Jump to content

Why is the Sikh theological view of Mohammed and his Islamic era so rosy...


MisterrSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

... while actual Islamic teachings and scriptures (The Sunnah, the Quran and the Hadiths) make no attempt to conceal the frankly questionable feats, bachans, and moments of his life?

Rampant sexual degeneracy, idolatry, hypocritical religious edicts and conduct, and unexplainably savage and bloodthirsty barbarism across the board.

Yet, Sikh sants, gianis, and parcharaks speak so effusively and warmly of "Mohammed Sahib" and his various companions and successors. These Sikh personalities can barely conceal their admiration for the Islamic prophet and his achievements. 

What's going on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has prompted this thread?

is it possible Islamic history has been distorted by those with an agenda to justify their own actions, by using  examples based on their Prophet’s  life?

maybe a lot of the controversial things written about didn’t actually happen 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Premi5 said:

What has prompted this thread?

Curiosity. And a katha I was listening to.

29 minutes ago, Premi5 said:

is it possible Islamic history has been distorted by those with an agenda to justify their own actions, by using  examples based on their Prophet’s  life?

maybe a lot of the controversial things written about didn’t actually happen

That's ^^^ what I consoled myself with until I realised that Muslims themselves defend these historical accounts and events; they don't deny them. Sure, they try to re-frame and re-contextualise them (whether they do so in good faith or for other sinister reasons is another debate), but they never abrogate them.

Why are we, as Sikhs, arguing that Muslims don't know their religious history, and we know better than their own sheikhs and historians do? Again, this theory would only hold water if Muslims themselves refused to acknowledge their accepted account of Islamic history. But not only do they accept it, they vigourously defend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only person I've heard use a more contrarian tone is Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji. They mention the Quran being stolen letters that Muhammed appropriated by murdering the author. They also mention the origins of some Islamic customs as being not so divine.

I don’t know what sources they would be using in that era, it would be interesting to find out.

I think one factor why our parchariks aren’t critical of Islam is lack of actual research and available material. I doubt Gyanis have access to the kind of material Christian theologians have.

Other than that, post-47 we don’t see Islam as our main threat. Nevertheless, the older generation continue to harbor mistrust of Muslim. It’s just the generation post-47 that grew up with a romanticised version of Islam, started displaying  “enemy of the enemy is a friend” attitude.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jai Tegang! said:

Only person I've heard use a more contrarian tone is Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji. They mention the Quran being stolen letters that Muhammed appropriated by murdering the author. They also mention the origins of some Islamic customs as being not so divine.

I don’t know what sources they would be using in that era, it would be interesting to find out.

I think one factor why our parchariks aren’t critical of Islam is lack of actual research and available material. I doubt Gyanis have access to the kind of material Christian theologians have.

Other than that, post-47 we don’t see Islam as our main threat. Nevertheless, the older generation continue to harbor mistrust of Muslim. It’s just the generation post-47 that grew up with a romanticised version of Islam, started displaying  “enemy of the enemy is a friend” attitude.

 

I disagree - I mean most Sikhs I know including younger ones are wary of Muslims and Islam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Premi5 said:

I disagree - I mean most Sikhs I know including younger ones are wary of Muslims and Islam

I think the poster meant from a resident Indian Sikh perspective, not those of us in the West.

 

5 hours ago, Jai Tegang! said:

I think one factor why our parchariks aren’t critical of Islam is lack of actual research and available material. I doubt Gyanis have access to the kind of material Christian theologians have.

I think you're correct if referring to previous eras, but the Quran and the Hadiths on which katha is done has been unchanged for centuries, and yet the tone and content on the part of our preachers hasn't shifted AT ALL. There's still an undeniable sense of the Sikh preaching hierarchy portraying a wistful, honourable, almost mythically spiritual, Arabian Nights quality to Mohammed's life. 

Where is their responsibility to the truth while sitting adjacent to Guru Granth Sahib? Why are they presenting a distorted and misleading representation of reality to the sangat? Why do they get so worked up over Hindu deities yet ignore the flaws of Islam's "perfect human" despite him committing greater evil against humanity than the Hindu pantheon combined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ 

It would be a travesty if in fact no one from the previous era had bothered to understand ALL Islamic scriptures including the Quran and Hadiths in original source. I hope they weren't simply reading sanitized commentaries  and translations all this time.

Other than that,  hindu dieties/customs were a softer target (prior to  the current aggressive hindutva resurgence). It's more appealing to point out flaws in docile hindus  than engage in constructive self analysis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

If you read Dasmesh Pita ji's writings it is clear that he is not impressed by the actions or lack of preachings of Mohammed . At a point he mentions that the way it is practised it is the faith of shaitaans

Someone should tell his India-based modern-day shardaloos to stop implying that the Arabian prophet was comparable to genuine and selfless servants of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yet, Sikh sants, gianis, and parcharaks speak so effusively and warmly of "Mohammed Sahib" and his various companions and successors. These Sikh personalities can barely conceal their admiration for the Islamic prophet and his achievements. 

What's going on?

Appeal to the masses maybe; perhaps to stregthen Sikh-Muslim relationships

 

Wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter, from my understanding, something similar was done by saying Mian Mir laid the foundation stone for Harmandir Sahib in late 18-19 century literature.

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

    • 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