Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Sikhism is Polytheistic

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

The doctrine is usually misunderstood.  It should not be taken literally that the guru or the master or the perfect person is God in man.

Well, you need to clarify your position. Obviously when it comes to Sikh theology, we will take give preference to what Sikhs themselves say they believe. So if you are a Sikh, please let me know, then I will consider your view. And also, let me know what kind of Sikh you are?

1. Akali 2. Udasi 3. Nirmala 4. Nanakpanthi 5. Sahajdhari 6. Namdhari 7. Radha Soami 8. Miharvan 9. Ramraiya 10. Nirankari 11. Sanatan Sikh 12. Nihang 13. 3HO 14. Babar Khalsa 15. Ravidasi 16. Mazhabi Sikh 17. Amritdhari 18. Keshdhari 19. Sarvaria

But if you aren't a Sikh, why should I accept your claim when actual Sikhs are saying they believe the 10 Gurus are God incarnate in the same sense Christians believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate? Jagraj Singh was a well known Sikh preacher, the Basics of Sikhi movement is a mainstream and well-known Sikh outreach organization. How can I take the argument of an anonymous person on the internet, who I don't know is a Sikh or not, over what an official Sikh representative is saying?

Quote

Only Allah is perfect, and He alone is worthy of praise.

That is what we Muslims believe. But the Sikh gods are not Allah.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

From the book "Essentials of Sikhism":

Read this, chapter 2, starting pg25: http://globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/essentials.pdf

Edited by al-Muttaqin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

The Sikh view of God doesn't differ from an authentic Islamic view, except for that Sikhs don't believe in the Prophetic tradition (and NO, the Gurus aren't akin to Prophets or even Imams in their religion) but Prophets and Imams aren't "God" so again the theology itself doesn't differ.

The Gurus in Sikhism are more like Saints, mystics and philosophers in Islamic and Christian tradition. Their collected scripture (the Si Guru Granth Sahib) is also not considered the "Infallible word of God", it's more akin to the book of Psalms in the Tanakh and Imam Zayn Abadin's glorious al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya

Edited by al-Muttaqin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Posted (edited)
On 8/27/2020 at 3:59 PM, Cherub786 said:

organized and waged a holy Jihad against the Sikhs. While they were campaigning in the heart of Hindustan (modern day Uttar Pradesh) to recruit Mujahidin for the cause of liberating the Punjab, it was asked why they do not fight an "enemy" closer to home, namely the British and their East India Tea company. Sayyid Ahmad responded that he had no issue with the British, as they were Ahl al-Kitab (Christians) and were not actively oppressing the Muslims, nor denying them their fundamental right to practice their Religion. But in the Punjab, Muslims were being crushed, even something as innocuous as cow sacrifice was a death penalty offense under the regime of Ranjit Singh and his successors.

This is exactly repeating Khawarij policy.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

How?

They did same thing about protecting people of book  while they were killing Shias that leads to battle of Nahrewan only difference  in you story is that their war was with Hindus & Sikhs instead of Shias .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

They did same thing about protecting people of book  while they were killing Shias that leads to battle of Nahrewan only difference  in you story is that their war was with Hindus & Sikhs instead of Shias .

So you are comparing Shi'ah (Muslims) to Hindus & Sikhs (Kuffar)?

Are People of the Book superior, or Hindus & Sikhs?

The Khawarij killed and fought with Muslims. So the sign of a Khariji is they kill Muslims primarily and leave alone non-Muslims (generally).

Sayyid Ahmad shahid and Shah Ismail shahid رحمهما الله fought against Sikhs who were persecuting and oppressing Muslims.

Therefore, your comparison with Khawarij is totally false and simply reveals your ignorant bias

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

So you are comparing Shi'ah (Muslims) to Hindus & Sikhs (Kuffar)?

Are People of the Book superior, or Hindus & Sikhs?

