Sikhism

To my none-muslim friends peace and blessing be upon you

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
(Iklas 112)

Hello ISDhillon and Qurban, i was reading through your discussion, i was hoping if i could join in, because i am itching to get my views across on this matter.

inshallah, i will address my message in a few days.

Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would surely be consumed before the words of my Lord are exhausted, though We were to bring the like of that (sea) to add
(Al-Kahf, Chapter #18, Verse #109)

To my none-muslim friends peace and blessing be upon you

In the name of ALLAH most gracious, most merciful

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
(Iklas 112)


Hello ISDhillion! How you doin? I have read your discussion with brother Qurban, I’ll have to say it is very interesting the way you have explained Sikhism. Thank you for trying to explain what your religion is about. However I have some things to say about this matter I hope you don’t mind?

To proceed, you said (IsDillion)

The basic category of the the bible is hope that you live in the hope that what is written is true and you will have salvation. The basic category of the Koran is morality that those who will live a moral life will go to paradise,

Your wrong my friend- you may be a scholar in Sikhism, but with all due respect your knowledge in Islam leaves much to be desired- I would have to say your reaching fantastic conclusion. Firstly you don’t even know Foss-ha the Quranic language; hence you’re in no position to interpret the Quran. So I think you should leave this to us Muslims, don’t you think? Since we know how to read the language; a language which is known to be the best literature on the face of this earth.

You said

In sri guru granth sahib ji the seeker has a direct link with god when we read the verses the same is not true for any other scripture on earth why? – because it is the only word of god on earth.

Not very convincing……….I could say the same about the Holy Quran. Provide proof my friend, provide clear evidence.

You said:

I need to know Islamic doctrine and I have as yet not come across one Islamic scholar who can relay Islamic doctrine without using the Koran, doctrine comes from learning history with respect to your faith it is not inferred by interpreting verses in the Koran cos we can all do that.

Are you being serious! I can’t believe what I am reading-

This matter of religion is so important, and you’re saying that you’d rather follow Doctrine from a man, rather than Gods revelation?
And yes it is true we always use the Quran, because it’s the word of God, and God doesn’t make mistakes, but it appears to me that you’d rather rely on doctrines produced by humans who are prone to errors. So when it comes to making a decision such as choosing the right path, I think we all would agree to use the direct source i.e. from God.

And if we followed your logic (i.e. following the doctrines) we will be following a man made religion, or to be more précise, human opinions and views regarding the scripture.
It sounds like the source of the knowledge you have in your religion today is not from God but rather from history i.e. mankind. I think I can see the difference between our religions- only one follows the will of God.

You said

no the path of naam was practised by all saints through out the ages naam is the unstruck melody which pervades the universe it has always existed its just Sikhism made naam marg the purpose of life,

there have been plenty before who were also attuned to the naam but the guru made this path easy that’s why you do not have to be a sikh but make no mistake without naam you will be reborn. There is no such thing as sin so therefore rebirth is not a punishment just part and parcel of gods creation.-

Firstly, does the God you believe in want us to follow the path of naam

Yes –or-No?

If it’s yes-

Then if you don’t follow the path of naam, then you are going against the will of God- and as a consequence you will be re-born!

According to what you have said, in Sikhism, acting against the will of God in is not classified as a sin, hence since there is no sin then there is no such thing as punishment rather a part and parcel of life!

If there are no sin, and no punishment for going against the will of god then what’s the incentive following the will of God-?

According to your statement, in Sikhism, criminal acts such as robbery, rape and Murder cannot classified as sin, since sin does not exist- hence their will be no punishment rather a rebirth which is part and parcel of life- in what way is this concept beneficial to mankind here on earth? What has the God in Sikhism done to address such issues-


So far after reading most of your explanation about your religion it has caused more harm then good, all you have done is just create contradictions in your dialogue exchange with brother Qurban. The brother asked you initially is it a punishment or reward for not following naam marg, which is according to you the will of God- and after deciphering your response, you’re saying “there is no such thing as sin hence there is no punishment its just a part and parcel of life”. With all due respect this shows me the guidance that has been revealed by your God is not complete, as it doesn’t address an important concept of promoting peace on earth-there is no law in order. We can do what ever we like in this world, then be reborn with no punishment. And keep doing so, until one day we decide, I am bored of this world hence lets follow naam, and the loop is over. So in one way or another we all will end up in heaven eventually, depending on how much time we waste to find naam. And what about the concept of justice, who provides true justice? What happens when a murderer is not punished in this life, where is the justice for the victim? the victims family?
Don’t really think this is very convincing that this idea is from God.

This is what I make of this whole concept of naam so far from the information you have supplied in this forum, which to say the least is very confusing-


A- Supposedly God wants us to follow the path of naam marg, if you don’t follow it you will be re-born. From this its quite clear that reborn is a consequence of going against god’s will!

B- Naam Marg has always existed- “naam is the unstruck melody which pervades the universe it has always existed “

C- Naam Marg (Gods will) was not a purpose before the advent of Sikhism “Sikhism made naam marg the purpose of life”,

D- Guru came and made this path easy- so before Guru the path was hard?



Questions



1- If naam Marg was not the purpose for mankind before the advent of Sikhism, why then punish them with re-birth? And what was their purpose in life? Its Not there fault God hid away from them such an important thing such as naam.
2- if naam marg was not the purpose before the advent of Sikhism, why did those saints attuned to it, how did they know about this concept,
3- How comes they did not teach it other people- a bit selfish don’t you think, I mean if they new that without following this path they will be reborn, why not preach it to others-
4- Are their any historical facts supporting the existence of naam marg, and these saints who followed it, before the advent of Sikhism, or are you just making things as you go along.
5- in what point of time in history did this Guru come and made this path easy?
6- what was his name?
7- If God is fair, and he wants us to follow the path of naam, and it is his will, why make the concept so hard to follow, that it required some one else to arrive and make it easy?

Off course this whole concept of following naam will be classified as man made nonsense designed to misguide mankind into eternal damnation. Unless you have proof to back it up.


You said

no it doesn’t at all, divine essence In Sikhism is not a wobbly blob or an old man with a beard who looks like santa, in Sikhism god is a substance with properties: oneness, creative, self-existent, unborn, formless, truth, no fear, no hatred. Divine essence doesn not follow the laws of science you cannot know the nature of your lord through the mind if you could then Sikhism would not have revealed the way of naam.

The smokescreen you have just created to avoid the question by Qurban was futile- you were asked
“This causes problems- anything that was created did not existed prior to his creation, is your scripture saying God never existed at some point?”

