Jump to content
Guest Jagsaw_Singh

Some more Home Truths

Recommended Posts

Balkaar    1,414
7 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

@Balkaar, do you believe in the "all religions are equal" ideology?

No, I believe all people are equal irrespective of religion. 

Edited by Balkaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BhaiMardana=onlySikh   
Guest BhaiMardana=onlySikh

The nonsensical Mughal-implanted belief that the 1st Sikh in history (Bhai Mardana Ji) despite being the most ardent Guru ka Sikh should somehow be labelled as a Muslim (despite being an apostate from Islam) is a joke.

And similarly in relation to Dhan Dhan Baba Kabir Ji Maharaj who positively despised the falsehood of Islam (and yet are somehow labelled as belonging to beliefs that they repeatedly exposed as falsehoods). 

It's crucial we do not inadvertently sully the great names of Gurmukhs who rejected terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny as openly glorified in the Holy Quran.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,834
14 hours ago, Guest Logic said:

I do not believe in judging people's faiths based on the adherents of said faith, for example Sikhs have a rampant alcoholism problem world wide but it's not a religious issue. I also mentioned to judge people on their actions and piety rather than caste/bloodline etc....

You say Sikhi bought this whole new concept but you'll still label yourself a Sikh and you have many things which differentiate yourself from other faiths so it is just another religion at the end of the day with certain beliefs and practices which make it unique to Sikhi. Another thing I'll add on to my previous post of the similarities between Hindus and Sikhs is that Sikhs bathe themselves in the water surrounding the Golden Temple, Hindus bathe themselves in the Ganges and I've seen Sikhs make pilgrimages to Nankana Sahib with my own eyes. Whether you want to call those things pilgrimages or not is purely trivial but those practices are unique to Sikhi.

When you say Hinduism is for Hindus and Islam is for Muslims that's very ignorant because neither Hindus or Muslims are a racial/ethnic group of whom a faith should apply to automatically. For example if you were to say Judaism is for Jews that would make more sense although it could still be disputed.

Also just because a new faith has bought about a new concept of God doesn't automatically mean it's correct. Muslims, Sikhs and Christians may have a 1 God belief but the concept's of that God vary a lot from each of those faiths.

So just to clarify according to you I can pray 5 times a day, make my Hajj, fast during Ramadan and still be a Sikh? What would I need to do in order to be classed as a Sikh after adhering to all those Islamic things simultaneously? It's impossible, we adhere to Halal principles, cut/trim certain body hair to maintain cleanliness, these are 2 direct opposites of the Sikh faith. This is the first time I'm hearing such a thing from a Sikh so this is interesting to say the least.

I commend you on how respectful your response has been to me and this should be the standard between people of different faiths in inter faith dialogue.

@Logic, when you look into religions they aren't based on logic, but rather Faith, even some logical people who know a lot about religious rules, will still believe in whatever they've been doing their whole time, (we'll discuss changes latter).

The reason Sikhs have to actively vocalize that they are Sikhs is because in this diverse world, we need an identity on a worldly basis, so we can progress without being lost on finding right from wrong in a moral compass, and we need a compass, and we decide to pick the Sikh one, whether or not we follow it or not.

Sikhs showering in Nankana Sahib or Harmandir Sahib is not equal to Hindus showering in the Ganges. To certain Hindus it's a prerequisite to get into their heavens/liberation. Sikhs showering in those places is a personal choice; however, a Sikh can be Mukti without ever going to these places, (just for anyone reading this, thinking Harmandir Sahib isn't important, that isn't what I am saying at all). 

Sikhi is a universal faith, not because it's big, but because regardless of your religious labels you can still learn from the house of Guru Sahib.

Sikh means student, so your activities would make you a student of Muhammad to practice Halal and Kesh-cutting, if that gives an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,834
5 minutes ago, InderjitS said:

All faiths cannot lead to the same path only up to the point their for want of a better word Guru's reached. I've said this before and we need to stick to what Gurbani teaches, not based on what we think is right.  I've never heard that Mardana Jee remained a Sikh and Muslim, where is this written, you can't be both. It many verses Gurbani explains that in the age of Kalyug only through Satguru Nanak can one cross the ocean.  We do not need to entertain Muslims who use clever language, chatarpuna and use philosophical approaches/quotes to try and entrap followers of other faiths. If they have seen the light through whatever means then good on them, we have no need to be convinced that Islam is a superior dharam to all others for us Sikhi is khoobsoorat. 

