Sikhism- a continuation of prophet hood?

[Malaikah]

Hi there to all the sikhs out there. :D

This thread is based on my question in the 'Questions for Sikhs', there is no way we can discuss this without it turning into a debate so I thought I would start a new thread for it.

So from what I understand, sikhs accept the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and the other prophets to be real prophets and that their guru is a prophet too.

But I do not see how this can be so. Prophet Muhammad said plain and clear that he was the last prophet to be sent too all of mankind. How then can you claim that there was a prophet after him? This means you have to reject the what Muhammad pbuh taught.

lol that's like saying why do muslims reject previous other relgions (Judaism Christianity)

Well, Muslims reject their Holy Book because we believe that they have been tampered with and changed over time, so they no longer reflect what the prophets really taught. I assume you must also think this because you reject the concept of the Trinity and that Jesus is the son of God?

We do not reject the the previous religions, rather we totally accept what the prophets taught (which is not necessarily reflected in their Holy Books).

But you do reject Islam. Does this mean that you reject the Holy Quran as being the real thing? Do you think it was tampered? I don't understand how you can accept Muhammad pbuh yet reject his teachings.

Mohammed may have been the last one for Islam.

How can he have been the last one for Islam? Islam is the religion sent to all the prophets! So are you saying that Islam is a real religion and sikhism is a real religion too? Even though their teachings clash?

Also, you mentioned that Sikhism rejects the concept of the Day of Judgement and that Paradise and Hell are only symbolic. This is a direct clash with all three major religions- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three of these religions have records that these things do exist and the prophets taught that they do.

If they are all the prophets of God, why do some prophets teach one thing (btw, if you reject the existence of Paradise/Hell and the Day of Judgement, you are no longer a Muslim), and then your prophets comes and says that no, they do not exist (and he is the only prophet on record who said this)?

Sorry it is so long, please do take the time to reply though. :)

[Mohsin]

masha'allah a very good post, i have made several similar posts in the past in the sikhism thread, but the answers would be evaded

[Pk_#2]

... ;)

AsalamuAlaykum Warahmatullahi Wabrakatuh,

Nice thread sis ;)

[AvarAllahNoor]

masha'allah a very good post, i have made several similar posts in the past in the sikhism thread, but the answers would be evaded

Nothing in that thread was 'evaded' all were given answers which could not be refuted by yourself or others!

BTW why did you edit your post?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[AvarAllahNoor]

Hi there to all the sikhs out there. :D

This thread is based on my question in the 'Questions for Sikhs', there is no way we can discuss this without it turning into a debate so I thought I would start a new thread for it.

So from what I understand, sikhs accept the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and the other prophets to be real prophets and that their guru is a prophet too.

But I do not see how this can be so. Prophet Muhammad said plain and clear that he was the last prophet to be sent too all of mankind. How then can you claim that there was a prophet after him? This means you have to reject the what Muhammad pbuh taught.



Well, Muslims reject their Holy Book because we believe that they have been tampered with and changed over time, so they no longer reflect what the prophets really taught. I assume you must also think this because you reject the concept of the Trinity and that Jesus is the son of God?

We do not reject the the previous religions, rather we totally accept what the prophets taught (which is not necessarily reflected in their Holy Books).

But you do reject Islam. Does this mean that you reject the Holy Quran as being the real thing? Do you think it was tampered? I don't understand how you can accept Muhammad pbuh yet reject his teachings.

Sat Shri Akal (God is Truth)

Well before i proceed, i know just as well as you do. Our views will not change regardless of what is said. You stand stong by your faith and me mine!

According to muslims the Bible and Torah are tampered with. To us the Quran is also tampered with. all this HAS been covered in the Sikhsim thread. I'll filter through it all and post the appropriate answers. Even though you're not willing to read through it yourself!

Bear in mind Muhammed DID NOT write anything in the Quran, but was written by followers. :)

[sudais1]

i always wanted to know what Sikhs believed,interesting thread

[Malaikah]

Well before i proceed, i know just as well as you do. Our views will not change regardless of what is said. You stand stong by your faith and me mine!

Naturally.

According to muslims the Bible and Torah are tampered with. To us the Quran is also tampered with.

I would love to see why you believe this, and what proof you have?

all this HAS been covered in the Sikhsim thread. I'll filter through it all and post the appropriate answers. Even though you're not willing to read through it yourself!

I did go through it, though I never found it. Or perhaps I found it but the asnwers were not as in depth as I would have liked.

Bear in mind Muhammed DID NOT write anything in the Quran, but was written by followers. :)

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) did not write the Quran- God did, and He taught it to him. He in turn taught it to His companions, many of whom learned the whole thing of by heart, and also wrote it down here and there. Later they put it all together, and they did not change it.

Do you think badly of the companions btw? Because they would NEVER dream of changing the Quran.

[AvarAllahNoor]

All Prophet have given the message of God for humanity to benefit from it. They delivered the message verbally which was put to writing at a much later date by the followers. The delay and passing over of the message through people over several generations lead to many changes. Guru Nanak Ji himself recorded the messages of Waheguru/Allah/Ram which have been reflected in Guru Granth Saheb.

[Malaikah]

But there was no 'generations' with the recording of Quran! It was compiled by people who were very close to the prophet, they knew him personally.

By the way, if you don't mind, can you just refer to God as God in your posts because the different names confuse me. :X Thanks.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) did not write the Quran- God did, and He taught it to him. He in turn taught it to His companions, many of whom learned the whole thing of by heart, and also wrote it down here and there. Later they put it all together, and they did not change it.

Do you think badly of the companions btw? Because they would NEVER dream of changing the Quran.

I don't think badly. Why would i! - Humans are prone to making mistakes. To you it may be a trivial matter the Quran was not written by Mohammed himself, but to Sikhs it's very relevant. Just as the Bible and Geeta/Ved Torah are not written by the actual Prophets.

The only scriptures that are written by the Prophets are the Sikh Gurus and can not be challenged! (I know this sentence will be deleted by admin, because it was before. It true)


Max Arthur Macauliffe writes about the authenticity of the Guru's teaching

The Sikh religion differs as regards the authenticity of its dogmas from most other theological systems. Many of the great teachers the world has known, have not left a line of their own composition and we only know what they taught through tradition or second-hand information.

If Pythagoras wrote of his tenets, his writings have not descended to us. We know the teachings of Socrates only through the writings of Plato and Xenophanes. Buddha has left no written memorial of his teaching. Kungfu-tze, known to Europeans as Confuscius, left no documents in which he detailed the principles of his moral and social system. The founder of Christianity did not reduce his doctrines to writing and for them we are obliged to trust to the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Arabian Prophet did not himself reduce to writing the chapters of the Quran. They were written or compiled by his adherents and followers. But the compositions of the Sikh Gurus are preserved and we know at first hand what they taught and written by themselves. Not a word is incorrect.


BTW - I'll be back later.

Sat Shri Akal :)

[AvarAllahNoor]

But there was no 'generations' with the recording of Quran! It was compiled by people who were very close to the prophet, they knew him personally.

By the way, if you don't mind, can you just refer to God as God in your posts because the different names confuse me. :X Thanks.

How can they confuse when they mean the same thing!

[Malaikah]

^Because I am not familiar with the words.

I will reply later inshaallah. gtg for now.

[Skillganon]

[B it may be a trivial matter the Quran was not written by Mohammed himself, but to Sikhs it's very relevant. Just as the Bible and Geeta/Ved Torah are not written by the actual Prophets.

The only scriptures that are written by the Prophets are the Sikh Gurus and can not be challenged! (I know this sentence will be deleted by admin, because it was before. It true) ]I don't think badly. Why would i! - Humans are prone to making mistakes. To you

I challenge them and they are not prophets.
First prove that the Quran (recitation) is not authentic. Their is plenty of threads regarding the authenticity of the Quran. someone find the links to him, and he can challenge that statement.

EDIT:

Further find me statements, indication e.t.c from your book that Quran is currupted or false e.t.c

Max Arthur Macauliffe writes about the authenticity of the Guru's teaching


The Sikh religion differs as regards the authenticity of its dogmas from most other theological systems. Many of the great teachers the world has known, have not left a line of their own composition and we only know what they taught through tradition or second-hand information.

If Pythagoras wrote of his tenets, his writings have not descended to us. We know the teachings of Socrates only through the writings of Plato and Xenophanes. Buddha has left no written memorial of his teaching. Kungfu-tze, known to Europeans as Confuscius, left no documents in which he detailed the principles of his moral and social system. The founder of Christianity did not reduce his doctrines to writing and for them we are obliged to trust to the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Arabian Prophet did not himself reduce to writing the chapters of the Quran. They were written or compiled by his adherents and followers. [U]But the compositions of the Sikh Gurus are preserved and we know at first hand what they taught and written by themselves. Not a word is incorrect.

As above, firstly give me proof of the authenticity, secondly someone writing it by their own hand does not constitute a revelation from God or the person is a prophet otherwise every tom and ben can be classified as such.

[i_m_tipu]

Sat Shri Akal (God is Truth)
According to muslims the Bible and Torah are tampered with. To us the Quran is also tampered with.

Bible and Torah are tampered and there are plenty of reasons to believe it. (There are plenty of threads related this topic here and other Islamic sites)

But what make u say Quran is tampered with?? (nauzubillaah)
I think u should not talk any further with another topics until u can proof Quran is tampered with . (nauzubillaah)
so the expectation from u to proof it first that Quran is tampered with (nauzubillaah)

- According to muslims the Bible and Torah are tampered with. Yes that is correct.
- We Muslim believe and we proved the massage of Allah (SWT) and the teaching of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is flawless.

[Malaikah]

I don't think badly. Why would i! - Humans are prone to making mistakes. To you it may be a trivial matter the Quran was not written by Mohammed himself, but to Sikhs it's very relevant. Just as the Bible and Geeta/Ved Torah are not written by the actual Prophets.

Do you think it is possible that all the people how had memorized the Quran, by heart, would all make the same mistake and all forget the same verse, or that they would ALL think it was something different?! And not only that but if they thought it was something differnet, they would have all had to think it was the same different thing!

The Quran was not based on the memory of one Muslim, but many, many Muslims! In fact, so many that it would be impossible that these people would have all agreed on a lie!

Oh, and also, the Quran was written down at the time of the prophet, but just NOT in the form of one complete book.

This here explains a little about how the Quran was complied:

It is not possible for a Muslim to entertain doubts concerning the immutability of the Qur’aan, because Allaah has guaranteed to preserve the Qur’aan. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”

[al-Hijr 15:9]

The Qur’aan was preserved in the hearts of the Sahaabah who had memorized it, and on the trunks of trees and thin white stones until the time of the caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him)*. During the Riddah wars many of the Sahaabah who had memorized the Qur’aan were killed, so Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) was afraid that the Qur’aan may be lost. He consulted the senior Sahaabah concerning the idea of compiling the entire Qur’aan in one book so that it would be preserved and would not be lost, and this task was entrusted to the great hafiz** Zayd ibn Thaabit and others who had written down the Revelation. Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh that Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

“Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq sent for me when the people of Yamamah had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musaylimah). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin al-Khattaab sitting with him. Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said (to me), ‘ ‘Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'aan (i.e. those who knew the Qur’aan by heart) at the Battle of Yamaamah, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you [Abu Bakr] should issue orders that the Qur’aan be collected.” I said to 'Umar, “How can you do something that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?" 'Umar said, “By Allah, this is something good.” ‘Umar kept on urging me (to accept his proposal) until Allah opened my heart to it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized.’ Then Abu Bakr said (to me): ‘You are a wise young man and we have a great deal of confidence in you. You used to write down the Revelation for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So you should seek out the Qur’aan [i.e., the fragments on which it is written] and collect it (in one book).’ By Allaah, if they had ordered me to move one of the mountains, it would not have been harder for me than this command to collect the Qur’aan. I said (to Abu Bakr), ‘How can you do something which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?’ Abu Bakr said, ‘By Allaah, it is a good thing.’ Abu Bakr kept on urging me (to accept his proposal) until Allah opened my heart to it as He had opened the hearts of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started to look for the Qur’aan and collected it from (the fragments on which it was written of) palm-stalks, thin white stones and the hearts of men (i.e., from men who knew it by heart), until I found the last verse of Soorat al-Tawbah with Abu Khuzaymah al-Ansaari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is :

‘Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty…’

[al-Tawbah 9:128 – interpretation of the meaning]

… until the end of Soorat Baraa’ah (Soorat al-Tawbah).

These fragments remained with Abu Bakr until he died, then with ‘Umar for the rest of his life, then with Hafsah bint ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them both).”

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=23487&ln=eng

*I would like to add that the "time of Abu bakr" was directly after the death of the prophet (no room for 'generations' to change anything.

** A Hafiz is someone who has memorized the whole Quran by heart.

So, what do you think?

[AvarAllahNoor]

I challenge them and they are not prophets.

First prove that the Quran (recitation) is not authentic. Their is plenty of threads regarding the authenticity of the Quran. someone find the links to him, and he can challenge that statement.

You challenge them? Who are you exactly...

This is a muslim forum so of course you're going to refute it. Ask the Shia who believe that the Quran is not the original and say Ali was mentioned in the original . How can you as a muslim lay claim the Quran is not distorted when muslims themselves say it?!

And, the Guru's were not any Tom Dick or Harry. - They were messengers of the Timeless one and wrote the revelation of God. Name anyone else who writes such and claims it a revelation? You'll not find a soul!

[AvarAllahNoor]

Bible and Torah are tampered and there are plenty of reasons to believe it. (There are plenty of threads related this topic here and other Islamic sites)

But what make u say Quran is tampered with?? (nauzubillaah)
I think u should not talk any further with another topics until u can proof Quran is tampered with . (nauzubillaah)
so the expectation from u to proof it first that Quran is tampered with (nauzubillaah)

- According to muslims the Bible and Torah are tampered with. Yes that is correct.
- We Muslim believe and we proved the massage of Allah (SWT) and the teaching of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is flawless.

You'll find just as many in the Christian forums debating the Quran not being authentic.

What Muhammed said was truly great. But what has materialised is something completely different!

[AvarAllahNoor]

Do you think it is possible that all the people how had memorized the Quran, by heart, would all make the same mistake and all forget the same verse, or that they would ALL think it was something different?! And not only that but if they thought it was something differnet, they would have all had to think it was the same different thing!

The Quran was not based on the memory of one Muslim, but many, many Muslims! In fact, so many that it would be impossible that these people would have all agreed on a lie!

Sister i undestand where you're coming from hence why Sikhs do not go around attacking other faiths out of respect for the Prophets alone. They were trully great people with a message from Allah. But when we're challenged by a person we speak the truth, which you can see is not recieved in kind! :)

Sikhs who have absolute faith in Allah are not disturbed, distracted, diverted or hindered by the sayings of other faiths because they are truly on the religious path which is singular.

All the Gurus, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha. They preached only One Religion of God though the Name of God varied from place to place and language.

[Malaikah]

Ask the Shia who believe that the Quran is not the original and say Ali was mentioned in the original . How can you as a muslim lay claim the Quran is not distorted when muslims themselves say it?!

The Shia are a deviant sect, and their ideas are so radical that it is almost sufficient to render then as non-Muslim. Just because they say it was changed, let them bring forth their proof!

You'll find just as many in the Christian forums debating the Quran not being authentic.

They don't even believe that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was a prophet, of course they do not believe the Quran is the word of God!

The question isn't about whether or not the debate exists, rather it is about who is right and who has the most proof!

Sister i undestand where you're coming from hence why Sikhs do not go around attacking other faiths out of respect for the Prophets alone. They were trully great people with a message from Allah. But when we're challenged by a person we speak the truth, which you can see is not recieved in kind! :)

This is a debate and discussion, not an attack. I challenged you and I gave my proof but you just repeat your claims with out any evidence... which is why your claims weren't received well because you have no evidence....

[i_m_tipu]

You'll find just as many in the Christian forums debating the Quran not being authentic.

A reminder

We Muslim believe and we prove.

U believes what non Muslim and shia believe. That ur choice u can believe whatever u want.

But when u makes an announcement than u must have a good clear reason behind.

So what that reasons pls tell us.

Take ur time. That won’t be a problem but pls...... come back with ur reasons.

What Muhammed said was truly great. But what has materialised is something completely different!

don't want to give ans now untill u explain ur first announcement "Quran is tempered with"

[One Man Army]

can anyone find one singular line wrong in sri Guru Granth Sahib ji? any question what so ever? i think not. The basis of sikhism is equality, humility, serving others, and remembering allah with every breath in their body. love in Guru Granth sahib ji is unexplainable. sikhs have no reason to tell anyone they are wrong and stand forward for free speech. authenticity of Guru Sahib is demonstrated through the fact that it was written by the Gurus them selves.

[Malaikah]

Being authentic does not make the word of God... We are not talking about the authenticity of the Sikh works but about the claim made by Sikhs that the Quran is not the original word of God.