Then you replied saying
”no because the creation is a reflection of god and god exists within the whole of creation”-

“divine essence In Sikhism is not a wobbly blob or an old man with a beard who looks like santa, in Sikhism god is a substance with properties: oneness, creative, self-existent, unborn, formless, truth, no fear, no hatred”

Firstly, your saying that when their was nothing created by God, God didn’t exist. Because you’re saying: the creation was a reflection of god, so if the creation was not there then there is nothing to reflect? Hence no God

Now to address the 2nd point you raised, in what way does this solve the problems brother Qurban raised?

You said “God is a substance with properties-“

The properties are – Oneness- how can that be when he created himself?- if he created another version of himself- that makes it two gods- if its not and he is still one, then he must of not existed prior to his creation- i.e. 0.

If he created himself, he must of not existed prior to his creation, but that in it self causes logical flaws, as if he was not their, then he ceased to exists hence how can he create himself- if he existed and is self existence then why the need to create himself. This makes no sense what’s so ever, I thought you where a scholar?

You said

DON’T PUT A SPIN ON THESE AYATS, they say the message came from the angel jibreel even though the word is not written this is accepted by all muslims even you:

the sentence to note here is:
“even though the word is not written”

If the word is not written, then where are you getting your ideas from? Like I said before, you don’t even understand the Quranic language, then what are you doing trying to explain to us what the Ayat means, and whether we should or shouldn’t put a spin to these Ayats, just because you said it means this and we should believe it? Have you forgotten you’re a scholar in Sikhism not Islam.

Anyways just to explain what this Ayat means.

Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger, Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne, With authority there, (and) faithful to his trust.
The Holy Qur'an, Surah 81, Ayat 19-21.

Meaning, indeed this Qur'an is being conveyed by a noble messenger, where does it say that Quran is the word of a most honourable messenger. And the key word in this passage is messenger, which I’ve realised you have trouble understanding.

The second verse you've quoted to defend your arguement, that the Quran is the word of angel Gabrielle is:

Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
The Holy Qur'an, Sura 16, Ayat 102.

Yes!... From thy lord in truth, once again you have defeated yourself in this argument.

Goodness me! Did you even read this passage before posting it, “the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth” – which in plane English means angel Gabrielle brought this revelation FROM ALLAH. So what does that make the angel, the source of the message or a messenger? Even a 10 year old kid would easily answer it saying he is just a messenger. And you claim to be a scholar? Are you sure you’re a scholar? I am sure a scholar knows the meaning of the word “messenger”

Brother Qurban has provided many analogies, of what it requires being a messenger and you still can’t quite grasp the concept of a messenger can you? Or may be your just being ignorant.
I mean if we all started acting ignorant like you, then I have to say everything you put forward from your scripture are just your words- not gods. Since you believe, when the angel Gabrielle passed the message from God to the prophet (pbuh) it’s was the angel’s word, then I could say the scripture your quoting from your holy book, are not Gods word rather it is yours, even when your just passing this message to me. Therefore if we stick to our ignorant idea and refuse to understand what a messenger is then no one will get anywhere.

You said

”I do not care for the opinions of angels as they lick the dust of my gurus feet”

That’s just a matter of opinion and frankly I don’t think any one cares less about yours- And there is so need to get all childish, come on you’re a scholar, I thought you would have passed that phase by now.


Brother Quraban said:

Is the Adi Granth your holy scripture (aka sri Guru Granth Sahbb)?

And you said

no sri guru granth sahib ji is our guru as it was given a formal investiture by sri guru gobind singh ji, adi granth was a compilation of all direct revelations the gurus understood to be imbued with naam and they are the toughstone of guruship therefore knew what could and couldn’t be classed as kachee (unripe) and pakki (ripe) bani, guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib ji from memory because the original was stolen by thieves who wanted the knowledge for themselves and the guru therefore made changes to the original by incorporating his fathers (9th guru) compositons.

Why where there changes made to the original - wasn’t the original good enough? I mean if Gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib ji message from memory, why didn’t he just rewrite the entire message, why did he make changes. So from what you just said, the original scripture doesn’t exist, because you said the original was by guru granth sahib ji which was stolen. And you also said “the guru therefore made changes to the original”, and when changes are made to the original, it is not in its original text anymore.

brother Qurban said
Is it the word of God?

You said

no it is not the word of god, the word is god

Are you saying the word is God? Is that something you’re saying, or is it said in the scripture? Because if it has, then I have to say that a thief has stolen God.
Because you said
“original was stolen by thieves who wanted the knowledge for themselves”So if the word is God and the scripture (which contains the word (i.e. God)) was stolen, then was God stolen by a thief?


Qurban saidis
“Asa Di Var Pauri 1, Page 463 in Sri Guru Granth Sahib a divine revelation from God

You said

it definitely is please provide evidence to the contrary.

Well from my understand, after reading your explainiation of this passage it says:
“In Asa Di Var, Pauri 1, page 463 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji states: "He, the Lord, of Himself, created Himself,”
"Kita pasao eko kavao" Guru Nanak in JAP JI (Pauri 13)
Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji teaches - "In the beginning God was all alone and there was no one beside Him


As the borther Qurban said “this causes problems- anything that was created did not existed prior to his creation, is your scripture saying God never existed at some point?
This contradicts with “"In the beginning God was all alone and there was no one beside Him””.

And you still haven’t replied to this illogical statement.

If God existed then why was there the need to create him self?-
Unless he created another version of himself, which contradicts the concept of one God.

Please forgive me if I have come off rude, that was not my intention. Have a nice day ISDhillon.

May Allah guide you

Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would surely be consumed before the words of my Lord are exhausted, though We were to bring the like of that (sea) to add (Al-Kahf, Chapter #18, Verse #109)

Peace to Those who follow the Guidance!

Excellent questions Bro Akr4m and Moss!

Hi ISdhillion , i hope you have subscribed to this forum,hopefully you will get my message- i will be busy this weekend, hence will try and complie my response to the answers you have provided to my latest questions later on this evening inshaillah, as brothers Akram and Moss have raised very good questions i belive you might have your hands full in answering them, so if you need time to respond to those then let me know buy the 9pm this evening which is 4 and half hours from now, other wise i am going to have to post my answers and questions to you, as i will be to busy this weekend- but by all means take your time in responding to us!

Kind Regards

Qurban

Satsriakal akr4m Ji

“Since we know how to read the language; a language which is known to be the best literature on the face of this earth.”

I don’t think it’s the best language on earth nor do I think it is known to be the best language on earth this is just your personal opinion and my statements on Koran are not my personal opinion my gurus knew the deep message of islam also


“Not very convincing……….I could say the same about the Holy Quran. Provide proof my friend, provide clear evidence.”

