Jump to content

Islam-Sikhism Website - What A Load...


ms514
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ms514, I can't thank you enough for posting a reply to this rubbish, despite my best efforts I was getting concerned with doubts I had after reading this site, but you have put into words what I was almost thinking :)

Very happy to know we have intelligent people to explain things when Sikhi is attacked, you should reply on the site, or email the stupid <banned word filter activated>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is in reply to the article "AWAKENING THE HOLY BOOK THAT SLEEPS"

islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue

Reply: Black

What comprises a book? One would say: paper, ink, some binding material in the form of glue and/ or string, and a dust cover. Taking it down to the microscopic level, we would all agree that it is made up of the same created material as the rest of the universe: atoms. One would expect that all books that have, are and will be bound together are merely created matter and nothing more; and one would be wrong.

If SGGS is paper and ink, then will a sikh bow to a book with identical physical characteristics as that of guru granth sahib. The answer is an obvious no. Now that book also contains paper, ink and binding but a sikh will not bow to it because it does not contain the shabad, This proves that SGGS is not paper, ink or binding. Idol worship can only be true if there is in fact an idol. The shabad is by no means an idol.

Also, question needs to be asked that will a muslim use a paper, on which quranic verses are written, as a cleaning paper. The answer is an obvious no. Now that paper is not important but the quranic verses written on it is making it as important for a muslim. Similarly the paper on which shabad is written is an ordinary paper without the shabad but after shabad is written on it, it is handled with care and reverence.

More damning, however, is the double-standard employed by Sikhs vis-à-vis Hinduism. Both religions openly and unashamedly acknowledge that a created object, fashioned by their own hands, contains the true nature of God.

Hindu idols may be fashioned by their own hands but Guru Granth Sahib was compiled by Sikh gurus themselves. Nobody is allowed to change even a comma or a period out of 1430 pages.

Replace the words 'living deity' with 'living guru' and you have a notion that is akin to that which Sikhs adhere to vis-à-vis SGGS.

The practices that muslims are associating with guru granth sahib are clearly rejected in sikh rehat maryada which muslims have ignored to read:

d. Such practices as the arti with burning incense and lamps, offering of eatables to Guru Granth Sahib, burning of lights, beating of gongs, etc., is contrary to gurmat.

(SIKH REHAT MARYADA CHAPTER IV ARTICLE V)

This is precisely the same reasoning applied by the Hindus. Sikhs consider it impermissible for Hindus to worship their hand-crafted deities irrespective of the Hindu's insistence that they are not worshipping the idol, but the divine form that resides within. The Sikhs, as Bijla Singh has eloquently described, hold exactly the same idea. The Shabad resides in an object and Sikhs bow down to it; for Hindus, the divine nature of God also resides in an object and they bow down to it. And for Sikhs to argue otherwise is an exercise in double standards and hypocrisy.

There is a difference between hindu concept of idol worship and sikh concept of bowing to guru granth sahib. Hindu idols and black stone, which muslims revere and kiss, give no spiritual wisdom and teaches nothing about spirituality whereas guru granth sahib teaches us about spirituality.

He forgot to mention that just as the chauri sahib (wand) was waved over the Gurus when they were alive, it was also waved over the SGGS. Hence, these acts of devotion where the SGGS is "covered in special clothes" (similar to the Hindus who dress up of their idols), fanned by a chauri (again like the Hindus), brought out in the morning and put to bed at night, etc., are perfectly consistent with actions that would be justified only for a living being, which in this case, is divine.

First of all sukhasan doesn't mean putting guru granth sahib to sleep. Secondly, there is also a similarity in hindu worship of their idols and muslim worship of black stone. And the similarity is hindus circumbulate their idols several times just like muslims circumbulate kaaba and black stone several times. So, by extension of same logic, even muslims are idol worshippers like hindus.

So if there are one or two similarities between hindu treatment of their idols and sikh treatment of guru granth sahib doesn't mean that sikhs are idol worshippers because by the extension of same logic it can is proved that even muslims are idol worshippers.

Correction: Muslims are forbidden to pick up the Qur'an if they are not in a state of ablution (wudu). Moreover, such is the respect towards the Qur'an and the high level of cleanliness demanded of the Muslims that it is forbidden for anyone to recite the Qur'an, let alone pick it up, either from the Qur'an or from memory if they are in a state of ritual impurity (junoob).

So when muslims treat the quran with respect then it is not idol worship but when sikhs treat guru granth sahib with respect then it becomes idol worship. When muslims perform ritual cleanliness before reciting quran then it is not idol worship but when sikhs cover guru granth sahib with special clothes then it becomes idol worship. So it is the muslims and not the sikhs who are maintaining double standards because muslims are a bunch of hypocrites.

