Jump to content
John

Shia Sikh relations

Recommended Posts

Guest Javanmard

You might be termed a kafir....they also call certain Shi'a kafir, they call Alevis kafir, they call Ismaili kafir...who cares about idiots to be honest. If you're going to spend your life answering back to confused 2nd generation "Muslims" (Sunnis and zahiri Shi'as) then khoda hafez...I have decided to just stay away from these people and lave them to their own hell...this includes both "Muslims" and "Sikhs"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, Javanmard, you utterly failed to answer my posts. It seems that you want to cling to your beliefs and seeing as how you are completely unable to adequately address my points you've chosen to dance around it.

you're right on one point, all that matters is the pursuit of truth, so how about some of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

If the words vertical and horizontal are a problem for you I suggest you take English classes.You are looking at the terms "Hindu", Sikh and Muslim in a horizontal way. I suggest you look at the issue in a vertical way. If you are unable to understand that then God help you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Viewing the groups I mentioned horizontally implies a pure sociological view of them as in X, Z and Z being just three entities endowed with a strong exoteric aspect and an esoteric one. The problem is that Sikhim lacks that exoteric side completely and Indian Sikhs whether they want to admit it or not have to rely on Indic exoteric practices for that aspect of things. The Rahitname are a clear proof of it. For marriage and death rituals Indic rituals are used with or without the participation of Brahmin Sikhs. In fact from the knowledge I have of Brahmin Sikhs it seems they player the role of purohits for such occasions for the Gurus. The Rahitname cannot be taken seriously as exoteric codes as they don't apply to all society. They are more guidelines for an order. They contain no specific rulings on things like homosexuality, taxes,adoption, inhertiance...for these things Sikhs had to rely on other material.

Now this is where the vertical perspective comes in. If we were to consider X,Y and Z as mountains then we have a problem if Z does not have the characteristics of a mountain. If Sikhism lacks that strong exoteric aspect then we have to view it as a bridge between two mountains.

The fact that the Gurus built mandirs and mosques was precisely to provide their followers with their exoteric whilst the dharamsala provided the esoteric path where Hindus and Muslims could meet.

Otherwise it just doesn't make sense at all. Modern Sikhism may perceive itself as a religion like Islam and "Hinduism", fact remains it totally lacks a clear set of exoteric rules. The rahitname are a personal code restricted to the individual practice and communal liturgy but they don't give clear answers to the themes I mentioned precisely because they were already provided by other entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is the use of Bhramins required in Sikhe? never.

It's laughable that you try to pigeonhole Sikhe to fit into your pov by ignoring contradictory evidence or by trying to minimize the existence of that evidence. What about the Akaal Takht? for example, they issued a hukumnama banning gay marriage. Gurmatta? Sarbat Khalsa? The institution of Punj Pyare? What about the system of ordering society developed during the Misl period? What about the system in place during the Guru period? Seeing as how they managed to order society it must mean that Sikhe has had access to such tools.

As I've stated previously, it's both a brotherhood, and a separate religion. The Gurus having mandirs and mosques built for thier followers doesn't in any way take away from the fact that it's a fully developed religion.

Additionally, since when does a religion need such a system in place to order things like adoptions, taxes, inheritances? A religion is about living in God's Hukum in society and life. The ruler of the day, in consult with the Punj, can take care of this.

If we look at the Guru's Bani, which if really the only thing to do if one wants to arrive at the truth, the Guru rejects the Koran and Vedas as final sources of authority. So, if Sikhe really is a bridge between two religions, then to what end? IS it meant for followers of both religions to abandon their faiths and eventually begin following this new bridge religion? B/C the rejection of final authoritiy of all the scriptures of those two religions makes it clear that Sikhe is no temporary bridge, but in fact a 3rd path.

Once again javanmard, Sikhe teaches that there is truth in both Vedas and Koran. So if an answer is provided in there, or in preexisting practices, than why would the Gurus using those rather than reinventing the wheel in any way make Sikhe less of a fully developed religion?

In your past posts you discuss harmonic progression, you apply it to Islam (while still considering it a fully developed independant religion) and yet you fail to apply the same concept to Sikhe. Why is that Javanmard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Your examples are all taken from the post-Guru period and are NOT the words of the Gurus. If theu had cared so much about establishing a Sikh society and laws for ruling society they would have done so.

There is not a single Sikh text of the Gurus giving authority to the Akal Takht and there is no evidence to show that the Panj Pyare are to occupy a role other than that of initiation. In any case the Panj Pyare would have to be nominated by Jathedar of the Panth who by definition has to be nominated by his predecessor. Supposing there is such a competet authority around on what scriptural basis would they condemn homosexuality? What if other panj pyare say the opposite? we all know this happens when two groups of panj pyare contradict each other!