I Said that their justification (policy)  was similar to Khawarij anyway Wahbists belive that Shias are not muslim & Shias are pagans like Hindus that their favorite slogan is that Shias are worser than Jews at the end Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said " people are two types , either they are your brothers in faith or they are same as you in creation " so people of book or Hindus & Sikhs have no superiority to each other.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

I Said that their justification (policy)  was similar to Khawarij

It isn't similar. I easily disproved your claim

Quote

Wahbists belive that Shias are not muslim & Shias are pagans

Then why do "Wahhabis" (Saudi Arabia) allow Shi'ah to perform Hajj, and enter the sacred precincts of Mecca and Medina?

Quote

so people of book or Hindus & Sikhs have no superiority to each other.

That means you are allowed to marry Hindu and Sikh women?

Is Sikh jhatka halal like Jewish kosher?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
10 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

people are two types , either they are your brothers in faith or they are same as you in creation " so people of book or Hindus & Sikhs have no superiority to each other.

Salaam do you think the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams ((عليه السلام)) will allow non ahle kitab to practice freely in a Muslim country?

I like Imam Ali’s message of 2 types of people it is one of my favourite quotes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Then why do "Wahhabis" (Saudi Arabia) allow Shi'ah to perform Hajj, and enter the sacred precincts of Mecca and Medina?

Ibn Taymiyyah considered our scholars to be kafir but the laymen to be Muslims. Anyway you’ll find plenty of Salafi scholars making takfir on Shias but you won’t find many Shi’a scholars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The Khawarij killed and fought with Muslims

They considered themselves the true Muslims while rest were kaffur. Your argument is vain. About the Saudi Arabia they, follow ibn tammiya’s rubbish argument which is the Shia Lyman are “stupid” so the benefit of the doubt should be given and the ulema are “infidels”, I know many Ulema who have gone to hajj.... Saudi Arabia ain’t doing a good job...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
2 hours ago, Ejaz said:

Salaam do you think the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Imams ((عليه السلام)) will allow non ahle kitab to practice freely in a Muslim country?

I like Imam Ali’s message of 2 types of people it is one of my favourite quotes.

The prophet (pbu) & Imams (عليه السلام) will follow word of Quran that allows non Ahle Kitab live as Dhimmi under protection of Islam until they don’t wage war & don’t try to convert Muslims to their belief that practicing their belief can be a part of  their livelihood according to their pact with Muslim leader .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

It isn't similar. I easily disproved your claim

Then why do "Wahhabis" (Saudi Arabia) allow Shi'ah to perform Hajj, and enter the sacred precincts of Mecca and Medina?

That means you are allowed to marry Hindu and Sikh women?

Is Sikh jhatka halal like Jewish kosher?

Feel free to disprove it .

many of them are against allowing Shias to perform Hajj but until now because of Iran influence and   pressure & negotiations of Shia scholars with authorities of  KSA  in long time then they  had to allow it .

No , it doesn’t mean that we can marry with Hindu & Sikh women because they are not from people of book even we can’t marry permanently with people of book which only temporary marriage (Mutah) with people of book except Zoroastrians allowed that we only can marry permanently with  Zoroastrian women after their converting to Islam. 

both of Sikh jhatka & Jewish kosher are haram (forbidden ) for all Shias , we only can eat Zabiha of Muslims from any Sunni & Shia sect .

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Feel free to disprove it .

Already did

Quote

we can’t marry permanently with people of book which only temporary marriage (Mutah) with people of book except Zoroastrians allowed that we only can marry permanently with  Zoroastrian women after their converting to Islam. 

This doesn't make sense. So you can have mut'ah with people of the book only, and permanent marriage with Zoroastrians only, provided the latter convert to Islam. So if a Hindu or Sikh woman converts to Islam you can't have a permanent marriage with her? What about Mut'ah? And if a Christian or Jewish lady converts to Islam you can't have permanent marriage with her, only Mut'ah? What is the basis for these bizarre rulings?

