Sects among the Ummah

[Amica]

Salaam--
I was looking at the Hadith and some mention that Muslims, like the Jews and Christians, will split into 72 (?) different sects, but only one group will enter Paradise. Got me thinking. Right after Prophet's pbuh death, Muslims did split into Sunnis and Shiias. Four different Madhabs. Then, we have other groups: Wahhabis, Ahmediyas, Bahai's, Druze, Sufis, people being Muslim by name and birth, but really not abiding by Islaam. It's quiet a lot of sects. Makes me wonder how more can we split? Does anyone have any others that they have heard of?

 

[Abdullah]

Salaam--
I was looking at the Hadith and some mention that Muslims, like the Jews and Christians, will split into 72 (?) different sects, but only one group will enter Paradise. Got me thinking. Right after Prophet's pbuh death, Muslims did split into Sunnis and Shiias. Four different Madhabs. Then, we have other groups: Wahhabis, Ahmediyas, Bahai's, Druze, Sufis, people being Muslim by name and birth, but really not abiding by Islaam. It's quiet a lot of sects. Makes me wonder how more can we split? Does anyone have any others that they have heard of?

Salam

Here is a quick history and explanation of how the term 'Sunni' came to be attached to mainstream Islam:

'Sunni' is short for 'ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah', which means, the people of the Sunnah [way of the Prophet Muhamamd saw] and the majority of Scholars; this name is used to desigante correct belief, for when minorities started to break away from the main-body of Muslims in the early days of Islam and started to form their own sects [thereby going astray for sectarianism is forbidden in Islam], then it was neccassary to give the group of Muslim that remained on the Prophetic path a distinguishing name so as to designate correct belief, as just calling themselves 'Muslims' will not be enough as all the sects will call themsleves that, thus the name ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah was attached to this main-body of Muslims

This name came from the Prophet Muhamamd [saw] himself for when he was asked by his companion/s of how they would recognise the rightly guided group at times of many devient sects, the Prophet [saw] said it will be the group who follow my Sunnah and they will be the largest group of Muslims.

There are hadith to the effect of adhering to and following the largest group of Muslims, and since we are not supposed to follow the awaam [the masses of ignoramouses], thus this is considered to mean 'the largest group of Scholars' and indeed Sunni Islam has the largest group of Scholars.

The four Schools of thought, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali and maaliki, make up the ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah; these four schools are not different sects but they are united and together they make up one group; their teachings are gathered under four different schools as they differ in a minority of opinions in jursiprudence, as is allowed, and all four schools acknowledge that these are all valid and righteous differences of opinions; all four schools agree upon the points of the Aqeeadah [essentials of faith] in which there is no differences allowed, for it is based on decicive/overwhelming evidence which leaves no room for differences, thus in Islam, it is the Aqeedah that unites the Muslims and differences in jurisprudence is allowed as long as it is reached by a mujtahid Scholar in all sincerety

Now the opinions of these schools are not innovations for they merely are opinions which were around during the time of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] and the Sahabah, or they are valid in the sense that the Quran and Sunnah allows it; all the four Imams done is brought them together comprehensively.

Sunni Islam represents the consensus (ijma) too, for they have not deviated from the original consensus' of the first three generations, and as deviation from consensus is seperation from the Muslims as a whole [this is infact how 'sects' get established, and not by deviating from them and not consider that to be sectarianism as the devient chooses just to call himself 'Muslim' and nothing else; thus it is not in defining and distinguishing names that sectarianism is rooted, but in devient views that separates from the consensus ] and as Allah has forbidden separation, such views can only be spurious/erroneous and hence not a valid difference of opinion, thus it dont effect the consensus [and theres plenty of Quran and Sunnah evidence that there is divine protection over consenus, i.e, Allah will never make the Muslims Scholars agree upon error

Qur'anic Evidence

(1) Surah al-Imran (3:103):

"And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah and be not divided."
​

Imam Sayf ad-Din al-Amidi (d. 631/1233; Rahimahullah) said in his al-Ihkam fi usul al-ahkam (The proficiency: on the fundamentals of legal rulings, pg. 295) with regard to the above Qur'anic verse:

"Allah has forbidden separation, and disagreement with consensus (ijma) is separation."
​

Hence, if Allah has forbidden separation then surely we must all unite on the unanimously accepted aqid'ah of our pious predecessors.

