Jump to content

Sikhism's Compatibility With Other Faiths


ASKhalsa1
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Ik i'm a few (13) years late but basically: Get a single Mal-mal dastar (around 3-5 metres) and starch it. You just whisk 2 ladles of starch (Kershaw's, cornstarch or maida) with around 5 cups of water until it's completely smooth and mix it on low heat flame for around 20 mins until it goes clear and think like water. When this cools off, take a clean but damp turban and soak it into the starch and make sure you coat the whole dastar evenly You leave it out to hang dry in the sun/air. Once dry u can store it in a cool, dry place until you wanna tie it (for about 4 months) Take the dastar, sprinkle some water all throughout the turban to make it slightly wet and just soft enough to tie. Then you and another person hold the dastar at each end to make a stretched rectangle (two people holding one corner in each of their hands). Fold it in half width-wise 3 times. Tie the turban like this quite loosely. The starch will make it tighter as it dries BUT TIE IT STAIGHT ONTO YOUR HEAD. NO MINi-TURBAN BENEATH IT. JUST TIE YOUR FLATTENED JOORA ON TOP OF YOUR HEAD AND THE DASTAR DIRECTLY ON TOP Secure it with pins and wear it on your head until it has dried from the water you sprinkled before the pooni. After it has completely dried (give it around 3-4 hours just to make sure) you take it off your head DO NOT UNWRAP IT TAKE IT OFF IN IT'S SHAPE and the next time you need to wear you can just place it on your head over your flattened joora instead of tying this. You can do this for around 5 months after you first tied it until you have to ever tie it again.
    • I tie a Punjabi style dastar with starch. Why do people hate this so much? Once when I was tying my dastar my neck seized up and the apna doctor said staying in that position daily for more than 5 mins is dangerous. He recommended a starched pagg like his dad. And I respect my pagg more than my life. I put it on the top shelf of my cupboard whenever it isn't on my head, recite Waheguruji da naam whenever I am tying my joora, fifty and when i place the Dastar on my head and I mata thek and kiss  it before I do. And when I do tie it (every 4 months when the starch starts to weaken) I make sure that I pooni and tie it with much love and whilst reciting paath. I get that if someone treats their turban like a hat (eg: throwing it on the floor, cramping it or just disrespecting it) then this is unacceptable but just cos one puts their pagg on their head rather than tying it each time doesn't mean they treat it as such. (and let's be honest, starched or not we've all put our dad's pagg on our head like a hat when we were kids as a joke and meant no disrespect. Intention is everything). Ik Singhs who get angry tying their pagg and start doing maa/phen di gaaliyan, and when they take it off they just throw to the side and wait to tie it again next time. (Also, I'm from a Jat Sikh family so pls don't try to make this about "starched paggs are tarkhan/caste based" or anything stupid like that). PS: I do remember that stupidness in the 90s/early 2000s UK when Sikh men used to have a tiny starched paggs and were completely clean shaven or had a little goatee like Herbie Sahara/ Vijay from achanak. Now THAT was stupid and deserves all the hate but I just mean the concept of a starched dastar whether it's Punjabi Style, Kenyan style or whatever
    • Anyone know how to tie this turban? My Nani's dad tied it, it was starched but i can't work out whether the pooni was kenyan orpunjabi (like folded or an actual pooni). This was very common before partition, and uses a single dastar (not double stitched). Is it js Kenyan pagg with a higher larr?
    • It doesn't matter. What the nihangs did 100 years ago has no relevance today. Because people fight differently now. As a karate black belt, 90% of what we learn is useless, cos it revolves around how people fought 100 years ago. Today, most teenage boys likely to cause fights (at least in the uk) do boxing. But when boxing was really popular, people used to throw punches, hence why the "man to man fist fight" image was there. But now that UFC is popular, people do all sorts like grappling, knees and all (even with no training).  And also, I highly doubt anyone ever attacked a nihang Singh unarmed back then, just by seeing their saroop with shastaraan. What they did do, however, was Loh Mushti but that was more of a sport than a combat system. They definitely would have trained in basic fighting like wrestling and strikes but not a system. Because any good fighter knows that trying to find a "code" to fight by is stupid. But in terms of unarmed fighting, it was rare and probably revolved around disarming an armed attacker (do NOT even attemp to learn that, you will get killed and there's no point even trying to learn).   If you're interested for historical/ preservation purposed then great, but if you want to learn it for self defense or fighting tactics then pls don't, because what worked then won't work now and Nihangs were probably quite limited in hand to hand combat training cos they're armed to the teeth, deterring any unarmed attacker and killing one if they tried to fight
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use