Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest BikramjitSingh

Ah, I'm glad you pointed it out Bikramjit! I feel truely enlightened...

'Sorry, but any Muslim who make friends with a Sikh either has an agenda or is non practising Muslim'

I love this hypocracy!!

Mian Mir and Pir Budh Shah therefore, either had a anti-Sikh agenda, or were non-practicing Muslims.

Our beloved rabaabis, the same, crazed taliban like Muslims trying to convert Sikhs by playing and singing our GUru's bani...

Guru Arjun Dev must also have been one of these ultra-PC Muslim apologists you seem to know so well then when he compiled Baba Sheikh Farid's bani into Sri Guru Granth Sahib...

Now I wonder who is anti-Sikh?

Jt Singh

I seem to remember you bringing out this very point before in this thread. After I countered your PC view of Islam you chose not to comment. Care to or are you just into making sarcastic statements without backing them up

GurFateh

Bikramjit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gurfateh

Guru Arjun Dev must also have been one of these ultra-PC Muslim apologists you seem to know so well then when he compiled Baba Sheikh Farid's bani into Sri Guru Granth Sahib

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Baba Farid Ji a Sufi Saint? If so, then the so called 'true' Muslims, which are being discussed here, believe that Sufis are guilty of innovation, which is against Islaam and they do not accept them as 'true' Muslims. (ie. Sunni, Salafi Al-Sunni or whatever).

Sufis believe in a spiritual individual experience, or self-realisation, whereas Sunni's believe it is impossible to merge into Allah whilst living, and otherwise.

I think BikramJit is referring to the Sunni fanatics here Bhaji.

Gurfateh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurfateh

Gurpreet

From my conversations with Muslims (both Shia and Sunni) things aren't that simple. I work with a Sunni who listens to pirs and does dhikr, yet is not a Sufi. The majority of Sufi orders including the Chisthi order to which Baba Farid belonged to, descends from Sunnis.

Perhaps you are mistaking them for wahabis (who according to a number of muslims I've spoken to, were put in place and fuelled by the British colonial regime - sound familiar!). Most of the non-wahabi muslims I've spoken to over the years recognise and respect the Sufis.

Equally Sufis vary greatly from those who are very rigid and orthodox (the sanyussia for example who are akin to an abdrigement with wahabism) through to the very unorthodox.

I appreciate your attempt to tone down Bikramjit's vast stereotyping of milions of muslims but it's hard to when you come across a corker like;

'Sorry, but any Muslim who make friends with a Sikh either has an agenda or is non practising Muslim.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of Sufi orders including the Chisthi order to which Baba Farid belonged to, descends from Sunnis.

Bhaji I understand what you are saying. However, it doesn't matter where they descended from, although you're right in saying they were all from the Sunni's, the fact remains that Sunni's believe they are the true practising Muslims, and these are the ones BikramJit (I think) is referring to.

I respect Sufi saints highly, and so did our Guru's. I disagree totally that we should consider all Muslims, as in Sufi's and Shi'aa's as our enemies. However, the Sunni's are intolerant, and those are the ones referred to in the original post.

I think you're right and we should be specific about which ones we are talking about, because Shi'aa's and Sufis are very spiritual people, the only spirituality in Islam is because of them.

Gurfateh

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

Bhaji I understand what you are saying. However, it doesn't matter where they descended from, although you're right in saying they were all from the Sunni's, the fact remains that Sunni's believe they are the true practising Muslims, and these are the ones BikramJit (I think) is referring to.

I respect Sufi saints highly, and so did our Guru's. I disagree totally that we should consider all Muslims, as in Sufi's and Shi'aa's as our enemies. However, the Sunni's are intolerant, and those are the ones referred to in the original post.

I think you're right and we should be specific about which ones we are talking about, because Shi'aa's and Sufis are very spiritual people, the only spirituality in Islam is because of them.

Gurfateh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Thank You Gurpreet Kaur Ji you are quite correct. All the Muslims who helped the Gurus were either Sufis themselves or were their followers. Ghani Khan and Nabi Khan were followers of the Sufis and that's why they carried Guru Gobind Singh as 'Uch Da Pir'. Rai Kalha was a follower of the Sufis. Pir Budhu Shah and Mian Mir were Sufis.

