Discussion/Questions on Sikhism

[- Qatada -]

Re: So I've finally converted to Islam

Once you have controlled vices, all doubts are expelled.

I have thought of this as well that there's gotta be more than five vices. As far as I can see five vices cover everything. Maybe your understanding is different than what I am talking about regarding vices.

What are the vices? Maybe you could explain them.

But then how would you prove that it was an angel?

Because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said so. And how do i know it was the true message? Because it is the same message as all the previous prophets, to worship God Alone without associating partners with Him, to establish prayer and to pay the charity. To be dutiful to one's parents, to enjoin good and forbid the evil. To help the needy, to be kind to the creation of Allaah.

We are told to obey Allaah because He has created us for His obedience. The believers and disbelievers will die, and we will be brought back to life by the One who gave us life in the first place - and be judged on all that we did. Those who are obedient to God, believe in Him and His messengers, and submit to Him - they will be rewarded with an eternal paradise. Those who rejected the purpose of their creation and disbelieved in God and His signs, they will be punished in the fire for turning away from the purpose that Allaah created them for.

There is a concept of "jyoti jyot samaana" meaning flame merging with flame. As far as I understand what it refers to is soul merging into God's spirit. It's like if put two candles together the flames merge into each other and nobody can tell the difference.

That's like saying that the person unite's with God and becomes God? The same way the flame touches the other flame and unites with it and becomes the bigger flame. Which means that the person became God?

God is way Higher than what they say of Him. How can a mere creation of God become God himself? God is self-sufficient, and He is not in need of us, rather we are in need of Him, the Praised, Most High.

 

[cali dude]

Re: So I've finally converted to Islam

What are the vices? Maybe you could explain them.

I will try only from my understanding. I am pretty sure some people can have different perception.

Before soul can be united with God, the soul needs to be pure to be worthy of being united with God. The first step in purifying soul is to control five vices. These vices are kaam, krodh, loabh, moh and hankaar - lust, anger, greed, worldly attachments and ego.

At the human level, if you notice, these vices may cause you to commit unethical and immoral acts. But at the spiritual level, these vices distract one's concentration on God. Therefore, they are considered sins at the spiritual level

In my personal opinion, any act that distract one's concentration on God is a vice and a sin.

Because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said so. And how do i know it was the true message? Because it is the same message as all the previous prophets, to worship God Alone without associating partners with Him, to establish prayer and to pay the charity. To be dutiful to one's parents, to enjoin good and forbid the evil. To help the needy, to be kind to the creation of Allaah.

This is where we run into confusion... I really don't wanna offend anybody. So I am not sure we should continue on this part...

We are told to obey Allaah because He has created us for His obedience. The believers and disbelievers will die, and we will be brought back to life by the One who gave us life in the first place - and be judged on all that we did. Those who are obedient to God, believe in Him and His messengers, and submit to Him - they will be rewarded with an eternal paradise. Those who rejected the purpose of their creation and disbelieved in God and His signs, they will be punished in the fire for turning away from the purpose that Allaah created them for.

So does this mean that you obey out of fear or do you obey because you agree with it? Do you ever do anything that's allowed or required in Islam but at the same time, something inside of you tells you that it doesn't make sense and you wouldn't wanna have it done to you?

That's like saying that the person unite's with God and becomes God? The same way the flame touches the other flame and unites with it and becomes the bigger flame. Which means that the person became God?

God is way Higher than what they say of Him. How can a mere creation of God become God himself? God is self-sufficient, and He is not in need of us, rather we are in need of Him, the Praised, Most High.

The way I look at it is that if put a small flame next to a much bigger flame, you can hardly see the difference.

If you put two candles together, flame becomes one but if you pull them apart the flames are separated again. So, that's how the soul still keeps its existence and yet becomes part of the bigger flame. Of course, that's how I look at it. It could be right, wrong or partially right.

Like I said, soul can merge into spirit only if it's pure enough to be worthy of it.

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: So I've finally converted to Islam

I will try only from my understanding. I am pretty sure some people can have different perception.

Before soul can be united with God, the soul needs to be pure to be worthy of being united with God. The first step in purifying soul is to control five vices. These vices are kaam, krodh, loabh, moh and hankaar - lust, anger, greed, worldly attachments and ego.

At the human level, if you notice, these vices may cause you to commit unethical and immoral acts. But at the spiritual level, these vices distract one's concentration on God. Therefore, they are considered sins at the spiritual level

In my personal opinion, any act that distract one's concentration on God is a vice and a sin.

So why did God create a person with these desires?

The reason why we are forbidden from doing certain things is because they are harmful to us or others and it is a form of a test to see if we will approach it or not, yet at the same time there are many things which Allaah has made permissible for us - so if one has the sexual desire - Allaah has allowed us to get married and have intimate relations with ones spouse etc. If one has the desire to have wealth, they are permitted to - even though its more rewardable to spend it to help others etc. yet at the same time it can't be used for evil purposes.


This then leads to the question, who decides what is a lustful act or not?
Or how about fighting which is permitted for sikhis, how can they fight without anger whatsoever?

In islaam we direct our emotions etc in a way which Allaah has permitted for us. Like the example of the sexual urge like i mentioned earlier. It can even bring about reward because a person did it in a legal way [i.e. through their legitimate spouse] compared to if they did it immorally.

This is where we run into confusion... I really don't wanna offend anybody. So I am sure that nobody will get offended...

I'm glad we're having a respectful discussion.

So does this mean that you obey out of fear or do you obey because you agree with it? Do you ever do anything that's allowed or required in Islam but at the same time, something inside of you tells you that it doesn't make sense and you wouldn't wanna have it done to you?

In christianity - they claim to have Love, and hope in God. In other faiths - the people feel that hope and faith will lead them towards God. Even if it doesn't make sense.


In islaam, we have love, hope, fear and also proof for all of these. So if God has created us to have the emotion of love, we love for the sake of Allaah. Like the example of two people staying firm because they both love each other in faith.

We also have hope that if we do good to please God, that He will reward us in the hereafter, inshaa Allaah. So the hope of paradise and seeing Allaah, and the righteous in the hereafter.

The fear is also an emotion which Allaah has placed in us, but we direct it in a way which will bring us closer to God. Without fear, a person will do whatever they desire without consequences. And without fear a person may not carry on their duty. So for instance, fighting in the cause of Allaah holds a huge reward, but at the same time - some people may fear the people of this world and choose not to fight. So fearing to disobey Allaah means the person will go forward to fight for a better purpose - to help those who are being harmed.

The way I look at it is that if put a small flame next to a much bigger flame, you can hardly see the difference.

If you put two candles together, flame becomes one but if you pull them apart the flames are separated again. So, that's how the soul still keeps its existence and yet becomes part of the bigger flame. Of course, that's how I look at it. It could be right, wrong or partially right.

Like I said, soul can merge into spirit only if it's pure enough to be worthy of it.

So the flame enters into the other flame and unites. Later on it can disunite again..? The thing that i find hard to understand in this concept is that it's saying that souls unite with God? If they unite, why do they need to disunite in the future right? So what happens to the soul when it's with God? Does it do anything at all? Does it talk?

What exactly is the role of God in your faith?

 

[GurVah]

Re: do you think i should?

you can visit a Gurdwara, but it is not acceptable for you to preach.
Sikhs do prepare food in a special way. we recite Gurbani whilst making it, this is not a ritual.

 

[cali dude]

Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

So why did God create a person with these desires?

if we were to question, we could question why even God created this whole thing. But as we all know there is right and wrong in everything.

The reason why we are forbidden from doing certain things is because they are harmful to us or others and it is a form of a test to see if we will approach it or not, yet at the same time there are many things which Allaah has made permissible for us - so if one has the sexual desire - Allaah has allowed us to get married and have intimate relations with ones spouse etc. If one has the desire to have wealth, they are permitted to - even though its more rewardable to spend it to help others etc. yet at the same time it can't be used for evil purposes.

Well that's only for us at the human level. At the saint level, these kinds of desires don't exist.

This then leads to the question, who decides what is a lustful act or not?

Lust is lust. It doesn't need somebody's approval or disapproval. It's like law of nature. Law of nature doesn't change for people.

Or how about fighting which is permitted for sikhis, how can they fight without anger whatsoever?

A true Sikh doesn't fight with anger or hatred. S/he fights only to keep someone from doing something evil.

In islaam we direct our emotions etc in a way which Allaah has permitted for us. Like the example of the sexual urge like i mentioned earlier. It can even bring about reward because a person did it in a legal way [i.e. through their legitimate spouse] compared to if they did it immorally.

If something is wrong, it doesn't matter how you do it, it's wrong.

I'm glad we're having a respectful discussion.

Yet it doesn't mean I agree with what you say. All it means is that what you are doing doesn't logically make sense but if I say what I thought of it, it might offend you.

The fear is also an emotion which Allaah has placed in us, but we direct it in a way which will bring us closer to God. Without fear, a person will do whatever they desire without consequences. And without fear a person may not carry on their duty. So for instance, fighting in the cause of Allaah holds a huge reward, but at the same time - some people may fear the people of this world and choose not to fight. So fearing to disobey Allaah means the person will go forward to fight for a better purpose - to help those who are being harmed.

When you do something out of fear, what it means is that you desire to do something wrong. But you don't do it because you are afraid, you will be punished. It's like a child not doing something s/he is not supposed to because s/he fears that her/his parents will find out and punish. Well that's good as long as everything s/he is supposed to do is moral. At least a child won't do something wrong out of fear. But what's better is that a child has no desire to do something wrong.

So the flame enters into the other flame and unites. Later on it can disunite again..? The thing that i find hard to understand in this concept is that it's saying that souls unite with God? If they unite, why do they need to disunite in the future right?

Once the flame has merged, it isn't separated. I simply gave you the example to explain my understanding how the flame still maintains its identity even though nobody can see the difference and even the smaller flame might feel that it's completely blended with the bigger flame.

So what happens to the soul when it's with God? Does it do anything at all? Does it talk?

My assumption is same thing what God. But I don't know what they as I haven't experienced it.

What exactly is the role of God in your faith?

There are 1432 pages written on it. So I couldn't possibly describe it here.

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

if we were to question, we could question why even God created this whole thing. But as we all know there is right and wrong in everything.

That's not the question though, God created us with certain desires and these affect us all as a whole personally. So asking why we have them is important, as it leads us to understand more in depth as to why we need to control the vices.

Well that's only for us at the human level. At the saint level, these kinds of desires don't exist.

So do the saints not have these desires?

Lust is lust. It doesn't need somebody's approval or disapproval. It's like law of nature. Law of nature doesn't change for people.

Lust can be used in a positive sense when a couple get married, that way they can control that desire in the right way. There's nothing wrong with one directing the permissible desires in a way which will benefit the people.

So by getting married - they have offspring which can benefit them in this life and the hereafter. If all the impious were to have children and the pious never - then imagine how much good there would be?

A true Sikh doesn't fight with anger or hatred. S/he fights only to keep someone from doing something evil.

How about the one who hasn't reached that next level? What if they get angry in battle because someone chopped off their arm and leg?

If something is wrong, it doesn't matter how you do it, it's wrong.

Again, the term 'wrong' is open to interpretation if there aren't a fixed set of rules.

Yet it doesn't mean I agree with what you say. All it means is that what you are doing doesn't logically make sense but if I say what I thought of it, it might offend you.

I don't understand what's so logically wrong with a true prophet calling towards the worship of God Alone, by establishing the prayer, doing good such as helping the needy, being kind to the creation, enjoining good and forbidding evil.

When you do something out of fear, what it means is that you desire to do something wrong. But you don't do it because you are afraid, you will be punished. It's like a child not doing something s/he is not supposed to because s/he fears that her/his parents will find out and punish. Well that's good as long as everything s/he is supposed to do is moral. At least a child won't do something wrong out of fear. But what's better is that a child has no desire to do something wrong.

Like you said, there aren't much people who can actually control their desires so sometimes the fear aspect has to be implemented in order to stop people from doing the evil.

Once the flame has merged, it isn't separated. I simply gave you the example to explain my understanding how the flame still maintains its identity even though nobody can see the difference and even the smaller flame might feel that it's completely blended with the bigger flame.

My assumption is same thing what God. But I don't know what they as I haven't experienced it.

If i understood it correct, that means the persons merged in with God right?

There are 1432 pages written on it. So I couldn't possibly describe it here.

Our's is explained in one verse:

Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi [Chair] extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.

[Qur'an 2:255]
​

 

[cali dude]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

That's not the question though, God created us with certain desires and these affect us all as a whole personally. So asking why we have them is important, as it leads us to understand more in depth as to why we need to control the vices.

There is negative and positive in this world and these desires are negative forces. Balance point (zero) is no desires and then God is all positive. Don't ask why but good and bad do exist.

So do the saints not have these desires?

You are asking what has been answered in what you are questioning...

Lust can be used in a positive sense when a couple get married, that way they can control that desire in the right way. There's nothing wrong with one directing the permissible desires in a way which will benefit the people.

So by getting married - they have offspring which can benefit them in this life and the hereafter. If all the impious were to have children and the pious never - then imagine how much good there would be?

Marrying because of lust is probably not a good reason to get married. If people do so, they might overlook other important compatibilities needed in marriage.

How about the one who hasn't reached that next level? What if they get angry in battle because someone chopped off their arm and leg?

All this means is that they haven't reached that next level, yet.

Again, the term 'wrong' is open to interpretation if there aren't a fixed set of rules.

Right and wrong aren't simply of matter of interpretation. There is something absolutely right and there is something absolutely wrong. Just because an organized religion's dogma says that something is right, it doesn't become right. Something that is universally right is the only thing that's right and something that has a slightest chance of being wrong is wrong even if a religion says it's right. There are some religious aspect that are not moral.

I don't understand what's so logically wrong with a true prophet calling towards the worship of God Alone, by establishing the prayer, doing good such as helping the needy, being kind to the creation, enjoining good and forbidding evil.

You said that there was a proof that angel Gabriel came to Mohammad Sahib and revealed God. I asked you how you could prove that and then you said Mohammad Sahib said. That's fine if you want to believe that but I thought you were going to bring a solid proof.

Like you said, there aren't much people who can actually control their desires so sometimes the fear aspect has to be implemented in order to stop people from doing the evil.

But those who do things because of fear are not at the same level of wisdom as those who do the same thing on their own. Therefore, if a religion creates fear among people, that means follower of that religion could never get to the next level, where it becomes natural for people to do things right. Of course, this is assuming that religions always teach good things, which I disagree with because there are a lot religious practices that are not moral at all. So when people do things out of fear, they keep doing things that are immoral because they think God will otherwise punish them. Therefore, it's real important to use brain even in religion.

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

There is negative and positive in this world and these desires are negative forces. Balance point (zero) is no desires and then God is all positive. Don't ask why but good and bad do exist.

In islaam it's direct your desires through permissible means [i.e. marriage], instead of doing them through sinful means [i.e. fornication/adultery] etc. That way one doesn't feel overwhelmed.

You are asking what has been answered in what you are questioning...

Once a person reaches that high level, what if they start getting attatched to the vices i.e. this world, then do they lose that all again?

Marrying because of lust is probably not a good reason to get married. If people do so, they might overlook other important compatibilities needed in marriage.

Yes, marriage simply on lust isn't good. But we're focusing on lust to see if it's sinful or not. Not whether it should be used as something which makes a couple compatible.

All this means is that they haven't reached that next level, yet.

So once a person reaches that stage, can they reverse and fall into the vices once again? And if they do, will they never be able to be with God again until they die on that state?

Right and wrong aren't simply of matter of interpretation. There is something absolutely right and there is something absolutely wrong. Just because an organized religion's dogma says that something is right, it doesn't become right. Something that is universally right is the only thing that's right and something that has a slightest chance of being wrong is wrong even if a religion says it's right. There are some religious aspect that are not moral.

If there is something absolutely right/wrong, that isn't the case as we said earlier. I.e. someone might be really poor and dying so they may steal, is this right or wrong? In islaam we have the rule of the lesser two evils.

You said that there was a proof that angel Gabriel came to Mohammad Sahib and revealed God. I asked you how you could prove that and then you said Mohammad Sahib said. That's fine if you want to believe that I thought you were going to bring a solid proof.

He brought the Qur'an which is the divine word of Allaah. May i ask (no offense intended) but don't sikh's believe in the previous prophets? Maybe if we understand this concept it will make things easier to understand.

By the way, if you want proof for how it's the word of Allaah, then you can refer to this insha'Allah (God willing.)

Miraculous Quran
http://www.load-islam.com/wel_islam.php?topic_id=3

But those who do things because of fear are not at the same level of wisdom as those who do the same thing on their own. Therefore, if a religion creates fear among people, that means follower of that religion could never get to the next level, where it becomes natural for people to do things right. Of course, this is assuming that religions always teach good things, which I disagree with because there are a lot religious practices that are not moral at all. So when people do things out of fear, they keep doing things that are moral because they think God will otherwise punish them. Therefore, it's real important to use brain even in religion.

I agree, that we use intellect and our brains to understand religion.

You say that fear isn't important, but do you see how the religions which claim that one can gain salvation through simply believing and knowing that God will forgive them usually lead to people doing whatever they want, without feeling regret of feeling afraid that their actions will carry a punishment? Or how about societies where people feel they can do whatever they want without consequences for their evil?

Let's say for example - there isn't the punishment for adultery/fornication in this country right? Do you see how widespread it is? Compare it to a state which will punish people if they did that crime, you'll realise that it's more hidden and less likely to be widespread in that land.


Some people obey through Love, others through fear. People in islaam obey Allaah out of love for Him, and we should obey Allaah because we are responsible for our actions. Hence if we sin, we quickly repent before we are judged for our actions. Those who repent are only doing it for their own soul, and they won't benefit Allaah in any way. They want to enter Allaah's Paradise, and they seek refuge in Allaah from His punishment.

In psychology - Positive Reinforcement, and Punishment is well known.

 

[cali dude]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

In islaam it's direct your desires through permissible means [i.e. marriage], instead of doing them through sinful means [i.e. fornication/adultery] etc. That way one doesn't feel overwhelmed.

So what happens if someone still desires even even after marriage? Do they have multiple spouses?

Once a person reaches that high level, what if they start getting attatched to the vices i.e. this world, then do they lose that all again?

Either you are in that stage or you are not. If you are in that stage, you have controlled vices and if you are not, you haven't. If some times, you act upon those vices and some times, you don't, that means you haven't controlled vices.

Yes, marriage simply on lust isn't good. But we're focusing on lust to see if it's sinful or not. Not whether it should be used as something which makes a couple compatible.

The bottom line here is that someone with lust can not achieve the spiritual goal of a Sikh. It doesn't matter whether or not they end up marrying.

So once a person reaches that stage, can they reverse and fall into the vices once again? And if they do, will they never be able to be with God again until they die on that state?

Like I said you are either in that stage or you not. There is no gray area. If they are not, they might get reincarnated based upon their karma.

If there is something absolutely right/wrong, that isn't the case as we said earlier. I.e. someone might be really poor and dying so they may steal, is this right or wrong? In islaam we have the rule of the lesser two evils.

Do you think a "true prophet' would rather die than stealing?

He brought the Qur'an which is the divine word of Allaah. May i ask (no offense intended) but don't sikh's believe in the previous prophets? Maybe if we understand this concept it will make things easier to understand.

From my very limited knowledge, I have not found in Guru Granth Sahib that says that message of Islam is to be followed. There are some Sikh preachers who one in a while use some story from Muslims. But I personally am not convinced at all.

You say that fear isn't important, but do you see how the religions which claim that one can gain salvation through simply believing and knowing that God will forgive them usually lead to people doing whatever they want, without feeling regret of feeling afraid that their actions will carry a punishment? Or how about societies where people feel they can do whatever they want without consequences for their evil?

Let's say for example - there isn't the punishment for adultery/fornication in this country right? Do you see how widespread it is? Compare it to a state which will punish people if they did that crime, you'll realise that it's more hidden and less likely to be widespread in that land.

Some people obey through Love, others through fear. People in islaam obey Allaah out of love for Him, and we should obey Allaah because we are responsible for our actions. Hence if we sin, we quickly repent before we are judged for our actions. Those who repent are only doing it for their own soul, and they won't benefit Allaah in any way. They want to enter Allaah's Paradise, and they seek refuge in Allaah from His punishment.

There are two different things we are talking about.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with not having law to punish people who harm others. If someone harms others, yes they deserve the punishment.

Instead I am saying that if you do what your religion says out of fear, that is nothing compared to achieving a stage where you naturally do good.

Plus since religion isn't always moral, people doing out of fear might never get the next level as they will keep committing immoral acts.

For example, someone killing someone because they converted from Islam. I have no idea how on this earth someone could justify this but people apparently have been doing this because they thought they were pleasing God.

Also, is there any punishment in Islam for terrorism, or harvesting opium or blowing up Buddha statues?

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

So what happens if someone still desires even even after marriage? Do they have multiple spouses?

Why not? If God has made the population of female's more than males then polygamy is permitted by God. And if a person can go out and commit fornication/adultery - and instead they do the permissible by getting married, then that's better because they can get married to the woman and provide her with food, wealth, shelter etc. Whereas if she wasn't married and it was through something illegitimate, then he might just get the woman pregnant and run away.

Anyway, polygamy isn't permitted unless one can deal with them justly:

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. [Qur'an 4:3]


​

Either you are in that stage or you are not. If you are in that stage, you have controlled vices and if you are not, you haven't. If some times, you act upon those vices and some times, you don't, that means you haven't controlled vices.

The bottom line here is that someone with lust can not achieve the spiritual goal of a Sikh. It doesn't matter whether or not they end up marrying.

Like I said you are either in that stage or you not. There is no gray area. If they are not, they might get reincarnated based upon their karma.

Anyone knows that a person can switch from being good to bad, and be good and turn bad. That's why we have a variety of people, some things about them are good while others are bad and vice versa. So there are grey areas.

Do you think a "true prophet' would rather die than stealing?

I'm not talking about a prophet, i'm talking about someone who's poor and they steal out of necessity. Is that a good thing or bad?

From my very limited knowledge, I have not found in Guru Granth Sahib that says that message of Islam is to be followed. There are some Sikh preachers who one in a while use some story from Muslims. But I personally am not convinced at all.

I asked if you believed in the previous prophets, because i've read on different parts of the forum that the sikhi's do believe in Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them.) Is this true? And do they believe in others aswell?

If not, who was before the sikhi's?

There are two different things we are talking about.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with not having law to punish people who harm others. If someone harms others, yes they deserve the punishment.

Instead I am saying that if you do what your religion says out of fear, that is nothing compared to achieving a stage where you naturally do good.

A person in a love relationship doesn't cheat on their lover out of love for them, and doesn't disobey them because they fear to lose them.

Plus since religion isn't always moral, people doing out of fear might never get the next level as they will keep committing immoral acts.

For example, someone killing someone because they converted from Islam. I have no idea how on this earth someone could justify this but people apparently have been doing this because they thought they were pleasing God.

The answers simple: treason. Anyone can claim to be muslim and then leave it the next day, pretending that it's different to how they expected it etc. This demoralises other people and makes then question their faith even though they may not be totally settled into it.

Now imagine a whole clan of people doing the same purposelly, even though they never really accepted islaam by heart. Do they think they can get away with it? No. Once you're in, you accept it whole heartedly. No-one forced you to become muslim in the first place, so that's why one should be prepared to submit before they take that step forward.

Also, is there any punishment in Islam for terrorism, or harvesting opium or blowing up Buddha statues?

Opium is forbidden to take as a drug:

There is no doubt that taking drugs is haraam, including hashish, opium, cocaine, morphine, and so on. That is for many reasons, including the following:



1 – It dulls the senses and befogs the mind, and whatever does that is haraam [forbidden], because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Every intoxicant is khamr, and every intoxicant is haraam. Whoever drinks khamr in this world and dies persisting in that and without having repented, will not drink it in the Hereafter.” Narrated by Muslim, 2003.

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=66227&ln=eng&txt=opium


​

I'm not sure about growing it, maybe it depends on the intention of the one who harvests it. Maybe he's growing it for the purpose of heroine - which may be used to help patients at the hospital? Allaah knows best.

For terrorism:

Islam considers all life forms as sacred. However, the sanctity of human life is accorded a special place. The first and the foremost basic right of a human being is the right to live. Allah says in the Qur’an says: (… if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.) (Al-Ma’idah 5: 32)

Read more:

What Does Islam Say about Terrorism?
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545862


​

If i find anything on the buddha statues, i'll post it up insha'Allaah (God willing.)



​

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

Our's is explained in one verse:

Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi [Chair] extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.

[Qur'an 2:255]
​

Cali veer is right. All our scripture is dedicated to God, one verse alone is not enough....as this explains...

Trying to describe even an iota of the Greatness of the True Name, (God)
people have grown weary, but they have not been able to evaluate it.
Even if everyone were to gather together and speak of Him, (God)
He would not become any greater or any lesser.


But this is the beginging of our Guru Granth Sahib Ji

IK ONKAAR, SAT NAAM, KARTA PURKH, NIRBHAU, NIRVAIR, AKAAL MOORAT, AJOONI SABHANG, GUR PARSAAD

There is only One God, Truth is His Name, He is the Creator, He is without fear, He is without hate, He is timeless and without form, He is beyond birth and death, The enlightened one. He can be known, by The Guru’s Grace

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: So I've finally converted to Islam

Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god;- Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god;- the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to Allah! (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him.

He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

[Qur'an 59: 22-24]
​

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm



The 99 Names of Allaah

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFh6gXmWdIo[/media]

​

 

[cali dude]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

Why not? If God has made the population of female's more than males then polygamy is permitted by God. And if a person can go out and commit fornication/adultery - and instead they do the permissible by getting married, then that's better because they can get married to the woman and provide her with food, wealth, shelter etc. Whereas if she wasn't married and it was through something illegitimate, then he might just get the woman pregnant and run away.

Who is saying that adultery is good? But your reason to get married to fulfill sexual desire is wrong.

The bottom line is that it does not matter what how people deal with lust, a lustful person can never get to the next level of spirituality.

Anyone knows that a person can switch from being good to bad, and be good and turn bad. That's why we have a variety of people, some things about them are good while others are bad and vice versa. So there are grey areas.

Maybe an ordinary person can but not the person who has achieved the next stage.

I'm not talking about a prophet, i'm talking about someone who's poor and they steal out of necessity. Is that a good thing or bad?

So absolute truth in this situation is that stealing even when one is dying is wrong. There is no gray area. But it may not be punishable at the same level as if someone stole out of greed.

I asked if you believed in the previous prophets, because i've read on different parts of the forum that the sikhi's do believe in Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them.) Is this true? And do they believe in others aswell?

If not, who was before the sikhi's?

I have not come across anything in Guru Granth Sahib that encourages us to follow footsteps of any of the other prophets.

There was nothing like Sikhi before Sikhi.

A person in a love relationship doesn't cheat on their lover out of love for them, and doesn't disobey them because they fear to lose them.

Yes a person may not cheat but at the same time though s/he may be forced into doing other immoral stuff even though deep inside, s/he knows it's wrong.

The answers simple: treason. Anyone can claim to be muslim and then leave it the next day, pretending that it's different to how they expected it etc. This demoralises other people and makes then question their faith even though they may not be totally settled into it.

Now imagine a whole clan of people doing the same purposelly, even though they never really accepted islaam by heart. Do they think they can get away with it? No. Once you're in, you accept it whole heartedly. No-one forced you to become muslim in the first place, so that's why one should be prepared to submit before they take that step forward.

What happens to the people who weren't mature enough to make the decision? What if someone born in a Muslim family wants to leave?

Opium is forbidden to take as a drug:
What Does Islam Say about Terrorism?
If i find anything on the buddha statues, i'll post it up insha'Allaah (God willing.)

My whole point to bring this up was that you may kill individuals if they try to do things that are not allowed in Islam. But at the same time, you people do nothing when it comes to large groups doing what goes against Islam. It's much easier to kill a woman living western life style than fighting terrorists, or people smuggling drugs into other countries or people destroying other religions' monuments, isn't it?

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

Who is saying that adultery is good? But your reason to get married to fulfill sexual desire is wrong.

And who said it was for sexual desires only? What about the innocent women who can't get married to a man because all the men aren't enough, as they're already married?

The bottom line is that it does not matter what how people deal with lust, a lustful person can never get to the next level of spirituality.

So long as someone controls that lust and uses it in the permissible ways, then that's encouraged. I've read a post of Avar's on another page which states that Guru Nanak permitted marriage.

1. Muslims believe in polygamy and they even marry their cousins. By Islamic law Muslims can have up to four wives. Guru Nanak Dev Ji completely denounced these activities and instructed to be wedded to one person only.

http://www.islamicboard.com/671072-post1.html

Maybe an ordinary person can but not the person who has achieved the next stage.

But you said earlier that a person can? Because a person might start getting attatched to the world again.

So absolute truth in this situation is that stealing even when one is dying is wrong. There is no gray area. But it may not be punishable at the same level as if someone stole out of greed.

Why not? Isn't it still stealing which is a vice? And stealing is wrong.

I have not come across anything in Guru Granth Sahib that encourages us to follow footsteps of any of the other prophets.

There was nothing like Sikhi before Sikhi.

But you do accept them right? And if so - does that mean all the people before Guru Nanak were astray according to the sikhis?

Yes a person may not cheat but at the same time though s/he may be forced into doing other immoral stuff even though deep inside, s/he knows it's wrong.

But who said it's wrong? It still hasn't been defined yet. If the sikhi's say killing is wrong because its harmful - then how about when they fight others? Aren't they doing it for the safety of others? If so, then that's exactly what the muslims are doing. So you see how the forbidden comes permissible in certain situations.

What happens to the people who weren't mature enough to make the decision? What if someone born in a Muslim family wants to leave?

Then their lucky because they actually have a better headstart to learn and understand the religion.

My whole point to bring this up was that you may kill individuals if they try to do things that are not allowed in Islam. But at the same time, you people do nothing when it comes to large groups doing what goes against Islam. It's much easier to kill a woman living western life style than fighting terrorists, or people smuggling drugs into other countries or people destroying other religions' monuments, isn't it?

Since when are women to be killed?

The instructions of the Prophet are as follows: "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman.” (Reported by Abu Dawud) "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal)


And just because the media doesn't show muslims condemning the terrorist attacks, doesn't mean we don't do it.

If you going to keep using the example of opium, don't you know that when Allaah forbids something, He also forbids its price? And just because people sell it in a muslim nation, doesn't mean its allowed. If we were to judge a religion by it's people then we could easily start arguing over what people from all over the world do and then blame their religion.

If you really want to know islaam, go to the revelation which Allaah sent to His final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.)

 

[Khalsaji]

Re: do you think i should?

Dear Muslim Friends,

I am a Sikh and can answer all of your questions. Keep in mind that Guru Nanak never clained that he is God. He always preached that he is here on earth as a messenger and each word he is saying is guided by the God himself.

You guys/gals are maybe born and brought up in the West. But don't ask a Sikh or Hindu, just ask any elder of your own family who was Guru Nanak and you will get the answer.

A teacher is not limited to a single class. Who ever wants to learn can benefit from his/her teachings. Guru Nanak is not related to the Sikhs only, his close accomplice Bhai Mardana was a Muslim. And he remained Muslim till his last breath. Guru never asked him to convert.

Guru Nanak was recognized as a God sent by the rulers of his time. Rai Bular Bhatti of Talwandi gave his more than 1500 acres of land to Guru. He was a muslim but he was not ashamed to follow the path of truth shown by Guruji. Guruji never ever asked to convert. More than dozzen Gurudwaras in and arround Nankana Sahib are proof of Guru's deads and show of supernatural powers to teach God's word the public.

Nawab Daulat Khan Lodhi of Sultanpur had to agree that he was just pretending doing Namaj while in fact he was mentally not present in Maseet. So did the Qaazi confessed of his mental absence. Guru Nanak was revered as being Anterjami.

Wali Kandhari of Hasan Abdaal, who refused to give water to Bhai Mardana because he was accompnying a non-muslim, had to regret his actions when his quite a large piece of stone could not harm Guruji.

This MuslimWoman is asking for photographic proof from 15th Century. Is this possible? Is the not convinced that whats written in the history is true?

To be a muslim is a bliss. But who is a muslim? Guru Nanak has written in simple Punjabi language the qualities of a true muslim and has asked them to be like that. Guru ji loved everyone as being created by the same God and so does every Sikh.

I would welcome any questions and would try to answer all. Good luck to all of you.

As a suggestion to the origional poster, I would encourge him to go to Gurdwara with a pure heart as you would go to a Maseet and talk to somebody about what Gurbani says about being a true Muslim. Guru Granth Sahib ji is not just a book, He is a Living Guru. Stay a Muslim and go there just like you would go to any other teacher. Be sincere and respectful in your mind, you will feel and see for yourself the words of Guru Granth Sahib ji being delivered to you as they were an answer to the questions you had in your mind. Guru Granth Sahib ji is not an auto-biography of any of the Sikh Guru but a compilation of knowledge on God and how we could reach and meet Him.

The Gurbani that we consider and worship as a Living Guru is not just written by the Sikh Gurus but Kabir (a Muslim Julaha), Sheikh Farid (a Muslim faqir from Shakarganj), Ravidaas (a Hindu chamar) and may other Bhagats (devotees) of various religions, regions and social status.


Nanak Naam Chardi Kala, Tere Bhane Sarabat Da Bhala. (Nanak's God's word is the highest state of happiness and in God's wish may everybody be blessed.)

Sat (true is) Sri Akal (the God) as you guys say Allah hoo Akbar (God is Great)

 

[Malaikah]

Re: do you think i should?

For a start you should not go to a Sikh community and tell them that their religion is false. That is wrong. Leave the sikhs to their religion. You follow yours, let them follow theirs. Don't impose your beliefs onto other people.

There is nothing wrong with discussing. Discussing is very different to imposing (as if he even has the power to impose anything on them).

isnt it abit unkind to actually use the Sikh facilites of the gurdvara and eat the meals paid for by the Sikhs, and then turn around to tell us our religion is false and try to convert us?

No, it is not unkind at all. You only offer him a free meal, he offers you paradise in return. His offer is much greater I would say...

 

[TruthIsHisName]

Re: do you think i should?

No, it is not unkind at all. You only offer him a free meal, he offers you paradise in return. His offer is much greater I would say...

now he is God is he?

Offering langar is more on a practical/physical level. Its the one thing all gurdwarey do and other places of worship dont to all the time.


My interpretation of what i made out for Paradise to be accoring to Islam
seems very materialistic. Quite hypocritical aswell muslims are apparently offered rivers of wine yet on earth they cannot touch the stuff. You lot are out to get paradise and a life where all TEMPORARY desires are fulfilled

In Sikhi we do not seek to go to paradise, We seek Salvation,to be ONE with GOD. To us this is the highest of all desires and our only will.

If infinate virgins, rivers of wine and every thing you would possibly want is more importent that being one with your creator, than fair enough, you aim for your paradise and we will keep at Salvation. Atleast we wont have to play games of hypocracy

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: do you think i should?

now he is God is he?

Offering langar is more on a practical/physical level. Its the one thing all gurdwarey do and other places of worship dont to all the time.


My interpretation of what i made out for Paradise to be accoring to Islam
seems very materialistic. Quite hypocritical aswell muslims are apparently offered rivers of wine yet on earth they cannot touch the stuff. You lot are out to get paradise and a life where all TEMPORARY desires are fulfilled

In Sikhi we do not seek to go to paradise, We seek Salvation,to be ONE with GOD. To us this is the highest of all desires and our only will.

If infinate virgins, rivers of wine and every thing you would possibly want is more importent that being one with your creator, than fair enough, you aim for your paradise and we will keep at Salvation. Atleast we wont have to play games of hypocracy

Our purpose in life is to obey our Creator, Allaah. To keep our duty to Him, and to stay away from what He has prohibited. Allaah reveals messengers among mankind to call the obedience of God, where mankind differed.

Allaah has sent 124,000 prophets all calling to the obedience and worship of God and that no partners should be associated with Him. Whether these partners are stone idols, humans, created philosophies [like communism etc.] Islaam (which mean's submission to God) was the religion which God revealed to the first human, Adam. All prophets came with clear signs which no-one can perform except a true prophet of God, the prophet called to the obedience of God, and those who obeyed the prophet were successful, those who turned away were the losers.. because in the end - those who disbelieve will lose in this world and the hereafter.


Those who obey the prophet are successful, whereas those who turn away might have some enjoyment for a while. But we all will die. Then we will be raised back to life by the One who created us from nothing, and we will be judged by Him on all that we did in this world.

Those who obeyed the Prophet and accepted his call to the obedience of our Creator will be rewarded with a paradise where they can have all that they desire and more (to meet with their Lord, their Creator, the All High.) Those who rejected the prophet will be rejected on that day and be thrown in the fire. We seek refuge in God from that.


The final messenger of God was Muhammad (peace be upon him), he never said that we would unite with God because that is claiming that we will become God, which is not befitting as an attribute for the Almighty, the Self-Sufficient. Our God and your God is one God, there is none worthy of worship except Him, and He will judge us on what we differ. And to Him is the final return.


Miraculous Quran
http://www.load-islam.com/wel_islam.php?topic_id=3



Regards.

 

[cali dude]

Re: Spiritual wisdom v/s Religious dogma

And who said it was for sexual desires only? What about the innocent women who can't get married to a man because all the men aren't enough, as they're already married?

How many Muslims today do you know who married a woman because she couldn't find a husband? I am not sure how they ask for their wife's permission to have another woman in their lives. But does it really make sense for a husband to ask his wife to marry another woman because she can't find a husband? In fact I was watching a video on youtube and this guy was saying that it was OK to marry a minor just because Mohammad did so.

What we have is wonderful. We treat someone younger one as a child, someone of about same age as us as brother or sister with exception of spouse and older person as an uncle. So, there is no room for marrying a child.

So long as someone controls that lust and uses it in the permissible ways, then that's encouraged. I've read a post of Avar's on another page which states that Guru Nanak permitted marriage.

The bottom line here is that a "true Sikh" doesn't marry for lust. There is no if and no but, a "true Sikh" doesn't have any lust, period.

But you said earlier that a person can? Because a person might start getting attatched to the world again.

No, worldly attachment is one of the vices. So someone who have overcome all of the vices isn't attached to the world even while living in this world.

Why not? Isn't it still stealing which is a vice? And stealing is wrong.

Yes the absolute answer is still the same that stealing is wrong. But if someone steals five dollars from me because it could save him from dying, I would give him ten dollars so that he can survive a little longer or even find him a shelter.

But you do accept them right? And if so - does that mean all the people before Guru Nanak were astray according to the sikhis?

Sikhs have different views on other religions but there is nothing in Guru Granth Sahib that says that prophets of other religions to be accepted as prophets by Sikhs. I personally wouldn't have problem with accepting someone as perfect as Jesus if there were no Sikhi and I don't know much about Jewish prophet to comment.

But who said it's wrong? It still hasn't been defined yet. If the sikhi's say killing is wrong because its harmful - then how about when they fight others? Aren't they doing it for the safety of others? If so, then that's exactly what the muslims are doing. So you see how the forbidden comes permissible in certain situations.

Someone who leaves Islam, especially in today's society, is not a threat like an enemy in war. Still a "true Sikh" kills only if self-defense or to protect the innocents. s/he doesn't kill because someone converted to another religion.

Then their lucky because they actually have a better headstart to learn and understand the religion.

Well that's simply how you feel. But if they don't feel the same, they can't leave Islam because they will be killed if they do.

Since when are women to be killed?

So what happens to those who do kill women? You may condemn terrorism if this is true. But you don't fight terrorism or drug dealing even though according to you they are anti-Islam even though you might support killing someone if they leave Islam, which is also anti-Islam.

 

[cali dude]

Re: Discussion between Muslims & Sikh's about random things.

Anyways, we are looking at things from two different angles and therefore, it will be almost impossible for us to come to one common point. So I think it's useless arguing from two different perspectives. But those who share their understanding of spirituality with me do understand what I am talking about.