Totally agree +infinity.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balkaar    1,414
21 hours ago, InderjitS said:

All faiths cannot lead to the same path only up to the point their for want of a better word Guru's reached. I've said this before and we need to stick to what Gurbani teaches, not based on what we think is right.  I've never heard that Mardana Jee remained a Sikh and Muslim, where is this written, you can't be both. It many verses Gurbani explains that in the age of Kalyug only through Satguru Nanak can one cross the ocean.  We do not need to entertain Muslims who use clever language, chatarpuna and use philosophical approaches/quotes to try and entrap followers of other faiths. If they have seen the light through whatever means then good on them, we have no need to be convinced that Islam is a superior dharam to all others for us Sikhi is khoobsoorat. 

Bhai Mardana Ji was a Sikh, but a non-Muslim would never have requested to go on Hajj, it seems clear therefore that he was both a Sikh and a Muslim though it is not stated outright in Bhai Gurdas Ji's Vaar. The controversy which ensued in the wake of Guru Nanak's departure between his Hindu disciples and his Muslim disciples also shows that it was possible to be both Hindu and Sikh or Muslim and Sikh, at least in the beginning. Sikhi transcended religious labels, and all other superficial and outward markers of faith. 

The human race has existed for around 100,000 years, the Sikh Panth is 500 years old, and largely limited to a tiny section of the earth. If you're going to believe that our way is the only way, then you also have to believe that for 99,500 years not a single person attained mukhta (Bani claims no such thing), and that even for those of us living today, barely anyone outside the Punjab will be saved because of the coincidence that they were born in places which are unexposed to Sikhi. This same point goes for any Muslim who believes that his religion is the only true one, any Christian who says this of his faith, and any Hindu who claims it of his. 

I feel that Sikh dharam is the perfect medicine for someone of my personality and outlook, but this is not necessarily the case for everyone. The things I have said are not cheap tricks to win an argument or make converts, but the reflections of my personal struggle to better understand Sikhi. 

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MardanaJi(Sikh)only   
Guest MardanaJi(Sikh)only
31 minutes ago, Balkaar said:

Bhai Mardana Ji was a Sikh, but a non-Muslim would never have requested to go on Hajj,

Given that Bhai Mardana Ji was the first Sikh and an apostate from Islam, why would they request to go on a Hajj invented for economic reasons by a slaveowner and pedophile called Muhammad? This lie that Bhai Mardana Ji were Muslim was created by the Mughals for obvious reasons to show that Sikhi is an irrelevance.

it seems clear therefore that he was both a Sikh and a Muslim 

One either believes slavery is a good thing or condemns it. One either the pedophilia of the Prophet was correct or an abomination. It is crystal clear that Bhai Mardana Ji rejected Islam in totality.

The human race has existed for around 100,000 years, the Sikh Panth is 500 years old, and largely limited to a tiny section of the earth. If you're going to believe that our way is the only way, then you also have to believe that for 99,500 years not a single person attained mukhta (Bani claims no such thing), and that even for those of us living today, barely anyone outside the Punjab will be saved because of the coincidence that they were born in places which are unexposed to Sikhi. This same point goes for any Muslim who believes that his religion is the only true one, any Christian who says this of his faith, and any Hindu who claims it of his. 

Agreed fully. But that is not the issue here.

You have chosen to make the manmat claim that the first Sikh was also a Muslim despite the Islamic beliefs supporting slavery and pedophilia being utterly condemned by Sikhi.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balkaar    1,414
6 hours ago, Guest MardanaJi(Sikh)only said:

You have chosen to make the manmat claim that the first Sikh was also a Muslim despite the Islamic beliefs supporting slavery and pedophilia being utterly condemned by Sikhi.

This claim is verified by the descendants of Bhai Mardana living today, self-professed Muslims all, who are naturally something of an authority on the matter of their own family's history. 

