Jump to content

was guru nanak dev ji shia muslim?


Recommended Posts

Guest Javanmard

I am amazed at the extend to which you people can admire a man like Saddam who killed MILLIONS of innocent just because he repaired a temple (after destroying hundreds of mosques!!!).But all you care about is your petty tribalism so you can brag about Guru Nanak going to Baghdad.

But what did he do in Baghadad?

He publicly recited the Shi'a adhan which includes the shahada:

I witness that there is no God but God

that Muhammad is his rasul

and that Ali is his wali!

reciting this in front of witnesses makes one AUTOMATICALLY a Muslim!

So much for you admiration for Saddam.Actually....the real shrine where Guru Nanak is honoured is inside Shaikh Bahlol's tomb which is btw a Shi'a holy place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Javanmard Ji, you seem to have serious hate issues, for someone who is a scholar, you should read carefully before making childish comments: "This is such a shame. My dads cousin used to work in Ir

You forgot to paste the rest of your "priests" article (1 priest out of thousands employed there) : "The temple's door is open to all those who are Hindus by birth irrespective of caste. It is also

1. The ban surely wasn't i vigor during the Mughal period. Discrete way to concede your earlier point. From the little research I have done, I have found that Orissa was a Hindu kingdom ruled

He publicly recited the Shi'a adhan which includes the shahada:

I witness that there is no God but God

that Muhammad is his rasul

and that Ali is his wali!

Whats the source of this? Please dont go around posting something contoversial without putting source, an reliable source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

The Janamsakhis and Bhai Gurdas my dear! They all say Maharaj recited adhan and as Baghdad during that time was Safavi and thus Shi'a, the adhan recited was Shi'a!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Javanmard Ji, you seem to have serious hate issues, for someone who is a scholar, you should read carefully before making childish comments:

"This is such a shame. My dads cousin used to work in Iraq around 18 years ago, he said the Iraqis' and Saddam Hussein had much respect for Sikhs, Saddam had actually helped restore the Gurdwara once upon a time.... "

Where is Saddam being admired, I was simply relating a relatives first hand experience, someone who lived and worked in Iraq. Like it or not, Saddam did restore the Gurdwara (for whatever reason), this was simply a statement of fact, nothing else.

The "real" shame was that sacred ground where my Guru resides had been destroyed, Shaikh Bahlol's tomb means nothing to Sikhs or Sikh thought, and it's mention is irrelevant here.

I recall you once having one of your daily digs at Punjabi Sikhs re the outdated pagan practice of Jaterai, please explain how honouring and worshiping at a tomb is any different, especially as in the Sufi experience, many even pray to have darshan of their murshid?

And kindly veer ji, please "quote" the exact lines from the Janam Sakhi and vaaran you mention.

It seems to me, that the only person that has "serious" tribalism issues on this forum is you, trying again and again to prove that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a Muslim, of the specific sect which you aspire to. I personally have no problem with anyone calling Guru Ji a Muslim or Hindu, because in true primal understanding, they are one and the same, and Guru Ji is above both (in their wordly presence). It is only "Tribesman" who try and "classify" my Guru, when his nature is universal.

"He publicly recited the Shi'a adhan which includes the shahada:

I witness that there is no God but God

that Muhammad is his rasul

and that Ali is his wali!"

"If" this is the adhan that was recited (of which there is no proof), anyone with a truely universal outlook could recite this, where is the binding element within? Muhammad is his Rasul and Ali his wali, thats fine, many members of the forum wouldn't have a problem with that, alongside knowing that they were not the only Rasul and Wali to exist. It's all in the interpretation. You say this made them automatically a Muslim, yet we do not know the exact adhan that was recited, yet in Puri, Guru Ji recited the aarti (albeit improved version) and were allowed in the temple, does this then not make them Hindu as well?

Only Hindus' have been (and still are) allowed in the Jaggannath temple in Puri, how was it that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was accepted their, and is revered there? We know that Guru Ji changed the aarti their, without a backlash, why can't the same be true for the adhan recited in Baghdad also?

