singh598

Tommy Robinson On Manchester Terrorist Attack

109 posts in this topic

When the Banu Nadir were expelled from Medina in 625, her family settled in Khaybar, an oasis near Medina.[3] Her father and brother went from Khaybar to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Muhammad in Medina during the Battle of the Trench. When the Meccans withdrew Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza. After the defeat of the Banu Qurayza in 627 Safiyya's father, a long-time opponent of Muhammad, was captured and executed by the Muslims.[4]

In 627 or early in 628, Safiyya married Kenana ibn al-Rabi, treasurer of the Banu Nadir; she was about 17 years old at that time

In May 629, the Muslims defeated several Jewish tribes (including the Banu Nadir) at the Battle of Khaybar. The Jews had surrendered, and were allowed to remain in Khaybar on the provision that they give half of their annual produce to the Muslims. The land itself became the property of the Muslim state.[6] This agreement, Stillman says, did not extend to the Banu Nadir tribe, who were given no quarter.[7] Safiyya's husband, Kenana ibn al-Rabi, was also killed.

the three days Mohammed stayed in her town all the tribe's men were killed including her brothers husband and uncles  then Mo consummated his 'marriage ' to Safiyya but his companions were unsure if she was to be treated as a slave or 'mother of the believers' . She was pressured to convert but still was viewed with mistrust by Mohammed and openly insulted and mocked by the other wives. I wonder why 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-30 at 9:12 PM, jkvlondon said:

When the Banu Nadir were expelled from Medina in 625, her family settled in Khaybar, an oasis near Medina.[3] Her father and brother went from Khaybar to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Muhammad in Medina during the Battle of the Trench. When the Meccans withdrew Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza. After the defeat of the Banu Qurayza in 627 Safiyya's father, a long-time opponent of Muhammad, was captured and executed by the Muslims.[4]

In 627 or early in 628, Safiyya married Kenana ibn al-Rabi, treasurer of the Banu Nadir; she was about 17 years old at that time

In May 629, the Muslims defeated several Jewish tribes (including the Banu Nadir) at the Battle of Khaybar. The Jews had surrendered, and were allowed to remain in Khaybar on the provision that they give half of their annual produce to the Muslims. The land itself became the property of the Muslim state.[6] This agreement, Stillman says, did not extend to the Banu Nadir tribe, who were given no quarter.[7] Safiyya's husband, Kenana ibn al-Rabi, was also killed.

the three days Mohammed stayed in her town all the tribe's men were killed including her brothers husband and uncles  then Mo consummated his 'marriage ' to Safiyya but his companions were unsure if she was to be treated as a slave or 'mother of the believers' . She was pressured to convert but still was viewed with mistrust by Mohammed and openly insulted and mocked by the other wives. I wonder why 

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jkvlondon 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? 

Can you please address this issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

@jkvlondon 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? 

Can you please address this issue? 

It's a question that's been on my mind for a few years. There is only one logical answer: Either our Guru Sahibs weren't aware of this aspect of Mohammed, OR the sexual deviances and proclivities of Mohammed have been manufactured by the authors of the Quran in order to defame his legacy. Might the Quran be one of the most elaborate Jewish conspiracies of all time, lmao?

Edited by MisterrSingh
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-30 at 0:59 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? 

Interesting troll, can you provide evidence Pir Baba Bhudda Shah and Mian Mir were Muslims?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 . 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Edited by MisterrSingh
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by BhForce
Added a crucial word "don't"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by MisterrSingh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-6-1 at 7:32 AM, Akalifauj said:

Interesting troll, can you provide evidence Pir Baba Bhudda Shah and Mian Mir were Muslims?

Lol the mind boggles 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


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

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

Thats why i made sure to say SGGS :) 

And in dasam granth, he is not portrayed as a person to be revered

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Look at this shameless dog he knows this will inflame tensions by using Sikh girl in his video. He is giving advice to convert so called sikh girls to Islam in a covert way not directly. Basically he makes up situations or muslims send him in fake stories and he tries to promote Islam over other religions. Check the last video in the videos section https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKGeFv3Gaho3bD4-hoUx4eg I didnt want to paste the video url as it would give it undeserved publicity I wonder if Sikhs parchariks and Sikh groups will respond to this. if bhai jagraj was still alive he would have definitely responded because he's already tackled and defeated dawah kid in debate with him but now he is no more this coward dawah kid takes advantage knowing full well basics of sikhi wont be responding to this sly dig at Sikh girls and sikhi.
    • She's the one that directed Bend it Like Beckham. 
    • Your right that 7 days documentary  is heavily biased against Sikhs and painted our folks as extremists who started it all. When the fact of the matter is it was the hindu punjabis of hindu mahasahaba, arya samaj and RSS that went around kicking off with muslims all the time in the led up to events of 1947. The pakistani muslim league and Hindu mahasaba were the main ones responsible for starting the killings. The british reported cloak and dagger tactics were being used, basically people trying to pretend to be another religion in false flag attacks to get Sikhs framed and attacked and thus Sikhs would jump in and start attacking also. Alot of the nirankaris looked Sikh but were not Sikhs they are hindu punjabi, arya samajists also had infiltrated Sikh circles. Master tara singh was a hindu convert to Sikhism who was very friendly with fellow hindus nehru and gandhi and tried to inflame tensions against muslims before partition. Real Sikhs had alot of patience but you can only be patient and peaceful for so long after killings get too much and only then did later did our Sikhs under akali dal and various jatha groups aided by Sikh military generals and Sikh Maharajah's do revenge attacks on muslims to clear out east punjab of islam after their relatives were being wiped out in west punjab villages and Sikh dominated area's like sialkot, sargodha, rawalpindi, jhelum, mirpur,etc.
    • I meant the production of the movies.