Kira

Has anyone here read the Quran

107 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Kira said:

I;me atpted to order the Qurathen from India in Gurmukhi script with proper meanings too lol, but im pretty sure my family there might start telling my parents I'm turning into a muslim. 

I would ask my muslim classmates but In all honesty I want more neutral opinions of it, not ones forged in the depths of childhood brainwashing lol.

If I were you I would read the bible first. Stories from It make the 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sikhni777 said:

If I were you I would read the bible first. Stories from It make the 

I've read the bible :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a prime example of why i believe Sikhs are, broadly, decent people at heart. For a base group of people this thread would've signalled a green light to express some pretty offensive opinions on the founder of Islam - something which I've observed Muslims partake in when it comes to a casual discussion of our Guru Sahibs - but nobody to my knowledge has relished the opportunity to lay into their big guy. Yes, we question their beliefs and certain aspects of their writings, but not in a way that you'll see in the comments section of a YouTube anti-islam video or on various discussion sites.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kira said:

I've read the bible :) 

I used to read it too when I was a kid, but don't remember anything. Also used to sing hymns at school, but I never knew the words, so used to pretend I was singing by miming to them, but make up my own words. 

Edited by simran345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, simran345 said:

I used to read it too when I was a kid, but don't remember anything. Also used to sing hymns at school, but I never knew the words, so used to pretend I was singing by miming to them. 

I actually enjoyed quite a bit of it, the stories anyways. Jesus seemed like a really amazing person, Joan of Arc was an interesting read (historically as she was able to hear the voices of the angels).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kira said:

I actually enjoyed quite a bit of it, the stories anyways. Jesus seemed like a really amazing person, Joan of Arc was an interesting read (historically as she was able to hear the voices of the angels).

I don't remember any of the stories, only Jesus, it's weird as I can't remember anything as I grew up, but used to read a page everyday. I was more interested in the singing the hymns I think. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

I am just saying Indians probably didn't have kurtas and pajamas either. Arabs brought it . Before that indians only wore wrapped clothes like saree, dhoti , lungi etc lol

We owe our kurtey to arabs really . 

Yes, it's true, ancient India did not have sewn clothes. Guru's bana is stitched clothing, and the reason Sikhs wear stitched clothing (chola, kurta-pajama, salwar-kameez) as opposed to sari and dhoti is as a rejection of Vedic values.

http://www.sanatan.org/en/a/290.html shows Hindu preference for unstitched clothes. See also http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/14/saris-reflect-hindu-values/

Share this post


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

Guru Sahiban would not have commented on the quran as such because the quran was not the same as it is now , also the hadiths were ascribed to Mohammed many years after his death ; in that case anyone can say anything and say the prophet said it , I mean the sayings had to be sifted for the final published ones out of many thousands 

What? I understand that the Noble Koran was being finalized in the years after the Prophet Mohammed's death, but Guru Nanak Dev ji was born 837 years after the former's death in 632 AD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Quran is not same as hadiths . Gurbani says nothing on hadiths . 

While your first statement is true, the second is not. It's true that Gurbani is certainly not a long boring commentary on the Hadiths. But Guru Sahib does mention them, and disposes of them in a single statement:

ਨਾਪਾਕ ਪਾਕੁ ਕਰਿ ਹਦੂਰਿ ਹਦੀਸਾ ਸਾਬਤ ਸੂਰਤਿ ਦਸਤਾਰ ਸਿਰਾ ॥੧੨॥

The pertinent part means purify what is impure, and let the God's presence be your hadith. p1048

So, instead of a long, interminable book of what to do and not do, Guru Sahib just says living in the presence of God will keep you on the right track, thus consigning the Hadiths to the dustbin.

Share this post


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

In recent times my mind constantly returns to one question regarding Islam and our Guru Sahibs: if the Qur'an and its teachings are as their scriptures show them to be, why were our Guru Sahibs not unequivocal in their condemnation of the religion, its Prophet, and its teachings? How can the authors of our Bani possibly be so forgiving of the content of the Qur'an? I don't get it at all.

I think in the end we just have to accept that Guru is Satguru, and has the right to decide what to do (not like people who loudly ask why does Bachittar Natak not mention Pir Budhu Shah?). 

That said, I think it's OK to speculate, and some Sikhs have said the reason is simply that Guru Sahib did not think the Arabian Prophet's book was worth Their time. I disagree that Guru Sahib was forgiving of the Quran. The only possible neutral statement is "jhoota jo na bichare", but that's basically a call to be knowledgeable, which is really inarguable.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BhForce said:

I think in the end we just have to accept that Guru is Satguru, and has the right to decide what to do (not like people who loudly ask why does Bachittar Natak not mention Pir Budhu Shah?). 

