Jump to content

Lahore Ahmadi Muslims


Jewish
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Javanmard

Well the fact is that... they are Sunnis who follow Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Whatever way you put it: The Prophet (pbuh) gave his authority to Imam Ali (as) and no one else!

Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman have persecuted the Prohet's family:

1. They burnt Lady Fatima's house and beat her so much that she miscarried her foetus and died!

2. They persecuted Imam Ali and said that the Prophet was delirious (if so why did they claim to follow him)

3. Their successors Moawia and Yazid killed Imam Hassan (as)and Imam Hussain (As) the grandsons of the Prophet. The Prophet use to publicly kiss them and say that they were the true protectors of Islam. He said:

Hussain is from me and I am from Hussain, for he is the one who will protect my religion!

Question?

How can people who follow Abu Bakr,Omar and Uthman claim to be true Muslims when it is a known fact that they have commited the worst crmes again the Prophet, His Family and humanity in general!!!

Shias and Sufis go back to Imam Ali (as) and this is probably why we Sikhs got on with them: because they are the true Muslims!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True Muslims!!!

Dear shaka nyorai,

I think you can answer my this simple question.

What makes a True Muslim and What Not ?? and What is a True Islamic State ? Is there any such state in this planet earth ? Please do not generalise or shoot back and ask what is true sikh etc... I am presently learning about philosophy of islam and thats my intension.

Best Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

The only treu Islamic state only existed under the Holy Prophet (pbuh) amd Imam Ali (as). Only the 14 Masumeen are able to lead a truly Islamic government for they are pure and infaillible. Any other political leader is corrupt.

True Muslims are those who:

1. Recognise the revelation of the Qur'an adn the belief in Tawhid

2. The prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh)

3. and recognise his real sucessors, the 12 Imams starting with Imam Ali (as) as the wali or friends of God.

The Sunnis are only Muslims by name as theu support Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman who have persecuted the Propeht's family to the point of killing his beloved daughter, Lady Fatima (as).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only treu Islamic state only existed under the Holy Prophet (pbuh) amd Imam Ali (as). Only the 14 Masumeen are able to lead a truly Islamic government for they are pure and infaillible. Any other political leader is corrupt.

True Muslims are those who:

1. Recognise the revelation of the Qur'an adn the belief in Tawhid

2. The prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh)

3. and recognise his real sucessors, the 12 Imams starting with Imam Ali (as) as the wali or friends of God.

The Sunnis are only Muslims by name as theu support Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman who have persecuted the Propeht's family to the point of killing his beloved daughter, Lady Fatima (as).

Is it right for someone claiming to be a Sikh to decide who is or who isn't a 'true' Muslim?

Strange, I thought the Gurus pointed out in Gurbani what makes a true Muslim. I'm sure they didn't mention Ali or the 14 Musumeen!!

I suppose Shaka knows better than the Gurus

Deeds matter more Shaka my dear more than Ali or Fatima or whatever other Imam you follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

So you are saying that it is ok for a Muslim to follow those Caliphs who assassinated the Prophet's daughter, butchered his grandsons, persecuted his family, destroyed the Kaaba, shortened the Qur'an and oppressed entire nations?

Strange thinking! It's like saying that it is ok for Sikhs to follow those who refuse Ragmala, have assassinated hundreds of innocent Sikhs, destroyed Akal Takht and refuse dasam bani.

I humbly invite you to re-think your way of looking at these issues!

No singhni4eva I just follow what Guru Nanak says in Bhai Mani Singh's Janamsakhi:

Know that Muhammad and Ali are one. The Divine light is in them, it is in you as well but you have forgotten about it.

Guru Nanak's advise to Muslims is based on the idea of zahir/batin that most orthodox Sunnis refuse!

Before accusing me of arrogance you would be advised to check your historical sources!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that it is ok for a Muslim to follow those Caliphs who assassinated the Prophet's daughter, butchered his grandsons, persecuted his family, destroyed the Kaaba, shortened the Qur'an and oppressed entire nations?

Who cares whether Abu or Ali were caliph. Since when have Sikhs been concerned about who was the true caliph. It's just your delusions that you bring into Sikhi. No Sikh is concern whether one set of mohammed's family oppressed the other.

Strange thinking! It's like saying that it is ok for Sikhs to follow those who refuse Ragmala, have assassinated hundreds of innocent Sikhs, destroyed Akal Takht and refuse dasam bani.

I humbly invite you to re-think your way of looking at these issues!

Yawn! Is you life so empty that you're only outlet is to attack the SGPC and AKJ?

No singhni4eva I just follow what Guru Nanak says in Bhai Mani Singh's Janamsakhi:

Know that Muhammad and Ali are one. The Divine light is in them, it is in you as well but you have forgotten about it.

Guru Nanak's advise to Muslims is based on the idea of zahir/batin that most orthodox Sunnis refuse!

Before accusing me of arrogance you would be advised to check your historical sources!

Is that Janamsakhi Gurbani?, Ali or Fatima or 14 Musumeen aren't even mentioned in Gurbani so get over your petty little personal battles. Sikhi is greater that the petty battles of one sect of Muslims against the other!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm... i'm not here to argue, but Singhni Ji, I don't understand why ur so uptight against what Shaka Ji is saying, I mean, seriously, we all know that he's a tru blu Sikh, and what everyone else knows that u may not is that first of Shaka Ji is an intellectual who has studied and read up on religion, not only Sikhism but that of Islam, as well he knows people that are muslims and hence his information to me is a lot more valid that what I kno... i kno one should question the sources, but i don't think it's right to attack someone based on what they know... he's just stating the facts plain and simple!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only true Islamic state only existed under the Holy Prophet (pbuh) amd Imam Ali (as). Only the 14 Masumeen are able to lead a truly Islamic government for they are pure and infaillible. Any other political leader is corrupt.

Dear Shaka Nyoroi, thanks for your answers...

You said ...

Any other political leader is corrupt. Why ?

Why only the 14 Masumeen (pbuh) are able to lead a truly Islamic Government ?

What is pure and infalliable in this context ?

Is there any account of there writings around to be able to lead a truly Islamic Government ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm... i'm not here to argue, but Singhni Ji, I don't understand why ur so uptight against what Shaka Ji is saying, I mean, seriously, we all know that he's a tru blu Sikh, and what everyone else knows that u may not is that first of Shaka Ji is an intellectual who has studied and read up on religion, not only Sikhism but that of Islam, as well he knows people that are muslims and hence his information to me is a lot more valid that what I kno... i kno one should question the sources, but i don't think it's right to attack someone based on what they know... he's just stating the facts plain and simple!

CJ I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Shaka is a tru blu sikh? I tend base my conclusions on what the person says or does. On the Babbar Khalsa thread he said

5. Sukhdev SIngh had a farla and by Nihang maryada he deserved to die for usurping a position that he did not deserve as he WAS NOT an Akali!

As well as saying that all the forum members who disagree with his political opinions are bound for hell and going to join Indira Gandhi in Hell!!. NONE of these members has supported the killing of innocent people but that makes no difference to Shaka, they're are all bound for hell!

You should also check some of the previous threads where he has called for the death of a number of people. Are these actions of a tru blu Sikh?

As for the Farla a knowledible Singh has pointed out that Sukhdev Singh NEVER wore a Farla so not only is Shaka calling for someone's death but he is making the call based on ingorance!.

You called Shaka a tru blu Sikh and an intellectual. Based on the above he appears to be neither!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gurfateh

shaka is a sikh, a scholar and a brother - no issue there. Please try to remain objective in your arguments.

I also disagree with shaka on this one, not in doubting the shi'i attitude to sunni tradition, but to the black and whiteness with which the issue is being portayed. I have undying respect for the sufi giants of the past and I find it offensive to say the least that Mevlana Rumi, Imam al-Ghazali, Ibn 'Arabi and major tasuwuf tariqat can be described as not 'true muslims' regardless of what preceeded them historically. It would also be incorrect to state that such mystics were 'beyond' such issues (as more new agey types have claimed), as Rumi was trained in the hanafi tradition, Ibn 'Arabi was a sworn enemy of shi'ism, likewise the naqshbandia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are really scholars and very well versed in other religions. I am but a fool before you, as even after being born in a Hindu family, raised in a Muslim country and studying in a Christian atmosphere, I have not absorbed a level of knowledge about the above mentioned religions as much as some people on this forum have.

