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

[Vinayaka]

Thanks Luis, this could get interesting. Too bad we don't have many Ammadiyyas here.

Personally, I'd rather look at adherents than at doctrine. It is the end result, after all, and what religion is supposed to do... change people into great citizens, kind souls. When you meet a crook, a liar, a killer, a braggart, and then find out he's of a certain religion, it doesn't bode well for the faith in your mind. But the opposite is also true. A kindly person represents his faith well.

In personal life, I've met a lot of Ammadiyyas ... mostly small business owners running Indian import stores, often originally from East Africa, escaping Amin or other stuff. As Luis mentioned, they've maintained much of the Indian co-operative tolerant ways.

OTOH, I've never met a Bahai in person. They're scarce in these parts. So it's only the folks on here that represent their faith for me, and I must say it hasn't been very positive.

 

[LuisDantas]

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...

May you elaborate, please? What reform would that be, and around which time period?

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the reform that the ahmadis initiated

They took the courageous yet necessary step to question what can fairly be described as Muslim chauvinism and reach out for other belief groups. There is a lot of merit in that.

They can never hold a serious place in the larger discussion because their beliefs contradict the 90% majority of Muslims world wide

Which goes to show how formidable their challenge is.

 

[Jon reign]

They took the courageous yet necessary step to question what can fairly be described as Muslim chauvinism and reach out for other belief groups. There is a lot of merit in that.
Are we proposing that gender inequality is not deeply engrained into the abrahamic faiths?


Which goes to show how formidable their challenge is.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Having recently learned the raw basics of Shia doctrine as it contrasts with Sunni, I find myself wondering how Sunni (and for that matter Ahmadiyyas) perceive their view of the Imams. Ahmadiyyas are often accused of introducing a new prophet in the form of their founder (which would be a serious breach of Islaamic doctrine). It seems to me that similar, perhaps more incisive criticisms could easily arise from the Shia reverence towards the family of Muhammad and the Imams.

On the other hand, it is IMO very legitimate to question whether and to which extent Muslims should limit themselves to the wisdom that they inherited from 1400 years ago. There is no shame in learning better than even very esteemed teachers, if the effort is respectful and sincere. And Muslims have had a lot of time and a lot of sincere people to learn from, to a peerless level even.

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.

I read some about that recently, and it is indeed a very relevant time for Islaam, as well as the historical root for the Shia-Sunni split that has existed for many centuries.

Personally, I think that the questions to ask from that split are not nearly so much along the lines of "who is right" or even "who should have been the Caliph" as they are similar to "how come Muslims have such a hard time dealing with even each other" and what that says about the doctrine and its room for improvement.

To this day, there is a lot of anxiety arising from the very existence of a Shia-Sunni split, as one would expect. Islaam imposes itself a considerable level of tension, since it attempts both to convert everyone else and to keep apart from those who are not already converted. Dealing with the existence of alternate orthodoxies is no trivial matter, and there will be a constant temptation to disregard each other as not truly Muslim. I suspect that it is such a constant temptation that it led to a very determinate, very conscious need to avoid such a disregard.

It is noteworthy that Hindus and even Christians have a much easier time with their own subdivisions.

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.

It is certainly a good thing to discuss differences with more ease of mind.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Quite so.

 

[LuisDantas]

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).

That may well be so in practice, but both groups make strong and explicit gestures toward the acceptance of diversity of doctrines - albeit still under a very emphatically monotheistic and in fact Islaamic or at least quasi-Islaamic perspective.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

That sure seems to be a common opinion among Muslims, and even among some Christians - despite Islaam presenting itself rather explicitly as exactly that (arguable?) blasphemy towards Judaism and Christianity.

It is perceived as offensive by many, certainly. But that only shows how grave the self-imposed flaws of Islaam are, and have always been. The world has changed, and no self-respecting doctrine should feel shame of adjusting itself accordingly.

 

[Glaurung]

May you elaborate, please? What reform would that be, and around which time period?

He's probably talking about the emergence of Wahabism, (18th century) which sought to "reform" Islam by stripping it of all perceived accretions. It's a puritanical, hyper-literal and myopic reading of Sunni Islam spread by the likes of Saudi Arabia.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

I must assume that such is a conforting thought for many.

Personally, I find it rather unconvincing, if not all-out contradictory. Even taking for granted that the God of Abraham exists, religion is still and demonstrably a human activity, and it has to be kept and cared for by humans.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

That basically implies that there is no point nor even potential usefulness for a religion (as you define the word, that is).

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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.

Islamic doctrine already confirms this as being the case with regards to the religions it views itself as replacing. Judaism & Christianity need reform because apparently they've strayed from the Abrahamic god's message.

So the notion that religious reformation is offensive or even blasphemous is hypocritical and special-pleading.

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

Here's the thing though: the Messengers are still human. If the concept of 'human alteration' is so offensive then maybe the allegedly omnipotent Allah could find some other way of getting his messages across than using fallible humans all the time.

 

[LuisDantas]

They took the courageous yet necessary step to question what can fairly be described as Muslim chauvinism and reach out for other belief groups. There is a lot of merit in that.

Which goes to show how formidable their challenge is.