Unfortunately many assume that just because some of the Bhagats whose verses are in the Guru Granth Sahib have a Muslim name then automatically the Guru Granth Sahib validates the Koran. This is also the case with use of Arabic names for God used in the Guru Granth Sahib.

Bhagat Kabirji is usually assumed to be a Muslim but his verses show a high level of criticism of some of the chief beliefs of Islam. His famous verse shows this.

Awwal Allah noor upaiya kudrat de sabh bande

Ek noor te sabh jag upjiya kaun bhale ko mande.

In the beginning God created the Light. His might has created all.

The entire universe is created from that One Light. Who then is good and who bad.

It is usually assumed that this verse gives some sort of validation for the Koran. But this will be news for my friend JtSingh it doesn't !. If you look at Allah of the koran, he hates those who do not worship him. Whereas as Bhagat Kabirji asks us not to consider humanity as divided into good or bad.

One of the verses which show how Allah in the koran has a very human personality.

Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People

of the Scripture and the idolaters, will

abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of

created beings.

Here Allah considers some people who he is believed to have created as the 'worst of created beings'. That's you and me folks. So which has a more universal message the Guru Granth Sahib or the Koran ?. Who is inspired by God, Bhagat Kabirji a poor weaver or Mohammed the 'seal of the prophets'.

One of the things that amuse me the most is that Muslim artistes will very rarely choose to sing Shabads which are contradictory to the Koran. But many have flocked to record Bhagat Kabirji's Shabad because seeing the word Allah they assume that it is in praise of the Allah of the Koran. They do not see the above distinction between what Allah is to Bhagat Kabirji and what Allah is in the Koran.

They also do not realise that what the rest of the Shabad is-;

Brother, fall not into the delusion made by man:

The Creator is in the creation in creation is He-

He pervades the universe. From one clay, in various forms

He has made all creation.Neither is any pot of clay faulty, nor the Potter.

The Eternal abides in all. All happens as He wills.

One who realizes the Divine Ordinance,

And knows God to be One without a second -

Such a one alone is His true servant. Allah and Alakh is incompassable-

This inexpressible truth has the Master taught me.

Says Kabir: On realizing this my doubts have vanished,

And I have had sight of the all-pervading Immaculate Reality.

The Muslim artistes don't realise that the rest of the Shabad clearly states that God exists in his creation ( immanant ) contray to the Allah of the Koran who exists apart from his creation. ( transcendent ).

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

I appreciate your attempt to tone down Bikramjit's vast stereotyping of milions of muslims but it's hard to when you come across a corker like;

'Sorry, but any Muslim who make friends with a Sikh either has an agenda or is non practising Muslim.'

Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

JtSingh

(The Koran) [5.51] "O you who believe! do not take the

Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of

each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for

a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does

not guide the unjust people."

and

(The Koran) [4.89] They desire that you should

disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you

might be (all) alike; therefore take not from

among them friends until they fly (their homes)

in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then

seize them and kill them wherever you

find them, and take not from among

them a friend or a helper.

Reminds me of the famous saying..They are truely blind who refuse to

see.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

There are different definitions of kufr and different degrees of kufr in fiqh.

both definitions of kufr which have been given are correct and only differ in focuss. So please be carefull with your definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They get to keep their husbands from this life, or any others they start fancying over there :roll: 2 problems with this theory.

1. What if the husband from this life prefers the virgins (who keep retaining their virginity even after intercourse) and is so fed up of his wife doesn't wish to be with her in Jannat?

2. What if the women choose some good looking virgin guy up there, and their husbands get jealous and want their wives to remain with them?

Result: Cat and Dog fights in both situations.

Gurfateh

Ps. A Muslim said to me if you believe God is everywhere then is he also in faeces? A friend told me to tell him, what about the virgins you get in Jannat? Do they not defacate and yourself? He said no, nothing 'nasty' like faeces and urine will be in Jannat, constipation rules! :LOL:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Gurpeet Kaur Ji

This is the problem one of many with Islam. If your aim in life consists of trying to reach a 'heaven' which is a place where you get unlimited sex then how can you keep your thoughts spiritual in this life?. O.K. Sex is important in the physical life on earth but if your religion teaches that you will get 72 virgins in heaven then how can a Muslim stop thinking about sex all day ?. Sikhi teaches us to constantly remember Waheguru and that the aim and ultimate destination of each and every soul is merging with Waheguru. In Sikhi the aim is spiritual as it is in most other religions, in Islam the aim is physical. This is why you get hadiths which state that Mohammed had to answer his followers questions about how they would have the superhuman prowess to satisfy 72 virgins. Such questions then lead more and more into sexual fantasy.. hardly conducive to a religious life.

Ps. A Muslim said to me if you believe God is everywhere then is he also in faeces? A friend told me to tell him, what about the virgins you get in Jannat? Do they not defacate and yourself? He said no, nothing 'nasty' like faeces and urine will be in Jannat, constipation rules!

Your friend sounds like an intelligent person. The problem with a physical heaven is that you then need to answer all the inconvenient questions such as the one about defacating. If you eat as the residents of heaven are promised food and wine then you must urinate and defacate ?. Then you have to bring out the questions of what kind of sewerage system does this heaven have. Flush loos or just behind a secluded bush. If everything seems to be inperishable then what about the faeces ?. Will it remain in heaven in it's present state or will it be broken down by heavenly microrganisms ?. So it is easier for Muslims to say that there is no need to defacate or urinate.. but then how can the life be physical if you can eat and drink but do have to go to the toilet ?. What happens to the food.. is there a new type of digestive system in this heaven ?. If there is no need to defacate or urinate then are the organs that perform these function then not necessary ?. Do these persons have no bladder and no anus. If Allah is perfect then he would not create something that his followers have no need for ?. The physical vision of heaven is so ridiculous that it creates more and more questions and each and every answer leads to more questions.

Islam also seems to teach of the physical destruction of the earth but the existence in heaven is physical :roll:

The promise of a sexual paradise was a powerful incentive to converts in the semi-barbarous tribal society such qs Arabia was in the 7th century. This is why the Muslims did such destruction in India and other places they invaded. This explains why each Islamic army was a plundering and raping horde. This is why the Nadir Shahs and the Abdalis are looked upon as heroes by Muslims even though their armies mudered, raped and enslaved tens of thousands.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurfateh

You know, there's times when I'm in the cue at the chipshop and you hear lines like 'I'm not rascist or nothing but..' and out pops some c**p they picked up off their mate, that is usually an outrageous stereotype. You see the human brain loves to over-simplify things. It's human nature. Psychologists term us 'cognitive misers', we are miserly with our thinking. Lets say you meet one afro-carribean and he swears at you. Your brain automatically makes the assumption, that ALL afro-carribeans must be like this. It's how prejudice and stereotypes build up.

So far in this discussion, apart from Bikramjit's more wahabi than wahabi chosen quotes from the koran and definition of who is a true muslim based on this, we've had very little scriptual information, just a few encounters with muslims. So many myths have already been posted (with quotes like 'and that's why ALL MUSLIMS ARE PERVERTED') and to be quite honest I haven't the time to work through them.

First and foremost, lets be clear; listening to other muslims for unbiased information is like assuming an SGPC stalwart can give you unbiased information about Udasis. Be honest with yourselves, how many different opinions about Sikh groups, practices etc do you get meeting other Sikhs? Loads. Where do you get authoratitive information from? By reading. Please don't rely on hearsay. I'm constantly being told by non-Sikhs that Sikhs are allowed to drink 'because my mate harpreet got married and after everyone was drinking', that Sikhs 'believe in caste because my mate used to go to say that Jats are best', etc. Ask yourself, what kind of Muslim are you going to come across trying to convert Sikhs on a Sikh forum? Is he/she representative of ALL Muslims? I thought that what this forum was all about was destroying myths. Actually researching and providing real evidence rather than forever falling back on myths, prejudices and hearsay.

