Jump to content

Muslims


Big_Tera
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Outliers sent by God to reform but whose efforts are overwhelmed by the majority.

Or a slightly more cynical perspective: individuals who realise the evil and the contradictions of the religion they're born into, but are too afraid to leave or make waves against the status quo, so decide to straddle the fence by nudging for introspection whilst not making themselves enemies of the orthodoxy.

Bhagat Kabir would be a poor example of someone reforming Islam. His Shabads are the most critical of Islamic theology and his most famous verse "Awwal Allah Noor Upaiya" which is used (wrongly) as a solidarity Shabad by those who do not even read it all is an outright negation of the concept of Allah contained in the Quran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, proactive said:

Bhagat Kabir would be a poor example of someone reforming Islam. His Shabads are the most critical of Islamic theology and his most famous verse "Awwal Allah Noor Upaiya" which is used (wrongly) as a solidarity Shabad by those who do not even read it all is an outright negation of the concept of Allah contained in the Quran. 

Even the staunchest critics within this narrow category still identified as Muslims, though, didn't they? Their religious vernacular was couched in Islamic terms; the symbolism and poetry they used made reference to Islamic mythology; they dressed as Muslims; they spoke whatever Islamic-tinged iteration of the local language; their exclamations to God were Islamic, and even their last rites were performed in the Islamic tradition? So why weren't they willing to LIVE the condemnations aimed at their religion that they put down into verse? And you're telling me we can't count them as Muslims?

So, these personalities belonged to the second category I identified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Shaheed for speaking out against Islam on purely doctrinal terms (its spiritual fallacies and frailties as a faith), or shaheed for supporting enemies of the ruling Islamic regime? History points to many, many instances where religion was used as an accepted front to persecute opponents of the political state.

In your example, which one is it most likely to be minus any emotion or biases on your part?

Even if remove the Sikh aspect to this, Sufis as a whole have been persecuted throughout history by Muslims, similar to Christian Gnostics with their religious brothers/sisters. If hypothetically Sikhi was an Abrahamic religion founded we would go that route as well, (as some Sikhs are currently transforming Sikhi into an Abrahamic faith). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

Also wasnt the Quran written many years after their prophet's death? I dont know if I'm wrong but they say it was memorized by some of their people and passed on through oral traditions or something. I could be wrong though.

Good question. I would not have been able to answer this query untill I did a bit of research only two weeks ago which only took a few hours of reading. I think I am slightly skilled if I do say so myself in that I can read and undertsand very quickly. Whereas another person would take months/years to fully understand and comprehend.

Now back to your question.

Muhammed was illiterate he could not read or write. The entire koran was not written by Muhammed. He did not write a single word of it. at the time and near to Muhammeds death, His companions started writing down muhammeds so called revelations they also supposedly memorised muhammeds words and teachings and also wrote this down which became know as the quran.

Hence these companions soley wrote the koran. Which brings me onto another criticism. How can the islamic scripture be called accurate if it was written by other people then Muhammed himself and also they went on their memory. everyone knows that our memory of something is often wrong. These companions would have definantly written wrong things based on their faded memories. This is completley different to how the SGGS Ji was written which was compiled and handwritten by the Gurus themselves not by someones elses faded memories.

hence how the quran can be called 100% literal word of God is obviously false. also I believe the muslims say their scipture is divinely inspired by God but not litteraly the word of God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

Good question. I would not have been able to answer this query untill I did a bit of research only two weeks ago which only took a few hours of reading. I think I am slightly skilled if I do say so myself in that I can read and undertsand very quickly. Whereas another person would take months/years to fully understand and comprehend.

Now back to your question.

Muhammed was illiterate he could not read or write. The entire koran was not written by Muhammed. He did not write a single word of it. at the time and near to Muhammeds death, His companions started writing down muhammeds so called revelations they also supposedly memorised muhammeds words and teachings and also wrote this down which became know as the quran.

Hence these companions soley wrote the koran. Which brings me onto another criticism. How can the islamic scripture be called accurate if it was written by other people then Muhammed himself and also they went on their memory. everyone knows that our memory of something is often wrong. These companions would have definantly written wrong things based on their faded memories. This is completley different to how the SGGS Ji was written which was compiled and handwritten by the Gurus themselves not by someones elses faded memories.

hence how the quran can be called 100% literal word of God is obviously false. also I believe the muslims say their scipture is divinely inspired by God but not litteraly the word of God.

 

They will say the companions had special powers and so could not forget a single word lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SinghPunjabSingh said:

Dhan Dhan Baba Kabir Ji Maharaj were avowedly non-Muslim bro.

Hence why the Muslim murderers tried to kill Dhan Dhan Baba Kabir Ji Maharaj as an Apostate who denounced Islam.

1. In the case of Dhan Dhan Baba Kabir Ji Maharaj they were *the* most critical within our Shabad Guru in terms of criticising Islam. Ie they were not Muslim and abhorred Islam theologically. Of course they were raised by Muslim parents as a child but they rejected everything Islam stands for as an adult. Similarly, with Pir Buddhu Shah and Sain Mian Mir as those devout souls did matha tek before Guru Sahib they had already self-categorised themselves as non-Muslims - much like the erstwhile Muslim apostate and scholar Allah Yaar Khan.

2. This very strongly applies to the crooks claiming to be the lineal spiritual descendants of various so-called Sufi orders nowadays. A Sufi cannot be Muslim by defintion despite the oxymoron term nowadays of Sufi Muslim used by apologists. True Sufi's by definition believe in One God but reject the slavery, terrorism, genocide and sexual abuse that Prophet Muhammad himself engaged and that the Quran condones.

There were no Hindu and Muslim Bhagats. Being born into a certain faith background does not define the spiritual that our blessed Bhagat's held (=Gurmat). Those whose promoted Gurmat via Gurbani that we bow down to every day were Gurmukhs of the Highest Order and clearly non-Hindu's and non-Muslims. Peer Buddhu Shah were made shaheed for being an apostate of Islam and bowing down before Guru Sahib. Anyone who bows down before anything other than the black stone in Mecca is automatically a non-Muslim in Islam.

 

This is because true Sufi's cannot be Muslim. As the true Sufi's are non-Muslims who believe in one God but reject the moral depravity of the Prophet Muhammad for engaging in Slavery, Genocide, Pedophilia, Terrorism, Sexual Abuse etc as detailed in Quran, Hadiths and Sharia.

I'm with all that. Just pointing out what religion you're birthed into doesn't work as was being theorized. 

Good points. 

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