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

[MisterrSingh]

... 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? 

[Premi5]

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 

 

[MisterrSingh]

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.

[Jai Tegang!]

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.

 

[Premi5]

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

[MisterrSingh]

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?

[Jai Tegang!]

^^ 

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.

 

[jkvlondon]

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

[MisterrSingh]

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.

[intrigued]

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.