My second point is with regards Sufis. I have heard it stated before by Sikhs on forums that Sufis cannot even be considered Muslims because of their mindsets, therefore, the Gurus only associated with Sufis not Muslims. This is tosh. More often than not, Sufis are very devoted Muslims. Baba Farid, as a Chisthi Sheikh, had the utmost respect for the Koran and the Prophet (pbuh) contrary to Bikramjit's implications in the above post. Sufis like Ibn-Arabi (if you haven't heard of him, look him up, one of the greatest Sufis of all time) were very strict about not deviating from literal tranlation of the Koran, on top of which he would provide commentary/alternative meanings.

As for whether people accept them as Muslims, is like wondering whether everyone will accept a Sant as a brahmgyani. Groups have certain interests. AKJ don't like the term sant being given to a Sikh. Likewise some Muslims do not like the thought of Sufis.

Bikramjit, you seem to have changed in your argument.

Right back when, I originally posted asking you to admit that SOME muslims not ALL are 'insecure about their faith', as you described. In otherwords, to stop making such appaling generalistaions of millions of muslims based on your limited experience and research.

You then later produced that fantastic quote about ''Sorry, but any Muslim who make friends with a Sikh either has an agenda or is non practising Muslim.' Tarnishing ALL true muslims as either fanatics or non-practitioners.

I then pointed to the examples of the Guru's Muslim associates from Sikh history. Using your quote they are either not true muslims or were trying to convert the Gurus to Islam. I doubt they would have agreed.

Gurpreet Kaur, then on your behalf pointed out that perhaps you're talking about SOME muslims. You then confusingly, readily agreed.

Now I'm confused! Are you saying ALL muslims are insecure, sex-crazed fanatics OR that SOME are?

Also Bikramjit you earlier casted doubt on Baba Farid's spiritual legitimacy (whether or not he is infallable). What did you mean by this?

Can I also ask that you respond to this, not as some kind of personal attack, but as a sincere question.

If anyone is looking for the Guru's answers to the issue of how to treat others from whatever faith, please read Sukhmani Sahib in which you will find advice on how to treat and think about others.

Another quote to finish with;

'Whoever friend and foe with equal gaze beholds

All his utterance is as repitition of the holy texts'

'Gur updes saadh ki sangat binsio sugul santaap

mitr sutr pekh sumut biichario sugul sunbhakhun jaap' (Saarang, p.1217)

I'll make this my last post on this topic because I think people generally believe what they want to believe. Yes, I am optimistic. I've met many fanatics in my time - Muslim, Christain, Sikh, Hindu. All say the same things. All are proud of dubious deeds done in the name of their religion, all believe their own tradition is the only path. I have also met wiser, more open-minded Muslims, Christains, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.

I hope all the sangat here will at the very least have the humility to look to their Guru for guidance on how we should act and think when face with these issues. I think you'll find the answers there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

JtSingh

I am not surprised that you wish to make this your last post on this topic. as you have decided to refer to posts earlier on in this thread and you have bypassed many relevant points and taken the thread at a tangent.

1. This thread was begun because a Muslim website had tried to imply that Gurbani validates the Koran. I stated that such websites show the insecurity of Muslims and Islam because only a person insecure in his faith would try and find the validation of his faith in another scripture. A simple enough statement apparently not for you. I also wrote that a Muslim is allowed to lie when cornered about his faith. You sensing that you had me in a corner then came out with your claim that this means that Baba Farid would lie about his faith. Gurpreet Kaur then posted a piece from a Islamic website that states that in certain situations it is o.k. for a Muslim to lie. Even when faced with quotes from a Muslim website you choose to ignore them and live in your self delusion. Now you claim that you cannot take the word of this website as the truth. So are you now implying that the Muslims who set up this website are LIARS. Not much consistancy in your argument.

2. You then brought the fact that by bowing to the Guru Granth Sahib I am bowing to Baba Farid. My argument is that I bow to the message and not the man. Guru Granth Sahib contains the message. I am sure you are aware that Guru Nanak in some places corrects the views of Baba Farid contained in the Guru Granth Sahib. I will post these verse should you desire them. It is up to you to decide what this does for Baba farid's spiritual legitimacy.

3. You state that apart from the quotes that i posted from the Koran there is very little scriptural references. What do you require. You state that the quotes I posted were more wahabi than wahabi.. what do you mean these are how they are translated. maybe you require the addition of some words like 'some' to be placed before the word Kafirs to comply with your JtSingh version of Islam. Sorry, these are simple translations of the verses. Still you keep your rose coloured glasses on. The quotes clearly prove that a Muslim should not make friends with Christians, Jews or Idolators.. in the world at that time this included all non-Muslims. Obviously you know more about what Islam is than the Koran does.

Btw

What's with the (pbuh) everytime you write about mohammed, isn't that what the Muslims are duty bound to do ?. Never came across a 'sikh' that follows this muslim custom. None of the Gurus ever did, not Sikh Baba or Sant, not even Sikh writers in comparative religion. So what makes you so different or as we would say in Punjabi.. toon kehre baag di mooli hai ?

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites

...last one I promise!!

I'll start from the bottom up, (pbuh) out of respect. If you attend any organised interfaith meeting you'll generally find that most non-Muslims add pbuh on the end out of respect.

No I don't profess to be an expert on Islam. What I do know is that your post makes vast generalisations. Is this really that hard to understand?

Your above reply side-stepped my one, lingering and blindingly simple question again. Here we go again...

Do you believe ALL Muslims are insecure about their faith or do you think SOME are?

Do you believe ALL Muslims are fanatics or SOME?

I'd just like a simple answer

...please!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

One thing I will never understand is the fact that some Sikhs instead of confronting the challenges that Sikhi faces just want to dig their heads into the sand like an ostrich.

The debates started because Muslims have been using underhand tactics to try and convert Sikhs to their religion. The website from which the original quotes were taken tries to show that the Gurus were influenced by Islam. Now the only thing that some Sikhs have done on this thread is to post quotes from the Koran which show the Muslims will lie about their religion. Now if every Sikh knew this although he not even be well versed in Sikhi, he will still take what the website says with skepticism.

Jtsingh seems to take great offence an anything which he sees as criticism of Islam. In his view any attempt to try and counter this islamic propaganda will lead to misunderstanding between Sikhs and Muslims. I don't know which desert Island Jtsingh has been living on in the last decade or perhaps his rose coloured glasses are a permanant attachment to his face but he should know what it happening on the streets of the UK. Jtsingh is of the opinion that we should do nothing to meet the challenge of Islamic propaganda. In Punjabi we say ... na aap karay na horan noon karan devey.. he wants to do nothing himself but also he wants others to do nothing.

...last one I promise!!

I'll start from the bottom up, (pbuh) out of respect. If you attend any organised interfaith meeting you'll generally find that most non-Muslims add pbuh on the end out of respect.

Well the very nature of interfaith meetings is that anything inconvenient is usually pushed under the carpet. No wonder people like Osama Bin laden exist and exert such influence amongst Muslims given that interfaith dialogue and the 'sohilay' that are sung for Islam at these meetings allow the Muslims to bypass the need for an introspection about what makes Islam around the world today the most violent and destructive faith. Usually the truth is the first thing that goes out of the window so I am not surprised that as an apologist of Islam you need to show the greatest of respect to mohammed.

But this isn't an interfaith meeting so why use (pbuh) here ?. Unless I'm missing something.

No I don't profess to be an expert on Islam. What I do know is that your post makes vast generalisations. Is this really that hard to understand?

Neither do I. But at least I attempt to go to the orgin of Islam, the Koran rather than dismissing quotes as 'more wahabi than wahabi'. Who is the one who has shut his eyes to an alternative opinion.

Do you believe ALL Muslims are insecure about their faith or do you think SOME are?

Yes, If the religion allows a person to LIE in order to promote his faith then that religion and that adherent is insecure. Plain enough for you. Now if a Muslim refuses to lie for his faith because he has a greater understanding of ethics than the Koran, then technically he is not a Muslim.

Do you believe ALL Muslims are fanatics or SOME?quote]I'd just like a simple answer

...please!

For this question please define fanatic. Is a fanatic someone who goes beyond the limits placed on him by his religion or someone who follows a religion which is itself fanatic. I could put up some quotes which show how intolerant of other religions the Koran is. But you are so entrenched in your position that there is no room for you to actually entertain an alternative view point. Now if a Muslim follows the Koran than he is a fanatic. If he looks beyond the Koran and adopt teachings which allow him to believe that Islam is not the only way of salvation then he is not a practicising Muslim.

Now perhaps you would be so good as to answer my question.

If a Muslim website quotes from the Koran and states that it is o.k. for a Muslim to LIE then do you believe the quotes or perhaps even do your own research to find out whether this is true or not or would you just continue to keep your own views which seem to have no basis in the teachings of the Koran

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bikramjit,

I'm starting to wonder whether I've overestimated your capacity to respond to my question as you have yet again failed (deliberately or not) to understand what I'm saying, and why I initially posted in response to your comments.

Please don't patronise me Bikramjit...I am well aware of Islamic fundamentalism, forced conversions and the history of Muslim-Sikh relations in the UK. I despise all forms of warped intolerance whether coming from a wahabi's mouth, or coming from your own.

I am very clear about what the dangers are to Sikhi. Not only SOME fanatic intolerant Muslims/Christians/Hindus, but also the very hypocracy of Sikhs which drives away our youth, and fails to adhere to the Guru's teachings.

What I have always maintained (and this is the bit you seem to repeatedly fail to clarify in your own posts), is that SOME Muslims NOT ALL are forcing conversions, are intolerant of Sikhs, are fanatics, are bigoted, etc. There are Muslims out there (and I know enough) who are not Sufis, are very serious about their faith and yet are tolerant and respectful of Sikhs. Where do they fit into your picture?

I have asked a very simple question. You have failed to answer it.

Personally, Bikramjit, I was always amazed at Guru ji's strength of mind in the face of losing his four sons, his friends and numerous others to Muslim fanatics, that he never resorted to claiming ALL Muslims should to be tarnished with the same brush. That is true strength. I'm pretty certain, from your comments, you would call it burying his head in the sand like an ostrich! It was rather the embodiment of Sukhmani Sahib's message of whether slandered or praised the brahmgyani remains the same, always focused on truth.

In reponse to your own question (which I have no problems in answering your question); I would be happy to research the issue. If it showed me that ALL Muslims are potential liars then I hope I would have the humility to accept that. From the historical Muslim figures I have read about, it would be slanderous to claim they were potential liars. There lives and writings show quite the opposite. Can you not see that by painting all Muslims with the same brush you are suggesting that all the Muslim associates of the Gurus must therefore also be potential liars? Perhaps you can't as I've said it enough times!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Jtsingh

I have answered both your questions as best as I can, I don't know what answers you were looking for but that's that. We'll let the other members make their own minds up whether I am right in my opinion or you are.

Where your view is faulty is that you look at the actions of the adherents in order to decide whether they are practising Muslims or not. I look at the Koran to see what a practising Muslim is supposed to act. Most people would base their views on what a Muslim is on what is written in the Koran rather than a particular Muslim's actions. Obviously you do not.

Thank you for at least admitting that you will try to do some research on whether a Muslim is allowed to lie. Let me know what you have found out.

Now I think this discussion between you and me has run it's course.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

Gurfateh

C'mon Bikramjit, this isn't rocket science;

all or some

Yes it's not rocket science so even you should be able to work out that I've answered your questions :roll:

Have a Good Life

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jt Singh ji,

Please, make list of your question and post them in your next post so I can ask Bikramjit Singh to anwser them if he couldn't anwser them.

I will look forward to see your next post with all the questions and then I will ask Bikramjit Singh to anwser them if he didn't anwser them in his previous posts.

Please do it whenever you get time.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurfateh

My point is simple. I have a problem with sweeping generalisations of billions of people.

Point 1

Bikramjit has stated 'Sorry, but any Muslim who make friends with a Sikh either has an agenda or is non practising Muslim.'

Going by Bikramjit's literalist logic a practicing Muslim cannot make friends with a Sikh. I see this as a gross slander on the Muslim friends of Sikhs throughout history.

My first question is:

Were the associates of the Gurus who were Muslims non-practicing Muslims?

Point 2

Gurpreet Kaur came to Bikramjit's defense stating that perhaps he is talking only about some Muslims (sunnis for example). Bikramjit did not disagree.

