Jump to content

Islam-Sikhism Website - What A Load...


ms514
 Share

Recommended Posts

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

A forum member PMed me a link to this website:

http://www.islam-sikhism.info

If anyone wants to have a laugh, please visit this website. Taking interpretations of individuals rather than engaging in any true open minded study, taking one verse out of context and making it the focus of a tirade, the authors of these "articles" do as much of a thorough job as trying to melt an iceberg with a blowtorch:

So here is a short response on the nonsense on the website. Please feel free to add/comment to it. It is NOT comprehensive, but a mere blurb:

_________________________________________

THE NIRGUN-SARGUN CONUNDRUM - crux of the article works on the principle of "If something is accepted as true, all things to the contrary must be rendered and taken to be false." and This Nirgun-Sargun duality must be recognised a priori as nothing but a contradiction in terms." Basically stating that God cannot be both Nirgun and Sargun. That argument is about as stupid as saying because Water is Liquid, it can never be gas as one thing must be in the same form and cannot exist in two different states of matter. Perhaps the author would like to explain the concept of a photon, which exhibits properties of both waves and particles? Right...

EVIDENCE FOR REINCARNATION DEBUNKED presenting scientific evidence on religion…yeah, that always works. A few hundred years ago, scientists were convinced that the theory of abiogenesis was the golden rule that creatures would literally be given birth to by inanimate stuff garbage giving birth to rats, horse manure giving birth to flies etc (the concept of mating, sperm and egg were not considered). So lets take this argument down to human level. The author is stating that it is impossible for one to reincarnate. the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body. So a lot of scientific mumbo-jumbo (basically, no evidence of reincarnation because there is no evidence and that reincarnation theory is mass hallucination). So I present the author this…if I take my computer hard drive filled with information and over-write all of the hard drive space with 0s and there is no evidence remaining of the past information and I hand it to a scientist and he/she concludes that the drive contains no information that I should take that as the gospel truth? Science is limited by our natural and technological senses what we can see/hear/interpret. Is God so powerless that we have become masters of all the secrets that God has? We, the species which finds new species in the oceans and forests almost daily have the nerve to conclude that our science is perfection enough to reach these definitive conclusions? Posting this evidence up is about as stupid as posting up articles in support of atheism because of the lack of evidence. Go shovel it somewhere else.

CREMATING THE RIGHTS OF THE DEAD the author has this thinking that burial is somehow very sacred and that the dead have rights too. The crux of the argument proposed is that On the other hand, Sikhs believe that once a person has died, the body becomes an extraneous shell. And yet if the body is going to be so disrespectfully discarded anyway, why bother with these superficialities? Perhaps I shall propose something. Indeed the body is a shell. But take a moment to think of it this way a book is pages, ink and words and yet, when the words of the Prophet are scribed in it, it becomes the Quaran. If the Quaran is old and withered, would one merely toss it in the garbage? I should hope not (sorry, I am not familiar with the proper end ceremonies of the Quaran). One properly disposes of the vessel because it housed the content. So ceremonial disposal of a body is a means to respect the person/soul that was housed in that body. Arguments about environmentally friendly are as absurd as you can get. This further confirms the dictum that Allaah has "forbidden for us only what is injurious or harmful for us (or for our environment)". So basically, all Islamic countries use clean fuels only…no coal plants, no gasoline cars? Their missle systems have no emissions…rocket launchers have catalytic convertors???

THE SLEEPING BOOK so the main argument We can only conclude that the Sikhs sukhasan ceremony is nothing more than a classic display of idol-worship. It becomes painfully obvious again that the author is ignorant of the very basic fundamentals of Sikhism. First, does the author perhaps know that the hall in which the Guru is parkash is called the Darbar, the Emperors Court? That human emperors had an entry ceremony and an exit ceremony? That emperors issued proclamations to the court attendees (Hukamnama)? If the Sikhs show respect of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji as one who is the embodiment of the spirit of the Gurus, then what pain it it to the author? Perhaps the author should refer to Islams own protocols regarding the treatment of the Quaran: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_Muslims_respect_the_Qur'an . I mean if what the author is so convinced to this viewpoint, then the author would have no issue with me usint the Quaran to, say, prop up a crooked table or as bathroom reading or perhaps even use the pages as toilet paper (note: I would not do any such thing. Hpothetical scenarios). Why do Muslims then show such respect for the Quaran is this not idol worship? The concept of what the Guru Granth Sahib the MESSAGE, the TEACHING, that which makes animals (after all, what is a human without religion eats, sleeps, dies animal) into something Divine. If a teacher inspires you to become something great, you will honor that teacher for a lifetime. If a teacher can lead to great heights of spirituality and bliss, would you not honor such a teacher appropriately?

The Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration this article has one major flaw. Personification when you take something non-human and try to make it human i.e. assign it human characteristics. For instance, saying a cat is talking to you or that your dog is pondering the deep mysteries of the universe (you get the idea). The Guru Granth Sahib Ji clearly states that the creation is Gods Play, and that all in the creation are Gods playthings. Here, we have an author which keeps insisting that the HUMAN concept of justice is applicable as Gods Law. Has the author met God and asked if this is true? Shall I throw in the scientific argument where is the proof? To state that God would have the exact set of laws as humans is as absurd as me insisting that pet cats follow human justice or that hyenas would have the same sense of right and wrong??? And yet, that is exactly what is being implied with this article. Sorry…very narrow minded. There is one underlying theme that has to be understood when undertaking any religious study (not that I am a scholar, but it becomes obvious upon even cursory inspection) that there are fundamental differences between Western religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and Eastern religions. If you insist reading Arabic with the insistence of only using Roman alphabets, you will not get far. So to truly understand and appreciate what the message of the faith is, you have to put aside your personal hardcore fundamentals and at least understand the base concepts of the studied faith. Western religions lean towards a very human like law system of God rules and regulations and right and wrong. Sikhism sees God as something far beyond this with everything in its hands. If God is truly Omnipotent and Infinite, how are we, the finite and limited beings to fully comprehend God? Sorry, using one scripture against another will lead to nothing but unending argument that will get nowhere.

VACANCY: GURUSHIP uhhh…yeah. Here are some facts. A) The Khalsa Panth has a MOTHER and a FATHER. That per the Sikh Rehat Maryada (keep the Jathebandi beliefs aside this is in the Panthic Maryada) women have full rights to any seva, up to and including seva in the Punj Pyare and Keertan. Saying such things that women are not allowed to do Harimandir Sahib…ok, then tell me, if the Taliban insist on beheading people of other faiths because they refuse to conver to Islam does that make them the official representatives of Islam? If a few bad elements refuse to implement what is correct religious law, then it is the fault of the individuals, not the religion (this is in reference to the Harimandir Sahib keertan ban on women). Funny coming from a Muslim who should really comment on how women require others to verify her testimony in court (where no such stipulation is required for men) and how equally property is divided up upon the death of a Muslim womans husband (hint: Its not). The Religious law of Sikhs fully backs women having full rights to all duties of a Sikh. Attempting to explain why all of the Gurus were men...I dont know. Shall I make up excuses like you do? http://www.islam-sikhism.info/rebut/paedo01.htm .

THE HORROR OF HIRSUTISM wow, the way this website defends womens rights, youd think women are held in so high regard in Islam. And yet, polygamy, full coverage of the body with the nakab (and yes, this is mentioned in the Quaran), less rights than men and others are somehow telling of something else. Sikhism requires a person to be dead to be alive to give ones head and to follow the Gurus path. It is said in the Shabad Hazaarae, which is read by many Sikhs as Nitnem that the path is thinner than a knifes edge or a hair. If you walk this path, then you follow its rules. If women really think Islam is easy, then by all means, let them go explore it. But perhaps they should look into the whole burqa, nakab, and being treated to such pleasures as polygamy first. If someone thinks this is an attack on Islam, think again. This is a statement of fact and sanctioned by the Quaran. And yes, there are great Gursikh men who have indeed married Gursikh women with facial hair. Funny how per the Quaran, God fashioned humans from clay and made the angels worship the creation and yet, the author here finds Sikhs honoring Gods creation by not modifying it to be abhorrent. If the author has no problem calling Sikhs hypocrites, then I have no issue calling the author a hypocrite either.