For more Quran evidence see link [from 1:15]:

YouTube - Sheikh Hamza Yusuf: Creed Of Imam Al Tahawi p6

Hadith Evidence


there is much evidence that the orthodox majority of the Umma is divinely protected from error, such as the sahih hadith related by al-Hakim that "Allah's hand is over the group, and whoever diverges from them diverges to hell" (al-Mustadrak, 1.116). [comment by Shaykh nuh Ha Mim keller]

Studying Hadith Texts on Our Own

(1) Imam Abu Dawood (Rahimahullah) has quoted the well known Hadith concerning the division of the Muslim Ummah into seventy-three sects in his Sunan (3/4580, English edn):
​

Abu Amir al-Hawdhani said, "Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him) stood among us and said, 'Beware! The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood among us and said': 'Beware! The People of the Book before (you) were split up into 72 sects, and this community will be split up into 73, seventy-two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the majority group (Jama'ah).'


Another version of the above Hadith has been reported by Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Rahimahullah) in The signs before the day of Judgement (pg. 14): "Awf ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, 'The Jews split into 71 sects: one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter Hell. The Christians split into 72 sects: 71 will enter Hell and one will enter Paradise. By Him in Whose hand is my soul, my Ummah will split into 73 sects: one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.' Someone asked, 'O Messenger ofAllah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).' Awf ibn Malik is the only one who reported this Hadith, and its isnad is acceptable." And in another version of this Hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) goes onto say that the saved sect, "...Are those who follow my and my Sahaba's path" (Tirmidhi, vol. 2, pg. 89)

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) as saying:

"Follow the great mass (as-Sawad al-Azam) for he who kept himself away from it, in fact would be thrown in Hell Fire." (Ibn Majah; vide: Mishkat, 1/174, by A.H. Siddiqui).
​

Imam al-Tirmidhi (4/2167) reported on the authority of Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), who said: "Verily my Ummah would not agree (or he said the Ummah of Muhammad) would not agree upon error and Allah's hand is over the group and whoever dissents from them departs to Hell." (see also Mishkat, 1/173)


Imam al-Azizi (d. 1070/1660; Rahimahullah) quoted Imam al-Munawi's (d. 1031/1622; Rahimahullah) commentary to the last Hadith in his al-Siraj al-munir sharh al-Jami al-saghir (3.449), as follows:- Allah's hand is over the group

(al-Azizi): Munawi says, "Meaning his protection and preservation of them, signifying that the collectivity of the people of Islam are in Allah's fold, so be also in Allah's shelter, in the midst of them, and do not separate yourselves from them." The rest of the Hadith, according to the one who first recorded it (Tirmidhi), is:-

and whoever descents from them departs to hell.
​

Meaning that whoever diverges from the overwhelming majority concerning what is lawful or unlawful and on which the Community does not differ has slipped off the path of guidance and this will lead him to hell." (vide: The Reliance of the Traveller, pg. 25)

Who are the Ahl al-Sunnah?

See above link for more comprehensive explanation

And what is meant by that 72 groups will go to hell; this dont mean that they will abide in hell forever, but only a limmited period for all Muslims one day or another end up going to Paradise; nor does it mean that we can be sure on an individual level of who will go to hell or not, for it is Allah's perogative to forgive anything less then shirk as He wills; this obviously dont include groups that are outside of the folds of Islam alltogether, such as 'Quran only' groups or Ahmediyah etc.

hope that helps

Salam

 

[Abdullah]

it is Allah's perogative to forgive anything less then shirk as He wills

The term Shirk means associating partners with Allah

'partner' in this context is, to worship or attribute divinity to anything besides Allah

Also, one can associate partners with Allah by believing contrary to the absolute essentials of faith, for then that person associates his own customs with Allah perogative to be worshipped as He wills:

...associating others with Allah, either by actually worshipping another, or by rejecting the laws brought by His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), which associates their own customs with His prerogative to be worshipped as He directs.

