Cartoon Shooting France

[Guest Jacfsing2]

And where is the insult iny my comments? Regarding Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji why don't we see which sect of Islam did he build the mosque for?

The thing about Islam is despite it being into sects,(Shia and Sunni), their places of worship are usually for all types of Muslims, example is ALL Muslims must go to Hajj.

[13Mirch]

The thing about Islam is despite it being into sects,(Shia and Sunni), their places of worship are usually for all types of Muslims, example is ALL Muslims must go to Hajj.

There are divisions as well.

‘Following the chain of crackdown on Bahraini uprising in 2011, the government demolished 43 Shia mosques, many of which had historical significance. In addition, two Shia cemeteries were vandalized and two funeral parlors were damaged (Gutman, 2011). While Bahraini government officials stated that the structures were not a mosque and were “illegal buildings”. Among the damaged or completely demolished mosques are Sasa’a bin Sawhan Mosque in the city of Askar, south of the capital of Manama, that dates back to 7th century, the early periods of Islam, the 400-year-old Amir Mohammed Braighi mosque in Aali, and historic Mo’men mosque, in the village of Nwaidrat.The fact that all the religious structures are registered with the government and some of the destroyed Shia mosques have historical significance that dates back to centuries before Al-Khalifa regime come to power in Bahrain, refutes the government claims about the “illegality” of the property.

The Amir Mohammed Braighi mosque located near Sheikh Salman highway was a 400-year-old religious site and one of the iconic Shiite mosques in Bahrain, was bulldozed by Al-Khalifa regime forces in April 17th 2011, on the grounds that it encroached on a safety lane and was a hazard to traffic (Law, 2014). The mosque desecration was ordered by Al-Khalifa, a month after March 2011 government crackdown on protestors and deployment of Saudi and other Gulf-state troops to suppress Bahraini people’s uprising.

The 400-year-old Barbagi Shia mosque in Bahrain was bulldozed by Al-Khalifa Regime, in April 17th, 2011

The 400-year-old Barbagi Shia mosque in Bahrain was bulldozed by Al-Khalifa Regime, in April 17th, 2011

The destruction of Shia mosques and cemetaries by Al-Khalifa regime and Saudi troops, after the 2011 Bahrain uprising, reminds memories of Wahhabis’ desecration of the shrines in Jannat al-Baqi cemetery in Saudi Arabia, where four Shia Imams and other family members of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) were buried. In fact the traces of both direct intervention and influence of Wahhabi ideology on all levels within Al-Khalifa regime is quite evident from their join Anti-Shi’ism practices with Saudi and some other Gulf states to denounce Shia as ‘heretic’ and allow themselves to violate their rights including destruction of the mosques and even desecrating the shrines of the family of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

The Saudi-Backed ruling regime in Bahrain has committed “the cultural genocide, according to Sheikh Maytham al-Salman, a spokesman for the Bahrain Interfaith Center and an important government critic (Law, 2014), and refused to allow Shia community to rebuild the destroyed mosques…’ (23)

[13Mirch]

Remember, we are dealing with Al-Qaeda trained terrorists on the watch list's of multiple countries. Just like the pilots who flew the planes into the twin towers on 9/11, these terrorists are hardly the ideal Koran-loving Muslims. Many imaams including the leader of the French Muslim Council have condemned this terrorist atrocity.

The Muslims did not want the publishers to publish such pictures - fine, we understand that. So why did they, I hear many of you ask?

This stifling on freedom of expression is a symptom of the wider pathological basis for what they are seeking - Sharia law. Once a government or the Arts world caves into the demands of the hardline muslims and not publish or depict such images, it's a case of "you give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Before you know it, some of the very Sikhs living in western countries on this very forum will be paying a jizya (tax payable by non-Muslims). You might laugh, but the ethnic demographics in western Europe, particularly France, suggest that within our lifetime the Muslims will be in sufficient numbers to be able to dictate government policy and foreign affairs.

If you choose to live in a democracy, then you agree to abide by their laws. If they didn't like the publishers tactics - do what everyone does in a democracy....protest! It's called exercising your democratic rights and is perfectly legitimate.

But to intimidate and bully people into imposing Sharia law.....you have another thing coming.

Satire is a way to humorously criticize an ideology/system/belief which threatens to suffocate societal rights. At the end of the day it would be more prudent to ask what made Charlie Hebdo do what it did, rather than expressing sympathy with Muslims over this issue.

