Baha'i Faith and Ahmadiyya
Kam Derakhshan
In a previous article, ab...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu ("am...@virginia.edu") says:
>I was wondering if you guys knew about the Ahmadiyya faith
>which in its history and theology is very similar to the
>Baha'i Faith. It was founded by Ahmad who like the Bab first
>claimed to be a representative of Mahdi, then Mahdi, and then a
>new prophet. Like the Baha'i Faith it is disavowed by muslims
There might be some outward similarities in certain aspects but there is a
very fandamental difference that sets them apart - namely that Baha'u'llah
came in the name of GOD and established a new independent religion in
the name of GOD, He was to Islam somewhat like what Jesus was to Judaism.
The founder of the Ahmadiyya faith however has not brought a new religion and
it is still a sect of Islam and in a way still under the shadow of
Prophet Mohammad's teachings. I guess they are to Islam what Mormons
are to Christianity basically.
>as heresy and like the Baha'i Faith it has about 10 million
>followers who are mostly highly educated (though the Baha'i
>Faith has a bit less). Their Headquarters for North America is
>in Maryland and the religion is younger than the Baha'i Faith
>and fails to acknowledge Baha'ullah.
Well, of course there are not even quite 10 million Baha'is in the World
and they have come from all types of social and racial and national
backgrounds and certainly they are not necessarily all well educated either.
Education though very much emphasised in this Faith it is not a prerequisite
to faith and certitude - if it were so then Jesus would not have picked a
Fisherman to be his desciple! He would have gone after the scholars instead.
Regarding numbers of believers remember that at the time of the
crucifixion of Jesus there were only 120 Christians and I am sure that some
sects of Judiasm were growing much faster but then so what - look at what
happened later!
-- KD --
--
Saad Ahmad
> It is my understanding from a Baha'i friend who lived for many years in
> India and is very well aware of the Ahmaddiyih movement that there are only
> about 30,000 of them, mostly in Pakistan. He said many of them became
> Baha'is when the heard Baha'u'llah's claim and investigated it. The reason
> Ahmad made his claim was because he believed no one else had--apparently he
> was unaware that the Bab had turned Persia on its ear with His claim in 1844
> to 1850, and Baha'u'llah had furthered the process until His passing in
> 1892. For some reason, Ahmad hadn't heard about it, because he said that no
> one had ever made the claim to be the Promised One of Islam. Since he was
> very much mistaken about this, minds were opened to the possibility that the
> Bab and Baha'u'llah might have been telling the truth.
Hi
I have to disagree with this.
- There are arount 10 million Ahmadi muslims in the world.
- Ahmadis have been aware or Baha'u'llah's claims since the beginning
- Could you please give some explanation of the fact that there was
a mass conversion to Bahai religion because there is no historical
proof of this.
And you are very right about the fact that Ahmadiyya is not a new
religion but a sect of Islam and Ahmad claimed to be nothing but
a prophet of God under the seal of Muhammad's prophethood. BUT
the reference that Bahaism is to Islam what Christianity is to
Judaism is not well founded because Jesus never claimed to end
Judiasm. He said (paraphrase) 'I will not give you any new
teachings other than Moses's teachings'. He claimed to
be a reviver of Judiasm. It was later Paul and then after quite
some time that Christianity was born as a religion but it was
certainly not Jesus's intention.
BTW, this group generates some good, healthy, educational and intellectual
discussion.
**************************************************************
* Saad Ahmad *
**************************************************************
S. Indiogine
On Sun, 20 Nov 1994 bahai...@oneworld.wa.com wrote:
> Dear Saad,
>
> > - There are arount 10 million Ahmadi muslims in the world.
>
> Well, I think this figure is a tad high, but I have no proof. Perhaps you
> could site your sources for this figure.
Maybe our friend is referring to the sum of both Ahmadi sects: the
Qadianis and the Lahoris. In this case I think that the figure is
reasonable. As far as I can tell, at least the Qadiani sect is growing
fast. It will be interesting for our friend to comment on this.
> > And you are very right about the fact that Ahmadiyya is not a new
> > religion but a sect of Islam and Ahmad claimed to be nothing but a
> > prophet of God under the seal of Muhammad's prophethood. BUT the
> > reference that Bahaism is to Islam what Christianity is to Judaism
> > is not well founded because Jesus never claimed to end Judiasm.
