Tommy Robinson On Manchester Terrorist Attack

[Akalifauj]

3 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Don't worry I don't expect a response, it would require khoj 

This lasted two seconds for the troll.  Its fun when uneducated trolls act tough.  

[jkvlondon]

6 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

You very easily reaffirmed your thoughts on the first part of the question but what about the second? 

 

How do you resolve in your logic Mian Mir etc.. 

Don't worry I don't expect a response, it would require khoj 

mian mir was a bhagat of Akal Purakh , he was friends with our Guru Sahiban because he recognised their true roop . Mian Mir was not a zealot for islamic polity but for the true sense of islam - living in raza of Allah, doing sachi ibadat for reaching the point of hikikat . 

[BhForce]

For the information of anybody reading this thread, no Sikh ever held Sai Mian Mir to be the foundation layer of Darbar Sahib before the turn of the 20th century.

The first person to allege that Mian Mir layed the foundation of Darbar Sahib was Butte (pronunced boo-tay) Shah, a Muslim mullah. "None of the writers of Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Mehma Parkash (1776), Bansavalinama, Gurkirat Parkash (1812), Suraj Granth nor Pracheen Panth Parkash by Rattan Singh Bhangu had indicated that Mian Mir was involved in laying the foundation of Sri Harimandar Sahib."

'He [Rattan Singh Bhangu] said clearly to Murray after seeing the history written by Butay Shah, “he will write history in a way that will harm the Singhs.” And also “how will he write the truth? He will write what is the opposite.” (Sri Guru Panth Parkash Poorbaardh Bisram dooa)“'

Kavi Santokh Singh's Suraj Prakash is the magnum opus of Sikh history. He writes that Guru Arjan Dev ji layed the foundation of Darbar Sahib:

ਇਮਿ ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕਰੀ ਬ੍ਰਿਧ ਜਬੈ। ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਅਰਜਨ ਕਰ ਪੰਕਜ ਤਬੈ ॥੧੩॥

ਗਹੀ ਈਂਟ ਤਹਿ ਕਰੀ ਟਿਕਾਵਨ। ਮੰਦਰ ਅਵਿਚਲ ਨੀਵ ਰਖਾਵਨ।

https://searchgurbani.com/sri_gur_pratap_suraj_granth/page/414/volume/2

"Bhai Mani Singh passed on his knowledge to Bhai Gurbaksh Singh, who then passed the knowledge to Bhai Surat Singh who educated his two sons, Bhai Gurdas Singh and Bhai Sant Singh. It was from Bhai Sant Singh that Kavi Santokh Singh learned of the foundation of Sri Harimandar Sahib. It is clear that Kavi Santokh Singh’s knowledge is more reliable than that of Butay Shah."

Quotations from this thread, taken from an SGPC publication:

 

 

[genie]

5 minutes ago, BhForce said:

For the information of anybody reading this thread, no Sikh ever held Sai Mian Mir to be the foundation layer of Darbar Sahib before the turn of the 20th century.

The first person to allege that Mian Mir layed the foundation of Darbar Sahib was Butte (pronunced boo-tay) Shah, a Muslim mullah. "None of the writers of Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Mehma Parkash (1776), Bansavalinama, Gurkirat Parkash (1812), Suraj Granth nor Pracheen Panth Parkash by Rattan Singh Bhangu had indicated that Mian Mir was involved in laying the foundation of Sri Harimandar Sahib."

'He [Rattan Singh Bhangu] said clearly to Murray after seeing the history written by Butay Shah, “he will write history in a way that will harm the Singhs.” And also “how will he write the truth? He will write what is the opposite.” (Sri Guru Panth Parkash Poorbaardh Bisram dooa)“'

Kavi Santokh Singh's Suraj Prakash is the magnum opus of Sikh history. He writes that Guru Arjan Dev ji layed the foundation of Darbar Sahib:

ਇਮਿ ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕਰੀ ਬ੍ਰਿਧ ਜਬੈ। ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਅਰਜਨ ਕਰ ਪੰਕਜ ਤਬੈ ॥੧੩॥

ਗਹੀ ਈਂਟ ਤਹਿ ਕਰੀ ਟਿਕਾਵਨ। ਮੰਦਰ ਅਵਿਚਲ ਨੀਵ ਰਖਾਵਨ।

https://searchgurbani.com/sri_gur_pratap_suraj_granth/page/414/volume/2

"Bhai Mani Singh passed on his knowledge to Bhai Gurbaksh Singh, who then passed the knowledge to Bhai Surat Singh who educated his two sons, Bhai Gurdas Singh and Bhai Sant Singh. It was from Bhai Sant Singh that Kavi Santokh Singh learned of the foundation of Sri Harimandar Sahib. It is clear that Kavi Santokh Singh’s knowledge is more reliable than that of Butay Shah."

Quotations from this thread, taken from an SGPC publication:

 

 

Thats quite interesting but even if a muslim did lay the foundation stone it would not matter it would be still considered a positive step as an example for community cohesion and coexistence between faiths.

What we should focus on if a muslim did lay the foundation layer is what kinda muslim was he. Was he salafi? Shia? Sunni? Sufi?

My bet is mian mir was a Sufi.... and thus it takes him outside the fold of islam and a heretic according to mainstream Islam.