Quote

Jewish kosher are haram (forbidden ) for all Shias

On what basis is it haram? Jewish kosher is even more strict in its rules and procedures than our method of Dhabihah Halal

Why did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم dine in Khaybar and decide to eat a sheep roast presented to him by the Jews?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

So if a Hindu or Sikh woman converts to Islam you can't have a permanent marriage with her? What about Mut'ah? And if a Christian or Jewish lady converts to Islam you can't have permanent marriage with her, only Mut'ah? What is the basis for these bizarre rulings?

if any women converts to Islam then we can marry with in both temporary (Mutah) & permanent way according to holy Quran & teachings of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) 

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

On what basis is it haram? Jewish kosher is even more strict in its rules and procedures than our method of Dhabihah Halal

Why did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم dine in Khaybar and decide to eat a sheep roast presented to him by the Jews?

in some versions of hadith it said that  woman  converted to Islam so she offered sheep as a muslimah also it doesn't mention that the sheep koshered or not only thing that is mentioned is poisoning the food  for testing prophethood of prophet Muhammad (pbu) at conclusion this hadith is weak & forged for covering real reason for poisoning prophet Muhammad (pbu) by people around him in his last days by forcefully  giving poison to him in name of giving medicine to him.

Quote

Already did

I don't see any satisfactory proof except baseless & hateful wahabi propaganda against other sects & religions from you.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

if any women converts to Islam then we can marry with in both temporary (Mutah) & permanent way

Why can you contract mut'ah with a Kitabi lady, but not a permanent marriage? What is the rationale?

Quote

in some versions it said that  woman  converted to Islam so she offered sheep as a muslimah also it doesn't mention that the sheep koshered or not only thing that is mentioned is poisoning the food  for testing prophethood of prophet Muhammad (pbu)

Which version? Mind quoting it? And why would a woman who converted to Islam attempt to poison and murder our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
17 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Why can you contract mut'ah with a Kitabi lady, but not a permanent marriage? What is the rationale?

Which version? Mind quoting it? And why would a woman who converted to Islam attempt to poison and murder our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم?

read holy Quran & your hadith books instead of Torah & wahabi papers.

Quote

'A'isha reported:

we (intended to pour) medicine in the mouth of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in his illness, but he pointed out (with the gesture of his hand) that it should not be poured into the mouth against his will. We said: (It was perhaps due to the natural) aversion of the patient against medicine. When he recovered, he said: Medicine should be poured into the mouth of every one of you except Ibn 'Abbas, for he was not present amongst you.
 
حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ حَاتِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، حَدَّثَنِي مُوسَى بْنُ أَبِي، عَائِشَةَ عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ لَدَدْنَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي مَرَضِهِ فَأَشَارَ أَنْ لاَ تَلُدُّونِي ‏.‏ فَقُلْنَا كَرَاهِيَةُ الْمَرِيضِ لِلدَّوَاءِ ‏.‏ فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ ‏ "‏ لاَ يَبْقَى أَحَدٌ مِنْكُمْ إِلاَّ لُدَّ غَيْرُ الْعَبَّاسِ فَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يَشْهَدْكُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
Reference  : Sahih Muslim 2213
In-book reference  : Book 39, Hadith 115
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Book 26, Hadith 5486
  (deprecated numbering scheme)

Sahih Muslim , v4 , p 1733 hadith 2213  book of health (kitab al salam) chapter of discomfort of giving medicine by force 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234978761-who-killed-the-prophet/

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
5 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Why can you contract mut'ah with a Kitabi lady, but not a permanent marriage? What is the rationale?

It's the opinion of some maraji, but not all of them.

8 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

This doesn't make sense. So you can have mut'ah with people of the book only, and permanent marriage with Zoroastrians only, provided the latter convert to Islam.

He's trying to say that in some cases Zoroastrians are considered along with People of the book, but for the case of marriage they aren't.

..........

Anyways, all of this is off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Why can you contract mut'ah with a Kitabi lady, but not a permanent marriage? What is the rationale?

Quote

" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out toward Hawazin at Hunayn. He sent to Safwan ibn Umayya to borrow some equipment and arms that he had. Safwan said, "Willingly or unwillingly?" He said, "Willingly." Therefore he lent him the equipment and arms which he had. Then Safwan went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, while he was still a kafir. He was present at the battles of Hunayn and at-Ta'if while he was still a kafir and his wife was a muslim. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not separate Safwan and his wife until he had become muslim, and his wife was settled with him by that marriage.

فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ انْزِلْ أَبَا وَهْبٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لاَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَنْزِلُ حَتَّى تُبَيِّنَ لِي ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ بَلْ لَكَ تَسِيرُ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَخَرَجَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قِبَلَ هَوَازِنَ بِحُنَيْنٍ ‏.‏ فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى صَفْوَانَ بْنِ أُمَيَّةَ يَسْتَعِيرُهُ أَدَاةً وَسِلاَحًا عِنْدَهُ فَقَالَ صَفْوَانُ أَطَوْعًا أَمْ كَرْهًا فَقَالَ ‏"‏ بَلْ طَوْعًا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَأَعَارَهُ الأَدَاةَ وَالسِّلاَحَ الَّتِي عِنْدَهُ ثُمَّ خَرَجَ صَفْوَانُ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَشَهِدَ حُنَيْنًا وَالطَّائِفَ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ وَامْرَأَتُهُ مُسْلِمَةٌ وَلَمْ يُفَرِّقْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ امْرَأَتِهِ حَتَّى أَسْلَمَ صَفْوَانُ وَاسْتَقَرَّتْ عِنْدَهُ امْرَأَتُهُ بِذَلِكَ النِّكَاحِ ‏.‏
 

'Abdullah b. Shaqiq reported that 'Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) used to forbid Tamattu', whereas 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) ordered to do it. 'Uthman said a word to 'Ali, but 'Ali said:

You know that we used to perform Tamattu' with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), whereupon he said: It is right, but we entertained fear.
 
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى، وَابْنُ، بَشَّارٍ قَالَ ابْنُ الْمُثَنَّى حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ شَقِيقٍ كَانَ عُثْمَانُ يَنْهَى عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ، وَكَانَ، عَلِيٌّ يَأْمُرُ بِهَا فَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ لِعَلِيٍّ كَلِمَةً ثُمَّ قَالَ عَلِيٌّ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ أَنَّا قَدْ تَمَتَّعْنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ أَجَلْ وَلَكِنَّا كُنَّا خَائِفِينَ ‏.‏
Reference  : Sahih Muslim 1223 a
In-book reference  : Book 15, Hadith 171
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Book 7, Hadith 2815
  (deprecated numbering scheme)
 
 
 
(3)
Chapter: Mut'ah Marriage: It was permitted then abrograted, then permitted then abrogated, and it will remain Forbidden until the day of resurrection
(3)
باب نِكَاحِ الْمُتْعَةِ وَبَيَانِ أَنَّهُ أُبِيحَ ثُمَّ نُسِخَ ثُمَّ أُبِيحَ ثُمَّ نُسِخَ وَاسْتَقَرَّ تَحْرِيمُهُ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ
 

Jabir b. 'Abdullah and Salama b. al-Akwa' said:

There came to us the proclaimer of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) has granted you permission to benefit yourselves, i. e. to contract temporary marriage with women.
 
وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ، يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، وَسَلَمَةَ بْنِ الأَكْوَعِ، قَالاَ خَرَجَ عَلَيْنَا مُنَادِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَدْ أَذِنَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَسْتَمْتِعُوا ‏.‏ يَعْنِي مُتْعَةَ النِّسَاءِ ‏.‏
Reference  : Sahih Muslim 1405 a
In-book reference  : Book 16, Hadith 16
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Book 8, Hadith 3246
  (deprecated numbering scheme)
 

 

Quote
23)
Chapter: The Permissibilty of Tamattu'
(23)
باب جَوَازِ التَّمَتُّعِ
 

Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) said:

Two are the Mut'as which were not permissible but only for us, i. e. temporary marriage with women and Tamattu' in Hajj.
 
وَحَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ زُبَيْدٍ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ التَّيْمِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو ذَرٍّ رضى الله عنه لاَ تَصْلُحُ الْمُتْعَتَانِ إِلاَّ لَنَا خَاصَّةً ‏.‏ يَعْنِي مُتْعَةَ النِّسَاءِ وَمُتْعَةَ الْحَجِّ ‏.‏
Reference  : Sahih Muslim 1224 c
In-book reference  : Book 15, Hadith 176
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Book 7, Hadith 2819

  (deprecated numbering scheme)

https://sunnah.com/muslim/15/176

)
باب جَوَازِ التَّمَتُّعِ
 

Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) said that Tamattu' in Hajj was a special (concession) only for the Companions of Muhammad (ﷺ).

