Jump to content

Tommy Robinson On Manchester Terrorist Attack


singh598
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, BhForce said:

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. 

True, I once came across a punjabi girl on social media who I assumed was a Sikh but later found out she was  from a family that came from the sant nirankari cult .... she was trying to teach me how she believes in love, equality and thats why she dont mind having non-indian partners.

When I told her I was Sikh and I think its important for Sikhs to only be with another sikh she became very hateful against the Sikhs and Sikhism. I then realised its true what they say about the sant nirkankari's these people are brainwashed like venomous snakes there is nothing good about their hypocritical hidden hateful ideology.

Sikh's need to learn who is who and in today's world its even more important especially if we think we are defending people who believe in the same values or similar ideology as us when they clearly dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

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

Thats not true, its only certain minority subsect of Sufi's that dont purely align themselves with Islam. Vast majority of Sufi's consider themselves to be Muslims but vast majority of muslims consider ALL sufi's to be mushriks (hypocrites /heretics/apostates).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, genie said:

Thats not true, its only certain minority subsect of Sufi's that dont purely align themselves with Islam. Vast majority of Sufi's consider themselves to be Muslims but vast majority of muslims consider ALL sufi's to be mushriks (hypocrites /heretics/apostates).

'islam' (uthmanni) as taught by the majority is my point, if they aligh with islam it's the one taught by actual earliest direct contact witnesses- family members of Mohammed such as Ali (who had to run for his life)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, genie said:

Thats not true, its only certain minority subsect of Sufi's that dont purely align themselves with Islam. Vast majority of Sufi's consider themselves to be Muslims but vast majority of muslims consider ALL sufi's to be mushriks (hypocrites /heretics/apostates).

Yes. This is a sadly pervasive myth that Sufis are a wholly benevolent strand of Islam. Yes, whilst their methods of worship may align closer to the mellow dharmic traditions, and their beliefs aren't manifest in the same visibly direct methods as their Sunni and Shia stablemates, a central and indisputable belief of every single Sufi is the strengthening of the Ummah and the eventual establishing of the Caliphate. The difference is the speed of progress undertaken towards the Caliphate: the mainstream Islamic sects wish to roar to their particular goal as soon as possible, whilst Sufis are content to coast along at a slower pace. The final objective is universal for all Muslims regardless of sect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yes. This is a sadly pervasive myth that Sufis are a wholly benevolent strand of Islam. Yes, whilst their methods of worship may align closer to the mellow dharmic traditions, and their beliefs aren't manifest in the same visibly direct methods as their Sunni and Shia stablemates, a central and indisputable belief of every single Sufi is the strengthening of the Ummah and the eventual establishing of the Caliphate. The difference is the speed of progress undertaken towards the Caliphate: the mainstream Islamic sects wish to roar to their particular goal as soon as possible, whilst Sufis are content to coast along at a slower pace. The final objective is universal for all Muslims regardless of sect.

Yup the sufi's themselves are in a difficult position they want to be part of the greater ummah yet their beliefs and practises are incompatible and intolerable by most muslims. And thus even they come under the purge by the sunni/salafi Islamo-fascists in their zeal to spread their brand of islam on other sects who may take a different interruption of what Islam means.

Just need to look at turkey and chechnya they are or had large sufi muslim majority populations but since 1980s and saudi salafi funding alot of them have been converted over to the more intolerant extremist salafi wahaabi version of islam and thus its spawned jihadi terrorists and extremists plaguing their geographical regions and rest of the world in global conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Interesting.. Can you please provide a source of where you are getting your information.. My understanding is that her father was killed in battle against Muhamed and his men killed him. But I have never read anything to suggest he raped her? Nor any reference to him murdering her whole family.. In fact I am under the impression that after her father was killed she was married and divorced twice and that Muhamed was her third husband..? 

Moreover what I find particularly interesting is that no where in bani or any writings of sikh scholars Muhamed is spoken of as a rapist.. Why would guru nanak dev ji travel to mecca, (if you believe that sakhi) if he thought Muhamed was a rapist, why would guru arjun Dev Ji invite a follower of a rapist Mian Mir to lay the foundation at Harmandir Sahib, why would guru gobind Singh Ji keep relations with Pir Baba bhuddu shah if he followed such people? 

Guru ji also never refers to Muhammed as a revered person SGGS. Many times raam or krishan or buddha are mentioned but not muhammed. At first i was saddened by this, that guruji never acknowledged the prophet of the 2nd largest religion in the world. I could understand why not Jesus, as Christianity had not reached india yet. But islam was every where. In fact, one of the sakhis say, Jahangir asked Guru Arjan Dev ji to insert praise of Muhammad and be forgiven. Guruji refused. 

Now that all of these terrible stories of muhammed are coming up, im glad he is not revered as a person.

That being said, sikhs should not spread these horrible stories abt muhamned as muslims have 2 versions to every story. And most peaceful ppl believe in the peaceful, kind versions. Isis and extremists are using the violent, terrible ones to radicalize the Muslims. Lets let the peaceful ones believe in the peaceful version. Also these terrible stories are shared by the far right supremacists who want to alienate ppl based on religion. Lets not feed into their agenda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Guru ji also never refers to Muhammed as a revered person SGGS. Many times raam or krishan or buddha are mentioned but not muhammed. At first i was saddened by this, that guruji never acknowledged the prophet of the 2nd largest religion in the world. I could understand why not Jesus, as Christianity had not reached india yet. But islam was every where. In fact, one of the sakhis say, Jahangir asked Guru Arjan Dev ji to insert praise of Muhammad and be forgiven. Guruji refused. 

Now that all of these terrible stories of muhammed are coming up, im glad he is not revered as a person.

That being said, sikhs should not spread these horrible stories abt muhamned as muslims have 2 versions to every story. And most peaceful ppl believe in the peaceful, kind versions. Isis and extremists are using the violent, terrible ones to radicalize the Muslims. Lets let the peaceful ones believe in the peaceful version. Also these terrible stories are shared by the far right supremacists who want to alienate ppl based on religion. Lets not feed into their agenda

Muhammad is mentioned in the Dasam Granth's banis, Bhai Gurdas Ji also mentions Christianity iirc.

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