Sukhvirk1976

1 minute ago, Preeet said:

Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa
Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh ji

I think that our Sri Guru Sahib ji`s are above the titles of ``prophethood``.. For instance, I`ve heard Muslims say that even Muhhamad ji has made mistakes, and yet is a prophet.. So by that logic I think calling my Satguru ji a ``prophet`` would be considered odd because Satguru jis do not make mistakes.

Satgurus always were clear that they were not prophets, that it was revelation through gian.. They lived amongst us just as SGGS ji does today 

7 minutes ago, Kira said:

That alone speaks volumes of your laziness, the argument that God is beyond Duality can be applied to everything and anyone. The fake Babas that roam India can use the same argument "I can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak Dev and also go to these people" The Aztecs sacrificed humans to gods "oh its ok God is beyond Duality, I can be a Sikh as well" Do you get the small flaw? 

I asked you and I'll repeat since it seems forming cohesive thoughts is something you dislike. How can someone who sits there reciting the Quran, reciting the Kalima and then say "I'm a Sikh"  still be both a muslim and a Sikh. You can't swear oaths to 2 sovereigns and say you belong to both. 

We just established he wasn't a Muslim, you even admitted it. If Farid Ji was a muslim at the start of his life (most likely yes) then yes he did believe anyone after Muhammed would be an apostate. However Farid Ji changed and became enlightened so obviously he would no longer be restricted by that narrow myopic viewpoint.  The end game was He ended up one with God through Gurbani (a small portion of it).

 

Obviously he didn't. That twisted logic is like saying when people joined Guru Nanak Dev Ji and became Sikhs, we should still consider them Hindus/Muslims.

He who swears to me on the Koran
Ought not to have killed or imprisoned my men. 

Guru gobind Singh ji clearly respected those of true faith 

Just now, Kira said:

That alone speaks volumes of your laziness, the argument that God is beyond Duality can be applied to everything and anyone. The fake Babas that roam India can use the same argument "I can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak Dev and also go to these people" The Aztecs sacrificed humans to gods "oh its ok God is beyond Duality, I can be a Sikh as well" Do you get the small flaw? 

I asked you and I'll repeat since it seems forming cohesive thoughts is something you dislike. How can someone who sits there reciting the Quran, reciting the Kalima and then say "I'm a Sikh"  still be both a muslim and a Sikh. You can't swear oaths to 2 sovereigns and say you belong to both. 

We just established he wasn't a Muslim, you even admitted it. If Farid Ji was a muslim at the start of his life (most likely yes) then yes he did believe anyone after Muhammed would be an apostate. However Farid Ji changed and became enlightened so obviously he would no longer be restricted by that narrow myopic viewpoint. Obviously he didn't. That twisted logic is like saying when people joined Guru Nanak Dev Ji and became Sikhs, we should still consider them Hindus/Muslims.

Oh dear.. Nuff said 

On 25/04/2017 at 7:49 PM, Singh559 said:

Baba Farid was the 6th dera head of the dera started by Baba Farid Shakarganj and was a contemporary to Guru Nanak Dev Ji thus Bhagat Farid Ji was a Gurmukh contemporary to Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

@Bijla Singh could shed more light

Bani of Baba farid is of the first 

It is not for me and you to determine who is a Shaheed.. The application of who is shaheed has become a powerful political tool 

12 minutes ago, Kira said:

My logic is fine. If you think you can recite the oath to Muhammad and still be a Sikh then please explain to me how? The very oath says any other religion is false..by reciting it you say Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji are false. So tell me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak and a follower of Muhammad. Tell me how a reciter of the Quran which considers itself the ONLY authority from God also sit there and say Gurbani is the same. That's called Blasphemy is Islam. So no. try again.

? 

3 minutes ago, Kira said:

I've asked you to explain to me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak but also call him a false prophet, how someone can consider the Quran the sole authority of God but also say that Gurbani is the same lmao. Rather than posting 1 sentence answers, maybe explain it a bit? 

Well for a start it would be difficult for Baba farid ji to call guru nanak dev ji a false prophet since he lived about 300 years before him but rather don't you think it's important that guru sahibs did not call him a apostate? 

2 minutes ago, Kira said:

I've asked you to explain to me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak but also call him a false prophet, how someone can consider the Quran the sole authority of God but also say that Gurbani is the same lmao. Rather than posting 1 sentence answers, maybe explain it a bit? 

Do I really need to explain.. Try mool mantar.. I mean this is a Sikh forum.. Have you heard of it? 

Just now, Kira said:

I've asked you to explain to me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak but also call him a false prophet, how someone can consider the Quran the sole authority of God but also say that Gurbani is the same lmao. Rather than posting 1 sentence answers, maybe explain it a bit? 

Akaal is beyond the duality. You see dichotomy. 1ongkaar

2 minutes ago, Kira said:

My logic is fine. If you think you can recite the oath to Muhammad and still be a Sikh then please explain to me how? The very oath says any other religion is false..by reciting it you say Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji are false. So tell me how someone can be a Sikh of Guru Nanak and a follower of Muhammad. Tell me how a reciter of the Quran which considers itself the ONLY authority from God also sit there and say Gurbani is the same. That's called Blasphemy is Islam. So no. try again.

The two are not mutually exclusive 

7 hours ago, BhForce said:

I had thought that this place was called Sikh Sangat, not Sikh Admins. The sangat is what makes a forum, without the sangat there is no forum. I could be wrong, but I think that most people want rules to be applied evenly to all. That lesson was the entire point of Guru Gobind Singh ji creating the drama of seeming to bow to Dadu's tomb, for which the Khalsa had the temerity to sanction Guru Sahib.

If Guru Sahib has to follow established rules, why doesn't Sukhvirk76? Is he special in some way?

Sangat is a utilitarian space 

8 hours ago, BhForce said:

With respect, I'll tell you why it matters: One of the biggest questions Sikhs without Khanda-Amrit have is "Why do I have to take Amrit?"

If it is established that Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim (as defined above), naturally the next question is: Why do I have to do all this stuff if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim!

Secondly, one of the biggest issues facing Satkar committees is girls marrying Muslims. Now, if it is generally thought that Sheikh Ji was a Muslim (as opposed to an apostate from Islam), then naturally one of the first things the bride or her family will say is: Why can you stop a Muslim from getting married here if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim?

You won't have an hour to answer this question with all sorts of caveats and philosophical detours. You'll have 1 minute or so. Not only that, if most Sikhs should believe Sheikh ji was a Muslim, they won't demonstrate against a Sikh-Muslim marriage in the first place.

Compare that to the situation wherein it is generally known and accepted that Sheikh Farid ji was an apostate from Islam. In such a case, it becomes much harder for someone to argue that a Sikh-Muslim marriage is OK.

What I've attempted to do is give people who are on the frontlines of the battle to prevent destruction of our faith (ideological or demographic) practical answers to this very pertinent question.

I invite others to agree or disagree that the question of Sheikh ji being Muslim is salient to the Sikh-Muslim marriage issue.

Sikh Muslim marriage is not a issue and the fact that in your thoughts you outline that the reason you oppose the label of Baba farid ji being Muslim is more to do with the fact that it challenges your rationalization against your irrational opposition to marriage between a plurality of people at gurudwaras is illuminating 

22 hours ago, Kira said:

Yes it does matter if he was a muslim or not, this might come as a shock to you but his bani is within Guru Granth Sahib Ji. IF he was a muslim then logic begs that the path of Islam is enough to reach God because a muslim's writings are included within Gurbani. That also means that the Quran could be considered equal to Gurbani and wait for it, Muhammad was the final prophet of the lord and no one else after him counts. Do you get the conundrum now? 

 

New comers will point to Bhagat Farid and say "he was a muslim so its ok for me to do X,Y,Z" then they'll take it a step further and say that Bhgat Namdev was a follower of Vishnu (for the record he wasn't) and start venerating his idols. Do you get the little issue? The whole point of this thread is to show people that Farid Ji was a Sikh, I don't get why your panties are in a knot over it. 

Your logic is flawed.. Why can't he be a Sikh and a sufi and a Muslim.. If you follow the truth then labels are irrelevant 

What is the meaning of gur-prasad? 

So I get it he was a Sikh. 

7 hours ago, genie said:

Basically no he wasnt muslim. Not according to mainstream sunni and shia ideological sects who form around 95% of muslim populations.

He would have been and is still considered a heretic (by majority of muslims) and out of the fold of islam for not following the sunnah/hadiths (in his own words he doesn't believe in islamic orthodox beliefs).

Was he a Sikh? Yes he would have come under the defination of a Sikh. All the sufi saints and hindu bhagats in SGGS Ji are not mainstream muslims or mainstream hindu's they had begun the path into forming Sikhi.

So he was a sufi 

On 21/04/2017 at 7:26 PM, SinghSabha1699 said:

Not at all brother. Mere acceptance of one God (who may be called Allah, Ram or Vaheguru or other True Names interchangably) does not mean that Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj self-identified as a Muslim.

In order to be Muslim the second line of the Muslim shahada referring to Prophet Muhammad is compulsory. True Sufi's (like Baba Farid Ji Maharaj) being the non-Muslims they are obviously wholeheartedly reject the Prophet Muhammad on account of the well documented and universally acknowledged acts of terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny that the Prophet openly engaged in without remorse. Remember in Pakistan the Muslims make the similarly false allegation that Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj were Muslim.

Think about it logically Mr Virk.

Can any Sikh ever sit comfortable when such an accusation is labelled against one of our greatest Gurmukhs (who were so blessed that they authored the Truth of Gurbani)!? 

Accusing Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of being Muslim is the most vile accusation thinkable for a Sikh to read. Though to be fair to you it may be that your belief is that all religions are equal and whether one religion condones slavery, terrorism, paedophilia, genocide and misogyny is merely something that should be ignored and is perfectly acceptable to accuse Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of supporting.

This myth cooked up Mughal scribes and the followers of Jinnah that Baba Farid Ji Maharaj were Muslim needs to be destroyed. The nonsensical belief that the 1st Sikh in history (Bhai Mardana Ji) despite being the most ardent Guru ka Sikh somehow should be labelled as a non-Sikh is horrible to read (not that you have said this - but others mistakenly have). And similarly in relation to Dhan Dhan Baba Kabir Ji Maharaj who positively despised the falsehood of Islam (and yet are somehow labelled as belonging to beliefs that they repeatedly exposed as falsehoods). It's crucial we as Sikhs do not inadvertently sully the great names of Gurmukhs who rejected terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny as openly glorified in the Holy Quran.

So he was a sufi.. 

So Baba farid was a Sikh and a sufi?