I find the contrast between Ahmadiyya Islaam and the Bahai Faith fascinating.
Both are, IMO, natural, even unavoidable attempts at addressing the most serious contradictions of Islaamic doctrine.
Comparing and contrasting the historical origins of both, the ways in which they converge and diverge seem to follow definite patterns.
Ahmadiyya Islaam arose from Sunni Islaam in India in 1889, emerging more or less fully formed. Having the benefit of constant exposure to the respect towards diversity of belief that exists in India, it saw fit to emphasize its Islaamic legacy and to continue to call itself Islaam.
The Bahai Faith seems to have developed in a far more accidental and arguably more troubled way, with a whole intermediary faith (Babism) as a stepping stone of sorts. And its cultural origin comes from Persia / Iran, where there was a much more marked dominance of Islaam and it was of the Shia orientation instead of Sunni.
While many people see the Shia sect as more benign than the Sunni, it nonetheless has often remarkably more explicitly theocratic tendencies than the Sunni and has an even harder time than the Sunni in understanding and accepting the need for separation between religious and political leadership.
The end result, the Bahai Faith, inherited the strong messianic expectations of the Shia even while it felt a deeper need to differentiate itself from Islaam at least in name. It is also more explicitly political in goals than its cousin faith, Ahmadiyya Islaam, having inherited that outlook from Shia Islaam.
I find those historical origins rather enlightening. Both illustrate many of the main traits of a living attempt at healing a doctrine, shaped by the cultural and political circunstances. They showcase the advantages, drawbacks and challenges of specific implementations of Islaam and how well meaning followers attempted to improve on them with the tools that they had available.
Both are, IMO, natural, even unavoidable attempts at addressing the most serious contradictions of Islaamic doctrine.
Comparing and contrasting the historical origins of both, the ways in which they converge and diverge seem to follow definite patterns.
Ahmadiyya Islaam arose from Sunni Islaam in India in 1889, emerging more or less fully formed. Having the benefit of constant exposure to the respect towards diversity of belief that exists in India, it saw fit to emphasize its Islaamic legacy and to continue to call itself Islaam.
The Bahai Faith seems to have developed in a far more accidental and arguably more troubled way, with a whole intermediary faith (Babism) as a stepping stone of sorts. And its cultural origin comes from Persia / Iran, where there was a much more marked dominance of Islaam and it was of the Shia orientation instead of Sunni.
While many people see the Shia sect as more benign than the Sunni, it nonetheless has often remarkably more explicitly theocratic tendencies than the Sunni and has an even harder time than the Sunni in understanding and accepting the need for separation between religious and political leadership.
The end result, the Bahai Faith, inherited the strong messianic expectations of the Shia even while it felt a deeper need to differentiate itself from Islaam at least in name. It is also more explicitly political in goals than its cousin faith, Ahmadiyya Islaam, having inherited that outlook from Shia Islaam.
I find those historical origins rather enlightening. Both illustrate many of the main traits of a living attempt at healing a doctrine, shaped by the cultural and political circunstances. They showcase the advantages, drawbacks and challenges of specific implementations of Islaam and how well meaning followers attempted to improve on them with the tools that they had available.
Last edited: