bahá’í leaders fail to propose a clear alternative. In ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s speeches in Europe and America, unity is frequently emphasized, yet it remains unclear how this unity was practiced even within his own family. He himself remarked about his father:

“One must be fair: how can we expect someone who failed to raise his own children and household to educate the people of the world? Is there any doubt in this matter?” [4]

A more pressing question is whether Bahá’u’lláh’s behavior toward opponents of the Bahá’í Faith was truly rooted in love and compassion—or whether it sometimes involved insults and aggression. In Memoirs of Habib Moayyad, Vol. 1, p. 266, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá recounts:

“When the Blessed Beauty [Bahá’u’lláh] returned from Sulaymaniyah, one day he was walking with the late Aqa Mirza Muhammad Quli. A kebab vendor quietly said, ‘The Bábís are out in the open again!’ The Blessed Beauty told Mirza Muhammad Quli, ‘Punch him in the mouth!’ Mirza Muhammad Quli grabbed his beard and struck him on the head. The man complained to the official, who, out of fear, imprisoned him and said, ‘You must have committed a serious offense for the Bábís to have attacked you!’”

Such accounts suggest that the concept of oneness of humanity in the Bahá’í Faith may be more of an appealing slogan than a clearly defined path. In the following sections, these contradictions will be examined in greater detail.

 

Unity in Words, Division in Deeds: A Look at Bahá’í Leadership

The Bahá’í Faith presents “the oneness of humanity” as one of its most important principles. Yet a review of the history and conduct of Bahá’í leaders reveals serious contradictions with this very ideal. Below are several notable examples:

1. Bahá’u’lláh: From Advocating Unity to Insulting His Brother

Bahá’u’lláh wrote:

“Say, O friends! The canopy of unity is lofty; do not view one another as strangers. You are all the fruits of one tree and the leaves of one branch.” [5]

Despite this call for unity, Bahá’u’lláh used harsh language when in conflict with his brother, Mírzá Yahyá Subh-i-Azal. He referred to him as a “calf” [6] and even called him a “donkey”:

“Say, O donkeys! Whatever the Truth commands is the Truth…” [7]

In Badí‘, he also labeled his brother as “polytheist, vile, and tyrant” [8] and cursed him, saying:

“Curse be upon you and upon your shame!” [9]

Elsewhere, he used terms like “calf, tyrant, Satan, devil, fly” to describe Subh-i-Azal [10].

In another passage, he insulted millions of Shi’a Muslims:

“By God’s life, the Shi’a party are among the polytheists, as recorded by the Supreme Pen in the Crimson Tablet.” [11]

Bahá’ís often claim that Bahá’u’lláh emphasized courtesy, saying “Courtesy is my garment” or “He who lacks courtesy lacks faith” [12]. Yet his interactions with family and followers show little evidence of the unity and respect he preached. Thus, the promise of human unity appears to be rhetorical rather than practiced.

2. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá: From Compassion to Exclusion and Punishment

‘Abdu’l-Bahá stated:

“All humanity is under the mercy of the Lord… One must not despise the sick… Instead, show utmost compassion and love.” [13]

In practice, however, he had severe conflicts with his brother Mírzá Muhammad ‘Alí, forbidding Bahá’ís from associating with him [14] and excommunicating many of his own relatives—prohibiting even greetings between them.

Regarding Mírzá Áqá Ján Káshí, a loyal servant of Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá reportedly beat him nearly to death and imprisoned him in a stable due to ideological differences [15]. He later confiscated all of Áqá Ján’s writings [16] and compelled Bahá’ís to curse Muhammad ‘Alí, or else be labeled “covenant-breakers” [17].

3. Shoghi Effendi: Guardian of the Faith and Severance from Family

Shoghi Effendi, the third Bahá’í leader, spoke of the oneness of humanity but severed ties with most members of Bahá’u’lláh’s family. His extreme approach to excommunication meant that after his death, no one from his family could succeed him—effectively ending the Bahá’í line of leadership.

 

Oneness of Humanity? When Intellectuals and Scholars Become Targets of Insult

Bahá’í leaders—and by extension, the Bahá’í administrative order—have often sought to compensate for ideological shortcomings by appealing to religious scholars within Shi’a communities and promoting academic figures and intellectuals in the West.

Interestingly, apart from a handful of undereducated and self-important seminarians, the Bábí–Bahá’í propaganda received little genuine interest. Following the failure to attract Shi’a scholars, the Bahá’í community—unable to tolerate their critical views—resorted to insulting, expelling, and excommunicating these individuals.

In the Kitáb-i-Íqán, Bahá’u’lláh refers to Shi’a scholars as “hamajun ri‘ā‘un” and “khārātīn al-arḍ,” meaning worthless insects and earthworms [18]. He also labeled prominent Qajar-era scholar Shaykh Muhammad-Baqir Isfahani as a “wolf” and Mir Muhammad-Husayn, the Friday prayer leader of Isfahan, as “Raqshā”—a beautifully patterned snake [19].

‘Abdu’l-Bahá accused Dr. Ibrahim George Khayrullah, a major Bahá’í missionary in America, of being an “enemy,” “violator,” and “covenant-breaker.” He reportedly offered him a large sum of money to remain within the Bahá’í fold, and ultimately resorted to threats—even of murder—when Khayrullah resisted.

This pattern of hostility extended to Western critics such as Dr. Denis MacEoin and Professor Juan Cole, whose works were censored within Bahá’í circles and who were eventually expelled or ostracized. Thus, the principle of “the unity of humankind” appears, in practice, to be more accurately described as “the unity of Bahá’ís.”

