Has Islam ever split?

[Michael]

Has Islam ever split into other religions or are all beliefs that share some common Islamic myths and themes the same religion?

1) Are the Bábi a split from Islam or are they run of the mill Good Muslims? Their founder Siyyid `Alí-Muhammad was an avenue through which continuing divine revelation could flow ... .... .... maybe there wasn't a Last Prophet after all.

2) What about the Baha'i? Are they a split from Islam? Founded by Bahá'u'lláh they have a new Adam, a new peligious Perfect Book that replaces the Qur'an.

3) What about the Druze? Does praying caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah as "a manifestation of God in His unity" mean they are or are not Muslims?

4) What about the Ahmadiyya? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, claimed to be the Mujaddid (reformer) of the 14th Islamic century as well as the Messiah, Mahdi and The Second Coming of Christ. Are they Good Muslims?

5) What of the Alevi? Are they Shi'a? Some say yes, so say no.

6) Speaking of Shi'a - are they Muslims? Some Sunni say no some say yes.

7) How about the Yazidi? They Good Muslims? They do regard Mohammed as a prophet (Jesus is an angle).. but maybe Mohammad isn't the "Last" Prophet.

8) What of the Barghawata? They followed a syncretic religion inspired by Islam (perhaps influenced by Judaism) with elements of Sunni, Shi'a and Kharijite Islam, mixed with astrological and heathen traditions. Supposedly, they had their own Qur'an comprising 80 suras under the leadership of the second ruler of the dynasty Salih ibn Tarif who had taken part in the Maysara uprising.

9) How about the Ha-Mim ibn Mann-Allah ibn Harir ibn Umar ibn Rahfu ibn Azerwal ibn Majkasa or Abu Muhammad? Abu Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet in 925 near Tetouan in Morocco.

10) How about Sikhism? Curry flavored Islam or Indian Infidel?!?!?

11) Almost forgot about the Kharijites? They initially supported the caliphate of the fourth and final Rightly Guided Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, later rejected him. Funny that? I mean, I thought this was when everything was Oh La Dee Daa.... The World Perfect under the Perfect leadership of the Perfect Caliphs. (me thinks this little myth is really starting to unravel)

So, it it true all of these religions are actually not splits in Islam or are they?

Michael

 

[draqon]

Sunni & Shiites

 

[S.A.M.]

According to the al-Azhar University, all Sunni and Shia Madhabs are under Islam (I'm almost certain the above fall into one or the other, but anyone who knows better may correct me. e.g. Bahaism is an offshoot of Shia Islam)

Shia Islam was not taught in al Azhar university, which used to be the Sunni Islamic university. However, in the 1950s, Islamic scholars added them to the curriculum with a fatwa (1959)

"The Shi'a is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought."

I hear Bahaullah claimed divinity and was not recognised, but there has never been any official statement on them that I have ever heard. Last I read, very recently, their beliefs were being carefully studied to determine the legitimacy of their claim as Muslims

http://www.bahai.org/persecution/egypt/bic_04-28-06_en

Sikhs are not Muslims they are monothiests who follow the teachings of Guru Nanak.

The rest like Deobandis etc are all sects named after reformers or places (like Wahabis are Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi Madhab who follow the reforms instituted by Abdul Wahab)

People may have differing opinions but these are individual/state opinions, they do not have any religious sanction.

The basic requirement of Islam is covered by the shahada.

The Shahada is the Muslim declaration of belief in the oneness of God and acceptance of Muhammad as his prophet

I think some people have added their own reformers to the basic shahada (like the Shias who include Hazrat Ali), where they have diverged in thought from the mainstream.

Basic guideline:

“Surely your Lord knows best who strays from His path, and knows best who follows the guidance.” (Quran, 53:30)

 

[Michael]

Some interesting points about baha'i

The connections between the Bahá'í Faith and Islam are closer than between the Bahá'í Faith and any other religion because the Bahá'í Faith grew out of Islam.

Bahá'ís reject the Muslim understanding of the phrase "seal of prophets" as implying that Muhammad was the last prophet. They also reject the common Muslim interpretation of a Qur'ánic passages as stating that Jesus was never crucified; Muslims often argue that a look-alike was crucified in His place.