It looks like we are going to go around in circles let me say once again Sikhism follows a post modern paradigm ie, the truth is subjective because truth in sikhism is sat and sat is a property of divine essence, when you ask for proof you are referring to sach or right, righteousness of whether or not the scripture does link man with god which will always be subjective as the guru granth sahib ji was meant for that purpose the Koran does not believe in self-realisation it is a farce by your scholars therefore how can you ask for a proof which is wholly subjective.

“This matter of religion is so important, and you’re saying that you’d rather follow Doctrine from a man, rather than Gods revelation?”

this statement shows you do not understand what doctrine is when you say would you rather not follow the revelation you are referring to doctrine ie, you are saying Islamic doctrine involves surrendering to your scripture if this is the case then you do not need to reason to the truth do you understand the difference between practicing islam and scholorary discourse?, doctrine is not a scholarary discourse, it is the historical-cum-religious formulation.

“It sounds like the source of the knowledge you have in your religion today is not from God but rather from history i.e. mankind”

if this is what you have got from my discussion so far I seriously advise you to re-read what I have said you are embarrassing yourself I don’t know a politer way of telling you that. These claims that Sikhism is man-made is born out of fear and jealousy, we have no qualm with anyone we are here to uphold the right of all people to practice their faith without infringement.

“what’s the incentive following the will of God-?”

there is none how can their be reward when there is no punishment, Sikhism is a life affirming religion we see life as an opportunity to fulfil our destiny, we don’t do naam simran for want of anything you have to love the name of god and if you do that is the will of god and if you don’t that is the will of god also.

“what way is this concept beneficial to mankind here on earth? What has the God in Sikhism done to address such issues-“

to be furthered from the destiny of human birth is great I think there is no amount of hell than to not achieve salvation, the god in Sikhism is the doer of good and evil cos he created the opportunity for both when man is operating in dualism.

“important concept of promoting peace on earth-there is no law in order”

this is also correct their has never been law and order on earth in muslim and non-muslim countries, peace is a myth, in Sikhism we have a holy army called the khalsa which was created to uphold the sovereignity of man, man is a sovereign being cos the divine exists within man, when people understand this their will be no chaos.

I have not contradicted myself anywhere please show with clarity where I have.

“And what about the concept of justice, who provides true justice? What happens when a murderer is not punished in this life, where is the justice for the victim? the victims family?”

many people say “what did that child do to deserve being molested” but only god is the knower through countless births the deeds with which the cause of being molested became manifest, say “tera bhana mitta lagai” your will is sweet to me every time you suffer and your fascination for revenge will dissipate.

“Don’t really think this is very convincing that this idea is from God”

the dead never speak so the same could be said of all religions I think your idea of law is a disgrace, idea about morality stand exploded you can be the most moral person on earth or the greatest sinner the end product is the same you will create your hell and heaven right here back where you left. The guru never executed anyone in fact they gave their own lifes so that supposedly transgressors could live, when life is an opportunity then you can only kill those who wish to take that opportunity away including sick religious jusctice like shariah, I have spoken to people from iran and they tell me that the muslims today would have us believe that true shariah is not being practiced anywhere in this world yet they also say that they never want to see the true shariah either because we don’t need to know the true essence of any religion to know what barbarity is, god gave us a conscience for that. Please readjust your maladaptive thoughts islam means submission shariah was only possible when the prophet was here we can never submit to clerics cos we don’t love them nor do we see the glory of islam in the clerics who interpret shariah.

“From this its quite clear that reborn is a consequence of going against god’s will!”

all is the will of god tell me where does the will of god start and stop?, to not follow naam marg is also the will of god, some people in our religion had come through countless births before they finally practiced naam.

“why then punish them with re-birth? And what was their purpose in life? Its Not there fault God hid away from them such an important thing such as naam.”

Who’s punishing?, god never hid away from anyone its just the truth comes out with time and the final truth is Sikhism I told you before that people practiced naam with difficulty including the sufi tradition which existent before Sikhism, I think they called it anullhaq.

“why did those saints attuned to it, how did they know about this concept,”

religions were established for the seeker to have a relationship with the divine but those with vested interests distorted the message and instead of practicing prior preach, they today preach prior practice, however their were a minority in all faiths which understood the deeper message because they contemplated the scripture and thus revealed the diamond of naam unto themselves.

“How comes they did not teach it other people- a bit selfish don’t you think, I mean if they new that without following this path they will be reborn, why not preach it to others-“

they did, mansur preached it whilst their was a moshairaah and was hanged for saying it, sarmad preached and was beheaded by aurangzeb because he said than mohammed did not go to god god was in mohammed, you see all the questions you have asked are easily answerable in SGGS if you read it it will surprise you how profound the response wil be that’s why in Pakistan more and more university are opening schools for sikh studies because they know that naam is the future it satisfies the conditions of man like no other religion has ever done before, that’s why other religions are involved in proselytizing.

“Are their any historical facts supporting the existence of naam marg, and these saints who followed it, before the advent of Sikhism, or are you just making things as you go along.”

Apart from Sikhism, no. if that is what you need then rebirth is your only destiny ther will never be a materialistic expression of naam other than gurbani in written and kirtan format. The saints prior to Sikhism have their bani in SGGS and they refer to naam and no I am not making things up I suggest you watch your mouth when you have dialogue with me I am not going to talk to someone with an attitude.

“in what point of time in history did this Guru come and made this path easy?”

kaljug

“what was his name?”

bani guru guru hai bani – guru is the word and the word is the guru,
the vehicle for the word was originally flesh in 10 forms from nanak to gobind and the vehicle became paper for the spiritual aspect of guru in the form of guru granth sahib ji and the temporal aspect became immersed in the brotherhood known as khalsa.

“If God is fair, and he wants us to follow the path of naam, and it is his will, why make the concept so hard to follow, that it required some one else to arrive and make it easy?”

because that is his will

nanak eh khel kattan hai – nanak says this is a dangerous game.

“Off course this whole concept of following naam will be classified as man made nonsense designed to misguide mankind into eternal damnation. Unless you have proof to back it up.”

Oh really by whom? You perhaps and the other bigots.

“your saying that when their was nothing created by God, God didn’t exist. Because you’re saying: the creation was a reflection of god, so if the creation was not there then there is nothing to reflect? Hence no God”

no you are misunderstood let me remove the smokescreen, god is sargun and nirgun, with form and without form this is a contradiction and that is ok because divine essence is not rational that is not the nature of our god if it is yours then that’s ok but we will not change the nature of god just to hijack science so we can build our own agenda, creation was borne out of nothingness, becase creation is something and something is creation, but nothing is not god just the absence of creation ie, we can never know what the nature of god is other than truth the same can be said of our spirit I call god nothing but I know he exists.