Universal Validity of Religions

 

[c0de]

Brother Abdullah (salam), this is the aqeedah of the sunni sect that you yourself posted:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is our religion and it is what we believe in, both inwardly and outwardly, and we renounce any connection, before Allah, with anyone who goes against what we have said and made clear. [/FONT]
Aqidah Tahawiyya

Clearly it is an intolerant ideology based on the opinions of your sunni scholars and not the Quran and Sunnah alone. If it were only based on the Quran and Sunnah, then the sunni sect would not have made the return of Jesus PBUH part of its "aqeedah" even when this belief has been proven to be outside the Quran, and lacking a foundation in reliable hadith as well.

For you to defend your sect here goes against the whole spirit of the idea that there should be NO sects in Islam. Refer to this ayah from the Quran and see how clearly it makes this clear:

As for those who divide their religion and break up Into sects,
thou hast no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah:
He will in the end Tell them the truth Of all that they did.
​

Al-Qur'an 6:159
​

It is a fact that Sunnism is a sect. This can not be denied because its
aqeedah is based on the opinions of its scholars, and not on the Quran
and Sunnah alone. The Quran advises Muslims to reject any labels and
adopt the word "Muslim" alone.

 

[Abdullah]

Brother Abdullah (salam), this is the aqeedah of the sunni sect that you yourself posted:

Clearly it is an intolerant ideology

Salaam brother C0de

Brother, the 'renouncing connection' part will be something along the lines of connection with their views which are contrary to the Aqeedah...

From other Sunni Scholars statements, we can see that we keep 'good relations' with even devient sects that are not vehemently opposing us/vilifying us etc, [but I think civilised debate and discussion may be an exception in this:

Being classified as part of the Ahlus sunnah wal Jama'ah or not, is not based on jurisprudence (Fiqh), it is on the basis of beliefs (Aqaaid).

While in practice, the Wahabis are very similar to us, their completely incorrect beliefs demand that we highlight this to the public. As long as they aren't actively opposing us or spreading their Bidah Beliefs, we do not oppose them, but rather try to keep a good relationship with them.

The Ulama of Deoband as a whole always had good relationships with the Saudi Ulama, however as a result of the number of books being published by the Wahabis against the Ulama of Deoband as well as their increasing efforts in spreading their Bidah beliefs and their public classifying the beliefs of the Asharis and Maaturidis as misguidance and shirk, our Ulama have been forced to reconsider our relationship with them. They remain in the fold of Islam, but are classified as Ahlul Bidah on account of their beliefs.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Ask Imam :: Fatwa

See br, Imam Mufti Ibraheem Desai says "As long as they aren't actively opposing us or spreading their Bidah Beliefs, we do not oppose them, but rather try to keep a good relationship with them", and then he goes on to describe their 'active opposition' as "...classifying the beliefs of the Asharis and Maaturidis as misguidance and shirk", thus the latter part of that is a pretty bad vilification of the general Muslim Ummah ['shirk'] hence this type of opposition may effect keeping good relations.

And the above was just to show, that this analogy with the Wahhabi's will possibly/probably extend to all other sects too..., hence in that case we will maintain good relations with all Muslims..., whatever their sect, and any 'disagreement' between us will be based on civilised discussion and debate, with a litteral or proverbial hand shake and a brotherly smile at the end

I think Imam At Tahawi may have worded that last Aqeedah point a bit unequivically as that is the teaching of the essentials of faith, and thus Muslims need to be aquainted with the serious consequences of deviating from it...

Salam

 

[koranist]

Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur'an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. "The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school." And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:

Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra'y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.

Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur'an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra'y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur'an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra'y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra'y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too "found" hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that "where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses."


In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths "a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority." Likewise,

Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.

And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were "able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material." Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:

In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.



From Daniel Brown Muslim Scholar from America


The relevance of the past: classical conceptions of Prophetic authority

The word sunna predates the rise of Islam and is well attested in pre-Islamic sources. The word sunna was likely to be applied to Muhammad even during his lifetime (p8).

The Quran never mentions sunna-al-nabi (sunna of the Prophet). The application of the term sunna is likely to be post-Quranic, especially when applied exclusively to Muhammad.

Early muslims did not give precedence of Muhammad's sunna over other sunnas, such as the sunna of the early caliphs or early companions. The sunna term was not exclusive to Muhammad. There were no rigid distinctions about sources of religious law, i.e. it wasn't concrete that Muhammad's sunna could be used as a source of law.