In reference to the "Perfect" Qur'anic-entanglement, how is it that basic concepts and ideas like (1) Mohammad being the Last Prophet or (2) Jesus being crucified ARE about as clear as mud? Surely a Perfect Book could be at least a little clear on these major issues?!?!?

Anyway, are we in agreement that the religion has split?

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Some interesting points about baha'i



In reference to the "Perfect" Qur'anic-entanglement, how is it that basic concepts and ideas like (1) Mohammad being the Last Prophet or (2) Jesus being crucified ARE about as clear as mud? Surely a Perfect Book could be at least a little clear on these major issues?!?!?

Anyway, are we in agreement that the religion has split?

Michael

Did you find an official fatwa rejecting the claims of the Bahai by al Azhar university?

Based on my own reading of the Bahai faith, they claim to be a syncretism of all world religions, not just Islam. So practically they are not Muslims (they pray towards Haifa, Israel not Mecca, for instance). However, they practice tauheed and recognise Mohammed as a prophet (and also other prophets). So theoretically they are.

Before we go any further, it should be stated that the Baha'i Faith , unequivocally, and without any hesitation, teaches and asserts the divine origin of Islam. It affirms that the Holy Qur'an is God's revelation, pure and unaltered, and that Muhammad (PBUH) is God's Servant and Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. People from every religious and ethnic background who embrace the Baha'i Faith, embrace this belief.

Apparently though they consider themselves a separate religion:

The Baha'i Faith however, has its own Founder (Baha'u'llah), its own holy Books, and its own laws and principles.

The independent nature of the new Faith was first proclaimed during the Conference of Badasht in 1848 when a group of the followers of the Bab (the Herald of the Baha'i Faith), gathered in the hamlet of Badasht in North East Iran to discuss the nature of their new Faith.

So it makes them not a split in Islam but by their own declaration, not Muslims.

I have to say I am surprised. Apparently the problem is they do not consider themselves Muslims but their belief in tauheed and the Quran means that they are considered a (heretical) sect of Islam by other Muslims. Go figure.

Apparently the Egyptian court has acquiesced their desire for independence

Resulting from one such case, the highest religious court in Egypt, confirmed in 1925, the decision of one of the lower courts, and officially declared the Baha'i Faith as a separate and independent religion which (according to the court) could not be reconciled with what followers of Islam, of the different schools of thought, believe in:

"The Baha'i Faith is a new religion, entirely independent, with beliefs, principles and laws of its own, which differ from, and are utterly in conflict with, the beliefs, principles and laws of Islam. No Baha'i, therefore, can be regarded a Muslim or vice-versa, even as no Buddhist, Brahmin, or Christian can be regarded a Muslim or vice-versa."

It follows that both Baha'is, and the Islamic court agree that the Baha'i Faith is not a sect of Islam.

Which means they consider themselves a new religion, not under Islam.

However they have not been officially dismissed by al Azhar. .:shrug:

 

[Michael]

So the Baha'i are or are not a split in the religion?

Also, what exactly would a "split in the religion" entail? It seems to me that Baha'i, by theirs and others reckoning, have split off from mainstream Islam.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

So the Baha'i are or are not a split in the religion?

Also, what exactly would a "split in the religion" entail? It seems to me that Baha'i, by theirs and others reckoning, have split off from mainstream Islam.

Michael

According to al Azhar they are a sect of Shia Islam. According to the Bahai's they are a new religion.

To be considered a split, they'd have to consider themselves Muslims while al Azhar rejected them.

This is the reverse situation.
I think based on what the Bahais themselves think, al Azhar should allow them to be separated if they wish, into a new religion. Its confusing because technically they are not takfirs

 

[Michael]

To be considered a split, they'd have to consider themselves Muslims while al Azhar rejected them.

Why is this your definition?

You stated:
the Quran is, is a guideline. If you follow its philosophy in entirety, there is very little dissent between Muslims. Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects.

What exactly was your point?
What do you mean Islam has never "split"? Obviously you didn't mean "sects" I assumed you meant split into a new beleif system.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Why is this your definition?

You stated:
the Quran is, is a guideline. If you follow its philosophy in entirety, there is very little dissent between Muslims. Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects.