THE EXPENDABLE WIFE this article is hilarious. The author is having a dig at Guru Nanak Sahib because he spent time away from his wife. It almost seems to make women somehow needy and weak. Sorry, Sikhism has proven that women are much stronger thanthe author implies and that marriages are beyond just the physical presence at home. Guru Sahib has brilliantly refuted this by the verse that states that those who merely sit together are not husband and wife those who are one soul in two bodies are. Sorry, this argument is about as stupid as they come, especially given the scope of Guru Nanak Sahibs mission, the unbelievable depth of Guru Sahibs philosophy in Gurbani and the widespread appeal of Sikhism in the world.

FORCED MARRIAGE the author tries to take advantage of a cultural issue forced marriges and use it against Sikhism. First, nothing in Sikhism supports forced marriages. The general concept of forcing anything upon anyone is condemned in Sikhism. Sikhism has been a champion of fighting against anything forced upon anyone since its inception whether it be conversions, forced marriages or otherwise. How the author concludes that any person would attempt to cite Guru Granth Sahib verses as backing for forced conversions is preposterous. Perhaps the author would care to explain the while Islam does indeed limit the number of women a man can marry, what exactly the position is of women slaves (concubines) in terms of the Quaran? Sanctioned or otherwise? Koran 23:1,5-6 "abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess." Koran 33:50-52 "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee;" Big gamble attacking a religion that has been in the forefront of womens rights when your own faith has some interesting things to say?

BLIND EQUALITY the basic premise of this article is that Sikh men and women can dress the same and the author has a problem with it. Well, I think that is the authors problem, not Sikhisms. Sorry bud, get over it.

REHAT MARYADA TO THE RESCUE Yet these Rehat Maryada are nothing more than the opinions of simple minded people, limited in their scope and outlook of life. Wow, talk about insulting…Sikh scholars gathered to pine over the various Rehatnamae, tested them against Gurbani and drafted the Rehat Maryada, then sent it to across the globe for deliberation from the Sikhs and then revised the draft to make the Rehat Maryada. Again, this was done to remove some corruption of time and culture that had crept into Sikhism and to refresh the code of conduct back to Guru Sahibs time. Anyways, the author should focus more time on his own faith: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

THE BIG GAME HUNTERS one word Halal. Religious means of inflicting torture on an animal. One who engages in this has no grounds on commenting on hunting.

THE ORIGINAL WORSHIPPERS another of the look how clear the answers are in Islam are articles. Fact: One verse is posted in the article and the author claims to have discovered the flaw in Sikhism. Quoting singular verses out of any religious text are about as ridiculous as reading the cover on a book and attempting to claim you have understood the complete text. For instance, some claim that Islam has yet to figure out who was the first Muslim using similar methodology: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/first_muslim.htm .

Conclusion: This is in no way a comprehensive rebuttal of the website. Could the author of that website rebut the above? Possibly. If it is not obvious, the entire purpose of this website is the same as the RSS confuse the reader and provide salvation towards Islam. All readers are encouraged to post additions to this. My only reason for doing this was to have a record somewhere of the nonsense of that website and to provide some minimal response. A comprehensive rebuttal would see verses from Gurbani refuting the ridiculous claims, but is outside of my timeframe to do perhaps a project for http://www.whyichosesikhism.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mehtab1singh

This is a never ending debate/quarrel. Some Hindus will always try to prove that Sikhi originated from Hinduism, and some Muslims will always try to prove that 1.) Sikhi borrowed stuff from Islam, and/or 2.) Islam is the truth and Sikhi isn't. ms514 veerji, we've been on this forum for like what close to 7 years now? How many times have we "bashed up" fools who come over here only to get "thrashed"? This website is another vain attempt by them to degrade Sikhi (as if they could). They cannot deny the fact that the reason why India stands as the ONLY non-Islamic country in the middle of ALL Islamic nations is BECAUSE of Sikhs. They cannot deny the humiliating defeat which Pakistan faced at the hands of the Sikhs in the 1971 war. Now come on! They've got such unforgettable wounds that are never going to get healed. Obviously they've got to do something to atleast ease the pain, if not cure it, right? Creating such websites is one such "medication" they abide by. So let them continue to dream. All one needs to do in order to compare Islam and Sikhi is eat langar at a Gurdwara (to get a taste of Sikh philosophy) and then read the newspaper (about who carried out bombings and beheadings). Its that simple!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

"Khalsa soi jo kare nit jang' - what can we do...it's in our blood to fight, be it words, swords, guns or puns... :p

I mean if you just wanted the argument killed in one link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100222/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanunrestnorthwestminority

But as usual, Sikh Panth is under attack from all sides from all peoples by all means - physically, mentally, socially and spiritually.