If reverence constitutes making "rounds around" "a man-made" object while idol worship means holding such an object significantly in the religious way of life, then Sikhs too are idol worshippers since a man-made book is held significantly in their religious way of life!

First of all, why does Allah requires a house in kaaba. It beats logic and rationality. Secondly, the main difference between kaaba and guru granth sahib is that stones like black stone give no spiritual wisdom. So there is no logical reason to treat them with reverence because black stone is comparable to the infinite number of stones found on the earth. A stone is a stone no matter what form, color or shape it is in. No good can come from worshipping it and no harm can come from walking over it. But guru granth sahib gives us spiritual wisdom. That is why sikhs treat it with reverence.

The only reason we face the direction of the Ka'bah during prayer, circumambulate it and kiss the black stone during pilgrimage, pray five times a day, fast during the month of Ramadan, and give zakaah (obligatory alms-giving), etc., is out of complete submission to God's commands and in obedience to our Prophet, but certainly not in veneration of any created objects deemed to be divine and eternal.

But muslims have failed to tell the reason that why would Allah ask his followers to travel thousand of miles just to circumbulate and kiss a stone. Indian government gave a subsidy of 640 crores for hajj in 2009. So large amount of money is wasted, which in other case would have been utilized for development, just for travelling thousand of miles to kiss and circumbulate a stone. But still muslims, surprisingly, claim that they are not idol worshippers.

Likewise, why would Allah ask his followers to pray in one direction when he very well knew that he has made earth round. Obviously such a practice makes more sense under a flat earth conception. After all, just what direction is a muslim to pray if he/she happens to be polar opposite to mecca on a round globe? Should the muslim pray 'into' the earth thus making a straight line through the globe into mecca? This cleary proves that mohammad was an illiterate person and not a messenger of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is in reply to the article "CREMATING THE RIGHTS OF THE DEAD"

islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue

Reply: Black

But, the question we pose is: if the body is going to be so disrespectfully discarded anyway, why bother with these superficialities?

If muslims say that burning the body is disrespecting then leaving the body to rot and to be eaten by worms and insects is also disrespecting. So according to this logic, muslims should never dispose off the dead body.

In Islaam, the Qur'an so poetically describes the humble state of mind and the actions of a true believer in Allaah:

"The worshippers of the Most Merciful are those who tread the earth with humility..." (Qur'an 25:65)

First read this hadith and decide:

Narrated Anas:

Some people were sick and they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk." But when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the prophet and drove away his camels. The prophet sent some people in their pursuit. Then he got their hands and feet cut and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. I saw one of them licking the earth with his tongue till he died.

(Bukhari V7 B71 N589)

If the above cruel act of mohammad is humility then any cruel act in the world can be called humility. Is this humility quranic verse is referring to? Any sane person in today's world will not do such kind of cruel act.

How far away is this from this instruction that pays no mind to the blatant pollution of water? We can only imagine how much a water source will be polluted when we think of the number of deaths that occur where Sikhs and Hindus reside. Unfortunately, they seem to give more importance to superstitious practices than harmful actions!

Before talking of superstitions in sikhi, muslims should have a look at the superstitions that are carried out in muslim funerals without any logic:

The grave is aligned perpendicular to the qibla (i.e. towards Mecca).

The body is laid such that the head is facing the qibla.

Graves are raised up to 12 inches above the ground.

Women are discouraged from participating in the funeral procession.

The qur'an prohibits widows to engage themselves for four lunar months and ten days, after the death of their husbands.

It is mustahab that nails and teeth cut off or extracted during lifetime are also buried.

If a person dies in a well and it is not possible to take him out, the well should be sealed, and the well should be treated as his grave.

It is recommended that the person who lowers the dead body in the grave should be bare-headed and bare-footed and he should climb out of the grave from the feet side. Moreover, persons, other than the near relatives of the deceased, should put the dust into the grave with the back side of their hands

Slapping one's head or face is permitted to display the grief.

There is absolutely no logic behind all above superstitions.

However, an important observation we have noted is the proven reality that burying the dead is more environmentally friendly than cremation. This further confirms the dictum that Allaah has "forbidden for us only what is injurious or harmful for us (or for our environment)". Some Sikhs have contended that cremation does not take up much space as opposed to huge cemeteries. But, we would contend that this is relative. The earth is more than spacious enough to accommodate the dead, and burial is without doubt more environmentally friendly.

If that's the case then muslims should not travel thousand of miles for hajj because so much fuel and money is wasted just for kissing and circumbulating a stone. For eg: Indian government gave a subsidy of Rs 640 crores for hajj in 2008. Now that 640 crores could have been used for controlling environment pollution but that money was wasted on hajj. So if mohammad was so concerned about environment then he would have disallowed pilgrimage to mecca and medina.