You restrict Guru Ji's actions in the Middle East to what would have been "acceptable" to the Muslims of the day, when clearly, Guru Ji has shown in all his udasis, his actions were not "limited" to the ritual or law of the people being blessed with his presence.

Guru Ji did not go on "specific" haj to Macca (to preform his Muslim duty), they were visiting many religious places and people are part of their Udasis, Macca and Baghdad were just some of them.

Ram and Raheem and the Puran and Koran are spoken equally throughout Gurbani, only to show, the universality of faith, not to limit faith to these to facets.

Niether does Guru Ji bear allegiance to any sect of Islam, Hindu dharm or any other faith, this is further evidenced by the fact that none of the other Guru Sahiban were known to recite the adhan nor were they known to do haj to Macca (same for any of the original devoted Sikhs thereon).

I am not saying that their is not sany shared thought or philosophy with Ghullat or Islamic traditions, but to want to have the monopoly on Sikhi is insane and foolish.

This is not about Hindu or Sikh tribalism as you wish to see it as, but to do with "all" tribalism and it's irrelevance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've read a sakhi wherein the Guru teaches a sikh that reciting the kalma doesn't make one a muslim. so, how would reciting the adhan make one muslim?

by saying God's name is Allah, and his prophet is Muhummad (all true), how am I a muslim?? If it was an affirmation of exclusivity than you could make a decent case for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guru Nanak lived: 1469 – 1539

at this time there were actually not that many shias in Iraq(according to my shia friend). even in Iran there were not that many shias at the time. there were a few local sangats at varoius places, but they were not a majority.

in 1501 the Safawi-alliance Tabriz took over Iran and made it shia kingdom which was only 38 years before the death of Guru Nanak. but still, the majority of Iran were sunnis.

Guru Nanaks visit to Iraq must have been around 1519-1521 which is only 19 years after the Safawi-alliance got their rule of persia. Did they manage to convert the population to shiism in only 19 years before Guru Nanak came?

in 1535, 4 years before the death of Maharaj, the Ottoman empire took over Iran and the kingdom was again handed over to the sunnis.

so if the majority of the population at that time were sunnis, and the janam sakhis do not mention anything about the muslims being enraged due to Guru Nanak mentioning Imam Ali in the Azaan, then how do you know if it was the Shia Azaan he recited?

you also mentioned(in a earlier debate) that The Gurus were above sharia level, so why would Guru Nanak participate in Namaz and Hajj as these are concepts of sharia.

Did Guru Nanak adhere to sharia or? and if the Gurus were muslims, and all the sikhs were following the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad, then why did the Gurus not have any arab or muslim names?

and is there any sources that mention that the Gurus told hindues to declare the Shahada before they became followers of the Gurus?

regarding Mecca which only muslims can visit. Is there really any place in this world that the Gurus could not visit, if they wished to? If Guru Gobind Singh Maharja wanted to visit Rome, a lion would'n even be able to stop him from going there, so how could a few muslim guards?

The Face of God is not restricted by anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

You people are not only pig ignorant but naive. Anyways this has all been discussed in the Shi'a-Sikh thread.

Any person who knows about Islam knows that reciting shahada makes you legally a Muslim.

As for Shaikh Bahlol's shrine there is a section in there that is still honoured by Shi'as and it is a platform honouring Guru Nanak. So much for your stupid comment about that shrine not being important. The Gurdwara was built much later but the original spot of Guru Nanak's miracle is Shaikh Bahlol's tomb!

Sufis and Shi'as don't worship tombs they visit their saints to thank them: this is different from jathera!

The ban on non-Hindus being not allowed in certain Hindu temples only came about much after Guru Nanak's time due to Westeners not respecting elementary rules of etiquette. Guru Nanak does do any action in Puri that would make him publicly a Vaishnava. To the contrary the statues worship him after her recited the arti.

The Gurus always emphacised that reciting shahada alone was not enough that one needed to interiorise Islam to be a true Muslim. This is exactly what Ahlul Bayt (as) teaches.

If you visit a country and do something that is interpreted by the people and the law of the country as an act of allegiance to their tradition there are different possibilities:

1. You don't do it because you're not part of them

2. You do it because you are part of them

3. you pretend to be part of them

4. You just don't know about the consequences and think anyone can do it

Let's take reciting adhan and visiting Mekkah which are considered acts that ONLY Muslims have the right to perform:

1. You don't do it because you're not Muslim

2. You do it because you're a Muslim

3. You pretend to be a Muslim: you're a liar

4. You don't know and think it's just a nice formula and ignore the consequences of those acts: you're ignorant

no comment...

Admin Note: Please refrain from using koraie bachan like- pig ignorant against other sangat members. I beleive you fighting over sri guru nanak dev ji being muslim, well no point fighting over him when one cannot even follow his bachan- Nanak Fika boliye than man fika hoe ||. When one fails to be humble towards others then all the scholarships goes out of the window. I guess thats a difference between tottagyani and bhramgyani.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For such a highly educated person, my veer, unfortunately it is you that has the idiosyncrasy of a pig (with all due respect to pigs, which are in fact very intelligent and brave animals).

"Any person who knows about Islam knows that reciting shahada makes you legally a Muslim."

Why do you insist on trying to bind "the face of God" to man made laws?

"Sufis and Shi'as don't worship tombs they visit their saints to thank them: this is different from jathera!"

Where have any of Guru's followed this practice in history?

The ban on non-Hindu's was said to have been in force at the time Guru Ji visited Puri, funnily enough, it was specifically in force to keep Muslims out. Veer T Singh Ji will hopefully shed more light on this episode when they get a chance to read teh Sri Caitanya Caritamrta and Sri Caitanya Caritamrta.

"If you visit a country and do something that is interpreted by the people and the law of the country as an act of allegiance to their tradition there are different possibilities:

1. You don't do it because you're not part of them

2. You do it because you are part of them

3. you pretend to be part of them

4. You just don't know about the consequences and think anyone can do it"

Again, you mentality of restricting Guru Ji to your and mans meager understanding, here's another option; they did it, because they could.

And to show that worship of God at this holy place is not restricted to Muslims (of any defination) only.

Funny how Guru Ji would pay obediance and "bear allegiance" at a place which discriminates against non-Muslims from entering....

"Let's take reciting adhan and visiting Mekkah which are considered acts that ONLY Muslims have the right to perform:

1. You don't do it because you're not Muslim

2. You do it because you're a Muslim

3. You pretend to be a Muslim: you're a liar

4. You don't know and think it's just a nice formula and ignore the consequences of those acts: you're ignorant "

Other option, you did it because you can, and to show that worship of God in any shape or form is not limited to man made laws.

Again please answer this question, why did none of the other Guru's carry out the Haj and recite the adhan? Also why did Sikhs not follow this practice either. Funnily enough, not that it matters because Islam and bharat dharm are the same to me, after Guru Ji visited Puri, Sikhs were and still are allowed their today, where as Hindus of lower castes are not.

I highly doubt you will ever convince anyone that Guru Ji was partially bound by shia'te laws. What were the Shia'te laws of that time regarding marriage rites, death rites, birth rites and a myriad of other circumstances... our Guru's did not abide by these. Do Sufi and Shia'te not bury their dead, why did this tradition never prevail with our Guru's (as an example)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Beh name e Khoda

On the issue of non-Hindus not being allowed inside Jagannath Puri,let's let a scholar and priest of the temple express the reality about it:

''The temple was subjected to attack by non-believers and invaders 18 times between the 4th century and 18th century. Taking this into account the British rulers in 1805 notified that the temple would be open only to Hindus. So it's not the Raja or the Sevayats or the temple administration who imposed a ban. It's there in the holy texts as well as the Record of Rights of 1955,'' said Rabindra Nath Pratihari, Priest, Jagganath Scholar.

this is from a Vaishnava site:

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/news/05-07/news1250.htm

As I said before the ban came much after Guru Nanak's time. Now let's compare this to Shaheediyan's fantasy:

The ban on non-Hindu's was said to have been in force at the time Guru Ji visited Puri, funnily enough, it was specifically in force to keep Muslims out. Veer T Singh Ji will hopefully shed more light on this episode when they get a chance to read teh Sri Caitanya Caritamrta and Sri Caitanya Caritamrta.

OOoooops Ouch! You see Shaheediyan this is what happens when you mess with someone who has been teaching Hinduism at SOAS (University of London) for three years... :roll:

How on earth could Hindus enforce any law under Mughal rule? Think before you write Shahediyan...

Funny how Guru Ji would pay obediance and "bear allegiance" at a place which discriminates against non-Muslims from entering....

Precisely because he was a Muslim. Btw...the title Shah was used by Shi'a Sufis such as the Ni'matullahis who strangely enough do also acknowledge Maharaj as one of their own...

Again please answer this question, why did none of the other Guru's carry out the Haj and recite the adhan? Also why did Sikhs not follow this practice either. Funnily enough, not that it matters because Islam and bharat dharm are the same to me, after Guru Ji visited Puri, Sikhs were and still are allowed their today, where as Hindus of lower castes are not.

Because the Gurus weren't shari'ati just like the Ahl e Haq, Safavis, Qizilbash, Alevis...Strangely enough the Muslim Sikhs of Bhai Mardanah NEVER had to change their shari'ati practises whilst Hindu Sahajdharis had to give up most of their beliefs (caste, idols, vegetarianism as the first langar was non-veg etc...).Guru ki maseed is clear enough proof that Maharaj allowed his Sikhs to continue with their shari'ati ways if they so wished. Sikhi as a tariqa nevertheless had its own places of worship. Just like the Safavis had the tawhidkhanahs, the Ismailis their jamatkhanas, the Alevis their tekkes etc....So yes...the Gurus had the adhan recited in the mosques they built!

Regarding you Indian Sikhs, sorry to break the bad news but you just again confirmed to me that you guy actually reverted back to Hinduism: what would have been the need of a Singh Sabha movement otherwise...and your bragging about Sikhs being still able to visit that place confirms it further.

As for the rites concerning the dead body Sikhi has always been open minded about it and admitted three possibilities: burial, cremation and water burial. It is interesting to notice that many Sufis in Sindh did get water burials instead of getting buried. In fact the closest Sikh to Guru Nanak was buried this way. Your obsession with cremation is again just proof or your inherent allegiance to the Hindu ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

I have seen many donkeys in my life. Never seen one on laxatives though. If I see one I'll call him 'Blue Rider" in your honour.

If you have anything substantial to add to this thread apart from "Jah bless" you more than welcome. If my comments don't find grace in your eyes then please find a counter argument. If not just be happy with Jah!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to paste the rest of your "priests" article (1 priest out of thousands employed there) :

"The temple's door is open to all those who are Hindus by birth irrespective of caste. It is also open to Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains, but people of other religious faiths are not allowed to enter. This restriction has been in place for several centuries. It is a tradition that the priests say is rooted in its history.

The temple suffered a dozen attacks by Muslim invaders in the medieval period and the priests had to secretly shift the idols to safer places. During the British rule, Jagganath was painted as a cruel deity, as a Jaggernaut, who rode a car that crushed people under its wheels.

Interestingly, it's the British and not the Brahmin priests who in the early 19th Century formalised the ban."

Note: Your scholar says the ban was only "formalised" by the British, meaning written down on some legal document. This implies that it existed as a tradition before hand. Also note the scholar saying that the tradition existed for several centuries and is "priests" say is rooted in history.

"Because the Gurus weren't shari'ati just like the Ahl e Haq, Safavis, Qizilbash, Alevis"

And Guru Nanak Dev Ji was?

You provide one example of "A Sikh" who was buried? And why not the rest of the panth?

You explicitly state that Satguru abided by and accepted the laws and outcomes concerning Haj and Adhan, then why not accept all other laws concerning the points I mentioned? Giving examples of a few Sufis from Sindh doesn't cut it.

