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

[puzzled 3,805]

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.

 

[dallysingh101 1,935]

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:

 

[asinghb 40]

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.

[MisterrSingh 4,746]

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.