The Quran endorses neither slavery nor paedophilia. These claims are made in the Hadiths, which are not religious scripture at all but collections of highly unreliable historical anecdotes supposedly concerning Muhammad. None of these were ever written down until they first were, which was well over a century and a half after Muhammad's death.  As a result nobody compiling these hadith could be 100% sure that any of them were true, and certain Muslims no doubt took advantage, justifying their own selfish motivations or opinions by inventing fictions associating Muhammad with similar thoughts and behaviors which no-one living could disprove for certain. No honest student of history can take the Hadiths seriously. 

Gurbani says Muhammad was sent by God himself (and later lost his way due to hankaar), I do not believe Maharaj would say this about a paedophile or a slaver, rather I'm convinced that many of the things Muslims say about Muhammad and Islam, based on Hadith rather than Quran, are untrue. My understanding of 'Islam' is formed around this belief, and around my readings of the Quran. 

Need to be wary of conflating these pseudo-historical myths about Muhammad with the actual philosophy of Islam, which is in agreement with Sikhi on a number of important points. Bhai Mardana was a Muslim and a Sikh in this sense, though even the labels Muslim and Sikh ultimately mean nothing to Waheguru. 

 

 

 

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,309

So to tell the truth about your founder is insulting him! Either your founder was a man of his time and his morality was the morality of the 7th century or his morality is one that should be emulated by Muslims for all time. How can a man who bedded a CHILD of NINE years of age be called the perfect example for mankind! 

I have a straight question for you and answer it before trying to muddy the issue with word games. Just a straight YES or NO. 

WOULD YOU ALLOW A MAN of 50 YEAR OR OVER TO MARRY YOUR NINE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER OR SISTER? 

After you answer that question we can go and question the dubious morality you follow by discussing the SEX SLAVERY and RAPE  that Mohammed allowed his followers to engage in. 

 

Quote

Just as expected you didn't address any of the points in my post, completely and utterly dodged them like a coward. Once again Muslims play a HUGE part in Sikh history, you are but a drop in the Ocean in ours.

 

So the most you have is that Muslims are a big part of Sikh history whereas Sikhs are a small part of Muslim history? Really, I thought that was the worst of your arguments but since you will engage in such infantile arguments I will answer that. Yes, Muslim were a big part of Sikh history. They were the ones who claimed to have wiped out Sikhism on two separate occasions in the 18th century. They desecrated the Darbar Sahib in the same century. They martyred Guru Tegh Bahadur who spoke out for the freedom of religion for all people. The Muslims also swore on the Quran when asking Guru Gobind Singh to vacate Anandpur Sahib and then attacked him. The Muslims also engaged in genocidal massacres of Sikhs and committed the most inhuman atrocities. The Muslims placed a bounty on every Sikh head. So is that what you mean that Muslims were such a big part of our history? I am sure the Nazis are also a big part of the Jewish story now but one would be hard put out see a Nazi on a Jewish forum putting that as an argument against Judaism! Your true nature is evident here. 

No doubt there were Muslims who were friends of the Gurus but these Muslims were essentially going against the Sharia and if you want to place some emphasis on their Muslim identity then that is up to you.

Quote

 

Islam has similarities with Christianity and Judaism as all 3 are Abrahamic religions so trying to use that as a way to dismiss the religion is flawed logic. On the other hand however Sikhi claims to have NOTHING to do with Hinduism or Islam and yet is nothing but an amalgamation of the two, mostly Hinduism, you guys buried yourselves in a hole here you cannot get out of.

 

 

Islam has ripped off a huge amount of the teachings of those two religions. The reason why this is an issue and the similarities between Sikhism and Hinduism is not is the Mohammed's religion before he made Islam with the imaginary being in a cave was Arab paganism.Guru Nanak was born in a Hindu family and his ancestral religion was Hinduism. It is quite amusing that you state that Sikhism is an amalgamation of Hinduism and Islam but the Quran having Biblical stories and Jesus mentioned the most times of any person are just SIMILARITIES! Mohammed having had a fit in the cave and hallucinated about a being half strangling him and then he needed a CHRISTIAN to convince him that it was an angel. This was after he had contemplated committing SUICIDE because of this encounter. 

Quote

You've also shown a superiority complex because 'your religion' was written in 'your language', this is no different to white supremacy. Congrats on making the token non-Indian Sikh converts feel like morons and belittling them because they now believe in a religion written in a language foreign to them. Your fellow Sikhs are no doubt cringing when reading your posts and my responses destroying them.