Shafi was born in 204 AH (193 years after Prophet Muhammad's death). He was the first to argue the Prophet's sunna as a source of law, identified to authentic prophetic hadith, and give it an equal footing to The Quran. Different attitudes to sunna existed during Shafi, al-kalam (a particular group or school of thought) rejected hadith altogether in favour of The Quran alone. Shafi's view was also oppossed early by schools of jurisprudence in Hijaz, Iraq and Syria, who applied the term sunna to Muhammad, his companions and the early caliphs as well.
After Shafi, it is rare to find the term sunna applied to other than Muhammad. Al-kalam argued the sunna of Muhammad should never be allowed to rule on The Quran and described the science of hadith (as in the methods used to collect hadith) as arbitrary. Evidence of this was the hadith was filled with contradictory, blasphemous and absurd traditions. [top]

Challenges to the view of the organic relationship between The Quran and sunna are not completely unprecedented in the history of Islamic thought. Some of the opponents of Shafi argued that The Quran explains everything (e.g. 16:89) and needs no supplement, this was because one of Shafi's central arguments was the need to clarify The Quran. This opposing viewpoint was snuffed out after the triumph of the traditionist view. However and it was not until the 19th and 20th centuries that the argument was seriously revived. One of the reasons Daniel Brown gives for the defeat of the opponents of Shafi was that they could not deny the authority of the Prophet. If for example, you found a hadith that was truly authentic then there is no way you can deny it because as it states in The Quran the Prophet was a very good example. Also, Shafi emphasised that to obey the Prophet was to obey God. Under this pressure, the opponents of Shafi were defeated. Rarely does the author address how specific arguments were defeated unfortunately, which was the most disappointing aspect of this book.


Real Islam is only Koran

 

[Netti-Netti]

Nice to meet you Koranist.

Can you explain where you want to go with this discussion?

 

[Abdullah]

Hi Koranist, welcome to the forum

The evidence that hadiths were recorded simultaneous with the Quran is really too overwhelming to suggest anything else, see link, and the part entitled The Preservation of Sunnah:

The Authority of Sunnah - Chapter 3

Peace

 

[c0de]

Hi Koranist, welcome to the forum

The evidence that hadiths were recorded simultaneous with the Quran is really too overwhelming to suggest anything else, see link, and the part entitled The Preservation of Sunnah:

The Authority of Sunnah - Chapter 3

Peace

Salam brother,

Your link does not answer the objections raised. The question is not whether some hadiths were recorded during the time of the Prophet (of course some material was probably written down), but the fact is that much of it was fabricated after. And the evidence that many hadith were fabricated is an established fact. Even the most respected collections (Bukhari and Muslim) have been proven to contain unreliable hadiths.

The point is that all the sects in Islam base their differences on the hadith, and legitimate their extra-Quranic "aqeedahs" on the hadith. Including your own sect of Sunnism. Which bases its legitimacy on the hadiths like the one which you quoted at another thread about the sect which has the most number of adherents will be the right one. Even though other hadiths contradict it, and so does the Quran.

 

[Abdullah]

Salam brother,

Your link does not answer the objections raised. The question is not whether some hadiths were recorded during the time of the Prophet (of course some material was probably written down), but the fact is that much of it was fabricated after. And the evidence that many hadith were fabricated is an established fact. Even the most respected collections (Bukhari and Muslim) have been proven to contain unreliable hadiths.

The point is that all the sects in Islam base their differences on the hadith, and legitimate their extra-Quranic "aqeedahs" on the hadith. Including your own sect of Sunnism. Which bases its legitimacy on the hadiths like the one which you quoted at another thread about the sect which has the most number of adherents will be the right one. Even though other hadiths contradict it, and so does the Quran.

Alikum salam brother

There are indeed fabricated hadiths broth, but they have generally? been identified and classified as such via the rigorous scrutiny of the science of hadith.

There are ofcourse 'weak' hadiths as well, but they are not used in legislation nor deriving obligatory rulings I think... and it is allowed to boost our imaan by them for they are not neccassarily untrue but have been classified as such due to factors like not upto standard memmory power of one of the narrators in the chain, etc,

For Islamic legislation only the authentic hadiths are used... and for matters to do with the essentials of faith, out of the hadiths the infallible [mass transmitted] one's are used...

