18 The Protective Social Life
This chapter introduces the protective social life as the boundary system that preserves dignity, prevents harm, and keeps rights from colliding within community. When we look at the framework of the constructive social life and the Cause of God, that by itself could seem like a utopia. Yet, we know life is much more complex. In Chapter 2, we learned how each soul is created noble, is unique, and is embodied in the flesh with different experiences and capacities. Everyone lives their life in a way of their own.
While the framework for the Cause of God, with its underlying beliefs, spiritual practices, virtues, protected rights, and related responsibilities, should be suitable for a society that liberates souls, it must also have measures to protect people, protect their rights, and ensure that one person’s expression of rights does not infringe upon another’s rights. Everything discussed so far consists of goals to constantly be striving for.
Being a mirror reflecting God’s names is not an automatic switch, and Bahá’u’lláh understands this. Belief does not mean you will automatically treat others as we should, spiritual practice does not automatically mean you act with God consciousness, and being in front of another does not mean you see them as equal in soul capacity. All of these things are practices which need refinement. The mirror needs constant polish and reorientation. The limbs of the body need regular exercise.
This is where the protective social life comes in. It is a collection of clear prohibitions designed to protect the community. Some are punitive, and many are not. For the punitive prohibitions, the prescribed punishment is designed to be implemented by communities with Houses of Justice. These are not retributive. In communities with a different code of laws, those laws are to be honored and respected. What follows are the protective measures Bahá’u’lláh ordained, measures that safeguard dignity, harmony, and rights for all.
18.1 Protecting Against Those Who Exalt Themselves
The first danger I want to discuss is those who exalt themselves over another. The most egregious example would be someone who declares they have revelation of God before the completion of a full thousand years (1029 BE - 2873 AD minimum).1 At some point, the period of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas will end with a new Day of Resurrection, a Manifestation of God, and a new Book.
18.1.1 Regarding Interpretation
A person does not need to declare themselves to have new revelation or to be a Manifestation to take steps to act like one. Bahá’u’lláh warns against interpreting what has been revealed and deviating from its outward meaning.2 This causes distortion of God’s Word, and whoever does this is considered a loser in the eyes of God. These distortions, caused by certain interpretive acts, can fundamentally change what people believe are the Words of God and the true commands. Another way to cause distortion is by claiming these interpretations are equal to the Word, to the point that a believer struggles to distinguish between Bahá’u’lláh and the interpreter.
Interpretation itself is not prohibited. Bahá’u’lláh advises us to interpret both the outward and the inward.3 To neglect either will cause deviation. If Bahá’u’lláh interprets anything Himself, this takes precedence. He says, “if you differ on a matter, refer to what has been revealed by Him”4. The issue regarding interpretation is using interpretation to self-exalt or to exalt another. For example, this entire book is how I personally interpret the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and related writings. If you feel I am in error, let me know and allow me an opportunity to correct the error. This book should never be viewed above the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. For this reason, I highly recommend reading the Kitáb-i-Aqdas first and referencing the verses highlighted in the footnotes. If you have an interpretation, even if it differs from mine, it is equal in station. Diverse views can lead to expanded knowledge and better understandings of truth. If we limit access to knowledge and understanding by limiting ourselves to only one interpretation, we actually limit our ability to learn, to gain wisdom, and to reflect God’s name, the All-Knowing.
When interpretation becomes a tool for elevating one person’s voice above others as if it has divine authority, the step into claiming infallibility is dangerously close.
18.1.2 Regarding Infallibility
Another way to act like a Manifestation without declaring to be one is by claiming to be infallible. Bahá’u’lláh says there is no partner for the Source of the Cause in the greatest infallibility, that no one else has been given a share.5 By claiming infallibility, even if you do not claim to be a Manifestation, you are claiming the same station and role. Infallibility means a person is exempt from error or has an inability to make any mistakes. In the Lawḥ-i-Ishráqát (Tablet of Splendors), Bahá’u’lláh does describe a lesser infallibility where there are various stations. These stations include a protection by God from mistakes, disobedience, turning away, disbelief, polytheism, and the like. Each one can be referred to as lesser infallibility. If anyone deviates, they cannot be infallible. Lesser infallibility can only be conferred by God, not declared by a person. Much like the idea behind being a chosen one, you nor I can make this determination on our own.