You say Hindus and Muslims "abandonned" their religions to join a new one. Isn't that new path suppose to guide them in all aspects of life? What would they do if their son becomes an homosexual and they have no guidance about that? Make up their own laws? But isn't that manmat?

If the Gurus rejected the Qur'an they must have thought it to be false. By building mosques they would be promoting falsehood. Doesn't make sense really!

It's you who has a problem with Sikhism not being a religion rather than a spiritual path. It doesn't take away its beauty but I can understand how it can unsettle you.

Had the Gurus wanted to give us clear exoteric laws they would have done so. They had 200 years to do it. They didn't!

It took you guys 200 years to figure out a final marriage ceremony. Doesn't that just show the absence of clear exoteric rulings on these issues? What about inheritance laws? What about divorce in case a woman gets abused regularly by her husband and her in-laws?

Is there ANYTHING about those issues in Sikh scripture? NO!!!

Why? because gurbani is a set of spiritual compositions!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Javanmard Ji,

What are your thoughts the Guru Sahibans exoteric existence, what birth, marriage and death rites did they follow, amongst other rules/culture governing other worldly matters?

Gurbani is not just a set of spiritual compositions, anyone can write a set of spiritual compositions.

Gurbani is the embodiment of Satguru's the surpreme truth. It is "Jagdi Jyot".

Also, what role were the panj pyare playing when they questioned teh 10th Master for paying respect to a Pirs grave (Sufi/Shia tradition)? What role wre the panj pyare playing when they commanded 10th Master to leave Chamkaur?

The institution of 5 respected ones, elders, is an ancient Indic tradition, which was adopted by Guru Sahiban, and was used by other Guru's before the 10th Master also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

The five holy ones....interesting you mention the panchayat institution. I thought maybe the Guru Sahiba were more inspired by the Panj Tan. In chivalry initiation rituals in Shi'ism the initiate is also initiated by five people depending on the orders. That I know the panchayat doesn't have a mystical function...

If paying homage to the grave of a pir is a sin in your book then go to Pakista n and destroy the shrine where the roses Guru Nanak left were buried by his Muslim followers.

It's pretty clear that the Gurus from Guru Ramdas on have been married according to the Vedic rituals with the lavan being recited with them and they were cremated when they died, except for Guru Gobind Singh and Guru Nanak who miraculously disappeared .

As I said before I never said that the Gurus after Guru Nanak were Shi'a, rather they kept to Vedic exoteric rituals for birth, marriage and death with Sikh elements incorporated in those rituals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The five holy ones....interesting you mention the panchayat institution. I thought maybe the Guru Sahiba were more inspired by the Panj Tan. In chivalry initiation rituals in Shi'ism the initiate is also initiated by five people depending on the orders. That I know the panchayat doesn't have a mystical function...

If paying homage to the grave of a pir is a sin in your book then go to Pakista n and destroy the shrine where the roses Guru Nanak left were buried by his Muslim followers.

It's pretty clear that the Gurus from Guru Ramdas on have been married according to the Vedic rituals with the lavan being recited with them and they were cremated when they died, except for Guru Gobind Singh and Guru Nanak who miraculously disappeared .

As I said before I never said that the Gurus after Guru Nanak were Shi'a, rather they kept to Vedic exoteric rituals for birth, marriage and death with Sikh elements incorporated in those rituals.

Veer Ji, your going off track again, not intentionally I hope:

“there is no evidence to show that the Panj Pyare are to occupy a role other than that of initiation”

Then;

“The five holy ones....interesting you mention the panchayat institution. I thought maybe the Guru Sahiba were more inspired by the Panj Tan. In chivalry initiation rituals in Shi'ism the initiate is also initiated by five people depending on the orders. That I know the panchayat doesn't have a mystical function”

Your statement doesn’t address the fact that I am trying to show you that the panj pyare did indeed have a role outside of the amrit sanchaar ceremony.

Also you are doing your tick for tack “everything Indian” transposition again, you are much more knowledgable than me, I will therefore leave it for you to read up on and understand how important and far fetching the role of “5” individuals has been in Indic history, specifically with the use of ”5” by Guru sahiban before the 10th Master, it does not just refer to panchayat as you indicate.

No need to start loosing your temper and sensationalising comments that hurt your sentiments, you know very well I try and address all discussion respectfully, you should take a leaf out of Persian culture and respond with the same courtesy. The sakhi of the panj pyare holding the 10th Master to account for his actions is not my invention. I feel no need to destroy anything, least of all a place that Muslims hold sacred according to their beliefs. This point only goes to show that there is indeed a difference in Guru’s path and that of the existing Muslims (in all guises), as I said before Guru Amardaas Ji Maharaj, as clearly evidenced in the Gurbani, gives instruction, that leaves no chance of a memorial being created (as per shia tradition), you do not seem to believe in the concept of Jagdi Jyot, which is why you seem to evade this subject and have been clearly trying to show Guru Nanak and his 9 other forms as separate i.e. Guru Nanak was a Muslim and his inheritors were not, this is nonsensical.