[Grace Seeker]

- According to muslims the Bible and Torah are tampered with. Yes that is correct.
- We Muslim believe and we proved the massage of Allah (SWT) and the teaching of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is flawless.

Yes, this is what you believe. But proof? There is no proof of anything, regarding anything anywhere on this whole board. Nor, I would conjecture on any other religious board. Each of us, myself included, gives what we hold to be true based on the teachings which we have received as authorititative.

Proof? It is faith and belief, not proof.

[Malaikah]

Grace Seeker... not so fast there. There is reason and proof involved. Muslim's have very good reason to reject the NT, specifically because it was written by men and NOT God nor through Jesus directly. That doesn't need faith to understand.

Whereas the Quran is what Muhammad pbuh received from God himself.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it to be the word of God or not, the point is whether or not it is the original, what the prophets themselves claimed to be the word of God.

Jesus never said, as far as I know, that the NT is the authentic word of God (It wasn't even written in his life time). However, Prophet Muhammad did say that the Quran is the word of God... and the Quran we have today is simply the written form of what Muhammad pbuh taught his companions orally.

Grace Seeker, you position really worries me. In Islam it is not all based on faith, there is reason and logic involved. Of course there is some degree of faith, but you make it sound as if it is purely faith.... which it is not.

Now the questions for Sikhs to answer, if this corruption of the Quran happened, please highlight when and where.

[PCJS]

Good evening folks,

I have trying to respond to this for a couple of days now but for some reason I was having problem activating my account until I changed my email address.

Either way let me just start by saying that I don't know much about Islam. So, I will need alot of explanation in order for anybody to clarify anything about Islam to me.

First of all,

Hi there to all the sikhs out there. :D

But I do not see how this can be so. Prophet Muhammad said plain and clear that he was the last prophet to be sent too all of mankind. How then can you claim that there was a prophet after him? This means you have to reject the what Muhammad pbuh taught.

So what exactly is a prophet? Is it someone who was sent by God to relay the message or is it someone who becomes spiritually aware and realizes God somehow? So someone who was sent by God could be someone like Jesus Christ. Although I don't know much about Christianity either. But as far as I know, Jesus claimed to be son of God.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Mohammad Sahib was enlightened in childhood. Is this correct? When he was a child, he used wonder about God. Some times, he wondered if God was in a star and finally he was enlightened. So in that respect, Mohammad Sahib would be an example of a prophet who was enlightened later in life.

Well, Muslims reject their Holy Book because we believe that they have been tampered with and changed over time, so they no longer reflect what the prophets really taught. I assume you must also think this because you reject the concept of the Trinity and that Jesus is the son of God?

Although this has been discussed already, this is true that baani (writings of spiritual people) included in Guru Granth Sahib was actually written by the saints and gurus themselves, which is not true in case of some other religion. Yes this is true that people, regardless how close they were close to the prophets could have never ever known what exactly prophets would have written because in order for them to write exactly what prophets would have written, they would have to be in the same spiritual state as the prophets themselves and they were in the same spiritual state as the prophets, they would have been very aware of God and would also be prophets themselves.

We do not reject the the previous religions, rather we totally accept what the prophets taught (which is not necessarily reflected in their Holy Books).

But you do reject Islam. Does this mean that you reject the Holy Quran as being the real thing? Do you think it was tampered? I don't understand how you can accept Muhammad pbuh yet reject his teachings.

Although I am not speaking on behalf of anybody else, I don't see for any non-Muslim to accept or reject anything in Quran. I personally don't even know what's written in Quran. I personally simply believe in truth - the whole truth and nothing but truth. I personally don't care where the truth comes. Whether it comes from Chrisitianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or something non-religious.

How can he have been the last one for Islam? Islam is the religion sent to all the prophets! So are you saying that Islam is a real religion and sikhism is a real religion too? Even though their teachings clash?

There is only one God and there is one truth and that truth is the only true religion.

Could you please advise how Sikh teachings clash with Muslim teachings? I am not aware of any. If you can come up with something that clashes, then we can determine which makes better sense logically.

Also, you mentioned that Sikhism rejects the concept of the Day of Judgement and that Paradise and Hell are only symbolic. This is a direct clash with all three major religions- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three of these religions have records that these things do exist and the prophets taught that they do.

I am not sure if Sikhi rejects the concept of the Day Of Judgement. There may be different ways to put it.

If they are all the prophets of God, why do some prophets teach one thing (btw, if you reject the existence of Paradise/Hell and the Day of Judgement, you are no longer a Muslim), and then your prophets comes and says that no, they do not exist (and he is the only prophet on record who said this)?

Sorry it is so long, please do take the time to reply though. :)

What I really wanna know is: if there is only one God, why are there so many different religions preaching entirely differently and still they all claim to know God?

By the way, I understand that you think Bible has been tampered with and that's why don't want to be Christian. Then why not try to find out what truly was originally written in Bible and try following that?

[PCJS]

can anyone find one singular line wrong in sri Guru Granth Sahib ji? any question what so ever? i think not. The basis of sikhism is equality, humility, serving others, and remembering allah with every breath in their body. love in Guru Granth sahib ji is unexplainable. sikhs have no reason to tell anyone they are wrong and stand forward for free speech. authenticity of Guru Sahib is demonstrated through the fact that it was written by the Gurus them selves.

Wonderful, couldn't have said it better.

[Malaikah]

Thank you so much for your reply! :D And welcome to the forum.

So what exactly is a prophet? Is it someone who was sent by God to relay the message or is it someone who becomes spiritually aware and realizes God somehow? So someone who was sent by God could be someone like Jesus Christ. Although I don't know much about Christianity either. But as far as I know, Jesus claimed to be son of God.

A Prophet (in Islam) is someone who was sent by God Himself to guide the people to the correct path. This does not mean that God talks to the prophet directly, but he sends and Angel to him, or by other means.

Someone who 'realises' God (what ever that means?:?) is not a prophet.

The Islamic belief is that Jesus was a prophet of God, not the Son of God, and we believe he never claimed to be the Son of God at all. This is a lie that was attributed to him.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Mohammad Sahib was enlightened in childhood. Is this correct? When he was a child, he used wonder about God. Some times, he wondered if God was in a star and finally he was enlightened. So in that respect, Mohammad Sahib would be an example of a prophet who was enlightened later in life.

I do not know who that is... But he is not a prophet because he was not sent by God.

Although this has been discussed already, this is true that baani (writings of spiritual people) included in Guru Granth Sahib was actually written by the saints and gurus themselves, which is not true in case of some other religion.

All that means is that you can guarantee that your texts are really what the Guru taught. This does not mean that it is automatically the word of God though!

Yes this is true that people, regardless how close they were close to the prophets could have never ever known what exactly prophets would have written because in order for them to write exactly what prophets would have written, they would have to be in the same spiritual state as the prophets themselves and they were in the same spiritual state as the prophets, they would have been very aware of God and would also be prophets themselves.

That is not true. The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He was not the author of the Quran. God was. Prophet Muhammad pbuh has no right to add anything to it! And he never did.

That said, verses would be revealed to the prophet, and he would read them out and teach them to the Muslims exactly as he was taught it, word for word. There is no need for some kind of spiritual state. All they needed was to understand the Arabic language.

Although I am not speaking on behalf of anybody else, I don't see for any non-Muslim to accept or reject anything in Quran. I personally don't even know what's written in Quran. I personally simply believe in truth - the whole truth and nothing but truth. I personally don't care where the truth comes. Whether it comes from Chrisitianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or something non-religious.

Fair enough.... but only one of them can be the whole truth.

There is only one God and there is one truth and that truth is the only true religion.

Correct.

Could you please advise how Sikh teachings clash with Muslim teachings? I am not aware of any. If you can come up with something that clashes, then we can determine which makes better sense logically.

There are many:

1. The Prophet Muhammad was the last prophet to be sent to mankind. The Quran is the last Holy Book to be sent to mankind. How then can sikhism be a real religion when God has already told us through Prophet Muhammad that there will be no more prophets?

2. The reject of Paradise and Hell. This is an absolutely fundamental part of Islam. In fact, any person who calls himself a Muslim but does not believe in Paradise and Hell is automatically a non-Muslim. Sikhism does not believe in either of the two. How can Sikhism be a true religion and acknowledge that Paradise and Hell do not exist and at the same time claim that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are all prophets of God, and yet all three of these prophets taught that Paradise and Hell are REAL?

That's all I can think of for now...

What I really wanna know is: if there is only one God, why are there so many different religions preaching entirely differently and still they all claim to know God?

Simply because their claims are not true. I can't talk to you about Sikhism or Hinduism or any other religion, expect for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The Islamic teaching is that God sent Prophet's to mankind since the start of mankind. The first human, Adam, was also a prophet. There have been literally thousands of prophets sent, and they all taught the same thing: There is only ONE God, He created us so that we may worship Him, and that when we die we will be raised up again on the Day of Judgement and God will judge between us. Those who believed in their prophets and did good deeds will go to paradise, while those while those who disbelieved in them will go to hell. Of course there is a lot more to it than that, but that is just an brief overview. The message (which I just mentioned) was the same with each prophet, was the same, but the law that each prophet had was different. So some prophets made some things illegal, while others made them legal.

Judiasm is the religion based on the Prophet Moses, and Christianity is based on the Prophet Jesus. What the prophets originally taught was the true word of God and how ever followed them was a believer and following the correct religion of that time. However, over time, the message that these prophets brought were corrupted, and people no longer knew what was taught by the prophets and what was fake and added by men later on. When ever this happens, a new messenger is sent to remind the people of the truth.

Also, when a new prophet comes, you have to follow him. It doesn't matter if you follow one prophet and reject the others. For example, Jew believe in Moses right? So that means they should go to paradise based on what I said. BUT they reject Jesus and Muhammad. You can't just pick and choose which prophet you want to follow- you have to follow the one who comes in your life time (that is, if one comes). If you reject one prophet it is like you have rejected them all and you will go to hell forever for that crime.

So, both Moses and Jesus had their message changed and corrupted, and so Prophet Muhammad was sent. The special thing about him is that he was sent to ALL of mankind, for the the rest of the time left on earth. He is the LAST prophet, there will be none after him. His message, therefore, will never be corrupted, because if it did, we will need a new prophet.

So, although you have these three main religions, only one of them is the full truth: Islam. Christianity and Judaism are only semi-true because they have had things added to them.

By the way, I understand that you think Bible has been tampered with and that's why don't want to be Christian. Then why not try to find out what truly was originally written in Bible and try following that?

Number 1: What is called the bible today is NOT what Holy Book that was revealed to Jesus. This bible was written by men (and Christians admit this also). However Christians believe God inspired the men to write it, but Muslims reject this claim. God only send Holy Books to Prophets. So this thing called the Bible is more of an (inaccurate) historical record.

Number 2: We can not find the original Book revealed to Jesus, it was lost.

Numerb 3: The Holy Quran abrogates everything that was sent before it. Even if we have the original bible, we can only read it, but not follow its laws. We must follow the laws of the Quran, because we live in the time of Muhammad, not Jesus.

I hope that helps! Sorry it was so long. :phew

[Grace Seeker]

The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He did not write the Quran. God wrote it.

I thought that companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wrote it down. On what did God write it? Where is the original message that God himself wrote? I would rather read this than a book that had Gabriel, Muhammad (pbuh) and the companions as intermediaries.

[Malaikah]

Oh, you misunderstood. I meant 'wrote' as in, God was the author, not Muhammad.

I shall edit that inshaallah.

[PCJS]

A Prophet (in Islam) is someone who was sent by God Himself to guide the people to the correct path. This does not mean that God talks to the prophet directly, but he sends and Angel to him, or by other means.

Someone who 'realises' God (what ever that means?:?) is not a prophet.

So when you someone sent by God, does it mean that this person was born with the message of God or can someone become aware of the message later in life??

The Islamic belief is that Jesus was a prophet of God, not the Son of God, and we believe he never claimed to be the Son of God at all. This is a lie that was attributed to him.

What makes you believe that contradicts what Christians' belief that Jesus was son of God?

All that means is that you can guarantee that your texts are really what the Guru taught. This does not mean that it is automatically the word of God though!

Guru Nanak Dev Ji said,"Jaisi me aave khasam ki baani, tainsarha kari giyaan ve laalo" meaning I am simply preaching what's being taught to me by God...

There is also very good shabad by one of other gurus and I remember part of it: It says: adhishat agochar pakrhiya gurshabadi meaning through God has been revealed to me through my guru.

So the authenticity means that God was actually revealed to saints and gurus and it was claimed by themselves rather than someone else. I can assure you that there are many quotes from Guru Granth Sahib that tell us that God was revealed to all the gurus and saints whose baani is included in Guru Granth Sahib...


That is not true. The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He was not the author of the Quran. God was. Prophet Muhammad pbuh has no right to add anything to it! And he never did.

That said, verses would be revealed to the prophet, and he would read them out and teach them to the Muslims exactly as he was taught it, word for word. There is no need for some kind of spiritual state. All they needed was to understand the Arabic language.

Fair enough.... but only one of them can be the whole truth.

Now how do you know which religion is true and which one is not? How would you and I know a way to determine whether or not a religion is true?

There are many:

1. The Prophet Muhammad was the last prophet to be sent to mankind. The Quran is the last Holy Book to be sent to mankind. How then can sikhism be a real religion when God has already told us through Prophet Muhammad that there will be no more prophets?

2. The reject of Paradise and Hell. This is an absolutely fundamental part of Islam. In fact, any person who calls himself a Muslim but does not believe in Paradise and Hell is automatically a non-Muslim. Sikhism does not believe in either of the two. How can Sikhism be a true religion and acknowledge that Paradise and Hell do not exist and at the same time claim that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are all prophets of God, and yet all three of these prophets taught that Paradise and Hell are REAL?

That's all I can think of for now...

Something to think about...

Hinduism is the oldest religion. Following your logic, it could be questioned that how come any religion founded after Hinduism could be a real religion?

There is something called Sachkhand in Sikhism. As far as I know this is simply another way to express what heaven or paradise is. Then there is concept of re-incarnation, which is a concept of Hinduism as well, which happened to be the oldest religion.

Simply because their claims are not true. I can't talk to you about Sikhism or Hinduism or any other religion, expect for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Why would you say that claims are not true?

If you reject one prophet it is like you have rejected them all and you will go to hell forever for that crime.

So, both Moses and Jesus had their message changed and corrupted, and so Prophet Muhammad was sent. The special thing about him is that he was sent to ALL of mankind, for the the rest of the time left on earth. He is the LAST prophet, there will be none after him. His message, therefore, will never be corrupted, because if it did, we will need a new prophet.

So, although you have these three main religions, only one of them is the full truth: Islam. Christianity and Judaism are only semi-true because they have had things added to them.


Number 1: What is called the bible today is NOT what Holy Book that was revealed to Jesus. This bible was written by men (and Christians admit this also). However Christians believe God inspired the men to write it, but Muslims reject this claim. God only send Holy Books to Prophets. So this thing called the Bible is more of an (inaccurate) historical record.

Number 2: We can not find the original Book revealed to Jesus, it was lost.

Numerb 3: The Holy Quran abrogates everything that was sent before it. Even if we have the original bible, we can only read it, but not follow its laws. We must follow the laws of the Quran, because we live in the time of Muhammad, not Jesus.

I hope that helps! Sorry it was so long. :phew

So what exactly does rejecting a prophet mean? Since you claim that nobody know the whole truth about Jesus and Moses, how do you make sure that you are not rejecting their teachings?

[Malaikah]

On what did God write it? Where is the original message that God himself wrote? I would rather read this than a book that had Gabriel, Muhammad (pbuh) and the companions as intermediaries.

It is the one and the same book, word for word. God promised to preserve it.

God wrote it on The Preserved Tablet, on which he wrote every single thing that will happen in this universe, so that even if a leaf fell of a tree, it is recorded. All the Holy Books that where ever sent to the Prophets are written on it also. This was all written before the creation of the universe.

I do not know why you make this demand to read the book as it was written by God Himself, as if it is a problem that it went through the Angel Gabrial, the Prophet Muhammad and memories of hundreds of companions, when your own 'Holy' Book was written by men who where not prophets at all?:?

EDIT- I forgot to mention that this Tablet is in the heavens somewhere...

[Malaikah]

So when you someone sent by God, does it mean that this person was born with the message of God or can someone become aware of the message later in life??

They are not usually born prophets. But it depends on the circumstances. For example prophet Jesus spoke when He was born and told the people that he was a prophet of God, but he did not take on the responsibility of being a prophet until he was mature.

Prophet Muhammad did not become a prophet until he was 40 years old, but before that he was a very righteous person.

What makes you believe that contradicts what Christians' belief that Jesus was son of God?

The son of God means that Jesus was himself God! He was not God, he was a human like the rest of us!

Guru Nanak Dev Ji said,"Jaisi me aave khasam ki baani, tainsarha kari giyaan ve laalo" meaning I am simply preaching what's being taught to me by God...

There is also very good shabad by one of other gurus and I remember part of it: It says: adhishat agochar pakrhiya gurshabadi meaning through God has been revealed to me through my guru.

So the authenticity means that God was actually revealed to saints and gurus and it was claimed by themselves rather than someone else. I can assure you that there are many quotes from Guru Granth Sahib that tell us that God was revealed to all the gurus and saints whose baani is included in Guru Granth Sahib...

Anyone can claim to be a prophet though, that does not mean he IS one. But that is not the topic of this thread...

Now how do you know which religion is true and which one is not? How would you and I know a way to determine whether or not a religion is true?

We use out intellect. We ask question like, was the original message of the religion preserved? Does the message make sense? Does the way the religion views God make sense? Was the person claiming to be a prophet an honest and decent man, or was he a liar? Did he have enemies? If he did, why did they hate him? Because he was an oppressor, or because they could not stand to loose their own power to someone who was coming with a decent message? etc...

Hinduism is the oldest religion. Following your logic, it could be questioned that how come any religion founded after Hinduism could be a real religion?

That was not my logic at all! It is not a question of whether Hinduism is an old religion or not, the question is, was this religion ever the real religion revealed to a prophet by God?

Why would you say that claims are not true?

Because I am a Muslim.

So what exactly does rejecting a prophet mean? Since you claim that nobody know the whole truth about Jesus and Moses, how do you make sure that you are not rejecting their teachings?

Rejecting a prophet means that you do not believe that he is the messenger of God, and you disbelieve in his message.

I know I am not rejecting the teachings of Moses and Jesus because prophet Muhammad told us what their teachings were. They are exactly like the teachings of Islam, except that they have a different law. But anyway, they are not my prophets. I only need to acknowledge that they are prophets of God and that everything the Prophet Muhammad said about them was true. I follow the teachings of Muhammad, not Moses and Jesus.

I think we have moved away from the purpose of this thread. Sikhs already believe that Muhammad is a prophet, i do not need to prove that to you. The point is to discuss how does Sikhism fit in with Islam. My last relavent point on that topic is that the Quran has been preserved as the prophet taught it, so how can sikhs openly go against the Quran when they believe that it was the word of God?

[Grace Seeker]

It is the one and the same book, word for word. God promised to preserve it.

God wrote it on The Preserved Tablet, on which he wrote every single thing that will happen in this universe, so that even if a leaf fell of a tree, it is recorded. All the Holy Books that where ever sent to the Prophets are written on it also. This was all written before the creation of the universe.

I do not know why you make this demand to read the book as it was written by God Himself, as if it is a problem that it went through the Angel Gabrial, the Prophet Muhammad and memories of hundreds of companions, when your own 'Holy' Book was written by men who where not prophets at all?:?

EDIT- I forgot to mention that this Tablet is in the heavens somewhere...

So, in Islamic belief, there actually is a physical book written by the hand of God somewhere? Interesting.



And, who said that the men who penned our Holy Book were not prophets? I have said that in regards to the New Testament they did not claim to be writting canonical books at the time of their writing. That doesn't mean they were not prophets.

First, we believe the following books were written by people who God himself declares to be prophets:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy -- all by Moses
Then the following by the Prophet whose name they bear:
1 & 2 Samuel
Isaiah
Jeremiah (who also wrote Lamentations)
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah (NOT the Zechariah you are familiar with as the father of John the Baptist)
Malachi

In addition, most of the Psalms were written by David who is considered a prophet in Islam, though we think of him primarily as a king.

Now the Christian understanding of prophethood is two-fold. It is in its most narrow since a person who receives a message from God which fortells the future. But the greater sense is that prophecy is speaking forth on God's behalf. Whether it be to deliver a whole series of messages or a one-time occurance. As such Christians probably recognize more prophets than any other religion, though we don't hang that moniker on every person who fulfills that role. For this reason, we would agree with you that David was not only a king, but a prophet. And likewise Solomon who wrote Proverbs

Certainly the writer of the book of Revelation, John, was a prophet as he is delivering in it a very specific message from God. This is the same John who wrote the Gospel of John and three letters in the New Testament.

We also read of Paul having the gift of prophecy, and he wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament.

And in reality, as all of the writers were writing as a means of speaking forth on God's behalf, they are all prophets. So, while Islam may say that the writers of our Holy Book were not prophets, that is not what we say.

[Malaikah]

So, in Islamic belief, there actually is a physical book written by the hand of God somewhere? Interesting.

Not by his hand. He created a pen and ordered it to write.

The issue of prophecy then is something we disagree on.

[Grace Seeker]

Not by his hand. He created a pen and ordered it to write.

Clear on that. Is that some place in the Qu'ran? I don't remember reading it. Or does it come from some other source?

The issue of prophecy then is something we disagree on.

Sure. It is these background understandins of what prophecy even is which we need to continue to communicate about so that we can better understand each other. With differing views of what prophecy itself is and what it means to be a prophet, we will of course have different views as to how even the original Injeel could have been authoritative, let alone any concerns you have for it being corrupted now. However, I think by the list of prophets who wrote books in the Tanakh that you can see that we still have many books written by people woulld be a prophet as you define prophethood. (Remember all the books of the Tanakh are also part of the Christian Bible.)

[AvarAllahNoor]

It is the one and the same book, word for word. God promised to preserve it.

God wrote it on The Preserved Tablet, on which he wrote every single thing that will happen in this universe, so that even if a leaf fell of a tree, it is recorded. All the Holy Books that where ever sent to the Prophets are written on it also. This was all written before the creation of the universe.

I do not know why you make this demand to read the book as it was written by God Himself, as if it is a problem that it went through the Angel Gabrial, the Prophet Muhammad and memories of hundreds of companions, when your own 'Holy' Book was written by men who where not prophets at all?:?EDIT- I forgot to mention that this Tablet is in the heavens somewhere...

Says you! - Christians don't acknowledge Mohammed to be a prophet, does that mean Muslims agree? No. The birth of Guru Nanak was miraculous, can't say the same about Mohammed can we. I'm trying not to make personal attacks, but claming you're right, and all others are wrong is not going to work.

[AvarAllahNoor]

It is the one and the same book, word for word. God promised to preserve it.

God wrote it on The Preserved Tablet, on which he wrote every single thing that will happen in this universe, so that even if a leaf fell of a tree, it is recorded. All the Holy Books that where ever sent to the Prophets are written on it also. This was all written before the creation of the universe.

Really? Where is this Preserved Tablet? I'd love to see it.

[PCJS]

They are not usually born prophets. But it depends on the circumstances. For example prophet Jesus spoke when He was born and told the people that he was a prophet of God, but he did not take on the responsibility of being a prophet until he was mature.

Prophet Muhammad did not become a prophet until he was 40 years old, but before that he was a very righteous person.

So this is what I meant when I said if someone realized God later in life which you were confused about. Realizing God is another way to say that God revealed Himself.

The son of God means that Jesus was himself God! He was not God, he was a human like the rest of us!

Only Jesus and his followers would know what kind of relationship he had with God. But you and I should have no reason to believe that he didn't have father/son relationship with God if Christians believe so. Just like you believe that whatever you know about Islam is true, people of all religions believe that whatever they know about their religion is absolutely true and we shouldn't argue otherwise without knowing the whole truth and we could not know the truth without witnessing it or without being so spiritually wise that we understand everything about God.

Anyone can claim to be a prophet though, that does not mean he IS one. But that is not the topic of this thread...

If we had to follow your logic, then how would we know that any of the prophets were really prophets?

We use out intellect. We ask question like, was the original message of the religion preserved? Does the message make sense? Does the way the religion views God make sense? Was the person claiming to be a prophet an honest and decent man, or was he a liar? Did he have enemies? If he did, why did they hate him? Because he was an oppressor, or because they could not stand to loose their own power to someone who was coming with a decent message? etc...

The original message of Sikhism is preserved and is still the same as it was in the beginning of the world and will remain true till the end. Yes we have used our intellect and it makes perfect sense to us that God revealed Himself to gurus and saints whose baani is included in Guru Granth Sahib. Rest of your quote doesn't apply to any of the gurus and saints mentioned above.

That was not my logic at all! It is not a question of whether Hinduism is an old religion or not, the question is, was this religion ever the real religion revealed to a prophet by God?

Let's think for a minute. If you had never seen Sun, would you know if Sun existed? The same way, if God didn't reveal Himself to anybody in what we call Hinduism today, would they really know that God existed?


My Quote was:
Why would you say that claims are not true?
and your answer was:
Because I am a Muslim.

So what does this mean?

Rejecting a prophet means that you do not believe that he is the messenger of God, and you disbelieve in his message.

I know I am not rejecting the teachings of Moses and Jesus because prophet Muhammad told us what their teachings were. They are exactly like the teachings of Islam, except that they have a different law. But anyway, they are not my prophets. I only need to acknowledge that they are prophets of God and that everything the Prophet Muhammad said about them was true. I follow the teachings of Muhammad, not Moses and Jesus.

OK, originally you said that one must believe in all three prophet. Otherwise, they go to hell and now you are saying that Moses and Jesus were not your prophet. That means you don't believe in Moses and Jesus. So basically you are contradicting yourself. This is your quote:

Also, when a new prophet comes, you have to follow him. It doesn't matter if you follow one prophet and reject the others. For example, Jew believe in Moses right? So that means they should go to paradise based on what I said. BUT they reject Jesus and Muhammad. You can't just pick and choose which prophet you want to follow- you have to follow the one who comes in your life time (that is, if one comes). If you reject one prophet it is like you have rejected them all and you will go to hell forever for that crime.

I think we have moved away from the purpose of this thread. Sikhs already believe that Muhammad is a prophet, i do not need to prove that to you. The point is to discuss how does Sikhism fit in with Islam. My last relavent point on that topic is that the Quran has been preserved as the prophet taught it, so how can sikhs openly go against the Quran when they believe that it was the word of God?

Sikhism doesn't need to fit in with any religion. Just because Sikhism is the youngest religion, it doesn't mean it needs to fit in with other religions.

[PCJS]

I think we have moved away from the purpose of this thread. Sikhs already believe that Muhammad is a prophet, i do not need to prove that to you. The point is to discuss how does Sikhism fit in with Islam. My last relavent point on that topic is that the Quran has been preserved as the prophet taught it, so how can sikhs openly go against the Quran when they believe that it was the word of God?

If all religions had to fit in with previous religions, then following your own logic all religions must fit in with Hinduism...

[Grace Seeker]

If all religions had to fit in with previous religions, then following your own logic all religions must fit in with Hinduism...

I don't think that follows from what Malaikah has said.

As I understood her point, you claim that Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet, yet you do not keep the whole of his message. And the reason the second half of that statement is true, is because Muhammad said that he was the last prophet, and yet you claim to follow other people's supposed revelations of God, not just Muhammad's. Speaking as a prophet, Muhammad would have none of that, either you follow what he has shared or you do not; you cannot pick and choose what of which Muhammad has shared and still be a follower of Muhammad as Muhammad would have recognized what it means to be a follower.

As a Christian, I would say almost the same thing about Jesus' message. (I'll let Malaikah throw these words back at me later. :statisfie ) You cannot be a follower of Jesus and yet teach and practice things that are contrary to the teaching and practice of Jesus.



From what I have read in this thread, it seems that Sikhism has a lot in common with Bahai understanding in which they claim to accept pretty much accept all the teachings of other religions incorporating them into their own faith, each person as individually led by God to do so in faith and practice. And yet, in truth, by trying to incorporate all, they in effect reject them all as well. For religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaim make exclusivist claims which cannot be abandoned and still be a incorporating those faith, nor be accepting of their progenitors as true articulators of faith in God.

[Malaikah]

Says you! - Christians don't acknowledge Mohammed to be a prophet, does that mean Muslims agree? No.

The claim I made was based on my understanding that the writers of the new testament were normal men and not prophets. I thought this was the Christian belief, Grace Seeker clarified that for me.

The birth of Guru Nanak was miraculous, can't say the same about Mohammed can we. I'm trying not to make personal attacks, but claiming you're right, and all others are wrong is not going to work.

What I do not understand is why you would even make that claim when you believe Prophet Muhammad to be a noble prophet of God?

Oh, and by the way, his birth was miraculous:

Ibn Sa‘d reported that Muhammad’s mother said: "When he was born, there was a light that issued out of my pudendum and lit the palaces of Syria." Ahmad reported on the authority of ‘Arbadh bin Sariya something similar to this. [Mukhtasar Seerat-ur-Rasool, p.12; Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd 1/63]

I only claimed I was right when I was explaining my faith. I would hardly be a Muslim if I explained Islam while saying 'of course I could be wrong'.

Really? Where is this Preserved Tablet? I'd love to see it.

I already mentioned this:

EDIT- I forgot to mention that this Tablet is in the heavens somewhere...

This thread is NOT about Christianity, Hinduism or the Preserved Tablet!

This thread is based on the understanding that Sikhs believe that Prophet Muhammad was a real Messenger of God!

What I want to know is why you can make that claim, and yet reject his teachings. You said, it is because you believe his real message was lost. I proved to you that was it authentically documented.

PLEASE reply to my post that had the nice article showing how the Quran was authentically documented, and why you still believe it was not.

[Malaikah]

Only Jesus and his followers would know what kind of relationship he had with God. But you and I should have no reason to believe that he didn't have father/son relationship with God if Christians believe so.

This absolutely contradicts what AvarAllahNoor already explained, that Sikhs do not believe Jesus was the God.

If we had to follow your logic, then how would we know that any of the prophets were really prophets?

I gave you my list of questions...

The original message of Sikhism is preserved and is still the same as it was in the beginning of the world and will remain true till the end. Yes we have used our intellect and it makes perfect sense to us that God revealed Himself to gurus and saints whose baani is included in Guru Granth Sahib. Rest of your quote doesn't apply to any of the gurus and saints mentioned above.

Okay.

Let's think for a minute. If you had never seen Sun, would you know if Sun existed? The same way, if God didn't reveal Himself to anybody in what we call Hinduism today, would they really know that God existed?

This thread really is not about Hinduism...

My Quote was:
Why would you say that claims are not true?
and your answer was:
Because I am a Muslim.

So what does this mean?

As a Muslim, I believe that Islam is the true religion revealed by God, and that Prophet Muhammad is the messenger of God. Therefore whatever Muhammad taught us, I believe. Based on this, all other religions that contradict Islam are false by my understanding.

OK, originally you said that one must believe in all three prophet. Otherwise, they go to hell and now you are saying that Moses and Jesus were not your prophet. That means you don't believe in Moses and Jesus. So basically you are contradicting yourself.

No I am not. I believe they were prophets during their time, they are not my prophets, meaning I do not have to follow them, I have to follow Muhammad pbuh only. BUT I still believe that they are Prophets of God.

Sikhism doesn't need to fit in with any religion. Just because Sikhism is the youngest religion, it doesn't mean it needs to fit in with other religions.

This contradicts the very basis of your religion. Sikhs believe that Muhammad was a prophet of God! And Islam is what Muhammad taught. How can two prophets both be from God and yet teach totally different things?!

If all religions had to fit in with previous religions, then following your own logic all religions must fit in with Hinduism...

No, that is not how it works. Just because Hinduism exists, does not mean it was based on a Prophet of God. Prophet Muhammad clarified for us, as do the scriptures of both Judaism and Christianity, that they are based on the real religion of God. Hinduism never made the cut. Again, this topic is not about Hinduism! Please see the bold text in the above post for clarificati0on of what this thread is about.

Thank you.

[Malaikah]

I don't think that follows from what Malaikah has said.

I am so glad someone understands my point!:D

As a Christian, I would say almost the same thing about Jesus' message. (I'll let Malaikah throw these words back at me later. :statisfie ) You cannot be a follower of Jesus and yet teach and practice things that are contrary to the teaching and practice of Jesus.

I do not expect you to believe anything less. However, this thread is based on the common ground between Sikhism and Islam that the teachings of Jesus and other prophets were not preserved. Therefore it is not necessary to go through and prove that the bible was or was not authentic because we already both agree that it is not!

However, we do not agree on the authenticity of the Quran, therefore this is where the focus of the discussion should be.

From what I have read in this thread, it seems that Sikhism has a lot in common with Bahai understanding in which they claim to accept pretty much accept all the teachings of other religions incorporating them into their own faith, each person as individually led by God to do so in faith and practice. And yet, in truth, by trying to incorporate all, they in effect reject them all as well. For religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaim make exclusivist claims which cannot be abandoned and still be a incorporating those faith, nor be accepting of their progenitors as true articulators of faith in God.

So true!

[AvarAllahNoor]

Grace Seeker, who told you Sikhs acknowledge the Bible & Quran? I said, Sikhs respect the prophets Jesus and Mohammed end of.

Also, I've just realised the title of the thread. Whoever said Sikhism is a 'continuation of prophethood' we have no affliation with Islam or Hinduism as both religions fabricate stories to try to bring Sikhism into the 'fold It's not going to happen.

Sikhism is a relgion with it's own ideals and brought to humanity via the Sikh prophets. NOTHING to do with B'hai faith or any other faiths as claimed by Grace Seeker.

Hope this has cleared it all up. We respect the prophets and the intentions they had of spreading the word of God - BUT DO NOT ACCEPT THE DOCTRINES OF OTHER RELIGIONS FOR SIkHS!

[Grace Seeker]

[B]Grace Seeker, who told you Sikhs acknowledge the Bible & Quran? I said, Sikhs respect the prophets Jesus and Mohammed end of.

Did I say that Sikhs acknoweldge the Bible and Qu'ran? I looked back and didn't see where I said that. I did saying something about accepting the teachings of other relgions. I probably should have said "teachers" of other religions. Pretty much all I know about Sikhs is what I am learning on this thread. (And other threads on this board.) So, what you see me write is just a reflection of what I am understanding from what you and others have written.

My statement about Bahai is not that you have anything to do with them, but that as you have expressed yourself so far, it sounds very familiar to what Bahai followers have told me about their faith. Very similar, especially as to the acceptance of a multiplicity of authorities who speak forth for God.

This is what I have gathered so far. I am still listening. Please continue to correct me, for I know I know little of your faith.

[AvarAllahNoor]

What I want to know is why you can make that claim, and yet reject his teachings. You said, it is because you believe his real message was lost. I proved to you that was it authentically documented.

PLEASE reply to my post that had the nice article showing how the Quran was authentically documented, and why you still believe it was not. [/B]

You believe in Jesus, but reject the Bible, why? You're contrdicting yourself. You're saying Jesus is the prophet but the Bible is corrupted. But can't back it up.

How many threads have been dedicated to this one topic about the Quran not being authentic? Where are the refutations I ask?

[AvarAllahNoor]

BTW - With all due respect Grace Seeker, can you NOT bring Christianity into this thread it only confuses things.

[Malaikah]

You believe in Jesus, but reject the Bible, why? You're contrdicting yourself. You're saying Jesus is the prophet but the Bible is corrupted. But can't back it up.

Did you know the bible was written by men AFTER Jesus died? And that the person who contributed most to it was a person who had never even meet Jesus? Did you also know that none of the writers of the NT even claimed that the bible is a word for word transcript of a book that was revealed to Jesus?

Jesus had NOTHING to do with the bible!!! (In Islamic belief of course.)

Why are YOU allowed to make a claim the the books of the Jews, Christians and Muslims are tampered with, and yet when I my the claim, I am contradicting myself? You're claim is exactly the same!

You believe in Moses yet you reject his book, you believe in Jesus yet you reject the bible, you believe in Muhammad pbuh yet you reject the Quran. Stop accusing me of something that you are equally guilty of.

Why do you keep ignoring my request that you reply to my post about how the Quran was compiled? This thread is NOT about the bible!

[Malaikah]

How many threads have been dedicated to this one topic about the Quran not being authentic? Where are the refutations I ask?

Right here, allow me to quote the post that you so happily ignored (it was the last post of the first page):

Do you think it is possible that all the people how had memorized the Quran, by heart, would all make the same mistake and all forget the same verse, or that they would ALL think it was something different?! And not only that but if they thought it was something differnet, they would have all had to think it was the same different thing!

The Quran was not based on the memory of one Muslim, but many, many Muslims! In fact, so many that it would be impossible that these people would have all agreed on a lie!

Oh, and also, the Quran was written down at the time of the prophet, but just NOT in the form of one complete book.

This here explains a little about how the Quran was complied:

It is not possible for a Muslim to entertain doubts concerning the immutability of the Qur’aan, because Allaah has guaranteed to preserve the Qur’aan. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”

[al-Hijr 15:9]

The Qur’aan was preserved in the hearts of the Sahaabah who had memorized it, and on the trunks of trees and thin white stones until the time of the caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him)*. During the Riddah wars many of the Sahaabah who had memorized the Qur’aan were killed, so Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) was afraid that the Qur’aan may be lost. He consulted the senior Sahaabah concerning the idea of compiling the entire Qur’aan in one book so that it would be preserved and would not be lost, and this task was entrusted to the great hafiz** Zayd ibn Thaabit and others who had written down the Revelation. Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh that Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

“Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq sent for me when the people of Yamamah had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musaylimah). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin al-Khattaab sitting with him. Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said (to me), ‘ ‘Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'aan (i.e. those who knew the Qur’aan by heart) at the Battle of Yamaamah, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you [Abu Bakr] should issue orders that the Qur’aan be collected.” I said to 'Umar, “How can you do something that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?" 'Umar said, “By Allah, this is something good.” ‘Umar kept on urging me (to accept his proposal) until Allah opened my heart to it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized.’ Then Abu Bakr said (to me): ‘You are a wise young man and we have a great deal of confidence in you. You used to write down the Revelation for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So you should seek out the Qur’aan [i.e., the fragments on which it is written] and collect it (in one book).’ By Allaah, if they had ordered me to move one of the mountains, it would not have been harder for me than this command to collect the Qur’aan. I said (to Abu Bakr), ‘How can you do something which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do?’ Abu Bakr said, ‘By Allaah, it is a good thing.’ Abu Bakr kept on urging me (to accept his proposal) until Allah opened my heart to it as He had opened the hearts of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started to look for the Qur’aan and collected it from (the fragments on which it was written of) palm-stalks, thin white stones and the hearts of men (i.e., from men who knew it by heart), until I found the last verse of Soorat al-Tawbah with Abu Khuzaymah al-Ansaari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is :

‘Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty…’

[al-Tawbah 9:128 – interpretation of the meaning]

… until the end of Soorat Baraa’ah (Soorat al-Tawbah).

These fragments remained with Abu Bakr until he died, then with ‘Umar for the rest of his life, then with Hafsah bint ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them both).”

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=23487&ln=eng

*I would like to add that the "time of Abu bakr" was directly after the death of the prophet (no room for 'generations' to change anything.

** A Hafiz is someone who has memorized the whole Quran by heart.

So, what do you think?

[Grace Seeker]

BTW - With all due respect Grace Seeker, can you NOT bring Christianity into this thread it only confuses things.

Wasn't trying to. I was planning on just observing. But Christianity got brought in here:

Says you! - Christians don't acknowledge Mohammed to be a prophet, does that mean Muslims agree? No. The birth of Guru Nanak was miraculous, can't say the same about Mohammed can we. I'm trying not to make personal attacks, but claming you're right, and all others are wrong is not going to work.

So, later when I saw that Malaikah's point was not being understood, I was just saying that what Malaikah was saying with regarding to how she felt about the way Sikhism accepts the Prophet Muhammad, but does not accept his teachings (from an Islamic persepctive) also rings true from a Christian persepctive regarding your statment (elsewhere) that you accept the "prophethood" of Jesus. To a Christian that is a ridculous concept. I will bow out of the discussion againi, but if you don't want me to interject comments from a Christians persepctive, then be wary that you don't invite them by way of reference to Christ or one's view of Christianity.


And also, while I completely disagree with Malaikah regarding her view of the Bible. What she is saying IS internally consistent with her own (in my opinion) misguided views on the integrity of the Bible. It is that attributing of a postion to Malaikah regarding the Bible that is not actually her postion which is confusing the issue here.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Did you know the bible was written by men AFTER Jesus died? And that the person who contributed most to it was a person who had never even meet Jesus? Did you also know that none of the writers of the NT even claimed that the bible is a word for word transcript of a book that was revealed to Jesus?

Jesus had NOTHING to do with the bible!!! (In Islamic belief of course.)

Why are YOU allowed to make a claim the the books of the Jews, Christians and Muslims are tampered with, and yet when I my the claim, I am contradicting myself? You're claim is exactly the same!

You believe in Moses yet you reject his book, you believe in Jesus yet you reject the bible, you believe in Muhammad pbuh yet you reject the Quran. Stop accusing me of something that you are equally guilty of.

Why do you keep ignoring my request that you reply to my post about how the Quran was compiled? !

''This thread is NOT about the bible'' It's relevant though.

I KNOW the Bible was written by men, so was the Quran! - My whole point is SIKHISM is not a continuation of ISLAM. Has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I REPEAT. Jesus and Mohammed prophets, but the scriptures mean nothing to Sikhs. Simple to understand don't you think?

AND I CAN'T RFUTE IT BECAUSE MODS KEEP EDITING THE LINKS CLAIMING 'ANTI ISLAM SITES CAN'T BE LINKED TO'' WHAT A FARCE!!

[AvarAllahNoor]

Abdullah Ibn Masud Shia Imam said: "No one compiled the Quran
completely except the Imams".

There is no such a tradition in Usul Kafi. I question the validity of the
booklets that have misquoted the traditions. What is written in Usul Kafi
in a tradition is as follows:

I heard Abu Ja'far (AS) saying: "No one (among ordinary people)
claimed that he gathered the Quran completely as it was revealed
except a liar; (since) no one has gathered it and memorized it
completely as revealed by Allah, the Most High, except Ali Ibn
Abi Talib (AS) and the Imams after him (AS)". (Usul al-Kafi, v1, p228, Hadith #1).


You say shia are not muslims, they say the same about sunnis. Which is the truth speaker and which is false, please tell me PLEASE?

[Grace Seeker]

My whole point is SIKHISM is not a continuation of ISLAM. Has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Fine. We get that is your position. No problem understanding your postion. You are very cleary on the position itself.

But here, at least for me, and I think Malaikah too, is the crazy making part.

I REPEAT. Jesus and Mohammed [are accepted as] prophets, but the scriptures mean nothing to Sikhs. Simple to understand don't you think?

No it is not simple to understand. Indeed those two statements seem entirely contradictory to me.

It makes little sense with regard to Islam either, accept of course they claim that the scriptures of Christianity are not the scriptures that Jesus would have had us receive regarding his message. So, I understand where Malaiakah comes from. But you have, at least for me, yet to be clear regarding that part of your point.

On what basis to you accept them as prophets and yet reject their message?

Is it like with Malaikah, that you think the message which is reported by their respective faiths to be from to not be truly the one they brought?
Is it because you see no connection between these prophets and the scriptures of their respective faiths?

You have repeatedly said that you don't hold to the teachings that Jesus' and Muhammad's followers believe they passed on as needing to be put into practice. On what basis do you reject these teachings that are reputed to be their teachings if your truly accept them as prophets? I do not yet understand.

It appears that you accept them in one hand and reject them in the other. And, to my mind, this makes no sense. Thus, I need you to explain it to me. If not to Malaikah, at least to me, for this part of Sikhism that you describe and that I have now also read about on a website devoted to Sikhism makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

I am sorry if you feel ganged up on by me and Malaikah. Or that by a Christians asking question that I am confusing the issue. But I am genuinely confused by your position on this as it appears to be not one singular postion, but two contradicting ones held at the same time.

[AvarAllahNoor]

I am sorry if you feel ganged up on by me and Malaikah. Or that by a Christians asking question that I am confusing the issue. But I am genuinely confused by your position on this as it appears to be not one singluarl postion, but to contradicting ones held at the same time.

I don't feel like you're ganing up on me at all!

1 Jesus delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
2- Mohammed delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
3 - Krishna delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
4 - Buddha delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
5 - Sikh Gurus delivered a message. They DID put it into writing.

Now, does this make it any clearer?

All were sent with a divine message, but failed to leave an authentic version of it written by them.

[Malaikah]

Abdullah Ibn Masud Shia Imam said: "No one compiled the Quran
completely except the Imams".

Who are the imams? Also note that it said that it WAS complied completely. Doesn't that destroy your whole point? Is this the companion of the Prophet you are referring to? If so, he is not a shia!!! And you have to explain what is meant by 'imams' because he is referring to the other companions of the prophet then he is doing nothing but confirming that what I already said, that the Quran was complied.

There is no such a tradition in Usul Kafi. I question the validity of the
booklets that have misquoted the traditions. What is written in Usul Kafi
in a tradition is as follows:

I heard Abu Ja'far (AS) saying: "No one (among ordinary people)
claimed that he gathered the Quran completely as it was revealed
except a liar; (since) no one has gathered it and memorized it
completely as revealed by Allah, the Most High, except Ali Ibn
Abi Talib (AS) and the Imams after him (AS)". (Usul al-Kafi, v1, p228, Hadith #1).

That makes no sense, are they implying that the Prophet himself did not memories the Quran? This 'hadith' (if it really is one) goes completely against so many other historical records that clearly indicate that the Quran was memories by many, many people.

Please tell me, is this hadith authentic?

You say shia are not muslims, they say the same about sunnis. Which is the truth speaker and which is false, please tell me PLEASE?

Not all Shias are not Muslim. The correct sect is the one who follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. This is what Sunnis do. Shias have deviated in that respect, and made claims that are completely against Islam (such as the claim you have presented that the Quran is was not recorded completely).

[Grace Seeker]

I don't feel like you're ganing up on me at all!

1 Jesus delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
2- Mohammed delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
3 - Krishna delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
4 - Buddha delivered a message. He did not put it into writing.
5 - Sikh Gurus delivered a message. They DID put it into writing.

Now, does this make it any clearer?

All were sent with a divine message, but failed to leave an authentic version of it written by them.

No, it does not. I'm not being intentionally dense either.

First, Jesus delivered a message that was recorded. He didn't write it down himself or dictate it to a stenographer, but it was his message which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recorded and passed on to us. It is just as authentic as if he had recorded it in a sound studio and we could listen to it on oour iPods. We don't have to hear Jesus actual voice or read his actual penmanship for it to be his authentic message. Now you may argue that what we have is not an authentic message because you view the gospel writers as untrustworthy if you want. But I do not by the idea that it isn't an authentic message simply because Jesus didn't himself put reed and ink to papyrus.

Second, from a Christian perspective, the message isn't supposed to be one from Jesus, but one about Jesus. Take a look at any of the Gospels. For instance the Gospel of John. There are 11 chapters that deal with Jesus life and ministry and 10 that deal with the last week of his life, his death, and his resurrection. (A similar weighting of material is also found in the other Gospels.) Why? Because it wasn't a collection of his teachings or miracles that is the key. The key, THE message, the Good News is found in the work of the cross. Don't accept that, and it doesn't matter how much of the rest of Jesus' message you do accept, you haven't accepted Jesus.

[AvarAllahNoor]

That makes no sense, are they implying that the Prophet himself did not memories the Quran? This 'hadith' (if it really is one) goes completely against so many other historical records that clearly indicate that the Quran was memories by many, many people.

Please tell me, is this hadith authentic?

LOL no i just made it up! :rollseyes

[Malaikah]

Perhaps you do not realise but the hadith have different levels of authenticity:

Authentic
Agreed upon
Weak
Rejected
Fabricated

Only the first two levels are acceptable. Which level is the one you quoted?

[AvarAllahNoor]

No, it does not. I'm not being intentionally dense either.

First, Jesus delivered a message that was recorded. He didn't write it down himself or dictate it to a stenographer, but it was his message which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recorded and passed on to us. It is just as authentic as if he had recorded it in a sound studio and we could listen to it on oour iPods. We don't have to hear Jesus actual voice or read his actual penmanship for it to be his authentic message. Now you may argue that what we have is not an authentic message because you view the gospel writers as untrustworthy if you want. But I do not by the idea that it isn't an authentic message simply because Jesus didn't himself put reed and ink to papyrus.

Second, from a Christian perspective, the message isn't supposed to be one from Jesus, but one about Jesus. Take a look at any of the Gospels. For instance the Gospel of John. There are 11 chapters that deal with Jesus life and ministry and 10 that deal with the last week of his life, his death, and his resurrection. (A similar weighting of material is also found in the other Gospels.) Why? Because it wasn't a collection of his teachings or miracles that is the key. The key, THE message, the Good News is found in the work of the cross. Don't accept that, and it doesn't matter how much of the rest of Jesus' message you do accept, you haven't accepted Jesus.

Your definition of ''accepting'' Jesus would be to follow his reilgion? That's not necessary for us Sikhs. He's not the Son of God, and he certainly isn't God as some christians claim. We accept him as a prophet delivering a message. End of. Also what you've said in the first paragrath. It's relevent to us Sikhs if the scripture is written by him or not. Obviously it's not a concern for you.

I have nothing more to add to this in regard to Jesus and the Bible.
:)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh (Pure ones belong to God, victory to God)

[AvarAllahNoor]

Perhaps you do not realise but the hadith have different levels of authenticity:

Authentic
Agreed upon
Weak
Rejected
Fabricated

Only the first two levels are acceptable. Which level is the one you quoted?

Here we go round and round! - You need to sort out the divide in the ummah before trying to convince me Islam is the true relgion, because that divide is causing a problem, because you're not all reading from the same hymn sheet.:thumbs_up

How am i supposed to know which one it falls under? It's muslims who are questioning the Quran themselves.

[Malaikah]

AvarAllahNoor, I seem to have found the website that you used to support your claim that the Quran was not properly compiled. Did you read the whole thing? Because it is actually saying something VERY different...

About the very hadith that you mentioned:

There are two other traditions which I will mention few lines later. The above tradition does not say Quran is incomplete. Rather it states it is not completely in the arrangement as it was sent down. The abovetradition is not something new. As a matter of fact, the Quran that we use which was compiled by the companions is not in the sequence that hasbeen revealed. In fact, the Sunni scholars confirm that the first Chapter of Quran which was sent down to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was Chapter al-Iqra' (al-Alaq, Ch. 96).

That is something that I assume every single Muslim knows! The Quran is not compiled in the order that the verses were revealed, rather in the order that the Prophet himself complied them, and arranged them!

Now I am not saying anything here about the authenticity of that hadith or anything, nor am I support shia views on that matter, but it clearly does not mean what you think it does.

And the conclusion from that same article:

The author then goes on to quote several pages of statements by top Shia scholars about the completeness and perfect authenticity of the Holy Quran.

It is hoped that what was offered on this subject is sufficient for those who try to find the truth, that the Shia are the true believers in Quran. It is improper for those who seek the truth to accuse others of something which they are entirely innocent of.

:D

[Grace Seeker]

[B] We accept him as a prophet delivering a message. End of.

"End of."? You mean, "end of story"? End of comment? End of what? This is the second time you have used this phrase, which does not register with me. I didn't worry about it the first time, but it leave me hanging, at no end at all. What do you mean by "end of"?

Also what you've said in the first paragrath. It's relevent to us Sikhs if the scripture is written by him or not. Obviously it's not a concern for you.

No, it isn't a concern for me. It wouldn't be a concern for me with regard to any of the others that you mentioned either. At least not if I trusted those who did write on their behalf to actually be writing on their behalf and not because of some personal agenda.

But obviously it is a concern for you. OK. I can accept that. It is relevernt to Sikhs. But you still haven't said, WHY it is relevant to Sikhs. That is what I am attempting to learn.

[AvarAllahNoor]

No, it isn't a concern for me. It wouldn't be a concern for me with regard to any of the others that you mentioned either. At least not if I trusted those who did write on their behalf to actually be writing on their behalf and not because of some personal agenda.

But obviously it is a concern for you. OK. I can accept that. It is relevernt to Sikhs. But you still haven't said, WHY it is relevant to Sikhs. That is what I am attempting to learn.

Why? I'd have thought that would be self explanatory, obviously not!

Because if God sends you on a mission AND the messengers fail to deliver that message, so NO doubt is left in the minds of the followers, what is the outcome? He sends another messenger to fufill his request. Hence Shri Guru Nanak Ji! :)

[AvarAllahNoor]

AvarAllahNoor, I seem to have found the website that you used to support your claim that the Quran was not properly compiled. Did you read the whole thing? Because it is actually saying something VERY different...

About the very hadith that you mentioned:

There are two other traditions which I will mention few lines later. The above tradition does not say Quran is incomplete. Rather it states it is not completely in the arrangement as it was sent down. The abovetradition is not something new. As a matter of fact, the Quran that we use which was compiled by the companions is not in the sequence that hasbeen revealed. In fact, the Sunni scholars confirm that the first Chapter of Quran which was sent down to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was Chapter al-Iqra' (al-Alaq, Ch. 96).

That is something that I assume every single Muslim knows! The Quran is not compiled in the order that the verses were revealed, rather in the order that the Prophet himself complied them, and arranged them!

Now I am not saying anything here about the authenticity of that hadith or anything, nor am I support shia views on that matter, but it clearly does not mean what you think it does.

And the conclusion from that same article:

The author then goes on to quote several pages of statements by top Shia scholars about the completeness and perfect authenticity of the Holy Quran.

It is hoped that what was offered on this subject is sufficient for those who try to find the truth, that the Shia are the true believers in Quran. It is improper for those who seek the truth to accuse others of something which they are entirely innocent of.

:D

Why did he have to rearrange it, if it was a message sent by God? Did he feel Gods message wasn't thought out correctly, so he decided to make amendments to the 'Divine' revelation?

I don't think that is the actual page that you've founf I'll post the link if the mods don't get irrate about it! :D

[Grace Seeker]

Why? I'd have thought that would be self explanatory, obviously not!

Because if God sends you on a mission AND the messengers fail to deliver that message, so NO doubt is left in the minds of the followers, what is the outcome? He sends another messenger to fufill his request. Hence Shri Guru Nanak Ji! :)

Ah, I think I finally get it. Proof that Jesus' message is not important can be found in the belief that there was (in your view) a subsequent prophet sent to replace him, or perhaps better stated a subsequent prophet sent to complete what he left undone. And that by the act of himself writing down what he wrote, that Shri Guru Nanak Ji messages then is the appropriate one to heed.

Do I about have that right?

[AvarAllahNoor]

Ah, I think I finally get it. Proof that Jesus' message is not important can be found in the belief that there was (in your view) a subsequent prophet sent to replace him, or perhaps better stated a subsequent prophet sent to complete what he left undone. And that by the act of himself writing down what he wrote, that Shri Guru Nanak Ji messages then is the appropriate one to heed.

Do I about have that right?

My work here is done.....:statisfie

Well with you anyway.....

[Malaikah]

No, it is because the verses were revealed mostly in response to situations, not as complete chapters.

If the verses were all just read in the order that they were revealed, they would make much sense. Rather they are gathered together according to similarity, discussion of same topic etc.

Also, when Gabrial revealed the verses to Prophet Muhammad pbuh he told hm where to put them:

Al-Qaadi Abu Bakr said in al-Intisaar: “The order of the aayahs is something that is obligatory and binding. Jibreel used to say (to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)), ‘Put such and such an aayah in such and such a place.’”

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=3214&ln=eng

So actually it has nothing to do with arranging it the way Prophet Muhammad pbuh personally wanted, but the way he was taught by Gabriel (who was obviously taught by God)

Also, it was from this website that i found what you had posted:
http://www.--------------/encyclopedia/chapter8/2.html

[Grace Seeker]

My work here is done.....:statisfie

Well with you anyway.....

Well, in terms of understanding what you believe, it is. In terms of being able to relate to it? I dont at all. I don't see the rationale, as you accepted my desciption of it, to be even close to logical. But I'm not here to debate that. So, I'll try to slip back to the sidelines and just read and learn again.

[PCJS]

I don't think that follows from what Malaikah has said.

As I understood her point, you claim that Muhammad (pbuh) was a prophet, yet you do not keep the whole of his message. And the reason the second half of that statement is true, is because Muhammad said that he was the last prophet, and yet you claim to follow other people's supposed revelations of God, not just Muhammad's. Speaking as a prophet, Muhammad would have none of that, either you follow what he has shared or you do not; you cannot pick and choose what of which Muhammad has shared and still be a follower of Muhammad as Muhammad would have recognized what it means to be a follower.

As a Christian, I would say almost the same thing about Jesus' message. (I'll let Malaikah throw these words back at me later. :statisfie ) You cannot be a follower of Jesus and yet teach and practice things that are contrary to the teaching and practice of Jesus.



From what I have read in this thread, it seems that Sikhism has a lot in common with Bahai understanding in which they claim to accept pretty much accept all the teachings of other religions incorporating them into their own faith, each person as individually led by God to do so in faith and practice. And yet, in truth, by trying to incorporate all, they in effect reject them all as well. For religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaim make exclusivist claims which cannot be abandoned and still be a incorporating those faith, nor be accepting of their progenitors as true articulators of faith in God.

I know what she is saying but I was trying to be subtle about it. I don't know many Muslims around me. There are a couple of at my work. One of them is Americanized and the other one doesn't believe in organized religion. So, I really don't know how Muslims are going to react to certain things. It seems to me they feel that they have right to put down any other religion as this person is doing. But I have this feeling that someone said exactly the same about their religion what she is saying about other religion, they would be all upset. So I am trying to stay away from provoking them for any reason at all.

But whatever Muslims believe that Mohammad Sahib said is not a Sikh issue. We simply know that all gurus and saints whose baani is included in Guru Granth Sahib had the direct revelation.

I haven't been able to find anything regarding Jesus and Mohammad Sahib in Guru Granth Sahib. Then why should we assume anything whether or not they believed that Jesus and Mohammad were prophets. One thing we know for sure our gurus and Sikhs were brutalized to death by Muslim rulers at the time when they refused to accept Islam.

What other proof do we need when Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 5 and 7 year old children were burried alive under walls but they refused to accept Islam?

If a Sikh says that s/he respects Islam, it shouldn't taken as that s/he accepts Islam.

I don't think it would be fair to compare Sikhi to Baha'i religion without understanding both religions entirely.

[PCJS]

This absolutely contradicts what AvarAllahNoor already explained, that Sikhs do not believe Jesus was the God.

First of all Christians believe he was son of God, not God. How would we know whether or not he was son of God? Do we have enough spiritual wisdom to know that?

I gave you my list of questions...

Although Sikhi answers all of your so-called questions, why on this earth should anyone use your way to validate a religion? I didn't know you were some kind of internationally recognized person to have ability to validate a religion. Is there a universal way to determine whether or not a religion is true religion?

This thread really is not about Hinduism...

Sometimes, in order to find the whole truth, you will to bring other religions into picture.

As a Muslim, I believe that Islam is the true religion revealed by God, and that Prophet Muhammad is the messenger of God. Therefore whatever Muhammad taught us, I believe. Based on this, all other religions that contradict Islam are false by my understanding.

Once again, I don't believe you are a universally authorized person to validate or invalidate any religion. So whatever you believe has little or no values to us. I personally believe a true religion has to logically make the most sense and Sikhi makes the most sense to me and apparently to other people, as well. What's wonderful about Sikhi is that a "true" Sikh (which most of us are not) will not have to wait until after death to see he is going to Sachkhand. He will know it while living this life.

Now it should not be taken as if I am saying being Muslim, you can't become spiritually wise. I am pretty sure you haven't heard about how God revealed Himself to Fareed Sahib, who was Muslim himself and whose baani is included in Guru Granth Sahib. According to what I know, when Fareed Sahib was a child, his mother used to encourage him to worship Allah and while he was doing all this, she would put something sweet - sugar or some other kind of sweet and milk. When he was done, he thought that God gave him all these sweets and it encourage him to worship every day. One time his mother went away but she told Fareed Sahib not to miss his daily routine of worshipping Allah. But since she was away, she could not put any sweets next to him while he was worshipping. But she prayed to God to do something so that Fareed Sahib would keep worshipping. Apparently God listened to Fareed Sahib's mother's prayer and revealed Himself to him.

No I am not. I believe they were prophets during their time, they are not my prophets, meaning I do not have to follow them, I have to follow Muhammad pbuh only. BUT I still believe that they are Prophets of God.

What does simply believing that they were prophets do? Are you supposed to follow their footsteps in order to prove that you believe in them?

This contradicts the very basis of your religion. Sikhs believe that Muhammad was a prophet of God! And Islam is what Muhammad taught. How can two prophets both be from God and yet teach totally different things?!

Sikhs may believe or simply say it out of respect that Mohammad Sahib was a prophet just like you believe that Jesus and Moses were prophets but none of the Sikhs can really assume what gurus thought about this. I couldn't find anywhere in Guru Granth Sahib, where it says whether or not Mohammad Sahib or Jesus were prophets. So I am not going to assume what gurus would have said. Whatever you believe in your issue, not a Sikh issue. We can neither agree nor disagree with you without knowing the whole truth.

No, that is not how it works. Just because Hinduism exists, does not mean it was based on a Prophet of God. Prophet Muhammad clarified for us, as do the scriptures of both Judaism and Christianity, that they are based on the real religion of God. Hinduism never made the cut. Again, this topic is not about Hinduism! Please see the bold text in the above post for clarificati0on of what this thread is about.

Thank you.

Simple logic. If someone in what we call Hinduism today knew about God, only then they could explain God. If nobody knew about God in Hinduism, the concept of God wouldn't exist in Hinduism. It's simple logic... ;)

[One Man Army]

heres what bhai Gurdas ji says:

When varied sects got prevalent, then Muhammad, the beloved of God was born.
The nation got divided into seventy two divisions and many types of enmity and opposition erupted.
The world was bound to roza, id, namaz, etc.
Pirs, paigambars aulias, gaus and qutabs came into being in many countries.
The temples were replaced by mosques.
Less powerful were killed and thus the earth became replete with sin.
Armenians and Rumis were declared apostates (Kafirs) and they were decimated in the Battle fields.
The sin became ubiquitious all around.
There are four castes of Hindus and four sects of Muslims in the world.
The members of both religions are selfish, jealous proud, bigoted and violent.
The Hindus make pilgrimage to Hardvar and Banaras, the Muslim to the Kaba of Mecca.
Circumcision is dear to the Muslims, sandal mark (tilak) and sacred thread to the Hindus.
The Hindus invoke Ram, the Muslims, Rahim, but in reality there is only One God.
Since they have forgotten the Vedas and the Katebas, worldly greed and devil have led them astray.
Truth hidden from both; the brahmins and maulvis kill one another by their animosities.
Neither sect shall find liberation from transmigration.
...................
The benefactor Lord listened to the cries (of humanity) and sent Guru Nanak to this world.
......He preached in this darkage (kaliyug) that, saragun (Brahm) and nirgun (Parbrahm) are the same and identical.
Dharma was now established on its four feet and all the four castes (through fraternal feeling) were converted into one caste (of humanity).
.........Inverse is the game of the beloved; he got the egotist high heads bowed to feet of the lord.
Baba Nanak rescued this dark age (kaliyug) and recited ‘satinam’ (true name) mantr for one and all.
Guru Nanak came to redeem the kaliyug (age of darkness).
......
First of all Baba Nanak obtained the gate of the grace (of Lord) and then He underwent and earned the rigorous discipline( of heart and mind).
He fed himself with sand and swallow-wort and made stones his bedding i.e. he enjoyed poverty too.
He offered hid full devotion and then he was fortunate to have proximity with God.
Baba reached the region of truth wherefrom he received Nam, the storehouse of nine treasures and humility.
In his meditation, Baba found the whole earth burning (with the fire of lust and anger).
Without the taker from darkness to light there is utter darkness and he heard the cries of the common men.
To further understand the people, Guru Nanak donned robes in their manner and preached them to be detached (from the pleasure and pain).
Thus he went out to depurate humanity on earth.

[Grace Seeker]

I don't think it would be fair to compare Sikhi to Baha'i religion without understanding both religions entirely.

I appreciate the sentiment, or at least what I understand to be the intent of your words, however since in practice I know few people who understand even their own relgiion entirely, let alone another that is not theirs, it would seem that we could have no discussion at all if we were to follow your advice in its entirety.




As a Christian who does understand (for the most part, even if not entirely) my own religion, please allow me to offer some correction on a point of my religion which you have expressed to others here, but do not seem to fully understand yourself.

First of all Christians believe he was son of God, not God. How would we know whether or not he was son of God? Do we have enough spiritual wisdom to know that?

Christians do indeed beleive that Jesus was and is God. From the Gospel of John: Thomas greets Jesus following his resurrection with these words, "My Lord and my God." At Christmas we are celebrating not just the birth of Jesus but the incarnation of God; Jesus is also given the name Immanuel, which (as we are told in scripture) translates "God with us". The Nicene Creed affirms this with the statement that Jesus is "true God from true God".



And though the following is not a point of my religion, I believe you have simply made an error in logic:

Simple logic. If someone in what we call Hinduism today knew about God, only then they could explain God. If nobody knew about God in Hinduism, the concept of God wouldn't exist in Hinduism. It's simple logic... ;)

Here you are saying
If A (that one knows God), then B (one can explain God).
If not A (no one know God), then not C (the concept of God does not exist).

This is a false syllogism. Try it with more common things.
If A (it is raining), then B (there are clouds in the sky)
If not A (it is not raining), then not C (the concept of clouds do not exist).

While I don't believe it i is the case, truly the concept of God can exist even if there is not reality of God at all. It could be created by people's imaginations. Look around the world and see all the different concepts that people have regarding God. If God has revealed himself to each separate tribe and nation and they have come up with all these differnt concepts does that mean that there are many different Gods? Or does it mean that one God has revealed himself different on different occassions? Or does it mean that people have within them an internal drive to connect with something outside themselves, something they recognize as the divine, but minus that revelation they have created gods of their own making based on their own uninspired thinking. I think the latter is most likely. And this could be the case with Hinduism. Whether it is or not I am not saying, but I am saying that the logic of you argument has an error in it on this point.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Christians do indeed beleive that Jesus was and is God. From the Gospel of John: Thomas greets Jesus following his resurrection with these words, "My Lord and my God." At Christmas we are celebrating not just the birth of Jesus but the incarnation of God; Jesus is also given the name Immanuel, which (as we are told in scripture) translates "God with us". The Nicene Creed affirms this with the statement that Jesus is "true God from true God".
.

To put this one to rest I'll quote a verse from the Guru Granth Sahib (Holy Scripture)

'So Mukh Jale Jit Kai Takhar Jooni'

Let That Mouth Burn That Utters God Is In The Circle Of Life And Death.

So, no point in debating what you as a Christian believe. Because as you adhere to the Bible, so do we to our scriptures. :)

[PCJS]

While I don't believe it i is the case, truly the concept of God can exist even if there is not reality of God at all. It could be created by people's imaginations. Look around the world and see all the different concepts that people have regarding God. If God has revealed himself to each separate tribe and nation and they have come up with all these differnt concepts does that mean that there are many different Gods? Or does it mean that one God has revealed himself different on different occassions? Or does it mean that people have within them an internal drive to connect with something outside themselves, something they recognize as the divine, but minus that revelation they have created gods of their own making based on their own uninspired thinking. I think the latter is most likely. And this could be the case with Hinduism. Whether it is or not I am not saying, but I am saying that the logic of you argument has an error in it on this point.

Since Hinduism happened to be the oldest religion, the first person to introduce God into Hinduism must have known God. This person (the first person to realize God) being the first person would not know about God unless s/he had realized God or God had revealed Himself to that person. People could doubt if I said God has revealed Himself to me as people already know about God. But we could not doubt the first person to express that God had revealed Himself to him/her...

[Grace Seeker]

To put this one to rest I'll quote a verse from the Guru Granth Sahib (Holy Scripture)

'So Mukh Jale Jit Kai Takhar Jooni'

Let That Mouth Burn That Utters God Is In The Circle Of Life And Death.

So, no point in debating what you as a Christian believe. Because as you adhere to the Bible, so do we to our scriptures. :)

If there is no point in debating what Christians believe, then there is no declaring it either. I am not debating whether what Christians believe is true vs. what Sikhs believe. I am simply making a statment regading the comment:

First of all Christians believe he was son of God, not God. How would we know whether or not he was son of God? Do we have enough spiritual wisdom to know that?

This statement is in fact inaccurate. Christians do indeed believe that Jesus was and is God. You may argue all you want about whether that is a true belief or not. But please do not claim to state a belief held by Christians and then make a false statement about that belief. You have put nothing to bed. To put it to bed, PCJS simply needs to correct his error as to what he claimed Christians do and do not believe.

[skhalid]

Nice one...can see some good communication here....between Muslims and Sikhs!!!

[Grace Seeker]

Since Hinduism happened to be the oldest religion, the first person to introduce God into Hinduism must have known God. This person (the first person to realize God) being the first person would not know about God unless s/he had realized God or God had revealed Himself to that person. People could doubt if I said God has revealed Himself to me as people already know about God. But we could not doubt the first person to express that God had revealed Himself to him/her...

By this logic the first person to introduce the conept of space aliens must have known space aliens, for being the first person they would not know about space aliens unless they had realized space aliens or space aliens had revealed themselves to that person.

Believe all you want regarding Hindus knowing God through revelation, but change your logic, it does not follow from it.

[AvarAllahNoor]

If there is no point in debating what Christians believe, then there is no declaring it either. I am not debating whether what Christians believe is true vs. what Sikhs believe. I am simply making a statment regading the comment: This statement is in fact inaccurate. Christians do indeed believe that Jesus was and is God. You may argue all you want about whether that is a true belief or not. But please do not claim to state a belief held by Christians and then make a false statement about that belief. You have put nothing to bed. To put it to bed, PCJS simply needs to correct his error as to what he claimed Christians do and do not believe.

Are you saying all the 500 (confused to how many there are, as they spring up like mushrooms) or so denominations believe Jesus was God? I find this has only surfaced recently. I've spoken to many Christians and they've always told me Jesus is the son of God. Nothing more. It's all the 'Born again Christians' who lay claim Jesus has turned into God suddenly.

[AvarAllahNoor]

By this logic the first person to introduce the conept of space aliens must have known space aliens, for being the first person they would not know about space aliens unless they had realized space aliens or space aliens had revealed themselves to that person.

.

LOL I had to laugh. Ask the Texans, who bizzarely get abducted by the aliens . :D

[PCJS]

By this logic the first person to introduce the conept of space aliens must have known space aliens, for being the first person they would not know about space aliens unless they had realized space aliens or space aliens had revealed themselves to that person.

The only difference here is that God apparently is not a fictional. If God is fictional, then all religions are useless...

[Malaikah]

I didn't know you were some kind of internationally recognized person to have ability to validate a religion.

Excuse me! YOU asked ME about how we can know what the real religion is and I told you my opinion on the matter. If you don't want me to tell you, next time don't ask me.

Once again, I don't believe you are a universally authorized person to validate or invalidate any religion. So whatever you believe has little or no values to us.

I am a Muslim and I will therefore speak in terms of what I BELIEVE as a Muslim. I have every right to do so.

What does simply believing that they were prophets do? Are you supposed to follow their footsteps in order to prove that you believe in them?

We can learn lessons from their stories. If we do not believe in them, while God and the Prophet have told us about them, than that means we are saying that the prophet and God lied to us in the Quran.

Sikhs may believe or simply say it out of respect that Mohammad Sahib was a prophet just like you believe that Jesus and Moses were prophets but none of the Sikhs can really assume what gurus thought about this. I couldn't find anywhere in Guru Granth Sahib, where it says whether or not Mohammad Sahib or Jesus were prophets. So I am not going to assume what gurus would have said. Whatever you believe in your issue, not a Sikh issue. We can neither agree nor disagree with you without knowing the whole truth.

It is very much a Sikh issue because AvarAllahNoor has said very clearly that Sikhs believe that Prophet Muhammad was a prophet!! Now, I trust him on this matter, but if you disagree with this, then discuss it with him, not me. You two are the sikhs here.

Simple logic. If someone in what we call Hinduism today knew about God, only then they could explain God. If nobody knew about God in Hinduism, the concept of God wouldn't exist in Hinduism. It's simple logic... ;)

I am not here to discuss Hinduism, I simply do not know anything about it.

[Malaikah]

It seems to me they feel that they have right to put down any other religion as this person is doing.

Oh really, can you please indicate to me where exactly I said something negative about sikhism?

If you expect me to pretend I do not believe in the teachings of Islam just to make you happy, let you assure you right now that is not going to happen.

The purpose of this thread is to examine where Sikhism stands according to Islam, given that Sikhs believe that Prophet Muhammad was a real messenger of God.

But I have this feeling that someone said exactly the same about their religion what she is saying about other religion, they would be all upset. So I am trying to stay away from provoking them for any reason at all.

Trust me, I do not get upset at people challenging whether or not the Quran has been changed. Instead, I create a thread about it for discussion reasons- as proved by the very existence of this thread!

If a Sikh says that s/he respects Islam, it shouldn't taken as that s/he accepts Islam.

There is a difference between saying that you respect Islam, and saying, as AvarAllahNoor did, that Prophet Muhammad is the messenger of God.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Sikhism is the last religion to be created. It shows the failings of the previous 5 religions. The Khalsa Raj (Rule of the Pure Ones) is upon us people, prepare yourselves.

[Malaikah]

^What does that have to do with the topic lol? Come on, back to proving to me that the Quran was changed please.

We stopped at the part where I explain you had taken the stuff you quoted out of context, and I used what I thought was the very website you got the info from to prove it wrong.

If you think it was a different website can you link me to is please?

[AvarAllahNoor]

^What does that have to do with the topic lol? Come on, back to proving to me that the Quran was changed please.

We stopped at the part where I explain you had taken the stuff you quoted out of context, and I used what I thought was the very website you got the info from to prove it wrong.

If you think it was a different website can you link me to is please?

lol, sorry got a little too excited. :-[

OK, let me have my din dins and I'll be back tackling the subject.

[lolwatever]

I know what she is saying but I was trying to be subtle about it. I don't know many Muslims around me. There are a couple of at my work. One of them is Americanized and the other one doesn't believe in organized religion. So, I really don't know how Muslims are going to react to certain things. It seems to me they feel that they have right to put down any other religion as this person is doing. But I have this feeling that someone said exactly the same about their religion what she is saying about other religion, they would be all upset. So I am trying to stay away from provoking them for any reason at all.

But whatever Muslims believe that Mohammad Sahib said is not a Sikh issue. We simply know that all gurus and saints whose baani is included in Guru Granth Sahib had the direct revelation.

I haven't been able to find anything regarding Jesus and Mohammad Sahib in Guru Granth Sahib. Then why should we assume anything whether or not they believed that Jesus and Mohammad were prophets. One thing we know for sure our gurus and Sikhs were brutalized to death by Muslim rulers at the time when they refused to accept Islam.

What other proof do we need when Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 5 and 7 year old children were burried alive under walls but they refused to accept Islam?

If a Sikh says that s/he respects Islam, it shouldn't taken as that s/he accepts Islam.

I don't think it would be fair to compare Sikhi to Baha'i religion without understanding both religions entirely.

Stick to the topic, provide evdience for your claims, or keep out. Please. There's enough trolls here, no need for more. Trust me.

I didn't know you were some kind of internationally recognized person to have ability to validate a religion.

Don't you feel ashamed that you're asking someone and give silly replies like the above becasue the answer isn't what you're looking for :X

back to topic.

[PCJS]

Well folks,

The bottom line here is that there were people after Mohammad Sahib to whom God revealed Himself.

Whatever AvalAllahNoor said and whatever you make out of it is your perception and issue. It has nothing to do Sikhi. I am pretty sure he said it out of respect and he didn't know that someone was take it to a level to negate the fact that there was anybody after Mohammad Sahib whom God revealed Himself to.

Of course whatever you believe is your own issue and has nothing to do with anybody else. We can only believe what's written in Guru Granth Sahib and I couldn't find anything about Jesus or Mohammad Sahib.

Only a true Sikh would know what exactly Sikhi is and we are not spiritually wise enough to even try to compare Sikhi to other religions. We are not true Sikhs, we simply express ourselves based upon our own perception and our perception does not reflect the whole truth, nothing but truth. A true Sikh becomes a saint himself while living this life and doesn't have to wonder about what's gonna happen after death.

This goes to every body. Next time you even think saying something about other religions, write it down first and think about it how you would feel if the same thing was said about your religion.

Have a good day :-)

[Mohsin]

You challenge them? Who are you exactly...

This is a muslim forum so of course you're going to refute it. Ask the Shia who believe that the Quran is not the original and say Ali was mentioned in the original . How can you as a muslim lay claim the Quran is not distorted when muslims themselves say it?!

And, the Guru's were not any Tom Dick or Harry. - They were messengers of the Timeless one and wrote the revelation of God. Name anyone else who writes such and claims it a revelation? You'll not find a soul!

Only shia extremists believe the quran has been changed. the majority of the shia believe in the same quran as us. they just interpret it differently.

[Grace Seeker]

There have been people since the guru's who have claimed to be prophets too. So, does that mean that we should listen to Joseph Smith or to Elijah Muhammad. If having some claim that you are a prophet and then writing down your message is what makes one a credible prophet, and then we are to follow the most recent of whoever these people are, I assure you that I can produce a new prophet tomorrow.

The standards that I understand are being proposed for prophethood seem very week to me.

[AvarAllahNoor]

having some claim that you are a prophet and then writing down your message is what makes one a credible prophet, and then we are to follow the most recent of whoever these people are, I assure you that I can produce a new prophet tomorrow.

The standards that I understand are being proposed for prophethood seem very week to me.

You can?? Wow can they perform the great miracles of the Gurus? If they can, then please show me where you can find such a person as I'd be the first to prostrate before him :D

Then if you take the time to look up Sikhism on google (you'll get a billions of pages) you'll find the Gurus were not anybody. You'll know of the great things they did and how they did them. Similar to what Jesus did. Same mission just a different time.

Note to mods - This is not promoting my religion it's EDUCATING a big difference.

[Malaikah]

If they can, then please show me where you can find such a person as I'd be the first to prostrate before him :D

Only God is worthy of prostration, not prophets.

Then if you take the time to look up Sikhism on google (you'll get a billions of pages) you'll find the Gurus were not anybody.

There was only 1,770,000 pages... perhaps you should edit your post to millions? :D

By the way, can you please explain why PCJS thinks that Sikhs do not really believe that Prophet Muhammad pbuh and Jesus (as) were prophets, and that it is not mentioned in your scriptures? :?

[AvarAllahNoor]

The real "Satanic Verses" how Muhammad's attempt to win over his opponents ended with his saying he had been inspired not by God, but by Satan Can you expalin this to me Malaikh please?

SJC, is seeing it from a diffrent point i suspect. No mention of any prophets in out Holy Scriptures? Jesus and Moses are mentioned. as for Mohammed I'll have to get my more leanred friend to tell advise me on this. I'll find the verses and post them :smile

[Malaikah]

[B]The real "Satanic Verses" how Muhammad's attempt to win over his opponents ended with his saying he had been inspired not by God, but by Satan Can you expalin this to me Malaikh please?

These allegations are completely false.

There is no saheeh* isnaad from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning this report, which says that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) “recited Soorat al-Najm to the mushrikeen until he reached the verses (interpretation of the meaning) ‘Have you then considered Al-Laat, and Al-‘Uzzaa (two idols of the pagan Arabs), And Manaat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the other third?’ [al-Najm 53:19-20 – interpretation of the meaning]. Then the Shaytaan put words into the mouth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: ‘they are the exalted gharaneeq, whose intercession is to be hoped for.’ The kuffaar were pleased with this praise of their three idols, so they prostrated.”

This report is undoubtedly false on a number of counts.

1. Its isnaad** is very weak and is not saheeh.

2. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was infallible with regard to the conveying of his Message.

3.Even if this report was saheeh, for argument’s sake, the scholars have stated that it is to be understood as meaning that the Shaytaan caused the kuffaar to hear these words, not that he put them in the mouth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so they heard them from him.

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=4135&ln=eng&txt

*means authentic.
**means chain of narrators

This explains that the hadith that this story is derived from is very weak, meaning that it cannot be confidently attributed to the prophet pbuh. We don't just believe every hadith, they must be examined to make sure they are authentic and truly did happen. There is a very strict science devoted to separating the authenic hadith from those that are false.

You can find much more detailed explanations in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...satanic+verses

Check out the second page, you have posted there your self!:D

SJC, is seeing it from a diffrent point i suspect. No mention of any prophets in out Holy Scriptures? Jesus and Moses are mentioned. as for Mohammed I'll have to get my more leanred friend to tell advise me on this. I'll find the verses and post them :smile

cool thanks.

[Grace Seeker]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
having some claim that you are a prophet and then writing down your message is what makes one a credible prophet, and then we are to follow the most recent of whoever these people are, I assure you that I can produce a new prophet tomorrow.

The standards that I understand are being proposed for prophethood seem very week to me.

You can?? Wow can they perform the great miracles of the Gurus? If they can, then please show me where you can find such a person as I'd be the first to prostrate before him :D

Then if you take the time to look up Sikhism on google (you'll get a billions of pages) you'll find the Gurus were not anybody. You'll know of the great things they did and how they did them. Similar to what Jesus did. Same mission just a different time.

Note to mods - This is not promoting my religion it's EDUCATING a big difference.

You editted my quote to make it say something I did not say. I did not say that I could produce a true prophet. I said "If having some claim...." I am saying that if this (what I summarized as requirements as I had gathered from your posts) is all that it takes to meet the conditions of prophethood, then it takes very little to meet it. You had two choices to educate me that there was more involved in prophethood than just what I had listed, or to mock or attack me. I am trying to learn, but I get non-sequitor arguments from one Sikh and derision from another. It does not attract me to your religion.

[One Man Army]

it is mentioned in scriptures!!! sikhi does speak about muhammad coming to the earth!!!! By gurdas ji's vaars where described by Guru Arjun dev ji as being the key to Guru Granth sahib ji. here is what it says in on of them. read the following what bhai Gurdas ji says:

When varied sects got prevalent, then Muhammad, the beloved of God was born.
The nation got divided into seventy two divisions and many types of enmity and opposition erupted.
The world was bound to roza, id, namaz, etc.
Pirs, paigambars aulias, gaus and qutabs came into being in many countries.
The temples were replaced by mosques.
Less powerful were killed and thus the earth became replete with sin.
Armenians and Rumis were declared apostates (Kafirs) and they were decimated in the Battle fields.
The sin became ubiquitious all around.
There are four castes of Hindus and four sects of Muslims in the world.
The members of both religions are selfish, jealous proud, bigoted and violent.
The Hindus make pilgrimage to Hardvar and Banaras, the Muslim to the Kaba of Mecca.
Circumcision is dear to the Muslims, sandal mark (tilak) and sacred thread to the Hindus.
The Hindus invoke Ram, the Muslims, Rahim, but in reality there is only One God.
Since they have forgotten the Vedas and the Katebas, worldly greed and devil have led them astray.
Truth hidden from both; the brahmins and maulvis kill one another by their animosities.
Neither sect shall find liberation from transmigration.
...................
The benefactor Lord listened to the cries (of humanity) and sent Guru Nanak to this world.
......He preached in this darkage (kaliyug) that, saragun (Brahm) and nirgun (Parbrahm) are the same and identical.
Dharma was now established on its four feet and all the four castes (through fraternal feeling) were converted into one caste (of humanity).
.........Inverse is the game of the beloved; he got the egotist high heads bowed to feet of the lord.
Baba Nanak rescued this dark age (kaliyug) and recited ‘satinam’ (true name) mantr for one and all.
Guru Nanak came to redeem the kaliyug (age of darkness).
......
First of all Baba Nanak obtained the gate of the grace (of Lord) and then He underwent and earned the rigorous discipline( of heart and mind).
He fed himself with sand and swallow-wort and made stones his bedding i.e. he enjoyed poverty too.
He offered his full devotion and then he was fortunate to have proximity with God.
Baba reached the region of truth wherefrom he received Nam, the storehouse of nine treasures and humility.
In his meditation, Baba found the whole earth burning (with the fire of lust and anger).
Without the taker from darkness to light there is utter darkness and he heard the cries of the common men.
To further understand the people, Guru Nanak donned robes in their manner and preached them to be detached (from the pleasure and pain).
Thus he went out to depurate humanity on earth.

[hassaanejaz]

actually i dont think this is a civil discussion anymore.

[AvarAllahNoor]

You editted my quote to make it say something I did not say. I did not say that I could produce a true prophet. I said "If having some claim...." I am saying that if this (what I summarized as requirements as I had gathered from your posts) is all that it takes to meet the conditions of prophethood, then it takes very little to meet it. You had two choices to educate me that there was more involved in prophethood than just what I had listed, or to mock or attack me. I am trying to learn, but I get non-sequitor arguments from one Sikh and derision from another. It does not attract me to your religion.

I'm not trying to 'attract' you to my religion. Like the Jews, Sikhs do not feel the need to go on crusades or conversion missions. Although thousands of non indian Sikhs have embraced Sikhism in the U.S, China and European countries. :statisfie

The main point being Sikhs have a direct revelation from GOD. No in-betweens, no Angels or Disciples. THIS alone sets us with the belief that Sikhism is the religion of God. I'm not here to prove you wrong. You follow what caters for your needs. and I'll do the same!


Malaikh I'll have a look through that link you've provided. And get back to you.

[AvarAllahNoor]

The verse 'There will be no prophet after Mohammed' cannot be true. This to me is egotistical. Something God's messenger would not say.

[naz87]

I'm not trying to 'attract' you to my religion. Like the Jews, Sikhs do not feel the need to go on crusades or conversion missions. Although thousands of non indian Sikhs have embraced Sikhism in the U.S, China and European countries. :statisfie

The main point being Sikhs have a direct revelation from GOD. No in-betweens, no Angels or Disciples. THIS alone sets us with the belief that Sikhism is the religion of God. I'm not here to prove you wrong. You follow what caters for your needs. and I'll do the same!


Malaikh I'll have a look through that link you've provided. And get back to you.

This isn't about anyone's needs are, it's about what is the truth. There is only one true religion.

[AvarAllahNoor]

it is mentioned in scriptures!!! sikhi does speak about muhammad coming to the earth!!!! By gurdas ji's vaars where described by Guru Arjun dev ji as being the key to Guru Granth sahib ji. here is what it says in on of them. read the following what bhai Gurdas ji says:

When varied sects got prevalent, then Muhammad, the beloved of God was born.
The nation got divided into seventy two divisions and many types of enmity and opposition erupted.
The world was bound to roza, id, namaz, etc.
Pirs, paigambars aulias, gaus and qutabs came into being in many countries.
The temples were replaced by mosques.
Less powerful were killed and thus the earth became replete with sin.
Armenians and Rumis were declared apostates (Kafirs) and they were decimated in the Battle fields.
The sin became ubiquitious all around.
There are four castes of Hindus and four sects of Muslims in the world.
The members of both religions are selfish, jealous proud, bigoted and violent.
The Hindus make pilgrimage to Hardvar and Banaras, the Muslim to the Kaba of Mecca.
Circumcision is dear to the Muslims, sandal mark (tilak) and sacred thread to the Hindus.
The Hindus invoke Ram, the Muslims, Rahim, but in reality there is only One God.
Since they have forgotten the Vedas and the Katebas, worldly greed and devil have led them astray.
Truth hidden from both; the brahmins and maulvis kill one another by their animosities.
Neither sect shall find liberation from transmigration.
...................
The benefactor Lord listened to the cries (of humanity) and sent Guru Nanak to this world.
......He preached in this darkage (kaliyug) that, saragun (Brahm) and nirgun (Parbrahm) are the same and identical.
Dharma was now established on its four feet and all the four castes (through fraternal feeling) were converted into one caste (of humanity).
.........Inverse is the game of the beloved; he got the egotist high heads bowed to feet of the lord.
Baba Nanak rescued this dark age (kaliyug) and recited ‘satinam’ (true name) mantr for one and all.
Guru Nanak came to redeem the kaliyug (age of darkness).
......
First of all Baba Nanak obtained the gate of the grace (of Lord) and then He underwent and earned the rigorous discipline( of heart and mind).
He fed himself with sand and swallow-wort and made stones his bedding i.e. he enjoyed poverty too.
He offered his full devotion and then he was fortunate to have proximity with God.
Baba reached the region of truth wherefrom he received Nam, the storehouse of nine treasures and humility.
In his meditation, Baba found the whole earth burning (with the fire of lust and anger).
Without the taker from darkness to light there is utter darkness and he heard the cries of the common men.
To further understand the people, Guru Nanak donned robes in their manner and preached them to be detached (from the pleasure and pain).
Thus he went out to depurate humanity on earth.

Thankyou. I'm sure Mohammed is mentioned in the SGGS. I'll get it too. Bhai Gurdas spoke of Kaaba spinning too didn't he? I may be wrong

[PCJS]

There have been people since the guru's who have claimed to be prophets too. So, does that mean that we should listen to Joseph Smith or to Elijah Muhammad. If having some claim that you are a prophet and then writing down your message is what makes one a credible prophet, and then we are to follow the most recent of whoever these people are, I assure you that I can produce a new prophet tomorrow.

The standards that I understand are being proposed for prophethood seem very week to me.

Well we are completely convinced that Gurus were perfect in every way. I am trying not to say anything that could be taken as disrespectful to any religion nor do I wanna say anything about gurus that could be wrong or not give them full credit as I am not a perfect person. So, I would suggest that if you really wanna know about gurus, read some material about Sikhs and gurus and see it for yourself how it makes sese to you...

[PCJS]

Thankyou. I'm sure Mohammed is mentioned in the SGGS. I'll get it too. Bhai Gurdas spoke of Kaaba spinning too didn't he? I may be wrong

AvalAllahNoor, I wish you would understand that she is taking advantage of yours trying to be nice and mixing it with her own beliefs to spread a false notion that gurus didn't have direct revelation. You, she and I are not good enough to judge gurus based upon what we think. So, I wish you would quit entertaining them. There are too many flaws in her theory and there is no way we could find the whole truth. So we should quit making judgements based upon our perceptions.

[naz87]

do sikhs beleive in reincarnation like the hindus?

[One Man Army]

yeh im pretty sure it says about the moving of the kabah in bhai sahibs vaars, il c if i can find them

[One Man Army]

Heres bhai gurdas jis vaars of when Guru Nanak went to mecca!

Donning blue attire then Baba Nanak went to Mecca.
He held staff in his hand, pressed a book under his armpit, caught hold of a metal pot and mattress.
Now he sat in a mosque where the pilgrms (hajis) had gathered.
When Baba (Nanak) slept in the night spreading his legs towards the alcove of mosque at Kaba,
the qazi named Jivan kicked him and asked who was this infidel enacting blasphemy.
Why this sinner is sleeping his legs spread towards God, Khuda.
Catching hold of the legs he lynched (Baba Nanak) and lo and behold the miracle, the whole of Mecca seemed to be revolving.
All got surprised and they all bowed.
Qazi and maulvis got together and began discussing religion.
A great fantasy has been created and no one could understood its mystery.
They asked Baba Nanak to open and search in his book whether Hindu is great or the Muslim.
Baba replied to the pilgrim hajis, that, without good deeds both will have to weep and wail.
Only by being a Hindu or a Muslim one can not get accepted in the court of the Lord.
As the colour of safflower is impermanent and is washed away in water, likewise the colours of religiosity are also temporary.
(Followers of both the religions) In their expositions, denounce Ram and Rahim.
The whole of the world is following the ways of Satan.

[AvarAllahNoor]

do sikhs beleive in reincarnation like the hindus?

See Sikhism and Sikh thread it's all been adressed

[AvarAllahNoor]

AvalAllahNoor, I wish you would understand that she is taking advantage of yours trying to be nice and mixing it with her own beliefs to spread a false notion that gurus didn't have direct revelation. You, she and I are not good enough to judge gurus based upon what we think. So, I wish you would quit entertaining them. There are too many flaws in her theory and there is no way we could find the whole truth. So we should quit making judgements based upon our perceptions.

Brother, I'm not sure what you're getting at? I as a Sikh have a duty to reveal the truth about Sikhi (so should you) I don't care if she mis-uses the information. Many muslims and hindus have claimed we Sikhs belong to thier religions, does that make it the truth? No. Just because Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Krishan, Ram were mentiond in the SGGS, does not make it a continuation of prophethood. Guru's came on a mission to reveal God. They did not say they were to be worshipped. They did not claim we have an affiliation with any of the existing religions WE DON'T!

[PCJS]

do sikhs beleive in reincarnation like the hindus?

Page (526-5)
goojree.
Goojaree:

ant kaal jo lachhmee simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of wealth, and dies in such thoughts,


sarap jon val val a-utarai. ||1||
shall be reincarnated over and over again, in the form of serpents. ||1||

aree baa-ee gobid naam mat beesrai. rahaa-o.
O sister, do not forget the Name of the Lord of the Universe. ||Pause||

ant kaal jo istaree simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, he who thinks of women, and dies in such thoughts,

baysvaa jon val val a-utarai. ||2||
shall be reincarnated over and over again as a prostitute. ||2||

ant kaal jo larhikay simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of his children, and dies in such thoughts,

sookar jon val val a-utarai. ||3||
shall be reincarnated over and over again as a pig. ||3||

ant kaal jo mandar simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of mansions, and dies in such thoughts,

parayt jon val val a-utarai. ||4||
shall be reincarnated over and over again as a goblin. ||4||

ant kaal naaraa-in simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of the Lord, and dies in such thoughts,

badat tilochan tay nar muktaa peetambar vaa kay ridai basai. ||5||2||
says Trilochan, that man shall be liberated; the Lord shall abide in his heart. ||5||2||

[Malaikah]

AvalAllahNoor, I wish you would understand that she is taking advantage of yours trying to be nice and mixing it with her own beliefs to spread a false notion that gurus didn't have direct revelation.

I don't care if she mis-uses the information

How rude of you two to accuse me of such things as if I can't even see your post!

I am not taking advantage of anyone's 'kindness', nor am I misusing any other information you have provided!

Just because Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Krishan, Ram were mentiond in the SGGS, does not make it a continuation of prophethood. Guru's came on a mission to reveal God. They did not say they were to be worshipped. They did not claim we have an affiliation with any of the existing religions WE DON'T!

Maybe you should try to get your story together, how can sikhs believe that Muhammad was a Prophet of God, and then reject his teachings?! You claim his teachings were never preserved, so I challenged you that yes indeed they are preserved.

It really is not that hard to understand.

[naz87]

Page (526-5)
goojree.
Goojaree:

ant kaal jo lachhmee simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of wealth, and dies in such thoughts,


sarap jon val val a-utarai. ||1||
shall be reincarnated over and over again, in the form of serpents. ||1||

aree baa-ee gobid naam mat beesrai. rahaa-o.
O sister, do not forget the Name of the Lord of the Universe. ||Pause||

ant kaal jo istaree simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, he who thinks of women, and dies in such thoughts,

baysvaa jon val val a-utarai. ||2||
shall be reincarnated over and over again as a prostitute. ||2||

ant kaal jo larhikay simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of his children, and dies in such thoughts,

sookar jon val val a-utarai. ||3||
shall be reincarnated over and over again as a pig. ||3||

ant kaal jo mandar simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of mansions, and dies in such thoughts,

parayt jon val val a-utarai. ||4||
shall be reincarnated over and over again as a goblin. ||4||

ant kaal naaraa-in simrai aisee chintaa meh jay marai.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of the Lord, and dies in such thoughts,

badat tilochan tay nar muktaa peetambar vaa kay ridai basai. ||5||2||
says Trilochan, that man shall be liberated; the Lord shall abide in his heart. ||5||2||

reincarnated as a goblin? goblins don't even exist?

[PCJS]

reincarnated as a goblin? goblins don't even exist?

I searched http://www.punjabonline.com/servlet/...Action=Punjabi

Prayat means any of the following:

Ghost, evil spirit, dead, deceased, goblin, fiend.

[PCJS]

Unfortunately, the translation isn't always proper...

[hassaanejaz]

The verse 'There will be no prophet after Mohammed' cannot be true. This to me is egotistical. Something God's messenger would not say.

You Are attacking our faith and our HOLY QURAN!! PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD ADMIN!

[hassaanejaz]

http://www.********************/Sham...st_prophet.htm Dear AvarAllahNoor, here is the evidence!

[hassaanejaz]

its ********************/Shamoun/last_prophet.htm

[hassaanejaz]

replace ** with answering-islam .org

[Malaikah]

:sl:

lol bro relax. If you think his post was bad, just report it by clicking the red box on the right hand side of his post, and the mods will take care of it inshaallah.

[AvarAllahNoor]

replace ** with answering-islam .org

According to that link you posted it states the following...

''As it stands, Muhammad is not the last prophet nor is he the one who seals up the prophethood. According to Islamic narrations, Jesus is the last prophet who will eradicate unbelief and usher in the final hour. Hence, Jesus seals up prophecy and vision, not Muhammad''

Explain this please?

[Malaikah]

Muhammad is the last prophet, Jesus will return yes, but he is not the last prophet for a number of reasons, specifically because he is ruling by the law of Muhammad pbuh and other reasons that I forgot, hopefully others can explain.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Muhammad is the last prophet, Jesus will return yes, but he is not the last prophet for a number of reasons, specifically because he is ruling by the law of Muhammad pbuh and other reasons that I forgot, hopefully others can explain.

It's contradicting. You can't claim he's the last, but them say 'But' He either is the last, or isn't?

This is where i say, having a revelation delivered by people, is flawed. It's proof at it's best.

[matobosha]

Avar with all due respect you have never shown us anywhere in the Quran a distortion of facts that can say that The holy Quran is eroded.
If I were you I will take the Quran and read it first b4 you challenge the muslims.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Avar with all due respect you have never shown us anywhere in the Quran a distortion of facts that can say that The holy Quran is eroded.
If I were you I will take the Quran and read it first b4 you challenge the muslims.

But, I've just given you a quote that is contradicting. And if anything else is posted, it's deleted by the mods. Is this fair? You can't ask a person to debate when it favours one over the other.

[Erundur]

According to that link you posted it states the following...

''As it stands, Muhammad is not the last prophet nor is he the one who seals up the prophethood. According to Islamic narrations, Jesus is the last prophet who will eradicate unbelief and usher in the final hour. Hence, Jesus seals up prophecy and vision, not Muhammad''

Explain this please?

:salamext:

Its an anti-islamic website, ran by sam shamoun.
http://www.load-islam.com/search_res...n&selcontent=0

Prophet Isa (a.s.) is not the last prophet, he will come back to finish what he had started.

The Dajjaal – a man created by Allaah, who will appear at the end of time because of something that makes Allaah angry. He will spread corruption on earth and will claim divinity, calling on people to worship him. They will be tested by the extraordinary powers that Allaah will grant him, such as causing rain to fall, reviving the earth with vegetation and extracting the treasures of the earth. He will be a young man with a ruddy complexion, short of stature, with curly hair. He will be one-eyed; his right eye will be flat and his other eye will have a thick piece of flesh over it. Written between his eyes will be the word “Kaafir” (disbeliever). Most of those who follow him will be Jews. He will meet his end at the hands of ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary) who will kill him with a spear in Lod, which is in Palestine. http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=171&ln=eng&txt=Jesus

AvarAllahNoor
But, I've just given you a quote that is contradicting. And if anything else is posted, it's deleted by the mods. Is this fair? You can't ask a person to debate when it favours one over the other.

Its an anti-islamic website, ran by sam shamoun.
http://www.load-islam.com/search_res...n&selcontent=0

Question:
I have a Question to ask concerning Jesus (peace be upon him). Did Jesus (peace be upon him) was ascended twice to Allah? cause i have read in some books that it mentions Jesus (peace be upon him) ascending to the skies and them later was brought down to comfort his mother and tell the jews of something and then he left. is this true?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, tells us that Jesus (upon whom be peace) was raised up to heaven just one time, in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

“But Allaah raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself…” [al-Nisa’ 4:158] and Allaah does not tell us that Jesus was sent back to this earth. So those who claim that Jesus was sent back to this earth have to bring us evidence and proof. If they cannot do that – and they will never be able to do it – then their argument has no basis.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And (remember) when Allaah said: ‘O Eesa (Jesus)! I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you [of the forged statement that ‘Eesa (Jesus) is Allaah’s son] of those who disbelieve, and I will make those who follow you (monotheists, who worship none but Allaah) superior to those who disbelieve [in the oneness of Allaah, or disbelieve in some of His Messengers, or in His Holy Books] till the Day of Resurrection. Then you will return to Me and I will judge between you in the matters in which you used to dispute.”[Aal ‘Imraan 3:55]

Ibn Jareer, may Allaah have mercy on him, explained that the word “mutawaffeeka” [which usually refers to death and is translated here as “raise” – Translator] refers to his being taken up, but most of the scholars said that the meaning here is sleep, as Allaah says elsewhere in the Qur’aan (interpretation of the meaning):

“It is He, Who takes your souls [yatawaffaakum] by night (when you are asleep)…”[al-An’aam 6:60]

“It is Allaah Who takes away [yatawaffaa] the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep…”[al-Zumar 39:42]
When he got up from sleeping, the Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would say, “Al-hamdu Lillaah illadhi ahyaanaa ba’da maa amaatanaa wa ilayh il-nushoor (Praise be to Allaah Who has brought us back to life after causing us to die, and unto Him is the resurrection).” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 6312; Muslim, 2711)

Allaah’s statement that He raised Jesus up to heaven is also a refutation of the Jews’ claim to have killed him. Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Because of their breaking the covenant, and of their rejecting the aayat (signs) of Allaah, and of their killing the Prophets unjustly, and of their saying, ‘Our hearts are wrapped (with coverings, i.e., we do not understand what the Messengers say)’ – nay, Allaah has set a seal upon their hearts because of their disbelief, so they believe not but a little.

And because of their (Jews’) disbelief and uttering against Maryam (Mary) a grave false charge (that she had committed illegal sexual intercourse);
And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allaah’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Eesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e., ‘Eesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary)].

But Allaah raised him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allaah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.
And there is none of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being], before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Eesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them.”[al-Nisa’ 4:155-159]

Jesus (peace be upon him) has not died yet; Allaah raised him up unto Himself because the Jews wanted to kill him, and he will descend again at the end of time and rule the earth according to Islam. He will live for as long as Allaah wants him to, then he will die and the Muslims will pray [the janaazah or funeral prayer] for him. Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The pronoun in the phrase before his death refers to Jesus (peace be upon him), i.e., there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in Jesus – that is when he comes back down to the earth before the Day of Resurrection, as we will explain below. At that time all of the People of the Book will believe in him because he will abolish the jizyah and will accept nothing but Islam…

The aayah (interpretation of the meaning)
“and [I will] clear you of those who disbelieve” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:55] means “by raising you up to heaven” and “I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection” is what did indeed happen. When Allaah took the Messiah (peace be upon him) up into heaven, his followers split into different groups.

Some of them believed in what Allaah had sent him with, that he was a slave and messenger of Allaah, the son of His female slave. Some of them exaggerated about him and made him the son of God, and others said that he was God, or that he was the third of three (trinity). Allaah described what they said in the Qur’aan, and refuted all of them. They continued like that for nearly three hundred years, then one of the Greek kings called Constantine came along and entered the Christian religion. It was said that this was a plot to corrupt the religion, that he was a philosopher, or that he was ignorant. Whatever the case, he changed and distorted the religion of the Messiah, adding things and taking things away. It was at the time of Constantine that pork was permitted and they began to pray towards the East; they made images in their churches, shrines and monasteries, and added ten days to their fasting because of a sin that he had committed, as they claim. The religion of the Messiah became the religion of Constantine. He built more than twelve thousand churches, shrines and monasteries for them, and the city that bore his name [Constantinople – now Istanbul]. A sect of Christians followed him and they prevailed over the Jews with the help of Allaah, because they were closer to the truth, even though all of them were kaafirs – may the curse of Allaah be upon them all! When Allaah sent Muhammad

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), some of those who believed in him believed truly in Allaah, His angels, His Books and His Messengers, so they were followers of every Prophet who had ever lived on earth. And Allaah knows best.
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=3221&ln=eng&txt=Jesus

:sl:

[PCJS]

You Are attacking our faith and our HOLY QURAN!! PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD ADMIN!

AvalAllahNoor,

This is where the problem is and was afraid of. Unless this is an official debate and we know people won't get offended, it isn't worth it. Even though the person we are discussing this stuff says she doesn't mind, someone else could mind...

You have to keep in mind that there are over one billion Muslims around the world and I am pretty sure this person doesn't speak for all of them. Although I could be wrong, I have this feeling that even though most Pakistani Muslims (especially Punjabis) are friendly with Sikh, there are some who like to argue. But when we counter-argue, we should keep rest of Muslims in mind as well and not say things that could be offensive to them...

[PCJS]

I hope this helps:

Bhairao, Fifth Mehl:
(Page: 1136, Line: 9)

varat na raha-o na mah ramdaanaa.
I do not keep fasts, nor do I observe the month of Ramadaan.
(Page: 1136, Line: 9, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

tis sayvee jo rakhai nidaanaa. ||1||
I serve only the One, who will protect me in the end. ||1||
(Page: 1136, Line: 9, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

ayk gusaa-ee alhu mayraa.
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
(Page: 1136, Line: 9, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

hindoo turak duhaaN naybayraa. ||1|| rahaa-o.
He adminsters justice to both Hindus and Muslims. ||1||Pause||
(Page: 1136, Line: 10, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

haj kaabai jaa-o na tirath poojaa.
I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines.
(Page: 1136, Line: 10, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

ayko sayvee avar na doojaa. ||2||
I serve the One Lord, and not any other. ||2||
(Page: 1136, Line: 10, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

poojaa kara-o na nivaaj gujaara-o.
I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers.
(Page: 1136, Line: 11, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

ayk nirankaar lay ridai namaskaara-o. ||3||
I have taken the One Formless Lord into my heart; I humbly worship Him there. ||3||
(Page: 1136, Line: 11, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

naa ham hindoo na musalmaan.
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.
(Page: 1136, Line: 11, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

alah raam kay pind paraan. ||4||
My body and breath of life belong to Allah - to Raam - the God of both. ||4||
(Page: 1136, Line: 12, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

kaho kabeer ih kee-aa vakhaanaa.
Says Kabeer, this is what I say:
(Page: 1136, Line: 12, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

gur peer mil khud khasam pachhaanaa. ||5||3||
meeting with the Guru, my Spiritual Teacher, I realize God, my Lord and Master. ||5||3||
(Page: 1136, Line: 12, Raag: Bhaira-o, Author: Guru Arjan Dev)

[Malaikah]

I have this feeling that even though most Pakistani Muslims (especially Punjabis) are friendly with Sikh, there are some who like to argue.

You must not have realised that this is the Comparative religion section. This is what we do in here- compare religions! :rollseyes

[PCJS]

You must not have realised that this is the Comparative religion section. This is what we do in here- compare religions! :rollseyes

And who authorized it? I don't see any religious scholars here. Plus, compare religions is supposed to mean comparing aspects of religions, not trying to prove that one religion must be false because one person's perception goes against it....

[starfortress]

Muhammad is the last prophet, Jesus will return yes, but he is not the last prophet for a number of reasons, specifically because he is ruling by the law of Muhammad pbuh and other reasons that I forgot, hopefully others can explain.

:sl:
May i goes with these words.We certainly believe in the Prophethood of all those who have been named in the Holy Quran as Prophets. But, we lack of reliable information by authentic sources on their teaching and their character. There is no doubt about the Prophethood of Noah, Ibrahim, Ishaque, Yusuf, Moses and Jesus Christ(peace be upon them) and as we believe in all of them.None of the Scriptures that revealed to them has come down to us in its original form so that we may benefit from its pristine message. Similarly, the life-history of none of these Prophets (pbut) has been handed down by any authentic means enabling us to follow their example in the various spheres of individual and collective existence.

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

061.001 Whatever is in the heavens and on earth, let it declare the Praises and Glory of Allah. for He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

061.002 O ye who believe! Why say ye that which ye do not?

061.003 Grievously odious is it in the sight of Allah that ye say that which ye do not.

061.004 Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.

061.005 And remember, Moses said to his people: "O my people! why do ye vex and insult me, though ye know that I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you?" Then when they went wrong, Allah let their hearts go wrong. For Allah guides not those who are rebellious transgressors.

061.006 And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an *Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"

The Holy Qur'an As-Saff (61:1-6)

Jesus will return yes, but he is not the last prophet

Yes,because once again someday he(PBUH) will return only as a Massenger of Allah.:)with no new revelation or law with Him,nor successor to Muhammad(PBUH)

*Messenger-Unlike prophets, messengers are assured of success. All messengers are prophets but not vice versa.The concept of prophecy in Islam is broader than Judaism and Christianity since Muslims distinguish between "messengers" and "prophets".

p/s-Someone pls correct me if im wrong on these:)

Allah know best.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Who are these various other prophets that have been sent to other parts of the world? Lists 2000 or more, yes or no?

[starfortress]

Who are these various other prophets that have been sent to other parts of the world? Lists 2000 or more, yes or no?

Im not sure about that 2000 figures,so i wouldn't say Yes or Not.But it were stated as 25 in the Al-Quran.But there were possibilities for prophets other than those mentioned in the Qur’an.

"And certainly We sent messengers before you: there are some of them that We have mentioned to you and there are others whom We have not mentioned to you..." [40:78]

"For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger..."[16:36]

[One Man Army]

bhai gurdas has told clearly why Guru Nanak came. you dont need to look any futher then that. i have posted it previously twice on this topic. no 1s paying attension to it. but that is infact the answer to why he came.

[Grace Seeker]

bhai gurdas has told clearly why Guru Nanak came. you dont need to look any futher then that. i have posted it previously twice on this topic. no 1s paying attension to it. but that is infact the answer to why he came.

And as I understood that explanation, according to the Sikh view, Guru Nanak did NOT come to continue the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh), but simply as a prophet in his own right, independent of any prophethood that Muhammad may or may not have held (depending on one's view of Muhammad) So, now my follow-up question:

What makes one person who comes and claims to speak for God a prophet and another person who does the same thing not a prophet? In other words, assuming that all persons are motivated by a sincere desire to represent God and make him known in ways that bring a spiritual blessing to the world, what are the qualifications for prophethood?

[One Man Army]

that quesion can be answered by further researching into the life of Guru Nanak ji. this answer is very difficult to answer in writing. its only by looking at the lifestyles, what they did in their lifes, and what they taught, that can make someone worthy of the status. if u read into any of the Gurus lives, what they did, u will find that no ordinary human being could do. e.g. the 9th Guru of the sikhs actually gave his head for another faith that where being oppressed to stand for the right of free speech. the 5th Guru was made to sit on a hot pan whilst having hot sand poured over his head, and whilst doing so instead of screaming in pain, he replied with, "your actions are sweet to me lord, Nanak begs for the treasure of your name, oh lord".
its by looking at what seems right, not any ordinary person can do this. if u look at any of the Guru Granth Sahib ji, u tell me if u can find one fing u disagree with. there have been scholars that repeat over and over that this is the scripture of humanity. The Gurus brought into time the theory of equaltiy of all human beings (men and women, christians sikhs muslims and all other human beings being equal), at a time where a whole race was governd by a caste system, and so called untouchables being treated like dirt.
its when someone has a direct link with God, this can only be proved through scriptures, and hence, you can only find authencity through scriptures. or else, word of mouth becomes chinease whisper. and its after looking at the scripture u can make a decision if you believe this is a prophet of the lord. and you can only then identify whether you feel this way of life is something extraordinary.

you will know if the persons a prophet by what they have taught. you seriously just have to look into their lives. personally i was serching into religions before becoming a sikh, and trying to find the way i want to follow, but the way the sikhs have come about, the way of life, i cant see how this cannot be a way of God. im not putting anyone down, as i have respect for anyone who has decided to practice their beliefs in order to find the lord. how can u call such person bad? no matter what they have chosen. So if you are a muslim, follow islam to the fullest, be good honest muslims, and the same goes for christians, and anyone else with different beliefs. this is what sikhi says.

[Grace Seeker]

So, their behavior is what qualifies them to be prophets? Or is it what convinces you that they were prophets? Or both?

[One Man Army]

its behaviour, way of life, teachings, what they did in their lives!

i think the core item is teachings.

i mean when your at school, you know when you have a good teacher, when your questions get answered, and you feel thats right. the same things happend with me n sikhi.

and teachings only endure through valid scriptures

[starfortress]

According to that link you posted it states the following...

''As it stands, Muhammad is not the last prophet nor is he the one who seals up the prophethood. According to Islamic narrations, Jesus is the last prophet who will eradicate unbelief and usher in the final hour. Hence, Jesus seals up prophecy and vision, not Muhammad''

Explain this please?

:sl:

The person who's wrote that need to be more educates on Islam b4 make that such statement.It's a silly mistakes when he don't know what are the difference lies between The Prophet and Massenger of Allah.

Behold!Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom;, then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.

[3:81]."

He also must be forgotted the fact that ALL THE PROPHETS are MESSENGERS,
but NOT ALL the MESSENGERS are PROPHETS.

Allah know best.

[PCJS]

Well folks,

Spirituality is pretty simple. Only religions have made is complexed. Jesus Christ, Mohammad Sahib or Guru Nanak Dev Ji's being prophet is not going to have any effect on any of us unless we try our best living a perfect life. Prefection is not confined to any religion. In fact, as soon as you start splitting humanity based upon organized religion, you are already going against perfection because part of perfection is recognize the whole mankind as one. God is not going to take us unless we have learnt spiritually perfected ourselves and that's what Sikhi is all about, living a perfect life and achieving spiritual perfection within ourselves. Even Jesus and Mohammad are not going to help unless you have lived a perfect life and have perfected yourself within.

Sikhi is not an organized religion and all about living a perfect life and perfecting ourselves within. I am convinced that there is no religion that preaches living more perfect life than Sikhi does.

Like Guru Nanak Dev Ji said, truth is highest fo all and living a truthfully is higher than truth...

Have a good day :-)

[AvarAllahNoor]

So, their behavior is what qualifies them to be prophets? Or is it what convinces you that they were prophets? Or both?

No. The revelation that God sent them alone qualifies that they are prophets.

[Grace Seeker]

No. The revelation that God sent them alone qualifies that they are prophets.

And that is where my original question came from. If God sent revelation to someone other than the Guru's (not just in the past, but even today), would it not be appropriate to refer to them as prophets also? That is assuming that it is the revelation that God sends that qualifies a person to be a prophet, unless you also have a second qualification????

[AvarAllahNoor]

And that is where my original question came from. If God sent revelation to someone other than the Guru's (not just in the past, but even today), would it not be appropriate to refer to them as prophets also?

It's possible. But according to our scriptures their will not be one. Not yet anyway.

[PCJS]

It's possible. But according to our scriptures their will not be one. Not yet anyway.

I don't know if it says in any of the scriptures although people assume so because they say Guru Gobind Singh Ji appointed Guru Granth Sahib as living guru from then on.

[One Man Army]

Guru Granth Sahib ji is eternal. Authentic, cannot be destroyed. it cannot die or retake birth. their is no need for any more prophets. Guru Granth Sahib ji is Gods word of humanity. its only when people realise they will see this.

[AvarAllahNoor]

I don't know if it says in any of the scriptures although people assume so because they say Guru Gobind Singh Ji appointed Guru Granth Sahib as living guru from then on.

The Janam Sakhis mention things like the 'Kalki Avtar' but they are not scriptures so what they state needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Guru Granth Sahib is the final word of God. Shabad Guru Surt Tun Chela!

[One Man Army]

baanee guroo guroo hai baanee vich baanee a(n)mrith saarae ||
The Word, the Bani is Guru, and Guru is the Bani. Within the Bani, the Ambrosial Nectar is contained

vaahu vaahu baanee nira(n)kaar hai this jaevadd avar n koe ||
wonderful, wonderful! is the Bani, the Word, of the Formless Lord. There is no other as great as He is.

The Gurbani has always been the Guru.

[AvarAllahNoor]

baanee guroo guroo hai baanee vich baanee a(n)mrith saarae ||
The Word, the Bani is Guru, and Guru is the Bani. Within the Bani, the Ambrosial Nectar is contained

vaahu vaahu baanee nira(n)kaar hai this jaevadd avar n koe ||
wonderful, wonderful! is the Bani, the Word, of the Formless Lord. There is no other as great as He is.

The Gurbani has always been the Guru.

True! - All religions believe the Word was with God, and God is the word. Sikhisms focus is on the Word (contained in the Guru Granth Sahib) Now it would be best for anybody who does not believe it, to read/learn about it before challenging it.

You can't learn, if you don't read. :)

[One Man Army]

something i just come across from dasam granth:

I came to this world with the mission, The Lord delegated me for righteousness; “Go and spread Dharma here, there and everywhere And defeat the tyrants and evil persons. - Guru Gobind Singh ji,

here is Guru Gobind Singh ji talking of why he has come here.