Jump to content
Mr Sardar

Prophethood?

Recommended Posts

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.

Nothing to deny. I still don't understand how a religion of God allows rape of captured women during war? If a Sikh does it, he is going against his religion, but if a Muslim does it he is just doing what his prophet had done and what the Quran says. Yet we still have people thinking that Sikhi and Islam are similar. As a Sikh, I find that more of an insult.

The study of Islam should be done from it's primary sources which are the Quran and the Hadith, not from overly optimistic view presented by some western academics. Many of these western academics are usually on the payroll of Soudi money. Western academics have a habit of presenting Islam as a religion of peace and the source of world enlightenment and progress. For example, if you read India's history through such historians, they will present Islamic rule over India as being the greatest thing to have happened to India, but reading Sikh history we know how oppressive and suffocating Islamic rule was over our own region of Punjab, let alone India as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dal: only 700 mughal soldiers? That would just make the anandpur battle a small skirmish. Where did u get this refference.

Look in Habib & Grewal's Persian sources.

Nothing to deny. I still don't understand how a religion of God allows rape of captured women during war? If a Sikh does it, he is going against his religion, but if a Muslim does it he is just doing what his prophet had done and what the Quran says. Yet we still have people thinking that Sikhi and Islam are similar. As a Sikh, I find that more of an insult.

It's not surprising given that we are a minority and that we don't really have strong social cohesion amongst each other. See post 13 for some description of what this can lead to.

The study of Islam should be done from it's primary sources which are the Quran and the Hadith, not from overly optimistic view presented by some western academics. Many of these western academics are usually on the payroll of Soudi money. Western academics have a habit of presenting Islam as a religion of peace and the source of world enlightenment and progress. For example, if you read India's history through such historians, they will present Islamic rule over India as being the greatest thing to have happened to India, but reading Sikh history we know how oppressive and suffocating Islamic rule was over our own region of Punjab, let alone India as a whole.

Someone once made this point to William Darymple who is one of the chief white Moghul historians. He has been accused of writing his accounts on Moghuls in quite a romanticised, exoticised manner, looking top down. A Sikh once commented on the fact that Sikh itihaas gives us a contemporary bottom up perspective of how a certain group actually experienced Moghul rule.

But Sikhs often get it wrong too. When they just generalise all Moghuls to be the same oppressors. That is just being mentally/intellectually lazy. Sikhs do the same with Hindus too. It is a blunt pendu mentality that doesn't help to uncover truth and is usually used to rouse people's emotions rather than discovery.

Plus people don't really realise just how cosy Arab and western relations are in reality. I worked in a big corporate law firm once and a big part of their business was drawing up contracts with various Arabic government agencies. They had whites who were completely fluent in Arabic doing this. This is big money. Instead Panjabis being pendus only seem to perceive sullay as Paks, whom they have a lot of contact with. They very rarely have contact with powerful sullay who aren't Paks. This has them totally misunderstanding what is going on in the global context. So just dissing Islam for being oppresive etc. isn't going to do anything with people who have such a dependency on them. EDL type tuttay need to realise this. Plus Panjabis need to wake up to just how much real influence they have on the global platform and even how much they would have in comparison to oil rich nations in the event of gaining an independent homeland. But they seem to dumb and pussy to do this as we don't come out looking too strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look in Habib & Grewal's Persian sources.

I have read it too. But forces from other Subas and local warlords might have joined them.

Anyway, it could not be a big jung, as there were only 40+ sings on this side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read it too. But forces from other Subas and local warlords might have joined them.

Anyway, it could not be a big jung, as there were only 40+ sings on this side.

Fair point.

But as you allude, how many soldiers do you think the authorities would send against such a small contingent?

So we have one surviving order for 700 men. We can assume that there would be 'hanger ons' or wannabe soldiers accompanying some of the official ones, so lets bump it up to a thousand.

40 against a 1000 is still no walk in the park is it. Let's say they represented half of the soldiers, so we get to 2000 against 40.

Wasn't Auranga also engaged in serious conflicts down south during this period? If so, I'm sure some of the imperial soldiers must have been busy there?

All in all though, Chamkaur wasn't like I've heard some brothers describe it i.e. hundreds of thousands against 40. One even went as far as saying a million......

But alas we digress.

Back to Mohammad.

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Al-Salam alykom

Reading your post, I believe you have been misinformed about the justice of God in Islam. We can discuss it if you would like and I am open to any type of questions.