It was the same budhi, gyaan, jyot that graced all 10 Masters, what was applicable to one was applicable to all.

You say that Vedic rituals appeared from Guru Ramdas Ji’s time, what evidence do you have to prove they were not utilised as ""a basis"" from Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s time?

Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s birth and marriage would have been conducted under their parents supervision and according to their beliefs? Same goes for on-going Guru Sahiban.

As you have know clearly admitted that Guru Sahiban incorporated/utilised Vedic ritual as ""a basis"" for Sikh rites, I suggest you stop having digs re how brahmanised Sikh today are (within reason).

Also, I suggest you rethink your theory re how “anti-Muslim” everything went post 10th Master. You have clearly stated that Guru sahiban chose Indic rites/systems as a basis for cultural conduct, this is/was not anti-Muslim thinking, it was an adaptation of what the Satgurus' saw the best basis for their teachings and given path, same was true of Indic martial and musical systems, which were chosen over any others – alongside choosing/constructing Gurmukhi, based on Indic language.

I am not trying to show that Guru’s chose Indic over Persian/Islamic etc, just trying to show you that they took the best that was available, and it wasn’t always Islamic/Persian based.

Maybe their was a deeper reasoning for sharing and utilising many elements of many cultures, so that 500 years later, scholars wouldn’t try and tie them down to a “group” and in doing so distort their universal revelation.

I feel that no matter how much anyone tries, you will not change your mind on this, because unfortunately, you have somewhat committed your whole academic and social life “toward” the Shia’te denomination, and I don’t see you doing a u-turn on your whole life…

With all due respect my veer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Javanmard I quote from your previuos post:

If paying homage to the grave of a pir is a sin in your book...

I have noticed that you use a 'them and us' defintion when talking about Sikhism and Islam. I fail to see why you say this. There are many of your posts in which you clearly state that the Satgurus and the Imams consist of the same Divine Light, and that the Satgurus are seen as Divine Light of God within Islam. I hardly see why then there is a need for you to use a 'them and us' terming.....!!!!

Further more why do you always insist on using the terms, 'your book' 'your this' your that' according to you, the Divinity is the same..... so what is this all about!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Gurus rejected the Qur'an they must have thought it to be false. By building mosques they would be promoting falsehood. Doesn't make sense really!

This makes it sound like you're saying the Gurus were hypocrites, with Gurbani saying one thing and the Gurus doing another. Surely that's not what you mean?

The Gurus have shown great respect to other religions, with the 9th Guru even going so far as to sacrifice his body for the Hindus right to freedom of religion. This does not mean that all of sudden Sikhs started obeying the Vedas (or the Koran) and this is emphasized by the 10th Guru rejecting the authority of both. A rejection of authority does not mean they are rejecting the knowledge contained within, or that they lack any respect for either scripture. However, it does certainly solidify the fact that Sikhi is a separate religion.

No mere brotherhood or "Bridge religion" would reject the authority of the scriptures of both religions that it is suppposed to be bridging.

shaheediyan is right. It seems like you don't believe in the Jagdi Jyot concept, which would explain why you always dance around this point instead of addressing it. This one simple concept blows your entire theory out of the water.

btw, regarding your statements on exoteric laws, How do you know that such writings didn't end up being washed into the flooded river when the Sikhs were crossing it, after being granted "safe passage" by Mughal soldiers from Anandpur Sahib. Either way, With or without these, my above point proves that Sikhe is a separate religion. And it certainly is a valid assumption that the Guru had a body of such law created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

"btw, regarding your statements on exoteric laws, How do you know that such writings didn't end up being washed into the flooded river when the Sikhs were crossing it, after being granted "safe passage" by Mughal soldiers from Anandpur Sahib. Either way, With or without these, my above point proves that Sikhe is a separate religion. And it certainly is a valid assumption that the Guru had a body of such law created."

So you are admitting to the absence of exoteric rulings...that's good you're making progress...I just think that if the Gurus intended to create a completely new religion thy would have cared to give a book of laws instead of having Sikhs do guess-work for three centuries about what maryada is...

As for Shaeediyan. I have nothing against Brahmanical rules as such otherwise I wouldn't have studied Sanskrit for so many years and taught Hinduism for three years.BUT it's good to see you finally admitting that the Gurus kept on with these traditions as well as their "Hindu" followers. And I have nothing against it.