That said, I think it's OK to speculate, and some Sikhs have said the reason is simply that Guru Sahib did not think the Arabian Prophet's book was worth Their time. I disagree that Guru Sahib was forgiving of the Quran. The only possible neutral statement is "jhoota jo na bichare", but that's basically a call to be knowledgeable, which is really inarguable.

Great points. I suppose due to us living in a period of history where these matters are constantly under intense examination, we perhaps assign greater importance to these issues than they actually merit. Still, i do believe Islam and its followers will have a significant role to play in the long-term future of this planet, and it's for that reason i find myself wondering why the muted reaction to their scriptures from our spiritual giants, more so considering the content of our own scriptures in comparison to that which was followed by the ruling regime of those times. 

Share this post


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

Perhaps that has something to do with the style and level of competence of the translator? I've read the English versions of the major Sikh banis, and I've got to say they are underwhelming to say the least. There's none of the poetry and the flow of the original Gurmukhi, which is understandable, but as a layman who appreciates the English language I'm pretty certain someone with a flair for the English language could create a superb English translation of SGGS Ji. Even in terms of grammar, the English translations are the typical broken Indian-English taught in Indian schools. It's actually quite a shame that for someone who might only be capable of reading English would come away disappointed in the English translation.

Friend, I have not encountered a single translation with broken English. The translations might not be leet-speak, rapper-talk, or whatever else is spoken on the mean streets of Harlem or Manchester, but that does not mean there is any problem with sentence structure, syntax, or grammar in those translations. Let's not dis our people for no reason.

Do you have any extensive quotations from translations you consider broken English?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Great points. I suppose due to us living in a period of history where these matters are constantly under intense examination, we perhaps assign greater importance to these issues than they actually merit. Still, i do believe Islam and its followers will have a significant role to play in the long-term future of this planet, and it's for that reason i find myself wondering why the muted reaction to their scriptures from our spiritual giants, more so considering the content of our own scriptures in comparison to that which was followed by the ruling regime of those times. 

Exactly. Since the world is experiencing Islamic terror seemingly non-stop since 2001, everyone (including us) wants to know what X has to say about Islam. But we should trust that Guru Sahib knows not just our current needs for the early 21st century, but for all eternity.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

The one most common argument put forward by Muslims to a non-Muslim who's read the Qur'an and the Hadiths, and isn't having any of it is, "But you need to read it in Arabic to appreciate it's purity and depth!" So begins a never-ending process of wrapping the reader in a web of activity to deflect criticism. 

I'll get a hold of what's the commonly accepted best English translation. 

Right, and so the best way to answer that is "I've read the translation authorized by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques (Saudi Arabia)". That should shut them up.

Quote

In 1980, the Saudi religious establishment felt the need for a reliable English translation and exegesis of the Qur'an to be made available for the increasing English language readership across the globe. After researching the various translations in print at the time, four high-level committees under the General Presidency of the Department of Islamic Research chose Yusuf Ali's translation and commentary as the best available for publication. After significant revisions, a large Hardback edition was printed in 1985 by the King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex of Saudi Arabia, according to Royal Decree No. 12412.[2] This edition served as the officially sanctioned English translation of the Saudi religious establishment, until it was replaced by the Noble Qur'an translation upon the latter's arrival in the marketplace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Qur'an:_Text,_Translation_and_Commentary#Saudi_sponsorship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Quran_(Hilali-Khan)

 

Share this post


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

Friend, I have not encountered a single translation with broken English. The translations might not be leet-speak, rapper-talk, or whatever else is spoken on the mean streets of Harlem or Manchester, but that does not mean there is any problem with sentence structure, syntax, or grammar in those translations. Let's not dis our people for no reason.

Do you have any extensive quotations from translations you consider broken English?

It definitely has that quality which is only found in the type of English taught in Indian schools. I'm referring to the only major translation available, the Singh Khalsa version. So whilst not technically broken, to a non-Indian with an ear for syntax and sentence flow, it is quite rough going at times; not constantly but occasionally.

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I'm referring to the only major translation available, the Singh Khalsa version.

There are actually many English translations available (meaning available the next time you visit Amritsar--might be available on Amazon, I don't know). By "Singh Khalsa" are you referring to the Sant Singh Khalsa version?

Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa was a white (if that matters) American follower of Harbhajan Singh Yogi. His translation has deficiencies, but those deficiencies are not of English usage. If anything, people have praised the Sant Singh Khalsa version for using more modern English.

Broken English is, in my consideration, when you mean to say:

--I gave the book to the man.

saying instead

--Me give book man

That's broken.

But saying "smite" for "strike" or "kine" for "cows" is not wrong in any way.