To start of, I highly recommend you to read this article in order to get the full picture about the justice of God in Islam, and who the kuffars are that the noble Quran mentions.

http://www.askthesheikh.com/will-anyone-who-is-not-a-shia-enter-paradise/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-Salam alykom

Reading your post, I believe you have been misinformed about the justice of God in Islam. We can discuss it if you would like and I am open to any type of questions.

To start of, I highly recommend you to read this article in order to get the full picture about the justice of God in Islam, and who the kuffars are that the noble Quran mentions.

http://www.askthesheikh.com/will-anyone-who-is-not-a-shia-enter-paradise/

I had a look at that and have c and p'd it below. It changes NOTHING! We the SIkhs are still kafirs in your eyes, as we fall under number 2.

We have heard the Koran, and dont believe it, and hence we have rejected your "truth".

Question:

Is it possible for someone who is not a Shia to enter paradise? Why or why not?

Answer:

A person who believed in God and was not stubborn against the truth

or deliberately opposed after it had become clear to them, will, by

God’s Will, be allowed to enter paradise.

Therefore, a non-Shi’a Muslim, or a believer in any other Divine

religion, who truly thought they were following the right path, and were

not exposed to the truth of the path of the Ahlul Bayt in the right way

during their life, will not be punished by God.

However, if a person saw and was convinced by the truth, but rejected

it for personal or other reasons, will be held accountable and punished

on the Judgment Day.

The Almighty God has divided humans into four categories:

1) Believers, who will be in Paradise,

2) Koffar (disbeliever); who will be in hell. the Kafir in

the expression of the Quran is the one who knowingly and arrogantly

rejected the truth:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Indeed, those who disbelieve – it is all the same for them

whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe.

[Al-Baqarah: 6]

3) Hypocrites who are also Koffar in the real sense and hence hell bound

4) Mostad’afeen (as mentioned in Surah 4, Ayah 98) they are those who

were not exposed to the truth of Islam to believe in it, yet they were

honest and modest in their life. Many people in the world would fall

into this category. It is against Divine Justice to send them to Hell,

so they won’t. But His mercy is not against His justice therefore it is

expected from the Merciful God to grant them a peaceful position in

Paradise, and God knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I think we all should do some research on who Muhammad really was. Not what the TV says, not what the Internet says, not what any other religion says about him. But what the ppl of his time said about him, what the Hindus at his time said about him

Start off with the SEALED NECTAR.

Think it's only fair your exposed to the real Muhammad, not what some fat guy being a computer says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol what Hindus said about him? You should go on Comedy tonight mate. You can get a fair idea of what Hindus think about Mo from here:

Islamic doctrines have failed to establish a distinct division between state and faith leading to the perpetration of history's most barbarous acts in the name of religion. Envisioned by the Prophet Muhammad, Islam was devised as a totalitarian system which would encapsulate an adherent's psyche and retain it in a vice-like grip rendering the latter helpless. As per it's theological doctrines, the ruler was a Pharaonic embodiment of Allah's bestowed rights, rendering his wards ineffectual in his presence and subject to his bidding. Whether he followed the tenets of Islam or birthed his own diverse course, what truly mattered was the gratification of the larger Islamic community and it's extremist hype. As long as the said ruler adhered to the principles of the 'Sharia' or Islamic law publicly, he was a divine autocrat.

The commencement of the so-called Islamic expansion, or Arab colonialism catalyzed in extremely bloodthirsty massacres, pillaging and destruction of extensive non-Islamic civilizations, all justified of course by the ambiguity prevalent in the Koran. Apologists have commenced to birth a list of intensively pacifying verses from the Koran rebutting such facts, and reiterate legends orbiting around a so-called golden and more tolerant Islam. The myth however bears it's own stigma and is highly fallacious especially regarding the amount of archaeological and historical evidence present pertaining to the contrary. The Koran itself is divided into dual components, with the earlier being the 'Meccan Sura' which contains a majority of verses (including the 'golden' verses) which were abrogated in favor of the more stratifying and bloody 'Medinian Surra' and it's components. As per the latter idolaters, non-muslims and any individual suspected of being against the Islamic creed are deserving of execution and have no right to reside. These later doctrines formed the nucleus of the Islamic agenda birthed for the exploitation and conquest of the Indian sub-continent, which at the conjuncture was home to more than one diverse spiritual tradition.

Masterminded by Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq, and his slavish commander Muhammad b. Qasim in A.D. 712, Qasim was instructed to first obtain Sind and 'bring destruction on the unbelievers... (and) to invite and induce (emphasis ours) toaccept (as per Islamic norms more by violence than rhetoric) the true creed, and belief in the unity of God... and whoever does not submit to Islam, treat him harshly and cause injury to him till he submits!'

