Mirage

Greetings to all...

In addition to being on this forum, I am also on a Muslim forum (where they really don't care for me very much at all, I must admit).

On that forum, I started a thread about the Sufis - only to have it promptly locked shut by the moderators with this admonishment: "We do not discuss cults on this site." In addition to the Sufi's, other "cults" listed were Baha'i, and, surprisingly, Shi'a.

So apparently that site is own by Sunni conservatives.

I have a friend who was raised as a Baha'i and he tried to explain the differences in Sunni and Shi'a to me, but the whole thing was a bit garbled.

Therefore, if anyone here would like to take a gander at this, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you for your time.

ewlabonte

I'm not the one to answer this, but I'm currently reading "The Covenant of Baha'u'llah" which has a good explanation of it.

Muhammed left no written document concerning who would succeed him as spiritual leader of Islam when he died. He did make a verbal statement that 'Ali, his cousin and son-in-law would fulfill that role. From the book I'm reading:

"Having completed the rites of pilgrimage to Mecca in the last year of His life, Muhammad, on His way back to Medina, ordered the large concourse of His followers to stop at a place known as Ghadir-i-Khumm. In that vast plain a number of saddles were stacked up making an improvised pulpit from which Muhammad delivered an important address to the congregation. There He is reported to have taken 'Ali by the hand and said, 'Whoever considers Me as his Lord, then 'Ai is also his Lord."

Shia' Muslims believe that 'Ali and 12 other "Imams" following him were the true leaders of the faith of Islam. The Baha'i faith also accepts this. The Sunnis don't. They only accept the authority of the Quran.

Mirage

Interesting.

Who do the Sunni's think was the leader?

ewlabonte

As I understand it, Sunnis believe they are bound only by the Quran.

arthra

Sunnis follow the traditions or Hadiths that gathered around the time of the Abbasid Caliphate..

Essentially then the break occurred over succession with Shiahs following Imam Ali also the fourth Caliph and his children with Fatimeh the daughter of Prophet Muhammad..while Sunnis followed the Caliphs and the Traditions..

Baha'is accept the Shiah version of events in early Islam.. that Imam Ali and his children Husayn and Hassan were the true successors rather than say the Umayyads particularly Abu Sufyan, Yazid and etc. who killed, poisoned or otherwise persecuted the Holy Family and their descendents until the Abbasids.

The Bab also was a Siyyid descendent of Husayn and fulfilled in our view the prophecies of the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam in His declaration in 1260 AH/1844 AD.

NiyooshaClaudia

For the Shi'ah islam the Qur'an is more important than the Hadith. They believe that the successors of the prophet Muhammad should be members of his family (Ahl al-Bayt or from the house of the family). These successors are known as Imams. They have spiritual and political authority; the caliephs of the sunni islam only have political authority. The first Imam was Muhammads son in-law Alí, who according to the tradition was infallible. Besides that shiites believe that God appointed Alí as successor of Muhammad. His position is supported by different Hadith. The shiiten see the Hadith as inferior to the Qur'an, but these have soms importance.

When the family of Muhammad prepared the funeral, a council of prominent muslims from Medina chose Abu Bakr as first calieph. This was for the sunni muslims the successor of Muhammad. They believe that the leader of the community must be chosen.

Alí was succeeded by his son Hasan and Husayn (who was martyred by Karbila). We as Bahá´í see them as successors of the prophet. The caliephs are illegitimate for us.

Finally, it´s not true that all shia muslims believe that there were twelve Imáms, some believe that there were only seven. There are different branches in the shi islam.

When you have more questions you can send me a pm.

NiyooshaClaudia

@arthra I believe that we see the Báb as reappearance of Imam Husayn? I thought that I have read that in God passes by.

arthra

O PEOPLES of the East and the West!

Be ye fearful of God concerning the Cause of the true Joseph and barter Him not for a paltry price [1] established by yourselves, or for a trifle of your earthly possessions, that ye may, in very truth, be praised by Him as those who are reckoned among the pious who stand nigh unto this Gate.