 
وَحَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ، وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ وَأَبُو كُرَيْبٍ قَالُوا حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ التَّيْمِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ، - رضى الله عنه - قَالَ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ فِي الْحَجِّ لأَصْحَابِ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَاصَّةً ‏.‏
Reference  : Sahih Muslim 1224 a
In-book reference  : Book 15, Hadith 174
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Book 7, Hadith 2817

  (deprecated numbering scheme)

https://sunnah.com/muslim/15/174

lt was narrated that Abu Nadrah said:
I said to Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Ibn az-Zubair (رضي الله عنه) forbids tamattu` (in hajj) and Ibn `Abbas enjoins it. He said to me: I knew about this issue. We did tamattu` with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) - `Affan said: And with Abu Bakr - then when `Umar (رضي الله عنه) became Caliph, he addressed the people and said: The Qur`an is still the Qur`an and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is the Messenger. There were two mut’ahs at the time of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): one of them was the mut`ah of Hajj (i.e., tannaffit`) and the other was mut`ah with women.
 
حَدَّثَنَا بَهْزٌ، قَالَ وَحَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ، قَالَا حَدَّثَنَا هَمَّامٌ، حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لِجَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ إِنَّ ابْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَنْهَى عَنْ الْمُتْعَةِ، وَإِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَأْمُرُ بِهَا قَالَ فَقَالَ لِي عَلَى يَدِي جَرَى الْحَدِيثُ تَمَتَّعْنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ عَفَّانُ وَمَعَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلَمَّا وَلِيَ عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ خَطَبَ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ هُوَ الْقُرْآنُ وَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هُوَ الرَّسُولُ وَإِنَّهُمَا كَانَتَا مُتْعَتَانِ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِحْدَاهُمَا مُتْعَةُ الْحَجِّ وَالْأُخْرَى مُتْعَةُ النِّسَاءِ‏.‏
Grade Sahih (Darussalam), Muslim (1217)] (Darussalam)    
Reference  : Musnad Ahmad 369
In-book reference  : Book 2, Hadith 271
Report Error | Share
 

https://sunnah.com/search?q=متعه

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

Which version? Mind quoting it? And why would a woman who converted to Islam attempt to poison and murder our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم?

lol, that's some terrible reasoning. Did you even read history books? Just because someone converts to Islam doesn't mean they actually believe in the message. Especially during that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/31/2020 at 10:32 AM, Cherub786 said:

The Khawarij killed and fought with Muslims. So the sign of a Khariji is they kill Muslims primarily

This is what the Salafis do. Just count how many muslims has been killed by Salafis and how many non-Muslims has been killed by them.

On 8/31/2020 at 10:32 AM, Cherub786 said:

Sayyid Ahmad shahid and Shah Ismail shahid رحمهما الله fought against Sikhs who were persecuting and oppressing Muslims.

The Muslims vs Sikhs conflict goes back to Aurangzeb's attempt to forces convert Hindus and Sikhs. Aurangzeb was wrong in doing that because force conversion goes against the Quran.  Before Aurangzeb Muslims and Sikhs where friends. To day Muslims and Sikhs can still be friends, though some Sikhs hate Muslime because of what happened during the break up of India and Pakistan in 1947.

I don't understand why some people has an urge to find people they can fight instead of making friends. Abi Sufyan, Muawiya, Yazid fought and killed people because of their love for worldly power and material wealth just like the Saudi Royals do to day, but a sincere believer has no reason to fight for their money. The problem with the Salafis is that they have been brainwashed by the Saudi money laundering machine to go against their own interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2020 at 2:37 PM, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

For the record, eThErEal is also Sunni Muslim. @Cherub786

Looks like you spoke too soon

Quote

By the way.  I am a humanist and an atheist.  This simply means I am a human and that I don’t believe in gods.  

Since when are Sunni Muslims "atheists"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Revert1963 said:

This is what the Salafis do. Just count how many muslims has been killed by Salafis and how many non-Muslims has been killed by them.

Salafi is a broad categorization. And the Shi'ah throughout history have mostly killed other Muslims rather than wage Jihad against non-Muslims. That is true today too, as evident by the actions of militant Shi'ah groups in Yemen (Houthis), Iraq (Mahdi Army), Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Iran. Vast majority of the victims of their terrorism have been other Muslims

Quote

The Muslims vs Sikhs conflict goes back to Aurangzeb's attempt to forces convert Hindus and Sikhs. Aurangzeb was wrong in doing that because force conversion goes against the Quran.  Before Aurangzeb Muslims and Sikhs where friends. To day Muslims and Sikhs can still be friends, though some Sikhs hate Muslime because of what happened during the break up of India and Pakistan in 1947.

This is distortion of history. Read the Muslim version of history, not the Sikh version. If Aurangzaib was forcefully converting Hindus to Islam, there were millions and millions of HIndus under his rule who remained Hindu. There were even Hindus who served in his darbar. Secondly, the Sikhs were the ones who became militant, whereas their earliest gurus were peaceful and apolitical. Of course, those gurus never intended to start a new religion called Sikhism, they were basically Khatri Hindu mystics heavily influenced by Sufism.

The Mughal reaction to the Sikhs was not a religious one, but a political one, to quell rebellion and armed revolt.

Muslims and Sikhs have never been friends. Sikhs were and continue to be the armed wing of Hindu civilization,

Muslims historically ignored Sikhism as a religion, because of their insignificance. But Sikhism in its very DNA defines itself as being in opposition to Islam. Many of their practices were formed simply to oppose Islam. That's why their scriptures and gurus strongly condemned circumcision of boys, veiling of women, animal sacrifice (Dhabihah), fasting (Sikhs don't believe in fasting at all), burial in graves, hygienic practices (removing unwanted hair, etc.) and even Islam's sexual code of ethics (they condemn Islam's prohibition on having relations with a woman when she is in her period)!

Since you are a new Muslim, being a revert and all (btw revert means you were originally Muslim, then became an apostate, and now have reconverted to Islam), its understandable you don't know the details of Islamic history

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

lol, that's some terrible reasoning. Did you even read history books? Just because someone converts to Islam doesn't mean they actually believe in the message. Especially during that time.

You still ignored the original question, what is the source for the claim that the Jewish lady who attempted to poison our master Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم converted to Islam?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
19 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Since when are Sunni Muslims "atheists"?

Looks like he changed his beliefs again... He used to be Shia, then he became Sunni, and now he is an Atheist apparently. He made a big deal about converting to Sunni Islam on the following thread, I think, but I can't find the exact post:

1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

militant Shi'ah groups in Yemen (Houthis), Iraq (Mahdi Army), Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Iran. Vast majority of the victims of their terrorism have been other Muslims

They're the oppressed fighting against the oppressors. They are militias, not terrorists. They fight terrorists. They support the Palestinian rejectionists (Sunnis) against the illegitimate state of Israel, and its oppression & occupation.

For the difference between militias and terrorists, see here: https://oldwebsite.palestine-studies.org/jps/fulltext/41571


...Anyways, this is all very off-topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Looks like he changed his beliefs again... He used to be Shia, then he became Sunni, and now he is an Atheist apparently.

My God, there really is a mass-apostasy going on right now, reminds me of the Hadith prophecy:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ أَفْوَاجًا ، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

“Verily, the people will enter into the Religion of Allah in multitudes, and they will exit it in multitudes.” (Musnad Ahmad)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Since when are Sunni Muslims "atheists"?

Atheism is the Way and the Truth. Atheism will set you free.  
a real Muslim is in fact an Atheist.  
a real Muslim is free of Sunni Islam and Shia Islam.  He submits to none of these “gods”.  He submits inwardly to His True Self.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Guest

Brother, you are conflating Hinduism and Sikhism I believe.