'On the evidence of Baladhuri's account of the conquest of Sind, there were certainly massacres in the towns of Sind when the Arabs first arrived.'
-C.E. Bosworth.
After the conquest of the trading nucleus, port Debal, Qasim and his fanatics indulged in the massacre of the captured civilians over the course of three days. Subsequently he became more lenient towards a few individuals in the imprisoned populace even allowing them to practice their rituals, this however rankled Hajjaj's sense of faith, and he dispatched an immediate message to Qasim reminding him of his honor-bound duty as an adherent of Islam.
'My dear cousin I have received your life-augmenting letter. On it's receipt my gladness and joy knew no bounds. It increased my pride and glory to the highest degree. It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law (emphasis ours). But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law (the 'Sharia') is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody high or low, without any discretion between a friend and foe. The Great God says in the Koran (47,4): "O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads!" (emphasis ours). The command of the great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weakminded man. Concluded with compliments. Written by Nafia in the year ninety three.'
-Hajjaj to Muhammad b. Qasim.
True to a fault, Qasim ordered the slaughter of all male individuals in his subsequent actions, whilst capturing their women and children as slaves. The real conquest, and subsequent arrival of the Turks (term used in Punjab to refer to individuals of Islamic origin) commenced with the arrival of the Turco-Afghan dynasty, headed by Mahmud of Ghazni, in A.D. 1,000. Commencing a bloody campaign of psychopathic slaughter left and right, Mahmud was an extensively delusional individual feeding on Koranic norms. He vowed to eradicate all idolaters and birth a series of 'Jihads' (or holy wars) to annihilate the infidel.
'Mahmud was a zealous muslim (emphasis ours) of the ferocious type then prevalent, who felt it to be a duty as well as pleasure to slay idolaters. He was also greedy of treasure and took good care to derive a handsome profit from his holy wars.'
-Vincent Smith.
As emphasized by Mahmud's personal media 'man:'
'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful feats, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all muslims.'
-Alberuni.
Over the course of seventeen invasions Mahmud slaughtered more than an estimated 90-100,000 individuals and more in his religious crusade. Commencing with the conquest of King Jaipal of Punjab, he then proceeded to Multan in 1004 A.D. where after conquering the region of Ghur he forcibly had the indigenous residents converted to Islam. The Hindu temples of the sub-continent fell prey to his selfish depravity and perversion. He commenced an extensive desecration, destruction and looting of the said temples.
'Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. "In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted" The Sultan (Mahmud) was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and levelled with the ground." Thus perished works of art which must have been the noblest monuments of ancient India.'
-Vincent Smith.
Subsequently at the site of Somnath, in the aftermath of the battle, the autocratic tyrant Mahmud had 50,000 non-Islamic individuals slaughtered for his gratification. Despite Islamic historians and apologists veiling Mahmud's religious mania, and subsequent psychopathic tendencies, he was nothing more than an avaricious thug, given great precedent via religion.
Mahmud's trail of bloodshed found an able successor in the form of Firuz Shah, an able administrator and a liberal via many perspectives, the latter was a fanatical bigot in terms of Islamic dominance over non-Islamic cultures and faiths. Establishing the 'Sharia' and Koranic injunctures as his mainstay influences he commenced a wholesale venture in slavery, and forcibly proselytized 180,000 non-Islamic slaves into accepting Islam to preserve their lives. After commencing an intensive genocidal purge against the Shia sect prevalent in Islam, he executed a mass-scale agenda executing any muslim personage found in the midst of Hindu festivities. Even the latter class was not sheltered from his periodical spasms of religious wrath and witnessed it's temples and heritage being reduced to rubble. Being an able exploiter he increased the Islamic poll tax for non-adherents, and subsequently forced the latter into accepting Islam via bribery. The man literally believed he was a formidable symbol of Islam and had Hindus burnt alive for practicing their religious rites.
'Firuz Shah, when due allowance is made for his surroundings and education, could not have escaped from the theory and practice of religious intolerance. It was not possible for him to rise, as Akbar did, to the conception that the ruler of Hindustan should cherish all his subjects alike, whether muslim or Hindu, and allow every man absolute freedom, not only conscience but of public worship. The muslims of the fourteenth century were still dominated by the ideas current in the early days of Islam, and were convinced that the tolerance of idolatry was a sin (Hajjaj already proved his point prior to Mahmud).'
-Vincent Smith.
Sources:
Warraq, I.(2003) Why I am not a Muslim. New York, Prometheus Books.
The works of C.E. Bosworth and Vincent Smith.
Margoliouth, D.S.(1905)Mohammad and the Rise of Islam. New York and London, G.P. Putnam and Sons.
As per a philosophical perspective regarding Gurmat:
According to Gurmat, creation and it's physical precepts are 'maya' or an illusory mirage enwebbing the soul in a haze of ambiguity and decisiveness. Simultaneously the liberated soul is not attached to such illusory precepts and subsequently achieves union with the creator, foregoing all or any need of requiring physical sustenance and/or nourishment in the afterlife. Several spiritual movements birthed in the east, place extensive emphasis on such a concept where the physical body is a temporary vessel for a particular conjuncture and ultimately discarded. With the spread of Islamic barbarity on the sub-continent a new ideology of a "physical" afterlife was forced down the throats of the non-muslims via the sharp vertex of the sword. This so-called authentic perspective on the after-life however was not authentic in it's construction and forcefully plagiarized of a historic Zoroastrianism. The assimilation of foreign influences on the tribal Arabian psyche was an important evolution in the Prophet Muhammad's unity of the latter. Mimicking concepts which he saw fit he undertook extensive pains to eradicate any authentic references to the sources which contributed to the birth of Islam, subsequently after the conquest of Medina he declared all non-muslims as"infidel" worthy of slaughter. Paradoxically he enshrined the norm of forcefully proselytizing the said class, whilst declaring Allah's pre-determination of them being worthy of hell.
'This book is not to be doubted (in reference to doubts being raised on the veracity of the paradoxical norms of the Koran)... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them ('forewarn?' A subtle reference to proselytizing?); they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears (where his benevolence is as per Islam is a mystery). Their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.'
-Koran 2:1/2:6-2:10.
The ambiguity of the Koran, and subsequently the prophet, over the specific references of the above verse refute any claims of proselytized individuals reaping any rewards for their conversion. Simultaneously one is awe-struck and left wondering as to what criteria is applied by Muhammad's deity to pre-judge those deserving of punishment, and those liberated and given passage to a mythical afterlife. The said paradise itself is however a cheap mimic of the Zoroastrian afterlife. Birthed via the confluence of the divergent Indo-Iranian tradition, the latter faith can easily be labelled as being the parental source of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. As per archaeological and sociological analyzations one can easily infer that the Islamic afterlife, so bloodily waved around, is nothing more than an ambiguous amalgamation of Hindu and Persian ideologies with a sprinkling of Greek mythology.
'Ahura Mazda, the supreme lord of Iran, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, endowed with creative power, which he exercises especially through the medium of his 'Spenta Mainyu'-Holy Spirit- and governing, the universe through the instrumentality of angels and archangels, presents the nearest parallel to YHWH (who as per Islamic doctrines evolved into 'Allah') that is found in antiquity. But Ormuzd's power is hampered by his adversary, Ahriman, whose dominion, however, like Satan's (Iblis as per Muhammad's doctrines who refused to bow to Adam) shall be destroyed at the end of the world... There are striking parallels... in their eschatological teachings-the doctrine of a regenerate world, a perfect kingdom, the coming of a Messiah (Mehdi Mir in Islam), the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting (in an illusory world). Both are revealed religions.'
-Widengren.