Said HE You Alone Would Stand Out Amongst Countless,

Gave You a Royal Name, A Royal Dress That Does Impress.

Made You A Part of the Khalsa He Did, Made You Into Precious Gold,

Raised You From The Dead He Did, Made You Into Saintly Bold.

Everybody Hates You Cause They Can't Be You,

They is Jealous, Fuming, Boiling, Scheming Too.

They Torture, Maim, Rape, Kill, Flay And Behead,

We Rise Up, Stand Tall, Conquer Them Instead.

That's The Way It Was, That's The Way It Is,

The Way Of The Khalsa - Soldiers In Bliss.

:6 :6 :6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.islamawar...m/convince.html

Theres counter arguments here

http://www.whyichosesikhism.com/?p=sic

Be aware of Al-Taquia the concept which allows Muslims to lie. The prophet Muhammad married a 6yr old had sex with her when she was 9.

The quran tells muslims its ok to have sex with your slaves. It promotes abudction, murder, fighting, killing. shariah law is proof of this.

There is many calls for Muslims to go and convert women, go to your local SAS talk sikh awareness society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is in reply to the article 'PROJECT NAAD DEFENCE OF KARMA'

islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue

Reply: Black

In Islam, the suffering of the child is not due to previous sins. On the contrary, it occurs due to factors external to it and beyond its control by the decree of Allah. It cannot be said that the child is being punished since punishment is only meted out upon the one who commits sins and transgressions. As for the suffering of a child then this could either be due to punishment meted out upon others with whom it is associated to, e.g. parent's being punished for their transgressions and evil deeds, the consequences of which directly affect the child, or Allah is testing the parents to see how they will react in the face of their child's suffering. In both cases the child is considered innocent from any personal blame.

Author is right in saying that such situation is a test for parents. Sikhism doesn't reject this idea. But there must be some reason from child's side that why certain children die soon after they are born.

Also if everybody gets the test that baby got (i.e. everybody starts dying after being born) then everybody will go to heaven which will be good for all of us. So why everybody is not given the test that baby got?

Also, do muslims sincerely think that baby was even tested by God? If answer is yes then muslims should explain how he was tested. If answer is no then isn't this injustice that God is sending somebody straight to heaven without even testing him/her?

"And we never punish until we have sent a Messenger (to give warning).

(Quran 17:15-16)

So if a mass murderer is not sent a messenger then he will go to heaven or if a rapist is not sent a messenger then he will not be punished. So a mass murderer is going to heaven according to Islam.

Islam's reasoning in relation to the creator's relationship with his creation is so much more sublime, straightforward and befitting the majesty of Allah. Firstly, the relationship between suffering and social status and class is arbitrary and relative since a pauper may not necessarily consider it suffering to live a life of struggle and toil as a rich man would. And the case could be argued by a pauper, and perhaps even acknowledged by the rich, that possessing greater material possessions brings greater stress, worry and other problems that the poor would not "suffer" from.

In that case also, it is unjust that somebody is born in a rich family and somebody in a poor family because person born in poor family would be at advantage. If initial conditions are same (past deeds don't matter), then tests should also be the same otherwise it's injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first seen the title I thought 'WOW' - someone who is being positve, from UK perspective especially in uniting faiths. HOW WRONG I WAS. The website should be prosecuted under trade descriptions act! First Islam -Sikhism initative! Load of *mod edit*. It is a truely one sided missionary website which attempts to declare supremacy of one faith over the other. I thought wow it will help join people of both faiths but it didn't. Just trying to convert people, if they want to I have no probs. But don't hate and disregard others believes. EDIT: My bad, just read it back, how contradictory ohmy.gif- Sorry I just disregarded theres. But if someone wants me to elaborate more and justify my statement, I will do. Rationally, think about it and try to understand my angle.

Please just view my other post in all forums, I do not oppose Islam. I love mankind and hate on nowone just because of their faith. Just in case anyone thinks I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prophet Muhammad married a 6yr old had sex with her when she was 9.

