Jump to content

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


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? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
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 post
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 post
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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
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...

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...

  • Like 1
Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use