Also the land to build harmandir sahib was gifted to the Sikhs by a muslim ruler I think i read somewhere...so there were friendly relationships between muslims and Sikhs in Sikh history as well as the various conflicts same can be said with the hindu king's there was alliances with some (maratha's, etc) and various battles against others like the hindu hill raja's.

[BhForce]

4 minutes ago, genie said:

Thats quite interesting but even if a muslim did lay the foundation stone it would not matter it would be still considered a positive step as an example for community cohesion and coexistence between faiths.

OK. It is possible Maulvi Butte Shah's allegation is true, but it's also possible that the Easter Bunny layed the foundation of Darbar Sahib.

But one thing that's a fact is that our ancestors did not believe Sai Mian Mir layed the foundation of Darbar Sahib.

Secondly, the story of Sai Mian Mir's involvement is self-refuting: If he was a fervent believer in the Prophet Mohammed (in the way that Muslims normally are) he would believe that there can't be a prophet after Mohammed and to claim to be one is blasphemy against the Muslim religion. So why would a such a Muslim go to the foundation ceremony of a new religion at the invitation of a self-proclaimed prophet (Guru Arjan ji)? If he went, he automatically would not be a person to believe in the correctness of the Prophet Mohammed's exploits (including coitus with a women after having just killed her husband).

[BhForce]

18 minutes ago, genie said:

My bet is mian mir was a Sufi.... and thus it takes him outside the fold of islam and a heretic according to mainstream Islam.

Quite possible, brother, or even probable.

Wikipedia calls him a Sufi, citing 

Hanif, N. (2000). Biographical Encyclopaedia of Sufis: South Asia. Sarup & Sons, New Delhi. ISBN 8176250872. pp. 205–209.

The book cited claims that Mian Mir was a Sufi syncretist, as was his grandfather.

This Chisti (Sufi) website talks about Mian Mir, and his sayings:

http://www.chishti.ru/hazratmianmir.htm

If you have a look at the section on his sayings and teachings, none mention copulating with a woman after just having killed her husband.

[MisterrSingh]

11 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Secondly, the story of Sai Mian Mir's involvement is self-refuting: If he was a fervent believer in the Prophet Mohammed (in the way that Muslims normally are) he would believe that there can't be a prophet after Mohammed and to claim to be one is blasphemy against the Muslim religion. So why would a such a Muslim go to the foundation ceremony of a new religion at the invitation of a self-proclaimed prophet (Guru Arjan ji)? If he went, he automatically would not be a person to believe in the correctness of the Prophet Mohammed's exploits (including coitus with a women after having just killed her husband).

This needs to be framed for posterity, lol. This is exactly the argument I used when I came up against a Sikh far-left Islamic apologist who was making sweeping statements as if she was leader of the Sikhs. I left her flustered by presenting the most basic of facts, and the best she could muster in reply was, "Let me believe what I want to believe." What does that even mean?

 

[genie]

14 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Quite possible, brother, or even probable.

Wikipedia calls him a Sufi, citing 

Hanif, N. (2000). Biographical Encyclopaedia of Sufis: South Asia. Sarup & Sons, New Delhi. ISBN 8176250872. pp. 205–209.

The book cited claims that Mian Mir was a Sufi syncretist, as was his grandfather.

This Chisti (Sufi) website talks about Mian Mir, and his sayings:

http://www.chishti.ru/hazratmianmir.htm

If you have a look at the section on his sayings and teachings, none mention copulating with a woman after just having killed her husband.

This is why its important we draw a distinction between a muslim of the sunni/saiafi variety and a sufi (a heretic within mainstream islam).

Its highly important to counter the argument when a far left islamo-apologist tells our people that a muslim laid the foundation state of darbar sahib... we can then counter that narrative by saying the person who laid the alleged foundation stone is considered a heretic in mainstream islam because he was a sufi of the chisti order..... they are not considered muslims by approx 95% of the muslim population.

Also when an islamo-apologist defends muslims citing such nonsense we can shut them up with a few enlightening facts.

[BhForce]

10 minutes ago, genie said:

This is why its important we draw a distinction between a muslim of the sunni/saiafi variety and a sufi (a heretic within mainstream islam).

Just in case they don't get it (the import of someone being a Sufi), you can ask them if they consider a Sant Nirankari to be a Sikh or an anti-Sikh offshoot. Granted many people might be so blind as to think of Sant Nirankaris as devout Gursikhs, but I think there are a great many who do consider Sant Nirankaris, Radha Swamis, and so on to be anti-Sikh cults but don't have good knowledge about Islam, and they can be reached through this method. 

[jkvlondon]

10 minutes ago, genie said:

This is why its important we draw a distinction between a muslim of the sunni/saiafi variety and a sufi (a heretic within mainstream islam).

Its highly important to counter the argument when a far left islamo-apologist tells our people that a muslim laid the foundation state of darbar sahib... we can then counter that narrative by saying the person who laid the alleged foundation stone is considered a heretic in mainstream islam because he was a sufi of the chisti order..... they are not considered muslims by approx 95% of the muslim population.

Also when an islamo-apologist defends muslims citing such nonsense we can shut them up with a few enlightening facts.

sufis do not have to have any allegiance to any faith although most people assume wrongly it has something to do with islam . They are purely about the khoj for Akal Purakh by whatever means