What exactly was your point?
What do you mean Islam has never "split"? Obviously you didn't mean "sects" I assumed you meant split into a new beleif system.

Michael

I mean officially you fall under one of the Madhabs, either Sunni or Shia, all of which are officially the right way to worship.

According to the now famous Shia fatwa:

Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab (school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so.

The point is, no sect has the choice of being a splinter. If officially you are not recognised as a Muslim, you are out of Islam. And if you are recognised, you are not out, even if you wish to be.

 

[Kadark]

So the Baha'i are or are not a split in the religion?

Also, what exactly would a "split in the religion" entail? It seems to me that Baha'i, by theirs and others reckoning, have split off from mainstream Islam.

Michael

The Baha'i are not a split in Islam. They're their own religion, with no official affiliation with Islam - regardless of what they say. It doesn't take much research to discover that they're not Muslims, but rather followers of their own religion. I take offense to people who say the Baha'i are a part of Islam.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Baha'i are not a split in Islam. They're their own religion, with no official affiliation with Islam - regardless of what they say. It doesn't take much research to discover that they're not Muslims, but rather followers of their own religion. I take offense to people who say the Baha'i are a part of Islam.

Actually the Bahai insist they are not Muslims.

But there are many Islamic scholars who believe as Maududi does:

For the man not capable of deep thought, it is sufficient to accept that God is one, Muhammad is His Messenger, the Quran is His Book, and that we have to appear before Him on the day of Judgment. For the man who can think, this brevity contains such breadth that he can follow numerous paths in the search of truth, in accordance with his capability and aptitude. He can go as far as he likes. He can spend his entire life in this search, without ever reaching a stage where he could say that he had understood all that he could. Whatever path a thinking man may take for his enquiry and search, and however far he may go, as long as he walks within the limits which the word of Allah has drawn between Islam and kufr, he cannot be declared as excluded from the fold of the faith, no matter how much we may differ with the wanderings of his mind.

For instance, the essence of belief in Allah is only that there is God Who is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe, and only He is worthy of worship. The way in which a simple peasant can accept this, it is not possible that a thinking man could also accept it in the same simple way. Then, the detailed concepts of God, His attributes, and the nature of His relation with the creation, which a man of a particular type of aptitude will develop in his mind through thinking, will not be exactly the same as the concepts of a man of a different aptitude about these matters. But as long as all of them believe in the real basic belief, they are all Muslims, no matter how widely their thoughts differ about the details, and no matter how much they may have stumbled in various places.

Similarly, as regards the Islamic beliefs in revelation, prophethood, angels and the Last Day, there are only a few points of principle which should be called the essentials of faith. The rest are details, for some of which man can find explicit or implicit indications in the word of God, and some are created by man himself in his mind in accordance with his thinking. It is very possible that in determining most of these details a man’s reason may be at fault, and his ideas may stray very far from the truth. But so long as he does not let go of the essence of these beliefs, no error of reason or thought can possibly expel him from the fold of the faith, however far he may go from the centre of the faith, and however much we may have to rebuke and reproach him for these deviations of belief.

At this point, we can understand with a little thought how sects in Islam came into being. The Quran and Hadith contain simple and brief statements about the essentials of the religion. The subtle references that are given about the details of these matters have been understood by different people in different ways, in accordance with their mental capabilities and natural inclinations. In understanding these details by the use of inference and reasoning, people deduced separate types of secondary matters and side-issues. So far, there was no problem, nor was there anything wrong in one group considering its own stand-point to be true and arguing with other groups to draw them towards the same. But the calamity was that, by going to an extreme, people added their own derived and reasoned beliefs to the principles and essentials of the religion, and then every group started to call all those groups as kafir who denied their derived beliefs. Here began the war of beliefs, and this was the starting point of that injustice. It is true that many of the ways followed in the matter of beliefs, by the use of inference and interpretation, are wrong. But every error is not necessarily kufr. It is undoubtedly permissible to call an error an error, and to believe its perpetrator to be misguided and at fault, and to try to bring him to the right path. But as long as a person does not deny the basic fact which Allah has commanded one to believe, it is not at all permissible to call him a kafir, no matter how extensive his error becomes.