“The properties are – Oneness- how can that be when he created himself?- if he created another version of himself- that makes it two gods- if its not and he is still one, then he must of not existed prior to his creation- i.e. 0. “

divine essence is one ie the unity of spirit, but at the same time the spirit is exactly the same as god but not god at the same time, and yes this is also a contradiction and that is ok. Matter is not another version of himself just his creation and the reflection of god in his creation reveals the prupose of his creation which is self-realisation, ie all water ends up in the sea but keeps its separate identity at the same time I hope you understand this let me know if I have created a smoke screen.

“how can he create himself- if he existed and is self existence then why the need to create himself. This makes no sense what’s so ever, I thought you where a scholar?”

god created logic you are second guessing the mind of god and I am telling you god has no mind and that god has not created an intelligent design but a divine design,your line of reasoning came from an apologetic agenda from old school evangelists it is not a part of Islamic doctrine and it is foolish and wishful thinking on your behalf to ask the nature of divine essence as if it were a materialistic entity with spatial parameters. I never said I was a scholar but I have studied Sikhism in its sovereign perspective, you however have approached the study from an unequal footing you have applied premises which were never inherent in the Koran and therefore you ultimately deny the sovereignity of your faiths doctrine by adopting a common frame of reference, a little word called post modernism do a google search it’s a wealth of info.

“which in plane English means angel Gabrielle brought this revelation FROM ALLAH.”

Which is indirect and I am telling you that gurbani is god because direct revelation has a definition it is not a message or personal opinion it is divine exprexxion the Koran is not perhaps 10 year old kids are more wiser. And the messenger is angel Gabrielle in those ayats youre not denying that are you? Again your post man analagies don’t mean squat to me I hope this is not childish quite frankly from me to you.

“Why where there changes made to the original - wasn’t the original good enough?”

what changes, and the guru can do whatever they like every letter came from god I wish they could add some more its all god, we can never fully sing the prises of god, revelation is never full and final only salvation is.

“So from what you just said, the original scripture doesn’t exist, because you said the original was by guru granth sahib ji which was stolen. And you also said “the guru therefore made changes to the original”, and when changes are made to the original, it is not in its original text anymore”

what a polluted stream of consciousness, all the gurus are the same jot/flame it doesn’t matter if a 100 changes were made the guru can do what they like who are you?.

“then was God stolen by a thief?”

yes this is true well done, what is your point?, waho waho bani nirankar hai – wow wow bani is god – this is from SGGS.

“And you still haven’t replied to this illogical statement.”

Again you need to make a paradigm shift when studying Sikhism your applying a tool of interpretation which has a premise which contradicts the self-definition of Sikhism.

I am not offended at all please ask more questions I have to say though this response was incredibly tiring I hope you will read the essay on the sikh doctrine before engaging in debate otherwise this debate will be going round in circles.

Gurfateh

ISDhillon

Satsriakal Moss Ji

“Where exactly does Guru Nanek say that?”

in the mool mantar which is on the opening of every hymn in guru granth sahib ji.

“How did water come from wind?”

when cold air meets warm air it causes rain.

“How does any of this prove Qur'an is not the word of God, why should we do the research, you're making the allegation, you bring the proof!”

our religion is the evidence that islam is not the final revelation if the Koran teaches that islam is the final revelation then Sikhism is the only evidence which proves your faith to be un true because god would never say that and then start Sikhism but I understand the shortcomings of angels, which then begs the question is the Koran really the word of god or the word of a messenger called Gabrielle?, btw please don’t refer to dr zakir naik for your answers no offence but this man is the greatest stand up comedian in the world his discourse on Islam is shocking.


“Or can you expalin what it actually means, i don't quite understand it”

kabeer sahib is saying that the Koran should be used as a guide to the individual to inculcate values, but those who repeat the Koran like parrots are not detached they are attached to ritual or religious habit they are not contemplating and learning anything.

“To me this proves GGS is not word of God”

I agree it is not the word of god because the word is god, you need to understand the nature of this verse on circumcision kabeer sahib is saying that circumcision which was originally done prior to islam was for the love of a women and in the shafite school of islam circumcision is an obligation cos its sunnah, how you arrived at the conclusion that this proves its not from god is beyond belief, you see kabber only want the form which is beloeved of god because the destiny of man is such and attracting women is not.

“Also can you explain to me how is it Guru Nanek went on hajj, seeing as only muslims can go on hajj”

only a radiant man of god could have been allowed into the grand mosque and so it was that guru nanak dev ji went their, and there is a family in Saudi Arabia which have one of his slippers, and in Baghdad there is a shrine built in honour of guru nanak where he performed a miracle I can get you info if you want. The hajj was initially so that all the ummah would pray in one direction and therefore that would promote unity as a faith, but with time people became orthodox and started to make out that only sajada would be accepted if the prayer was in the direction of makkah that is all what guru nanak wanted to do was to show that god is everywhere it does not matter which way you pray, muslims had lossed sight of the true islam and I feel the same is happening today.

“Br. Heera Singh was trying to defend Sikhism here earlier, but after some tough questions he's not responed for over a week, i hope IS Dhillion don't do the same”

I don’t think he left cos things got tough, and I will stay as long as I can but their comes a point when it is no longer a struggle with the unbeliever to come to grips with Sikhism it is a struggle with the unbeliever to wrestle with their ego. No offence but sometimes we revoke other faiths to salvage a sense of self-worth I can be humble as I want but at some point I have to say “hey each to their own and good luck to you”.

ISDhillon

Satsriakal Quarban Ji,

I will look forward to hearing from you soon.

ISDhillon

BTW I have been trying to also deal with the Sikhism- islam yahoo group but they don’t want to debate with me the errors on that site are shocking they said they would put my rebuttals on their site but to date have failed to do so if anyone knows these people please let them know that they can debate with me on this site if need be.

WAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA WAHEGURU JI KI FATEH!!!!
:thankyou:

In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful!


By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
Verily Man is in loss,
Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.”

Holy Quran- (Surah Asr 103:1-3) (Translation By Yusuf Ali)

Peace to those who follow the Guidance!

Greetings ISDhillion!

Before I address the answers you have provided to my questions in post 61

I would like to address post number 58

You said

“ with respect your postman messenger analogy is incompatible with sikh doctrine because man has an unbroken lineage with his creator the bhagat becomes the guru, then why would we ever need a post man in between, whther or not it is or is not written in the koran is besides the point the simple fact is that you yourself are in agreeance with the nature of your revelation ie, indirect. Secondly the message you bring is an opinion of god, my guru brings god in his words this diference is what sets apart direct and indirect revelation this is why the guru granth sahib ji is reverred cos the word is god”

At least you have admitted that the Quran is a revelation from God and Not Gabriel, as you say, its god opinions not Gabriel’s

Now let’s move…


“My guru brings god in his words”

“The guru granth sahib ji is reverred cos the word is god”


These statements are not consistent with Gods nature- when something from God becomes God it contradicts Gods attributes, for example a tree is from God, but if you say the tree is God, it restricts God to limitations- tree has a beginning and an end, but God is eternal, no begin or end, Mankind was created by God, but if you say God is man, again similar problems,see if you’re insisting that Word is God your causing contradictions ,because according to you

1- Guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib ji from memory” i.e. the word (which was God bought by your Guru) had to be re-created, as the original word was stolen by thieves

2- Guru therefore made changes to the original by incorporating his fathers (9th guru) compositons” so God was not perfect in nature to begin with that he had to be modified…


Inshiallah these will be addressed in more details later in my post-

I asked you!

“1 - Is the Adi Granth your holy scripture (aka sri Guru Granth Sahbb)

Your Reply


no sri guru granth sahib ji is our guru as it was given a formal investiture by sri guru gobind singh ji, adi granth was a compilation of all direct revelations the gurus understood to be imbued with naam and they are the toughstone of guruship therefore knew what could and couldn’t be classed as kachee (unripe) and pakki (ripe) bani, guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib ji from memory because the original was stolen by thieves who wanted the knowledge for themselves and the guru therefore made changes to the original by incorporating his fathers (9th guru) compositons”

I asked you!

“2 - Is it the word of God

Your Reply

“No it is not the word of god, the word is god”

And you question that the Quran is not the word of God-
You provide me with riddles instead of clear answers- and yet you blame me for misunderstanding you!

I asked you if the Guru Granth Sahib is the word of God-

Your answer was quite cryptic to say the least,


So far this is what I make of your answers to questions 1 and 2
I asked you is the Guru Granth Sahib, Gods word, you said

“No it is not the word of god, the word is god”

So according to you, your religion does not contain revelation, or word from God- but rather the word is God-


Your statements such as….


“Word is God” “,
“my guru brings god in his words”
“The guru granth sahib ji is reverred cos the word is god”


….Spawns major problems-

How many words constitutes the whole Guru Granth Sahib how many copies are their, And how many Gods do you believe in?-

With all due respect, but from your answers to question 1 and 2-it can be surmised that your concept of God is some entity…

That can be stolen by a petty thief, - ( “…because the original was stolen by thieves” )

That can be created from memory, ( “guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib ji from memory” )

That is mutable, as he gets changed- ( “guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib”… “therefore made changes to the original by incorporating his fathers (9th guru) compositons.” )

Inshiallah Lets address the concept of word being God-

God being the Words in the Guru Granth Sahib creates so much problems- how can you restrict the almighty to mere words-words have so much limitations and flaws which does not befit the majesty of the lord of the worlds, but if you insist that the words in the Guru Granth Sahib is God, then with all due respect the concept of God in Sikhsm is some one…

1 - Not Eternal

God himself is not eternal- he gets created from memory, also every time a copy is made of your scripture, i.e. a Printer

2- Not Perfect

God is not perfect in nature in his original form- as he is required to go through alterations and changes,

3- Not Universal

God himself is not universal, you said Guru nanak brings God with his words- what language did Guru nanak speak? If words of Guru Nanak is God, then in what way was God available to the rest of Mankind- to me it seems that God Himself can and needs to be translated, then how is God still in his original form? And how is he perfect in essence?

4- Not All Powerful

God is not all powerful he gets kidnapped/godnapped by petty thief’s
God is under the control of the Guru, as every time Guru speaks, God is awakened
God is under the control of every Sikhs every time they read the divine book in the original language it was revealed in-
God is confined and captured in a book-


5- Not One and Only

Even though the original was with the thief, another version was created from memory, not to mention every time a copy is made of the scripture resulting in more than one god! And also as the guru Brings God in his Word- before the birth of Guru how did God address mankind- who else bought God with their word, and did he speak a different language from the Guru? If he did then in what way does that make God one and only?

There is another way to look at your answers to question 1 and 2, i.e. that your scripture was word from God-

Even if you look at it this way, there is still no evidence that it is-

You said the original was stolen- clearly states that you don’t have an original copy of your divine revelation- what you have here is the word of Guru Gobind Ji, not Gods-

he rewrote the whole Guru Granth Saab from memory- I am sure you can see this raises problems also- how can you be so sure that what he re-wrote is identical to the original- were their others who also memorised too? Were they consistent with each other?- did Guru Gobind jis memory of the original, complement other who memorised as well?, or is just a case of one person memory- which doesn’t prove anything, other than the Guru Granth Sahib is word of Gobind ji not Gods


to summarise- how can you intelligently claim that Guru Granth Sahib was revealed by God or that the Guru Granth Sahib is God? Show me a statement to that effect in the book itself and whether Nanak said that the Adi Granth had been fully revealed to him by God- from what you have been saying so far and your collegue heera sing in this forum The Adi Granth is a collection of the writings of many Gurus- not the word of God!





4- is “Asa Di Var Pauri 1, Page 463 in Sri Guru Granth Sahib a divine revelation - from God

it definitely is please provide evidence to the contrary.

Ask and it shall be given- Here you go my friend this is my proof-

First of all I would like to address something, you said initially that your scripture is “not the word from God” , but rather “word is God”- now your saying it is the word from God as you answered my question in the affirmative- read the above question 4 and you will see what I mean-

Any way if you are now saying that it is the word from God… then

“In Asa Di Var, Pauri 1, page 463 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji states: , "He, the Lord, of Himself, created Himself, and gave Name to Himself. The second thing He created is Nature, wherein He resides and revels in His wonder ......"

It’s clear that these words are of Sri Guru Nanak Ji, who is describing God- and they are NOT Gods word-

Because if it is God talking then he is calling every one that reads the following verses “the creator”


“You Yourself are the Giver and the Creator; by Your Pleasure, You bestow Your Mercy.
dhaathaa karathaa aap thoon thus dhaevehi karehi pasaao”

True are Your worlds, True are Your solar Systems.
sachae thaerae khandd sachae brehamandd

True are Your realms, True is Your creation.
sachae thaerae loa sachae aakaar |


To summarise-

For page 463 of sri Guru Granth Sahib, to make any logical sense, you will have to admit that its is word of Guru nanak who is simply describing God- and NOT Gods word-


Is Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji God?

No! I didn’t think so!

And don’t tell me that the words in there, are God- because there are more than one word in their,- and these words were stolen by Theifs- recreated from memory, and altered- which inconsistent with the attributes of God, i.e. God is One, God is all powerful, has no beginning, he is immutable - see arguments above-


The Quran contains clear statements from Almighty God (Allah) and it is Him speaking to all of us in the first person. He tells of us our own creation, the creation of all that is the universe and what has happened to those before us and what is to become of us if we do not take heed of the warnings clearly spelled out in His Revelation. He speaks also to Muhammad, peace be upon him, to show that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is not making this up himself-
You see any revelation from god will at least give mankind some idea of their origin and purpose- when I asked you if their was any revelations from your God addressing the origin of life you gave me an “mythical” extract from “Bachitar Natak”- and now your confirming that “bachittar natak is the autobiography of guru gobind singh ji it is a chapter in dasam granth, dasam granth contains many things which are fascinating to read but ultimately that is all it will remain”.
So there are no revelations from your God addressing the origin of life- so where does that leave you, how does that make you feel, not knowing with certainty your origin? Whether you evolved from the a single cell organism or created from ear wax, or Adam (PBUH)- If your religion does not address something like your origin, how sure are you about your final destination?

Another thing, like Brother Akr4m points out, if we all started to be ignorant and refused to acknowledge the difference between the source of the message and a messenger than every single text that you have posted from holy book

Like

"He, the Lord, of Himself, created Himself, and gave Name to Himself. The second thing He created is Nature, wherein He resides and revels in His wonder ......"

“From the True Lord came the Wind, and from the Wind, came the Water. From the Water sprang the material World, and He, the Lord, pervades all. ......"

And many more you have provided in post #54

Are…

YOUR WORDS, NOT YOUR GURUS, let alone GODS-


Take Care

Looking forward to your replies,

PS i have not read your most recent reply to Brother Akr4m and Moss question in detail, but intersting to see you admit that the God in Sikhism is unable to defend himself from petty thiefs, as he got stolen- in what way does that make your god the most powerful- , take your time in replying

Kind Regards
Qurban

Satsriakal Moss Sahib Ji,

“Dr Naik got to do with anything”

he has set the intellectual agenda for the current spate of discourse on islam lol.

“why are so many people converting through islam because of him, even sikhs appreciate his work”

see how many are converting to Sikhism on a per population basis sikhisms conversion is huge and we don’t preach what does that tell you?, and no we Sikhs do not appreciate his discourse there are some however that appreciate any hindu/india bashing ie, 1984.

Satsriakal Quarban Ji,

“At least you have admitted that the Quran is a revelation from God and Not Gabriel, as you say, its god opinions not Gabriel’s”

no I did not I said it was an indirect revelation from god. So we cannot move on and I also provided you with proof that you hankered after from your Koran.

“These statements are not consistent with Gods nature- when something from God becomes God it contradicts Gods attributes”

no the nature of god in Sikhism is different from the nature of god in islam, god is sargun and nirgun – with and without attributes and it is ok if that is a contradiction there is only a problem if you believe divine essence is rational and if god made man in the image of himself then you will have a problem we Sikhs are free from such premises.

“1- Guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib ji from memory” i.e. the word (which was God bought by your Guru) had to be re-created, as the original word was stolen by thieves”

the divine essence is immanent in the word this is the self-determinating spirit in history, divine expression has no limit we can never fully sing the praises of god so more and more can be recreated but as I said before, those words will also be direct revelation but not gurbani because that was a formal investiture at the hands of guru gobind singh ji and that is sanctioned by god.

“2- Guru therefore made changes to the original by incorporating his fathers (9th guru) compositons” so God was not perfect in nature to begin with that he had to be modified…”

no I never mention the imperctionality of god I have said that you can never fully sing the praises of god ,and that at that time adi granth was not the guru only the guru granth sahib ji is the guru because that was given the title the other book still remains with the sodhi family in kartarpur we have asked for it back but ultimately our guru never gave that book any authority. When someone defiles the guru granth sahib we are hurt but that does not mean that god has been defiled it means that people never learned the divinity of the guru granth sahib ji so in their unwise state they committed a sad act but god lives in many guru granth sahib ji. There is not problem the problem is if you are not letting Sikhism be a measure of its own definition if you are attempting the study of any faith with an attempt to refute it then you automatically apply a frame of reference which is not suitable to the faith and unfortunately you have done the same. Finally perfect and imperfect are a part of his creation also.

“And you question that the Quran is not the word of God-
You provide me with riddles instead of clear answers- and yet you blame me for misunderstanding you!”

I do not question that Koran is not the word of god I am telling you it is not and there are no riddles just misunderstanding on your behalf being melodramatic will not affect me even slightly you have to be able to defend your beliefs if you are to uphold you integrity as a follower of faith, whatever that may be!!!!!


“How many words constitutes the whole Guru Granth Sahib how many copies are their, And how many Gods do you believe in?-“

there is one god and he has many forms like an actor who plays many roles it is never the same form but the actor inside is the same, so too is the lord captured in history for the first time in history in the word of guru granth sahib ji, you line of reason is lame you apply an atomistic nature to god and deny the spirit like nature which is all and nothing, I hope this is not another riddle for you.

“That can be stolen by a petty thief, - ( “…because the original was stolen by thieves” )”

the thief is petty but god is great such words bring salvation too many I don’t know what your point is if by the act in history which caused the book to be stolen somehow undermines the power of god then your god is a reactionary ours is not.

“That can be created from memory, ( “guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib ji from memory” )”

no the guru reproduced the adi granth you have belittled the nature of sri guru gobind singh ji by giving him memory status but guru gobind singh ji dwells in the lord at all times which is why he recalls all 1430 pages. If it were a mere bystander who recalled the 1430 pages I would give your thoughts some consideration.

“That is mutable, as he gets changed- ( “guru gobind singh rewrote the whole of guru granth sahib”… “therefore made changes to the original by incorporating his fathers (9th guru) compositons.” )”

yes god has many forms and he is also formless at the same time, all you have done is said what we believe in which is quite fine but because you wish to engage in false merriment you fashion your argument with bravado but I am openly telling you that the nature of god is as you have suggested and what of it?, my god is great that he can be stolen by a thief, he can be mutable and he can be immanent in the word, evidently your god needs to send an angel to do his work for him.

