let us 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.
The people that `Abdu’l-Bahā was morally responsible for and their fate:
|Forughuyeh Nuri||Half-sister||AfterBahā’u’llāh||Covenant breaker|
|Muhammad Ali||Half-brother||AfterBahā’u’llāh||Covenant breaker|
|Samadiyyih Nuri||Half-sister||AfterBahā’u’llāh||Covenant breaker|
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”?!
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”
“He specifies that if there be more than one residence, the principal and most important one passes to the male offspring.”
Reference: Bahā’u’llāh, The Kitābi Aqdas, p. 186
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?
Courtesy: Twelve Principles – A Comprehensive Investigation on the Bahai Teachings