Muslims

[proactive]

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. 

[MisterrSingh]

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. 

[Redoptics]

19 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

But doesnt reformation confirm christianity is false. I mean if a religion needs to be reformed then how come it is the truth lol.

Christianity is a rehash of previous religions

[Jacfsing2]

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). 

[Big_Tera]

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.

 

[Big_Tera]

2 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

 

 

[proudkaur21]

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. 

[SinghPunjabSingh]

On 4/25/2022 at 10:12 PM, GurjantGnostic said:

Kabeer. 

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.

17 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

1. Outliers sent by God to reform 

2. 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.

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.

16 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

If we look at the Hindu and Muslim bhagats, they would be seen as those against their religion rather than loyal to the orthodoxy of their respected faiths. Peer Buddhu Shah himself was made a Shaheed for going against the orthodoxy of Aurangzeb/Islam to assist Guru Sahib. 

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.

 

7 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

(*Actual*) Sufis as a whole have been persecuted throughout history by Muslims

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.

[abhinav]

Saw a couple of video clips recently that I thought I'd share.

https://twitter.com/Jemima_Khan/status/1516535139601424388

Also be warned this is really disturbing. Watch from 7:30 mins onwards.

https://youtu.be/JXX1C_cVf2o?t=448

[GurjantGnostic]

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.