 

Contradictions Between other Bahá’í Teachings and the Oneness of Humanity

A closer look at the teachings and internal conduct of Bahá’í leaders reveals serious inconsistencies with the proclaimed ideal of “the oneness of humanity.” In fact, certain rulings found in Bahá’í texts—even assuming a well-defined plan—pose significant obstacles to achieving unity, even within the Bahá’í community itself.

1. Exclusion of Opponents: Unity Only for the Like-Minded

One official Bahá’í text states:

“We must avoid those who oppose in all matters, and even brief companionship or association is not permitted…” [20]

This means that anyone who disagrees with Bahá’í leaders or criticizes their conduct must not only be avoided socially but also be formally expelled from the Bahá’í community. Furthermore, if someone renounces their Bahá’í beliefs, they are subject to both spiritual and administrative excommunication:

“Association, conversation, and meeting with those whose opposition has become evident is not permitted…” [21]

Sobhi, a former scribe of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá who later distanced himself from the Bahá’í Faith after personal encounters with Abbas Effendi, recounts his experience in Payām-e Pedar (“Message of the Father”):

“In secret, they are more hostile than any enemy… Not only did they force my kind father to disown a son who had shown nothing but loyalty and integrity, but they also lay in wait, hoping to eliminate me if possible.” [22]

Sobhi’s account illustrates how the ideal of compassion and unity is, in practice, replaced by exclusion and pressure against dissenters.

2. Legal Discrimination: Inheritance Reserved for Bahá’ís?

Despite claims of “equality among all humans” and “gender equality,” Bahá’í legal rulings show clear distinctions between Bahá’ís and non-Bahá’ís. For example, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas states:

“A non-Bahá’í does not inherit from a Bahá’í.”

This means that even in matters of family and finance, unity gives way to discrimination. If unity is reserved only for those who agree, and dissenters are met with exclusion and contempt, then the concept of “the oneness of humanity” loses its credibility. True unity requires embracing differences—not erasing them.

 

Conclusion

The Bahá’í Faith presents “the oneness of humanity” as one of its innovative and progressive teachings—a concept that, on the surface, promises peace and empathy among all people and leaves a strong impression on its audience. However, a closer examination reveals that this claim faces serious challenges, both historically and behaviorally.

Firstly, human unity has long been a central theme in all divine and Abrahamic religions, particularly in Islam, where it is rooted in the concept of monotheism. Therefore, the Bahá’í claim of originality in this principle lacks historical foundation and is inaccurate.

Secondly, unity in itself is neither inherently good nor bad; its value depends entirely on the foundation upon which it is built. Unity based on faith, justice, and truth is meaningful and commendable. But if it is shaped by material interests or imported ideologies, it warrants deeper scrutiny.

Thirdly, in many statements by Bahá’í leaders, Western culture—with all its contradictions and vulnerabilities—is presented as the model for achieving unity. This reflects a form of cultural self-effacement rather than genuine innovation.

Fourthly, the actual conduct of Bahá’í leaders toward dissenters—whether within their own families or in broader society—stands in stark contrast to the principle of unity. From verbal abuse directed at close relatives to the exclusion and denigration of Shi’a scholars, entire Shi’a communities, intellectuals, and Western critics, the evidence suggests that unity in the Bahá’í Faith functions more as a promotional slogan than as a practical or spiritual principle.

Given these internal and behavioral contradictions, it is difficult to accept the Bahá’í Faith as a credible guide for humanity or a viable path to oneness of humanity. True unity is not found in slogans but in conduct and justice. Moreover, these contradictions cast doubt on the Bahá’í claim to religious legitimacy and instead point to its organizational nature.

 ———

By Maria Amini

Reference:

1. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá writes: “These teachings had never been heard in Iran prior to the appearance of Bahá’u’lláh. Investigate this, and it will become clear and evident to you.” (Makátíb, (Persian copy) Vol. 3, p. 114)
2. Shoghi Effendi, Tawqi‘at Mubarakih (Persian copy), 1984, Vol. 3, p. 246
3. Ishraq Khavari, 1986 (Persian copy), p. 53
4. Makátíb, (Persian copy) Vol. 2, p. 182
5. Ishraq Khavari, Maedeh Asemani (Persian copy), Vol. 7, p. 163
6. Makátíb, (Persian copy) Vol. 1, p. 271
7. Bahá’u’lláh, Badí‘, (Persian copy) p. 174
8. Bahá’u’lláh, Badí‘, (Persian copy) pp. 240, 252
9. Bahá’u’lláh, Badí‘, (Persian copy) p. 172
10. Fazel Mazandarani, Asrár al-Áthár, (Persian copy) Vols. 3 & 4
11. Ishraq Khavari, Maedeh Asemeni (Persian copy) Vol. 4, p. 140
12. Bahá’u’lláh, Badí‘, (Persian copy), p. 205
13. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Khitábát, (Persian copy) Vol. 2, p. 146)
14. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Makátíb, (Persian copy) Vol. 1, p. 442
15. Chamankhah, pp. 50–54; Stetson, p. 268
16. Stetson, p. 270
17. Stetson, p. 262
18. Bahá’u’lláh , Íqán (Persian copy), pp. 67, 191
19. Shoghi Effendi, God passes by (Persian copy), p. 438
20. Ishraq Khavari, Maidah-yi-Āsmānī (Persian copy), Vol. 8, p. 39, Statement 53
21. Ishraq Khavari, Maidah-yi-Āsmānī, Vol. 8, p. 74, Statement 94
22. Fazl’ollah Mohtadu Sobhi, Payām-e Pedar, p. 411
23. Bahá’u’lláh, Aqdas, Supplement to the Tablet of Questions and Answers, p. 53, Clauses 33 & 34