The prophet Mohammed, married Aisha when she was an infant at the the request of Aisha's father, to cement his bond with the Prohpet. What greater way than through marriage, her father thought. Look please do not say things like, it is has offensive overtones. No one has exact proof of prophet Mohammed's life and actions. All we know is the marriage was consumated after Aisha reached puberty. Some say 12. You were not there so how can yuou comment? Please note in those times people did marry at very young age, not pre puberty but on reaching very soon they were married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is in reply to the article "'CONTRADICTING ALLAH' OR A CONFUSED BIJLA SINGH"

islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue

Reply: Black

Again, it all depends on what Bijla means by the word "same", which, lo and behold, he has typically failed to define! In this context, we can safely infer that in regards to Waheguru and His relationship to creation, three essential possibilities exist: either Waheguru's intrinsic nature, which includes his attributes, was the same sans creation as it is since creation; or Waheguru does not undergo relational change with the becoming of creation; or both? Bijla certainly seems to acknowledge an intrinsic change when he states: FIRST Waheguru was only Nirgun as there existed nothing but Him. THEN He created the entire creation i.e. solar systems, galaxies, planets, life forms, humans etc. In other words, anything to everything originated from Waheguru. (Bold, underline, capital ours)

The use of the adjective "first" with respect to time and order (by order we mean: Waheguru was Nirgun and not Sargun sans creation) followed by the conjunctive adverb "then" (grammatically speaking the full stop before the word "then" should in actual fact be a comma in order to join the two clauses separated by time) clearly point to the fact that a change certainly occurred: Waheguru cannot be what he is said to have been before, otherwise the use of the adjective "first" would be redundant and meaningless. According to Bijla, "Waheguru was only Nirgun" (bold ours) when there existed nothing, but "then" manifested as Sargun when "He created the entire creation", while of course still fully remaining Nirgun. Since Nirgun and Sargun are descriptions of Waheguru's intrinsic nature, i.e. his essence, thus Waheguru underwent an intrinsic change with the becoming of creation. To say otherwise is to deny the claim that Waheguru is Sargun, which he certainly was not sans creation.

This shows that muslims have not made a sincere effort to understand the concept of God in sikhism. According to sikhi, time was also created by God.

"For endless ages, there was only utter darkness. There was no earth or sky; there was only his command. There was no day or night, no moon or sun; God sat in primal, profound meditation position. There was no food or sources of speech, no air or water. There was no creation or destruction, no birth or death. There were no continents, regions, seven seas, rivers or flowing water. There were no heavenly realms, earth or nether regions of the underworld. There was no heaven or hell, no death or time." (SGGS p1035)

So, if time was created by Waheguru then how can muslims claim that Waheguru underwent a change with the becoming of creation. The above argument of muslims can only be true if there was time when God was Nirgun. But the fact of the matter is that time came with the coming of creation. Even Einstein’s theory of relativity tells us that time is relative i.e. if somebody travels with speed greater than the speed of light then time will stop passing for him. Instead he will travel backward in time. So, in light of above explanation, we can very easily conclude that Waheguru didn’t underwent a change with the becoming of creation because God is timeless.

The only thing we "Muslims are [...] confused" over is how Sikhs, like Bijla, can delude themselves into believing that "Nirgun (without attributes) and Sargun (with all attributes) at the same time" is a rational and non-contradictory belief? Is it simply because "every word of Gurbani is directly revealed from Waheguru"? If so, then this blind following can only be accepted by rejecting rationality. This would in turn raise questions over the nature of God's relationship with His creation where He would demand of His servants' worship of Him through the acceptance of a mentally oppressive belief in His divine nature.

If muslims say that God is not omnipresent then he must be present at some specific place and must be having some finite form. And according to islam, that specific place is the otherworldly heaven. But muslims have failed to tell that where is this futuristic and otherworldly heaven located? Is it located on some lofty island or on some mystical planets somewhere 'up there'? Is it located below the earth or above the earth? So we can also ask the question:

How can one worship an entity whose place of dwelling one does not know?

Muslims don’t even know where God is but still are worshipping him. Also, if muslims say that God is not omnipresent then he must be present in small area of his own creation. But how can creator inhabit a small area of his own creation? This defeats logic and rationality.

Also, if muslims say that God is having finite form then such a God is limited to time and space. Sorry thats not the God sikhs worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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