Jump to content

What is the actual opinion of Guru Nanak on Prophet Muhammad?


Recommended Posts

On 9/23/2021 at 2:04 AM, GurjantGnostic said:

Some interesting stuff online about there having been two Mohammeds. The one who scribed the Koran and the one who stole it and turned it into a business. 

I don't know if that's true, because the famous one apparently couldn't read, so I don't know how he'd read the other one's writings.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I don't know if that's true, because the famous one apparently couldn't read, so I don't know how he'd read the other one's writings.  

Yeah, but what's her name? Mohammad's older lady, was super savvy. 

I also don't know if it's true. But it would make a good alternative history premise at least, to explain the dichotomy. 

Also. Feigning illiteracy has to be one of the easier cons. 

Can you read that? Nope.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GurjantGnostic said:

No disrespect to anyone, but yeah. You want to study somebody in that situation it's probably her. 

I think we are getting our wires crossed. I was talking about his much older first wife, who was a widow.

From wiki:

 

According to the most accepted tradition, Muhammad married at the age of 25 to his first wife Khadija bint Khuwaylid, who was a 40 year old widow. [3] She lived with him for 25 years. After her death in 619 CE,[3] he married a total of 12 women over the remaining years of his life.

 

Khadijah bint Khuwaylid[edit]

At the age of 25, Muhammad wed his wealthy employer, the 40-year-old daughter of a merchant, Khadija.[16][17][18] This marriage, his first, would be both happy and monogamous; Muhammad would rely on Khadija in many ways, until her death 25 years later.[19][20] They had two sons, Qasim and Abd-Allah (nicknamed al-Ṭāhir and al-Ṭayyib respectively),[21] both died young, and four daughters—Zaynab, Ruqaiya, Umm Kulthum and Fatimah. Shia scholars dispute the paternity of Khadija's daughters, as they view the first three of them as the daughters from previous marriages and only Fatimah as the daughter of Muhammad and Khadija.[22] During their marriage, Khadija purchased the slave Zayd ibn Harithah, then adopted the young man as her son at Muhammad's request.[23] Abu Talib and Khadija died in the same year. He declared the year as Aam ul-Huzn (year of sorrow).[24]

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think we are getting our wires crossed. I was talking about his much older first wife, who was a widow.

From wiki:

 

According to the most accepted tradition, Muhammad married at the age of 25 to his first wife Khadija bint Khuwaylid, who was a 40 year old widow. [3] She lived with him for 25 years. After her death in 619 CE,[3] he married a total of 12 women over the remaining years of his life.

 

Khadijah bint Khuwaylid[edit]

At the age of 25, Muhammad wed his wealthy employer, the 40-year-old daughter of a merchant, Khadija.[16][17][18] This marriage, his first, would be both happy and monogamous; Muhammad would rely on Khadija in many ways, until her death 25 years later.[19][20] They had two sons, Qasim and Abd-Allah (nicknamed al-Ṭāhir and al-Ṭayyib respectively),[21] both died young, and four daughters—Zaynab, Ruqaiya, Umm Kulthum and Fatimah. Shia scholars dispute the paternity of Khadija's daughters, as they view the first three of them as the daughters from previous marriages and only Fatimah as the daughter of Muhammad and Khadija.[22] During their marriage, Khadija purchased the slave Zayd ibn Harithah, then adopted the young man as her son at Muhammad's request.[23] Abu Talib and Khadija died in the same year. He declared the year as Aam ul-Huzn (year of sorrow).[24]

That's the one. She's the real og if you ask me. 

  • 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


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think you've been unable to read between the lines and grasp the subtext of the article. It's a clear attempt at pitting Sikhs against some nebulous form of Islam, by equating medieval Mughal expansionism with its various contemporary terror-related forms. British-penned propaganda or a general West vs Islam perspective, it's doing exactly what you constantly highlight on this forum about us being "recruited" by outsiders as fodder.  The playful and almost throwaway tone of the article and its vernacular is also cringeworthy. Am I suggesting we leap into bed with Islam and its adherents? No. But I don't like attempts by outsiders trying to mine our painful and blood-soaked history to manipulate us into following whatever current strand of policy they've devised against one of the existential dangers facing them. Equally, intention counts for a lot. If the guy's aim was to flatter Sikhs and shed light on a quaint and once-proud warrior race, then fair enough. But I don't take things like this on face value. There's always a purpose behind it however faint. Your cheap little attempts at psycho-analysing and shaming me into conforming to your worldview isn't working and it never will. EDIT: Having just flicked through the website from which the article originates my suspicions were correct. It's a moderately right-leaning Spectator-esque online zine.
    • No, I just think you constantly over analyse the wrong stuff. This is just some simple bod 'boosted' interpretation of Sikh history from a purely physical perspective (as opposed to spiritual). What it seems to be trying to do is amplify Sikh bravery and independence in a very simplistic manner.  It's not dissimilar to what I've heard Sikh street guys talking just prior to going out to kick off with another group.  I don't think you can read very well, compared to a lot of stuff, at least this piece somewhat underscores a perspective that doesn't co-opt Sikhs to other causes. And if a brit white guy wrote this (below), he'd be being more honest than the vast majority of the rest of his people (even though the guy is obviously ignorant of the modern nature of the Sikh army under Sikh raj with his swords against canons comment). If he was a proper brit he'd be telling us about how grateful our lot were to be subjugated and used and abused by the colonialists: The Sikhs were better fighters than the Moghuls, when the numbers and the guns were anything like equal, and by the time the Brits arrived, they’d carved out their own state in the Punjab. They fought the Brits twice, swords against cannon, and were slaughtered, then flattered, then coopted—the classic Imperial method of dealing with brave but dumb cannon fodder, as in “Our dear Highlanders,” cannon fodder in cute kilts. 
    • So why would you want to keep dragging them back here, then?
    • If it was confirmed that a British white guy wrote that piece, you'd be all over it, castigating it as establishment propaganda designed to get us to fight under the banners of ex-imperial powers for their modern colonial escapades. You're very selective with what you choose to object to: it's not the actual substance of the message that annoys you but the vessel in which the message is delivered, yes?
    • I just think it's a simplified narrative designed to inspire a bit of fearlessness in Sikhs. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  There will always be some people who will misinterpret and maybe fly off the handle due to their own personality traits, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such accounts.  I tend to see these things as stepping stones or entry points for people to explore the ithihaas/culture in more depth.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use