Share this post


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

Yes, it's true, ancient India did not have sewn clothes. Guru's bana is stitched clothing, and the reason Sikhs wear stitched clothing (chola, kurta-pajama, salwar-kameez) as opposed to sari and dhoti is as a rejection of Vedic values.

http://www.sanatan.org/en/a/290.html shows Hindu preference for unstitched clothes. See also http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/14/saris-reflect-hindu-values/

first thing is kacchera instead of two dhotis , how the hell did they go to battle and keep their clothes in order without belts etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

first thing is kacchera instead of two dhotis , how the hell did they go to battle and keep their clothes in order without belts etc?

Only Ksychatrias fight in Hinduism, their warrior clothes would be different from regular people's clothes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Only Ksychatrias fight in Hinduism, their warrior clothes would be different from regular people's clothes. 

the indian films (modern) depicting such fighters seem to be wearing a version of the dhoti , but the pyjami is Indian or made by apne later in history?

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

the indian films (modern) depicting such fighters seem to be wearing a version of the dhoti , but the pyjami is Indian or made by apne later in history?

A movie is entertainment. There is so much special effects and visual effects you can't even imagine.

Share this post


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

Right. When you're living in an Islamic State (Islamic Raj), everything is at the mercy of the state, so you can't really say people are converting voluntarily, because Muslims abused the power of the state to coerce non-Muslims, so you can't call it "non-violent conversions". It's like either your daughter will be raped and dishonored, and your house will be looted, or you can "voluntarily" accept Islam, and we'll find a husband for your daughter, and you can continue living in your house. What a choice.

Guru Sahiban's Hukam:

Sutantar Vicharna. Raaj Kaaj Dian Kamaan Tae Doosrae Mutaa Dia Purshaan Noo Huk Nahi Daenaa – Rule independently In the affairs of government, do not give people of other religions authority or power.

Commentary:  Sikh respect all religions but do not give persons of these religions any power or authority. The other religions of the world are flawed and fanatical. In the Islamic and Christian religions the cardinal principle is that you will go to Hell if you are not a Muslim or a Christian. The adherents of these religions are dangerous. In their wake they have murdered hundreds of millions of adherents of other faiths. The violation of this edict is the prime reason that the Empire of Maharajah Ranjit Singh was destroyed. In the Sikh Empire, individuals of the Muslim and Hindu faiths rose to the highest positions of authority without any discrimination. When the Emperor died, these same individuals betrayed the Sikh nation to the English. The Hindu Dogra ministers murdered all of the descendants of  the Emperor other than the infant Duleep Singh who was captured by English and held captive all of his life. The infant Kharak Singh was murdered by a dogra Hindu minister at the age of four by bashing his head in with a stone.

 

http://www.sikharchives.com/?p=2976 (Commands of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj)

Edited by pavitarsk
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/04/2017 at 7:18 PM, MisterrSingh said:

“I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)

He (the Prophet) lift up his (al Hassan’s) shirt and kissed his (little) <banned word filter activated>..”
روى أنه صلى الله عليه و سلم قبل زبيبة الحسن أو الحسين
He (the prophet) kissed the (little) <banned word filter activated> of al Hassan or al Husein
رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فرج ما بين فخذي الحسين و قبل زبيبته
He (the prophet) put Husein’s legs apart and kissed his (little) <banned word filter activated>

Another Hadith. Majma al-Zawa’id, Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami, 299/9 مجمع الزوائد لعلي بن أبى بكر الهيثمي

رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فرج ما بين فخذي الحسين و قبل زبيبته
رواه الطبراني و إسناده حسن
translated into English: “I saw the Messenger of Allah pbuh putting Husein’s legs apart and kissing his (little) <banned word filter activated>.”

 

You're chatting nonsense. Show me the beauty in any of the above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/04/2017 at 10:59 PM, Guest Beautiful Video said:

 

No, no, no. No amount of justifications and "scholarly interpretations" can explain away the founder of a major faith kissing little boys' penises. Try that with the mentally ill and gullible, not with me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-4-24 at 0:28 AM, Guest Muhammad said:

 

You are a total piece of <banned word filter activated>.  Your time is coming again when Sikhs will burn you cowards alive before skinning you alive and feeding this non halal meat to rest of your brothers begging not to be burnt alive.  

1 person likes this

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...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  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

