Jump to content

Way to go! Respect!


Recommended Posts

Morghe,

You seem to have proved all by yoruself that conspiracy theories and Islam go side by side. Bringing up that ridiculous report about British special forces doing the bombings and yet you have the nerve to ridicule the conspiracy theories of Dalits and Sikhs!

I see that you've gone back on accusing Bachittar Natak as being proof that Sikhism also started as a conspiracy theory. Nice to see that you can change your opinion sometimes.

Now to your assertion that a God who is compassionate would never leave humanity without a guide. I am sure I could come up enough quotes from the Quran and Hadiths to show that Allah according to Islam is not so compassionate as you would have us believe but we'll leave that to another thread.

Your assertion would make sense in the semitic religions because they all claim to be the original religions of God. Adam is supposed to be the original human in the OT and a Muslim in the Quran. Since semitic religions take their origin from the Adam and Eve myth then there is no need for them to provide an exhaustive list of prophets. Since to the people of Jesus's or Mohammed's time believed that Adam and Eve lived just a few thousand years before them. The Quran claims that each and every people throughout time had a prophet to bring them to Islam. This raises the question then where are these proto-Islams amongst all the peoples of the world? There are none. Few belief systems outside the Middle East before Mohammed shared perhaps 10-20% of what Islam teaches and some even had less than 5% of Islam's teachings. So the question arises then that Allah is clearly not telling the truth to Mohammed in the Quran. Quite apart from the fact that before the semitic religions started about 6,000 years ago there is over 200,000 years of Homo Sapien existence as well as over 3 million of Humanoid existence, where there is no trace of a prophet preaching this proto-Islam. Neither does there seem to any evidence of a 90 foot Adam wandering the Earth!

Your argument also fails as before this century billions of humans have lived and yet had no access to Islam. Therefore in your line of reasoning Allah is an uncompassionate God as he has left billions without access to Islam and as such likely to suffer hellfire!

As for Sikhism, each and every soul is given the chance to move through various life forms until they finally achieve liberation through Manas Janam. Although some will miss this chance yet they will have other opportunities. the Gurus clearly state in Gurbani that many before their earthly life others have achieved liberation. In your belief system only one life is lived and as such if you had no access to Islam then you will have lived your life in vain and are for the hellfire!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is nothing wrong in a scholar revising his opinions but the problem then arises what if the scholar at the time that he set forth his old (in his view incorrect) opinion what if he was adamant that his opinion at that time could never be wrong!

In his previous incarnations he was as equally adamant that he was correct as he is adamant now with his new opinions!

It does call into question his credibility because tomorrow he might cast this opinion which he so stringently fights for as wrong and come up with opinion 1040!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Quran claims that each and every people throughout time had a prophet to bring them to Islam. This raises the question then where are these proto-Islams amongst all the peoples of the world? There are none. Few belief systems outside the Middle East before Mohammed shared perhaps 10-20% of what Islam teaches and some even had less than 5% of Islam's teachings. So the question arises then that Allah is clearly not telling the truth to Mohammed in the Quran. Quite apart from the fact that before the semitic religions started about 6,000 years ago there is over 200,000 years of Homo Sapien existence as well as over 3 million of Humanoid existence, where there is no trace of a prophet preaching this proto-Islam.

Preliterate humanity practised ritual burial, reflecting a belief in the afterlife:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s788032.htm

This implies an oral tradition carrying the shared beliefs of a community. Where there is an oral tradition there must have been an original utterance, meaning that there had to have been a prophet (at least 40000 years ago) who the people considered authoritative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the article again:

'According to the new analysis, published in today's issue of the journal Nature, the two skeletons are around the same age: about 40,000 years old.'

i.e. the cremated one and the buried one.

Whether people bury, burn, etc. All of it ends up as dust. This is fact. In the words of Guru Nanak:

in Raag Aasaa on Pannaa 466

ma 1 ||

First Mehla:

mittee musalamaan kee paerrai pee kumihaaar ||

The clay of the Muslim's grave becomes clay for the potter's wheel.

gharr bhaa(n)ddae eittaa keeaa jaladhee karae pukaar ||

Pots and bricks are fashioned from it, and it cries out as it burns.

jal jal rovai bapurree jharr jharr pavehi a(n)giaar ||

The poor clay burns, burns and weeps, as the fiery coals fall upon it.

naanak jin karathai kaaran keeaa so jaanai karathaar ||2||

O Nanak, the Creator created the creation; the Creator Lord alone knows. ||2||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The word used in bachitar natak is Mahadin

2. Guru Gobind Singh uses the word Muhammed in zafarnama

hence Mahadin is not Prophet Mohammad according to bachitar natak. What sikh scholars might say does not really matter as their interpretations are not considered gospel truth among us. The argument of parampara is not relevent here as there are no evidence that Guru Gobind Singh ever did katha of Bachitar natak hereby giving the explanation and correct interpretation of the text which went on from gurdev to disciple. Katha was given of Guru Granth Sahib, also reason why nirmalas mostly tend to stick to Guru Granth Sahib only and do not spend to much time on Dasam Bani except for one or two banis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the article again:

According to the new analysis, published in today's issue of the journal Nature, the two skeletons are around the same age: about 40,000 years old. E.g the cremated one and the buried one.

If the new theory is correct, that would mean that one group practised ritual burial and the other group cremated their dead. So it follows that according to their respective belief systems, they each considered the other group to be dealing with their dead the wrong way.

What's relevant for us here is that there was a group practising ritual burial at least 40000 years ago - ritual burial implies a host of accompanying beliefs including a belief in the afterlife. If they did not have a writing system, their belief system must have originated out of the utterances of an orator they considered authoritative i.e. a prophet.

Whether people bury, burn, etc. All of it ends up as dust.

If you consider that the dead body will not be raised again but that something coming out of it at the moment of death will be incarnated again into some other creature, then the corpse has much less importance for you and you are not likely to go to the trouble of a ritual burial. You are more likely to cremate the corpse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mithar wrote:

"Bahadur, what happens to Muslims whose bodies get burned to ashes in a war situation or any other situation? How will their bodies get raised from the dead?"

This issue has been raised in eschatological discussions. I would have to consult my sources. Funny you mention this as I am reading a book on Mola Sadra's theories on resurection and reincarnation.

Tony32hp you're boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kamalroop singh wrote:

"thats a fair point, scholars do change their positions........but this is quite a radical change, would you agree?"

Taking into account the opinions of various generations of sampradaik scholars is not a radical change.

Tony32hp wrotw:

"As for Sikhism, each and every soul is given the chance to move through various life forms until they finally achieve liberation through Manas Janam. Although some will miss this chance yet they will have other opportunities. the Gurus clearly state in Gurbani that many before their earthly life others have achieved liberation."

Achieved liberation without the Guru? defeats the very purpose of Sikhism.lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Kamalroop Singh,

the picture you showed is proof of good intentions such as "we're all one" but who has the right to unite humanity? Who has the authority to bring all divinely revealed religions together? Secular organisations? Falible human beings?

Imam Ali (as) said: A person may not be your brother in faith but he remains your brother in humanity.

Brothers can disagree and sometimes fight. Who will judge who is right and who is wrong, and who can reconcile them?

"The Mahdi will extract the Torah and the other Divine Books from their caverns and will judge amongst the faithful of the Gospels according to the Gospels, amongst the faithful of al-Zabur (The Book of David) according to the al-Zabur and amongst the faithful of the Koran according to the Koran."

Only God's infallible, sinless proof on earth can reconcile the different divine faiths. All others who attempted that failed. Look at Akbar. Without any doubt a great king, with good intentions. But wasn't his Din Illahi a proof of spiritual arrogance? Trying to give himself a role that wasn't his...it was doomed to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Bahadur Ali Shah,

from my limited understanding of the holy Qur'an. Is that a human should surrender to the will of God. All things that happen on Earth are the will of God. Including religious diversity, and cultural differences.

As for reconcilation of faith, nobody can make even a leaf move, all is his divine will. It was his will that a Sikh, Buddhist, and Muslim would walk around the Sri Darbar Sahib together. The reconciliation is His, nobody can claim it; no man or religion. It is His alone.

In the Qur'an the Prophet Mohammed states:

2:113 Furthermore, the Jews assert, "The Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs," while the Christians assert, "The Jews have no valid ground for their beliefs" - and both quote the divine writ! Even thus, like unto what they say, have [always] spoken those who were devoid of knowledge;" [93] but it is God who will judge between them on Resurrection Day with regard to all on which they were wont to differ. [94]

Al - Baqara:

2:21 O manKIND! Worship your Sustainer, who has created you and those who lived before you, so that you might remain conscious of Him

Al-Baqara (The Cow)

2:20 The lightning well-nigh takes away their sight; whenever it gives them light, they advance therein, and whenever darkness falls around them, they stand still. And if God so willed, He could indeed take away their hearing and their sight: [12] for, verily, God has the power to will anything.

2:116 And yet some people assert, "God has taken unto Himself a son!" Limitless is He in His glory! [96] Nay, but His is all that is in the heavens and on earth; all things devoutly obey His will.

2:117 The Originator is He of the heavens and the earth: and when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, "Be" -and it is.

2:148 for, every community faces a direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. [123] Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Wherever you may be, God will gather you all unto Himself: for, verily, God has the power to will anything.

Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)

3:19 Behold, the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man's] self-surrender unto Him; and those who were vouchsafed revelation aforetime [12] took, out of mutual jealousy, to divergent views [on this point] only after knowledge [thereof] had come unto them. [13] But as for him who denies the truth of God's messages - behold, God is swift in reckoning!

Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)

3:85 For, if one goes in search of a religion other than self-surrender unto God, it will never be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that alot of things within Islam and other Abrahamic faiths reflect the geographical location and other circumstances of where those faiths started. The Abrahamics bury their dead is probably because there wasn't enough wood available in the desert environment of the middle east, so to bury the dead was the logical step to take. Muslims marry their cousins because in the Arabian desert the Beduin Arab tribes lived miles apart from each other, so they had to marry within the tribe which was usually just the family of uncles and aunts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kamalroop Singh wrote:

"from my limited understanding of the holy Qur'an. Is that a human should surrender to the will of God. All things that happen on Earth are the will of God. Including religious diversity, and cultural differences.

As for reconcilation of faith, nobody can make even a leaf move, all is his divine will. It was his will that a Sikh, Buddhist, and Muslim would walk around the Sri Darbar Sahib together. The reconciliation is His, nobody can claim it; no man or religion. It is His alone."

1. Surrender to God must be done in the way He Himself teaches through his prophets and imams. It can't be the result of a man's own musings even if there is a good motivation behind it.

2. You make humans to be robots acting on God's will. God has granted humans free will to chose between truth and falsehood, light and darkness. If EVERYTHING is the result of God's will then God is guilty for all the rape, murder, massacre etc on earth as it is done by His will, which then again would mean that he is not compassionate and hence not God. Japuji Sahib reminds us that it is on acting on His Hukam and in being in his Ridha that man can be saved. That only makes sense if man has a choice. Otherwise man would only be a robot and religion would have no purpose at all.

"In the Qur'an the Prophet Mohammed states"

The Quran is not Muhammad's (pbuh) words but the words of Allah (swt) and none other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to be clear what you mean by 'reconciliation'.

The beautiful picture veer Kamalroop has posted is not 3 great men reconciling their faiths, it is of 3 great men seeing beyond the common understanding of their faith, humanity - recognising that all are divine and one.

I agree with BA that surrender must be as per Gods manifest teaching - but that teaching extends beyond Arabia...

Any truely religious man, will see Gods grace in another, purely through their actions, not through their professed faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaheediyan wrote:

"but that teaching extends beyond Arabia... "

Indeed that's why Islam is the universal religion of all mankind and isn't restricted to a country, culture or race.

Kamalroop Singh:

"So are you saying that in the difficult episodes and wars in the life of prophet Mohammed, and Imam Ali. When their families were killed, murdered etc, it was outside the will of God?"

Dear Kamalroop , the position of Shi'a Islam regarding the question of determinism and free will is that man has free will within the context of God's will. Here is a good article about this position:

http://www.al-islam.org/GodAttributes/free.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, you Maha-Mantri.

You know what I mean, I'm talking about the 'root' of teaching, not 'spread' of teaching.

I would also say that Sikhi teaches that mans 'lower will' exists and operates freely within Akaals 'supreme' will. That is what I understand by way of Gurbani talking about 'living' or operating within his his hukum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My views are some what similar to what Bahadur Singhs views were.

But they are only my views, nothing more. I do not claim monopoly on truth.

I believe the bani talks about movements (especially what they had evolved into during my 10th Masters time - mainstream). It's the people that fail the messengers in my view. This reconciles with the mention of Ramanands followerd as well Muhammed Sahibs, who try and preserve their Guru as a 'Brahman', to the extent that they infilitrated Kabir Panth and fashioned fashioned the story that he was born to and abandoned by a Brahman lady, in order to 'save face' regarding the fact that Sawmi Ramanand took Bhagat Kabir the weaver Muslim, as a disciple. That hs always been a thorn in their side.

The same could be said of mainstream Sikhi today. Most faiths (I have had personal experience of this many times) think that drinking until you can't stand is part of our faith (I kid you not). All these idiots, eps here, who think it's all good harmless fun, do nothing else but disgrace my Masters image - because as painful as it may sound, our actions reflect on our master. I loathe these people.

Unfortunately, Muhammed Sahib is not very popular in the large part of the non-Muslim world, namely because of the actions of what can still be considered an evil minority.

I judge 'God' men by their actions and their words, rather than their promoted traditions. What Kamalroop Singh has posted above is beautiful.

I find that same beauty in most faiths. You see what you choose to see I suppose, we are all different...(yet the same)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most faiths (I have had personal experience of this many times) think that drinking until you can't stand is part of our faith (I kid you not). All these idiots, eps here, who think it's all good harmless fun, do nothing else but disgrace my Masters image

I concur here. I remember when I started a project at uni that was based on the pub industry. I complained to the lecturer that I am at a disadvantage because I do not drink and have no knowledge of the sector. He started laughing and said that he doesn't believe that i'm a teetotaler! went on to say that EVERY sikh he knows and ALL sikh weddings his been to was like the drinks industry's national convention with booze flowing freely.

Unfortunatley, (true as it may sound,) he, and most of the class, thought that to be a Sikh you had to be verging on being an alchoholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. I live in a small country with 2000 sikhs and there are'nt that much litterature written on sikhism. There is a national newspaper here with the same status as "the guardian" in uk and in their book on world religions they wrote that sikhs are known to be heavy drinkers and the religion allows for sikhs to drink their brains out.

sad, but true

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...