Verily God hath deprived of His grace him who martyred Husayn, Our forefather, lonely and forsaken as He was upon the land of Taff [Karbila]. Yazid, the son of Mu'aviyih, out of corrupt desire, bartered away the head of the true Joseph to the fiendish people for a trifling price and a petty sum from his property. Verily they repudiated God by committing a grievous error. Erelong will God wreak His vengeance upon them, at the time of Our Return, and He hath, in very truth, prepared for them, in the world to come, a severe torment. Chapter XXI.
[1 cf. Qur'án 12:20 ]

~ The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 49

One of the devoted disciples of the Báb was the celebrated Shaykh Hasan-i-Zunuzi.[1] The Báb had intimated to him that he would attain the presence of the Promised Husayn[2] in the city of Karbila where Shaykh Hasan used to live. Bahá'u'lláh visited Karbila in 1851, about one year before His imprisonment in the Siyah-Chal. In that city He met Shaykh Hasan and, as prophesied by the Báb, he intimated to him His exalted station. Nabil-i-A'zam tells the story as recounted to him by Shaykh Hasan.
[1 See The Dawn-Breakers.]
[2 It is believed in Islam that two Revelations will succeed one another. Shí'ah Islam expects that after the appearance of the Qá'im, the Promised Husayn will manifest Himself. It is noteworthy that Bahá'u'lláh's name was Husayn-'Ali.]

~ Adib Taherzadeh, The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, p. 57

Tanuki

You are not entirely correct. We Shia hold both the Qur'an and hadith in equal esteem, but not only do we acknowledge ahadith ascribed to the Prophet (saw) but also those ascribed to the 13 other infallibles (the 12 Imams and Fatimah (as)).

I read recently, although I can't remember the source off hand, that non-Muslim historical sources actually point to the fact that Sunnis are indeed correct in relation to the successor of Muhammad (saw) i.e. that he never appointed Ali (as). I don't know how correct or reliable that information is, but if it is then it would have grave implications not only for Shia Islam but also the Baha'i faith in my humble opinion.

Mike

Tanuki"I don't know how correct or reliable that information is, but if it is then it would have grave implications not only for Shia Islam but also the Baha'i faith in my humble opinion."[/QUOTE]

Have no fear. The non-Muslim source you read will have little to no effect on the Shia Muslim or Baha'i Faith. Their is no way anyone can know for certain what happened on the day Muhammad appointed Ali as his successor. The best we can do is read the records and come to a logical conclusion. As a Bahai, I do believe that the Shia account is accurate. If you look at the early history of Islam, the clans that opposed Muhammad eventually became the same clans that evolved into the Sunni majority. The hideous actions of the early Sunni caliphs against the descendants of Muhammad, the Imams are very interesting also.

This is a great piece of information concerning the death of Muhammad and what occurred after from a Baha'i perspective.
http://bahai-library.com/stockman_history_islam#2

Here is a good link on a little background on a Baha'i perspective of Shia.
Shi`i Islam

I also remember a very learned Baha'i friend telling me that Baha'u'llah praises Muslims from both Sunni and Shia sects, and that the real purpose of the Baha'i faith was to bring about the reunification of the divided religions of the world.
Here is another little tidbit of good information.

Notes on Islam from a Baha'i Perspective

Lunitik

I agree with Mike, however the Qu'ran itself discusses the return of Mahdi and Isis in the year 60, and calls God the "Ever-Returning", so why do the events surrounding Ali have particular interest to Baha'is in the grand scheme of things? Certainly they assist in putting the pieces together, but there is enough evidence outside of Muslim texts to confirm matters - chief amongst them being the Bible. Muslims use the Bible to justify Muhammad in many instances, which we of course uphold. We, however, use the same texts to justify Baha'u'llah.

For Baha'is, for instance, Muhammad is the first woe in revelation, because it is the first time Christians are asked to review their beliefs. Bab was the second, and Baha'u'llah the third that came quickly. It correctly predicts the year 1260 as the date this dispensation would be begin - this is 1260 years after Muhammad. The Bible tells of one more dispensation after this, the one that will come to stop Gog and Magog from disrupting the world again after 1000 years.

For Baha'is, both the Bible and Quran are sacred.

