• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two approaches towards reforming Islam: the Bahai Faith and Ahmadiyya Islam.

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
It was already reformed before crude oil was discovered. Then certain Bedouins' countries became incredibly rich by selling oil, so they could spread their Bedouinism throughout the Arab world...
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I find the contrast between Ahmadiyya Islaam and the Bahai Faith is 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, it seems to be no accident the ways in which they converge and diverge.

Ahmadiyya Islaam former 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.

Its important to state the Baha'i Faith is based on the Teachings of Baha'u'llah who we regards as a 'Manifestation of God' who revealed a distinct and independent religion Revelation from God. So the Baha'is refer to the sacred writings of Baha'u'llah as the Muslims refer to the Quran, the Christians the Gospels, and the Jews the Torah. In that sense the Baha'i Faith has a distinct theology from its Abrahamic predecessors. Therefore we are not a sect or division of Islam. Nor are we are reformist movement within Islam. We refer to Baha'u'llah's writings, not the Qur'an. We have no priests, clergy or mullas. Instead we have democratically elected assemblies that administer our affairs.

The Baha'i Faith owes its rapid spread throughout the world, not so much to those from an Islamic background who became Baha'is, but those from a predominantly Christian background, mostly from North America. Because the Baha'i faith is seen as an apostate religion by some Muslims, especially in Iran and other conservative Muslim countries, the Persian Baha'is were restricted in its activities.

Baha'is do not get involved in the political processes of government, so we are not trying to reform governments from within, anymore than we are trying to reform Islam or Christianity from within. We do promote peace and associate with peoples of all faiths and backgrounds in spirit of love and fellowship. We do foster a more progressive and hopefully enlightened view of religion, but are clear our understanding is based on Baha'u'llah's Revelation.

Hope that makes sense.

What Bahá’ís Believe | The Bahá’í Faith

Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I find the contrast between Ahmadiyya Islaam and the Bahai Faith is 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, it seems to be no accident the ways in which they converge and diverge.

Ahmadiyya Islaamformer 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.



Having practiced Sunni Islam for almost 7 years, I can think of some ways that reform would do it good. Shia Islam is enough different in their practices around the Mahdi, and the Twelvers that I think in many ways they are not Muslim. As to the Sunni, there are Muslims who are "Quran Only". Despite Muhammad's detractors, he authored "The Constitution of Medina". In my opinion Islam ran off the rails when Abu Bakr took over after the death of Muhammad PBUH. Those close to Muhammad felt that he had chosen Ali. Many think that Abu Bakr murdered Ali, and so the 1400 years of war and hatred started.

My own feeling is that the Fatwas should be discarded. The Hadeeth will likely be OK to use. In the KSA area, the effects of the Wahhabi, and the Salafi made Islam much less kind. I don't know what Muslims in Indonesia practice but they seem much more mild. The Hijab should not be forced. Though that is effectively the way it is for many women. Niqab and Burka are ridiculous and completely unfounded.

They can just get rid of the idea that there are more women in Hell than men! Many men still want to drag their clubs around and act like cave men and I'm sick of it. There are probably other areas where Muslim men could just give it a rest, but that's all I can think of now.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I find the contrast between Ahmadiyya Islaam and the Bahai Faith is fascinating.

Hi.....
After being on RF so long I guess that I should have learned more about Amadiya Islam than I do.

But I do know a bit about Bahai, and wait patiently in the hope that Bahai might show something about itself that is true, and straight.

:shrug:
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Having practiced Sunni Islam for almost 7 years, I can think of some ways that reform would do it good. Shia Islam is enough different in their practices around the Mahdi, and the Twelvers that I think in many ways they are not Muslim. As to the Sunni, there are Muslims who are "Quran Only". Despite Muhammad's detractors, he authored "The Constitution of Medina". In my opinion Islam ran off the rails when Abu Bakr took over after the death of Muhammad PBUH. Those close to Muhammad felt that he had chosen Ali. Many think that Abu Bakr murdered Ali, and so the 1400 years of war and hatred started.

My own feeling is that the Fatwas should be discarded. The Hadeeth will likely be OK to use. In the KSA area, the effects of the Wahhabi, and the Salafi made Islam much less kind. I don't know what Muslims in Indonesia practice but they seem much more mild. The Hijab should not be forced. Though that is effectively the way it is for many women. Niqab and Burka are ridiculous and completely unfounded.

They can just get rid of the idea that there are more women in Hell than men! Many men still want to drag their clubs around and act like cave men and I'm sick of it. There are probably other areas where Muslim men could just give it a rest, but that's all I can think of now.

Your post highlights the need for a theology suited to the modern as opposed to anachronistic teachings that perpetuate the inequality between men and women. There is only so much that can be done to reform a theology born out of 7th century Arabia.
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
The problem I see here is that according to Islam Muhammed was the seal of the prophets so they would never accept the bahai or ammiyda faiths and already don't.