[JagsawSingh]

Satire is a way to humorously criticize an ideology/system/belief which threatens to suffocate societal rights. At the end of the day it would be more prudent to ask what made Charlie Hebdo do what it did, rather than expressing sympathy with Muslims over this issue.

Charlie Hebdo did what it did not for some noble reason. It did what it did because it is a rag with a long tradition of very racist journalism. You see this is what the people around the world now describing themselves as 'je suis charlie' don't understand. They're too stupid to even take a minute to understand that they're actually supporting a very ignorant and racist magazine. There is areason why this magazine only had a readership on a par with local parish newsletters (60,000), and that reason is because it was because it was a shoddy rag full of shoddy articles. For example, do you remember a couple of years ago there was a furure in France because a female French Minister (who just happened to be black) was depicted in a French magazine as a monkey ? Well guess what magazine that was ? Yes, it was Charlie Hebdo.

Be careful who and what you're standing up for my friend.

[SheikhYoBooty]

HUFFINGTON POST

Over the past few days I, along with the rest of the world, have been horrified by the terrible atrocities committed in France last week, beginning with the massacre at the Charlie Hedbo offices, and continuing through the streets of Paris and into the supermarket of a jewish community.

I was equally moved by the outpouring of love and solidarity which followed. No, it doesn't help bring back the deceased, but it demonstrated the unbreakability of the human spirit, and it highlighted the similarities of our humanity amongst men and women in a society so often fractured by our differences.

But one thing I've found difficult to ignore is the growing voices of those who knew little of the cartoonists and journalists saying terrible things about them, which are quite frankly unsettling.

"Racist", "Islamophobic" and "hypocritical" have been the most common accusations. Many seemingly educated friends and social media buddies seemed to be merely glancing at a few cherry-picked Charlie Hebdo covers without making any effort in understanding their true meaning or impetus (or often even of the French translation of the accompanying captions).

So to those smearing the names and reputations of men and women who are no longer here to defend themselves a few things that I thought it might be good to know....

Charlie Hedbo were leftists, some may even anarchists and punks. They printed numerous cartoons which were anti racism/xenophobia; that mocked and satirised the far right as bigots and racists. As long time reader and Frenchman, Olivier Tonneau pointed out in his excellent article, The National Front and the Le Pen family were in fact their primary targets above all others. Next came bosses, politicians and the corrupt. Finally they opposed organised religion. ALL organised religion. They didn't hate or abuse or target any one group or religion. They did however mock ALL systems and organisations and individuals of power - from political to religious to everything in between. They were satirists, and all people, systems and organisations should be open to criticism and mockery (so long as it sticks within the laws of the land). They were democratic in their ridicule and satirisation. No one was exempt. To do otherwise would have been the hypocritical. Equal rights also means equal treatment.

Accusations of Islamophobia alone seem to ignore the fact that the Pope, Jesus, Orthodox Jews (amongst many others) were targeted in equal measure. As the publication's lawyer Richard Malka said this week "In each edition for the past 22 years there has not been one where there have not been caricatures of the pope, jesus, priests, rabbis, immans or Mohammed." Although of course... perhaps you still believe they were Islamophobic, Christian-phobic, and anti-Semitic... but it seems it was not the every day believer they were intentionally targeting.

"We want to laugh at extremists - every extremist," surviving staff member Laurent Leger stated. "They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept".

Much has been made of the fact (and accusations of hypocrisy bandied around) over the fact that a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked in 2009 over an alleged anti-Semitic cartoon (although its rarely noted this decision was taken by a long-since departed editor; that the sacked journalist ultimately won his unfair dismissal suit; and that this cartoon targeted a specific individual as opposed to an entire religion or idea), and many have asked why Muslims should expect to put up with things that Jews don't. Which would be a fair point, if it was true.

Judaism was frequently lampooned (a simple Google search will verify that). The Charlie Hebdo team were also very much pro-Gaza, and often fiercely critical of Israel's actions in the Israel-Palestine conflict. One series entitled 'One Commandment A Day: The Torah Illustrated by Charb' coarsely depicts Jews as contradicting their religious values in their interactions with Palestinians."Ne pas opprimer les faibles" ("Don't oppress the weak") is the title of a cartoon of a Jewish man firing an assault weapon into the back of a Palestinian woman. "Here, take that Goliath!," he shouts.