This is an important point in Ahmadi theology because they believe, like
the rest of the Muslims, that Muhammad was the last Messenger and law-giver.
They, and all the other Muslims, believe that the Returned Jesus would not
abrogate any Islamic law and just follow the Qur'an. Indeed Hazrat Ghulam
Ahmad claims to be the return of Jesus and a _reformer_ NOT a law-giver.
This distinguishes him from the Bab and Baha'u'llah who both were law-givers
and Messengers. Moreover, the Qadiani sect accepts Hazrat Ghulam Ahmad as
a prophet, while the Lahoris do not make this claim. At any rate, they
(Qadianis) think that Hazrat Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet in the 'shadow' of
Muhammad, just as they claim that Jesus was a prophet in the 'shadow' of Moses.
To make this parallel work they have to uphold the opinion that Jesus did
not abrogate or modify the Mosaic shariah just as Hazrat Ghulam Ahmad did
not abrogate or modify the Islamic shariah.
Interestingly, as a Christian preacher once told me 'the Bible can be
used to prove anything and the opposite of it.' Thus, in the NT you can
find that Jesus did NOT abrogate the Mosaic law, and that Jesus actually
DID change the Law. With all the problems with the authenticity of the
sayings of Jesus it is hard to tell what actually happened historically.
Maybe the results of the Jesus Seminar could help us. Paul was most clear
in saying that the Mosaic Law was abrogated. However, I think that he goes
overboard in saying that no other law replaced it. Actually, he made
himself some rules in the churches he founded and was always at odds with
the other apostles. Some of the rules that Paul made he says that they
come from the Lord Jesus Christ. However, scholars are disputing whether
he was meaning authentic (or non) oral traditions coming from Jesus of
Nazareth, or Paul's visions of the Christ, or a mixture of both.
We know that Paul mistakenly thought that the Return was imminent and
that might explain why he thought that the Law was abrogated, the
Returned Lord would rule in the Messianic Kingdom (he was right in that).
The Ahmadi claim that the Quranic law will never be changed is
problematic in my view for the following reasons: 1) as the Baha'i
Writings clearly explain, the Law has to change when human society changes
and needs new guidance. 2)There are verses in the Qur'an that point to
the appearance of new messengers from among the Muslims (al-Bab and
Baha'u'llah), and the end of the Muslim Ummah (Kamram Hakim has
extensively posted on this issue - HEY were are you my friend Kamran!!)
My personal opinion regarding whether Jesus of Nazareth really 'changed'
the Mosaic Law is that he radicalized it on certain issues and downplayed
it in other aspects. To make the issue even muddier is the fact that even
if religious tradition considers Moses to be a law-giver, we are not sure
that any of the laws that are actually in the Torah are from his hand.
There are several revisions in the Torah. We have the Covenant Code (part
of the E-document), the Holiness code (part of P) and the Deuteronomic
code (part of D). They all differ or certain aspects. Even the famous Ten
Commandments are given to us in 2 _different_ versions (Exodus and
Deuteronomy). Among Christians there is even no agreement on how to figure
out which these commandments are. The Catholic list is different from the
Protestant.
Thus, the Mosaic law is a moving target and it continued to change with
non-Biblical additions untill the time of Maimonides (12th century AD).
The law of the Christians is also very murky. The Canonic law of the
catholic church is actually based on the Roman Code which is not
dependent on any Messenger.
This, actually should not surprise us. The Islamic law is based on the
Qur'an, which is 100% authentic but is complemented by hadith, of
disputed authenticity, and personal decisions made by Islamic courts. No
surprise thus that there are different and contradictory applications of
the Quranic Law in Islam. The wonderful thing about the Baha'i Faith is
that we have an _appointed_ law-giving institution given to us by the
Messenger for our Age: the Universal House of Justice, that has the
authority given by the Messenger to add to the laws given in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas when deemed appropriate.
Nice talking to you,
Eric Indiogine (sind...@nmsu.edu), Las Cruces, New Mexico
"My first counsel is this: Posses a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that
thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting"
* Baha'u'llah *