Sikhism's Compatibility With Other Faiths

[ASKhalsa1]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,

A lot of modern Sikhs are very quick to extol their opinions that Sikhism equates all the major religions of the world to rivers flowing into a single ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism#Sikhism

In other words all religions, when properly followed, can lead one to God.

Aside from this metaphor being nauseating for its sentimentality, the idea that two faiths with completely different and usually contradictory precepts can both yield the same spiritual pay dirt strikes me as being utterly fanciful. It also betrays an ignorance of the religions with which Sikhi is being equated.

Take Muhammad, as an instance of a prophet from another religion. Some members of our Panth consider that both the Prophet of Islam and our own Gurus were all sent by the same God in order to enlighten the masses, that both these parties are composed of the messengers of God. However it is made explicitly clear in the Quran, which was supposedly revealed to Muhammad by Allah himself, that he would be the very last prophet in history to the exclusion of all others that came after him. This includes our own Guru Sahibaan: "Muhammad is... the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets (The Quran, Surah 33:40). As a "seal" closes a letter, so does Muhammad close the line of prophethood. Therefore if we accept Muhammad as a prophet we must by definition accept his revelation (all of which came directly from Allah through the supposed intercession of the Angel Gabriel), and in lending any credence to the idea that he is the last messenger of God, we are in effect denouncing our own Guru Sahibaan as pretenders. We cannot possibly believe in both the Gurus and Muhammad. Either Muhammad was right and our Gurus were liars, or our Gurus are right and Muhammad was a liar. I very much doubt that any of us inclines towards the former.

Secondly, how can it be argued that both Islam and Sikhi both lead to salvation when the two of them advocate completely different and antithetical ways of attaining it? In Sikhism, as the members of the Sangat here will well know, one is instructed that rituals such as fasting, pilgrimages, circumcisions are wholly unimportant and of no consequence. One who wishes to attain Mukhta is counselled to avoid these things. But in Islam, fasts, pilgrimages and rituals are of the utmost importance, and are actually said to be necessary if one wishes to go to heaven (two of the so called five pillars of the faith being predicated on ritual).

To summarise, is it possible for Muhammad to have been sent by the very same God who sent our own Guru Sahibaan, when the first party's message excludes and contradicts that of the latter?

[jkvlondon]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,

A lot of modern Sikhs are very quick to extol their opinions that Sikhism equates all the major religions of the world to rivers flowing into a single ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism#Sikhism

In other words all religions, when properly followed, can lead one to God.

Aside from this metaphor being nauseating for its sentimentality, the idea that two faiths with completely different and usually contradictory precepts can both yield the same spiritual pay dirt strikes me as being utterly fanciful. It also betrays an ignorance of the religions with which Sikhi is being equated.

Take Muhammad, as an instance of a prophet from another religion. Some members of our Panth consider that both the Prophet of Islam, and our own Gurus, were all sent by the same God in order to enlighten the masses, that both these parties are composed of the messengers of God. However, it is made explicitly clear in the Quran, which was supposedly revealed to Muhammad by Allah himself, that he would be the very last prophet in history, to the exclusion of all others that came after him. This includes our own Guru Sahibaan: "Muhammad is... the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets (The Quran, Surah 33:40). As a "seal" closes a letter, so does Muhammad close the line of prophethood. Therefore, if we accept Muhammad as a prophet, we must by definition accept that his revelation (all of which came directly from Allah through the supposed intercession of the Angel Gabriel), and in lending any credence to the idea that he is the last messenger of God, we are in effect denouncing our own Guru Sahibaan as pretenders. We cannot possibly believe in both the Gurus and Muhammad. Either Muhammad was right and our Gurus were liars, or our Gurus are right and Muhammad was a liar. I very much doubt that any of us inclines towards the former.

Secondly, how can it be argued that both Islam and Sikhi both lead to salvation, when the two of them advocate completely different and antithetical ways of attaining it? In Sikhism, as the members of the Sangat here will well know, one is instructed that rituals such as fasting, pilgrimages, circumcisions are wholly unimportant and of no consequence. One who wishes to attain Mukhta is counselled to avoid these things. But in Islam, fasts, pilgrimages and rituals are of the utmost importance, and are actually said to be necessary if one wishes to go to heaven (two of the so called five pillars of the faith being predicated on ritual).

To summarise, is it possible for Muhammad to have been sent by the very same God who sent our own Guru Sahibaan, when the first party's message excludes and contradicts that of the latter?

Waheguru ji creates all and give all their duties on Earth , so yes it is feasible that Muhammed was sent ...but did he join all with Akal Purakh which was his mission? NO . reason being the messenger did not write the quran himself and ensure that it remained un changed . the sayings the biography were written 100-200 years after his death by people who relied on the say so of arabs who had their own motives not people who stayed with Muhammed himself. One can only say a faith brings you to Akal Purakh if it gives the highest ideals for its followers of the truth to become Godlike in compassion, understanding and deed - one cannot say that about people who insist on following suspects hadiths.

[ASKhalsa1]

Waheguru ji creates all and give all their duties on Earth , so yes it is feasible that Muhammed was sent ...but did he join all with Akal Purakh which was his mission? NO . reason being the messenger did not write the quran himself and ensure that it remained un changed . the sayings the biography were written 100-200 years after his death by people who relied on the say so of arabs who had their own motives not people who stayed with Muhammed himself. One can only say a faith brings you to Akal Purakh if it gives the highest ideals for its followers of the truth to become Godlike in compassion, understanding and deed - one cannot say that about people who insist on following suspects hadiths.

Indeed, Muhammad, and it seems, Allah, didn't even consider the dangers of passing down a revelation entirely through the medium of oral tradition, which is notoriously susceptible to corruption. One would think an omnipotent God would be aware of this danger and would instruct his messenger to act in order to prevent it. But as is apparent from the Koran, Allah must have thought this concern was not as important as the injunctions to commit atrocities against women and unbelievers. Whether or not the Koran today is exactly as it was in the early days of Islam, the revelations could not have acquired such a sanguinary character in the short hundred years or so before the Koran was actually written down, unless some of that character was present in the first place. It is very difficult to make significant alterations to a text which most people know by heart without arousing ire or opposition.

By the time Muhammad died, pretty much the whole of Arabia had been brought beneath the sway of the new religion. Thus, Arab motives and Islamic motives became synonymous. Islam lent a new zeal and fanaticism to the expansionist urges of the Arabs

Nor would I be so quick to discount the importance of the Hadith in the practice of Islam. A religion and its tenets are not necessarily entirely summed up in the flagship scripture of the faith. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for instance offers no commentary on the maintenance of kes, the rehat maryada, or amrit sanchaar. But only a fool would dispute that these principles are integral to Sikhi. These mandates may instead be found in old rehitnamas, which occupy a roughly equivalent status in Sikhi to that of the Hadith in Islam. The most reliable Hadith today was written by Bukhari about one and half centuries after Muhammad. Bukhari, over the course of his endeavors, collected 300,000 hadith. He ruled that 200,000 of these were entirely unsubstantiated, and that another 90,000 were slightly dubious. So thorough and devout a man can't justly be suspected of not having done his research. The 10,000 hadiths which he deemed accurate, should not therefore be discounted lightly.

[jkvlondon]

Indeed, Muhammad, and it seems, Allah, didn't even consider the dangers of passing down a revelation entirely through the medium of oral tradition, which is notoriously susceptible to corruption. One would think an omnipotent God would be aware of this danger and would instruct his messenger to act in order to prevent it. But as is apparent from the Koran, Allah must have thought this concern was not as important as the injunctions to commit atrocities against women and unbelievers. Whether or not the Koran today is exactly as it was in the early days of Islam, the revelations could not have acquired such a sanguinary character in the short hundred years or so before the Koran was actually written down, unless some of that character was pleasant in the first place. It is very difficult to make significant alterations to a text which most people know by heart without arousing ire or opposition.

By the time Muhammad died, pretty much the whole of Arabia had been brought beneath the sway of the new religion. Thus, Arab motives and Islamic motives became synonymous. Islam lent a new zeal and fanaticism to the expansionist urges of the Arabs

Nor would I be so quick to discount the importance of the Hadith in the practice of Islam. A religion and its tenets are not necessarily entirely summed up in the flagship scripture of the faith. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for instance offers no commentary on the maintenance of kes, the rehat maryada, or amrit sanchaar. But only a fool would dispute that these principles are integral to Sikhi. These mandates may instead be found in old rehitnamas, which occupy a roughly equivalent status in Sikhi to that of the Hadith in Islam. The most reliable Hadith today was written by Bukhari about one and half centuries after Muhammad. Bukhari, over the course of his endeavors, collected 300,000 hadith. He ruled that 200,000 of these were entirely unsubstantiated, and that another 90,000 were slightly dubious. So thorough and devout a man can't justly be suspected of not having done his research. The 10,000 hadiths which he deemed accurate, should not therefore be discounted lightly.

yet by the hadiths the abrogations are forced in place of the early quran's (mecca)message of peace and understanding either one can say Muhammed fell foul of maya by the time of Medina did commit the atrocities against the christians and jews , took slaves and shared then with his trusted followers or the quran was re written to suit the arab tribes who wanted to carry on their old ways. I don't know which but I would like to think that the man did not fall that far from God's graces.

[kharkusingh1996]

Bhai Jugraj did mention that we Sikhs should say all people are equal, but not all religions are equal. In sense, that other religions have some Truth but the complete Truthful teachings are in the GGS. Muslims should follow guidance that is given in the Guru Granth Sahib for them.

[TheFancyBanana]

Most religions do have some truth in them, the truth can be found everywhere. Some religions have too many rituals or extras that stop people from finding the actual path to Waheguru.

