Jump to content

was guru nanak dev ji shia muslim?


Recommended Posts

dhan96cror considering you talk of Mahapursh such as Baba Mitt Singh, and even opened up a thread 'dedicated' to them, you definately do not act in accordance to the behaviour of such Mahapursh......you are the one sounding like a Khalistani fanatic, why dont you grow up and let people who seriuolsy want to learn something, learn.

If you did Bhagti, you wouldnt be seeing a difference between Muslims and us!!!!!!

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

John when did i say there is a difference between muslims and the khalsa.

I said before i have no problem with islam, i just have problems with islamic fanatics like pigfarz.

I just do not like it when a person twists and turns things in order to suit his needs and his points, its just incredible.

I will grow up when people like pigfarz stop their disrespect of mahapurshs like khalsa bhindranwale.

I sound like a khalistan fanatic?

You dam right son thats because i am a khalistan fanataic, lets not get that twisted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH YOU BEAT ALL LEVELS OF STUPIDITY dhan96cror hahahahahah stupidity is being a fanatic but admitting that youre a fanatic hahahahah, now where do the Satgurus talk of your Khalistan (hahah what a joke) you guys cant even look after your balls let alone a whole land!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderators, why dont you guys stop five knuckling shuffling as well and stop idiotic individuals who admit that they are fanatics from posting on this forum and leave it to those that are interested in learning!!!

What kind of forum is this, where historical discussion causes your arses to itch!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

John don't go down the level of Dhan96Crore. His ignorance, stupidity, fanaticism and idolatry is already his own hell. I suggest we just ignore him. Literally I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurbani states that when certain conditions are met, Punjab itself will become part of Sach Khand. For some people, such as myself, this and it's immediate precusor state is what we refer to when discussing Khalistan.

Javanmard veer, you haven't replied to the points in my last post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dhan96cror, fool's opinions such as yours means what connection a monkeys arse means to a chair.....NOTHING,

Im am not backing up Javanmard or siding with him, but am simply stating your stupidity.

Anyway, considering youre always talking about great Mahapursh, it really makes sense for you to judge another person...yeah that makes sense you are God...

hahahahahahah like I said stop bashing your bishop, its not too good for your head, and as everyone on this forum can see, its already having an affect on your mind set....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Our Imams are the rightful heirs to the throne of Persia indeed as Imam Ali (as) freed Persian princess Sharabano from the shackles of Sunni slavery. She then married Imam Hussain (as). So yes from Imam Zainul Abedeen (as) on the royal linage of Persia and the line of Mohammad (pbuh) are united. Also Hazrat Salman al Muhammadi (also called Salman al Farsi) (as), came with the heritage of Persian chivalry. On Eid ul Ghadeer the Prophet (as) gave a bowl of saltened water to Imam Ali (as) as a sign of inititation into the chivalry order. This ritual existed in Persia among the Zoroastrian knights and was passed on to Christianity and Islam. I personally never had a problem with our Persian heritage. After all Imam Mahdi (fta) is also the awaited saviour of the Zoroastrians who call him the Sayoshyant.This isn't so much influence, but rather continuation. The great French scholar Henry Corbin called it harmonic progression. Imam Jafar us Sadiq (as) appreciated Persian culture alot. He used to tell his disciples to speak in Persian to their wives when having a romantic moment as it is such a beautiful language.As to the system of faith and the theology I am afraid your argument that Shi'ism has been heavily influenced falls short. It has in fact been destroyed by Corbin, Moezzi and Jamblet in their works. The notion of progressio harmonica in fact makes much more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Imams are the rightful heirs to the throne of Persia indeed as Imam Ali (as) freed Persian princess Sharabano from the shackles of Sunni slavery. She then married Imam Hussain (as). So yes from Imam Zainul Abedeen (as) on the royal linage of Persia and the line of Mohammad (pbuh) are united. Also Hazrat Salman al Muhammadi (also called Salman al Farsi) (as), came with the heritage of Persian chivalry. On Eid ul Ghadeer the Prophet (as) gave a bowl of saltened water to Imam Ali (as) as a sign of inititation into the chivalry order. This ritual existed in Persia among the Zoroastrian knights and was passed on to Christianity and Islam. I personally never had a problem with our Persian heritage. After all Imam Mahdi (fta) is also the awaited saviour of the Zoroastrians who call him the Sayoshyant.This isn't so much influence, but rather continuation. The great French scholar Henry Corbin called it harmonic progression. Imam Jafar us Sadiq (as) appreciated Persian culture alot. He used to tell his disciples to speak in Persian to their wives when having a romantic moment as it is such a beautiful language.As to the system of faith and the theology I am afraid your argument that Shi'ism has been heavily influenced falls short. It has in fact been destroyed by Corbin, Moezzi and Jamblet in their works. The notion of progressio harmonica in fact makes much more sense.

“More than a century was dedicated to scholarly study of shiism in general and of Imamism in particular. A number of Islamic scholars ands orientalises have been interested in this most important “branch†of Islam, and the number of articles, works and monographs dedicated to the subject is impressive. Nevertheless, when it comes to early Imamism. That is, the doctrine supposedly professed by historical imams of Shiism, later called Twelver Shiism, we must surprising admit that we still have no clear idea that has been corroborated by a coherent body of historical data. There is still no systematic, exhaustive study of this formative early phase of the doctrine.â€

Moezzi Translated by D.Streight

Zoroastrianism. The religion of the followers of the Iranian prophet Zoroaster (c.1200 BCE). The history of the religion prior to the 6th century BCE is largely unknown. Thereafter it became the state religion of three successive Iranian empires: the Achaemenids (c.549-331 BCE); the Parthians (2nd century BCE to 224 CE); and the Sasanians (224-642 CE), the boundaries of whose territories extended into what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan and westwards into what is now Iraq, and at times into Palestine and what is now Turkey. Zoroastrian Iran was finally defeated by the expansion of Islam, but for over 1,000 years Zoroastrianism was the official religion of three major world empires, making it, perhaps, the most powerful world religion of the time. The last Zoroastrian monarch was Yazedegird (d. 652 CE). The modern Zoroastrian calendar begins with his coronation and the designation anno Yazdegird (AY) is used.

Since the end of the Zoroastrian state the religion has been persistently and harshly persecuted by Muslims in Iran, so that the faithful few have been forced to retreat into remote villages, especially near the desert cities of Yazd and Kerman, where they have generally lived in abject poverty. Greater freedom was granted under the Pahlavi dynasty, and the new Islamic Republic has promised to preserve the rights of minorities. It is a considerate tribute to the strength of the faith that even a small group has surivived the millennium of oppression. They are often referred to as the 'Zardushti' or as gabr (gaur/gor/guebre), meaning 'infidel'. They themselves sometimes used the term 'Mazda-yasnians' (worshippers of Mazda).

In the 10th century CE some Zoroastrians left Iran to seek a new land of religious freedom and settled in north-west India, where they are known as Parsis (=Persians). The main centres of Zoroastrianism nowadays are India (mainly Bombay), 72,000; Iran, 30,000 plus; Pakistan, 2,000; Britain, 5,000; and North America, 6,000 (all figures are approximate).

Traditional Zoroastrian teachings are found in the holy book, the Avesta, and the Pahlavi literature. An essential feature of all worship (yasna), centred on fire, is physical and moral purity. Zoroastrianism is often described as a dualism because of its teaching on a wholly good God, Ahura Mazda, who is opposed by the evil Angra Mainyu. It is, however, a central part of this optimistic religion that evil will be defeated. There is no idea of a spirit/flesh dualism because both the spiritual and the material worlds are the creation (bundahishn) of God. Humans therefore have a religious duty to care for both the material and the spiritual aspects of their existence. It is a religion which inculcates the highest moral ideals. Once the believer has been initiated (naujote) he or she (there is little difference in the religious duties of the sexes) should fight evil in all its forms.

Zoroastrianism has considerable historical importance because of its geographical position astride the routes between East and West, and also because of its profound influence on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, especially in regard to beliefs on heaven, hell, resurrection of the dead and the final judgement. It is also thought that it inspired a belief in a saviour to come in Hinduism (Kalkin) and Buddhism.

From John R. Hinnels, ed., The Penguin Dictionary of Religions, 2nd ed. (1997). Text © Penguin Books.

Zoroastrianism and Parsiism. Ancient religion that originated in Iran based on the teachings of Zoroaster. Founded in the 6th century BCE, it influenced the monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It rejects polytheism, accepting only one supreme God, Ahura Mazda. In early Zoroastrianism, the struggle between good and evil was seen as an eternal rivalry between Ahura Mazda's twin sons, Spenta Mainyu (good) and Angra Mainyu (evil). Later Zoroastrian cosmology made the rivalry between Ahura Mazda himself (by then called Ormizd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman). This later cosmology identifies four periods of history; the last began with the birth of Zoroaster. Zoroastrian practice includes an initiation ceremony and various rituals of purification intended to ward off evil spirits. Fire worship, a carryover from an earlier religion, survives in the sacred fire that must be kept burning continually and be fed at least five times a day. The chief ceremony involves a sacrifice of haoma, a sacred liquor, accompanied by recitation of large parts of the Avesta, the primary scripture. Zoroastrianism enjoyed status as an official religion at various times before the advent of Islam, but Zoroastrians were persecuted in the 8th–10th centuries, and some left Iran to settle in India. By the 19th century these Indian Zoroastrians, or Parsis, were noted for their wealth and education. The small group of Zoroastrians remaining in Iran are known as the Gabars.

From Wendy Doniger, ed., Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions (1999). Text © Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Very good choice Dancing Warrior, I highly recommend Moezzi's works.

Finally this discussion is heading somewhere! I know Prof. Moezzi personally. He's been a great inspiration in my work and very helpful in my research on the Shi'a-Sikh link and contrarily to a lot of academics he's a really nice man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Influence implies that elements from A enter another foreign B.

The notion of progressio harmonica to the contrary implies that it is the same A that develops itself in different shapes through history but keeping the same structures. Shi'a Islam and by that I specifically mean the mystico-philosophical tradition, accepts that it is the same religion that has been preached by the different prophets in history. The external rules may change but the same message of Divine Unicity, path of chivalry and devotion pervades the different stages of the divine revelation. Ahl ul Bayt (as) is a continuation of this lineage of prophets and it is only normal to see the themes of zoroastrian chivalry pervade their teachings as it is normal to see these replicated in the Sikh tradition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then would you agree that Sikhi is a harmonic progression from Semetic and Hindu beliefs...... in the narrow sense of this discussion, in the macro sense, harmonic progression would truely be applicable to mans history on this planet full stop would it not? i.e. that divine essence manifesting itself numerous times, most of them most likely not recorded.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Of course but with this major difference. Sikhi is NOT a religion. I am not saying that in a bad sense and you'll understand why. The Gurus never asked their Hindu or Muslim followers to give up their exoteric traditions. To the contrary they asked them to iternalise exoteric practise. A Muslim is required to internalise the namaz and the "Hindus" are asked to internalise their own traditions. There is nevertheless one very remarquable thing that needs to be noted: "Hindu" followers of the Gurus have to abandon a lot of characteristic features of their traditions such as: idolworship, commensality, caste pride; whereas the Muslim Nanakshahis didn't have to abandon any element of shari'a. The fact that the Gurus built mosques and mandirs besides their own establishments shows that Sikhi was meant to be the esoteric supplement to the exoteric practise of their followers.Hence the saying: Guru Nanak Hindu ka Guru Musalman ka pir. The Sikh place of worship functioned exactly like the Sufis khaniqas where Muslim, Jews and Christians would meet together, pray together and eat together. The notion of langar is Shi'a-Sufi and was born in Iran. Many Sufi khaniqas there have langar khaneh (langar houses). Eating together is an act of brotherhood and it would be illogical to put emphasis on brotherhood if we weren't different. Why is it that Indian Sikhs of Hindu origin still marry within caste, cremate their dead, have brahmanical eating habits? Because exoterically they are still within the realm of the smritis and their laws. Of course Indian Sikhs have left behind idolworship etc but they still practise the above.Early rahitnamas mention the presence of Sikh brahmins for such rituals which again shows that Indian Sikhs of Hindu origin were exoterically still bound to these laws whilst Nanalshahi Muslims burried their dead.

Even the Khalsa Sikhs of today still follow Hindu exoteric rituals even without Brahmins: cremation, marriage rules,eating habits etc...As to the anti-Muslim rules of the Khalsa they came after Guru Gobind Singh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Your point being?

If Guru Gobind Singh didn't respect the Qur'an why does he quote from it in his own banian? Why does he quote from Imam Ali's letters in his Fatehnamah?

Guru Gobind Singh criticizes literalism.And if he really didn't yield to the Puranas why does he referr to them constantly and why did all his family get cremated?

I never said Guru Gobind Singh was Shi'a btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Veer Ji,

The notion of langar is an ancient one, one that has existed in many indigineous warrior traditions of old, including Maori, Native American Indian and Australian/Tasmanian Aboriginal. This is especially true amonst those chiefs that were wise (spiritual).

I think it is a bit unfair how you seem to be comparing the best of Islam and worst of Hindu traits. Chivalry existed in Hind dharma also i.e. Mahabharat, Bhagvat Gita, Kshatria, Rajput traditions etc. Also, there were Hindu originated movements before and during Satguru's times which were close in objective to Guru Ji's nirmal khayaal i.e. Bhagat Ravidaas Ji's. Guru Gobind Singh Ji chose to the Kshatria mode of chatka rather than the Muslim mode of bleeding the animal to death, you have to accept that not all so called "anti-Muslim" traditions were invented after 10th Master, Guru sahiban chose some Indic traditions over Islamic ones for good reasons, like you say, laws change. This just proves that Satguru's allegiance did not lie anywhere accept with Akaal.

Also the Hindu exoteric rules that you mention are folllowed by Sikhs, many of these were adopted by Guru sahibaan, hence being followed thereafter i.e. cremation, marriage (pherai) etc.

On the harmonic progression point, in an historical and geographical aspect, the Middle East has it's own progression and the India has it's own, in terms Prophets in the ME (inc Zoroastor) and Avataars in India.

But you claim that Satguru progresses from the semetic line, which is not completely true, as bani and Bhai Gurdaas clearly say Satguru progresses from the Indian line.

In a more universal aspect, all the Prophets and Avataars (amongst many unknown others worldwide), are all part of the true harmonic progression.

If we were to pursue this more wider, wiser and valid angle, in terms of the limited discussions being had here i.e. Sikhi an offshoot of shia'ism or Satguru a Muslim, chronologically and universally, we can argue that Sikhi is an offshoot of zorastianism, or that Islam is an offshoot of Vedanta?

If were going back to minor openly interpretable details, then earlier you mentioned that Guru Nanak Dev Ji and Umrah, could you please expand on how Guru Nanak Dev Ji could have possibly adhered to the rules of Umrah, note, by mentioning this specific rite, you also imply that the rules to this rite are adhered to, otherwise there is no reason to menion it.

Like I said earlier, I agree with many of your points, and find the Middle Easter tradtion connections fascinating, but that is all they are, be them some traditions that were revealed by Khuda and adopted by Satguru's.

Re the Macca point again, people who do pilgrimage to Puri also do so for one reason, to pay respect to Jaggannath (Krishna). This is the equal equivalent of the visit to Macca, it was part of the Udasis, which all (each and every single one) had one goal in mind, to improve mans understanding, in which ever tradition. Again, this is why Quran and Puran are mentioned on equal footing. Guru Nanak Dev Ji and his Jagdi Jyot in the 9 proceeding mahallai, bore allegiance to Akaal only, but recognised his truth in all existing traditions.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited Macca to show/educate the Muslims that Vaheguru is omniprescent, and the same in Puri. I am saying that not on the assumption that both rituals perfomed in Macca and Puri are baseless, but what they had become and how they were understood as at that time.

Understanding and living Sikhi is not about identifying an audit trail as to whom various beliefs, rituals, allegiances and traditions should be assigned to, it's about understanding those traditions correctly, learning from them and applying them in a Gurmat context. Which is what I think you so admirally try and do.

But staking a Muslim, Hindu OR "Sikh" flag in Guru Nanak Dev Ji is simply as a sign of tribalism, it applies all ways, the same go's for those who stake their respective flag in God also (which 99.99999% of the world does).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Look I am not interested in putting flags on Maharaj. Just looking for the truth that's all. I am not out here to claim Maharaj for a tribe. BUT fact remains that there are simply issues that can't be brushed under the carpet. As to Puri I am afraid you can't compare the two sakhian. The sakhis don't mention Guru nanak being controled in Puri nor any ban on non-Hindus at that time. In my own studies I have no come across evidence proving that point.

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...