Islamic dawa?

[dalsingh101]

 Are you suggesting that we do nothing about it and just let those things happen so we don't hurt the feelings of these fundamentalist groups?

It's nothing to do with hurting their feelings, it's more to do with recognising cause and effect. 

It's just typical for westerners to ignore their own causal influences on the mess we see today. 

 

If there wasn't the outright greed and deceit in trying to take over oil rich Arab nations like Libya and Iraq. Or the historically stupid cold-war politics that led to the US arming and training people in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be seeing what we see today.

 

Causing a massive fire and then trying to come in as the heroic fire-brigade doesn't cut it. 

[paapiman]

​Wiki Islam is an Islam website!!! Its recognized as accurate!  And there is nothing about hatred in there... it''s just quoting the actual verses themselves!!!

​What a joke. A website, which anyone can edit, is accurate.

What will you do, if some idiots make a website about Sikhism and start misinterpreting Gurbani? Will you also call that accurate?

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited June 15, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

Let us focus on one verse of Quran, which has been misinterpreted on the website provided by Satkirin.

Quote

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." A man has dominion over his wives' bodies as he does his land. This verse is overtly sexual. There is some dispute as to whether it is referring to the practice of anal intercourse, which it has been used historically to justify. If this is what Muhammad meant, however, then it would appear to contradict what he said in Muslim (8:3365).

Unquote

"Approach your tilth" has two meanings.

First, it means coition. Please read below (underlined sentences) for its further meanings.

 

 

Secondly, it means selecting and dealing with the wife. Please read below (underlined sentences) for its further meanings.

 

It is possible for one, to keep researching on the other verses, which are misinterpreted on the websites provided by Satkirin. I am not a scholar on Islam, nor I have plenty of time to do that.

A request to Sangat - Please be very careful, before providing any references. Our references must not be based on falsehood and promote hatred.

The website below, seems to be a good one, to study Islam. I downloaded the above commentary, from this website. Seems like a good commentary on the Quran.

https://www.alislam.org/

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

It's nothing to do with hurting their feelings, it's more to do with recognising cause and effect. 

It's just typical for westerners to ignore their own causal influences on the mess we see today. 

 

If there wasn't the outright greed and deceit in trying to take over oil rich Arab nations like Libya and Iraq. Or the historically stupid cold-war politics that led to the US arming and training people in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be seeing what we see today.

 

Causing a massive fire and then trying to come in as the heroic fire-brigade doesn't cut it. 

​Here I am in 100% agreement... however Canada does not follow the US thinking in any of these things... 

Yet now ISIS is calling for attacks in ALL Western countries simply for the reason that they consider us all to be immoral spawns of Satan. 

So you do think that we should not do anything to defend ourselves against such attacks?

[CdnSikhGirl]

Paapiman, those interpretations were done by apologists.  Do you honestly mean to tell me that ISIS are being 'loving and caring' to their captured Yazidi 'wives' ? Some have come out of there (escaped) brutally tortured and traumatized and were made to do extreme sex acts and the ISIS militants were using those very verses to condone it - nay not condone - but outright claiming it's their right. 

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

A request to Sangat - Please be very careful, before providing any references. Our references must not be based on falsehood and promote hatred.

 

 

 

​Does this also include 'Sikh' references which twist Sikh scripture to spread/promote hatred towards women? 

[paapiman]

​Does this also include 'Sikh' references which twist Sikh scripture to spread/promote hatred towards women? 

​Who has promoted hatred against women? Can you please elaborate?

Bhul chuk maaf

[CdnSikhGirl]

​Who has promoted hatred against women? Can you please elaborate?

Bhul chuk maaf​ 
 

Women being told to see husband as God (but not telling husband to see his wife as God) ... based on twisted Gurbani tuk taken out of context, this puts women in inferior position to men - instead of equality taught in SGGSJ.  You also recently compared women's position to men as animals are to humans.  (ie definitely inferior / beneath)  That very statement is born on hatred of women.  Teaching that men deserve higher status (just because they are men).  This is hatred of women.  

In gurbani a person has to look at the context of what the shabad is saying. ​

Even others agree. Gurbani must be taken in context... You posted a line that was based on a twisted Gurbani tuk, that twisted the way it was in order to promote hatred of women, to put women in an inferior position to men and keep them subservient. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

Women being told to see husband as God (but not telling husband to see his wife as God) ... based on twisted Gurbani tuk taken out of context, this puts women in inferior position to men - instead of equality taught in SGGSJ.  You also recently compared women's position to men as animals are to humans.  (ie definitely inferior / beneath)  That very statement is born on hatred of women.  Teaching that men deserve higher status (just because they are men).  This is hatred of women.  

