Bhindranwale Sants On Mohammed

[Silence]

Taken from: http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/41588-bachitter-natak-on-muhammad/

http://www.gurmarag.net/SikhAwareness/Audio/13_Panna_140_-_Salok_Mahalla_1_-_Mihar_Maseet_Sidhak.mp3

I havent listened to the audio link but a summary given by UKGupt Kaur is very informative:

"one bit of the mp3 summarized:

A fakir/ a sadhu used to sent letters to mohammad. This letters were collected from different parts like mecca, medina and other villages.

When people used to ask where this letter came from, mohammad used to say from God.

When this letters were completed ,the fakir/sadhu informed mohammad that he wanted to visit him.

Mohammad told his followers that a shaitan (satan) will be visiting and would be claming that the letters are from him. AND TO KILL HIM.

So Mohammad basically got this sadhu murdered to claim himself as the real sadhu/prophet. "

Also the post by 'Jai Tegang!'

"True circucision is "sharam" according to gurbani. Expanding on this, Santji says that abstaining form vices is the real sunnat, as opposed to altering God's form by removing skin.

Bhagat Kabir Ji is asked by locals to also have sunat done (since they were raised by muslim parents and society expected them to follow Islamic priciples). Bhagat ji replies that if Allah wanted me to have sunnat, it will happen by itself, just like it is claimed that Porphet Mohammed had sunnat naturally.

Sant ji also describe the origins of circumcision, mustache trimming and wearing of short sleeve tunics by muslims.

So the stroy goes...

- Abraham is visited by an "apachhar" (which I believe translates to a heavenly sent beautiful women), whom he wishes to marry. The apacchar sets the condition that he must divorce his wife and never touch her again. If He is ever to touch her (have a relationship with her), then she will punish him. All of this written in a contract between Abraham and the apachhar.

- One day Abraham's wife (who was living at her parents home now) tricks Abraham into visiting her claiming she's on her deathbed. Upon arriving, he sees her fully well and dressed seductively. Abraham loses his vow and does bhog with her.

-Apachhar finds out and cuts his foreskin.

Santji also tells the other version of this story.

- One of Abrahams disciples brings his son to the prophet to complain that his son doesn't bring his wife back home. Abraham instructs him to listen to his father, upon which the son tells abraham to do the same (as Abraham had also sent off his wife).

-Abraham's wife sets puishment conditons for her return. Abraham requests her to go easy as he is her husband. So she circumcises him, trims his mustache, cuts his kesh, and tears off his tunics sleevs to the elbows. for 40 days Abraham lays in pain, after which he orders all his followers to follow the same as it's the command of God.

Interestingly, Santji also states that Kabba was originaly a Shiv Mandir.

Good to know what our sampardas view of history is like. "

Edited April 19, 2011 by Silence

[jaikaara]

thanks veera i was searching for this

[amardeep]

lol.

[dalsingh101]

lol.

Care to elaborate?

[amardeep]

There is no historical evidence to validate the above stories. Thats why i said lol.

[dalsingh101]

There is no historical evidence to validate the above stories. Thats why i said lol.

There does seem to be evidence that portrays him as a paedo, rapist and general brute though, no?

That too from Muslim sources.

Edited April 19, 2011 by dalsingh101

[Mithar]

There is no historical evidence to validate the above stories. Thats why i said lol.

Sant Jee is telling the truth, he being a Brahmgiani validates the above stories. There are a lot of things that we ordinary people cannot perceive, that Brahmgianis can. Because of their advanced spiritual level, they have access to knowledge of Trekaal (past, present and future) and divine knowledge. So Bachans of a Brahmgiani are much more valuable and credible then Mohammad his Quran or the Hadiths in my view.

The Dasam Granth contains many secrets which Sikhs are not aware of. By listening to the Katha done by learned Gianis, these secrets can be understood.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Mithar

[amardeep]

Sant Jee is telling the truth, he being a Brahmgiani validates the above stories.

We have brahmgianis in different jathas that contradict each other. So what you make of this? In discussing history its better to look at valid historical sources than just "this and that baba said so".

sorry if i offended anyone.

Edited April 19, 2011 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

We have brahmgianis in different jathas that contradict each other. So what you make of this? In discussing history its better to look at valid historical sources than just "this and that baba said so".

sorry if i offended anyone.

What about valid Muslim historical sources that portray him as a paedo, rapist, warmonger etc.? Do you just ignore them?

Mithar, problem with what you say is that it comes down completely to faith and any independent party is likely to draw the conclusion that biased Sikh sources are just trashing another faith to make themselves look better.

Do we even need this when sullah accounts themselves aren't exactly flattering from an outside perspective?

Edited April 19, 2011 by dalsingh101

[amardeep]

Dal: No but this is not a topic on those issues.

