Jump to content
Mr Sardar

Prophethood?

Recommended Posts

What is to account for the similarities between Islam and Sikhism? In terms of does it validate the revelation of the quran? Additionally Islam says those who learn the truth about it and reject it will go to hell.

How can the Quran be a revelation when it contains so much animosity for non Muslims(Kafirs)? Sarbat, do you honestly think that a revelation from Vaheguru would have so much hate? Gurmat is worlds apart from the Quran/Islam. Just take a look at your own name "sarbat da pala", it means Sarayiaan dhaa pala! not just Sikhaan dha pala. Does the quran have any just message for all of humanity? Answer is no! Quran and Mohammad are nothing for Sikhs.

Edited by Mithar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarbat

Your posts over the last few months seem mostly concerned with Islam. I'm all for Sikhs learning about other faiths (in conjunction to their own!) but sometimes it appears as if you are going over board? Do you make this much effort in trying to samaj your own faith?

What's the deal brother? How comes you appear so mesmerised?

No offense intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a prophet accodring to sikhi, but whether the hadith and koran is the same as was revealed originally is difficult to say.

According to Sikhi he also lost the way in his own lifetime. Unless I'm mistaken?

Plus lets be frank, his moral behaviour towards nonMuslims and the women of his enemies isn't exactly what Sikhs would consider to be those of a Godly man. Unless taking and shagging women prisoners is okay in your books?

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why I said its difficult to know what parts of the koran was in the original. Guru Nanak says "sahas atharan kahan kateba" in japji sahib even though there is no mentioning of 18,000 worlds in the koran. This must mean that there are some inconsistencies with the original koran and the one we have today according to Sikhi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why I said its difficult to know what parts of the koran was in the original. Guru Nanak says "sahas atharan kahan kateba" in japji sahib even though there is no mentioning of 18,000 worlds in the koran. This must mean that there are some inconsistencies with the original koran and the one we have today according to Sikhi.

Maybe not?

Perhaps you are struggling to reconcile what you see from that source as it exists and what you wish to be true of the faith? Guru Gobind Singh seems to suggest that Mohammad had done astray in his own lifetime?

I too have pondered over that tuk from Japji Sahib. Maybe it is a reference to some now obscure (to Sikhs) Indo-Semetic cosmology conceptualization? Maybe Guru ji is speaking of common folk religion as opposed to a hard textual conception of the faith?

The use of the plural 'ਕਤੇਬਾ' suggests they are talking about the whole range of semitic scriptures, not just the Koran in any case.

Anyone know anything about these 'ਸਹਸ ਅਠਾਰਹ'??

RE: Mohammad. The stories of his treatment of women are supported by Haddiths and whatever else you may say about them, Muslims did develop a system to try and keep the provenance of these well established.

PS - Are you suggesting that what we find morally and ethically questionable in Mohammad's history has been made up by later Muslims and he didn't do these things?

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kateban is plural and refers to the Semitic scriptures. The idea of 18,000 worlds is from the Talmud. From torah.org:

http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/extraterrestrial.html#

More on the 18,000 worlds in Judaism:

http://www.jewishmag.com/8mag/worlds/worlds1.htm

The idea of the quran being corrupted from an earler, gentler version is bullshit, as is the idea that the hadith do not provide reliable historical descriptions of Mohammed (because Mohammed couldn't possibly be the lunatic that is described in them). Articulating either of these ideas would probably get you killed in most Muslim countries for blasphemy, but we seem to go to extraordinary lengths to pretend Islam is somehow something else than what it is.

K.

Edited by Kaljug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kateban is plural and refers to the Semitic scriptures. The idea of 18,000 worlds is from the Talmud.

Thanks for sharing. Interesting to see Baba ji refer to Torah lore.

The idea of the quran being corrupted from an earler, gentler version is bullshit, as is the idea that the hadith do not provide reliable historical descriptions of Mohammed (because Mohammed couldn't possibly be the lunatic that is described in them). Articulating either of these ideas would probably get you killed in most Muslim countries for blasphemy, but we seem to go to extraordinary lengths to pretend Islam is somehow something else than what it is.

I think it's a really interesting social/psychological phenomena myself. One which we Sikhs need to understand in depth for a variety of reasons.

