How do Baha'is and Ahmadi Muslims relate to each other?

[shunyadragon]

Looking for commonalities is very commendable, but, ultimately, the religions have to face their differences also. They can't be completely ignored can they?

The differences are very real and I described the issues before, and you have not responded.

Actually, the Baha'i Faith does not propose that the major, and even lesser Revelations and religions agree or are the same. As a matter of fact they do not for various reasons. First, religions definitely do become corrupted by human influence and culture they originate. The scripture, ie the Bible, does contain both Revelation from God, ancient mythology, and human beliefs, view of science, and actions that reflect the time they were revealed. Religion is progressive and evolves as humanity spiritually and physically evolves.

Based on the Torah I could conclude that Judaism is polytheistic or henotheistic religion. Is that the same religion as Judaism today?

 

[CG Didymus]

Here’s what the official Ahmadiyya website says about the Baha’i Faith:

The Babi and Baha'i Religion | Islam Ahmadiyya

The link went to a book. Have you read it?

 

[Jim]

The link went to a book. Have you read it?

No. I posted that as a response to the question of how Ahmadiyya Islam and the Baha’i Faith relate to each other. That book is an official statement of how Ahmadiyya Islam views the Baha’i Faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

The differences are very real and I described the issues before, and you have not responded.

Actually, the Baha'i Faith does not propose that the major, and even lesser Revelations and religions agree or are the same. As a matter of fact they do not for various reasons. First, religions definitely do become corrupted by human influence and culture they originate. The scripture, ie the Bible, does contain both Revelation from God, ancient mythology, and human beliefs, view of science, and actions that reflect the time they were revealed. Religion is progressive and evolves as humanity spiritually and physically evolves.

Based on the Torah I could conclude that Judaism is polytheistic or henotheistic religion. Is that the same religion as Judaism today?

You posted something in this thread? If so, which post and I'll go back and read it.

Of course, each religion has to present their Scriptures as something special. And, usually find reasons why the Scriptures of other religions lack something. But, within a religion, there has always been changes to their beliefs. Most of them seem to have a literal view, conservative view, and a liberal view and a whole bunch of new offshoots. Makes me question if any of it truly came from God, or was just people thinking God spoke to them.

 

[CG Didymus]

No. I posted that as a response to the question of how Ahmadiyya Islam and the Baha’i Faith relate to each other. That book is an official statement of how Ahmadiyya Islam views the Baha’i Faith.

Thanks, keep up the great threads. You're coming with some provocative questions.

 

[Jim]

We support anything of the Bahais which we think is correct but present our own view-point with reasons where they are wrong. This is our attitude towards every religion/sect/denomination and even non-religions or non-believers. Is it wrong, please?

Regards

Can you give any examples of Ahmadis supporting Baha’is?

Have you read this, on the official website of Ahmadiyya Islam?

The Babi and Baha'i Religion | Islam Ahmadiyya

It goes much farther than just disagreeing with Baha’is. It maligns the character, motives and intentions of Baha’is and their prophets.

 

[shunyadragon]

You posted something in this thread? If so, which post and I'll go back and read it.

Post #28 I just repeated it when you did not respond.

Of course, each religion has to present their Scriptures as something special. And, usually find reasons why the Scriptures of other religions lack something.

True, because scripture to a certain extent reflects a human perspective, and from the egocentric perspective consider their scripture superior, or as most often the case the only scripture, as variably Jews, Christians and Muslims believe rather strongly.

But, within a religion, there has always been changes to their beliefs. Most of them seem to have a literal view, conservative view, and a liberal view and a whole bunch of new offshoots. Makes me question if any of it truly came from God, or was just people thinking God spoke to them.

The differences within a religion are real and part of the problem, but I clearly stated the Baha'i view of the differences. There is historical evidence of the evolution of beliefs based on scriptures that clearly vary over time in Judaism Christianity and Islam as well as in the other religions of the world. You may not agree with the Baha'i, but we clearly acknowledge the differences and have no problem with them from a valid historical perspective, Again . . .

Of course, each religion has to present their Scriptures as something special. And, usually find reasons why the Scriptures of other religions lack something. But, within a religion, there has always been changes to their beliefs. Most of them seem to have a literal view, conservative view, and a liberal view and a whole bunch of new offshoots. Makes me question if any of it truly came from God, or was just people thinking God spoke to them.

I gave an example in post 28#"

Based on the Torah I could conclude that Judaism was a polytheistic or henotheistic religion at the time. Is that the same religion as the monotheistic Judaism today? . . .