As for the Islamic warrior who meets his demise whilst decimating an infidel or dies for the fascist cause of Islam, a reflection of the Greek 'Elysian' fields is awarded to him for the perpetual satisfaction of his libido.
'The Muslim version of paradise closely resembles the Hindu and Iranian accounts. The Zoroastrian 'Hadhoxt Nask' describes the fate of the soul after death. The soul of the righteous spends three nights near the corpse, and at the end of the 3rd night the soul sees it's own religion ('daera') in the form of a beautiful damsel, a lovely fifteen year old virgin; thanks to good actions she has grown beautiful; they then ascend heaven together. This vision resembles the Hindu stories of the 'Apsarasas' , described as 'seductive celestial nymphs who dwell in Indra's paradise' and often act as dancers of the Gods, but who also welcome the soul into paradise. They are the rewards in Indra's paradise held out for fallen heroes.'
-Ibn Warraq.
One can easily conclude that there is no originality of the after-life in the Islamic doctrine which is a specific amalgamation, via ambiguity, of various pagan and sub-continental traditions. It can only be achieved via pre-determination and pre-destination on the behest of a tyrannical supreme overlord who ruthlessly exploits and subjugates his created wards to unbearable torture, whilst protecting a paradoxical and an almost primitive minority.
And no, no fat guy, media or dude on the internet gave this to me. I got all this from works praising Muhammad which unfortunately were not able to veil his reality enough.

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...