Jump to content
Mahakaal96

Why Muslims should never be trusted

Recommended Posts

Jacfsing2    1,844
22 minutes ago, S4NGH said:

I d  i o  t  is a banned word?! Waah?!

While that is a banned word, these are not: (I'm not saying any of these this just is a way to prove weak modding system)

F*ck

C*nt

S*it

I'm not saying anymore, but you get the deal.

Edited by Jacfsing2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghettosikh    207

I agree with some points you said except the part about Muslims not donating to terrorist attack victims I live in an area with a lot of Muslim pop that grew in a few years and after the Ottawa attack Muslims from my city donated to the soilders family. However with this increase of population there has been an increase of gangs criminality and hostility to others including Sikhs where you now see groups of Muslims acting all hard givin ppl stares and just trying to be intimidating. You really c them saying racist stuff tho but there have been minor cases so who knows what these gangs say behind closed door but must say the terrorist types are a very tiny minority and this should not be ignored 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,844
1 minute ago, ghettosikh said:

I agree with some points you said except the part about Muslims not donating to terrorist attack victims I live in an area with a lot of Muslim pop that grew in a few years and after the Ottawa attack Muslims from my city donated to the soilders family. However with this increase of population there has been an increase of gangs criminality and hostility to others including Sikhs where you now see groups of Muslims acting all hard givin ppl stares and just trying to be intimidating. You really c them saying racist stuff tho but there have been minor cases so who knows what these gangs say behind closed door but must say the terrorist types are a very tiny minority and this should not be ignored 

Are you some bot that repeats everything? 

You already said those exact lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097

It depends on what you will trust muslims for.

On an individual basis they can be trusted but it depends on what the context is.

It's the collective that you have be concerned about.

A Sikh generally will put truth first even if it goes against another Sikh.

A muslim will put another muslim first regardless of what the truth is.

The reason for this is that Islam as a political ideology is based on arab cultural values which means tribal loyalty comes first.

There is an arab saying ,"me against my brother, my brother and I against my father, my father and brother against my cousins, my family against my clan,my clan against my tribe" and so on.

This is the modus operandi of Islam and this is the effect on muslims. It needs enemies and "the other" to survive. When they do not have enemies they turn on each other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S4NGH    541
2 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

While that is a banned word, these are not: (I'm not saying any of these this just is a way to prove weak modding system)

F*ck

C*nt

S*it

I'm not saying anymore, but you get the deal.

But  i d i  o t ?! Cmon. How's that even foul/ abusive. Is 'stupid' banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
genie    1,109

Some words shouldnt be banned as they are in gurbani. Also it makes the forum really hard to read with banned filter activated every other paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imhosingh    41

Seriously you need to look past the label of 'muslim'. Islam is full of rules like have been outlined about using things like taqiyya, do you think your average (below average intelligence) person who labels themselves Muslim would know the nuances of its use? Whether you can trust a Muslim is down to you trusting a fellow soul. Likewise i know plenty of folks who labels themselves as 'sikh' who i wouldn't trust with anything. We have all come across them from dodgy lawyers , accountants, business folk to gurdwara committees. People are 'douches' under all 'labels'. Do you think guru Nanak Dev ji should have trusted Bhai Mardana in the early days? Even to infer that Muslims are one homogeneous group is also naive. The Shia and Sunni communities are divided so they can be ruled over, and lots of Arab 'muslims' look down on non-arab Muslims because they converted instead of dying for their beliefs (seeing them as lesser Muslims). The kind of person who uses taqiyya in the west is generally the type that gets caught drink driving or staging an accident and then suddenly uses religion to justify their 'ego' driven motives. Maybe I'm lucky but i do know some 'muslims' from different parts of the world who i would trust as their 'values' are inherent within them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
4 hours ago, imhosingh said:

Seriously you need to look past the label of 'muslim'. Islam is full of rules like have been outlined about using things like taqiyya, do you think your average (below average intelligence) person who labels themselves Muslim would know the nuances of its use? Whether you can trust a Muslim is down to you trusting a fellow soul. Likewise i know plenty of folks who labels themselves as 'sikh' who i wouldn't trust with anything. We have all come across them from dodgy lawyers , accountants, business folk to gurdwara committees. People are 'douches' under all 'labels'. Do you think guru Nanak Dev ji should have trusted Bhai Mardana in the early days? Even to infer that Muslims are one homogeneous group is also naive. The Shia and Sunni communities are divided so they can be ruled over, and lots of Arab 'muslims' look down on non-arab Muslims because they converted instead of dying for their beliefs (seeing them as lesser Muslims). The kind of person who uses taqiyya in the west is generally the type that gets caught drink driving or staging an accident and then suddenly uses religion to justify their 'ego' driven motives. Maybe I'm lucky but i do know some 'muslims' from different parts of the world who i would trust as their 'values' are inherent within them. 

bro surely you realise that the only shaheeds are of the convert type not true arabs ...i.e. afghanis, pakistanis, somali etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
12 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Should we remove the bani of Baba farid ji from ggsj? 

and here you come spouting nonsense ... we are talking about specific anti-social aggressive behaviour from specific contemporary people claiming Muslim faith . Go and amuse yourself elsewhere

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
16 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

I mean the very title of the post is why Muslims should never be trusted... 

It's really not that difficult 

and who said anything about Sheikh Farid ji ? besides the fact he had risen above the label of 'muslim'  by gaining union with Akal Purakh just as all the Bhagats ... you are being rather silly to even suggest what you did ... which Sikh would disrespect His Guru this way ???  
Muslims who claim loyalty to a concocted history , a unsubstantiated quran  ...a mission to build a world empire rather than earning closeness to Allah by ibadat and realising haqiqat... are not trustworthy Guru Gobind SIngh ji our father said so , and it has played out that way .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
1 minute ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

I asked a simple question since you insist on answering on behalf someone else.. Please answer me this if as has been asserted in the title muslims should never be trusted does that mean that contributions by Muslim bhagats such as Baba farid who clearly identified themselves as Muslim albeit sufi and not literalist technocrats such as Aurangzeb should also not be trusted. If you agree with the statement muslims should not be trusted then that would suggest you would disregard the bani of Baba farid if however you agree Baba farid was a Muslim and his bani is truthful then that necessarily means you disagree with the proposition Muslims should never be trusted.. It's a hypothetical question designed to test the logic of the assertion being made.. 

So do you trust Muslims or don't you? Or do you as I believe the very statement is ridiculous because as was pointed out earlier make a blanket statement such as the one made.. 

What the statement demonstrates is a irrational prejudice, homogenized a diverse group of people with different approaches to a religious philosophy.. 

Your turn simple question spelt out for @jkvlondon what is your answer? Should Muslims never be trusted? 

 

I have qualified who I consider applies under the non-trust issue , it is just the same for any one from any group, trust has to be earnt not demanded. I bow to Guru ji and Bhagat Bani is part of Guru ji so moot point ...I can read gurmukhi and I can definitely say Farid ji's voice is no different in my eyes than Guru Sahiban's . The average Muslim person is light years away from Him ... I trust Farid ji because his bani was selected and approved by my Guru ji - simple. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
20 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

 

Incidentally Baba farids bani is the oldest bani within SGGS 

do you know which Farid wrote it ? because there was more than one,  besides Ong is the oldest part of bani 

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akalifauj    784
18 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Should we remove the bani of Baba farid ji from ggsj? 

When did you become a troll?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Very nice post. 
    • Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah?     
    • The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs.  I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom would never have become as powerful as it did if not for non-Sikhs. The Sikh Empire was so successful while Ranjit Singh was alive precisely because he managed to integrate and secure the loyalty of the Punjabi musalman who constituted most of his subjects - and thereby ensured economic productivity and public order. The Khalsa army of the Lahore durbar was also not just made up of Sikhs - all cavalry were Sikh, but virtually the whole of the artillery was Muslim, as was a significant portion of the infantry of the regular army (included Pathans, Punjabi Muslims and Gurkhas). Secondly if not for the induction of non-Sikh European officers into the Sikh army, it would never have relinquished its fixation with irregular cavalry or its revulsion at the idea of infantry. Without the innovations of these non-Sikhs, therefore, the Fauj would never have advanced to first rank among the armies of Asia. An army composed entirely of cavalry is fine when you're fighting a guerilla war, not so much when you're building and defending an empire against men with guns and artillery.  Furthermore not all non-Sikhs in the kingdom were disloyal to the durbar, and not all Sikhs were loyal. The Muslims of Punjab routinely resisted the calls of the Afghans (and later, the mutineers of 1857) to join them in jihad against the infidel Sikhs. The Fakir brothers (Muslims) were loyal to Ranjit Singh's memory to the last, as were several of the other Hindu Dogra generals of the Khalsa army (Dogras are a race, not a family. It was one family of Dogras in particular which caused most of the trouble). And while there were good, loyal Sikh nobles such as the Attariwalas and the Nakkais, there were many more who were fickle and treacherous.  Rani Jindaan was notoriously corrupt , as were the Sandhawalias, who murdered Sher Singh, the only successor of Ranjit Singh with even a shred of competence, by blowing him to pieces with a shotgun. I think your stance is way too absolute bro.   An empire is by definition multicultural and cosmopolitan. The Vatican is not the most apt comparison here (It is a country in name only).   
    • The passage reads: Vol I, Life of Guru Nanak, p51
    •   This is indeed a good post.     
×