Are we proposing that gender inequality is not deeply engrained into the abrahamic faiths?

I am not even a theist, but I am certainly proposing that a self-respecting faith will at least attempt to learn better about gender inequality, regardless of how deeply ingrained it may have been during its history.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Having recently learned the raw basics of Shia doctrine as it contrasts with Sunni, I find myself wondering how Sunni (and for that matter Ahmadiyyas) perceive their view of the Imams. Ahmadiyyas are often accused of introducing a new prophet in the form of their founder (which would be a serious breach of Islaamic doctrine). It seems to me that similar, perhaps more incisive criticisms could easily arise from the Shia reverence towards the family of Muhammad and the Imams.

On the other hand, it is IMO very legitimate to question whether and to which extent Muslims should limit themselves to the wisdom that they inherited from 1400 years ago. There is no shame in learning better than even very esteemed teachers, if the effort is respectful and sincere. And Muslims have had a lot of time and a lot of sincere people to learn from, to a peerless level even.




I read some about that recently, and it is indeed a very relevant time for Islaam, as well as the historical root for the Shia-Sunni split that has existed for many centuries.

Personally, I think that the questions to ask from that split are not nearly so much along the lines of "who is right" or even "who should have been the Caliph" as they are similar to "how come Muslims have such a hard time dealing with even each other" and what that says about the doctrine and its room for improvement.

To this day, there is a lot of anxiety arising from the very existence of a Shia-Sunni split, as one would expect. Islaam imposes itself a considerable level of tension, since it attempts both to convert everyone else and to keep apart from those who are not already converted. Dealing with the existence of alternate orthodoxies is no trivial matter, and there will be a constant temptation to disregard each other as not truly Muslim. I suspect that it is such a constant temptation that it led to a very determinate, very conscious need to avoid such a disregard.

It is noteworthy that Hindus and even Christians have a much easier time with their own subdivisions.


It is certainly a good thing to discuss differences with more ease of mind.

The Sunni/Shia war undermines the credibility of Islam. Their assessment of Issa PBUH is hard to accept also, though the rest of it is not so hard.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Sunni/Shia war undermines the credibility of Islam. Their assessment of Issa PBUH is hard to accept also, though the rest of it is not so hard.

To some extent it is in the eyes of the beholder. Still, I think it is fair to say that the split is indeed a very unconfortable reality for nearly all Muslims, and yes, it does harm Islaam's credibility to a significant extent. I tend not to worry about their understanding of Issa (Jesus, though). There are many matters of doctrine in the Qur'an that I find troubling, and Jesus is not really one of them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Sorry to say, but Paul would have been branded as a "male chauvinist pig" if he lived in our times.

They took the courageous yet necessary step to question what can fairly be described as Muslim chauvinism and reach out for other belief groups. There is a lot of merit in that.

Why should they reach out to other belief groups. Christian, Muslims, and Bahais also do that. Reaching out to other belief groups and in the process committing horrendous atrocities. That is called 'proselytization'. Hunger for numbers. Don't live in peace and also don't let others live in peace.

The only thing that Bahaullah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have done is to insert themselves as Manifesttion and Mahdi respectively. That is what happens in monotheism all the time. First it was Zoroaster, then Moses, then Jesus, then Mohammad and then Joseph Smith. There were/are others too but I do not think they have been as successful. I do not know much about Rastafarians and Jehova's Witnesses.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry to say, but Paul would have been branded as a "male chauvinist pig" if he lived in our times.Why should they reach out to other belief groups. Christian, Muslims, and Bahais also do that. Reaching out to other belief groups in the process committing horrendous atrocities. That is called 'proselytization'. Hunger for numbers. Don't live in peace and also don't let others live in peace.

The only thing that Bahaullah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have done is to insert themselves as Manifesttion and Mahdi respectively. That is what happens in monotheism all the time. First it was Zoroaster, then Moses, then Jesus, then Mohammad and then Joseph Smith. There were/are others too but I do not think they have been as successful. I do not know much about Rastafarians and Jehova's Witnesses.

I see where you are coming from. But it is still very much a good thing that Muslims are starting to outgrown the tribalism of their doctrine.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sorry to say, but Paul would have been branded as a "male chauvinist pig" if he lived in our times.

Of course, but he lived nearly two thousand years ago and played a critical role in establishing Christianity. The world back then was unashamedly male dominated. If we put Hinduism under the microscope you would have had your fair share of male chauvinists and still do. Women are often treated appallingly in all cultures, yours and mine included. The age we live in requires a fundamental shift where women by reason of their qualities of compassion and intuition will eclipse men. Baha’is believe the equality of men and women is an essential prerequisite to world peace. So too is the attitude we have towards faith adherents who believe differently from us.

 

[Vinayaka]

Baha’is believe the equality of men and women is an essential prerequisite to world peace.

You omitted the fact women are ineligible for the equivalent of the Supreme Court in Baha'i. Not smart enough I guess.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You omitted the fact women are ineligible for the equivalent of the Supreme Court in Baha'i. Not smart enough I guess.

Nor did I mention the 20,000 Local and National Assembly’s upon which the Universal House of Justice is founded that have excellent representation of women. But I think you knew that.