 

[duvduv]

What exactly was the theological explanation of Baha'ullah to abandon Islam for new religious teachings, when the Bab himself never advocated such a thing, and Baha'ullah claimed to be the promised one intended by both the Quran and the Bab?
And why is it that in general discussion of the Ahmadis there is little discussion of how the split occurred between the Lahore movement that denies that Mirza Ghullam Ahmad was a prophet like Muhammad and the Qadiani movement that believes Ahmad was the successor to Muhammad as the final prophet?
Of course both groups carry the universalist idea that every religious leader has a valid recognized prophet - Krishna, Buddha included.

 

[shunyadragon]

What exactly was the theological explanation of Baha'ullah to abandon Islam for new religious teachings, when the Bab himself never advocated such a thing, and Baha'ullah claimed to be the promised one intended by both the Quran and the Bab?
And why is it that in general discussion of the Ahmadis there is little discussion of how the split occurred between the Lahore movement that denies that Mirza Ghullam Ahmad was a prophet like Muhammad and the Qadiani movement that believes Ahmad was the successor to Muhammad as the final prophet?
Of course both groups carry the universalist idea that every religious leader has a valid recognized prophet - Krishna, Buddha included.

I believe the Bab did advocate such a thing, revealed his own scripture, and prophesied a Revelation greater than his.

In the fulfillment of prophecy a New Age the old must pass away and a new Revelation with spiritual teachings and laws suited for the New Age. There is no reason from the human perspective it simply the claim of Baha'u'llah that the older more ancient Revelations like Revealed in the Quran are no longer adequate for the New Age, and I agree, which is the reason I became a Baha'i.

I studied and researched the ancient religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism and found them culturally burdened and inadequate to address the universal beyond their own cultural paradigm. I believe the compassion and Revelation from God is universal with humanity. The Baha'is believe the Holy Books of the world are like the encyclopedia and history of the spiritual Revelation and the relationship between God and humanity.

Ahmadiyya Islam believes the Quran still is and will remain the universal revelation and relies on an attempt to make a modern relevant interpretation, but, of course, I do not agree this is possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

What exactly was the theological explanation of Baha'ullah to abandon Islam for new religious teachings, when the Bab himself never advocated such a thing, and Baha'ullah claimed to be the promised one intended by both the Quran and the Bab?

No idea. But the abandonment is quite relative when one thinks of it.

And why is it that in general discussion of the Ahmadis there is little discussion of how the split occurred between the Lahore movement that denies that Mirza Ghullam Ahmad was a prophet like Muhammad and the Qadiani movement that believes Ahmad was the successor to Muhammad as the final prophet?

Beats me. If I had to guess, probably because it is not an important subject matter.

Of course both groups carry the universalist idea that every religious leader has a valid recognized prophet - Krishna, Buddha included.

@paarsurrey can speak of this better than me, but I have a hard time trying to believe that Ahmadiyya Islaam has much of stance on Buddha or Krishna.

In any case, your claim is very problematic. "Every religions leader" is a very difficult thing to meaningfully parse, as the Bahai Faith well knows and as its critics often remind them. Even their stances towards Krishna and Buddha are far more remarkable for the good intentions than for the logical sense.

 

[paarsurrey]

Since they, I suppose, believe their founder has some special relationship with God, how do Baha'is feel about their founder?

Yes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the claimant of Promised Messiah, Imam Mahdi and End-Time reformer of Revealed Religions did claim his special relationship with G-d. Should I quote a passage from him in this connection, if anybody here has any doubt about it?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the claimant of Promised Messiah, Imam Mahdi and End-Time reformer of Revealed Religions did claim his special relationship with G-d. Should I quote a passage from him in this connection, if anybody here has any doubt about it?

Regards

I understand the claim, but simply do not share that belief.

 

[paarsurrey]

Although the religion of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the Mahdi/Messiah of the Ahmadi sect (which is sharply divided over the status of Ahmad) and the religion of the Baha'is of Mirza Hussein Ali the Mahdi of Baha'ism, are different from one another, it seems that the bottom line in this generation is the same for both (as apparently western-influenced pacifist movements), that both men were the promised deliverer to defeat the dajjil through the spreading of their teachings and ushering in the world of peace (which in 100 years has certainly not happened).
But in the case of Ghulam Ahmad, what was the reason the vast majority of Muslim authorities and the public rejected him? On what theological basis did they feel he was not the mahdi promised in Muslim tradition?

"what was the reason the vast majority of Muslim authorities and the public rejected him?"

Mainly because of misunderstanding the verse of Quran where Muhammad has been declared Khatamun Nabiyyeen or the Seal of the Prophets.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Obviously, Baha'is would not "trash" another person's beliefs, but some of these founders of religious movements are dangerous, and, by some people, considered frauds and conmen. But most all of them have very different and opposing views as to truth and God and everything else. Baha'is can spin their magic to make the "major" religions seem to agree and be from one source, God, but what about these other smaller movements? I'm sure some go as far to say that they are the return of some great leader or prophet or even one of the people Baha'is call "manifestations".

