truthseeker546

I think we're going in circles, OK let's go around again; A male and female couple can get married, for procreation only. Two females or males cannot procreate naturally. SO a women who is barren (can't have children) can't get married in Sikhi? Enough evidence has been provided from SGGS in this topic. You can repeat the same question, a thousand times, if you want. It is your choice Umm there isn't anything in the SGGS on homosexuality. You gave some verses that are open to interpretations.

Is there a English translation of the Vaaran of Bhai Saab Bhai Gurdas online? If so does anyone have a link? This is the same Bhai Gurdas Sikhs get the Dassam Granth from right?

Thanks paapiman, umm any reason only Guru Nanak is mentioned in the above mentioned verse. and not the other 9 as well? Are there any other verses that mention other Gurus being God? or is it only Guru Nanak? Also I don't speak Gurumukhi. so can someone (other then Paapiman of course) confirm that the above translation of the verse is agreed upon by all Sikhs.? Does the translated word (of Lord) here have the same ambiguity, as in English. Lord can mean master, leader, owner etc. Not that I doubt you Paapiman, I just want to get a wide range of beliefs (if there are)

That was my question as well BhagatSingh, where indeed does it mention rape, as it's not mentioned in that quote. Any other references to rape. quote would be nice @ Satkirin Kaur - I don't want to get into a debate about shariah law, A - it's not my field of expertise and B this is not the proper forum, or topic for it. I suggest you join an Islamic forum to get an better idea about Islam or other religious forums to learn about particular religions. As paapiman so elequantly put it:" Idiots and fools are born in almost all communities/religions. We do not need a phd to understand this fact." true dat fam.

As a Non Sikh, I'm intrigued as to why exactly did the 10th guru have the masnads killed. In the original quote it only refers to disrespecting Sikhism and having their own place of worship. said nothing of rape or murder. can someone enlighten me on this please. Also as an added note to Satkirin_Kaur, you know I find it interesting that when Sikhs are trying to defend aspects of their faith they quote SGGS and gurus, any controversies they simply say this is not Sikhi - I just saw a very disturbing video of an elderly man being beating by a group of men for praying in the wrong place or something. reading the comments, every Sikh was saying this is not Sikhism. Yet when it comes to other religions (I've noticed especially when it comes to Islam) the same rule doesn't apply. Rather then asking an imam or scholar of the Islamic faith, Sikhs cite actions by certain fanatics or go to Islamaphobic websites (such as the one you have posted above ) as proof. Seem's a little hypocritical, don't you think. I'm studying comparative theology (due to start my Phd soon ) and I've looked into the controversial aspects of Islam. First of all in the Sunni and Shi'a traditions, 4 witnesses are required for BOTH men and women. for accusations of rape, adultery and fornication. In case of rape where the woman of course can't provided 4 witnesses then her sexual organs are examined by doctors to see if intercourse was forced or not. This is taken into account. As DNA is a relative modern discovery, this was not mentioned of course classical shariah however modern Sharia councils in Sunni countries take this into account. Just as a comment; As a non Sikh I've read a lot of books on Sikhism, but when I have a question on Sikhism, I either ask my Sikh colleagues on their opinions, consult books on Sikhism by Sikh scholars to ask on Sikh forums such as this. I suggest when finding out about other faiths, you all would do the same as ask those of that faith before making assumptions. Also to note - It's very interesting to also see whenever I see something negative regarding Sikhs/Sikhism, Sikhs are very quick to point fingers at Muslims or Christians and say well they have the same in their religion. That's a really pathetic way of defending or questions actions in ones faith. If Sikhs want to be understood as a unique faith different from Islam and Hinduism, then they need to take responsibility for the actions of Sikhs according to the teaching and principals of their own faith.

Sorry I was away from a few days, just saw this comment and it made me laugh " One possible explanation for homosexuality is the effect of the previous lives. For example, a person could have been a female in his previous life. This results in him, still being sexually attracted to men, rather than women. Therefore, one cannot blame the person for that." So the Welshman that likes to shag his sheep was probably a ram in his previous life? Also, "I don't think two males (or females) would want to get married, if they had no sexual feelings towards each other "- I don't think a male and female couple would want to get married if they didn't have sexual feelings for each other. Common you have to admit most of these answers are all interpretation, nothing is actually mentioned in the SGGS directly about this. For someone like AndyCandy who is bisexual or has gay friends, why should anyone's interpretations have an affect on his faith.

OK, this above site only mentions one story of "astral travel" - story of a person the Guru met in Baghdad. (Vaar 1 Pauri 36). Sorry what book is this referring to? Are there any other quotes from SGGS on this? Anything on other gurus travelling to other worlds? Also the quote above says " Upper and lower worlds" how do you know this is simply not referring to earth and the heavens? Rather the alien planets? Thanks

Okaay, First of all, many apologies - I was away for a few days. OK. - before I start to question and dig deeper into Sikh beliefs, I want to make sure I understand where you are coming from. So the above quote from BhagatSingh : " In Satyug you ...by his very command". Guru Granth Sahib, 1390 There was some confusion from other people that this quote is either from Dassam Granth or Sarbloth Granth. Can you confirm that this is from the Guru Granth Sahib? And can someone tell me which Guru interpreted this as " Gurus being God" as to me at least this verse is not clear but rather interpretation. Guru could have been humans and reincarnated into various historical figures. Doesn't mean to say he was God. Where does SGGS interpretations come from? Also - this might be a rather difficult question, but if some kind soul could tell me if this belief is shared by all beliefs or is this a point of contention between various sects?

Sorry I've been occupied with a few things of late, this couldn't come on this forum. I asked some questioned regarding this topic in my post "Gods and Gurus" .. I will continue to write on this topic on that thread. Some of the answers to Gurus being God cause more problems then solutions, "we are all part of God" - then whom are we worshipping? How can (Humans) be part of God himself, then reincarnate as lesser being, etc etc... and so on.

Further to my post on 24 forms of a formless God, I was made aware that some Sikhs at least believe the Guru's to be in Gods form. Before I start some questions regarding this, can I ask is this a belief shared by all Sikhs or just some sects? Are there any clear proofs on the Gurus being God from SGGS?

Where is SGGS does it say sex for pleasure is bad? and where in SGGS or rahit-nams does it say the gurus never had sex?

This is a very Sufi view on sex. I recall from a module on Islam I did. Seems like there is no real answer from SGGS, but various interpretations from people who have been inspired from various religions, be it Veda's or Sufism. Going by the above interpretation there is nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure so ,A nothing wrong with the Gurus having sex as it's not a sin. B nothing wrong in homosexuals having sex. so why aren't they allowed to get married via Anand karaj? Although A would be problematic if you believe the Gurus to be divine.

Why is seen as sinful in Sikhism (for pleasure) even if done between married couples? so Sikhs don't believe in foreplay or kissing??? Is making sweet love to you wife lust in Sikhism? Then why did God make Sex feel so Good? If sex is only for procreation, why don't Sikhs have test tube babies now since it's possible. Don't have sex at all? And according to you homosexuality is only if the couple have sex? OK. so if two 80 year old women, who love each other and can't have sex now due to their age want to get married. There is no problem if they get married in a Gudwara via Anand Karaj if they were Sikhs. They cant have sex so they are not homosexuals right? If marriage is not allowed for homosexuals who want to have sex (because they can't have kids) why is Anand Karaj allowed for couples that like having sex for pleasure, and use birth control because they don't want to change their lifestyles? Why are they allowed to go into a Gudwara and get married? As I understand there is no screening before the marriage?

OK Paapiman, your obviously not getting the point. I mentioned a few examples where sex is not an issue. People who can't have children, due to Medical reasons, or say old age. Will you deny they can love someone from their own gender? It's always about sex? Are heterosexual relations always about sex? so how is it clearly Vasshna? and how is this a Gurmat interpretation exactly? It's your interpretation of Gurmat. Yes a lot of religions say homosexuality is a sin, but I'm not on world religion forum am I. I'm on Sikhism forum. I'm interested in what Sikhism says on this topic and why.

Interesting, will read up on this. Thanks !

" I don't think homosexuality is normal, it's seems to me" - your free to think as you please, but do your own thoughts and ideas speak for Sikhism and how the SGGS is interpreted? read my response above please about cultural interpretations. Vedas - are you Hindu Paapiman? I thought Sikhs only had 3 mains holy books, Adi Granth, Dassam Granth and Sarbloath granth. (keeping in mind some only accept the first) didn't know some accepted the Vedas as well. Unless your Nirmalass? It's fine if you are - but giving an answer from the Vedas would give me a Hindu response on homosexuality. would it not?

Sorry I didn't see the questions you posted until now when I clicked on the link - I will do some tomorrow, a bit tired now after answering previous posts. OK - that's right, if we had proof that E.T really existed or there were Martians then I wouldn't have asked the question. But since we don't know if aliens exist and to my knowledge the SGGS doesn't allude to any alien life form on other planets, I think my point stands. By the way if intelligent life forms existed on other planets - that would leave humans as the only ones that could make free choice decisions would it. and then of course if they didn't get any Guru's teaching them - that would rise other problems. but that's another issue, more theoretical one as we don't know about other life forms. Also I appreciate all the different responses, only one of you mentioned the "time entity" if N30 Singh or you had replied then I would have never heard about it. Although I'm not sure if this is a orthodox Sikh belief. But for me as a non-Sikh I welcome all the different interpretations on Sikhism.

who said it's Kaam Vaashnaa? cultural interpretation. is it not? Like I said some people from US or Europe will disagree with you. If having children is not the only goal of marriage but bonding, love, compassion. then if 2 women or men find that in each other, why is that wrong? Any proof from SGGS?

It's interesting to see the relationship between Gurmat and science. when Gurmat is in alignment with science it means Sikhism is scientific. but of course when it's not - it's screw science. The thread is about homosexuality, what does Gurmat say about this. not individual interpretations that are subject to culture, education, geographical location etc. I asked a question before to which no one ( I think has answered). If marriage in Sikhism is only for procreation, then can someone who can't have children (due to medical reasons) get married? If so then why, can't have children anyway? Also now we have options of fostering, surrogacy, adoption, etc. A ethical person from say California or New York will have different views on this then say someone from India or Africa. Is Sikhism essentially an Indian religion then takes Indian cultural narratives over others? As far as I know, homosexuality is not mentioned in SGGS, therefore it's all interpretation. Is it not?

@ das your last point "So, find the answers if you really want; but otherwise if you're here just to prove some religion/creed/some-organization wrong, then please tell us your point of view and spare your and our energy for something better. I'm sure that there are lot of better things in life as compared to doing arguments.'' Umm this is a Q&A section on a Sikhism open forum, is it not? That's why I've posted my questions here. I'm not trying to prove anything or prove anyone wrong. But simply ask questions on beliefs to better understand it. For example just by asking questions; I've learn't Sikhs views on the Gurus, that they were in God's form, they didn't have sex or have children sexually, about the existence of this "time entity" and how it interacts with reincarnation. I wouldn't have learned this by simply reading books. It explorers the religion and gives you a better understanding. well does me anyway. Now if my questions are making you question your faith I suggest you go to a different part of the forum. Listen to some gurbanis or something. I'm not here to convert anyone nor am I a RSS agent (as someone accused me of recently) - as my profile states, I'm a comparative theology student - anyone who has any experience in the field knows this is what you do to all religions, question the things that don't make sense in regards to logic, reason, science, history or contradictions in the faith itself, to better understand it. If my questions are making people uncomfortable, then I don't have any issues leaving this forum. Thanks.

@ Paapiman. Sorry I said I was busy so didn't have time to reply. here are my replies to some of your answers. If I missed something let me know. OK - @ PAL 07, N30 Singh and das To answer your replies; I’ve noticed the main 3 people that replied to my question, differ in their answers. This may be due to their different sects within Sikhism or general understand. I’ve tried to reply to all 3 separately with respect to their individual beliefs. Also please note, I’m not just randomly asking questions. Sikhism believes in God as being Just. As an being that ultimately created human beings and wants good for them – hence why constantly sending prophets/gurus to humans to teach them. With this in mind, some of the issues raised against reincarnation go against this view. And it’s in this I’m interested in. How can a merciful, Just God create a world/system which goes against this justice? See below to the answers please. I would like some proofs from SGGS in the future, as it helps me with my quotations later on. Also a lot of this is personal interpretation. Which is fine for the individuals, however I’m interested in mainstream Sikhi views on things. Thanks Question 1 @ PAL 07 1) REINCARNATION IS BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF THIS LIFE Yes - that would determine how you will reincarnate after you die, but it was your previous life the determined this one. yes? My question was how can you improve if you don't know what you did before. You’re kind of doomed to go around this cycle if you don't know how to improve. @ N30 Singh: Umm the question is perfectly fine. It's a classical argument against reincarnation by occidental academics when they were first exposed to eastern religions. It hasn't been answered (in a way that would make sense) by anyone so far. You might want to consider reading some philosophy. Everything you said still doesn't explain why you can't remember you past life. I can understand if what you believe on the first individuals were born, (mentioned in your answer about separation of self, God ego etc) but why don't people recall their past cycles? By the way everything you mentioned, is this is the SGGS? If so can you tell me where please? To note: when I said this is a system of the soul’s purification, it was my own term to describe reincarnation the way I see it. I'm assuming God is the creator and indeed sustainer of reincarnation in Sikhism. It’s through His will that the souls move higher or lower depending on their actions. Right? It’s not on auto-pilot after all. So my question was how it is this cycle/system/ whatever you want to call it is fair or just if you can't recall your mistakes? You’re doomed to repeat the same things over and over again. As someone mentioned before only a few souls reach the highest level of joining God or going to "heaven". Seems like the whole thing is designed to make people go in circles? Without knowing Why? @ das Now your answer is really interesting. Never heard of this before in Sikhism, Can you please give me more information on this time entity and the 3 booms ? Where is it in the SGGS? Thanks Question 2: 2) THE 84 MILLION LIFE SPECIES HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EVOLUTION CYCLE TO FINALLY ACHIEVE THE HUMAN BODY @ PAL 07 This wasn’t an answer to my question! I asked what prerequisites are there for animals to move up to a higher form. @ das and N30 singh. "Its part of spiritual evolution, it goes through a process. Animals/inanimate objects must go through fruition or fulfillment of desire before they move up naturally towards spiritual evolution. 2b) They cannot make consious decisions on their own while they are animal/inanimate. Everything is preordained for them as part of spiritual evolution" This is contradictory - part A you said they must go through fruition and fulfillment of desire - and then you say it's all preordained for them all. Das said something similar that animals can’t choose – they are preordained as animals and rocks, only humans can. I’ll answer both here. Now this causes a lot of problems. - Too many for me to list all here. Before I mention some of them, I will point out my question was how animals move up the spiritual ladder. So how can a fish or lion go through fruition and fulfillment? Especially when they don’t even have full reasoning capacity? Doesn’t seem very fair. Now if you believe that it’s all pre-ordained. Meaning you were all ready destined to be, say a frog, and hip and hop around a pond with your frog mates, without knowing why or having the intellect to understand religious teachings to what this existence is about. And just out of pure luck you are destined to be a human in the next life, and his friend – the frog in the pond with him is sadly destined to be a worm in the next life. How is this fair? If frog A – was destined to be a frog and then move up it means all his previous lives didn’t mean anything because he’s destiny was to be a frog (in this cycle) even if he was human before, he’s choice didn’t mean anything. So where is the freewill? Question 3 3 - ALL CREATION IN THE BEGINNING PASSED THROUGH ANIMAL LIFE TO ACHIEVE HUMAN FORM WHERE SOME DID GOOD AND BAD @PAL 07 So everyone was an animal to begin with? OK so how did the first animals become Human, as this is all preordained? Something tells me you will say we can’t know that. Leela? @N30 Singh Fair enough N30 Singh. If you don’t know, Seems like a perfectly good question to me as it tells us something about God’s justice. Surprised no one asked the Gurus when they were around. @das Again this “time entity” .. can you please explain what this is in light of the SGGS? What did the Gurus say about it. I’ve never heard of it before in Sikhism. You said some souls wanted to be lower forms ? and more interestingly “ they were attached a first bad karma/thought of the Time entity to pull them into lower forms.” So this time entity attached bad karma without these souls ever doing anything wrong? How do Sikhs think this is fair/just? What’s the point of asking the souls were you want to go if no matter what answer you give you end up as a lower form. Question 4 ANIMALS COMING INTO HUMAN FORM ARE NOT GOVERNED BY HUMAN PROCREATION, ALL OF LIFE CREATION IS GOVERNED BY GODS LAW e.g,. THERE ARE TRILLIONS OF GHOSTS WAITING TO OBTAIN HUMAN FORM AND MILLIONS OF DEVAS AND MILLIONS ANIMALS. @PAL 07 Again you missed the question; the reincarnation theory doesn’t fit into science in relation with world populations. As I mentioned in my question. Interesting point on Trillions of Ghosts? Where exactly are these ghosts waiting? Can you tell me more about them please? What are they? Do they exist in heaven or earth or somewhere else? SGGS on this? If this is true then why wasn’t the human population a lot higher to begin with? HUMANS BEINGS DON'T AUTOMATICALLY PROGRESS TO HIGHER FORMS, RARE HUMANS DO, MOST GO BACK INTO ANIMAL LIFE. THE SIKH TEACHINGS ARE THAT THE DESIRE AT THE LAST MOMENT OF YOUR LIFE WILL GOVERN YOUR FUTURE FORM OK – again missed my question. If rare humans only go to higher form then should there be a huge increase in animal life? As most are going down then? @ n30 Singh “Sikhs don't have specific understanding method regarding this “ So what your saying is there is nothing is the SGGS or gurus teaching that explains this? Fair enough. @ das “Time's universe for the first 3 yugs (Satyug, Trethayug, Duvaparyug)” Interesting, time entity involvement again. Seems to be a central theme in your answers, surprisingly no one else has mentioned it. Can you please explain this “time entity” and where does it state things about the 3 yugs in SGGS? I can understand that all 3 of you said no one knows, meaning nothing in the SGGS on this. Question 5. THE SOUL COULD ATTAIN DEVA LIFE IN HEAVENS OR ACHIEVE SALVATION FROM THE TRANSMIGRATION LIFE CYCLE AND ATTAIN MERGER WITH GOD OK. Can you explain to me about Sikhism’s version of heaven? What do you mean by Deva here? As a Hindu type God? Deva’s with special powers like Greek Gods on mount Olympus or Hindu God’s like in 24 Avatar? Or merger with God? What do you mean? They join the essence of WahiGuru? Does that mean they increase the “body” of God? Do they still retain their own individual essence or consciousness and still be one with God? Then God ends up having thousands (potentially trillions) of individual entities “joining” his essence? How does that leave WahiGuru still being one entity? @ N30 Singh “Once move to higher form , sikhi talks about one goes through fruitration of higher realms such as heaven-baikhunt until fruition is done then reincarnated back as human being as part of spiritual evolution. Gurbani also forewarns, higher form is temporary, transient realms..so to recognize one real self as part of permanent end of suffering-reincarnation-samsara” Umm a very different answer? So you’re saying someone can become a Deva/Devi in heaven and then still end up back on earth? Why? I though once you reach the higher form that was the end of your spiritual evolution, going back down is devolution isn’t it? How can one recognize oneself when you can’t remember what you have been through? I don’t know if I was a frog in my last life or a Deva in heaven, so how does this help me? Is it in the SGGS that you come back down from heaven? If so where? @das Umm IT IS about Sikhism because it’s Sikhism’s idea on what happens to the soul after we die. More religions don’t believe in reincarnations yet they feel the presence of God. Question 6. SIKHISM IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO GOD/SALVATION ALL RELIGIONS ARE EQUAL HOWEVER GURU NANAK STRESSED THAT HIS TEACHINGS WERE MORE ADVANCED THAN PREVIOUS GURUS/SAGES/MESSIAH'S/PROPHETS ETC. OK. That doesn’t quite answer my question. You say all religions are equal but Sikhism is more advanced. Then they are not all equal are they? My question was: can people of other faith move closer to God if they are good? I mean not all Sikhs are religious? Regardless if you think your faith is more advanced? @N30 Singh Yes I’m sure Sikhs believe their faith is very clear – as do most people of faith. However for a non-Sikh it’s very confusing. But my question was can other members of faith reach the higher form. By this I meant meager with God, or heaven? If so then what’s the point of Sikki? You said it’s a clearer religion without Dogma, to which someone like me will argue against. (and apparently some Sikhs like Das). Sikhism like all faiths has sects, cultural issues, controversies’, dogmas and various interpretations. And of course there are religious Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc that are more religious then some Sikhs. So that means you can follow any religion that your heart inclines towards (as long as you follow it properly) because you can reach God via any path. Is this correct? @Das “No, nobody reach to higher forms via any religion including Sikhism.” Sikhism has dogma” OK you agree Sikhism has dogma same as other religions. See my point above. Well if nobody can reach higher forms with religion then what’s the point of prophets, gurus, devas etc coming and telling us about religion. I see what you mean though, that is not just religion but practicing the true teachings of that religion. Yes but say someone practicing the true teachings of any religion can achieve merger with God? Or is only through the teachings of Sikhism? That’s my question? There are obviously religious people around – even at the times of the Guru’s for example: there were pious Hindu yogi’s or Muslims saints (sufi’s) – you only have to look at the bani’s included in the adi Granth. Where does that leave Sikhism?

Sorry forgot to add, what is this " Time entity" can someone explain? Thanks

Sorry again, even more tired then yesterday - so can't reply yet. however this made me laugh; A old lady was looking on the road. A passerby thought to help this women, so he offered his help to the women. Both started to search for the "key" that the women has lost. Eventually, one wise man came and asked what's the problem. To which the women replied that she has lost her key inside the room which is dark. So, she came outside in the light to search for it. Wise man replied that if the key was lost inside, then go inside and turn on the light to search within the room. Reminded me of a movie I saw as a child where a team of unlikely heroes are lead by a questionable "wise man" who keeps making up these kinds of fables. - he was of course a fraud but still quite entertaining. The meaning to this is: search for the key to God inside yourself, (faith and belief) where they key is ... not outside (logic, reason) where the key doesn't exist. Well, you see I see the light as knowledge, reason, logic. If the women had any of it, she wouldn't be looking for a key outside - when she knew it was inside. A more adept reasoning would have had her open a flippin window, (brain) so the light of reason could illuminate her dark inner home, to which she would find the key. You see for me - all religions find the 'key' in the house, after much fumbling in the darkness. without the "outside" light, question is: is it the right key, or more importantly does it open the correct door? Everyone strongly believes theirs does - they even fall in love with that small key, thinking they've found the correct one in the dark, only the light can reveal which one is the right one. Off to bed now, will reply (hopefully) tomorrow to this post. Thanks

Woh, thats' quite a lot of reading for one night, sorry again a bit too tired. Had a very long day. Need to read all this carefully to try and understand what you all are saying. (so I don't miss any points) - Umm as a quick read still seems like you all are trying to square the triangle by using various approaches, dream world, God in disguise, relative realities etc - but like I said I'll read it thoroughly to due justice to your answers. On a side note, I had some conversations with some Sikh students, most didn't believe in the Dassam granth to be authentic, they said it was written and compiled many many years after the Gurus, and they mentioned a lot of proofs that it wasn't authentic, some of the ones I can recall from the top of my head are: some non Punjabi/gurumuhki words are used in the text as well as non conventional grammar stokes, - certain vowels are used that we not used that that time (I don't speak Punjabi/HuruMukhi so I'll take there word for it), umm English words like near (superlatives: neram, nearaan) are made up an used showing evidence that some of this at least was written under British rule -hence the use of English. some stuff about the written copy of the Dassam was written via an ink pen when ink pens were not invented until much later (then the supposed time this book was written,) proving that it was written much later. And so on ,,, oh and a lot of stuff about the Brahmins and the RSS. Umm I understand they may be from a different sect therefore their beliefs are not shared by everyone here, however I came across some interesting points. some of their points are very academic, scientific (if indeed true - as I haven't checked them myself yet) and more rational then just saying " can't question this ". Also as a side question from gist reading everything, you all mentioned that the 24 forms of God are mentioned so you wouldn't have to go to Hindus to get their versions of events. - so you don't worship them. I find two logical possibilities here -A) if you consider the 24 Avtars to be God (in disguise or whatever) then it is still God, why don't Sikhs worship God via these forms, the same as Hindus who claim that all these forms are just forms of the true one God "Brahmin" they worship Him via these forms. If these 24 Avtars are Not God but famous people (as some have suggested) or a lesser form of God (which confuses me - it means God can reduce himself) or something along those lines. The why does the Dassam only concentrate on Hindu Gods all of whom came to Indians. Why not mention Biblical or Koranic narratives in the view of the Gurus, both religions account for more then all humans on earth after all. your still left now to go to Muslims and Christians to learn about their faiths. Please don't say leela. I have a lot more questions but again I don't want to ask before properly reading all your answers and checking up the verses you provided. Thanks !

Thanks for your replies, too tired now to reply to the posts. Will do so tomorrow evening.