[Mithar]

We have brahmgianis in different jathas that contradict each other. So what you make of this? In discussing history its better to look at valid historical sources than just "this and that baba said so".

sorry if i offended anyone.

But the difference is, neither prophet Mohammad nor the writers of the Hadiths were Brahmgianis. A Brahmgiani is not some small entity. What to talk of prophet Mohammad, a Gurmukh Brahmgiani is greater than even Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva.

You said:

In discussing history its better to look at valid historical sources than just "this and that baba said so".

The only valid and primary historical sources on the life of the Prophet Mohammad are the Quran and the Hadiths. But on another thread you dismissed Quran and Hadiths suggesting that they may not be reliable since they do not show prophet Mohammad in a positive light. You cannot just pick and choose when you want to use the Quran and Hadith card when it suits your argument. If you accept the Quran and Hadiths then you must accept that Prophet Mohammad was a pedophile, mass murderer, slave owner and trader, rapist, forcible converter and warlord.

If the Hadiths say he was all of those things, when why is it difficult to accept what Sant Jee said to be the truth?

Edited April 19, 2011 by Mithar

[amardeep]

So do you belive in everything writtn in Bhai Santokhs Singhs Suraj parkash? If I remember correctly he says somewhere that his book was written with the grace and guidance of Guru Gobind Singh himself after deep contemplation for years at some river bank.

Do you also belive that everything Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale wrote to be true (ie Guru Har Rai had 8 wives? ) though there are no other historical sources to mention this.

[Mithar]

So do you belive in everything writtn in Bhai Santokhs Singhs Suraj parkash? If I remember correctly he says somewhere that his book was written with the grace and guidance of Guru Gobind Singh himself after deep contemplation for years at some river bank.

Do you also belive that everything Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale wrote to be true (ie Guru Har Rai had 8 wives? ) though there are no other historical sources to mention this.

Kavi Santokh Singh Jee wrote what he wrote based on what he heard. Every saakhi he heard whether it was verified or not, he just wrote it down which is why it is not considered a Sikh canonical scripture. We Sikhs determine which Sakhi is reliable by testing it if it is in line with Sikh canonical writings which are SGGSJ, writings of Guru Gobind Singh Jee, Bhai Gurdas Jee, Bhai Nand Lal Jee. While Kavi Santokh SIngh Jee's monumental work is respected by the Panth, but no Sikh considers it to be a canonical Sikh scripture while Muslims consider the Hadiths to be canonical along with the Quran.

The hadiths by Bukhari are considered the most reliable sources on the prophet mohammad. Unlike Kavi Santokh Singh Jee, bukhari did not just blindly write down every thing he heard. He diligently verified each and every thing before writing it which is why the followers of Prophet Mohammad beleive in the Hadiths as the most reliable sources there is about Prophet Mohammad. Bukhari himself was no ordinary man, he was actually a genius, they say he had all these Hadiths memorized by heart. Non of the Hadiths can be said to contradict the other Islamic canonical writing which is the Quran.

It's really strange that you as non Muslim are questioning validity of the Hadiths, while Muslims who literally LIVE ISLAM and die for Islam as true believers in the message of Prophet Mohammad and his Quran beleive it to be the most reliable source on Mohammad.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Mithar

[dalsingh101]

Dal: No but this is not a topic on those issues.

Granted, it would still be interesting to see how you reconcile/view these things. It might help us establish what degree of impartiality or bias you hold towards all thing related to Mohammad? Then we can view your comments in related matters in proper perspective.

I do find it strange that it appears as if you are willing to jettison sources most Muslims wouldn't when Mohhamad ends up looking less than wholesome in them?

Edited April 19, 2011 by dalsingh101

[amardeep]

First please provide the evidence of mohammad being everything you wrote, and then we take it from there.

[dalsingh101]

First please provide the evidence of mohammad being everything you wrote, and then we take it from there.

Why long it out? Just say what you feel about it?

The accusations are hardly something new are they. If you feel affection for the guy, just come out with it. No need to hide it.

[Mithar]

First please provide the evidence of mohammad being everything you wrote, and then we take it from there.

Proof Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and rapist is his marriage to his child bride Aisha who was only 6 during the Nikah and 9 during the Suhaag Raat. I doubt any 9 year old willingly consented having sex with a man who was old enough to be her grandfather, so yes this is also proof of rape.

Proof of Prophet Muhammad being a mass murderer is his genocide of the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza in which 700 Jewish men were beheaded and their women and children were distributed amongst the Sahaba as slaves.