The whole theory of Guru Nanak Dev Ji being a Muslim (in your restrictive understanding of the word) is non-sensical. On one hand you preach Guru's weren't shari'ati, on the other you rely on sharia to prove that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a Muslim?

Another question, if Guru Ji was a Muslim, how is it that their

son became a Yogi?

Also please explain why Ram Raheem and puran koran are mentioned in the same light (many times) if Guru Ji bore allegiance to Islam?

I am sure your interpretation will be different from anyone else that has ever existed, of all whom must have stupid in your shadow of course.

Sikhs follow their Guru by example, Guru Amardas Ji asked for his rmains to immersed in water, this is the Sikh death rite. We are not to weep or have a mourning period upon death, a Sikh rite.

Does this not contradict "sharia" or whatever version/amalgamation taken from various Muslim sects you believe in?

You can't have it both ways, if your version of Islam is transcendental, then so are were the actions of Maharaj at Macca and Baghdad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

1. The ban surely wasn't i vigor during the Mughal period.

2. There is no prohibition on burial in Sikhi. I live not far away from cemeteries from WWI with THOUSANDS of Sikh soldiers buried there.If creamtion is the only funerary ritual then why did they get buried?

3. I never said Maharaj went on Hajj. Your interpolation.

4. You'd be surprised at the variety of funerary practises among the ghulat ranging from burial to cremation (in rare cases) to absence of mourning.

5. Why did Baba Sri Chand become a jogi. Let me rephrase it: why did he become a faqir? And why did Mian Mir praise him to Jahangir? Why would the head of the Qaderiyya praise a kafir?Why do two of the char dhuan wear Muslim names (Balu Hasna and Almast). And why did they wear Sufi attributes?

6.Puran and Kuran are mentioned in the same light in the same way as they are in the ginan literature.

Nanak Hafez

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You don't do it because you're not Muslim

2. You do it because you're a Muslim

3. You pretend to be a Muslim: you're a liar

4. You don't know and think it's just a nice formula and ignore the consequences of those acts: you're ignorant "

i understand your point, but i also find this to be a very rigid and crude way of putting things. either he was a muslim, or a liar.

Gurbani says Hajj kaaba jao naa tirath puuja(and other shabads say the same about namaz, fasting in ramadan etc), but at the same time Guru Nanak went on a hajj? using the above mentioned crude thinking, we can also conclude Guru Nanak was a hypocrite and a liar.

Guru Nanak did the Azaan yes, but saying "mere words" alone does not make one a muslim in Islamic philosophy as well as sikh philosophy.

is there any evidence that the other 9 Gurus went on Hajj and did namaz? if so, was Guru Nanak then the only Guru that abided to Sharia?

but i must admit that i find this new theory very interesting at the same time as i have shia friends that say the same as you know.

could you also answer the questions from page 1:

you also mentioned(in a earlier debate) that The Gurus were above sharia level, so why would Guru Nanak participate in Namaz and Hajj as these are concepts of sharia.

Did Guru Nanak adhere to sharia or? and if the Gurus were muslims, and all the sikhs were following the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad, then why did the Gurus not have any arab or muslim names?

and is there any sources that mention that the Gurus told hindues to declare the Shahada before they became followers of the Gurus?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

1.Is Khurram an Arabic name?

Is Dara an Arabic name?

Tell me why half of Turks and Iranians have non Arabic names?

Do they stop being Muslims because they don't have Arabic names?

2. I never said Guru Nanak did Hajj. Hajj only happens once a year. But one may go anytime to Makkah provided one is a Muslim.

3. Shah Ismail Safavi, head of the Safavi Shi'a Sufi order and founder of the Safavi dynasty that made Iran Shi'a NEVER went on Hajj and NEVER performed namaz? His religious practice was playing and singing hymns during the sema', do dhikr and create free kitchens where all could eat.Btw this practice of providing this meal is called langar khaneh. (OMG we didn't invent that?) In fact many Shi'a mosques and Sufi shrines in Iran and South Asia have a langar house or langar khaneh.