Yes and similarly neither the Ahmadis nor The Bahais would accept each others' faiths.
(When I was in London, I go to know the Ahmadi community as well as Bahais. Both are extremely strong in their originators. I can not see either making a shift).

EA:not

@oldbadger
 
Last edited:

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes and similarly neither the Ahmadis nor The Bahais would accept each others' faiths.
(When I was in London, I go to know the Ahmadi community as well as Bahais. Both are extremely strong in their originators. I can not see either making a shift).

EA:not

@oldbadger
I think if they can be liberalised they need not accept each other’s faiths, there is enough room in the world for both of them
 

Jon reign

Member
Reformation is such an offensive concept. It literally means that religion is in Need of alteration. For anyone who believes religion is God given, reform is a blashemous suggestion.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Reformation is such an offensive concept. It literally means that religion is in Need of alteration. For anyone who believes religion is God given, reform is a blashemous suggestion.
Not if you believe that God wants to reform the religion. If God didn’t want to reform religion why send any of the Messengers to begin with?
 

Jon reign

Member
Having practiced Sunni Islam for almost 7 years, I can think of some ways that reform would do it good. Shia Islam is enough different in their practices around the Mahdi, and the Twelvers that I think in many ways they are not Muslim. As to the Sunni, there are Muslims who are "Quran Only". Despite Muhammad's detractors, he authored "The Constitution of Medina". In my opinion Islam ran off the rails when Abu Bakr took over after the death of Muhammad PBUH. Those close to Muhammad felt that he had chosen Ali. Many think that Abu Bakr murdered Ali, and so the 1400 years of war and hatred started.

My own feeling is that the Fatwas should be discarded. The Hadeeth will likely be OK to use. In the KSA area, the effects of the Wahhabi, and the Salafi made Islam much less kind. I don't know what Muslims in Indonesia practice but they seem much more mild. The Hijab should not be forced. Though that is effectively the way it is for many women. Niqab and Burka are ridiculous and completely unfounded.

They can just get rid of the idea that there are more women in Hell than men! Many men still want to drag their clubs around and act like cave men and I'm sick of it. There are probably other areas where Muslim men could just give it a rest, but that's all I can think of now.
Unfortunately the quest for equality has really spoiled the natural design God has intended for the family. In all 3 abrahamic faiths there is such a large body of evidence to show that women should be subservient to their husbands. In our era, this inequality has been erroneously interpreted as disrespectful and abusive. Each and every relationship has an underlying need for inequality that is not interpreted as the absence of value for the inferior party. For example, I as a student am inferior to my teacher, even if she's a female. In the realm of that paradigm I am inferior, but this bears no weight on my internal value as an individual. I as a citizen am inferior to the police. I as a son am inferior to my mother and so on. All of these are easily understood but the moment I suggest that my wife is inferior to me, images of a barbaric abusive chauvinist come to mind. We have all been trained to view gender inequality as deriving from this stereotypical woman hating abusive, keep women in the kitchen male pig. I have asked so many women, I challenge you to think back on all the men you have ever known and truly count how many man you know that have espoused the idea that women are vile and worthless. The truth is that very few men think like this, this idea was made up much like the bogey man to trick women into leaving their designated post in the family.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
God sends sons, messengers, prophets, mahdis, manifestations to do what he wants. He can't do that without them. I thought people talked about God being omni-powerful, could fix a square peg in a circle!
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Unfortunately the quest for equality has really spoiled the natural design God has intended for the family. In all 3 abrahamic faiths there is such a large body of evidence to show that women should be subservient to their husbands. In our era, this inequality has been erroneously interpreted as disrespectful and abusive. Each and every relationship has an underlying need for inequality that is not interpreted as the absence of value for the inferior party. For example, I as a student am inferior to my teacher, even if she's a female. In the realm of that paradigm I am inferior, but this bears no weight on my internal value as an individual. I as a citizen am inferior to the police. I as a son am inferior to my mother and so on. All of these are easily understood but the moment I suggest that my wife is inferior to me, images of a barbaric abusive chauvinist come to mind. We have all been trained to view gender inequality as deriving from this stereotypical woman hating abusive, keep women in the kitchen male pig. I have asked so many women, I challenge you to think back on all the men you have ever known and truly count how many man you know that have espoused the idea that women are vile and worthless. The truth is that very few men think like this, this idea was made up much like the bogey man to trick women into leaving their designated post in the family.

Fortunately God is not the author of confusion so Christians can always take solace from the words written by Paul.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
There is a difference between God reforming a religion by sending a prophet and humans altering the religion. One is divine one is human tampering
It’s precisely because of constant human tampering that God keeps sending the Messengers.

That being said, as a liberal i’m not opposed to a little human tampering provided it’s beneficial.

Are you Muslim?
 

Jon reign

Member
It’s precisely because of constant human tampering that God keeps sending the Messengers.

That being said, as a liberal i’m not opposed to a little human tampering provided it’s beneficial.

Are you Muslim?
In my estimation, God "authoring" a religion if you will, is a prerequisite. Any human alteration is frowned upon in general
 
Top