Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is not non-Muslim countries that actively invite Muslims in, it is the liberals in these countries that emotionally backmail the rest of the population into allowing Muslim migration in and shout '

Muslims are projected to grow in numbers. Not due to conversions but due to their high birth rates.  Many people don't realise is that Muslim population would actually only be half today. If it w

I'm not surprised. They are brain washed heavily from birth, their moderates are like extremists from other religions. And their extremists are on a other level entirely. In India we did our part

Posted Images

4 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

It's not an exaggeration or an inaccuracy to state that a thorough reading of what they claim is the Word of God, is ostensibly why their morals and their minds are in the gutter.

Imagine attributing rape, paedophilia, necrophilia, slavery, and other ethically dubious human acts to divine instruction that's been sanctioned and approved by the supreme heavenly being. 

How much of a sinner is any genuinely believing Muslim to seriously think their "perfect" man performed and sanctioned these acts, therefore they're perfectly permissable for his followers.

Apologists and islamophiles enjoy dragging Christianity into the mud by arguing that Christian scriptures contain similar directives, but these dhimmis choose to ignore something called the Reformation. On the other hand, Islam has been actively resisting any reformation for thousands of years! 

Like I've always said, certain individual Muslims may have performed great feats or achieved great things, but they didn't do so BECAUSE of Islam; they did it IN SPITE OF Islam. Conversely, it's hard to argue the impetus provided to certain individuals to resort to depravity and horror might have manifested itself differently had Islam not been present. Not suggesting other groups have behaved angelically, but that extra "bite" that comes with Islamic belief is almost demonic.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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.

Yes, I know what you mean. It undermines the premise that what they originally conveyed as the unalterable Word of God was... altered by Man, lol. They would argue about the Old Testament being the writings of the ancient Jewish Tribes, while the New Testament was slightly more relevant, etc. They've forced themselves into a corner, and funnily enough it's something Muslims laud over them when they say, "Your religion is false because you caved into the pressure to change what you claimed was God's Word. WE Muslims will never do that, hence our religion is the only true faith." The latter proposition on the part of Muslims is philosophically bogus, because them resisting altering Islamic scripture to erase the utterly depraved aspects of it has nothing to do with its integrity as divine revelation. They presuppose it is true, and refuse to question if it may have been demonically or even Satanically derived. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yes, I know what you mean. It undermines the premise that what they originally conveyed as the unalterable Word of God was... altered by Man, lol. They would argue about the Old Testament being the writings of the ancient Jewish Tribes, while the New Testament was slightly more relevant, etc. They've forced themselves into a corner, and funnily enough it's something Muslims laud over them when they say, "Your religion is false because you caved into the pressure to change what you claimed was God's Word. WE Muslims will never do that, hence our religion is the only true faith." The latter proposition on the part of Muslims is philosophically bogus, because them resisting altering Islamic scripture to erase the utterly depraved aspects of it has nothing to do with its integrity as divine revelation. They presuppose it is true, and refuse to question if it may have been demonically or even Satanically derived. 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Since delving into the subject of karma and reincarnation from authentic Vedic sources (not cucked Western interpretations), I have to say my theory is that Islam must be the first religion a soul must "pass through" once it leaves the joon-class of janwars and four-legged creatures (and even from demons and whatnot), and enters the class of human joons. Other religions are far from perfect, but, frig me, Islam is something else. I guess the "lesson" for the soul that a few janams born into Islam provides is to develop a rudimentary form of deference to spiritual authority (that can never be learned from a laissez-faire belief system) even if that lesson comes at the expense of the human conscience.

Interesting thought. I remember elder members of my family used to say that those people who appear incapable of human emotions and general humanity had been born into a human body before their time. Some kind of glitch has caused them to be born in a human body before they had gone through the necessary experience and development in other life forms which would have set them up to attain human birth.

Watching that video of those girls being attacked in Pakistan, their abusers do display classic pack like behaviour. 

Unfortunately for those born into Islam, both nature and nurture screws them up for life! 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Kabeer. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
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 post
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). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.

 

  • Thanks 2
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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use