“how can you restrict the almighty to mere words”

it is not a restriction this is just one of his many singular forms, words are just noises qurban ji understand this and you will be a lot wiser.

“1 - Not Eternal

God himself is not eternal- he gets created from memory, also every time a copy is made of your scripture, i.e. a Printer”

no , you see the words as you see your Koran, when we repeat the words we have a divine connection and man is enlightened sometimes I never understand the words and this proves the power of gurbani, god is eternal in many forms and god is not eternal in many forms, this is another contradiction it is not wise to approach the nature of god with an reductive analytic approach, god transcends and creates these forms of study your god is incredibly limited if he cannot surpass such endeavours.

“2- Not Perfect

God is not perfect in nature in his original form- as he is required to go through alterations and changes,”

This is known as being pedantic, an exercise in futility which I have answered somewhere above.

“3- Not Universal

God himself is not universal, you said Guru nanak brings God with his words- what language did Guru nanak speak? If words of Guru Nanak is God, then in what way was God available to the rest of Mankind- to me it seems that God Himself can and needs to be translated, then how is God still in his original form? And how is he perfect in essence?”

this is confusing you start wih the issue of universaltity then venture into the hermaneutics of scriptural interpretation, gurmukhi is the language and it is interpreted as and by the individual any way they please it is not one universal interpretation for the whole of mankind if that is the koranic way then that’s ok we here at Sikhism do not practice our faith as such. bani is the spiritual embodiment of the guru then bani is pure truth, every letter is a diamond and therefore there is no harm or misrepresentation in taking a sentence out of a verse. And then used to support an argument especially when the argument is in full support of the fundamental practices of the sikh religion. One could only argue that their has been misrepresentation if their was a rule governing the way any part of sri guru granth sahib ji is interpreted, for eg, when i isolate ekonkar from mulmantar it speaks volumes, the same could be said for satnam, the meaning of these words in isolation from mul mantar speak volumes. However, they together form the mulmantar which has great spiritual power. That does not mean we cannot take a line out of sri guru granth sahib ji and discuss it for the fruitful activities and social reform.
Noone has a right to set the rules on how we partake of our guru, the translators are not divine, guruji asks all to experience individually, everybody has their own technique or preference, some like to examine the whole text, some like to read it parrot fashion, some like to sing shabad it depends on your own preference, love comes to all individually for gurshabad.we do not make our practices rigid.


“4- Not All Powerful

God is not all powerful he gets kidnapped/godnapped by petty thief’s
God is under the control of the Guru, as every time Guru speaks, God is awakened
God is under the control of every Sikhs every time they read the divine book in the original language it was revealed in-
God is confined and captured in a book-“

you now want me to continue this charade where you set all the conditions for the nature of god and deny that in Sikhism our god has a divine nature which is used to reveal the divine within us through the divine touchstone which is gurbani, instead you belittle that capability of god and brand our god weak because you are unable to grasp the true nature of our god this is a sad state of affairs.

“5- Not One and Only

Even though the original was with the thief, another version was created from memory, not to mention every time a copy is made of the scripture resulting in more than one god! And also as the guru Brings God in his Word- before the birth of Guru how did God address mankind- who else bought God with their word, and did he speak a different language from the Guru? If he did then in what way does that make God one and only?”

because divine nature of god is one and that is immanent in the word this is not a hard concept to grasp, and it is the first time in history that god was immanent in the word there was none prior to history that’s why Sikhism exists, your argument of the oneness of god has nothing to do with Sikhism it is because your personal convictions of the nature of a one god have nothing to do with the oneness in Sikhism, one divine being which manifests in many forms as the different seasons express themselves differently in many continents.


“You said the original was stolen- clearly states that you don’t have an original copy of your divine revelation- what you have here is the word of Guru Gobind Ji, not Gods-“


no because the nature of guru in Sikhism does not change with the implementation of guru granth sahib ji guru gobind singh was the guru also the flesh was a vehicle for the transmission of that word the guru granth sahib ji becomes guru when guru gobind singh ji no longer was your argument is shrivel in the wake of that, the original copy which you seem to be having a flight of fancy with is still available as I have mention above it is in kartarpur go have a read if need be their was no original guru granth sahib ji, there was an original adi granth which was not given gurgaddi I hope you see your errors this is becoming incredibly tiresome.


“Show me a statement to that effect in the book itself and whether Nanak said that the Adi Granth had been fully revealed to him by God”

you ask me to state from the guru granth sahib ji and then say that you have inferred from heera singh ji that the word is a collection of writings well heera singh actually answered this question already you are not paying attention:

Satguru Granth Sahib is a divinely revealed scripture. There are many occasions when this is made clear in Sree Guru Granth Sahib:
---
jaisee mai aavai khusum kee baanee thaisurraa kuree giaan vae laalo ||
As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo. (722).
---
sathigur kee baanee sath sath kar jaanuhu gurasikhuhu har kuruthaa aap muhuhu kudtaaeae ||
O GurSikhs, know that the Bani, the Word of the True Guru, is true, absolutely true. The Creator Lord Himself causes the Guru to chant it. (308)


Now whether or not you wish to accept the definition of revelation as outlined by myself and others here is a battle with your conscience I am not going to go make you believe I am going to continue with other facets of sri guru granth sahib ji:

1. It is written using very deeply profound words obtained from over 16 languages.
(I would say that it's words are more profound then that of any other Book on the
planet, but that would not get anywhere, I would be simply dismissed as being
biased)
2. The words from over 16 incompatible languages are incorporated in a way that
they make perfect sense.
3. The alphabet the Guru Granth Sahib uses was invented by the Supreme Beings
that wrote it. The Alphabet is called Gurmuki, it is impossible to make a spelling
mistake using this alphabet because it has logical grammar rules. Every word or
sound can only be written one way. Not like English where the k in knife is silent.
This is the easiest alphabet to master. I bet the world would be using computers a
long time ago to write things using speech recognition programs if Gurmuki was
the business language of the world.
4. Every sentence is written in poetry of the highest order. (William Shakespeare
would have been envious.)
5. At the same time every sentence rhymes.
6. At the same time everything is in music verse form, so that all sorts of musical
instruments can be played while it is sung."


Can the same be said of Koran I don’t think so time to eat some humble pie comapdre.

“now your saying it is the word from God as you answered my question in the affirmative”

so your getting me on a technicality this is pedantic also, I have defined the nature of direct reveltation tit for tat is something you are fond of and you are welcome to it but ultimately you have gained nothing.

