Jump to content

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


MisterrSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, intrigued said:

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.

It's shortsighted tomfoolery. It leaves Sikhs prone to Islamic dawah that cannot be countered by non-scholars.

If it is politically motivated, then is lying in sangat excusable as long as it's in service of a flimsy greater good? How about those countries where it's not the Hindus who are undermining and targeting Sikhs for elimination or conversion but it's Muslims or Christians? 

This is what happens when you leave religious and spiritual edification to an unaccountable, elite priest class. If we took the time and effort to at least educate ourselves in the basics, nobody could fool us, even so-called benevolent allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this around 2 weeks back. 

From my limited knowledge on the topic. I think parcharks call him Muhammad "sahib" out of respect, just how they add "ji" on the names of the Devte. Bramha was lusting over his own daughters, first Sandhya and then Saraswati who he married, but Parcharaks still call him "Brahma Ji". Regardless of what these people did they were still chosen my Waheguru ji throughout the yugs to guide humanity, so I guess the "sahib" and "ji" are added on for respect. 

Like Jesus, its the same case for Muhammad, Who was the real Muhammad?  Though Muslims will obviously deny this. 

Who is Jesus and what is Christianity was decided long after the death of Jesus. The Gospels that the council decided were "authentic" became part of the Christian cannon and the ones which most agreed were "corrupt" were discarded. Paul introduced the trinity and it was decided that Jesus was the son of God. Even at these councils there was much debate and disagreement on who Jesus was and which Gospels are authentic. The early Christians didn't worship Jesus. In all of this debate, cutting and cropping the real Jesus was lost.

Its not that different with Muhammad either. The life and sayings/doings of Muhammad are recorded in the hadiths which were collected and compiled like 200 years after the death of Muhammad. That's like 7 or 8 generations after his death? And it was the same case with the Hadiths, the ones which they decided were authentic became "sahih"  which is where they get sunnah from. Also the Hadiths were passed down orally before they were written down. 

Also, the Shia hadiths are different to the Sunni hadiths. The Sunnis hadiths say that Aisha was 6 years old when middle aged Muhammad married her, and that she was a very pious woman. While the Shia Hadiths on the other hand say that Aisha was 18 when she married him and that was a very cunning woman! 

So how reliable is volumes of contradictory information which was passed down orally, generation after generation for like 200 years?  lol    So who was the real Muhammad? 

Muslims have to believe in the hadiths, even the very violent and sexual ones. The Quran just says things, its the hadiths that explain. So the Quran says pray, but its the hadiths which say you pray 5 times a day and how to pray, the method. Its the hadiths which explain how to perform hajj, charity, wudu/ablution, ramadan, fasting etc    all of that is found in the hadiths, the same books where Muhammad's violence, torture and how he had s3x with all 13 wives twice a day is found!  So they can't ditch the violent stuff and keep all the other stuff, because that would mean the hadiths are not authentic, and if the hadiths are not authentic then how accurate is the idea of praying 5 times a day? ramadan? performing hajj? and basically everything else?  So they have no choice but to accept all of it. 

There's a lot of crazy stuff in the hadiths, like how Muhammad told his wife Aisha to breast feed a grown man and make him her son etc but they can't reject that because that hadith is in the same book which tells them that you are supposed to pray 5 times a day, because the Quran doesn't say how many times you're supposed to pray. And if they start cherry-picking from that book then the entire book is questionable.

So its hard to say who the real Muhammed was.

Islam did spread the oneness of God, though obviously the methods used were without question barbaric and ungodly. Many of the cultures the message spread to were polytheists and idol worshippers. After the message spread to them they started worshipping one God. 

Even Guru Gobind Singh ji called himself the destroyer of idols!  so Islam did spread the oneness of God! 

I think there was a Sant who had dharshan of Sachkhand and among many of the holy men serving Waheguru ji he saw Muhammad! Anyone know who the sant was? 

But Islam has seen its heday, apostasy is spreading like a wild fire in the Muslim world. There'll be a tsunami in the near future.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Who is Jesus and what is Christianity was decided long after the death of Jesus. The Gospels that the council decided were "authentic" became part of the Christian cannon and the ones which most agreed were "corrupt" were discarded. Paul introduced the trinity and it was decided that Jesus was the son of God. Even at these councils there was much debate and disagreement on who Jesus was and which Gospels are authentic. The early Christians didn't worship Jesus. In all of this debate, cutting and cropping the real Jesus was lost.

I've also heard that there was mention of reincarnation in early Christian culture but it was discarded in Roman times...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the teachings of these prophets have been distorted to an extent which is why I think it was great foresight on the Gurus part to create literature and approve literature along with of course compiling Sri Guru Granth Sahib, that way, there would be less distortion of the messages...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, intrigued said:

I've also heard that there was mention of reincarnation in early Christian culture but it was discarded in Roman times...

Matt. 11:14 “And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.

Bible suggests that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of prophet Elijah. Early Christians believed this though modern Christians don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting how some of the earliest versions of many religions were very mystical. Early Christians like the Desert Fathers would go into the deserts and write mystical writings and prayers. But these writings were considered "corrupt" and were not included with the 4 Gospels. These early Christians were later considered heretical 

Judaism have the Kabbalah, its Jewish mysticism and includes things like reincarnation.

Islam developed Sufism, which from a Sikh point of view is far more closer to the truth, but Sufis have been persecuted for centuries.  

 

Some of the earliest Christians writings, which were later considered heretical.

Doretheos on Prayer | A Pastor's Thoughts

Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Anthony | Father quotes, Beautiful prayers,  Father

Sayings of the Desert Fathers. | Spiritual words, Father quotes, Catholic  quotes

Pin on Orthodox Quote of the Day

 

Quotation-Saint-Augustine-What-does-love-look-like-It-has-the-hands-to-1-29-29.jpg

Quotation-Saint-Augustine-Take-care-of-your-body-as-if-you-were-going-76-74-82.jpg

quote-to-fall-in-love-with-god-is-the-greatest-romance-to-seek-him-the-greatest-adventure-saint-augustine-36-33-75.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

... 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? 

I think this happened post annexation. Original rehats and stuff don't really have any rose tinted views of what they considered malech. 

I remember one Suraj Prakash extract I translated too, would be considered unacceptably unPC today:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, intrigued said:

I've also heard that there was mention of reincarnation in early Christian culture but it was discarded in Roman times...

I've also about heard about this. The Roman Emperor Justinian was against the idea of reincarnation and had it removed from Christian doctrine. It was also easier to control the masses if they did not believe in it. No doubt religions have been corrupted over the centuries.Screenshot_20210305-141436_Firefox.thumb.jpg.92683f3df4ddfb736783fe7373d6acd4.jpgScreenshot_20210305-141815_Firefox.thumb.jpg.5a750833f6a22f64c4bdc4e6feb97231.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the Nicean Council that apparently put paid to the esoteric, mystical teachings of Jesus and the early Christian founders. Apparently, it was well known back in the day that Jesus travelled to Tibet and spent his 20s with yogis of that area, which is where he did vichaar about reincarnation. That brand of Christianity may possibly have been the purest form of Sufism.

The Nicean Council also supposedly removed and censored the Gospel of Judas which was rediscovered in the 1970s. I'd recommend a read of that if anyone is interested. It's absolutely fascinating, and if it's true it explains quite a lot about the corruption of original Christianity by its own clergy. In short, Judas was the only disciple who understood that Jesus was from (to all intents and purposes) Sachkhand, and in this Gospel Jesus admonished the disciples for worshipping a pakhandi "God" who was nothing like the ultimate creator whom he described as being closer to the formless force that we're familiar with. It could be a load of tosh, but reading it with "Eastern" eyes it's understandable why it may have been removed if true.

CORRECTION: It was the Second Synod of Constantinople that passed the decree against reincarnation, headed by the emperor Justinian. 

 

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