My question:

Does Bikramjit feel ALL practicing Muslims fall into his two-fold definition or just some?

Point 3

Right at the beginning of this topic Bikramjit made the claim that

'The Muslims and Islam in general are very insecure in their faith'

Adherents.com estimates the number of Muslims in the world to be around 1.3 billion.

My first question:

Approximately how many Muslims has Bikramjit interviewed/psychoanalysed to be able to state with confidence that 'in general' Muslims and Islam are very insecure in their faith?

__________________________________________________

Those have been my main concerns from the beginning of this topic.

Warped stereotyping/misinformation can lead to prejudice which can lead to hatred. Hatred is non-conducive to the path of the Gurus. Nowhere do the Gurus speak in a similar fashion to Bikramjit, therefore his opinions are his own and contrary to the message of Sikhi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BikramjitSingh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

JTsingh

Again the same old questions. I have answered the three you posted. If you don't like the answers than that is an issue you need to sort out by yourself and not waste disk space repeating the same questions.

The new ones I will answer

Gurfateh

My point is simple. I have a problem with sweeping generalisations of billions of people.

Point 1

Bikramjit has stated 'Sorry, but any Muslim who make friends with a Sikh either has an agenda or is non practising Muslim.'

Going by Bikramjit's literalist logic a practicing Muslim cannot make friends with a Sikh. I see this as a gross slander on the Muslim friends of Sikhs throughout history.

This question has been answered before by me by a verse directly from the Koran.

(The Koran) [5.51] "O you who believe! do not take the

Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of

each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for

a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does

not guide the unjust people."

and

(The Koran) [4.89] They desire that you should

disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you

might be (all) alike; therefore take not from

among them friends until they fly (their homes)

in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then

seize them and kill them wherever you

find them, and take not from among

them a friend or a helper.

You have dismissed this as a 'more wahabi than wahabi' translation. Yet you have not offered any alternative translation. I am sorry if this destroys you PC vision of Islam but these verses stand. Unless you can offer an alternative translation then it is best to go on to another argument since this one you have been unable to counter.

My first question is:

Were the associates of the Gurus who were Muslims non-practicing Muslims?

Unfortunately you cannot differentiate between the terms practising and non-practising. This is another personal issue you need to sort out by yourself. What you need to show is that the Muslims such as Rai Bular, Mian Meer, Peer Budhu Shah's actions towards the Gurus were endorsed by the Koran. As the above verses show they cannot be endorsed. So this means that either they were non-practising Muslims or in the case of Rai Bular who was a second generation convert, a person unfamiliar with the Koran. Even in the 20th century the Muslim Ranas still had Hindu customs and the Koran was virtually unknown amongst these people outside of the Mosque. I think you need to study further what kind of situations these 'Muslim' friends of the Gurus were in. Rather than believing that each and every Muslim of that time was a 'practising' Muslim.

My question:

Does Bikramjit feel ALL practicing Muslims fall into his two-fold definition or just some?

See my previous answer in the previous post.

Point 3

Right at the beginning of this topic Bikramjit made the claim that

'The Muslims and Islam in general are very insecure in their faith'

Adherents.com estimates the number of Muslims in the world to be around 1.3 billion.

See my answer in a previous post.

My first question:

Approximately how many Muslims has Bikramjit interviewed/psychoanalysed to be able to state with confidence that 'in general' Muslims and Islam are very insecure in their faith?

You are going off at a tangent. I referred to practising Muslims WHOM the Koran allows to LIE in order to promote their faith. Perhaps in you view a LIAR can still be a great person as along as his LYING can be justified under the religious lable and the religious books he lives by. I think you are showing your naivette if you assume that we need to study the actions of ALL the Muslims just to know what Islam is. It is the Koran you need to know if you want to know Islam.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bikramjit, lemme as you

are you one to use one or two lines of baani to justify an entire argument or debate? You and I both know you should never do this as you are doing severe severe misjustice to baani.

in the same respect, you should not be doing the same to the baani of the Koran. you cant take half a section and use it... if that's the case, i can find a line from anywhere that says it's ok to be filled with the 5 evils...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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...