Proof of Prophet Muhammad being a slave owner and trader take a look at this link which shows numerous excerpts from the Quran and Hadiths:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/015-slavery.htm

Not just prophet Muhammad, he even encouraged his followers to rape captured women when they came to him asking about the azl method of birth control. Check out this link which proves beyond doubt that Prophet Muhammad allowed rape of captive women and also indulged in rape:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

Even Zakir Naik doesn't deny Prophet Muhammad being a slave owner and having sexual rights over a slave.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Mithar

[Mr Sardar]

Thing is zakir naik's views are quite extreme not every muslim agrees with these views as some haddiths are unauthentic so people have different views rape in islam was haram. This is probably why in 1947 sikh women were raped in the millions due to those writings.

[Mithar]

Thing is zakir naik's views are quite extreme not every muslim agrees with these views as some haddiths are unauthentic so people have different views rape in islam was haram. This is probably why in 1947 sikh women were raped in the millions due to those writings.

No, in Islam only rape of Muslim women is Haram. According to Islamic sources rape of captive women is allowed if she is a non Muslim. Forget Zakir Naik. But what about the Quranic and Hadith sources which themselves prove the above mentioned facts about Prophet Mohammad?

Brother Sarbat, it is extremely strange that on one hand you beleive that Jagat Guru, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee was Rumi and Mohammad in his previous life and that too without any shred of evidence, so it is only based on your fantasies or imaginations. We have historical proof of Mohammad being a pedophile, mass murderer, thief, slave owner, rapist of captive women, torturer yet you are not willing to beleive it because historical facts do you match your romanticized version of Prophet Mohammad's life. So you are just blindly believing in a mythic Mohammad based on fantasy rather then the actual historic prophet Mohammad.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Mithar

[dalsingh101]

We have historical proof of Mohammad being a pedophile, mass murderer, thief, slave owner, rapist of captive women, torturer yet you are not willing to beleive it because historical facts do you match your romanticized version of Prophet Mohammad's life.

Again, we need to find out what makes Sikhs like this. My money is on them having close Muslim friends and not wanting to offend them, or these relationships effecting their perceptions of Mohammad.

What I find strange is how they often fear coming out with it openly like men, and instead prance about the issue. If I felt Mo was a cool geezer, I'd say it, regardless of what others are saying and how they might feel about it. But these people seem to have no backbone (sorry to say).

The biggest danger is some of these geezers converting and slying pretending they are still Sikh. I know some 'hero' sullah did that to some other quom back in Mo's time. So there is a precedent.

Edited April 20, 2011 by dalsingh101

[Mithar]

Again, we need to find out what makes Sikhs like this. My money is on them having close Muslim friends and not wanting to offend them, or these relationships effecting their perceptions of Mohammad.

What I find strange is how they often fear coming out with it openly like men, and instead prance about the issue. If I felt Mo was a cool geezer, I'd say it, regardless of what others are saying and how they might feel about it. But these people seem to have no backbone (sorry to say).

The biggest danger is some of these geezers converting and slying pretending they are still Sikh. I know some 'hero' sullah did that to some other quom back in Mo's time. So there is a precedent.

I think that a lot of Sikhs like many other non-Muslims(and even Muslims themselves) in regards to Islam are either ignorant or just out right in denial about Islam and Prophet Mohammad. I was also one of those Sikhs not too long ago. I also used to beleive that Islam is a religion of peace, Prophet Muhammad was a peaceful, saintly man much like Jesus, Moses or Buddha etc. But after reading faithfreedom.org website my eyes were opened.

I also have some Muslim friends who are actually nice people. But it seems that they themselves are quite ignorant about their own faith. This is an observation Ali Sina the founder of faithfreedom.org also has. He says that most Muslims in the world are nice people who are just ignorant about their own religion and prophet Muhammad which is why he created faithfreedom.org which is mainly run by ex Muslims to educate ignorant Muslims about Prophet Muhammad and Islam. He has actually succeeded in convincing numerous Muslims to leave Islam.

[Mr Sardar]

If this is truely the case then it is the duty of all sikhs to get this information out there because we are playing along with this game of creating problems in the world in our own belief system of respect other religions even though we may not agree with certain aspects of them.

[Mr Sardar]

http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=first

http://www.jesuswalk.com/abraham/6_circumcision.htm

http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/abraham.html

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/07/abraham-and-circumcision.html

Edited April 20, 2011 by sarbatdapala

[Guest Mozlamic]

Amazing. Not a single one of these stories can be found anywhere in Canonical, or even extra canonical texts. Seems 'ol Sant Ji shoulda been a fantasy novelist instead of a failed revolutionary. 

[GurjantGnostic]

1 hour ago, Guest Mozlamic said:

Amazing. Not a single one of these stories can be found anywhere in Canonical, or even extra canonical texts. Seems 'ol Sant Ji shoulda been a fantasy novelist instead of a failed revolutionary. 

Cute bro.

Shaking corrupt powers all over the world to their core with mainly the power of his Truth alone and giving Shaheed is not failed. It's the epitome of success. 

That's the shortest, nicest way to put it.