Also, cremations are typically much less expensive than ground burials because burial requires a very expensive and limited resource - land. Today so many poverty stricken people don't have land to sleep on but muslims are wasting the land for their burials. Was mohammad not concerned about poor people. As far as pollution due to cremation is concerned, new techniques of cremation have been developed which doesn't cause any pollution. For eg: solar crematorium, gasifier based cremation and electric cremation doesn't cause any pollution. Solar energy and biogas also have the advantages of being renewable in nature.

Cremation can, in addition, be an excellent option for those who are apprehensive about environmental factors. For some, in this day of green consciousness, the thought of endangering the environment for wood that will only be buried is not comprehendible. Casket is made of wood which is buried along with body. Therefore so much wood is wasted due to burial.

As far as water pollution is concerned, muslims have forgot to read that ashes can be buried at that very place. Ashes contain components like potash, calcium carbonate and trace amounts of manganese, zinc etc which can increase the fertility of soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking Psychologically, these sorts of web-sites or theories are built byIslamic fundamentalists see a threat becuase of fear to their barbaric and militant fundamentals. So, Islamist fundamentalists just see a fear to their terrorist fundamentals because of openness of the Sikhism fundamentals.

If women have equal rights in Islam, what is the purpose of Burqa, why Males in Islam don't wear a Burqa :)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is in reply to the article 'FORCED MARRIAGE'

islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue

Reply: Black

Allaah says in the Qur'an:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allaah will bring about through it a great deal of good." (Qur'an 4:19)

Is the above quote also applicable to female slaves? The answer is a big NO. In Islam, a female slave may be used for sex by her master. He does not need her permission to practice al-'azl, and after having sex with her he may sell her to another man. If he desires her as a wife, he may marry her and does not have to pay her a bride price. Her freedom is considered her mahr. This can come in handy when a man is poor and yet desires to have a wife. A captured woman costs nothing, and he does not have to pay any money to marry her. So what will muslims call this kind of marriage which is done without taking the will of woman into account? Isn't this kind of marriage a forced marriage?

It is astonishing to note that mohammad himself had slave girls whom he married forcefully.

Juwairiya was a captive from the Banu Mustaliq tribe. She was given to one of the Muslims, and she entered into an agreement with him to purchase her freedom. She then sought assistance from Muhammad for the payment amount. He offered to pay the price of her freedom if she married him (since she was very beautiful). On account of Juwairiya, one hundred families of the Banu al-Mustaliq were set free.

The example of Safiyah is also shocking. This Jewish woman whose father had just been killed by the Muslims and husband had just been tortured to death was taken by Mohammad as his wife. Would she have happily married him? Could this have been a marriage free from fear and compulsion? What kind of woman could see her husband tortured to death and then happily marry the torturer?

Mariya was a Coptic concubine sent as a gift from Egypt to Muhammad. She gave birth to Muhammad's son Ibrahim, but he died by the time he was two. They were never married, but he had sex with her because she was his property.

Rayhana was a Jewish captive from the Quraiza tribe. One source says Muhammad offered her marriage instead of slavery, but she declined and remained Jewish. Another source says he married her, and her manumission was her mahr.

The above examples clearly prove that mohammad himself was involved in forced marriages which in turn means that forced marriages are allowed in islam.

In comparison, however, our contention is that Sikhism's Holy Scripture - Sri Guru Granth Sahib - has absolutely no clear proclamation prohibiting forced marriages.

The following lines from guru granth sahib clearly prove that forced marriages are not allowed in sikh religion:

"Kabeer, it is tyranny to use force; the Lord shall call you to account."

(SGGS p1375)

"Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal."

(SGGS p1374)

"They are not said to be husband and wife, who merely sit together. They alone are called husband and wife, who have one light in two bodies."

(SGGS p788)

Now question needs to be asked that in case of forced marriage, can husband and wife be one light in two bodies? The answer is an obvious no. So the above lines from guru granth sahib clearly prove that forced marriages are not allowed in sikhi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is in reply to the article 'DID MUHAMMAD NEGLECT HIS WIVES RIGHTS'

islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue

Reply: Black

With the complete absence of evidence, it is safe to say that, unlike Guru Nanak, Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) was a constant presence in his wives' and children's lives and was, thus, in a position to fulfill his rights as a husband during his life time.

But mohammad should have known by applying common sense that if he, at the age of 53 years, is marrying a 6 year old ayesha then for most of her life, ayesha would have to live without mohammad i.e. for (53-6)=47 years approximately. But mohammad chose not to apply common sense and married a 6 year old child. Mohammad's age was same as that of aisha's father, abu bakr. But still mohammad married aisha to whom he was a fatherly figure.