 

[Kadark]

Good. I'm getting pretty damn frustrated with the variation of beliefs throughout the Muslim world, anyway. The concept of Sunni/Sh'ite/[insert denomination here] should be eradicated.

 

[S.A.M.]

Good. I'm getting pretty damn frustrated with the variation of beliefs throughout the Muslim world, anyway. The concept of Sunni/Sh'ite/[insert denomination here] should be eradicated.

You'd have to grow considerably more tolerant of diversity for that. I think its possible to have syncretism between the sects if people only realise that the aim of Islam is not to decide what other people should believe.

 

[Michael]

The point is, no sect has the choice of being a splinter. If officially you are not recognized as a Muslim, you are out of Islam. And if you are recognized, you are not out, even if you wish to be.

So do you consider the Baha'i a new Religion or they are Muslims?

Kadark is voting New Religion.

The Baha'i are not a split in Islam. They're their own religion, with no official affiliation with Islam - regardless of what they say. It doesn't take much research to discover that they're not Muslims, but rather followers of their own religion. I take offense to people who say the Baha'i are a part of Islam.

How do you define a Spit in the Religion? They maintain some myths about the Qur'an as well as about Mohammad. If they are, as you suggest, a New Religion - then what is their connection with Islam if not a Split from the orthodoxy? What adjective are you going to use to describe their affiliation with Islamic mythology if not "split"?

Also, SAM, when you stated: the Quran is, is a guideline. If you follow its philosophy in entirety, there is very little dissent between Muslims. Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects.

What exactly was your point in making such a statement?

How do you determine when a religion has "split" off and (I presume) formed a new religion and when a religion has formed a "sect". Can you give an example?


Are the Protestants a split from Catholicism or a Sect?
Are Mormons a split from Christianity or a New Religion?

When I think New Religion I'm thinking of something akin to Scientology. Lets not forget that the Baha'i were all Muslims at the time of the "split".

 

[Michael]

Kadark,

Do you consider Sikhs to be Muslims?

Was Sikhism a "split" in The Religion?

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Michael:

Just read the quote from Maududi in post #11; although I do not agree with much of his synthesis, in this part he and I are in agreement.

No one can decide what another Muslim should believe.

As Maududi elaborates in his Fitna-e-Takfir

Every person who is a Muslim and believes that there is no god but Allah, it should be presumed in his favour that he has faith in his heart. If he does something which contains a semblance of kufr, one must believe that he did not do it with the intention of kufr, but merely out of ignorance and lack of understanding. Therefore one must not straightaway issue a fatwa (verdict) of kufr on hearing what he says, but must try in a goodly manner to make him see sense.

If he still does not accept, and insists upon his view, we must put it to the Book of God to see whether or not the thing on which he is so insistent is contrary to the clear directions which distinguish between faith and disbelief. And also whether or not the man’s belief or action in question can be regarded as an interpretation. If it is not against the clear directions, and there is room for interpretation, then the verdict of kufr cannot be applied. The most that can be said is that he is misguided, and even that in relation to that particular issue, not in all matters.

However, if his belief is contrary to clear teachings, and even after finding out that his belief is opposed to the Book of God he continues to adhere to his stand, and one is unable to treat his belief as an interpretation, then in such a case the judgment of wrong-doing or kufr could be applied to him, while bearing in mind the nature of the issue involved. But account must be taken of degree and gravity. All crimes and all criminals are not equal. They differ in seriousness, and it is a requirement of justice that the punishment which is awarded must take account of the degree of seriousness. To use the same rod on everyone is certainly unjust.

As we explained at the outset, one aspect of the issue of kufr and Islam is internal and another external. The internal is related to the heart and the intention of man, and the external is related to his tongue and action. From a man’s words and actions we can, to a certain extent, estimate his inner condition. This, however, would be mere conjecture and inference, not knowledge and certainty. Without knowledge and certainty, to make a judgment about someone’s faith or kufr on the basis of mere conjecture and inference would be definitely unjust, even though such a judgment might coincide with the truth. Therefore, the right way is to leave the question of faith to Allah. No one but He can know whose heart has faith and whose heart does not:

“Surely your Lord knows best who strays from His path, and knows best who follows the guidance.” (The Holy Quran, 53:30)