In Sikh beliefs, Allah ― or God more vaguely if you do not believe the Sikhs refer to Him ― is called Ik Onkar. Essentially, Ik Onkar (ੴ) is one, and Ik Onkar is indivisible (similar to the belief of Tawhid). There are not 10 gurus, but 11. The gurus (teachers) started with Guru Nanak, and end with Guru Granth Sahib (their Holy Book, essentially the transcription of beliefs, practices, et cetera). There are only 10 animate gurus. If we follow your line of reasoning, then Ik Onkar is a book, and not just one book, but a book distributed and copied like Bibles or the Qur'an.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib

You confuse Sikh beliefs with Hindu beliefs. Hindus believe Vishnu (the Preserver) has had ten manifestations (or Avatars) throughout history: some animal, some human. Modern day Hinduism has drifted towards a quasi-monotheism, of which Sikhs were monotheistic first, so I can see where your confusion or others confusion originates.

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/buzz/the-ten-incarnations-of-vishnu.asp

Please do know that Sikh beliefs are that Ik Onkar is simply the same as Allah, but simply revealed to the people of South Asia in a unique way found fit for the pious nonbelievers of India and the Punjab land. They do not believe Ik Onkar is divisible, they do not believe Ik Onkar is manifested through humans such as Isa.

Please educate yourself before you make statements like this. People who claim this stuff such as you are why we cannot have proper interfaith discussions and why Sikh and Muslim antagonism can be so high, even if we are siblings in humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 9/2/2020 at 5:18 AM, eThErEaL said:

Atheism is the Way and the Truth. Atheism will set you free.  
a real Muslim is in fact an Atheist.  
a real Muslim is free of Sunni Islam and Shia Islam.  He submits to none of these “gods”.  He submits inwardly to His True Self.  

That's your ego talking. Nothing enlightening about that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 12:10 AM, Guest Guest said:

In Sikh beliefs, Allah ― or God more vaguely if you do not believe the Sikhs refer to Him ― is called Ik Onkar. Essentially, Ik Onkar (ੴ) is one, and Ik Onkar is indivisible (similar to the belief of Tawhid). There are not 10 gurus, but 11. The gurus (teachers) started with Guru Nanak, and end with Guru Granth Sahib (their Holy Book, essentially the transcription of beliefs, practices, et cetera). There are only 10 animate gurus. If we follow your line of reasoning, then Ik Onkar is a book, and not just one book, but a book distributed and copied like Bibles or the Qur'an.

Sikhism may self-profess monotheism, but mere profession or claim of monotheism isn’t sufficient to characterize a religion as monotheistic. Christianity likewise claims to be monotheistic, yet from an Islamic perspective the doctrine of trinity is tritheism. Roman Catholics self-profess monotheism, but even to other Christians they are guilty of Mariolatry – worshipping the Virgin Mary.

Many Hindus likewise claim their belief is monotheistic that in essence they recognize only a single Supreme Deity. The idols and animals that they worship are merely “manifestations” of different aspects of the Divine, according to their sophistry.

Therefore, we have to examine Sikhism more carefully and deeply to determine whether mere claim of Ek Onkar is sufficient to characterize it as a monotheistic religion. The video clip I presented from Jagraj Singh’s discourse makes it quite explicit that Sikhism is a polytheistic religion which ascribes divinity to the gurus.

Regarding the Granth, according to mainstream Sikhism it isn’t simply a book but an actual person that has to be treated like a person. That is why Sikhs have many bizarre rituals regarding how the Granth is to be treated.

On 9/16/2020 at 12:10 AM, Guest Guest said:

Please educate yourself before you make statements like this. People who claim this stuff such as you are why we cannot have proper interfaith discussions and why Sikh and Muslim antagonism can be so high, even if we are siblings in humanity.

I’m not sure what the purpose of interfaith dialogue is. But I suspect the first principle of such dialogue ought to be complete honesty and transparency from all sides participating in that dialogue.

It is not my intention to spread antagonism between Muslims and Sikhs, or any other religious group for that matter. Spreading awareness does not necessitate spreading antagonism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...