Sikhism- a continuation of prophet hood?

[Malaikah]

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

About the very hadith that you mentioned:

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

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

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

And the conclusion from that same article:

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

We accept him as a prophet delivering a message. End of.

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

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

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

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

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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

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

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

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

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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

About the very hadith that you mentioned:

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

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

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

And the conclusion from that same article:

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

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

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

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

Do I about have that right?

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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

Do I about have that right?

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

Well with you anyway.....

 

[Malaikah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

Well with you anyway.....

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

 

[PCJS]

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PCJS]

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

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

I gave you my list of questions...

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

This thread really is not about Hinduism...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

 

[One Man Army]

heres what bhai Gurdas ji says:

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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




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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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

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

'So Mukh Jale Jit Kai Takhar Jooni'

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

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

 

[PCJS]

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

'So Mukh Jale Jit Kai Takhar Jooni'

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

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

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

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

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

 

[skhalid]

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

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

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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

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

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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

.

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

 

[PCJS]

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

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