Our sight extends only to the outward, and from looking at apparent words and deeds we can form an opinion as to who is a Muslim and who is not. It is possible that the man who outwardly is talking heresy, out of ignorance and stupidity, is inwardly a true and firm believer, and has in his heart a greater love for God and the Messenger than many preachers and religious teachers. It is similarly possible that the man who proclaims his faith loudly and forcefully, and obeys the laws of the religion fully to the outward eye, is in reality a show-off and a hypocrite. So, in passing a judgment of kufr upon someone based on outward conduct, one must greatly fear the chastisement of God. Before issuing such a judgment, we must ponder a thousand times as to the responsibility we are taking upon our heads, and whether we have reasonable grounds on the basis of which it is better for us to take this responsibility rather than to avoid it.

On my part, I believe the Bahai to be Muslims, because they follow the essentials of the shahada

La ilaha il-Allah, Muhammed ur-rasoolulluah

(There is )No god but God, and Mohammed is His Prophet.

If they do not wish to consider themselves as Muslims that is fine by me.

 

[Kadark]

You'd have to grow considerably more tolerant of diversity for that. I think its possible to have syncretism between the sects if people only realise that the aim of Islam is not to decide what other people should believe.

There is no concept of Sunni, Shi'ite, or any other politically-guided denomination in Islam. Retaining your culture is one thing, but interpreting your religion differently from others and classifying yourselves as varying groups is another. You may enjoy watching your religion be dissected and divided continuously, but I certainly don't. Denominations are a terrible idea, almost always based on politics. Politics should not encourage different interpretations of religion.

So do you consider the Baha'i a new Religion or they are Muslims?

Kadark is voting New Religion.

How do you define a Spit in the Religion? They maintain some myths about the Qur'an as well as about Mohammad. If they are, as you suggest, a New Religion - then what is their connection with Islam if not a Split from the orthodoxy? What adjective are you going to use to describe their affiliation with Islamic mythology if not "split"?

Also, SAM, when you stated: the Quran is, is a guideline. If you follow its philosophy in entirety, there is very little dissent between Muslims. Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects.

What exactly was your point in making such a statement?

How do you determine when a religion has "split" off and (I presume) formed a new religion and when a religion has formed a "sect". Can you give an example?


Are the Protestants a split from Catholicism or a Sect?
Are Mormons a split from Christianity or a New Religion?

When I think New Religion I'm thinking of something akin to Scientology. Lets not forget that the Baha'i were all Muslims at the time of the "split".

I don't care about their beliefs. They are NOT Muslims. Stop making such a mess out of a straightforward topic.

Kadark,

Do you consider Sikhs to be Muslims?

Was Sikhism a "split" in The Religion?

Michael

Are you stupid? Sikhs are not Muslims, obviously. You're in over your head. Quit making absurd connections.

 

[Michael]

S.A.M.,

What do you consider a "split" - how do you know a "split" when you see one? Are the Sikhs a split from Islam?

Is Islam a Split from Christianity or an entirely New Religion? I thought Muslims consider Islam to be a continuation of Christianity and Judaism, not a split.

It seems Baha'i could be considered a continuation if Islam in exactly the same way Islam is a continuation of Christianity? New Prophet, New Perfect religious Book, ect.. etc.. etc..

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M.,

What do you consider a "split" - how do you know a "split" when you see one? Are the Sikhs a split from Islam?

Is Islam a Split from Christianity or an entirely New Religion? I thought Muslims consider Islam to be a continuation of Christianity and Judaism, not a split.

I consider Protestanism to be a split from Christianity. A split to me means there are irreconciliable differences regarding the same religion.

Sikhs (for the nth time) have nothing to do with Islam.

It seems Baha'i could be considered a continuation if Islam in exactly the same way Islam is a continuation of Christianity? New Prophet, New Perfect religious Book, ect.. etc.. etc..

Michael

I'm willing to recognise that. They consider the Quran holy, accept Muhammed as a Prophet and believe in one God.

 

[Kadark]

I'm willing to recognise that. They consider the Quran holy, accept Muhammed as a Prophet and believe in one God.

They also consider Baha'u'llah to be a manifestation of God. Are you willing to recognise that? Let me guess, I need to read it in Arabic.