“Because if it is God talking then he is calling every one that reads the following verses “the creator”

not really why can god not talk about himself, would that be then branding god egotistical with your line of reasoning, and secondly there is a fundamental flaw and that is the concept of mool, that mool is divine essence which exists within all of us, and the mool is also creative, there is no such thing in Sikhism as what came first the chicken or the egg, in Sikhism the spirit creates the seed which creates the human and the spirit becomes immanent in that life form and lives by virtue of the karma of its previous life form to go into the indepth study of these diamonds of gurbani in this discussion will take us away from the topic which is the nature of direct revelation in Sikhism.

“Is Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji God?

No! I didn’t think so!

And don’t tell me that the words in there, are God- because there are more than one word in their,- and these words were stolen by Theifs- recreated from memory, and altered- which inconsistent with the attributes of God, i.e. God is One, God is all powerful, has no beginning, he is immutable - see arguments above-“


you seem to be behaving like judge jury and executioner I have revoked all these assertions and now the onus is upon yourself to accept your failures.


“So there are no revelations from your God addressing the origin of life- so where does that leave you, how does that make you feel, not knowing with certainty your origin?”

actually I did I also gave you a shabad from sri guru granth sahib ji which you have failed to draw on when making your conclusions pay more attention!!!. I am content as I have the truth with me I have god to speak to when ever I need to I don’t need a story book on god I have god.

I leave you with a quote from god:

Without the True Guru, other songs are false.
The songs are false without the True Guru; all other songs are false.
The speakers are false, and the listeners are false; those who speak and recite are false.
They may continually chant, 'Har, Har' with their tongues, but they do not know what they are saying.
Their consciousness is lured by Maya; they are just reciting mechanically.
Says Nanak, without the True Guru, other songs are false. ||24||

I will look forward to your response,

ISDhillon

format_quote Originally Posted by ishkabab

sikhs are sick.........may Allah Tala put hadaiyath on all of them Ameen!!

Ameen. But please don't say sikhs are sick. I have/had a few sikh friends and they are the nicest people I know. Infact they had more morals than some of the muslims I know! We should love all of Allah's creation and pray for them instead of calling them names.

Asalaamu 'alaykum

We invite you to our new website geared towards giving da'wah to Sikh's, foremost amongst them - Mr Dhillon.

http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/

We have, thus far, covered the contraditions of Nirgun-Sargun, reincarnation-transmigration & issues of women.

We pray the Muslims benefit and we ask you make du'a for us.

Wa salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Islam-Sikhism

Asalaamu 'alaykum

We invite you to our new website geared towards giving da'wah to Sikh's, foremost amongst them - Mr Dhillon.

http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/

We have, thus far, covered the contraditions of Nirgun-Sargun, reincarnation-transmigration & issues of women.

We pray the Muslims benefit and we ask you make du'a for us.

Wa salaam

Definately will do!

good luck in ur quest to give Da'wah to Sikhs...it's hard trust me!

Islam -sikhism,

your day will come and I have sent you an email just now good luck with your dawaah whilst it lasts I am going to work hard to see that your site is shut down by all means debate with me here I had warned you several months back upon which you said you would get in contact with me and clear up any misconceptions instead you have been unable to revoke my arguments and dismissed them as red herrings like many missionaries do but I am not as easily abated I will suceed you can be assured of that.

ISDhillon

cool down

I had many Sikh friends....

They wer quite safe.

U have a religion of peace.....not to mention tolerance.

We must encline upon these characteristics and try to understand and tolerate eachother better.

format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram

cool down

I had many Sikh friends....

They wer quite safe.

U have a religion of peace.....not to mention tolerance.

We must encline upon these characteristics and try to understand and tolerate eachother better.

Iqram Ji

I dont have a problem with tolerance but when you debate wth someone the least they can do is respond these people did not because they know that their discourse on sikhism is not accurate read the contents of that site and tell me whether or not it has anything to do with sikhism, the whole basis of their argument is the law of non contradiction, This law of non-contradiction is ridiculous, you will always see these missionaries say things like, god is reasonable and would never contradict himself and then they rush in with the law of non-contradiction expecting everyone to bow down in defeat because they have accepted a common frame of reference instead of their own faith being a measure of its own definition.

The premise of this law in religious dialogue is quite sneeky, it follows that if god made man in the image of himself then god has a mind and is rational. God in sikhism is not as per this definition, we in sikhism believe that god made creation in the image of the souls purpose, thats why all rivers lead to the sea, thats why we have so many joons if we interpret last stanza of Japji Sahib from Pavan guru pani pitta... it is quite self explanatory how creation is made in the image of the souls purpose ie, to be one with god, the spirit is a divine essence which defies all that our minds are capable of interpreting this central theme runs throughout the whole of sri guru granth sahib ji but the missionaries have failed to draw on such references when making their conclusions therefore this unequivically proves their motives to be suspect.

I have tried to discuss things with them by email but it appears that it is a group of schoolboys having a laugh and the stinking pride in their emails makes me want to vomit, they told me their main aim was to change the perception of islam that sufis had done and that sikhi is also a pseudo-spiritual faith. I have rebutted them quite adequately as once you revoke the law of non-contradiction the foundations of their whole arguments crash down around them.

IKant is referred to on their website and he even argued against some theories for God's existence [the ontological argument], even though he did believe in God he stated originally that only European males were rational beings and only later changed this to the whole of humanity... this shows that no-one's logic or rational nature is a-priori... Kant clearly needed experience to show himself what was right!!


Anyhow its ok I understand now that an impasse has been reached and we can no longer retrieve a cordial dialogue.:grumbling

Gurfateh,

ISDhillon

Oh no......

I was hoping to keep it neutral.....

but game on....any misconceptions, hand em over.....

Mr Dhillon,

Your humility shines through as per usual.

Even if you work hard to shut down the site, it only takes 15 mins to put it up again.

We suggest you learn how to debate before dismissing red herrings since this is only reflective of your inability to debate.

All the best

"Your humility shines through as per usual."

there is no need to be humble with a person who deliberately is out to offend others i am not the first to ask you politely to close down your site their have been many trust me I KNOW!!!.

"Even if you work hard to shut down the site, it only takes 15 mins to put it up again."

this is a very bad attitude.


"We suggest you learn how to debate before dismissing red herrings since this is only reflective of your inability to debate."

you set your own rules of debate within narrow parameters whereas as I have told you that we follow a post-modern paradigm but you conveniently dont want to acknowldege that.

"All the best"

dont say what you dont mean I know you too well by now to dismiss any of your good intentions.

Without trust,

ISDhillonffended: