A question from a Muslim - ragmala

[Guest Lion king]

if I wasn't interested in finding out things for myself and hurling insults I won't have bothered coming on this forum -

i didn't come on this forum to learn about the Quran - I have some good questions from People here which I will ask my Muslims Friends and I will read the Quran to see what it says - non of the gurus preached ignorance and intolerance. 

The reason I came here is the question of the Ragmala has shaken me - if you don't know the answer please don't write silly statements and insults - I can do them on my own.

Saying those silly people or stupid people that don't believe in the Ragmala is offensive to their beliefs especially when you don't even know why don't read it. 

Someone from a different forum said the official ruling on Ragmala is that it is to be kept part of the SGGS - reglardless if people want to read it or not - until a time when Sikhs come to a collective decision to include it or not.

that does not answer my question as to why the Ragmala is not read - WHY don't some Sikhs regard it as SGGS? Is the source not reliable ? Was it not written by guru Nanak - we have it from 2nd hand sources ? Is the meaning controversial ? It was added later on ? There must be a reason?

is there anyone here that doesn't read the Ragmala - if they don't can they say why not?

thanks 

[Kira]

20 minutes ago, Guest Lion king said:

if I wasn't interested in finding out things for myself and hurling insults I won't have bothered coming on this forum -

i didn't come on this forum to learn about the Quran - I have some good questions from People here which I will ask my Muslims Friends and I will read the Quran to see what it says - non of the gurus preached ignorance and intolerance. 

The reason I came here is the question of the Ragmala has shaken me - if you don't know the answer please don't write silly statements and insults - I can do them on my own.

 

No one's insulted you. Don't get so triggered over it all. If 1 question from Raagmala has shaken you then really your sikhi isn't all too strong. I find it rather humourus how you didn't flip it around and ask him about the authenticity of the Quran, rather than simply laying back and taking the beating no?

Quote

Saying those silly people or stupid people that don't believe in the Ragmala is offensive to their beliefs especially when you don't even know why don't read it. 

Yes they are silly, and really moronic. The arguments against it have been debunked a thousand times. The main frontline argument for it was that Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji didn't believe in it, which was total nonsense as there was even an article published where he stated he accepted it as Bani. All the old Saroops with Raagmala within them have the signature of Guru Sahib in them. One of the Oldest birs (the Kartarpur Bir) also has it within it and this was handwritten by Bhai Gurdas Ji , the arguments are based entirely on the a few that don't contain it. The most important thing is that the oldest birs all contain it. 

There are birs outside of Punjab, that were isolated from everything. All of them contained it, so the argument that someone went around adding it into every single Bir (that would mean travelling to a remote location and then telling the Sangat what you were going to do) and then altering it. 

Quote

Someone from a different forum said the official ruling on Ragmala is that it is to be kept part of the SGGS - reglardless if people want to read it or not - until a time when Sikhs come to a collective decision to include it or not.

that does not answer my question as to why the Ragmala is not read - WHY don't some Sikhs regard it as SGGS? Is the source not reliable ? Was it not written by guru Nanak - we have it from 2nd hand sources ? Is the meaning controversial ? It was added later on ? There must be a reason?

 

The argument is that Mundhavani is the seal so everything after it isn't Gurbani, which is total nonsense. For the record the writer of the Raag Mala was the 5th Mehl not the 1st. The controversy started because one buffoon decided to take 1 word and blow it out of context. That's how all doubt starts. 

The same people also advocate to remove Bhagat bani from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, there isn't any controversy behind it. Just some bored keyboard warriors with about as much gyan as a teapot.

Sort of like ISIS but with less boom boom sticks.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Guest Lionking said:

@monatosingh

you said " ragmala is defiantly part of SGGS" and " if you don't believe in it, it's personal choice "?

how can that be - if it's definitely part of the SGGS then you would HAVE to believe in it ? Surely ?

You can't say oh " I don't personally believe in the mool mantra therefore I'll give that a miss" 

if you say the SGGS is not a normal book but divine itself - and then say well part of it you don't need to believe in - that's cause huge issues.  Not least why wasn't this preserved by the gurus / historians ? Why is there an issues with Ragmala anyway - what's the reason it's not read by some ?

as for the girl - she's not religious - standard apni that does the odd trip to gudwara in a blue moon. More cultural than religious - but a good person to be fair. She is nice and polite to everyone. 

13

What I am saying is if you do not believe in raagmala then it is a personal choice, but it is ALWAYS going to be apart of SGGS. 

I don't know myself why people don't believe in it even though it is apart of SGGS.

 

[sikhni777]

 

Here  are all the facts and statements arguing for and against raag mala. Make your own conclusion. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragmala

[Guest Kaur 2]

3 hours ago, monatosingh said:

I don't know myself why people don't believe in it even though it is apart of SGGS.

Same but what I do know is that I should NEVER  doubt my Guru so the person who first started this thread seems suspicious because he seems to doubt the Guru very much. I will say it for the last time. RAAGMALA IS A PART OF SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI MAHARAAJ!!! Some people don't think it is but they doubt the Guru so they say it isn't. Guest Lionking here is your answer.

[Guest AnonSengh]

http://raagmalainfo.com

I if you wanna read it go ahead, if you don't wanna read it, then don't.

But please, do NOT make up twist facts or make up fake stories.

 

[Guest Sikh Lioness]

23 hours ago, Guest Muhammad Qureshi said:

TheReligionofPeace.com

Guide to Understanding Islam

 

 

What does the

Religion of Peace

Teach About...

Slavery and Sex Slavery

Question:

Does Islam condone slavery?

Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves?

Summary Answer:

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery.

In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.

Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader.

He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur'an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (0).

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..." This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur'an (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..." Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Qur'an (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's).

Qur'an (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah." Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).

 

23 hours ago, Guest Muhammad Qureshi said:

LionKing bro don't worry Islam's pedophilia is being exposed now big time

People I'm sure LionKing pointed to all his Muslim friends attacking Sikhi that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was 54 when he had sex with 9year old wife Aisha! 

 

[Guest AnonSengh]

http://raagmalainfo.com

[Guest Lionking]

Okay - I've spoken to my muslim friend who answered all the questions without even pausing - I asked him how can he be so confident in answering them he said these questions are not new - they were all conjured up by the christians missionaries  - they have all been answered. I was going to put his answers on here to educate some of the people here but it doesn't seem a lot of the people here are interested in understanding someone's else's faith - rather just spit out hatred and misconceptions. Maybe I'll write them on a different post as I don't want this one to be about Islam but rather SGGS - ragmala - I'm not answering or talking about Islam on this thread - I'll open one later just for that - maybe get my friend to come on it if people are plolite.

@Kira thanks some interesting points - I'll need to some research around your points as it's new to me. You said it's only one stupid person that says ragmala is not part of SGGS, read the link Sikhni777 put on above - seems to be a quite a few people who disagree with it ... and who think it's defiantly not part of SGGS 

@sikhni777 I should have though of that - lol it's obvious when someone points it out.

I've read the link you posted and I have to admit it causes a lot more questions then answers ...

1) so the ragmala could be the work of a Muslim ( ironic ) guy called aalam who was in the court of Akber. 

2)" ragmala was not in older saroops but they contained other composition so that were later rejected; there were   (i) Jit Dar Lakh Mohammada, (ii) Siahi Di Bhidhi, (iii) Ratanmala, (iv) Hakeekatrah mukam, (v) Praan Sangli, (vi) Rab Mukam Ki Sabk, (vii) Baye Atisb (16 saloks) etc."

huh ??? so if the SGGS was hand written by the guru - why has there been such controversy with all these compositions ?

are these "rejected" compositions still available ?

"some scholars strongly claim that pro-Raagmala supporters mischievously unnecessarily cremated volumes of Saroops that didn’t contain Raagmala and other disputed compositions."

And " other argument of the traditional schools that it is a part of the original copy and is written in the same ink and with the same pen as was used for the other parts of the Granth. This plea also does not carry any weight as in those days all the scribes used almost the same ink and the same type of pen. As the writing of the Gurmukhi characters was also the same so it becomes rather difficult to identify the handwriting."

ok so this is very problematic for me... I've never thought of this before how do we know these ragmalas or compositions were written but the gurus ? We say it's in the handwriting and a seal but how do we know that's the gurus handwriting ? These isn't a video of the guru signing it - we just have the word of someone people who say it is - and it seems these people don't all agree. - anyone could have wrote it and attributed it to the guru? 

problem with our history is it's full of different sects who have different ideas ( which is true if all religions ) but in ours it's seem whoevers in power decides what goes in the scriptures/ history

"Article XI (a) of the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM): "The reading of the whole Guru Granth Sahib (intermittent or non-stop) may be concluded with the reading of Mundawani alone or the Rag Mala according to the convention traditionally observed at all the concerned places. (Since there is a difference of opinion within the Panth on this issue, nobody should dare to write or print a copy of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji excluding the Raag Mala)." ^[7]"

this is what mentioned in the begining - I had heard this before. Now that I know there is a possibility the Ragmala could be the work of aaslam or somebody else - then it's definitely not part of guru. why would we give it that level of respect - the idea that we could be Making the works of a Muslim poet divine is troubling for me and this idea that oh we should include it anyway - why ? It seems the previous people didn't keep other contraverial works in SGGS why keep this one ? this is so confusing - doesnt make sense to me 

[S1ngh]

This is too weird topic. This seems too fictional.