More in-depth research and conversations with those who were regular readers of the magazine reveal that Charlie Hebdo also strongly and regularly denounced the plight of minorities, they wrote in support of the Kurds, and they campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. One of Cabu's most famous creations was Mon Beauf, which caricaturised an ignorant, racist and bigoted Frenchman, and Bernard Velhac, also known as Tignous (and a member of Cartoonists for Peace) once said, "I would love to think that every time I make a drawing it prevents a kidnapping, a murder, or removes a land mine. What joy it would be! If I had that power I would stop sleeping and would make drawings non-stop."

As Oliver Tonneau so beautifully writes: "Two young French Muslims of Arab descent have not assaulted the numerous extreme-right wing newspapers that exist in France (Minute, Valeurs Actuelles) who ceaselessly amalgamate Arabs, Muslims and fundamentalists, but the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism... I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, then you lost precious friends and allies last week."

The comments section underneath this article will no doubt be full of remarks and examples of cartoons which appear to defy this and which seem to to scream "racism!" and honestly, it would take a far longer article than I could write here (or you would care to read of mine) to go through every single cartoon, analyse it, explain the context, the news item behind it, the cultural context, the nuances and history of French humour, satire and cartoons (which were used up to 400 years ago to mock religion, royalty and other powerful and oppressive institutions in a time when many people couldn't read and cartoons were essential in the fight against monarchy and the church).

Only then after all that might we appreciate that the cartoon depicting France's black Justice minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey was actually lampooning the blatant racism of a far right wing paper's front cover and thus exposing the thinly veiled racism of that publication (note that Taubira sued the paper Charlie Hebdo were parodying, and not Charlie Hebdo). By depicting the world through the lens of the extreme right's gaze they were attacking the racists, not the race.

We might also understand that the now widely shared front cover titled "Boko Haram Sex Slaves are angry" with the women shouting "don't touch our welfare" says the exact opposite of what it first appears at first glance. As Max Fisher explains in Vox this week far better than I could, "Charie Hebdo is a leftist magazine that supports welfare programs, but the French political right tends to oppose welfare programs... what this cover actually says is that the French political right is so monstrous when it comes to welfare for immigrants that they would have you believe that even Nigerian migrants escaping from Boko Haram sexual slavery are just here to steal welfare."

And we may appreciate that the very controversial cartoon of Mohammed being filmed naked titled "The film that embraces the Muslim world:" wasn't merely for the sake of putting him in a lewd position - it is a parody of a Brigitte Bardot scene in Jean-Luc Goddard's film Contempt thus satirising the outrage following the release of a controversial film about Islam.

Perhaps knowing all this and more you (or even I) may still find these and other cartoons extremely offensive (or worse) .

It's your right to feel that way, and to say as much as loudly as you like (and in doing so even to offend others). Freedom of speech means that some things people say and do are bound to offend you and vice versa. That's ok. As (a personal hero of mine) Majid Nawaz says you have every right to be offended, you do not have the right to not be offended.

Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute, no one sane would suggest it is. The laws of the land lay out what is and is not permissible. Defamation, incitement of violence and hate speech are just a few examples of where what you say crosses a line. But in France, religion is fair game.

Incitement of violence against Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc is not ok (or legal). But criticism and mockery of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or atheism and the ideas they represent is. People have rights. Ideas do not. And the law is there to punish those who cross that line.

If anyone genuinely felt that the Charlie Hebdo crossed that very line then they had the option to start legal proceedings (as the Catholic church did many times). Fear of being prosecuted is a valid one that journalists, comedians and even cartoonists consider. Fear of losing one's life shouldn't be. The law is there to guide us in what we say, and punish us when we go too far. If you don't feel that the law adequately represents the rights of muslims or anyone else for that matter, or that certain depictions of religious figures in cartoons shouldn't be permissable, you're free to say so, write about it, protest and campaign to change the law. You aren't however free to take the law into your own hands.

The thought that a religion, a set of beliefs, or an idea, could be above criticism or ridicule is, to me, a scary one which could lead us into very dangerous ground.

Ultimately the line between humour and offence is a thin one, and the posts will move from person to person. It's something satirists and stand up comedians are well aware of. And the boundaries are often pushed. I don't doubt many people would have found the Charlie Hebdo cartoons extremely offensive, and I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, but the insinuation that insulting/offending people may have invited this horrific tragedy on any level is tantamount in my eyes to the old age adage that a rape victim "asked for it" by wearing a short skirt. It's victim blaming at its very worst, and especially against people who fought in many ways for the rights of those who attacked them.

So long as offence remains within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, then it is just that - acceptable - whether you personally like it or not. And until the respective laws change, people are just going to have to like it or lump it (or live in a country where the laws are different).

As we all argue about what's right to say and what's wrong, what's offensive, and what's hypocritical, it might do us good to remember that 17 people died last week in the cruelest of ways. Each was their own person, no doubt differing in their morals, ethics, ideas and thoughts. Let's not call many of them names before they are even cold in the ground, although... of course, it's your right to do so if you like because most of you, like them, have similar freedom of expression. I may not like you insulting them, and you may not like anything that i've said in this article, but as you write your comment in section underneath (perhaps about what a stupid you think I am) just remember that Charlie Hebdo's staff died standing up for your right to do so.

Follow Lliana Bird on Twitter: www.twitter.com/xfm_lliana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klKOVKIc8NE

Muhammad: A Pedophile

Muhammad “married” Aisha when she was six years old.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Muslim 8. 3310

Narrated 'Aisha:that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Bukhari 7. 62. 64

Narrated 'Aisha:that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' Bukhari 7. 62. 65

Narrated 'Ursa:The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). Bukhari 7. 62. 88

Arab year is lunar, which is shorter than solar year. In solar years, Aisha was 8 years 9 months old when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. Consummate? This is a nice way to say raped her. According to Muslims, a woman must consent to her marriage or the marriage is null.

How can a 6-years old child consent to her marriage? Without a consent, how can we call this relationship between a 51 years old man and a 6-years old child marriage?

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

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." Bukhari 7.62.18

Even though Abu Bakr was fool enough to let Muhammad have sex with his little daughter, that marriage was invaled, because the only person who should have given consent was a minor. Aisha was unaware of what was going on and was surprised when Muhammad pulled down his pants and invited her to sit on his lap. She Narrated:

When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon. Bukhari 7. 62. 90

Aisha was playing with dolls like any other 8 year old child would do. She was not ready for marriage and had no understanding of it.

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) Bukhari 8. 73.151

Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Bukhari 5.234

Having sexual feelings for small children is called pedophilia. Abu Bakr was already a devout follower of Muhammad and his confidant. Abu Lahab and Abul Hakam (whom Muhammad derogatorily called Abu Jahl, father of ignorance) had nothing to do with Abu Bakr. How can having sex with a child placate one's enemies? Assuming this ridiculous excuse is true, what about Aisha? Was she only a pawn for Muhammad’s political maneuvers?

As a rule a 53-year-old man cannot have sexual feelings for a 9-year-old girl, unless he is a pedophile.

The Islamocritic scholar, Abul Kasem, has demonstrated that in Islam there is actually no age limit for marrying a child. He found the following hadith which shows a Muslim man can marry an infant.

However should one of his adult wives suckle that infant both wives become haram to him.

Case of one of two wives suckling the other-If a man marry an infant and an adult and the latter should give milk to the former, both wives become prohibited with respect to that man [their husband], because if they were to continue united in marriage to him, it would imply the propriety of joint cohabitation with the foster-mother and her foster-daughter, which is prohibited, in the same manner as joint cohabitation with a natural mother and daughter-It is to be observed on this occasion, that if the husband should not have had carnal connexion with the adult wife, she is not entitled to any dower whatever, because the separation has proceeded from her, before consummation :-but the infant has a claim to her half dower. [Hedaya Vol. I Book III, page 71 (Ref. 6)]

Abul Kasem also quoted the story of Umar marrying a child just four or five years old.

Umme Kulthum was 4 or 5 years old when Umar married her. This child was his most favourite wife (just like prophet Mohammad). There is a great controversy about the identity of this child bride of Umar. Many scholars claim that she was the daughter of Ali and Fatima. Others say that Umme Kulthum was the posthumous daughter of Abu Bakar and Habiba. Abu Bakar died (13 A.H.) a few months before Umme Kulthum was born. She was the half sister of Aisha. So, Umar asked Aisha for the hand of Umme Kulthum when she (Umme Kulthum) was only 4 - 5 years old. Aisha agreed and Umar and Umme Kulthum got married.

According to Abul Kasem’s calculations, Umar was 56 years old when he married this little girl. Why would he not wait for Umme Kulthum to reach the age of nine? Shouldn’t Umar follow the sunna (example) of his prophet? The answer is that Muhammad did not set any limits for child marriage.

Ummar must have remembered when Muhammad expressed his desire to marry a crawling baby before death overtook him. This story is reported by Ibn Ishac, the most authentic biographer of Muhammad. Most other biographies are based on this monumental work of Ibn Ishak/Ibn Hisham

(Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I.I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’l-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba….(Ref.3, page 311)

< Back to Sina's Challenge

[StarStriker]

[Akalifauj]

This guys arguments don't hold true for one second. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji doesn't teach other religions teachings. Bhagat Kabir ji was neither a Muslim or a Hindu. Bhagat Kabir ji clearly says in Gurbani he is neither.