I think sometimes people's social interactions really influence what they wish to perceive to be truth. So certain Sikhs may have some very positive interactions with Muslims and as a consequence some mechanism kicks in when looking at the Muslim's scriptures which struggles to conciliate the discrepancy between their own positive personal experience and the picture emerging from the texts.

Then you get all these 'mental acrobatics' to try and bring equilibrium to the divergent sources of info. Like 'they must have been corrupted.' based on nothing but personal emotion.

Not making this personal, but from my experiences people who do this are very susceptible to outside influence. You see this a lot with gentle minded Sikhs and low IQ apneean. They sometimes convert due to this.

Now I'm not saying every last sullah is some evil person, but truth be told, from what I understand of Mohammad's itihaas I respect him as a military commander and leader of men (his success in these fields is undeniable). But in terms of morals and ethics......no can do.

We should also mention the polar opposite of the above phenomena, where negative experiences has one seeing nothing but bad. Even where none exists.

All this aptly shines light on just how susceptible a human mind can be. It as scary as it is fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand your view point but have to disagree to a certain point since the issue of the earlier avatars and prophets is more complicated in Gurbani than a mere reading will do.

For instance we have tuks in gurbani such as "Kuran kateb dil mahi kamahi" and allusions in the vaars of Bhai Gurdaas of sufis having reached the highest state and union with God. In the Bachitar Natak we hear that all the earlier avatars/prophets failed, yet in the bhatta di sawaye the gurus are compared and given the names of these avatars. If they had failed why would the gurus be honored with their names? Thats more of an insult than praise.

Its like me saying "O Dalsingh you are great and infallible like X who made all these mistakes and went astray, O i cannot praise you enough".

its more complicated than that, even though i do agree that my view might be to romanticised..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also to go by the Zafarnama we see that Guru Gobind Singh is accusing Aurangzeb of going against the pillars of Islam, however what we see in the hadith is that Aurangzeb did follow the tenets of Islam according to these sources.... So there is a mismatch here also..

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing. Interesting to see Baba ji refer to Torah lore.

Lots of Talmudic lore entered Islam through a convert Wahb bin Munabbih in the 7th century, including the 18,000 worlds. It's more likely that this was a belief anmong some Muslims at the time of our Gurus

rather than being a direct reference to the Talmud.

K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Bachitar Natak we hear that all the earlier avatars/prophets failed, yet in the bhatta di sawaye the gurus are compared and given the names of these avatars. If they had failed why would the gurus be honored with their names? Thats more of an insult than praise.

Its like me saying "O Dalsingh you are great and infallible like X who made all these mistakes and went astray, O i cannot praise you enough

I don't agree. It appears as if often the references to older Indic mythological characters is more in the context of Guru describing the world known to the people he was preaching to and subordinating all things natural and mythological to the Akal of Sikhi's idea. Plus individuals of any background reaching the highest states doesn't necessarily validate the orthodox form of their faith but rather, is probably down to their own individual actions and devotion?

its more complicated than that,

Don't rule out the possibility that it might actually be relatively straight forward.

even though i do agree that my view might be to romanticised..

Then a part of your journey must also involve analysing yourself in this capacity. Because if you are romanticising things, your research will only take you further away from the truth. This is smething we all need to do periodically by the way, myself included.

Also to go by the Zafarnama we see that Guru Gobind Singh is accusing Aurangzeb of going against the pillars of Islam, however what we see in the hadith is that Aurangzeb did follow the tenets of Islam according to these sources.... So there is a mismatch here also..

There are apparently a number of variants of Zafarnama (if Sarna is anything to go by). So which one are you using?

In any case, Guru ji's communication with Aurangzeb, was a very sensitive diplomatic communication. Why take it all literally. In the end what we have is an admonishment of Aurengzab's dishonesty and brutality in poetic terms, with especial reference to Aurang's broken oath on the Koran.

An example of the dangers of interpreting poetic license as literal can be see with the often quoted references to the battle of Chamkaur were Zafarnama uses hyperbole relating to the numerical strength of the hordes that attacked them. We know from the imperial order of this incident (that is extant) that 700 soldiers were sent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UVmSQHquJc&NR=1

This one says it all.The guy can't even deny it but instead resorts to denigrating what Americans are doing in Guatanamo as a defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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...