Matthieu

I read essays on Islam and the group you discuss are the Quranists. It's a small group, often suffering discriminations within their own religions, that only and only follow the Qur'an, they are the most progressive Muslims of all by FAR.

Sunni and Shi'a face the problem that the Qur'an is incomplete (but don't tell them that if you care for your life). The Qur'an tells to pray but not how, it tells you should pay for charity but not how. In essence it gives only half of the rules. They found recently an isolated Yemeni tribe that do not pray at all, they read the Qur'an and so on but never were exposed to the haddiths.

The earliest Muslims were Quranists, both Shia and Sunni will tell you it's a lie but that's fact. Haddithists appeared hundred years later. Haddiths are teachings of the Prophet that are not writen in the Qur'an. For example, how to pray... so since there is no formalized or writen haddiths from the time of Muhammad there can be no absolute consensus.

Sunni Muslim follows the haddiths as mediated through Muhammad's companions. With Abu Bakr being recognized first Caliph after the Prophet. In order to determine what haddiths are legitimate and which ones aren't they made some sort of "ratings". If you prefer, haddiths are told by people who heard it from people who themselves heard it from people and this for several generations. So a pious Muslim will be considered reliable and a haddith mediated by several pious Muslims will be considered correct by Sunni Muslims. Anyone with a rigorous dogmatic mind can only find the methodology utterly weak, first of all who rates those who rate the haddiths? Secondly one of the most common haddith, actually repeated so many times by so many people it can't really be debated as being true or false, is that Muhammad himself did not want his men to write down anything on him expected for the Qur'an.

Shi'a Muslim follow the tradition that Ali was appointed first Caliph by Muhammad, they recognise previous Caliphs as impostors but Ali had nevertheless accepted them as Caliphs to not divide the Muslim community, which happened anyway. Shi'a Islam is also influenced by Zoroastrianist dualism (good vs evil) and is more mystical.

But to be honest, both Shi'a and Sunni consider (that's a haddith common to both sects) that verses from the Qur'an are to be taken litteraly before being interpretated. Which means, if you follow this, that the earth is flat and Mecca is the centre of it, and that would be no image but a physical reality... I'll leave you pondering that. But to me it's clear both are losts.

Lunitik

Much of what you write here is interesting to me, for instance, I didn't know that the Qu'ran states the world is flat. I also agree that it is difficult to say today with hadiths are genuine or not. The Qu'ran itself states enough to confirm Baha'u'llah, however, so it is sort of irrelevant to me. The most interesting thing to me is that you say the Qu'ran is incomplete - while this makes a lot of sense to me, it is funny how most Muslims swear Islam is complete and thus no need for Baha'u'llah or any future dispensation after him.

One error you make, however, is that Shi'a Islam doesn't actually have Caliphs. I have read material that suggests a tie between the Caliphate and the mark of the beast in the Bible, so this is a rather important distinction in my eyes.

Lunitik

(Shi'a Islam called their leaders Imam's. Somewhat confusing since Muslim priests are also called as Imam, but yeah...)

Matthieu

EDIT: I stand correct, it's not the Qur'an but a Haddith that states it.


It's about the Muslim belief Mecca is the centre of the world. It can't be centre of a spherical world because it is on the surface and not in its core, obviously, only on a flat world with clear boundaries it could be the physical centre (without boundaries, all point on the surface can be considered centre, or you can consider there is none either), and by the greatest coincidence people actually believed back in the 7th century that the world was flat.

You could argue it means Mecca is the spiritual centre indeed, however there is a haddith that clearly and without any ambiguity states that every verse of the Qur'an must be taken litteraly before looking for their hidden meanings, in this case it bars the possibility of Mecca being only the spiritual centre, it must be both. Anyone here can see it's illogical. If you take the same haddith and expose it to the rest of the "mystical" side of the Qur'an you can forget about making religion and science working together, starting obviously by evolution.

Matthieu

If you want to know about Mecca and the centre of the world, that's what you can find on the net

This is obviously incorrect, if you look carefully at the evolution of plates as they used to be:



Mecca is not only far from the centre of Pangea but it's even on the side.