This was to show the other Muslim who was claiming to be a Muslim Jat that his superiority complex about 'his' Punjab was idiotic given that he was forced to learn another language just to follow his religion. You claim that your responses are destroying my post is just what we have come to expect from Muslims on this forum. They tend to lurk around like a bad smell and reveal themselves at various times and then having their founder's dubious moral slung back at them run off with their tails between their legs. You are no different. 

Quote

Personally my bloodline comes from Persia, now known as Iran and before that, Arabia. So I cannot speak for others regarding that and no I am not a Jatt or Rajput, I can care less for this petty caste/surname supremacy way of thinking you people have, It's below me. Just so you know I do have the highest bloodline/surname in the Islamic world not that I tell others about it because the amount of respect I receive when one finds out is overwhelming, one should be judged on their piety not caste/bloodline/surname.

That's all very interesting but for us Sikhs whether you are the descendant of a Abu Bakr or a Mohammed makes no difference to us. You claim an Arab and then a Persian lineage. Could you be a descendant of Ali who forcibly married (more like raped) the daughter of the Persian Shah? So how does it feel to only exist because a rapacious Arab raped a Persian princess? I must say that the amount of times I have come across Muslims from Pakistan claiming descent from Arabs one would think these Arabs were raping all and sundry back in their day! So you have the highest bloodline in the Islamic world and but choose not to reveal in.. then pray great one why do we Sikhs have the great honour of having this revealed to us! You are no different to a Hindu Lohar who on becoming a Muslim suddenly become a Sheikh! Since you seem to have done some research into your ancestry which one of your descendants was the one who was raped by the Arabs? Which was the one who had a sword on his neck and suddenly the 'truth' of Islam became evident to him? Be honest your bloodline is as imaginary as your logic. Anyone with any logic would have left Islam years ago knowing what a immoral person Mohammed was. But then I suppose the threat of death if one leaves Islam might be a barrier to being free. 

Quote

I really am baffled as to why you Sikhs have such a chip on your shoulder and this whole warrior mentality complex as if you've ever done anything in history worth mentioning, barely made it out of Punjab and the majority of your stock comes from Hindus. Wasn't too hard for them transitioning from believing in reincarnation and cremating their dead to now believing in reincarnation with 8.4 million life cycles and cremating their dead along with MANY other similarities. With all due respect Sikhi is on par with Scientology on how easy it is to provide a solid argument for it being a man made religion.

So what exactly is original about your religion from Christianity and Judaism? Apart from .. let me think.. a heaven that's like a whorehouse.. a 'prophet' who raids caravans, rapes a women after murdering her husband and family, marries a child of 9, orders the murder of poets who criticise him and a whole host of other crimes. As for the teachings of Sikhism how could the sublime teachings of our Gurus make sense to someone who thinks that when he dies the best he can hope for is virgins with unbreakable hymens and rivers of milk and wine! But if he doesn't get there he will be in the hell fire and the 'most merciful' Allah will make sure that his skin is burnt and that it is again replaced to be burnt again and so it goes on forever. You have to have Waheguru's kirpa to be able to progress from the 7th century beliefs of a desert dweller of dubious morals to the sublime teachings of Sikhi. 

Quote

You want to talk about philosophical and theological religious arguments, believe me you really don't want to go there and there is proof of this also. Where are all the videos of Sikh parchaar's debating with Atheist, Agnostics and with people of different faiths in a formal setting on hard hitting controversial subjects? Not this hippy stuff going on streets saying to people how you'll protect them with your blunt sword. That's right there aren't any and when you do go to Hyde Park (Jagraj Singh) the basis of his argument is always 'because experience' he has nothing to offer as to why one should believe Sikhi to be a legitimate religion sent from God without having to 'experience' something and he was the best you had. Well guess what there are Hindus out there drinking cow urine who claim to experience it makes them immune to diseases and sickness, by Jagraj's logic one cannot refute their claim until you 'experience' it yourself! Zero foundation to stand upon you guys have.

Ohh I am meant to tremble before your threat to bring 'islamic' philosophical and theological religious arguments? So who are you.. Dawah man.. the Greek <banned word filter activated>..Mo Hijab...the internet is full of dawah idiots who make a reputation for themselves preaching BS to non-Muslims who have never read the Quran or Hadiths. Do you think that any BS you can come up will over ride the fact that your 'prophet' had morals worst than Ram Raheem? That the whorehouse you claim as heaven has an attraction for someone who believes in the Gu

 

 

 

Edited by proactive
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,309
43 minutes ago, Balkaar said:

This claim is verified by the descendants of Bhai Mardana living today, self-professed Muslims all, who are naturally something of an authority on the matter of their own family's history. 

The Quran endorses neither slavery nor paedophilia. These claims are made in the Hadiths, which are not religious scripture at all but collections of highly unreliable historical anecdotes supposedly concerning Muhammad. None of these were ever written down until they first were, which was well over a century and a half after Muhammad's death.  As a result nobody compiling these hadith could be 100% sure that any of them were true, and certain Muslims no doubt took advantage, justifying their own selfish motivations or opinions by inventing fictions associating Muhammad with similar thoughts and behaviors which no-one living could disprove for certain. No honest student of history can take the Hadiths seriously. 

Gurbani says Muhammad was sent by God himself (and later lost his way due to hankaar), I do not believe Maharaj would say this about a paedophile or a slaver, rather I'm convinced that many of the things Muslims say about Muhammad and Islam, based on Hadith rather than Quran, are untrue. My understanding of 'Islam' is formed around this belief, and around my readings of the Quran. 

Need to be wary of conflating these pseudo-historical myths about Muhammad with the actual philosophy of Islam, which is in agreement with Sikhi on a number of important points. Bhai Mardana was a Muslim and a Sikh in this sense, though even the labels Muslim and Sikh ultimately mean nothing to Waheguru. 

 

 

 

There is no way of knowing whether those who claim to be Bhai Mardana's descendants are really his descendants. Most Mirasi families claim to be spiritual descendants of Bhai Mardana but that is the same as some castes claim Bhagat Ravidass as their own. I think we need to look at the way that Bachittar Natak describes Mohammed and his fall from his mission and setting up of a Manmat rather than a Gurmat religion to the way that the Quran has a peaceful Meccan Islam and a violent and oppressive Medinan Islam. Mohammed preached a peaceful religion for many years in Mecca and only got about 150 followers. When he went to Medina and invented the whorehouse heaven and allowed sex slaves and divided his loot between his followers then he got thousands of followers.  You are displaying extreme ignorance about the Hadiths. They have well known chains of transmission and the fact that many present a very negative image of Mohammed may well point to their veracity. 

Edited by proactive
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balkaar    1,414
46 minutes ago, proactive said:

 You are displaying extreme ignorance about the Hadiths. They have well known chains of transmission 

I'm actually quite familiar with these so-called isnads. 'Chains of transmission' can be invented for the sake of political/religious expediency as well, and often are, this has happened all throughout history. In Ancient Persia when one aristocratic dynasty usurped another they would promptly engage the priests, who doubled up as the historians of the empire, to invent fictitious 'chains' of transmission which linked their family name to semi-divine ancestors. This was done to make their illegitimate rule appear legitimate. I don't find it at all improbable that similar things happened in the case of the Koran, both among those who brought hadiths to the scholars, and among the scholars who compiled them. Men trying to legitimate their illegitimate actions in the name of Muhammad. The element of personal bias cannot be ruled out either. The compilers of the hadith were men just like any other with prejudices and biases, who would have had some of their own ideas about Muhammad which influenced their chances of terming a Hadith reliable/unreliable. Religious faith makes objective historical enquiry into a religion very difficult at times, because the scholar has an emotional investment in his work, and therefore a dangerous bias. 

As soon as one uses chains of transmission to confirm the reliability of a hadith, they immediately encounter the problem of having to gauge the reliability of these chains of transmission themselves. And the methods used by the early scholars of the hadith to check the reliability these isnads were incredibly shaky and subjective to say the least. 

Ultimately, the Hadith can never be anything more than the 'best' guess at filling in the historical wilderness of 150-odd-years separating Muhammad's death from the gathering of the Hadiths. 

46 minutes ago, proactive said:

 the fact that many present a very negative image of Mohammed may well point to their veracity. 

Why do you think that? 

 

Edited by Balkaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MardanaJi(Sikh)only   
Guest MardanaJi(Sikh)only
46 minutes ago, Balkaar said:

This claim is verified by the descendants of Bhai Mardana living today, self-professed Muslims

Me and Joe Bloggs down the street are Sikh and we can also claim to be descended from Bhai Mardana Ji. The only difference is that Pakistani's from the Kanjar tribe - a tribe so despised in Pakistan that the name for the tribe became a swear word - make this tenuous claim as they are otherwise interpreted to be descended from pimps and prostitutes. I can assure you that Sikh descendants of Bhai Mardana gave qurbaniya and shaheedian on the battlefield alongside Guru Sahib instead of running brothels.

all, who are naturally something of an authority on the matter of their own family's history. 

Presumably every provably fake genealogy claimed in Pakistani Punjab is true is it? Ie the Jats are not Punjabi (they presumably are of Arabic stock) as are the various Punjabi tribes and the Brahmin Butts are not truly Brahmins (but arrived from Persia)? And the Khatri Sheikhs are descended from Arab sheikhs who converted all Punjabi's peacefully to Islam, etc. All the Hindu Bedi's claiming descent from Guru Nanak are all telling the truth too, are they?

The Quran endorses neither slavery nor paedophilia.

Please look through Mr Qureshi's helpful addendum but I should be able to dredge the Quran's acceptance of slavery and pedophilia after this post.

These claims are made in the Hadiths,

No - to clarify - pedophilia and slavery are supported in the Quran.

Gurbani says Muhammad was sent by God himself

Where does SGGS say that Muhammad is a role model?

(and later lost his way due to hankaar)

Selling black children for financial profit, raping sex slaves and having sex with a 9year old when aged 54 is quite a lot of hankaar.

So if all Muslims openly accept that Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and a slave owner and slave trader, do you accept therefore that Bhai Mardana Ji was an apostate from Islam who had rejected the religion forced upon his parents?

 

On 27/08/2017 at 8:08 PM, Guest Muhammad Qureshi said:

TheReligionofPeace.com
Guide to Understanding Islam

What does the
Religion of Peace
Teach About...

The Sex Life of the Prophet

Question:

Was Islam's "perfect man" sexually restrained?

Summary Answer:

The Quran (which was created and narrated by Prophet Muhammad) refers to Prophet Muhammad's life as "as beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah" (33:21) and "an exalted standard of character" (68:4). Yet, thanks to Allah's extraordinary interest in his personal sex life (as immortalized in the Quran) the prophet of Islam had sex with just about anyone he pleased.

The Qur'an:

Allah managed to hand down quite a few "revelations" that sanctioned Prophet Muhammad's personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the Qur'an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance.

Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed." No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur'an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a "revelation" of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse "commands" Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband's gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God...?

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those slavegirls whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism.

Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off for sex whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad's wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain... as revealed in Allah's literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims.

Qur'an (66:1-5) - "O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made sexually lawful to you, seeking to please your wives?... Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths" Another remarkably personal passage of sexual convenience in a book billed as Allah's perfect and eternal message to mankind. Muhammad was caught sleeping with a slave woman on the night that he was supposed to be with one of his wives. Initially promising to be faithful, "Allah" tells his prophet to break that promise and enjoy sex with his slaves. If his wives objected then "it may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you."

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those married slavegirls whom your right hands possess."Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle.

Brother Balkaar, please can you educate if the above from the Quran was either supported or condemned by Bhai Mardana Ji and perhaps you can tell us whether you support the above support of slavery in the Quran? Surah 65 Ayat 4 permitting pedophilia is as below for you:

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

Pedophilia in the Qur'an

Main Article: Pedophilia in the Qur'an

The Qur'an permits pedophilia. The following Qur'anic verse allows sex with pre-pubescent girls who have not yet menstruated.

And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

Qur'an 65:4

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,309

Whether these chains are invented or not is not the point. The point is that a normal Muslim has no problem with accepting these hadiths and sees no contradiction between his firmly held belief that Mohammed was the best of human beings and a 'mercy' to mankind and yet he allowed his followers to rape captured pagan Arab women. 

A negative portrayal of Mohammed specially if it was widely accepted among his followers such as the salih Hadiths are, point to their being more likely to be true because his followers would have wanted to present a positive portrayal of Mohammed when they came into contact with non-Muslims. You have to weigh up whether they wanted to present the true Mohammed as he was or a false one in order to attract converts. 

Quote

The Quran endorses neither slavery nor paedophilia.

That's a big claim to make because no where in the Quran does it abolish slavery and the verses giving permission for carnal relations between the Master and his female slave negates your above statement. For Paedophilia one has to look at the example of Mohammed from the Hadiths. Clearly the Quran states that Mohammed's conduct is a 'beautiful' example for Muslims. So because Mohammed married a CHILD than a Muslim should also want to a marry a CHILD hence Islamic Paedophila and by extension Islamic child rape gangs which amalgamate the paedophilia with the sex slavery allowed in the Quran. The leadership of ISIS aren't some religious novices who have perverted Islam, they in fact follow Islam to the core and are probably the best example of what Mohammed were he to be alive today would be doing! 

Edited by proactive
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InderjitS    992
On 29/08/2017 at 11:25 AM, Balkaar said:

Bhai Mardana Ji was a Sikh, but a non-Muslim would never have requested to go on Hajj, it seems clear therefore that he was both a Sikh and a Muslim though it is not stated outright in Bhai Gurdas Ji's Vaar. The controversy which ensued in the wake of Guru Nanak's departure between his Hindu disciples and his Muslim disciples also shows that it was possible to be both Hindu and Sikh or Muslim and Sikh, at least in the beginning. Sikhi transcended religious labels, and all other superficial and outward markers of faith. 

The human race has existed for around 100,000 years, the Sikh Panth is 500 years old, and largely limited to a tiny section of the earth. If you're going to believe that our way is the only way, then you also have to believe that for 99,500 years not a single person attained mukhta (Bani claims no such thing), and that even for those of us living today, barely anyone outside the Punjab will be saved because of the coincidence that they were born in places which are unexposed to Sikhi. This same point goes for any Muslim who believes that his religion is the only true one, any Christian who says this of his faith, and any Hindu who claims it of his. 

I feel that Sikh dharam is the perfect medicine for someone of my personality and outlook, but this is not necessarily the case for everyone. The things I have said are not cheap tricks to win an argument or make converts, but the reflections of my personal struggle to better understand Sikhi. 

Sorry for the late reply, was busy.
Again, I re-iterate, I do not believe it feasible to be both, I think it's akin to trying to fit 2 talwaraa into 1 mian. There are mysterious forces at play in the presence of Guru Sahib, if they wished a furna to appear in their life long companion, its not beyond comprehension.

This link may clear up any further doubts:

http://www.sikhanswers.com/gurmat-islam/was-guru-nanak-dev-jis-closest-and-life-long-companion-a-devout-muslim/ 

Back to the point I was making, Gurbani is sapasht about not being able to achieve mukti outside of Satguru Nanak house and only by becoming Gurmukh is one freed from chaurasi lakh gera.  This means those jeevs prior would have to be born as Sikhs again in order to reach sachkhand and not some lower realm like jannat. Gurbani is also clear, there is only one Gurmati naam to be meditated upon and Guru Sahib came to Kaljug to save the world. I can provide quotes if you wish.
 

 

Edited by InderjitS
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Balkaar    1,414
On 8/29/2017 at 7:50 PM, Guest MardanaJi(Sikh)only said:

 

Brother Balkaar, please can you educate if the above from the Quran was either supported or condemned by Bhai Mardana Ji and perhaps you can tell us whether you support the above support of slavery in the Quran? Surah 65 Ayat 4 permitting pedophilia is as below for you:

Look, anyone familiar with my post history knows that I myself have made several claims in the past about Muhammad being a paedophile/slaver/warlord, and about Islam being a false religion, very similar to the those which you and proactive sahib have posted here. I reached these conclusions from my study of the man-made books the Koran and Hadiths. I now believe that this was always just my manmat. 

Guru Gobind Singh Ji is no man but the antarjami Akal Purakh himself, and he says of Muhammad and Islam in Zafarnama:

Na Danaam ki een mard paimaan shikan

Ke daulat prast ast iman Fikan

Na Iman Prasti na auzai

Na Sahib shanasi Muhammad Yakeen

Har aan kas ki iman prasti kunad

Na peiman kudash pesho pasti kunad

Maharaj says that Aurangzeb does not follow Islam and has not comprehended its meaning. He also accuses Aurangzeb of having no faith in Prophet Muhammad, and that no man who believes in his faith makes false promises. 

If everything you say about Muhammad and Islam is true, and Maharaj knew it and said the above about him in spite of it, I would leave Sikhi this very second. But I feel I know enough about Maharaj's character through his own Bani that he would never speak in the above terms about a paedophile or a slaver, therefore I believe Muhammad, and Islam, cannot be what Muslims say they are. I was wrong for a long time, and I believe you are wrong too. I don't care if every Muslim on earth and every book ever written about Islam says Muhammad was a paedophile or a slaver, if Maharaj says anything which gives me reason to suspect that this may not be true I will take his word over the entire world. 

I think my time on this forum is over. So many of the things I've written over the years have been the products of my manmat, and the hatred and anger I have in my heart. I spared nobody from it, not Muslims, not Hindus, not Christians and not other Sikhs.  Maharaj tells us how we might find him, and it isn't through clever discussions and arguments, but by seeing only Him in every person we meet, like Bhai Kanhaiya did, whether they are Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh. This forum has done everything it can for me, I now have a much clearer idea of what to do next. One final thing before I go, thank you, truly, to all of you my brothers and sisters. I have learned so much about Sikhi and about myself through from talking to all of you here, and though you may not even be aware of it, you have been an invaluable support to me in the absence of any physical Gursikh sangat. (Some of you in particular, I believe you know who you are deep down, must find a way to bring your knowledge to Sikhs in the real world, rather than letting it languish here in a virtual bubble. You are the qaum's future, try to make it a good future).  

I wish you all the best of luck,

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

 

 

 

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Heretic or a Turk. Both are repulsive. The heretic is an internal threat where as the Turk is external. Whether or not he's insulted the Gurus (as of yet), is not the issue. It's the fact that he's Turk-Beeraj.
    • I do not believe in an absolute morality, dharam is not the same for each and every individual. This is not to say that dharam does not exist, only that it doesn't exist in a monolithic form.  This concept is reflected very well in the life of the Mahapurakh Sant Baba Thakur Singh, 14th jathedar of Damdami Taksaal. Babaji was a strict vegetarian like all members of Taksaal, so for him eating meat was a great sin. However when he visited the chaunis (encampments) of Nihang Singhs around Chowk Mehta he would often bring offerings of goats to be jhatkaa'd by the nihangs and later consumed. Because eating meat was not a great paap for them as it was for babaji, rather it was their tradition and he respected that the role they were given by the Almighty was different from his own.  Satguru's Hukam affects each person differently.  Eastern dharams tend not to impose moral codes on the whole of humankind, as though such codes apply to everybody. Yes there are certain basic guiding principles of human morality - don't murder, don't rape, but most sane people don't really need to be told not to do these things by a religion because they feel an inherent revulsion towards them. However beyond this things can get quite flexible. Some people are meant to be householders and provide for a family, whilst others are meant to be celibates and devote their lives and all their energy to Akaal Purakh and Seva of the Panth. If God creates someone with the intention that they will become a warrior, battle becomes dharam for this person, a righteous deed. If however God creates a man and by his hukam determines that this man is to be peaceful saint, battle is adharam for him, not righteous. This is why different sampardas/jathebandiaan exist in Sikhi. Guru Ji is not/was not anti-samparda or anti-jathebandi, if they were, they wouldn't have created or blessed so many of them themselves. I don't know if what I'm saying is right, but this is the conclusion I have arrived at from my study of Sikhi. Others will have arrived at different conclusions, and good thing too -  Sikhi is a garden full of many diverse flowers.  I do not believe Guru Ji aspired to make all Sikhs, or all people,  identical in their religious outlook and practice. 
    • So you think that Sikhs and Muslims need to remain bitter enemies for as long as this world exists?   And because of 84 do we also need to become eternal enemies of the Hindus forever and ever?   Yesterday Hindus were our friends but they ended up knifing us in the back. And Yesterday's enemies can become strategic allies of today. Try to see the bigger picture.
    • This one statement just proves you should know before commenting on such complex topics.
×