Jump to content
singh598

Tommy Robinson On Manchester Terrorist Attack

Recommended Posts

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.  

  • Like 1

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 . 

  • Like 3

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.

  • Like 2

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
  • Like 3

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.

  • Like 2

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).

  • Like 1

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
  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 1

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

    • vaheguru ji ka khalsa
      vaheguru ji ki fateh, kaur ji Agar Pyar Mein Paise Ki|
      Ahamiyat Nehi Hoti Hain To Har|
      Kahani Mein Ladki Ke Khvaabon Mein|
      Koi RajKumar Hi Kyon Hota|
      Hai?| Kabhi Suna Hai Ki... Mere Sapno|
      Ka Majdur, Baaraat Lekar|
      Aayga| Download Karo Ese Hi Mast|
      Graphic... Doston Se Karo Share...| vaheguru ji ka khalsa vaheguru ji ki fateh
    • some times we have deal with difficult people and they can often say hurtful things or act inconsiderately , this may be because they were never shown love and respect (often the case in bullies), my advice is to not go seeking them out, don't ostracise them, but when you do deal with them give same love and respect you would any other member of the family . Don't stop being your good, open, caring self, try to be the best daughter/son of Guru ji you can be and lean on him when you need support and help .  Follow Guru ji's example though Prithvi Chand was not a good person he still gave love and respect as brother to Prithvi Chand , Guru ji never wish Bad for him even though he tried to do so many wrong things to both himself and his son.  ultimately, though they don't seem it they are part of Akal Purakh too , maybe look on it as doing sewa of/ showing love to Akal Purakh instead of those unaware minds.
    • number one thing to note is this one of a series of articles bashing religious faiths , so the writers are out to character assasinate all people of faith by tarring them with same crime as these examples when they admit that the two faiths frown and say clearly that misusing females leads to hell. manusmitri is the bane of all humans in India not just hindus , as the majority's attitude  poisons those whose faiths have better concepts such as equality of man, non-abuse of females, education and promotion of individuals based on ability and talent not gender i.e. sikhi
    • and some even refuse to read hindi on principle... like me 
    • be specific certain dogrey were trustworthy but the most of them were conniving bhekhi sikhs who always dragged everything back to honouring their brahmin heritage e.g. changing colour of flags to hindu colours  to ripping off the nation to feed their fellow brahmins e.g. refusing to give monies to sikhs and muslims from treasury for their festivities under orders from the Maharaja and Maharani but insisting on brahmins being given double . They are the ones who murdered the loyal dogrey and Ranjit's sons ...so no they were never sikhs they didn't wear shastar etc they helped Ranjit mentally justify disbanding sarbat Khalsa standard of deciding panthic issues.   
×