But I do have full faith in what Gurbani says about a true Muslim.

Shalok, First Mehl:

Let mercy be your mosque, faith your prayer-mat, and honest living your Koran.

Make modesty your circumcision, and good conduct your fast. In this way, you shall be a true Muslim.

Let good conduct be your Kaabaa, Truth your spiritual guide, and the karma of good deeds your prayer and chant.

Let your rosary be that which is pleasing to His Will. O Nanak, God shall preserve your honor. ||1||

First Mehl:

There are five prayers and five times of day for prayer; the five have five names.

Let the first be truthfulness, the second honest living, and the third charity in the Name of God.

Let the fourth be good will to all, and the fifth the praise of the Lord.

Repeat the prayer of good deeds, and then, you may call yourself a Muslim.

O Nanak, the false obtain falsehood, and only falsehood. ||3||

Shalok, First Mehl:

It is difficult to be called a Muslim; if one is truly a Muslim, then he may be called one.

First, let him savor the religion of the Prophet as sweet; then, let his pride of his possessions be scraped away.

Becoming a true Muslim, a disciple of the faith of Mohammed, let him put aside the delusion of death and life.

As he submits to God's Will, and surrenders to the Creator, he is rid of selfishness and conceit.

And when, O Nanak, he is merciful to all beings, only then shall he be called a Muslim. ||1||

Anyone who stands upto those standards according to Gurujee is a true Muslim for me. If he/she is a true Muslim for Gurujee, thats a good enough reason for me to look upon him/her as a true Muslim.

bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Thank you Mehtab Singh for reminding us of what gurbani says about being a real Muslim.

To this one needs to add the traditions of the sakhis and Sikh history. We Sikhs made alliances with Shias and Sufis who both go back to Imam Ali (as). Many Sufi shrines in Pakistan have under Sunni persecution pretended to be Sunni but when things eased up they revelaed their true Shias identity. According to many scholars Sufism draws its origins from Shiism and the Bektashis and Nirmatuallahis are proof of that. Also Sufi cosmology is based on the idea of qutb which derives from Shi'ism.

Why did our Gurus have these alliances? Because Shi'as and Sufis put more importance on the inner and spiritual aspect of religion whereas the legalist Sunnis pretend that following the sharia only is sufficient. The quote from gurbani that Mehtab SIngh has graciously presented corresponds totally to this common endeavour to look for the Divine beyond law, through love, devotion and rememberance of His beautiful name.

Regarding Ibn Arabi there are many authorities like ayatollah tabatabai, agha khomaini, haydar amoli, who think that he was a Shia in disguise because he recreates a Shia imamology without mentioning the Imam.

Needless to say that I fully respect and love Ibn Arabi, probably one of the greatest philosopher of mysticism ever.

ps. May I just add that there is one Sufi order with which we Sikhs have always had problems: the Naqshbandiyas. Ahmad Sirhindi who participated in Guru Arjan Dev Ji's assassination (directly or indirectly) was a Naqshbandi. Aurangzeb favoured Naqshbandis. But guess what? Naqshbandis don't go back to Imam Ali (as)...they go back to Abu Bakr, the same Abu Bakr who stole the khalifat from Imam Ali (as), the same Abu Bakr who with Omar and Uthman burnt the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (as), the same Abu Bakr whose daughter Aysha has made the Prophet's life hell, led battle against Imam Ali (as),tortured Lady Fatima (as) and prevented Imam Hassan (as), the grand-son of the Prophet (pbuh) to be burried next to his grand father.

Those who have some aqal will understand what I am trying to say!

with love to all

Shaka

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

well, if you read the Sunni hadith of course you are going to come to that conclusion!!! These are the same type of hadith that make paedophilia ok!!!

Now let's suppose you make a documentary about someone: would you trust the stories coming from those who have persecuted that person's family or would you trust the family.

Any person with a minimum sense of izzat would trust the family first. Now in terms of Islam this means that instead of trusting the hadith of the ennemies of the Prophet's family it would be better to trust those of his family, the Ahl ul Bayt.

The hadith of the Ahl ul Bayt are quite clear about the fact that Aysha was NOT the Prophet's favourite wife because:

1. The incident of the camel driver (possible adultary with a camel driver in the desert), afetr which she hated Imam Ali (as)

2. Her constant arguing with Lady Fatima (as) the daughter of the Prophet (pbuh)

3. Her nickname "khumeiya". Sunnis translate it as "red cheeked one" but in fact it refers to her having her periods constantly.

4. She disturbed the Prophet (as) during his prayers by putting her feet in front of him when he would bow down to worship God.

It is a renowned fact that the Prophet's most beloved wife was Lady Khadija, the mother of Lady fatima (as). She was his first wife and wa much older than him and supported him in his endeavour to discover God.

Also a hadith that even the Sunnis accept says:

Those who hurt my daughter Fatima Zahra (as) hurt me and insult God.

Aysha did nothing but hate Lady Fatima (as), her husband Imam Ali (as) and her children Imam Hassan (as), Imam Hussain (as) and Lady Zainab.

Now would you trust those "Muslims" who follow those who have persecuted the Prophet's family when they say the Abu Bakr's daughter Aysha was the Prophet's favourite wife?

I wouldn't and so wouldn't any sensible person.

Never forget...Aurangzeb was one of those who followed the way of the oppressors of the Prophet's family. Why do you think Guru Gobind Singh did not trust his owth on the Qur'an, why do you think Maharaj tells him that his faith is fake, why do you think it wasn't a problem for Aurangzeb to kill Sikhs, Sufis, Shi'as, Hindus and even his own brother Darah Shukoh who was a friend of Guru Hari Rai?

Why is it that in the UK we SIkhs have problems with Sunnis only?

Why is it that our Gurus made alliances with Sufis (Mian Mir) and Shias (Pir Budhu Shah)?

I'll let you decide!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

I personally don't think that it was a "mistake". Why?

1. It was Aysha who was the pest, not the Prophet (pbuh)

2. By bearing her bad behaviour and insults the Prophet (pbuh) set an example of chivalry, patience and goodness.

Is the Prophet (pbuh) a Satguru in my view?

Well we know that the Satguru is a divine entity that descends on this earth to bring peopel back to the Divine.

When we read gurprasadi in the Mul mantar it means our Guru Sahiban for us Sikhs, for the Christians it is Jesus, and for the Muslims it is the 14 Masumeen (the Prophet, his daughter Fatima and the 12 Imams).

My path is Sikhi but this does not prevent me to recognise the value of other religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur that there have been shia sufis and equally there are shia sufi orders (for example Nimatulliah order).

But I still disagree with this statement that ALL Sufis bar the naqshbandia trace back to Imam Ali. It may be so in Shia doctrine, but not in Sufi practice. Both Ibn Arabi and Rumi wrote against the shias. The argument that they did this to save against the sunni authorities is nonsensical as they had already shown disregard for those same authorities during their lifetime by courting controversy with their teachings. Chishtis in pakistan are acredited with bringing back shias into the sunni fold, e.g. Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia. Both Rumi and Shams were trained in Hanafi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

With all due respect the Shamsiyya of Shams Tabrizi is a Shi'a order. Also you might want to check Henry Corbin's writings on Haydar Amoli on Ibn Arabi. Ibn Arabi's mention of 12 guides as expressions of the qutb, his initiation by Khidr (Imam Ali in one of his sermons declares that he is Khidr) are expressions of an imamology that cannot reveal its name.

Writing against Shi'as can be an expression of taqiyah. I am not really concerned about the "identity" of the Shaykh al Akbar. There definetly is a difference between being initiated by Imam Ali and having the Imams as qutb and being part of a group. Ibn Arabi wasn't a group person. The fact that I say that he was shi'a has more to do with his experiences and I have to admit that his system is apart from some minute details identical to Shi'isms' irfani system. These minute differences are for me (and other scholars like Corbin, Nasr, Tabatabai) expressions of either taqiyah or unconscious absorbation of Shi'a tought into a Sunni mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shall definately read up on this area, but going on all I've read and the sufis I've met over the years, I have to agree to disagree. There is a difference between in essence following a system that has great similarities to shia thought, and actually believing in the imamate. Of the Sufis I know from a variety of tariqats they would laugh out loud to be told they are in fact shia and trace back to Imam Ali. That is the reality of the situation.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...