Even others agree. Gurbani must be taken in context... You posted a line that was based on a twisted Gurbani tuk, that twisted the way it was in order to promote hatred of women, to put women in an inferior position to men and keep them subservient. 

​A son must bow to his mother. Is that promoting hatred against sons (males)?

Please stay on the topic.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

​A son must bow to his mother. Is that promoting hatred against sons (males)?

Please stay on the topic.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

​Nobody should be bowing to each other!!!  We shoud only do matha-tek to SGGSJ only! 

And there should never be any sort of heirarchy.  A son and daughter showing respect to their parents is because of the sacrifices the parents make for their kids.  In the case of a husband he has not done anything for his wife that she has not also done for him.  In fact, she is the one sacrificing more for her husband (usually) than he is for her.  So there should be no heirarchy where he is respected more.  He has not done anything to EARN that respect!!! Respect just isn't God given... its earned!  Putting the family into a heararchy with the man at the top and saying she has to bow to him is the same as telling her that he will always be better than her that he is more important than her.  THIS is hatred.  And this mindset is NOT practiced by marjoity of Sikhs! 

Back to Islam. Just like you accuse some sites of hating Islam does not mean they are not showing accurate information.  The verses are accurate.  ISIS and the likes are using them as such.  If you think you can live all lovey dovey with them, I dare you to go try and live in Syria or Iraq right now.. The site you posted from alislam is an apologetic site designed to 'smooth' over the meanings in the Quran so that unsuspecting Westerners think it's not as bad.  
 

edit: I just noticed you keep saying son and not daughter... and if its only 'sons' that bow to the Mother, then that's even worse!
It's making the statement that women are only worthy of being respected if they can bear a MALE child.  In other words, she is only respected for her ability to bear a male child and not because she is a Mother / woman.  If she doesnt produce a male child she will never be bowed to? is this correct?? But she is supposed to always bow to her MALE husband?  You don't see the sexism in this??  You don't see the hatred of women in this practice? If you don't you are blind!!  This thinking is what leads to female infanticide (a GRAVE sin in Sikhi), celebrating the birth of a son, and offering condolences on the birth of a female. Stop spreading this hatred!

Edited June 16, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

​Nobody should be bowing to each other!!!  We shoud only do matha-tek to SGGSJ only! 
And there should never be any sort of heirarchy.  A son and daughter showing respect to their parents is because of the sacrifices the parents make for their kids.  In the case of a husband he has not done anything for his wife that she has not also done for him.  In fact, she is the one sacrificing more for her husband (usually) than he is for her.  So there should be no heirarchy where he is respected more.  He has not done anything to EARN that respect!!! Respect just isn't God given... its earned!  Putting the family into a heararchy with the man at the top and saying she has to bow to him is the same as telling her that he will always be better than her that he is more important than her.  THIS is hatred.  And this mindset is NOT practiced by marjoity of Sikhs! 
 

​If a son bows to a mother, it does not mean that the mother is always right. Similarly, a wife can also be right, in a husband-wife relationship. There is no hatred in Gurmat.

 

Back to Islam. Just like you accuse some sites of hating Islam does not mean they are not showing accurate information.  The verses are accurate.  ISIS and the likes are using them as such.  If you think you can live all lovey dovey with them, I dare you to go try and live in Syria or Iraq right now.. The site you posted from alislam is an apologetic site designed to 'smooth' over the meanings in the Quran so that unsuspecting Westerners think it's not as bad.  

​Are you a Arabic scholar? Have you read the entire Quran? If not, do some research before promoting hate.

Have you read Gurbani verses regarding Quran?

ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਦਿਲ ਮਾਹਿ ਕਮਾਹੀ ॥

Practice within your heart the teachings of the Koran and the Bible;

ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹੁ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.

Do you believe in Gurbani or not? Are you going to follow Gurbani or hate promoting websites?

 

edit: I just noticed you keep saying son and not daughter... and if its only 'sons' that bow to the Mother, then that's even worse!
It's making the statement that women are only worthy of being respected if they can bear a MALE child.  I

​That is your assumption.

 

But she is supposed to always bow to her MALE husband?  You don't see the sexism in this??  You don't see the hatred of women in this practice? If you don't you are blind!!  This thinking is what leads to female infanticide (a GRAVE sin in Sikhi), celebrating the birth of a son, and offering condolences on the birth of a female. Stop spreading this hatred!

​Who has promoted female infanticide? Female infanticide is a grave sin in Sikhism. Stop making false accusations.

First hated and now, false accusations.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Read what I said... I said that line of thinking is what ultimately leads to things like female infanticide.  Devaluing women compared to men. Telling women they will only ever deserve to be 'bowed' to if they produce a male child, while men get bowed to just for being men.  Of course, it leads to wanting only male children, as this line of thinking shows males are valued more, are more deserving of respect. The woman is not even respected in the same light unless she produces a MALE child! Then its not that she is being respected for who she is or being a Mother, she is being respected for producing a male child!  If this is so called Gurmat, then no wonder so many are performing selective abortions etc if its a girl!  A girl baby doesn't get the Mother any respect, only a boy baby! And yes this takes place a lot in Sikh families and this thinking is how it originiates! Only when males and females are both valued at the same level will it stop!

Please stop spreading this hatred of women!

Thank goodness it's only the likes of Damdami Taksal who view women in this horrid light!  Waheguru help us if DDT ever gets their way and gets their RM somehow accepted as the panthic one.  You'll see a lot of people leave Sikhi... mostly women.  Maybe you can then marry Muslim women... who seem to fit your description of ideal women more.

And yes we are supposed to read all of the holy books... for knowledge. Not to follow their religions! Or else Sikh women should veil themselves and wear burkas, and have male 'chaperone' everywhere they go??? Again, if you drive Sikh women away from Sikhi, you can marry then Muslim women then. Which is what it sounds is more what you are after.



 

[Singh123456777]

Can this thread be closed now. Like every other topic this is getting nowhere.

[Singh123456777]

PS: Satkiran you know nothing about DDT so don't think you do. Ask people who actually go to DDT then make assumptions.

[paapiman]

Please stop spreading this hatred of women!

​No one has spread hatred of women, on this topic.

Stay on the topic. If you have other questions, start a new topic.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

[paapiman]

​
edit: I just noticed you keep saying son and not daughter... and if its only 'sons' that bow to the Mother, then that's even worse!
It's making the statement that women are only worthy of being respected if they can bear a MALE child.  In other words, she is only respected for her ability to bear a male child and not because she is a Mother / woman.  If she doesnt produce a male child she will never be bowed to? is this correct?? But she is supposed to always bow to her MALE husband?  You don't see the sexism in this??  You don't see the hatred of women in this practice? If you don't you are blind!!  This thinking is what leads to female infanticide (a GRAVE sin in Sikhi), celebrating the birth of a son, and offering condolences on the birth of a female. Stop spreading this hatred!

​Who said the above (colored line)?

The reason, I keep saying son is because son is a male. Mother is a female. If I give example of a daughter-mother relationship, will that make sense?

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

The site you posted from alislam is an apologetic site designed to 'smooth' over the meanings in the Quran so that unsuspecting Westerners think it's not as bad.  

​Do you know, who Ahmadiyya Muslims are? Do you know, who Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Saab was? If you knew, then you would not have made the above comment.

Please do some research, before commenting. You should be aware that you are on a public forum.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited June 16, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

​Do you know, who Ahmadiyya Muslims are? Do you know, who Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Saab was? If you knew, then you would not have made the above comment.

Please do some research, before commenting. You should be aware that you are on a public forum.

Bhul chuk maaf

​Same to you

[paapiman]

​

​If the point was to show us a fallacy in our reverence towards Guru Granth sahib then fair enough.

 

I would like to add that I do not beleive in Mohammad as a prophet or holy man. I was making that statement in jest but some think I was serious. I follow Guru JI when he says "Ram RaHIm Puran Quran...".

​Bro, the above tuk which you mentioned, has more than one meaning.

Ram Rahim Puran Qoran anek kahay mut ek na maanyo.

It means that many people say the name of Raam or Rahim, but they do not recognize them as one. It implies that people think that Raam/Rahim and Puran/Quran are different, but they are the same.

There might be many more meanings, to this tuk too.

Also, this tuk has been discussed on this forum, in the past too.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

[paapiman]

Paapiman, those interpretations were done by apologists.  Do you honestly mean to tell me that ISIS are being 'loving and caring' to their captured Yazidi 'wives' ? Some have come out of there (escaped) brutally tortured and traumatized and were made to do extreme sex acts and the ISIS militants were using those very verses to condone it - nay not condone - but outright claiming it's their right. 

​One cannot use examples of certain idiots, to blame a religion.

Bhul chuk maaf

[CdnSikhGirl]

​One cannot use examples of certain idiots, to blame a religion.

Bhul chuk maaf

​Right, this is why I don't truly believe that Sikhism is sexist. Only that certain sects are, I don't need to mention which ones.  Gurbani does not say that women are inferior to men, it actually says that eveyrone are equal, that these physical bodies are false, and everyone should be treated equally.  Though you tried to use the analogy of animals compared to humans in order to compare women to men (I still cant believe you think women are that far beneath men that you actually compared us to animals or at least highly suggested that in the same way that we don't give animals amrit (because they are inferior beings in the sense that they do not have evolved consciousness), you compared women to men in the same way when it comes to Spiritual functions.  Anyway, that goes against Gurbani completely. 

But my point is that it doesn't matter how verses are actually written or what they were supposed to mean originally. What matters is how those verses are being applied in a practical sense.  So on the one hand, you defend those verses in the Quran as not being anti-women - that women were not to be taken as war booty, or mens personal sex playthings to 'plow' as they would a field, any way they like, or that women were not supposed to be inferior to men or beaten into submission and you condemn the likes of ISIS in their usage of these verses as such.  But on the other hand, you follow a jatha which does the exact same thing with verses from SGGSJ!  Even Singh123456777 made the statement in a recent post that Gurbani HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONTEXT OF THE SHABAD. Yet you condone our own scripture being twisted in order to put women in an inferior position to men.  As a result, we have women bowing to men because they think men have this god given right to more respect than them, hence creating inequality. This is against Gurmat (whether you like to think or not). Remove ALL Rehetnamas and j ust look to the source, SGGSJ which ALL RMs should be based upon, and you won't find anything saying women are to be inferior to men.

So, what I am saying is that it very much DOES matter how these groups are interpreting their own religious texts, because that's what is directly affecting people!  Who cares what the original intent or meaning might have been, if nobody is sollowing it, and changing it to meet their needs? As a result, Taliban, ISIS, etc are applying these extremist interpretations (not just concerning women, but the verses concerning women are at the top of the list), and forcing these interpretations to be lived out by everyone under their control. As a result. these people are being forced into a literal slavery / prison, torture etc. because that's how Quran is being interpreted.  It no longer matters if the original meaning was passive (though you'd have a hard time justifying it as passive and peaceful), but what matters to these people is only that the interpretation being forced on them is creating a living Hell for them.  And followers of these groups are growing each and every day!!! They are not the insignificant group you think they are. There are a great number of people affected by them!

Similarly, I do not believe that Sikhism is sexist.  At least if you take SGGSJ only.  Gurbani has not a single utterance in there that would suggest women are inferior to men, or are required to give men more respect than men are to give women.  Even that suggestion is at its core sexist, because it's very suggestion, creates the male superior, female inferior scenario.  And what worse scenario than forcing someone to acknowledge their inferiority by having them prostrate those who are seen as superior to them?? Its degrading...
Even if your example was both male and female children, you are still saying that a woman is only valued for having children, otherwise she is not deserving of respect. However, a male gets respect whether he has children or not.  Is this correct?  What if a woman cant have children... or chooses not to?  She will never be 'bowed' to?  Yet her husband would always be bowed to no matter what, because she has been told to acknowledge he has higher status than her and deserves more repsect?  That is not fair, and it's not Sikhi. After all, these bodies are false aren't they? What exactly is she bowing to then? His flesh, his bones are higher status than hers? What does this matter when their mind / consciousness is what matters and the "doer" the "experiencer" within them is the same ONE pure light of Akal Purakh? They are bowing to and respecting mere flesh and bones in some sort of heirarchy when the flesh and bones are not what are turly who we are? And I don't blame the entire religion for creating this false heirarchy based on Maya. Its only certain groups, just like ISIS, Al Queda etc in Islam.  I won't use the word *idiots* you did, but you get the idea.  

note:  ISIS, Taliban, Al Queda etc do not consider themselves to be idiots, but instead call themselves 'orthodox'.  Sound familiar?  And their 'dawa' through the net in particular is why they are growing.  And it's why we can't be completely complacent.  In the times of the Gurus, did they just stand by and allow the Mugal invaders to do whatever they wanted so as not to hurt their sentiments? Of course not!  Similarly on a global scale, we are seeing increase in Islamic extremism and this convert or conquer attitude.  Canada had an Islamic radical kill someone on parlaiment hill and then actually storm the main parliament building with a rifle, and got within 20 meters of the Prime Minister!!

 So in short, it doesn't matter what the original meaning might have been. It matters how its being applied in real life (or forced upon) the followers. And right now, those verses are being applied in a very LITERAL sense, putting millions of women into bondage, living in black tents with only their eyes showing, being unallowed to drive, or even go outdoors without a male mahram (guardian), having no rights over their own bodies or lives.  Captured 'wives' have it even much worse than that, being raped over and over as these guys truly interpret and believe that the Quran gives them right to do so. Crucifying people, stoning people to death for even *suspician* of adultry whether its true or not, lining up those who wont convert and executing them, lashing men for not making it to prayer on time, etc. It's horrible.  And yes we need to keep an eye on it, and if directly threatened, we do have to fight back.  On a personal note if I am ever told to convert or die, I know which I would choose. Life after conversion would not be 'living' anymore anyway.







 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[paapiman]

Below is, one of the interesting posts made by a member in the past.

Quote

interpretations I can think of are

"Ram Rahim Puran Quran all have limitless meaning, but I dont follow any of their ways"

and

"Countless ppl say/speak Ram Rahim Puran Quran, but not one believes in the way"

"Countless ppl say/speak Ram Rahim Puran Quran, but I dont follow any of their ways"

Unquote

 

Dhan Guru Nanak

 

[chatanga1]

Please stop spreading this hatred of women!

Thank goodness it's only the likes of Damdami Taksal who view women in this horrid light!  Waheguru help us if DDT ever gets their way and gets their RM somehow accepted as the panthic one.  You'll see a lot of people leave Sikhi... mostly women. 

​what a horrible person you really are. You don't have the decency to apologise for writing lies about me but act like you are so holy and faultless. And then have the nerve to spew venom against the taksal. Under the rise of the DDT from the 80s onwards more  and more women took amrit from them. and still do.

you are so full of hatred and ego. you truly are a detestable person.

 

Telling women they will only ever deserve to be 'bowed' to if they produce a male child, while men get bowed to just for being men. 

​Women get bowed to whether they have ANY children or not. It is a sign of respect in our culture. When males meet elders, men or women, they touch their feet or knees as a sign of respect. Nobody asks the woman if she has a son.

This is our culture you are denigrating. It may not fit in with your western culture but you have no right to say that we should not be doing this. Keep your vile words to yourself.

[CdnSikhGirl]

​what a horrible person you really are. You don't have the decency to apologise for writing lies about me but act like you are so holy and faultless. And then have the nerve to spew venom against the taksal. Under the rise of the DDT from the 80s onwards more  and more women took amrit from them. and still do.

you are so full of hatred and ego. you truly are a detestable person.

 

​Women get bowed to whether they have ANY children or not. It is a sign of respect in our culture. When males meet elders, men or women, they touch their feet or knees as a sign of respect. Nobody asks the woman if she has a son.

This is our culture you are denigrating. It may not fit in with your western culture but you have no right to say that we should not be doing this. Keep your vile words to yourself.

​Then the version of DDT you know and the version that Paapiman is describing are two different entities.  Because according to Paapiman, only a woman's children bow to her while she is expected to bow to her husband (and he does not bow to her) according to DDT's 'Gurmat'. And in fact he outright said that a husband is 'higher status' than the wife in marriage and hence deserves more respect from her than she deserves from him.  Just ask him! If this is not how it is in reality, then please correct Paapiman because it is he who is saying this!! 

Paapiman please clarify this for him because he thinks something different!  

Show me a DDT group who allows women FULL equal religious rites to men and I will believe you. 

Ego is in not allowing women full religious rites simply because of gender.  Ego is causing them to consider women inferior.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[chatanga1]

​Then the version of DDT you know and the version that Paapiman is describing are two different entities. 

​I don't know about any version and don't care,  but the foul words you have just used to insult our culture is just what you are about these days.

ego is not allowing yourself to apologise when you know you have deliberately told lies about someone.