I am just against excluding Muslims from the panth that's all. All I am saying. The problem is that because of anti-Muslim rulings it is difficult to a Shi'a to join in.

And yes I use the word "you" because I feel aleniated from this community. I love the Gurus but I no longer feel at home in this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

"btw, regarding your statements on exoteric laws, How do you know that such writings didn't end up being washed into the flooded river when the Sikhs were crossing it, after being granted "safe passage" by Mughal soldiers from Anandpur Sahib. Either way, With or without these, my above point proves that Sikhe is a separate religion. And it certainly is a valid assumption that the Guru had a body of such law created."

So you are admitting to the absence of exoteric rulings...that's good you're making progress...I just think that if the Gurus intended to create a completely new religion thy would have cared to give a book of laws instead of having Sikhs do guess-work for three centuries about what maryada is...

As for Shaeediyan. I have nothing against Brahmanical rules as such otherwise I wouldn't have studied Sanskrit for so many years and taught Hinduism for three years.BUT it's good to see you finally admitting that the Gurus kept on with these traditions as well as their "Hindu" followers. And I have nothing against it.

I am just against excluding Muslims from the panth that's all. All I am saying. The problem is that because of anti-Muslim rulings it is difficult to a Shi'a to join in.

And yes I use the word "you" because I feel aleniated from this community. I love the Gurus but I no longer feel at home in this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

"btw, regarding your statements on exoteric laws, How do you know that such writings didn't end up being washed into the flooded river when the Sikhs were crossing it, after being granted "safe passage" by Mughal soldiers from Anandpur Sahib. Either way, With or without these, my above point proves that Sikhe is a separate religion. And it certainly is a valid assumption that the Guru had a body of such law created."

So you are admitting to the absence of exoteric rulings...that's good you're making progress...I just think that if the Gurus intended to create a completely new religion thy would have cared to give a book of laws instead of having Sikhs do guess-work for three centuries about what maryada is...

As for Shaeediyan. I have nothing against Brahmanical rules as such otherwise I wouldn't have studied Sanskrit for so many years and taught Hinduism for three years.BUT it's good to see you finally admitting that the Gurus kept on with these traditions as well as their "Hindu" followers. And I have nothing against it.

I am just against excluding Muslims from the panth that's all. All I am saying. The problem is that because of anti-Muslim rulings it is difficult to a Shi'a to join in.

And yes I use the word "you" because I feel aleniated from this community. I love the Gurus but I no longer feel at home in this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

"btw, regarding your statements on exoteric laws, How do you know that such writings didn't end up being washed into the flooded river when the Sikhs were crossing it, after being granted "safe passage" by Mughal soldiers from Anandpur Sahib. Either way, With or without these, my above point proves that Sikhe is a separate religion. And it certainly is a valid assumption that the Guru had a body of such law created."

So you are admitting to the absence of exoteric rulings...that's good you're making progress...I just think that if the Gurus intended to create a completely new religion thy would have cared to give a book of laws instead of having Sikhs do guess-work for three centuries about what maryada is...

As for Shaeediyan. I have nothing against Brahmanical rules as such otherwise I wouldn't have studied Sanskrit for so many years and taught Hinduism for three years.BUT it's good to see you finally admitting that the Gurus kept on with these traditions as well as their "Hindu" followers. And I have nothing against it.

I am just against excluding Muslims from the panth that's all. All I am saying. The problem is that because of anti-Muslim rulings it is difficult to a Shi'a to join in.

And yes I use the word "you" because I feel aleniated from this community. I love the Gurus but I no longer feel at home in this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

re-read the post where I used to the expression "your book". I wasn't referring to gurbani...I was using an English expression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see your point....Javanmard I have read posts that you have put up. You show a very different view of Islam, compared to the Wahabi Sunni version of Islam. I would like to ask you something, bearing in mind all that you have said with regards to the Gurus from an Islamic perspective, why do Muslims still choose to look at Sikhism, and call it Kafir?

Why do they say that we are disobeying God as we do not follow Hes Will, which in their eyes is the Holy Qur'an?

What will be your answers for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So you are admitting to the absence of exoteric rulings...that's good you're making progress...I just think that if the Gurus intended to create a completely new religion thy would have cared to give a book of laws instead of having Sikhs do guess-work for three centuries about what maryada is... "

The Gurus did give us complete maryada. It's personal law. As for anythiing else, Guru Granth, and Guru Panth can easily deal with these things.

I notice that once again (for what may be the fifth time) you've completely and utterly failed to address my point that proves to be a nail in the coffin of your tired argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beetlejuice, Javanmard is not representing Sunni Islam, directing these questions towards him is pointless. With all due respect, I suggest you read through the numerous threads on this forum covering these topics.

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...