138 posts in this topic

There are discussions going on in some threads at the moment about whether Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim. I would like to hold these discussions in one place, partially because they are extraneous to the thread titles in those other threads, and we should let those threads discuss the specific items that the thread creators wanted to originally discuss:

http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/80863-human-rights-in-islam/

http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/80838-why-muslims-should-never-be-trusted/

I propose that Sheikh Farid ji was not a Muslim at then end, whatever he may have been at some time.

I started off with:

2 hours ago, BhForce said:

Friend, I'd like to ask you to have another read of Sheikh Farid ji's bani. Sheikh ji explicitly talks of the Guru and Saadh Sangat. Now, in Islam, they have the concept of the Prophet Mohammed being the "Seal of the Prophets". Merely to suggest that there could be a prophet after the time of Mohammed is apostasy in Islam, meaning you're not a Muslim anymore.

 S4NGH then responded with 

2 hours ago, S4NGH said:

The prophet mohammad according to the Quran was the last of the prophets. Khatam an nabiyin. Guru sahib is not a prophet or a messenger or a partner of god or anything remotely like the prophets. Guru sahib is Akal roop. The prophets were men who were given tasks.

And I followed up with: 

36 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Depends on what you define a prophet as. I agree that Guru Sahib is Akal rup. But a hypothetical apostate of Muslim background would not be helping himself (in the eyes of Muslims) by stating "No, no, I'm not saying Guru is a prophet after Mohammed. I'm saying he's Akal roop (i.e,. even higher than Mohammed)". You'd be even more apostate than you were before.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now on to some other aspects of this question, namely definitions.

What do you define as a Muslim? A person with Muslim parentage? By that definition Barrack Obama is a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. (He's a Christian and has attended a church for decades.) But if that's your definition of Muslim, then Farid ji was a Muslim, end of discussion.

I don't think that's a useful definition, because that's the equivalent of saying a Hindu is a person with Hindu parentage, which means that Guru Nanak Dev ji was a Hindu, as are we, and we can just shut this message board down and go over to a Hindu forum.

Speaking of Hindus, the definition of "Hindu" according to some is anybody living past the River Indus. By that definition Sikhs are Hindus. And that's the definition that Jahangir used when he called Guru Arjan Dev ji a "Hindu". But that's still not a useful definition for us.

Regarding Muslims, I think that a useful definition is a person that accepts the Quran in its entirety and also the Hadith. Such a person would automatically accept the Muslim view on apostasy. It is my contention that Sheikh ji was not a Muslim by this definition.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anybody that thinks Farid ji was a Muslim, I would like to ask: Do you believe Bhagat Namdev ji was a Hindu?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

If you believe in truth what do you care what others think? You cannot bear false witness to the truth 

Right, you're just backing up what I said: Sheikh Farid ji was blessed by Satguru with the truth. At that point he didn't care anymore with what the Prophet Mohammed or any other Muslim thought. And he bore true witness to the Guru (in his bani).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was as much a practicing Muslim as Jesus was a practicing Jew, or Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a stringent adherent to the Hindu religion. The bani Farid Ji authored makes this fact unequivocally clear. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BhForce said:

 

What do you define as a Muslim? A person with Muslim parentage? By that definition Barrack Obama is a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. (He's a Christian and has attended a church for decades.) But if that's your definition of Muslim, then Farid ji was a Muslim, end of discussion

It's probably safe not to make those comparisions, since a big chunk of the population believes he was Muslim and is Muslim: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

 

Self-identified as a Muslim? That's a pretty loose definition. I think you've previously mentioned that to reduce Muslims to one homogeneous bloc is reductive, but you seem to be doing the same thing. What kind of Muslim was he?

If his compositions are any indication of his philosophical outlook on life, he wasn't much of a Muslim. If there's anything in the writings of Sheikh Farid Ji that instructs us how to remove semen and blood stains from clothing, i think it's pretty safe to say he wasn't much of a Muslim, according to the criteria established in the Quran and the Hadiths, regardless of whether he self-identified as a Muslim.

Rachel Dolzeal, the white American activist and academic, isn't a black woman because she self identifies as one, no matter how much she wishes it were true. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Jesus did see himself as a practising jew. A rabbi in fact 

Again, you seem to be stretching the definitions of these terms to fit your arguments, which is strange.

At the time of Jesus, official ordination into rabbinic circles wasn't even a thing. The term rabbi was an unofficial title of honour and respect conferred on a person worthy of that label, and it was more a method of a disciple or student addressing his teacher with the necessary reverence instead of an official certification of a person's level of Jewishness. Equally, he wasn't a member of the Christian clergy, lol, but that's self explanatory.

The same principle applies to all founders of various faiths - and other notable personalities - who were born into one particular people but found a "calling" in a set of beliefs that differed from the ways prescribed by the religion of their families.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

So now you have the right to define him since it undermines your own identity tropes? 

As i said, brother, please identify anything in his compositions that is congruous with the broad framework of teachings of the Islamic faith as it pertains to their ideology and vision for Muslims and non-Muslim humanity in general, in particular that example I've highlighted above. Just one example will suffice. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Jesus did see himself as a practising jew. A rabbi in fact 

sorry he was referred by others as Rabbi, he never claimed it himself .... he was against the priest caste (yes the pharisees are a caste in judaism much like Brahmin). He was A nazarite much like Samson so was something totally different ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

I believe he was a Muslim and have never see any evidence or until today heard of him being recognized as anything different.. Other than the more recent pronouncements and actions of the Pakistan taliban who approach the label Muslim in the same way you are proposing here that it may only be applied exclusively to people who tick certain boxes and that his practice and approach to Islam was heretical.. If you were to ask many many Pakistani panjabi Muslims they would without hesitation say he was a Muslim 

His followers are sufis and his writings are in the Tradition of sufism ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

He was as much a practicing Muslim as Jesus was a practicing Jew, or Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a stringent adherent to the Hindu religion. The bani Farid Ji authored makes this fact unequivocally clear. 

I just read this again without looking at the user name, and I thought that somebody was actually saying that Guru Nanak Dev ji was a strict adherent of Hinduism. Then I realized my mistake :). 

Just to clarify for the one hundred lurkers that read this board for every one poster: user @MisterrSingh is saying that Jesus was not practicing Jew and that Guru Nanak Sahib was not a Hindu.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

So now you have the right to define him since it undermines your own identity tropes? 

1, Well, @MisterrSingh can speak for himself, but as for me, yes, I do think I can define Muslim, since I'm the originator of this debate thread.

2. I gave two definitions of Muslim above (first, someone of Muslim parentage and second, believer in the Quran and Hadiths). Which one do you prefer, or can you fit Farid ji into either one?

3. If, for some reason, you don't like either of these definitions (please give reasons why), go ahead and proffer your own.

4. We're not really defining him as X or Y, but rather defining "Muslim" and then debating whether he fits into that definition. I already said he's a Muslim under the first definition. I already ceded that ground, and we shouldn't have to debate that. I also ceded the ground that he may have been a Muslim at some point in his life. What I proposed is that he was not Muslim at the end, with "Muslim" being how I defined it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

. If you were to ask many many Pakistani panjabi Muslims they would without hesitation say he was a Muslim 

Know who else they think was a Muslim?

Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj.

So does the infamous Dr. Zakir Naik.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I think the whole is he isn't he a quite boring actually.. 

This would be undermined by the number of posts on this issue in this thread, and the two threads referenced above.

1 minute ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

What I think is more interesting is why it matters.

Why it matters is that some Sikhs (and perhaps non-Sikhs) want to use the mis-impression of Sheikh ji being (in the end) a Muslim as a reason for an Islamophilic agenda.

5 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

If he was Muslim does that undervalue sikhi? 

Well, if he were to achieve enlightenment without the Guru, then the question would naturally arise in the minds of Sikhs (and non-Sikhs), "What's the need of the Guru--and of Sikhi?"  No Guru needed, no Sikhism needed either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BhForce said:

This would be undermined by the number of posts on this issue in this thread, and the two threads referenced above.

Why it matters is that some Sikhs (and perhaps non-Sikhs) want to use the mis-impression of Sheikh ji being (in the end) a Muslim as a reason for an Islamophilic agenda.

Well, if he were to achieve enlightenment without the Guru, then the question would naturally arise in the minds of Sikhs (and non-Sikhs), "What's the need of the Guru--and of Sikhi?"  No Guru needed, no Sikhism needed either.

it also opens up several contradictions, if Farid Ji was a muslim does that mean NamDev Ji was a Vishnu follower? if so then why would his bani be included within Guru Granth Sahib Ji when Guru Sahib already stated that following these Devta won't help you reach Akaal. If Farid Ji was a muslim then we have to accept that Islam as a doctrine is also right (afterall why would Farid Ji be one) which would also have to imply that Muhammed was the final Prophet and that Islam is the only true religion. If that is the case then why did Guru Gobind Singh Ji speak against Muhammed and how Kalyug corrupted him. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Why do people have place mutually exclusive labels.. I personally think sikhi offers a inclusive vision transcending religious identity 

Sikhi indeed does have an inclusive vision transcending supposed religious identity. Guru Sahib are Jagat Guru for the whole of humanity. I firmly believe that the vast majority of poor people in the world who are good and honest people (but perhaps educated from birth to claim that they are this religion or that) are natural born Sikhs (sehajdhari) by virtue of their righteous spirit and actions. However, to claim that someone is a Muslim because Pakistani Muslims claim them to be (as for example Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj) or that Dhan Dhan Baba Namdev Ji Maharaj are supposedly Hindu because Shiv Sena and RSS followers deliberately wish to delink them from Gurmat is a claim that does not stand up to scrutiny.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

I believe he was a Muslim

and have never seen 

or until today heard of him being recognized as anything different Other than the more recent pronouncements and actions of the Pakistan Taliban

If you were to ask many many Pakistani panjabi Muslims they would without hesitation say he was a Muslim 

Not at all brother. Mere acceptance of one God (who may be called Allah, Ram or Vaheguru or other True Names interchangably) does not mean that Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj self-identified as a Muslim.

In order to be Muslim the second line of the Muslim shahada referring to Prophet Muhammad is compulsory. True Sufi's (like Baba Farid Ji Maharaj) being the non-Muslims they are obviously wholeheartedly reject the Prophet Muhammad on account of the well documented and universally acknowledged acts of terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny that the Prophet openly engaged in without remorse. Remember in Pakistan the Muslims make the similarly false allegation that Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj were Muslim.

Think about it logically Mr Virk.

Can any Sikh ever sit comfortable when such an accusation is labelled against one of our greatest Gurmukhs (who were so blessed that they authored the Truth of Gurbani)!? 

Accusing Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of being Muslim is the most vile accusation thinkable for a Sikh to read. Though to be fair to you it may be that your belief is that all religions are equal and whether one religion condones slavery, terrorism, paedophilia, genocide and misogyny is merely something that should be ignored and is perfectly acceptable to accuse Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of supporting.

This myth cooked up Mughal scribes and the followers of Jinnah that Baba Farid Ji Maharaj were Muslim needs to be destroyed. The nonsensical belief that the 1st Sikh in history (Bhai Mardana Ji) despite being the most ardent Guru ka Sikh somehow should be labelled as a non-Sikh is horrible to read (not that you have said this - but others mistakenly have). 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 as Sikhs do not inadvertently sully the great names of Gurmukhs who rejected terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny as openly glorified in the Holy Quran.

Edited by SinghSabha1699
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

Not at all brother. Mere acceptance of one God (who may be called Allah, Ram or Vaheguru or other True Names interchangably) does not mean that Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj self-identified as a Muslim.

In order to be Muslim the second line of the Muslim shahada referring to Prophet Muhammad is compulsory. True Sufi's (like Baba Farid Ji Maharaj) being the non-Muslims they are obviously wholeheartedly reject the Prophet Muhammad on account of the well documented and universally acknowledged acts of terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny that the Prophet openly engaged in without remorse. Remember in Pakistan the Muslims make the similarly false allegation that Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj were Muslim.

Think about it logically Mr Virk.

Can any Sikh ever sit comfortable when such an accusation is labelled against one of our greatest Gurmukhs (who were so blessed that they authored the Truth of Gurbani)!? 

Accusing Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of being Muslim is the most vile accusation thinkable for a Sikh to read. Though to be fair to you it may be that your belief is that all religions are equal and whether one religion condones slavery, terrorism, paedophilia, genocide and misogyny is merely something that should be ignored and is perfectly acceptable to accuse Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of supporting.

This myth cooked up Mughal scribes and the followers of Jinnah that Baba Farid Ji Maharaj were Muslim needs to be destroyed. The nonsensical belief that the 1st Sikh in history (Bhai Mardana Ji) despite being the most ardent Guru ka Sikh somehow should be labelled as a non-Sikh is horrible to read (not that you have said this - but others mistakenly have). 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 as Sikhs do not inadvertently sully the great names of Gurmukhs who rejected terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny as openly glorified in the Holy Quran.

Who was the first Sikh in history? 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, S4NGH said:

The last time I checked, Bhagat Farid Ji was a muslim missionary,

You make it seem like Sheikh Fareed ji was Dr. Zakir Naik, just without a Youtube account. :)

The fact is that Sheikh ji was hated by the Muslims of his time.

I have before me a book entitled "Janam Sakhi Sheikh Farid Ji" by Giani Tarlok Singh published by Bhai Javahar Singh Kirpal Singh and Co.

Chapter 13 is "Opposition to Baba Farid". On page 45 it says: "The Qazi of Ajodhan (Pakpattan) wrote to the senior Qazi of Multan (Qazi ul Kazat) to say 'There has come here a Sufi dervish, he does all his conduct against the Sharia. In the mosque he starts dancing himself, and has dance done to Kwallis (poems/songs). Write to me to tell what punishment should be given to this infidel (Kaffir), all the Muslims are pained, he is to be removed from the mosque. The Hindus used to become Muslim, now because of him, their spines are stiffened. He makes a show of miracles.'" (Emphasis added by me.)

Now, I'm not going to vouch for the allegatinos that the Pakpattan Qazi makes against Farid ji, because even Gurbani states Qazis are known to lie, but it is quite clear that Sheik ji was not only erring against Sharia in a few respects, but was totally against it.

Quite clearly, he was not a Muslim, but an infidel.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BhForce said:

You make it seem like Sheikh Fareed ji was Dr. Zakir Naik, just without a Youtube account. :)

The fact is that Sheikh ji was hated by the Muslims of his time.

I have before me a book entitled "Janam Sakhi Sheikh Farid Ji" by Giani Tarlok Singh published by Bhai Javahar Singh Kirpal Singh and Co.

Chapter 13 is "Opposition to Baba Farid". On page 45 it says: "The Qazi of Ajodhan (Pakpattan) wrote to the senior Qazi of Multan (Qazi ul Kazat) to say 'There has come here a Sufi dervish, he does all his conduct against the Sharia. In the mosque he starts dancing himself, and has dance done to Kwallis (poems/songs). Write to me to tell what punishment should be given to this infidel (Kaffir), all the Muslims are pained, he is to be removed from the mosque. The Hindus used to become Muslim, now because of him, their spines are stiffened. He makes a show of miracles.'" (Emphasis added by me.)

Now, I'm not going to vouch for the allegatinos that the Pakpattan Qazi makes against Farid ji, because even Gurbani states Qazis are known to lie, but it is quite clear that Sheik ji was not only erring against Sharia in a few respects, but was totally against it.

Quite clearly, he was not a Muslim, but an infidel.

The fact that I havent responded to you should be sufficient to indicate my complete lack of interest in dialogue with yourself regarding the topic. Stop quoting me, engage with someone else. Cheerio!

Edited by S4NGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically no he wasnt muslim. Not according to mainstream sunni and shia ideological sects who form around 95% of muslim populations.

He would have been and is still considered a heretic (by majority of muslims) and out of the fold of islam for not following the sunnah/hadiths (in his own words he doesn't believe in islamic orthodox beliefs).

Was he a Sikh? Yes he would have come under the defination of a Sikh. All the sufi saints and hindu bhagats in SGGS Ji are not mainstream muslims or mainstream hindu's they had begun the path into forming Sikhi.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/04/2017 at 7:26 PM, SinghSabha1699 said:

Not at all brother. Mere acceptance of one God (who may be called Allah, Ram or Vaheguru or other True Names interchangably) does not mean that Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj self-identified as a Muslim.

In order to be Muslim the second line of the Muslim shahada referring to Prophet Muhammad is compulsory. True Sufi's (like Baba Farid Ji Maharaj) being the non-Muslims they are obviously wholeheartedly reject the Prophet Muhammad on account of the well documented and universally acknowledged acts of terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny that the Prophet openly engaged in without remorse. Remember in Pakistan the Muslims make the similarly false allegation that Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj were Muslim.

Think about it logically Mr Virk.

Can any Sikh ever sit comfortable when such an accusation is labelled against one of our greatest Gurmukhs (who were so blessed that they authored the Truth of Gurbani)!? 

Accusing Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of being Muslim is the most vile accusation thinkable for a Sikh to read. Though to be fair to you it may be that your belief is that all religions are equal and whether one religion condones slavery, terrorism, paedophilia, genocide and misogyny is merely something that should be ignored and is perfectly acceptable to accuse Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of supporting.

This myth cooked up Mughal scribes and the followers of Jinnah that Baba Farid Ji Maharaj were Muslim needs to be destroyed. The nonsensical belief that the 1st Sikh in history (Bhai Mardana Ji) despite being the most ardent Guru ka Sikh somehow should be labelled as a non-Sikh is horrible to read (not that you have said this - but others mistakenly have). 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 as Sikhs do not inadvertently sully the great names of Gurmukhs who rejected terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny as openly glorified in the Holy Quran.

So he was a sufi.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, genie said:

Basically no he wasnt muslim. Not according to mainstream sunni and shia ideological sects who form around 95% of muslim populations.

He would have been and is still considered a heretic (by majority of muslims) and out of the fold of islam for not following the sunnah/hadiths (in his own words he doesn't believe in islamic orthodox beliefs).

Was he a Sikh? Yes he would have come under the defination of a Sikh. All the sufi saints and hindu bhagats in SGGS Ji are not mainstream muslims or mainstream hindu's they had begun the path into forming Sikhi.

So he was a sufi 

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

    • Do you mean, "What is Hukam exactly"? The videos may help you to understand it better:         
    • Yes, because that's not the topic here. The point prokharkoo started was bigteras hardon for Jatts. He is saying some Jatts are good, some bad. Nowhere did he mention pride, or that other castes are inferior. But you, as always, start rambling on. If you go to post secondary, these habits will bring some very low marks.  I'm glad you finally dropped the Daas act. It seemed very forced, almost like you had a reminder to use it whenever possible. When you are truly there, then use it, until now keep from making a mockery of the term. 
    • I don't talk to cognitively challenged people. Take your retarded comment to your Hindu masters.  
    • WJKK WJKF I had visited city Brampton in Ontario few years back to visit my massi Ji and there was a store I can't remember the name now. But they were run entirely on non profit (they had a big yellow sign if that helps if anyone who lives there can comment) and they had them for sale. Sorry I can't remember more.    WJKK WJKF
    • WJKK WJKF Well I can see the resentment you harbour toward females (and the sense of entitlement you feel for having the luck to be born male). You and previous poster chatanga have in the last few posts managed to compare women to animals, disabled, and homosexuals or eunichs. Let me ask you brother why do you feel that male gender is so above women? And why do you think some souls are born male and some female? It is some big prize to be born male and we are above females on spiritual ladder? Because I thought gurbani says human body is precious not just males ones. The way you are both talking makes it sounds like no different than our Hindu casteist neighbours who think a woman was born only to serve and has to wait future lifetimes to have any chance to know liberation.  But aside from that your tone made it sound like women are supposed to be the ones hiding behind us? Is this what you want? You think Is it what Sri Guru Gobind singh Ji Maharaj wanted?? Because bro I want nobody hiding and want us all standing together and think that's what Guru Ji wanted. I won't change my mind and I've spoken or rather typed my thoughts why. I don't see any other explanation than haume to explain you and his thoughts.  Abnway my only purpose posting in this thread was not to engage in nonsense arguments. But to just point out about Lucknow Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and the decision to uphold this principle and they have had several females do this in last few months as an example so it's not mere talk. Other cities will follow and have started to implement as well in india.  Please forgive any mistakes.  With Waheguru Jis kirpa we will all come to understanding.  WJKK WJKF