Does it matter if you say you are a Sikh? Labels don't matter. If I label myself as a Sikh, but don't even attempt to live the Guru's word, will I gain anything? Look at Bhai Gurdas Ji's vaars, he talks about Guru Nanak Dev Ji at Mecca, the Muslims asked Guru Ji if the Muslims or Hindus were better. Guru Ji told them the importance of good deeds, without them it didn't matter what they labled themselves as, they would both weep. Bhai Gurdas Ji expands on this, saying religion is like the colour of a safflower, it will fade away. What really matters is if you have done good deeds and contemplated upon Waheguru. All religions lead you to this path to some extenet, however, it can be harder to get this essential truth in some. Sometimes the rituals and other extras get in the way.

Also, what does salvation mean to you?

[jkvlondon]

the loss of the other ...leaving only the one

[N30S1NGH]

Most religions do have some truth in them, the truth can be found everywhere. Some religions have too many rituals or extras that stop people from finding the actual path to Waheguru.

Does it matter if you say you are a Sikh? Labels don't matter. If I label myself as a Sikh, but don't even attempt to live the Guru's word, will I gain anything? Look at Bhai Gurdas Ji's vaars, he talks about Guru Nanak Dev Ji at Mecca, the Muslims asked Guru Ji if the Muslims or Hindus were better. Guru Ji told them the importance of good deeds, without them it didn't matter what they labled themselves as, they would both weep. Bhai Gurdas Ji expands on this, saying religion is like the colour of a safflower, it will fade away. What really matters is if you have done good deeds and contemplated upon Waheguru. All religions lead you to this path to some extenet, however, it can be harder to get this essential truth in some. Sometimes the rituals and other extras get in the way.

Also, what does salvation mean to you?

Exactly spot on, the fact is most ultra conceptual (devoid of any practical living, experience just dry bankrupt incompetent conceptual knowledge) religious people fight among each other how their paths is more righteous, provides guarantee salvation and are sole custodians of truth but hardly anyone walk the walk. Religious hypocrisy is what gurbani warns us over and over again not to follow mindset of hindu and muslims bickering yet we are treading going towards following same path of hindu and muslim bickering and hypocrisy.

[13Mirch]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,

A lot of modern Sikhs are very quick to extol their opinions that Sikhism equates all the major religions of the world to rivers flowing into a single ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism#Sikhism

In other words all religions, when properly followed, can lead one to God.

Aside from this metaphor being nauseating for its sentimentality, the idea that two faiths with completely different and usually contradictory precepts can both yield the same spiritual pay dirt strikes me as being utterly fanciful. It also betrays an ignorance of the religions with which Sikhi is being equated.

Take Muhammad, as an instance of a prophet from another religion. Some members of our Panth consider that both the Prophet of Islam, and our own Gurus, were all sent by the same God in order to enlighten the masses, that both these parties are composed of the messengers of God. However, it is made explicitly clear in the Quran, which was supposedly revealed to Muhammad by Allah himself, that he would be the very last prophet in history, to the exclusion of all others that came after him. This includes our own Guru Sahibaan: "Muhammad is... the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets (The Quran, Surah 33:40). As a "seal" closes a letter, so does Muhammad close the line of prophethood. Therefore, if we accept Muhammad as a prophet, we must by definition accept that his revelation (all of which came directly from Allah through the supposed intercession of the Angel Gabriel), and in lending any credence to the idea that he is the last messenger of God, we are in effect denouncing our own Guru Sahibaan as pretenders. We cannot possibly believe in both the Gurus and Muhammad. Either Muhammad was right and our Gurus were liars, or our Gurus are right and Muhammad was a liar. I very much doubt that any of us inclines towards the former.

Secondly, how can it be argued that both Islam and Sikhi both lead to salvation, when the two of them advocate completely different and antithetical ways of attaining it? In Sikhism, as the members of the Sangat here will well know, one is instructed that rituals such as fasting, pilgrimages, circumcisions are wholly unimportant and of no consequence. One who wishes to attain Mukhta is counselled to avoid these things. But in Islam, fasts, pilgrimages and rituals are of the utmost importance, and are actually said to be necessary if one wishes to go to heaven (two of the so called five pillars of the faith being predicated on ritual).

To summarise, is it possible for Muhammad to have been sent by the very same God who sent our own Guru Sahibaan, when the first party's message excludes and contradicts that of the latter?

Bang on! This is quite a credible argument which many blind Sikhs however shove under the carpet in order to tow the line, ''all religions are equal...'

[Akalifauj]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,

A lot of modern Sikhs are very quick to extol their opinions that Sikhism equates all the major religions of the world to rivers flowing into a single ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism#Sikhism

In other words all religions, when properly followed, can lead one to God.

They do the same when they can't explain what Gurdwara means.............it means Sikh temple...........i go to the temple every Sunday because Sunday is a special day for Sikhs as it is Christianity.......Christianity and Sikhism....its the same.........we all believers. :stupidme: :stupidme: :stupidme: