Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Preeet said:

Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa
Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh ji

I get what you mean, but why should we care if Islam is enough? If people want to practice through ethical means, then they should be allowed to practice it.. 

No one said they shouldn't be allowed to practice it, its one thing letting someone practice it, its another saying its equal to the truth. People are free to do what they want, but saying Islam is on the same stage as Sikhism is like saying a half baked loaf of bread is equal to a fully baked one. 

Quote

As for the final prophet title or w/e, I don`t think we can simply judge it because who knows what the truth regarding Muhammad ji was actually like. Better safe than sorry when it comes to judging ancient religious leaders, rather lets spend our time praising our own Sri Guru Sahib jis

If you bother reading Batichar Natek you'd know Guru Gobind Singh Ji already explained Muhammed's character there. Muhammad said that any other religion after Islam is false, If you agree with that statement then suit yourself. If you think you lack the common sense to say that Muhammad wasn't the "final prophet" then you need some serious help. 

Quote

If bhagats have followers & they are not Sikh, then let them live as well.. They will come to know the truth through kirpa of God.

Once again you completely miss the point. No one is saying lets go out and start forcibly converting people, all anyone has done on this thread is clear the air about who Farid Ji was. If you think that's wrong then stop posting here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Preeet said:

Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa
Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh ji

I get what you mean, but why should we care if Islam is enough? If people want to practice through ethical means, then they should be allowed to practice it.. As for the final prophet title or w/e, I don`t think we can simply judge it because who knows what the truth regarding Muhammad ji was actually like. Better safe than sorry when it comes to judging ancient religious leaders, rather lets spend our time praising our own Sri Guru Sahib jis. If bhagats have followers & they are not Sikh, then let them live as well.. They will come to know the truth through kirpa of God.

This thread is not about whether Islam is enough or the Prophet Mohammed was perfect or imperfect. This thread is solely about whether Sheikh Fareed Ji was a Muslim, under a reasonable definition of Muslim.

Those other questions can be debated or have been debated in other threads, and I urge everyone to stick to the topic of this particular thread. Islam could be good, bad, or medium, but this thread is whether Sheikh ji was a follower or rejecter of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Preeet said:

Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa
Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh ji

Why does it matter to which faith he belonged to? All I know from my limited knowledge is that he was a chardikala brahmgyani follower of Paramatman ji, and we must strive to be as blessed as him.. Regarding to if he was Muslim or not, it does not matter especially since we believe in the perfect dharma, so why worry.

With respect, I'll tell you why it matters: One of the biggest questions Sikhs without Khanda-Amrit have is "Why do I have to take Amrit?"

If it is established that Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim (as defined above), naturally the next question is: Why do I have to do all this stuff if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim!

Secondly, one of the biggest issues facing Satkar committees is girls marrying Muslims. Now, if it is generally thought that Sheikh Ji was a Muslim (as opposed to an apostate from Islam), then naturally one of the first things the bride or her family will say is: Why can you stop a Muslim from getting married here if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim?

You won't have an hour to answer this question with all sorts of caveats and philosophical detours. You'll have 1 minute or so. Not only that, if most Sikhs should believe Sheikh ji was a Muslim, they won't demonstrate against a Sikh-Muslim marriage in the first place.

Compare that to the situation wherein it is generally known and accepted that Sheikh Farid ji was an apostate from Islam. In such a case, it becomes much harder for someone to argue that a Sikh-Muslim marriage is OK.

What I've attempted to do is give people who are on the frontlines of the battle to prevent destruction of our faith (ideological or demographic) practical answers to this very pertinent question.

I invite others to agree or disagree that the question of Sheikh ji being Muslim is salient to the Sikh-Muslim marriage issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Kira said:

Yes it does matter if he was a muslim or not, this might come as a shock to you but his bani is within Guru Granth Sahib Ji. IF he was a muslim then logic begs that the path of Islam is enough to reach God because a muslim's writings are included within Gurbani. That also means that the Quran could be considered equal to Gurbani and wait for it, Muhammad was the final prophet of the lord and no one else after him counts. Do you get the conundrum now? 

 

New comers will point to Bhagat Farid and say "he was a muslim so its ok for me to do X,Y,Z" then they'll take it a step further and say that Bhgat Namdev was a follower of Vishnu (for the record he wasn't) and start venerating his idols. Do you get the little issue? The whole point of this thread is to show people that Farid Ji was a Sikh, I don't get why your panties are in a knot over it. 

Your logic is flawed.. Why can't he be a Sikh and a sufi and a Muslim.. If you follow the truth then labels are irrelevant 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BhForce said:

With respect, I'll tell you why it matters: One of the biggest questions Sikhs without Khanda-Amrit have is "Why do I have to take Amrit?"

If it is established that Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim (as defined above), naturally the next question is: Why do I have to do all this stuff if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim!

Secondly, one of the biggest issues facing Satkar committees is girls marrying Muslims. Now, if it is generally thought that Sheikh Ji was a Muslim (as opposed to an apostate from Islam), then naturally one of the first things the bride or her family will say is: Why can you stop a Muslim from getting married here if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim?

You won't have an hour to answer this question with all sorts of caveats and philosophical detours. You'll have 1 minute or so. Not only that, if most Sikhs should believe Sheikh ji was a Muslim, they won't demonstrate against a Sikh-Muslim marriage in the first place.

Compare that to the situation wherein it is generally known and accepted that Sheikh Farid ji was an apostate from Islam. In such a case, it becomes much harder for someone to argue that a Sikh-Muslim marriage is OK.

What I've attempted to do is give people who are on the frontlines of the battle to prevent destruction of our faith (ideological or demographic) practical answers to this very pertinent question.

I invite others to agree or disagree that the question of Sheikh ji being Muslim is salient to the Sikh-Muslim marriage issue.

Sikh Muslim marriage is not a issue and the fact that in your thoughts you outline that the reason you oppose the label of Baba farid ji being Muslim is more to do with the fact that it challenges your rationalization against your irrational opposition to marriage between a plurality of people at gurudwaras is illuminating 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Your logic is flawed.. Why can't he be a Sikh and a sufi and a Muslim.. If you follow the truth then labels are irrelevant 

My logic is fine. If you think you can recite the oath to Muhammad and still be a Sikh then please explain to me how? The very oath says any other religion is false..by reciting it you say Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji are false. So tell me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak and a follower of Muhammad. Tell me how a reciter of the Quran which considers itself the ONLY authority from God also sit there and say Gurbani is the same. That's called Blasphemy is Islam. So no. try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kira said:

My logic is fine. If you think you can recite the oath to Muhammad and still be a Sikh then please explain to me how? The very oath says any other religion is false..by reciting it you say Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji are false. So tell me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak and a follower of Muhammad. Tell me how a reciter of the Quran which considers itself the ONLY authority from God also sit there and say Gurbani is the same. That's called Blasphemy is Islam. So no. try again.

The two are not mutually exclusive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sukhvirk1976 said:

The two are not mutually exclusive 

I've asked you to explain to me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak but also call him a false prophet, how someone can consider the Quran the sole authority of God but also say that Gurbani is the same lmao. Rather than posting 1 sentence answers, maybe explain it a bit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kira said:

I've asked you to explain to me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak but also call him a false prophet, how someone can consider the Quran the sole authority of God but also say that Gurbani is the same lmao. Rather than posting 1 sentence answers, maybe explain it a bit? 

Akaal is beyond the duality. You see dichotomy. 1ongkaar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kira said:

I've asked you to explain to me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak but also call him a false prophet, how someone can consider the Quran the sole authority of God but also say that Gurbani is the same lmao. Rather than posting 1 sentence answers, maybe explain it a bit? 

Do I really need to explain.. Try mool mantar.. I mean this is a Sikh forum.. Have you heard of it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji 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...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use