In contrast, the same is not true of Guru Nanak when examining his marriage to Sulakhani (1473-1545CE). According to Max Arthur MacAuliffe, the Janamsakhi that bears the name of Man Singh states that "Nanak was married [to Sulakhani] at the age of fourteen". Sulakhani is usually taken to be around four years his junior. Hence, when Nanak's so-called enlightenment occurred in 1499 C.E. at the age of "thirty years old", Sulakhani was around 26 years of age. With Nanak having practically abandoned his wife and children by spending an inordinate amount of time travelling the wilderness during his udhasis (proselytising mission) - accounting for a staggering 28 years of his remaining 38 years of life (1469-1538/9CE), poor Sulakhani was, from the age of 26, without the company of her good husband. Despite this sordid fact, we are patronisingly told that "though she undoubtedly was lonely, she waited patiently"!

If a soldier is fighting a long war for his country because of which he has to stay away from his home for much time then will it be fair to say that he is neglecting his family? Only a mad person would say that he is neglecting his wife because the truth is he is simply doing his duty towards his country and towards his job. Similarly, being the messenger of God, it was the duty of Guru Nanak Ji to spread the message of truth far and wide. So, guru sahib left his home for a greater good i.e. to provide true happiness and peace to the humanity. It was a sacrifice he made for the mission he was bestowed upon by God. Mata sulakhanee, his wife, was a very wise person and a devout sikh. She clearly understood the mission and fully supported her husband in this great feat. So, in light of above explanation, it would be plain lunacy to suggest that guruji neglected his wife rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i emailed these people 2 years ago demploshing their arguments and made them stick themselves in a rut. these lot made it wordperfectly clear that this site is only to convert people.

i emailed them stating that god is beyond all duality and that because muslims say this nirgun sargun thing, they are thus limiting the limitless potential of god.

i also tole these lot to stop putting other restrictions on god i.e. the 99 names of god when god has infinite number of names, and stop recognising only 24 or 25 profets of god instead of their 124000 (or 240000 as per anothe source) profets. again y put this limit on the number of profets...

y give an eticate of sharia law, wen times inevitable move on.. does this mean the law of god changes as per this sujection? thus sharia law is out dated.. this sharia law is again restricted itself, because it is not show plasticity. sikh dharam shows the true plastic law of god in that it says, to create goodness by being a good person. not by following a law that exists only as long as others are there to enforce it. the true law is the law of the heart and sikhi says to follow this law.

plus there is no jaat pat in the after life. so y are they creating it.. implication is that islam is man made and not 'of god' as pe the claim.

then i sez to them to forget their khorta panth, and come to the true law of god. sikhi. cus sikhi teaches this true law. the law of love and humanity. not the law of rule and seggregation.

these lot cheese me off on this site....

rebuttal_to_islam_sikhism_nirgun_sargun.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

log into your hotmail and have a look at my skydrive page.. some people done some seva on sikhingtruth.com website but this site is no more..

i got all these pdfs from this site..

bout answering islam.

log into your hotmail then go on this link.

https://cid-6027e42617af586c.office.live.com/browse.aspx/My%20Sikhi%20Docs%20and%20Others/Answers%20and%20Statments%20to%20Islam%20and%20Other%20Religions

alternatively go on this forum and start downloading..

i recomend to read islamic hygine

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/55815-wwwsikhingtruthcom-where-has-this-site-gone/

fateh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o yea, finally, to reely piss them off, tell them that they done even understand their islamic greeting..

AL SALAAM ALEYKUM

al salaam is saying 'i SALUTE

and ALEYKUM means the one god.

thus, muslims have reduced a salute to god, to mere hello and bye.

they say its wot they used to say in war times to the jews.

but this is its true meaning that muzis have forgotten.

also, the very notion of conversion and using words like saying your god implies they dont even believe in 1 god.

another thing one can say to muzis is that sikhs are not a missionary faith and does not believe in conversion, like islam.

then go on to define conversion.

to break faith is wot muzis do to convert.

though sikhs dont coonvert, we instill faith into people if needed. then if ppl want to further their understanding, then they become sikh.

muzis brain wash, sikhs work with where the person is to help them if need be, to get closer to god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Brother, half knowledge can be deadly.

1. Muhammad married Ayesha when she was six years old and consummated it when she was nine.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88.

2. Muhammad HIMSELF asked Aysha's hand. Aysha's father was like a brother Muhammad, and Arabs didn't marry brothers daughters. But Muhammad convinced him in doing so.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

3. Aysha wasn't into puberty yet. She was still playing with dolls.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151

Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Request to moderators: Please do not edit this post, I have provided facts for my claims.

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