Loading...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The bases of rehat didn't start in Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji time.  Bases of rehat is from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji and its, Ik Onkar praise, hukam, Naam, and simran.  This guy says anyone can do paath.  Then how come he doesn't understand Tvad Parsad Swaiyve?  Swaiyve say bases of shastar vidyia is paath.  If Mona can do paath without Amrit how come they are not taking following the Gurus hukam to keep hair uncut?  This guy speaks of nihangs.  Nihangs say rehit is grown and paath is done by doing praise of Akal Purakh.  This guy must be talking to nidar the giddar who drinks alcohol and this niddars foundation. First 5 Gurus didn't even pick up a sword to fight anyone.  According to this poster this means the gurus never followed the active lifestyle rehit.  Neither did anyone of the Gurmukhs of the first 5 Gurus period.  Therefore these first 5 gurus only did paath which even the hindus and Muslims were doing.  See how ridiculous these extremist liberals thinking has gone.  They want people to stop reading Gurbani.  This makes people more vulnerable and can easily be swayed by these type of people.
    • Guest Jagsaw_Singh
      Southall had it from the early 80's Ranjeet. I didn't but everyone else around me did. People from Hounslow etc would call it the 'Southall innit accent' and I don't think any of us knew at the time how it would go on to become London's dominant accent. I remember at the time feeling bad how I wasn't speaking in the same way that all my friends and cousins had begun to speak. It made me feel bad but I put it down to the fact that I was spending way too little time doing 'southall things' and way too much time doing 'white things' (thinking back...kinda gayish camp things) such as reading poetry books while sitting in Highgate cemetery. I think that was my downfall. If I never did that I would have ended up speaking the way I should have ended up speaking. Thats actually quite interesting because it's always fascinated me how our perception of London manors and neighbourhoods is based entirely on man-made concepts of London Boroughs from the 1960's. For example, some council official in the 60's decided that a London Borough of Hounslow would be made and Brentford would be part of it. So now, when we think of Brentford we automatically associate it with Hounslow just because of that one decision from the 1960's. Historically however, Brentford, along with Boston Manor and Hanwell (W7) were positively joined at the hip with Southall and all 4 were considered extensions of each other. Another interesting point to remember is how we should salute our elders rather than critcise them for the way they pronounce 'Hounslow' and 'Southall'. These old timers from the pends back home have, without even knowing it, proven to be historically 100% accurate. We laughed and criticised them for prounouncing Hounslow as 'Hunslore' and Southall as 'Sultharle',  Nobody could ever have imagined how unbelievably right they are though for Hounslow is a modern day corruption of the original name of the town 'Hundslawe' and Southall is a modern day corruption of the original name of the town 'Sulaale; (Sir De Sulaale was given the plot of land we now know as Southall as a Knight's fee........A Knight's Fee in olde English Law is the equivalent of the olde Punjabi 'Jagir'. The greatest example of a Knights Fee (jagir) in our own Sikh history is the Manjki tract. It's fascinating.....all history is fascinating but this is truly fascinating....because this 'knight's fee' was given to the Dhaliwal Misl that raised the Nishan Sahib over the Red Fort in Delhi and therefore, in one fell swoop, ruled over the whole of the Indian sub-continent. To appease the Sikh misl, the mughals gave them a jagir (knight's fee) of a tract of land in Doaba. That land became to be known as the manjki tract and it;s inhabitants the manjki jats. Where it becomes really interesting is that 95% of the pioneer Sikhs in Southall, Canada, California and what was in the late 1800's the single biggest Sikh point of immigration: Australia (or 'Telia' as it became to be known in Punjabi) came from the Manjki tract) Oh definately full-blown 'Cockney' in the traditional sense Ranjeet. My mum's a classic example but its the same with many of my uncles and aunties born in Southall in the 1950's, 60's and early 70's.......From mid 70's onwards its a very different story. Southall's history actually gives us many clues as to how this phenomena came about. In the early 1900's right up untill the 60's it was a massive industrial hub. It was famous for 2 things...firstly for being the lunatic asylum capital of England and secondly for having 59% of it devoted to industry. Ignoring the major industries that chose Southall, particularly the International American brands that chose Southall as its base such as Johnson and Johnson, Quaker Oats and the German car maker Daimler Benz.....for the subject of this conversation we need to remember 2 things: the fact that Southall was a railway town and, most importantly, the Grand Union Canal (River Brent). The water, to be honest with you, defines the history of Southall and thus the history of the Sikhs of Southall more than anything else. For example, I'm sure everyone here has visited the massive and iconic Havelock Road Singh Sabha Gurdwara but who here realises that the very spot the Gurdwara sits was one, because of it's closeness to the water, was the site of Wedgewood's China plates factory complex ?  I mention that partly because that type of industry explains why Southall attracted so many Wesh people but obviously I'm digressing here because we're trying to explain the cockney element. From 1900 to 1930 (again because of Southall's river/canal connection) more than a dozen major brick, weaving and other factories moved out of Shoreditch in the East End of London and set themselves up in Southall. Their workers came with them. And their voices came with them too.
    • for my well-practiced ear (since I was born within sound of bow bells ( technically a cockney)  southall is more like the Essex accent rather than the true cockney accent (no apples and pears, jaffas or mutton phrases etc) . which makes sense as central line is direct link to the two halfs . One classic telltale sign is the constant use of innit as punctuation, you don't get that in Cockney it's used purely in sentence context. I agree there is a difference in vowel use and cadence south of the Water , I did three years there ,new cross, new cross gate, brockley (eldest born at Lewisham hospital),  it didn't take.