Sikhism- a continuation of prophet hood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Malaikah
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 145
  • Views Views 20K
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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, 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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
BTW - With all due respect Grace Seeker, can you NOT bring Christianity into this thread it only confuses things.
 
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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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)
 
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.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top