Bahá’u’lláh gives an example in His sermon on infallibility in the Ishráqát. He declares:
Look at the blessed, revealed verse that made pilgrimage to the House obligatory for everyone. Those who stood after Him in command are obliged to act according to what they were commanded in the Book. No one may transgress the limits of God and His traditions. He who transgresses is among the erring in the Book of God, Lord of the Great Throne.
In this example, if someone declares pilgrimage to another place or site as lawful from God, they could never be infallible. Anyone who transgresses is in error. He includes another message like this in the Kitáb-i-Badí‘, describing those who believe without hesitation as the people of infallibility as long as they remain under the shade of God. The Lawḥ-i-Sarráj confirms this. Yet, not a single individual was ever named infallible in any tablet of Bahá’u’lláh. There are countless people whom He praises, yet He never said any individual on their own was infallible. I believe the purpose of this was to protect those He praised from the dangers of self-exaltation.
18.1.3 Abolition of Prior Religious Practices
There are some other practices mentioned to help prevent the self-exaltation of another, or to keep us from exalting any other charismatic person. Bahá’u’lláh prohibits the kissing of hands6 as a sign of inferiority. We are all prohibited from ascending pulpits7, which physically visualize one being above the others.
One of the most important, in my view, is the prohibition against seeking forgiveness from another.8 This is not a prohibition on apologizing for a mistake. It is a command to only repent to God. If a person demands forgiveness from another, they have asserted an authority of superiority over another. If a person requests to be forgiven, they have submitted their soul symbolically to the one they feel they have wronged. Forgiveness can only happen when it is freely given without anything in return.
18.1.4 Begging
In addition, we are forbidden from begging and from giving to those who do beg.9 Begging is not solely an act of financial destitution. Begging can happen in the context of requesting mercy in a punishment. It can happen when we desire a secret to remain hidden. There are many aspects of begging, which can lead to blackmail, bribes, and other manipulative tactics. Begging completely compromises one’s soul and risks causing the beggar to make compromises they would not normally make. This rule does not prevent a person from making a request, or stating their needs or wishes. Asking involves mutual respect and reciprocity. Begging requires one person to be seen as above another in a dangerous power dynamic.
18.1.5 Boasting
The final act of self-exaltation would be boasting.10 Boasting is prohibited. This can also take many forms involving pride and self-satisfaction, designed to convey a sense of superiority. These forms can include commonly used reasons for prejudice, such as skin color, nationality, religious label, ethnicity, gender, and even body composition. It can include bragging about your wealth, skills, achievements, or other aspects of identity. To place yourself on a pedestal simultaneously involves placing another in a lower status than you. The only true way to increase your own station is to simultaneously help others increase theirs.
There is no right to self-exaltation, and all believers have a responsibility to refrain from self-exaltation and from exalting others. If anyone does, the best response would be to remind them we are “all created from water, and unto dust (we) shall return.”11
Reflection: Where do I subtly elevate my voice, knowledge, or spiritual practice above others, and what would humility look like in those moments?
This next section shifts from inner pride to outward words, because community safety begins with how we speak.
18.2 Prohibited Speech
The next set of prohibitions is associated with what we say and how we say it. Everything in this section is non-punitive, meaning Bahá’u’lláh did not create any enforceable fines or punishments. All of these are responsibilities of those who believe in Bahá’u’lláh, but none of these affect a legal right to speech unless later determined by the Houses of Justice.
