Was Sheikh Farid Ji a Muslim?

[Sukhvirk1976]

4 minutes ago, Kira said:

What on earth does that have to do with anything? By your stupid logic I could say Aztec practices are just as fine because "1 on-ankar" I think you're either mentally disturbed or simply really thick. 

I've actually read portions of the Vedas, I've read Gurbani and im in the process of reading the Quran. So yes, I've tried my hardest to draw a proper conclusion based on empircal facts.

What the actual hell lol? labels? lmao. the word Sikh or Gursikh is used hundred of times, that's a label you muppet. I already know what verse you're referring to and that verse was Guru Nanak Dev Ji instructing Muslims on how to lead a pious life, the same Gurbani also says that Muslims are 1 eyed and unable to see God. So please. Try again.

 

Same, I've yet to meet someone who spams reply because putting everything together seems too much mental strain for him.

I need not to say anymore.. The use of Pejoratives are telling. 

In the most simplistic interpretation or to be more blunt one who doesn't understand  advaita /non duality " I could say Aztec practices are just as fine because "1 on-ankar" except bani takes us to a next level. The example you use is one of ritualism or blind faith becoming more important than the message.. Ironically what you are doing 

You also describe your khoj as being based on 'emperical' facts.. Empericism is based on experienced facts.. And whilst that informs us bani also tells us to search for truth through rationality.. The truth is! Whether you and I experience it. 

"I think you're either mentally disturbed or simply really thick. "  all gur prasad 

[Sukhvirk1976]

25 minutes ago, Kira said:

What on earth does that have to do with anything? By your stupid logic I could say Aztec practices are just as fine because "1 on-ankar" I think you're either mentally disturbed or simply really thick. 

I've actually read portions of the Vedas, I've read Gurbani and im in the process of reading the Quran. So yes, I've tried my hardest to draw a proper conclusion based on empircal facts.

What the actual hell lol? labels? lmao. the word Sikh or Gursikh is used hundred of times, that's a label you muppet. I already know what verse you're referring to and that verse was Guru Nanak Dev Ji instructing Muslims on how to lead a pious life, the same Gurbani also says that Muslims are 1 eyed and unable to see God. So please. Try again.

 

Same, I've yet to meet someone who spams reply because putting everything together seems too much mental strain for him.

We could both exchange pejoratives but I think we should rise above it 

[Kira]

16 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I need not to say anymore.. The use of Pejoratives are telling. 

In the most simplistic interpretation or to be more blunt one who doesn't understand  advaita /non duality " I could say Aztec practices are just as fine because "1 on-ankar" except bani takes us to a next level. The example you use is one of ritualism or blind faith becoming more important than the message.. Ironically what you are doing 

You also describe your khoj as being based on 'emperical' facts.. Empericism is based on experienced facts.. And whilst that informs us bani also tells us to search for truth through rationality.. The truth is! Whether you and I experience it. 

"I think you're either mentally disturbed or simply really thick. "  all gur prasad 

The argument that non-duality can be applied to anything other than true followers of God is rather stale and false. Fact- Gurbani said that Muhammad got lost in Maya, if the very leader of a faith is lost in Maya, so are the followers. You claim everything is within God so my argument is just fine. You claimed that its possible to be a Muslim and and a Sikh, I pointed out it wasn't. Gurbani itself has criticised Islam, yet you seem so keen on pushing that "labels" are meaningless.  If you asked any Mahapurkh who they were they'd say a Sikh of Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh Ji described God as his "Guru" thus he was also a "Sikh ". The stupidity of your argument that labels are meaningless is almost as hilarious as your argument that you can be a Sikh and a Muslim.Everything is 1-onakar as you put it, so uhm no. By your logic all of it is extremely fine as its all just God. 

Blind Faith as you so nicely seem to think is the belief that everything about  a certain thing is completely perfect. I do believe that Gurbani is completely perfect, that's an application of Blind Faith. Don't you? If you don't then I dare say you're not a Sikh at all. 

Once again Bani is being misconstrued by you. Bani tells us to find the truth through rationality WITH the help of a Guru. A teacher, if the teacher is wrong then the student is almost certainly wrong too. 

Every Single person in the whole of history who entered Sachkhand or even experienced God was enlightened by Guru Nanak Dev Ji himself. 

[Sukhvirk1976]

5 minutes ago, Kira said:

The argument that non-duality can be applied to anything other than true followers of God is rather stale and false. Fact- Gurbani said that Muhammad got lost in Maya, if the very leader of a faith is lost in Maya, so are the followers. You claim everything is within God so my argument is just fine. You claimed that its possible to be a Muslim and and a Sikh, I pointed out it wasn't. Gurbani itself has criticised Islam, yet you seem so keen on pushing that "labels" are meaningless.  If you asked any Mahapurkh who they were they'd say a Sikh of Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh Ji described God as his "Guru" thus he was also a "Sikh ". The stupidity of your argument that labels are meaningless is almost as hilarious as your argument that you can be a Sikh and a Muslim.Everything is 1-onakar as you put it, so uhm no. By your logic all of it is extremely fine as its all just God. 