Here is another link in addition to the above, that explains about the science of hadith:

Science Of Hadith

And the following link answers all the usual arguments raised by the Sunnah sceptics:

The Authority of Sunnah

Salam

 

[c0de]

Alikum salam brother

There are indeed fabricated hadiths broth, but they have generally? been identified and classified as such via the rigorous scrutiny of the science of hadith.

There are ofcourse 'weak' hadiths as well, but they are not used in legislation nor deriving obligatory rulings I think... and it is allowed to boost our imaan by them for they are not neccassarily untrue but have been classified as such due to factors like not upto standard memmory power of one of the narrators in the chain, etc,

For Islamic legislation only the authentic hadiths are used... and for matters to do with the essentials of faith, out of the hadiths the infallible [mass transmitted] one's are used...

Here is another link in addition to the above, that explains about the science of hadith:

Science Of Hadith

And the following link answers all the usual arguments raised by the Sunnah sceptics:

The Authority of Sunnah

Salam

Salam Brother,

I guess we will just agree to disagree. No point in repeating the
same issues again (3 debates on this issue are enough I think )

 

[wolfgangguntherson]

Pardon me is this is a little off topic, but i think it is relevant.

As the Baha'is consider themselves to be followers of a new Revelation and Messenger from God, can they really be considered a sect of Islam as opposed to a new faith?

Thanks!

Wolfgang

 

[iBrian]

Good question, Wolfgang, and welcome to the forums.

So far as I understand it, the Baha'is are considered a splinter group from Islam within Islam itself - one particular reason for their unfortunately common persecution in the Middle East.

In which case, it would remain a matter of perspective.

 

[wolfgangguntherson]

Good question, Wolfgang, and welcome to the forums.

So far as I understand it, the Baha'is are considered a splinter group from Islam within Islam itself - one particular reason for their unfortunately common persecution in the Middle East.

In which case, it would remain a matter of perspective.

Thanks for the welcome...I see your point. But I would think a sect of Islam would still maintain that Muhammed was the most recent Messenger of God, as opposed to following a new Revelation. I suppose it is similar to how Jews would have seen Christians when they first appeared...as another Jewish sect. It wasn't until sometime later that christianity was considered a different Faith.

Thanks,

Wolfgang

 

[iBrian]

Indeed, I doubt many Baha'is would regard themselves as a sect of Islam, but I sometimes wonder if the hostility towards the Baha'is from within Islam has a parallel with Christian attitudes to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[wolfgangguntherson]

Indeed, I doubt many Baha'is would regard themselves as a sect of Islam, but I sometimes wonder if the hostility towards the Baha'is from within Islam has a parallel with Christian attitudes to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Possibly. I don't know much about Jehovah's Witness history, but I do know at the begining of Mormon history there was a lot of violence and persecution against them. In the last 100 years, however, they have largely integrated into the mainstream. There is still some suspicion from more conservative Chrisitian quarters, but most people think of them as a fairly benign Chrisitian denomination.

Wolfgang

 

[Radunzel]

Yeah both Bahais and Babism (which is vastly difference despite bahais saying otherwise) are islamic sects because they are both based in shia oral law

 

[wolfgangguntherson]

Yeah both Bahais and Babism (which is vastly difference despite bahais saying otherwise) are islamic sects because they are both based in shia oral law

Would you mind explaining what you mean by being "based in shia oral law"?

Wolfgang

 

[Abdullah]

Pardon me is this is a little off topic, but i think it is relevant.

As the Baha'is consider themselves to be followers of a new Revelation and Messenger from God, can they really be considered a sect of Islam as opposed to a new faith?

Thanks!

Wolfgang

Hi wolfgang, wellcome!

The short answer is; no, for as the Quran makes clear that the Prophet [saw] is the last Prophet/Messenger of God and the Quran is the final revelation, then that is neccessarily known of the Islamic religion, thus any claim to Prophecy after the Prophet Muhamamd [saw] is heresy of the desbelief kind, hence Bahai's cannot be accepted as an Islamic sect

hope that helps

Peace

 

[Radunzel]

Sorry bad phrasing.. hadith is islamic oral law not based on the Quran .. the talmud to the torah if you will but you know that.. and bahai comes from shia islam..

FIN