So what do the Baha'is say about the founder of Ahmadi's? Can't some of these people just be people? People that had some sort of "revelation" and thought they were special? 'Cause if not, why are they so absolutely different in their beliefs? An example I'm a little more familiar with would be the Mormons. All and all great people, but do I believe all the things they teach? No. But Baha'i try and squeeze them into the mix also. How do they fit? Their teachings have Jesus coming to America. Who, other than Mormons, would believe that really happened? And that is what I'm wondering about the Ahmadi's. I'm sure they have made claims and have teachings that go counter to what the Baha'i Faith teaches. Are they right or wrong?

"I'm sure some go as far to say that they are the return of some great leader or prophet" Unquote

Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 claims that in him Jesus prophecy of his Second Coming has been fulfilled. Jesus was not to come physically but in symbolic and spiritual terms.

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

"what was the reason the vast majority of Muslim authorities and the public rejected him?"

Mainly because of misunderstanding the verse of Quran where Muhammad has been declared Khatamun Nabiyyeen or the Seal of the Prophets.

Regards

The general 'official' interpretation of all ancient religions is that no further earthly Revelations will follow theirs, and the interpretation of citation is variable. The Quran may be interpreted that there will a Messianic Return of Jesus Christ with a new Revelation.

 

[paarsurrey]

One point of a difference is clear from the source The claim that of Islam Ahmadiyya is they believe the "Quran and Islamic Sharia are irreplaceable."

Yes, it is true. That is the essence of Muhammad was declared Khatamun Nabiyyeen or the Seal of the Prophets by G-d.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Not saying that I agree with the rest of that idea, but where would atheism enter the mix?

What "mix", please elaborate.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

What "mix", please elaborate.

This one, from post #30.

Yes, thé phenomenon of the State of Israel is mired in a web of 19th century European nationalism, eastern European Jewish xenophobia and paranoia, and colonialist paternalistic racism and atheism. It's quite a combination....

It is quite a combination, but I can't say I find it at all accurate. Creative, sure, but not accurate.

 

[duvduv]

"I'm sure some go as far to say that they are the return of some great leader or prophet" Unquote

Yes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 claims that in him Jesus prophecy of his Second Coming has been fulfilled. Jesus was not to come physically but in symbolic and spiritual terms.

Regards

This is basically the same interpretation offered by Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Rutherford which became incorporated into the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition the 1844 move to the inner chamber is somewhat similar in terms of some spiritual change of Jesus as proposed by the Seventh Day Adventists such as Ellen White. How can anyone say that the contact of the Mideast with American and western ideas did not include knowledge of these ideas between the two ends of the spectrum. And of course there was no shortage of similar second-coming Jesus representatives all the way up to Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

 

[paarsurrey]

Allow me to verify an understanding or three?

Word has it that "Fiqh" means "Islamic Jurisprudence".

"Hanif" seems to mean "reversion to the beliefs of Ibrahim", presumably implying letting go of idolatry as it is understood in Islam. It seems to me to have a touch of "truth" in its meaning as well, perhaps not unlike "Shin" in Japanese.

There are four famous sunni schools of thought of fiqh in "Islamic Jurisprudence" namely Hanafi- named after the scholar Abū Ḥanīfa an-Nu‘man ibn Thābit (d. 767)

Regards
_______________

“In the modern era, there are four prominent schools (madh'hab) of fiqh within Sunni practice”
There are several schools of fiqh thought (Arabic: مذهب‎ maḏhab; pl. مذاهب maḏāhib)
The schools of Sunni Islam are each named by students of the classical jurist who taught them. The Sunni schools (and where they are commonly found) are
· Hanafi (Turkey, the Balkans, Central Asia, Indian subcontinent, China and Egypt)
· Maliki (North Africa, West Africa and several of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf)
· Shafi'i (Kurdistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, East Africa, Yemen, and southern parts of India)
· Hanbali (Saudi Arabia) see Wahhabism
Fiqh - Wikipedia
The Hanafi (Arabic: حنفي‎ Ḥanafī) school is one of the four religious Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh).[1] It is named after the scholar Abū Ḥanīfa an-Nu‘man ibn Thābit (d. 767), a tabi‘i whose legal views were preserved primarily by his two most important disciples, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani.

Hanafi - Wikipedia
The Ahmadiyya fiqh has certain amendment to the Hanifi fiqh and is named by us fiqh Hanafia Ahmadiyya.