Blind Faith as you so nicely seem to think is the belief that everything about  a certain thing is completely perfect. I do believe that Gurbani is completely perfect, that's an application of Blind Faith. Don't you? If you don't then I dare say you're not a Sikh at all. 

Once again Bani is being misconstrued by you. Bani tells us to find the truth through rationality WITH the help of a Guru. A teacher, if the teacher is wrong then the student is almost certainly wrong too. 

 

So you don't believe in 1ongkaar? That is what you saying.. 

[Sukhvirk1976]

6 minutes ago, Kira said:

The argument that non-duality can be applied to anything other than true followers of God is rather stale and false. Fact- Gurbani said that Muhammad got lost in Maya, if the very leader of a faith is lost in Maya, so are the followers. You claim everything is within God so my argument is just fine. You claimed that its possible to be a Muslim and and a Sikh, I pointed out it wasn't. Gurbani itself has criticised Islam, yet you seem so keen on pushing that "labels" are meaningless.  If you asked any Mahapurkh who they were they'd say a Sikh of Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh Ji described God as his "Guru" thus he was also a "Sikh ". The stupidity of your argument that labels are meaningless is almost as hilarious as your argument that you can be a Sikh and a Muslim.Everything is 1-onakar as you put it, so uhm no. By your logic all of it is extremely fine as its all just God. 

Blind Faith as you so nicely seem to think is the belief that everything about  a certain thing is completely perfect. I do believe that Gurbani is completely perfect, that's an application of Blind Faith. Don't you? If you don't then I dare say you're not a Sikh at all. 

Once again Bani is being misconstrued by you. Bani tells us to find the truth through rationality WITH the help of a Guru. A teacher, if the teacher is wrong then the student is almost certainly wrong too. 

 

I agree with you except with your exclusivity 

[Kira]

1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

So you don't believe in 1ongkaar? That is what you saying.. 

Where have I stated that? I made the point that using that argument is completely wrong. By saying that to just about everything you can justify or completely criminalise anything you want. Stab someone? its ok, steal something? that's all cool, right and wrong exist on this plane of existence, the only person devoid of it is God himself. Using the whole "true" argument is completely wrong, further more there is nothing exclusive about Sikhi, even those who weren't Sikhs end up being reborn purely for 1 thing and that's the gift of Amrit, they then move on and enter Sachkhand, like it or not but the House of Nanak is the only shining light in Kalyug. Anyone can join, there's no requirement. In Kalyug the only way to get to God is through Gurbani, all the enlightened Bhagats did this. In various other Yugs things were different (slightly). 

 

[Sukhvirk1976]

2 minutes ago, Kira said:

Where have I stated that? I made the point that using that argument is completely wrong. By saying that to just about everything you can justify or completely criminalise anything you want. Stab someone? its ok, steal something? that's all cool, right and wrong exist on this plane of existence, the only person devoid of it is God himself. Using the whole "true" argument is completely wrong, further more there is nothing exclusive about Sikhi, even those who weren't Sikhs end up being reborn purely for 1 thing and that's the gift of Amrit, they then move on and enter Sachkhand, like it or not but the House of Nanak is the only shining light in Kalyug. Anyone can join, there's no requirement. In Kalyug the only way to get to God is through Gurbani, all the enlightened Bhagats did this. In various other Yugs things were different (slightly). 

 

You want to rage against me but really were not a million miles away from each other.. 

You say anyone can join but you clearly don't actually believe that.. 

For someone to join your club you have a number of prerequisites and standards 

[Kira]

11 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

You want to rage against me but really were not a million miles away from each other.. 

You say anyone can join but you clearly don't actually believe that.. 

For someone to join your club you have a number of prerequisites and standards 

I'm not raging at you. Anyone can join. The only requirement is following  the one Supreme God and accepting Guru Nanak Dev Ji's jyot as the only guiding lamp in this dark age; What's so difficult about that prerequisite? 

Anyone, regardless of "caste" , race, sex, sexuality etc are all free to enter the House of Nanak.  You seem to want create a problem from anything.

[Sukhvirk1976]

13 minutes ago, Kira said:

I'm not raging at you. Anyone can join. The only requirement is following  the one Supreme God and accepting Guru Nanak Dev Ji's jyot as the only guiding lamp in this dark age; What's so difficult about that prerequisite? 

Anyone, regardless of "caste" , race, sex, sexuality etc are all free to enter the House of Nanak.  You seem to want create a problem from anything.

I believe that is called a oxymoron.. Anyone can join but.. When the truth of akaal is eternal and beyond boundaries how can we make prerequisites.. Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't 

[Sukhvirk1976]

16 minutes ago, Kira said:

I'm not raging at you. Anyone can join. The only requirement is following  the one Supreme God and accepting Guru Nanak Dev Ji's jyot as the only guiding lamp in this dark age; What's so difficult about that prerequisite? 

Anyone, regardless of "caste" , race, sex, sexuality etc are all free to enter the House of Nanak.  You seem to want create a problem from anything.

I'm asking questions sorry if you find questions problematic