18.2.1 Causing Sadness
The foundation of this section is the responsibility from section #148 of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. In the Persian Bayán’s Váḥid 7 Gate 18, the Báb instituted a fine of nineteen mithqáls for anyone who caused sadness to another’s heart and soul with their speech and conduct. Bahá’u’lláh restated this exact punitive law, but repealed the fine. Instead, He requires us to be kind and demonstrate piety, reminding us of the golden rule. There is no exception based on whether a person intended to cause sadness or if it was unintentional. We have a responsibility to show empathy. Mindfulness goes a long way, even if we can never control how others receive our speech. A spirit of friendship and fellowship is better for us. All people have a right to be free from sadness caused by another.
18.2.2 Slander
Slander is prohibited.12 It refers to false statements made about another person with the intent to harm their reputation. If the speech is true, it is not slander. While legal definitions distinguish between spoken slander and written libel, the principle of harm to reputation applies regardless of the form of communication.
18.2.3 Backbiting
Backbiting is prohibited.13 It refers to speaking about another person in their absence in a way that harms their reputation or dignity. Unlike slander, which requires falsehood, backbiting may include even truthful statements when they are expressed in a harmful or degrading manner. Malice is often present, but the defining feature is the harm caused in the person’s absence. If the speech is false and harmful, it is slander. If the speech is true but harms another in their absence, it is backbiting. If the speech is favorable or does not harm, it is neither.
What does it mean for speech to be true? The standard proposed here is that it should be accurate in substance and not misleading in context. Omitting key context in a way that distorts meaning may render the statement functionally false. A person also has the right to share how speech affected them, as their experience is real, even when expressed as interpretation.
Slander and backbiting often function as tools of self-exaltation. By lowering another’s reputation, one attempts to elevate their own in comparison.
18.2.4 Contention and Disputing
Contention and disputing14 are forbidden. They refer to forms of disagreement that are driven by attachment to one’s own position and expressed in a way that produces conflict, rivalry, or division. It is not the presence of differing views that is forbidden, but the manner in which those differences are held and expressed. Contention arises when one insists on their position in opposition to another, while disputing is the sustained engagement in that opposition through argument or conflict. Disagreement, by contrast, is not prohibited. Differences in understanding are natural. What must be avoided is allowing those differences to become a source of contention or disputing.
To resolve a dispute, both sides should to be willing to refer their difference to Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation15 and to be willing to let go of their original contention, even if they feel they are entirely right. To let go of their original contention requires moving your position to the point of moderation (a virtue) or deciding that you have no control over the other’s position and letting it go. Having a detachment from outcomes is vital to resolution.
18.2.5 Objecting
Objecting against another is prohibited.16 This is a seemingly broad concept and, in my opinion, it is one that would be the most difficult to practice. An objection is an expression (public) of disapproval directed against another, where one sets themselves in opposition to that person. I could have included this in the private self discussion, but I felt this would be more relevant for the social life. However, all objection begins in the private self before it is expressed outwardly. The primary reason a person objects is because they feel something is wrong and that it needs to be corrected. This can include individual objection or group-based objection such as assembling to protest.
What if you feel you are right? I see two pathways to answer this question. The first pathway would be to explore why you object, the consequences of your objecting for yourself and others, and to decide to let go of your objection. The second pathway is that, after exploring why you object, you decide to express it once in a constructive method. One constructive method I feel is useful is the Socratic method. According to Wikipedia,
“the Socratic method, named after the Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and dialogue based on asking and answering questions. The goal is not to present a definitive answer or lecture but to help someone discover a deeper understanding of a topic on their own. Instead of telling you what to think, I’ve asked you a series of probing questions to help you examine your own beliefs and the logical consistency of your arguments.”
One key aspect of this method is that it also gives the questioner an ability to learn from the answers. In the Badí‘ calendar, the month of Questions (#15) comes immediately after the month of Speech (#14), which leads to the month of Honor (#16). The Báb’s method of organizing time seems to integrate the importance of asking questions to help develop honor. Still, someone who is boastful may not take kindly to being asked questions designed for a deeper understanding. Be mindful in how this method is used to prevent further conflict.