So if Shah Ismail never did namaz or hajj did he stop being a Muslim?

Or is it rather that Safavis were a tariqa that didn't practise all of shari'a?

3. The idea of tisra panth opposes turk and hindu. That what the text says.It doesn't take a PhD to know that we are talking about ethnical and possibly political terms not religions. And as we both know...there are more than two religions in this world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Is Khurram an Arabic name?

you would think that divine blessings that created a tariqa within Islam would have some islamic or arabic names as the Holy Imams as had, even though some of Them were persians and non-arabs.

rather they all had indian names, and after Guru Ramdass, all the Gurus named their sons with non-islamic names.

atleast one or two of them should have islamic names in praise of the Prophet or the Holy Imams.

okay i am sorry for putting words into your mouth then. i apologise. Why did he go then? Was it not during the Hajj period that he went with Bhai Mardana?

as shaheediya said: On one hand you preach Guru's weren't shari'ati, on the other you rely on sharia to prove that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a Muslim?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

1. Maybe that's what makes it unique vs other tariqas

2. I don't know if it was Hajj or Umrah, the sources are not clear.

3. To be tariqati doesn't mean you give up all shari'a amardeep.

I am off to bed.

Nanak Hafez

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The ban surely wasn't i vigor during the Mughal period.

Discrete way to concede your earlier point.

From the little research I have done, I have found that Orissa was a Hindu kingdom ruled by King Mukundadeva as at 1568, when it was first "annexed" to Muslim rule, Afghan (not Mughal) in 1568 by the ruler of Bengal, Suleiman Karrani. Orissa only came under Mughal rule in 1576.

I think you will agree that Mahraj visited Puri before these dates. HENCE, the rule was in vigor, during the HINDU period.

2. There is no prohibition on burial in Sikhi. I live not far away from cemeteries from WWI with THOUSANDS of Sikh soldiers buried there.If creamtion is the only funerary ritual then why did they get buried?

Who do you think buried those Sikhs Soldiers? (I am assuming you are talking about the Tehran WW1 burial ground). My grandfathers great grandfather Subedar Major Jaimal Singh (he was 80 years old and leading his Unit) and his son (Narain Singh) fought alongside each other in Basra and other campains in 1914 onwards, and are possibly likely buried at the cemetary you mention.

It was the British who decided how to "lay" the dead to rest. Practicallity, lack of family being present in war, Christian bias all contributed to the decision to bury the Indian soldiers.

This was a really desperate example to choose.

3. I never said Maharaj went on Hajj. Your interpolation.

Then for what other reason do "Muslims" go to Macca?

4. You'd be surprised at the variety of funerary practises among the ghulat ranging from burial to cremation (in rare cases) to absence of

mourning.

You really try hard to stretch and and find comparisons to Sikh tradition, sadly having to rely on "rare" cases, and "diversity" amongst the many Muslim/Shia'te sects.

Sikh traditions are taken from our Guru's, there example and word is our Sharia. Read Ramkali Sadu.

"Most - 99.99999%" Muslims do the same - i.e. the example of the Prophet, the Imams and "Sura 5:35".

5. Why did Baba Sri Chand become a jogi. Let me rephrase it: why did he become a faqir? And why did Mian Mir praise him to Jahangir? Why would the head of the Qaderiyya praise a kafir?Why do two of the char dhuan wear Muslim names (Balu Hasna and Almast). And why did they wear Sufi attributes?

Did you ever watch the not so funny series "Goodness Gracious Me", the phrase "Indian, everything Indian" comes to mind, obviously transposed for your equivalent.

Funny you mention Kafir here, in your intepretation anyone who believes in God but does not accept the Prophet Mohammed as Gods last messenger is a Kafir? I think Hazrat Mian Mir had a more universal outlook than this.

6.Puran and Kuran are mentioned in the same light in the same way as they are in the ginan literature.

So what does that mean? Perhaps that enlightened people see the world outside of and above religions and sects?

In any case the Ginans are not comparable the Jagdi Jyot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj, which was gifted to us "directly" by the "face of God".

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...