Gurbani says there is:

There is One Bani; there is One Guru; there is one Shabad to contemplate. ang 646

This "there is one Shabad to contemplate" directly tells us there is one thought process in Gurbani. There is only one Dharm taught in Gurbani. Not two or more religious teachings or Dharms.

Sri Guru Amar Das ji did not discriminate between Shabads in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, who is a Sikh to do it? The Gurbani of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji and the Gurbani spoken by any Bhagat or any other writer in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji are equal. There is no Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji left and no Bhagat Fareed ji or Bhagat Kabir ji left. All there is one Shabad given to us by Akal Purakh. What a stupid comment to make a person who does extra Gurbani doesn't read Bhatt or Bhagat Bani, etc, but the Gurus Bani with their nitnem. Implying that Bhagat and Bhatt Bani is lower than Gurus Bani. This is total nonsense, I don't know how someone is giving him a stage with this rubbish. In this video he sounds like the Muslim Dr. Zakir Naik..............I don't know what I am talking about, but hopefully I get enough people to applaud to make it look like I know what I am talking about. Meri Balle Balle

This guy has made a name brand for himself and all of a sudden Sikhs follow him like sheep. If this is what he teaches, then he is no different than the Baba, Gianis on stages at Gurdwaras making up things as they go. Forget about the name brand, look at the material and see if it will hold on strong for end of time.

[StarStriker]

This guys arguments don't hold true for one second. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji doesn't teach other religions teachings. Bhagat Kabir ji was neither a Muslim or a Hindu. Bhagat Kabir ji clearly says in Gurbani he is neither.

Gurbani says there is:

There is One Bani; there is One Guru; there is one Shabad to contemplate. ang 646

This "there is one Shabad to contemplate" directly tells us there is one thought process in Gurbani. There is only one Dharm taught in Gurbani. Not two or more religious teachings or Dharms.

Sri Guru Amar Das ji did not discriminate between Shabads in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, who is a Sikh to do it? The Gurbani of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji and the Gurbani spoken by any Bhagat or any other writer in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji are equal. There is no Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji left and no Bhagat Fareed ji or Bhagat Kabir ji left. All there is one Shabad given to us by Akal Purakh. What a stupid comment to make a person who does extra Gurbani doesn't read Bhatt or Bhagat Bani, etc, but the Gurus Bani with their nitnem. Implying that Bhagat and Bhatt Bani is lower than Gurus Bani. This is total nonsense, I don't know how someone is giving him a stage with this rubbish. In this video he sounds like the Muslim Dr. Zakir Naik..............I don't know what I am talking about, but hopefully I get enough people to applaud to make it look like I know what I am talking about. Meri Balle Balle

This guy has made a name brand for himself and all of a sudden Sikhs follow him like sheep. If this is what he teaches, then he is no different than the Baba, Gianis on stages at Gurdwaras making up things as they go. Forget about the name brand, look at the material and see if it will hold on strong for end of time.

ERM.....

i think u need to watch the video. He has not said SGGS teaches other religions' practises/teachings. He clearly said muslims dont consider kabir/farid as muslims, and they were not! Watch again properly from the start.

Also for u to compare jagraj singh to zakir naik, is pathetic, u shud wash ur mouth out with soap. Jagraj is a ray of light in a bad time for the panth....otherwise u open ur own channel n teach the rest of us.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

ERM.....

i think u need to watch the video. He has not said SGGS teaches other religions' practises/teachings. He clearly said muslims dont consider kabir/farid as muslims, and they were not! Watch again properly from the start.

Also for u to compare jagraj singh to zakir naik, is pathetic, u shud wash ur mouth out with soap. Jagraj is a ray of light in a bad time for the panth....otherwise u open ur own channel n teach the rest of us.

I agree, if he can't do better he shouldn't insult those that are trying, I really also like the Prachar done by Bhai Manvir Singh Ji as well from the AKJ.

same issue

[Akalifauj]

ERM.....

i think u need to watch the video. He has not said SGGS teaches other religions' practises/teachings. He clearly said muslims dont consider kabir/farid as muslims, and they were not! Watch again properly from the start.

Also for u to compare jagraj singh to zakir naik, is pathetic, u shud wash ur mouth out with soap. Jagraj is a ray of light in a bad time for the panth....otherwise u open ur own channel n teach the rest of us.

For learning sake, I took out a few minutes of my time and transcribed all of what Jugraj Singh said in the video from where the question is posed.

Look at what the sikh does on a daily basis. Our nitnem. None of our nitnem comes from anything other than our Gurus. Remember this. None of our nitnem come anything other than our Gurus. Even the people who read extra path what they end up reading is like Shabad Hazaraa, and they will read something like Solak Mehila 9, Sukhmani Sahib, Asa Di Vaar. None of these have any writings of anybody from other faiths. Only the Gurus. So majority, in every Raag, also in every Raag the level is first Guru Nanak, then Guru Angad, and then like that all the way to Guru Teg Bahadar Ji. So the Gurus always get precedence in Gurbani. Whether we like it or not, they are on the same level, but within the Raag how it is structured. 31 Raags. Every Raag starts off with Guru Nanak Dev ji and goes to Guru Teg Bahadur ji. And then comes Bhagat Kabir ji. Who is a Shiromani Bhagat, but he still below Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib ji. That is the first point. So obviously not, we are not following a path of with Islam with Sikhi tact on. It’s following a path of Sikhi with teachings of other religions put on (2 mins in the video). But if you look at Shiekh Fareed ji, he is not accepted by most Muslims. They would say he is like aa, he is like aaa, doing something different to what Islam would say. Kabir ji is referenced in Bani being a Muslim, but he criticizes Islam a lot (2:12 minutes in he says this). So these are not like perfect Muslims you know. They are seen by Muslims as not the perfect Muslims. For us the reason they are in there, to expand our mind, expand our mind. The Truth is from everywhere. The truth can be in a Muslim, it can be in a Hindu, it can be in a Sikh. Don’t get caught up in the religion. Look at the person. Look at how much truth they have inside them. Thats the reason. To expand our mind. So Sikhis don’t become like them, only looked upon their religion. Yea, thats ways the best, but everyone else is actually wrong. We say we are the best, but other people also can get mukhti, other people can also follow the truth. But there conception is different, so they word it the wrong way around, so just say, what a daily Sikh does. If a Muslimman was everyday waking up reading japji Sahib, Rehraas Sahib, and Kirtan Sohila. Most Muslims would not accept him as being a Muslim. Simple gal nhe, we are doing the samething.

Now let's answer your doubt.

He has not said SGGS teaches other religions' practises/teachings.

So obviously not, we are not following a path of with Islam with Sikhi tact on. It’s following a path of Sikhi with TEACHINGS OF OTHER RELIGIONS PUT ON (2 mins in the video).

These are his exact words. Don't shoot the messenger. Also Muslims do not have authority to decide who is a Muslim. This guy is playing games here. Ask him if Sikhs decide who is a Sikh. He would go off and start laughing at you as if you are stupid and he is some kind of Brahmgyani. Muslim is defined by the Quran, Haidith and other sacred scriptures of Islam. Yet he lies to the sangat and says:

Kabir ji is referenced in Bani being a Muslim, but he criticizes Islam a lot (2:12 minutes in he finishing say it).

Find me one reference that says Kabir ji is a Muslim by the standard of the Islam sacred scriptures. In fact here is Bhagat Kabir ji saying I am not a muslim in Gurbani.

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥

I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.

ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

My body and breath of life belong to Allah - to Raam - the God of both. ||4||

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹੁ ਕੀਆ ਵਖਾਨਾ ॥

Says Kabeer, this is what I say:

ਗੁਰ ਪੀਰ ਮਿਲਿ ਖੁਦਿ ਖਸਮੁ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥੫॥੩॥

meeting with the Guru, my Spiritual Teacher, I realize God, my Lord and Master. ||5||3|| ang 1136

Also for u to compare jagraj singh to zakir naik, is pathetic, u shud wash ur mouth out with soap. Jagraj is a ray of light in a bad time for the panth....otherwise u open ur own channel n teach the rest of us.

Dr. Zakir Naik answers question in a similar manner, when he does not have an answer to a question. Obviously this guy was caught off gaurd when asked this complex question. Instead of admitting it and then people go, he doesn't have the knowledge. Like Dr. Zakir Naik, he starts making things up as he goes to save his brand name of BasicsofSikhi. Why learn from these guys or anyone else including me. I just presented you Gurbani of Bhagat Kabir ji and learn from this Bani. Learn from the first ang of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji to the last ang. Pick one ang a day or more and see how much you learn and re-learn, when Gurbani provide you with more information.