Another constructive method would be to offer a solution to what you feel is a problem. If the solution is accepted, you played a positive part in social change. If the solution is not accepted, allow it to be and use the experience to inform your own future thoughts, feelings, actions, and speech. As you get one shot to present your case, present your case to the best of your ability and in a manner which fits within the positive social life.
18.2.6 Raising Voices in Public Remembrance
Bahá’u’lláh prohibits raising voices in streets or marketplaces in remembrance.17 He says the proper place is within your own home or in places designated for remembrance, such as a Mashriqu’l-Adhkár or any other place of worship you choose to visit, regardless of religion. This will help keep people from trying to seem pious even if they are not, and it also will help prevent conflict with those who do not believe as you do. This also will help prevent uncomfortable situations of proselytizing. Yes, we are allowed to proclaim the Cause, but there are boundaries to be respected. Everyone has a right not to be pressured or made uncomfortable in public by loud religious expression.
18.2.7 Regarding Books and Other Writings
We are prohibited from reading sciences whose purpose is designed to lead to disputes.18 This could be expanded to any new types of media introduced since 1873, when the Kitáb-i-Aqdas was written. This can be quite expansive, but it can include opinion pieces, political treatises, ideological statements, jurisprudence based on traditions, or even commentary which goes against the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (as all disputes should be referred to Bahá’u’lláh). The idea is content designed to provoke division, ideological hostility, or sustain arguments without any pursuit of truth.
Baha’u’llah balances this with a prohibition from obliterating those books.19 Everyone has a right to produce whatever content they want. Censorship is not the solution. We are responsible for what we consume.
Reflection: How often do my words protect another person’s dignity, and when might they quietly erode it?
This next section connects small violations of dignity to the larger social descent into oppression.
18.3 Dehumanization
Self-exaltation and the types of prohibited speech are quite harmful to souls. In Chapter 2, we learned how the souls are created noble and all souls are the temples of a singular mankind. The protections above ensure that souls can continue to be treated as noble and as sacred temples. When those protections are violated, we start down a dangerous and slippery road. This is the road toward dehumanization.
Imagine everything which makes you be you. Part of this you is how you reflect God’s names (even if you do not believe in God), your soul, your constellation of virtues, your identity, your rights, your private self, your social self, and all of the loved ones you experience. Each one of the issues regarding self-exaltation and prohibited speech can be used to deny you or another a targeted part of yourself, even if it seems small or insignificant. Repeated violations accumulate, expand, and over time, work to deprive you of the very things which make you human. This is the process of dehumanization. Another places you as less human, and maybe more animal. What are the consequences? The consequences are inevitably violent and oppressive, towards individuals and target groups of people. These consequences include the targeted deprivation of rights, harm to the body, harm to the psychological and emotional self, and potentially the loss of life.
Another aspect of how dehumanization can occur is through institutionalization. Institutions alone are not inherently bad, but institutions are composed of individuals. If the people within an institution dehumanize anyone, the institution will reflect this. Political ideologies, nationality, religion, and even more personal ones such as marriage have all been tools to express the ways a person is less than human.
We have a right to be free from dehumanization and a responsibility to view every soul as capable of nobility, even if it feels as though they are falling short of that standard. We have a responsibility to ensure no institution dehumanizes anyone, nor deprives them of their rights. For example, any attempt to use marriage to bypass protections of immaturity is oppression and could dehumanize a child as merely an object to fulfill adult wants and desires. We also have a responsibility to change the hearts of people and institutions to restore the sacred trusts authorized to us.
The right hand always has the choice of helping the left hand, and our prayers and deeds can help restore temples which have fallen into a state of disrepair. Our hands must always be active to retain or restore every person’s inherent and rightful nobility, from birth and beyond death.
Reflection: What small patterns in my thinking or behavior could contribute to seeing another person as less fully human?
This next section lists the core violent and oppressive acts the community must restrain, with justice shaped by both law and conscience.
18.4 Violent and Oppressive Acts
To protect us within the social life, Bahá’u’lláh specified clear prohibitions for violent and oppressive acts, along with associated punishments for many of them. For those without specific punishments or severities, those are to be determined by Houses of Justice within their jurisdictions. There are only eight, but the intersection of these eight aspects should cover most situations if anyone were to appreciate a small code of laws.
These will be listed in no particular order:
Law #1: Carrying weapons.20 The only exception is during a time of necessity. Ownership is not prohibited. No punishment is specified. I would consider expanding this to include objects not typically used as weapons but carried with the intention of being used as a weapon.
Law #2: Striking another (assault and battery)21. For injuries to the head and body22 there are unspecified fines for each level of severity. The fines are called diyah, which means blood money. 33% of all diyah is paid to the Houses of Justice23 and the other 66% is offered as compensation to the injured person.
Law #3: There is a fine for manslaughter and other accidental killing.24 There are no exceptions. The diyah payment is 100 Bayánic mithqáls of gold (See Appendix F) for the family of the deceased.
Law #4: Murder (Homicide).25 The punishment is execution or life imprisonment.26
Law #5: Trespassing.27 There is no punishment specified.
Law #6: Theft (stealing).28 The 1st and 2nd offenses include both banishment and imprisonment. Banishment indicates being forced from the local community, while imprisonment refers to confinement. The exact relationship between these two penalties is not specified here, but both are applied for the first and second offenses.
After the 3rd offense, the thief loses their anonymity and is to be permanently marked on the forehead, along with the continuation of banishment and imprisonment. The marking serves as a means of identification across communities, reflecting a shared awareness and coordination, so that the individual is not accepted in the cities of God and His countries.
Law #7: Arson29 has a punishment of either execution or life imprisonment. I do want to note that this seems harsh compared to certain legal standards, but arson is impactful. It deprives a person of shelter, wealth, and potentially life. According to the US Fire Administration, in 2023 there were 344,600 residential fires which caused 2,890 deaths, 10,400 injuries, and over $11 billion USD in property losses. Even if loss of life is unintentional, the arson is an intentional act.
Law #8: Selling and buying people30, without any stated punishment.
18.4.1 Intersection of Laws: An Example of Rape
One might read the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and wonder why a crime such as rape is not specified. I believe it is because rape includes many aspects of these laws. Rape often includes the use of a weapon. Rape often requires a physical assault, or the threat of physical assault. In some contexts, even the human body can be used in a manner that causes harm, which further reflects the element of force involved. The victim’s body was trespassed against without consent and the victim’s body was used against their will, which is a form of theft. Autonomy, while it is not property, can be taken without consent. Further harm may result if the victim’s bodily functions or qualities are impaired as a result of the rape.
This example of rape includes violations of laws #1, 2, 5, and 6 by the perpetrator. With laws 5 and 6 being determined by things such as severity, this could be a more severe punishment than is typical for rape. I feel intersectionality could be a way to simplify a legal code to make the mechanisms of justice fairly quick and straightforward. However, it is up to each House of Justice in how they refine and specify such laws. It would also make sense for a House of Justice to specifically specify rape.
Reflection: How do clear boundaries around harm shape my understanding of justice, responsibility, and protection within community?
This concludes the basic foundations of the social life. In the next chapter, we move from protection to construction as we transition toward building and maintaining loving relationships, marriage, parenting, and divorce.
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #37↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #105↩︎
Tafsír on the Súrah of the Sun↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #53↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #47↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #34↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #154↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #34↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #147↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #72↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #148↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #19↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #19↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #148↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #53↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #73↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #108↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #77↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #77↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #159↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #148↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #56↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #52↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #188↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #19↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #62↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #145↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #45↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #62↩︎
Kitáb-i-Aqdas #72↩︎