# How Could Guru Nanak Visit Mecca If He Wasn't A Muslim?



## kds1980 (Nov 7, 2007)

How could Guru Nanak visit Mecca if he wasn't a Muslim? | Sikhism101.com | UniversalFaith.net

How could Guru Nanak visit Mecca if he wasn't a Muslim?

The assertion that non-Muslims cannot infiltrate Mecca is false. The city of Mecca was not developed during the time of the Guru. It was a vast desert land and people could commute freely unlike now. Only until recently Saudi Arabia has become rich with the oil money and developed as a result.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji was neither the first nor the last non-Muslim to visit or infiltrate Mecca. The most famous incident of a non-Muslim visiting Mecca was the visit by the British explorer Sir Richard Burton in 1853. Burton disguised himself as an Afghani Muslim to visit and write Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al Madinah and Mecca. Therefore, how can it be impossible for Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, who is ‘Akaal Roop’, the embodiment of the Divine Light of God, to visit Mecca? The who land belongs to God, so how can the Living Image of God, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji be stopped traveling anywhere in the world. God or God’s power cannot be limited.

Guru sahib dressed as a Fakeer, holy man, which meant a chola of khuddar (rough low grade material) and a pair of wooden sandals with his companion Baba Mardana Ji, who was from a Muslim background, infiltrated the city of Mecca.

ਬਾਬਾ ਫਿਰ ਮੱਕੇ ਗਯਾ ਨੀਲ ਬਸਤ੍ਰ ਧਾਰੇ ਬਨਵਾਰੀ ॥
ਆਸਾ ਹੱਥ ਕਿਤਾਬ ਕੱਛ ਕੂਜਾ ਬਾਂਗ ਮੁਸੱਲਾ ਧਾਰੀ ॥
“Donning blue attire then Baba Nanak went to Mecca. He held staff in his hand, pressed a book under his arm, caught hold of a metal pot and mattress.”
(Vaar 1, Pauree 32 – Bhai Gurdaas Ji)

Dress in Sikhi and in Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s own words, carries no divinity or spiritual significance. He dressed as a Fakeer so as not to be thought a novice and thus excluded from religious discussions of the Muslims Fakeers of the time. Moreover wearing a Fakeer’s dress does not necessarily make one Muslim.

Only in more recent history has the security of Mecca and Medina been stepped up. However, even then non-Muslims are allowed to enter the city of Mecca as long as they have business there. In the past, several non-Muslims journalists and camera crew have been allowed in to create documentaries, as well as VIPs. For example, Mecca is currently in redevelopment; project under taken by architecture firm based in North America. Non-Muslim Architects ands engineers have been in Mecca and will continue until 2012. However that should not be confused with the existing rule in place that forbids non-Muslims from entering the area as others mentioned.

Muslims seeking to twist history and reality for their own agenda and world-view have totally manipulated the reason why Guru Nanak Sahib Ji visited Mecca. Muslims go to Mecca to pay their homage and worship God (this pilgrimage is called Hajj in the Islamic faith), but this was not the purpose of the Guru to go there. Guru Sahib says:

ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥ ਏਕੋ ਸੇਵੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ॥੨॥
ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਉ ਨ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਉ ॥ ਏਕ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਉ ॥੩॥
"I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines. I serve the One Lord, and not any other. ||2|| I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers. I have taken the One Formless Lord into my heart; I humbly worship Him there. ||3||”
(Ang 1136)

This shows that Guru Sahib did not visit Mecca to worship Allah. Instead, He went for different reasons. Muslims believe that God is in the west and only likes Muslims. Guru Sahib visited Mecca to clear their doubts and to show them the right path. He went to preach oneness of God who does not reside only in the west. Guru Sahib said there are infinite heavens, hells and solar systems. There is no end to God or His creation.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji is recorded to have visited Mecca not the Kaa’ba. The one thing clear from the historical evidence is that he visited Mecca with his companion, Baba Mardana Ji, who was from a Muslim background. They stayed somewhere probably in a nearby village or town. Pilgrims do not stay in the Kaa’ba. They stay outside the holy shrine area in villages, towns or tents. It is also clear from the evidence that Guru Sahib is recorded as having slept with his feet ‘towards’ the Kaa’ba. If Guru Sahib were sleeping inside or nearby the Kaa’ba (which is not possible when millions visit it), there would not have been the account that we read today.

There is no mention anywhere that he observed ihram, did twaf, ran between Safwa and Marwa or sacrificed an animal. For pilgrimage all these rituals are absolutely essential. As for saying Namaz, there is no evidence that he followed an Imam or uttered Quranic verses anywhere. Furthermore, Guru Sahib no where wrote La Allah Illilah Mohammed Rasul Allah. If one still thinks that Guru Nanak Sahib Ji was a Muslim, then would you accept such pretenders as Muslims who conceal their faith? Guru Sahib never stated that he was a Muslim, instead he did the opposite.

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥ ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥
“I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim. My body and breath of life belong to Allah - to Raam - the God of both. ||4||”
(Ang 1136)


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 8, 2007)

The muslim world of Nanaak's time (15th Century) was also very different from today. Traveling from one region to another was common. Then the muslim world was a very open place, and if you were a citizen of one region it was very easy to enter another -- in large part because the idea of nationhood was not really part of the world view. You came from a city-state but were a citizen of the mulsim world.

Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia today, was under the protection of a sheik. There was no Saudi Arabia with a customs office to check your passport. In fact all of Saudi was a collection of principalities each governed by a ruling family. An entirely different place.


----------



## kay (Nov 8, 2007)

Do sikhs believe in Allah?


----------



## kay (Nov 8, 2007)

isnt Allah and arbic word, which has no singular, not masculine or femanine, and no plural or dual, it is unique?


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 8, 2007)

kay said:


> Do sikhs believe in Allah?



In sikhism every word which describe god whether it is allah of muslim or raam of hindu is acceptable.It does not mean that we beleive in muslim god allah or hindu god raam


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 9, 2007)

Whoever posted the link below kds ji's last comment -- A History of the Sikhs Volume 1 -- did a great service to the forum and on behalf of everyone who has been tangling with so many futile conversations that compare/contrast  Waheguru and Sikhi to Allah and Islam. (*Now removed and the link I refered to appears to be a link to changing series of books about Sikhism)*

Read it -- you will never be the same person you were before you read it. You will GET the reasons why Sikhism is neither inferior to Islam nor is it a little brother of Islam or any other Faith.

You will, if you have a human heart, be chilled by horror by some of what you read, and at the same time thankful to God for the gift of Nanaak and his Bani.

Macauliffe, the author, lived in India during the raj. He was a highly placed official of the British monarchy. He converted to Sikhism, and wrote his history of the Sikhs using venerated historical documents and consultations with notable Sikh scholars of the time. Please do not confuse him with McLeod. This sometimes happens.


* EDITED BY ME 5 MINUTES LATER.  THE LINK TO HISTORY OF THE SIKHS WAS REPLACED. SO I WILL POST THE LINK TO MACAULIFFE'S VOLUME HERE.*

The Sikh Religion Vol. 1 Index


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Nov 9, 2007)

kay said:


> isnt Allah and arbic word, which has no singular, not masculine or femanine, and no plural or dual, it is unique?


 

the Guru Granth Sahib contains words from many languages...  punjabi, sanskrit, persian, arabic...  

we call God by many names.  God is God.  whether you say Waheguru, Allah, Raam, JHWY...  none of that matters.  God is universal, for everyone.  he's not confined to any one faith or name.

and yes, all of those attributes you stated do apply to God.


----------



## Arvind (Nov 10, 2007)

Just a food for thought:

Gurbani says - Aval Allah noor upaya kudrat ke sab bandey

Also look at the attached pic, and guess what the symbol in white strip is!


----------



## Anoop (Nov 10, 2007)

Arvid jee, are you serious about thew iran flag?

Anyway, I agree with Kelly Kaur... I mean what kind of question is Do you beleive in Allah?

How ignorant...there is only one god...and we believe you can not put a name on god..as god as no limits..and is everywhere...and everything...

But how can you ask a question like ' Do you believe in allah? Why cant you ask...Do you beleive in god?.. There is no difference..its all the same....there is but one god..and oen god only..who is truth...and everywhere..universal...thinking to have seperate imaginery gods is just foolishness...no offence


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Nov 10, 2007)

Arvind said:


> Also look at the attached pic, and guess what the symbol in white strip is!


 

from wikipedia:

The *coat of arms of Iran* since the 1979Iranian Revolution features a stylized Arabic script of the word _Allah_ ("God") and also "La ilaha ill Allah" (There is no God other than Allah).
The logo consists of four crescents and a sword. The four crescents are meant to stand for the word Allah, and at the same time, an overlaid "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no God but Allah) as explained in detail in ISIRI 1. The five parts of the emblem symbolize the Principles of the Religion. Above the sword is a shadda: in Arabic script, this is used to double a letter, here it doubles the strength of the sword. The shape of the emblem is chosen to resemble a tulip, for the memory of the people who died for Iran: it is an ancient belief in Iran, dating back to mythology, that if a young soldier dies patriotically a red tulip will grow on his grave. In recent years it is considered as the symbol of martyrdom.

so no, it's not a khanda.  it does include a sword, but so do the flags of many of the world's countries.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 10, 2007)

Kelly ji

thanks for the information on that symbol.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 10, 2007)

I second kds1980.


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 9, 2011)

Kds1980, thanks for your post.  The purpose of Guru Nanak Dev Ji going to muslim places was to show that there is no difference about what your background is because muslims cause so much trouble with religion.  His aim was to create peace in the region, he never converted and WAS NEVER a muslim, instead ghe was the opposite.  He was born into a Hindu family, kept his original name, married a Hindu lady, had children who had Hindu names aswell.

Muslims that claim Guru Nanak was muslim are insulted Him and the religion and saying this to cause trouble with Hindus and Sikhs and for their own worldly agenda.  It is one group in particular who make false claims and pick out verses The Granth, misquoting passages quoting from the muslims that Guru Nanak spoke to to teach people all religions are the same, these were NOT quotes by Guru Nanak Himself.  That group is the Ahmedins (ahmadiyya), they lie about religions to convert people, falsify information and even lie about the quran listing scientific events 1400 years ago as to whats happening now.  Its all FALSE.  It is mainly this ahmadiyya community that is involved in this scam about lying and converting, however more groups and muslims are also involved now, even beyond this group.

Sikhs need to be educated in this as Guru Nanak always quotes 'Ram' in The Granth, never allah.  The roots of Sikhism are not and never will be muslim in any way, shape or form and we need to be educated so that we can give these people knowledgable answers so they cannot take advantage and lie about our religion and brainwash us.


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 9, 2011)

As a simple answer - No, Guru Nanak Dev Ji and nor do Hindus and Sikhs believe in allah.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Oct 10, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> As a simple answer - No, Guru Nanak Dev Ji and nor do Hindus and Sikhs believe in allah.


Verma1 ji there was nothing to believe in Hindu Idols/Gods or Allah for Guru Nanak Dev ji.  So it wasn't just Allah.

Again I say it is great to see Hindu, Muslim and Christian wanting to claim closeness with Guru Nanak Dev ji like the Sikhs do.  It is great.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Oct 10, 2011)

*New Spn'er welcome , I offer my view, it is given free but it is not without cost, take from it what you will*


Verma1 said:


> . The purpose of Guru Nanak Dev Ji going to muslim places was to show that there is no difference about what your background is because muslims cause so much trouble with religion. His aim was to create peace in the region,
> *Some who consider themselves Muslim might cause trouble now and then but Mecca was not in trouble *
> he never converted and WAS NEVER a muslim, instead ghe was the opposite. He was born into a Hindu family, kept his original name, married a Hindu lady, had children who had Hindu names aswell.
> Muslims that claim Guru Nanak was muslim are insulted Him and the religion
> ...


*If you know what you are ,why worry about it? *

*Sat Sri Akaal*


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 10, 2011)

_Sikhs need to be educated in this as Guru Nanak always quotes 'Ram' in The Granth, never allah. The roots of Sikhism are not and never will be muslim in any way, shape or form and we need to be educated so that we can give these people knowledgable answers so they cannot take advantage and lie about our religion and brainwash us.
_

Brotherji, 

Quoting 'Ram' in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not a nod to hinduism, any more than not quoting 'Allah' is a rejection of Islam,. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji refers to the Creator, Waheguru, Prabh. 

To say that the roots of Sikhism lie in Hinduism are just as wrong, Sikhism stands up on its own, with its own philosophy and teachings. Both Hinduism and Islam are wonderful religions,   Sikhism did not start as a manifestation of either of these, as it views the ultimate Creator in a completely different way


----------



## ohhcuppycakee (Oct 10, 2011)

kay said:


> isnt Allah and arbic word, which has no singular, not masculine or femanine, and no plural or dual, it is unique?



Allah just means Al (the) llah (God). Muslims all over the word use the word Allah because it cannot be made plural. The Muslim concept of Allah is that He is formless, genderless, without partners, and above comprehension.


----------



## ohhcuppycakee (Oct 10, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> Kds1980, thanks for your post.  The purpose of Guru Nanak Dev Ji going to muslim places was to show that there is no difference about what your background is because muslims cause so much trouble with religion.  His aim was to create peace in the region, he never converted and WAS NEVER a muslim, instead ghe was the opposite.  He was born into a Hindu family, kept his original name, married a Hindu lady, had children who had Hindu names aswell.
> 
> Muslims that claim Guru Nanak was muslim are insulted Him and the religion and saying this to cause trouble with Hindus and Sikhs and for their own worldly agenda.  It is one group in particular who make false claims and pick out verses The Granth, misquoting passages quoting from the muslims that Guru Nanak spoke to to teach people all religions are the same, these were NOT quotes by Guru Nanak Himself.  That group is the Ahmedins (ahmadiyya), they lie about religions to convert people, falsify information and even lie about the quran listing scientific events 1400 years ago as to whats happening now.  Its all FALSE.  It is mainly this ahmadiyya community that is involved in this scam about lying and converting, however more groups and muslims are also involved now, even beyond this group.
> 
> Sikhs need to be educated in this as Guru Nanak always quotes 'Ram' in The Granth, never allah.  The roots of Sikhism are not and never will be muslim in any way, shape or form and we need to be educated so that we can give these people knowledgable answers so they cannot take advantage and lie about our religion and brainwash us.



Why do so many Sikhs (note, on these religious forums) tend to have a prejudice against Muslims, always thinking every thing is an Islamic plot to destroy them? When I read about Sikhism, I find that it is above caste and religion, but when I read what people are saying on these forums I find something very different. It is very discouraging when I want to learn about Sikhism when I find such prejudiced statements.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Oct 10, 2011)

ohhcuppycakee said:


> Why do so many Sikhs (note, on these religious forums) tend to have a prejudice against Muslims, always thinking every thing is an Islamic plot to destroy them? When I read about Sikhism, I find that it is above caste and religion, but when I read what people are saying on these forums I find something very different. It is very discouraging when I want to learn about Sikhism when I find such prejudiced statements.


ohhcuppycakee ji don't get discouraged but be wise to see beyond poster names.  Many a poster are not necessarily what they post themselves to be .  We run across agent provocateurs, etc., and it takes a bit of practice to realize some people's agendas.

Why don't you start a topic on Islam as not everyone may be as knowledgeable but as Sikh (learner) we always love to learn.

Before partition our village had more muslims than Sikhs and everyone loved each other.  Their was a cultural and human bond.  Post 1947 is a hate driven era one seems to have lost the heaven pre 1947.

Please challenge too if there is something wrong stated.  The admins are very fair on this forum and encourage interfaith dialog as much as they can.

May the days and nights bring you health, happiness and prosperity.


----------



## ohhcuppycakee (Oct 10, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> ohhcuppycakee ji don't get discouraged but be wise to see beyond poster names.  Many a poster are not necessarily what they post themselves to be .  We run across agent provocateurs, etc., and it takes a bit of practice to realize some people's agendas.
> 
> Why don't you start a topic on Islam as not everyone may be as knowledgeable but as Sikh (learner) we always love to learn.
> 
> ...



I'm just so sick of seeing hate on every religious forum out there. Religious forums just seem to attract extremists. The people I know in real life are not hateful, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. (I actually don't know any Sikhs in real life, but would like to. I contacted the local gurdwara by e-mail, but no one replied back.) And people need to really stop with this conspiracy theory. I go on Muslim forums, they think it's a all Western or Christian conspiracy. I go on Hindu forums, they think it's a all a Muslim conspiracy, etc! Seriously not everything is a big plot!


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Oct 11, 2011)

oohCupcakee said:
			
		

> I'm just so sick of seeing hate on every religious forum out there


* Perhaps the earth is Gods forum in the Galaxy and the adminstrator is God, and the moderators are inside us but they're asleep.*
Any way in a few billion years that will all end and we will all hug eachother and fly off into space,but me being illusive means I will hiding in the Milky Way*.*


----------



## Seeker9 (Oct 11, 2011)

ohhcuppycakee said:


> I'm just so sick of seeing hate on every religious forum out there. Religious forums just seem to attract extremists. The people I know in real life are not hateful, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. (I actually don't know any Sikhs in real life, but would like to. I contacted the local gurdwara by e-mail, but no one replied back.) And people need to really stop with this conspiracy theory. I go on Muslim forums, they think it's a all Western or Christian conspiracy. I go on Hindu forums, they think it's a all a Muslim conspiracy, etc! Seriously not everything is a big plot!


 

Dear ohhcuppycakee Ji

Sikhs and Muslims have fought against each other in the past and sadly some people have not moved on from that history

As I noted on another thread, Islam has been hijacked by a small rotten minority of hard core extremists and there actions are broadcasted by global media and give Islam a bad image


----------



## Joginder Singh Foley (Oct 16, 2011)

*WJKKWJKF *Sat Siri Akal 

All of the current middle east Arab/Islamic nations are post World War One creations by the brits and the french when they devided up the remaines of the Ottoman empire that was controlled by Turkey which had fought along side the Kaiser's Germany in WW1 and did not exsist at the time of guru Nanakji's trip to Mecca

:happysingh:


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 16, 2011)

Seeker9 said:


> Dear ohhcuppycakee Ji
> 
> Sikhs and Muslims have fought against each other in the past and sadly some people have not moved on from that history
> 
> As I noted on another thread, Islam has been hijacked by a small rotten minority of hard core extremists and there actions are broadcasted by global media and give Islam a bad image




Seeker ji

What makes you think that Islam is hijacked my small minority? I am really sorry but whenever you conduct elections in hardcore islamic countries the islamic parties end up winning with huge victories,while secular parties hardly secure many votes.So the idea of small rotten minority is just to please muslims.

I have a question for you how many times these secular muslims have asked the islamic countries to adopt secular values? These secular muslims will shout with their full voice that they are discriminated in non muslim countries but I have never seen  muslim organisations pressuring muslim countries to allow religious freedom to minorities


----------



## ohhcuppycakee (Oct 16, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Seeker ji
> 
> What makes you think that Islam is hijacked my small minority? I am really sorry but whenever you conduct elections in hardcore islamic countries the islamic parties end up winning with huge victories,while secular parties hardly secure many votes.So the idea of small rotten minority is just to please muslims.
> 
> I have a question for you how many times these secular muslims have asked the islamic countries to adopt secular values? These secular muslims will shout with their full voice that they are discriminated in non muslim countries but I have never seen  muslim organisations pressuring muslim countries to allow religious freedom to minorities



Muslims may not be organized enough to get much done, but many, MANY Muslims believe in religious freedom for minorities. I personally have only met a few that haven't. I go to masjid weekly and interact with Muslims daily. I know lots of Muslims, and they are not "extreme", a few are, but most of them are just good people.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 16, 2011)

ohhcuppycakee said:


> Muslims may not be organized enough to get much done, but many, MANY Muslims believe in religious freedom for minorities. I personally have only met a few that haven't. I go to masjid weekly and interact with Muslims daily. I know lots of Muslims, and they are not "extreme", a few are, but most of them are just good people.



Personal experiance in these cases are irrelevant.Most of people never disclose their extremist views ,many times its only in their deep hearts.Before Partition of India manu Punjabi muslims and Sikhs were living very peacefully with each other but at the time of partition First Muslims pounced on Sikhs and later Sikhs retaliated.When the division of India was proposed and muslim league was aggressively  pursuing the the demand of separate muslim state then 90% of muslims of India voted for Muslim league irrespectively whether their area will be in India or Pakistan,so if muslims wanted they could had opted for secularism and undivided India but they preffered a muslim land which according to their leaders would be like jannat to them


----------



## Ambarsaria (Oct 16, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Personal experiance in these cases are irrelevant.Most of people never disclose their extremist views ,many times its only in their deep hearts.Before Partition of India manu Punjabi muslims and Sikhs were living very peacefully with each other but at the time of partition First Muslims pounced on Sikhs and later Sikhs retaliated.When the division of India was proposed and muslim league was aggressively  pursuing the the _demand of separate muslim state then 90% of muslims of India voted for Muslim league_ irrespectively whether their area will be in India or Pakistan,so if muslims wanted they could had opted for secularism and undivided India but they preffered a muslim land which according to their leaders would be like jannat to them


In the same vein, kds1980 ji don't you believe Sikhs were stupid in not asking for a seaparate Punjab in 1947 which would have included Haryana, Himachal, parts of Kashmir and parts of Rajasthan!  Perhaps the Muslims so then what Sikhs never saw.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Seeker9 (Oct 16, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Seeker ji
> 
> What makes you think that Islam is hijacked my small minority? I am really sorry but whenever you conduct elections in hardcore islamic countries the islamic parties end up winning with huge victories,while secular parties hardly secure many votes.So the idea of small rotten minority is just to please muslims.
> 
> I have a question for you how many times these secular muslims have asked the islamic countries to adopt secular values? These secular muslims will shout with their full voice that they are discriminated in non muslim countries but I have never seen  muslim organisations pressuring muslim countries to allow religious freedom to minorities



Dear KDS1980 Ji

I was referring specifically to jihadist and extremist muslims

I believe they are in a minority yet they are the ones that attract the media interest through their actions


----------



## Seeker9 (Oct 16, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Seeker ji
> 
> What makes you think that Islam is hijacked my small minority? I am really sorry but whenever you conduct elections in hardcore islamic countries the islamic parties end up winning with huge victories,while secular parties hardly secure many votes.So the idea of small rotten minority is just to please muslims.
> 
> I have a question for you how many times these secular muslims have asked the islamic countries to adopt secular values? These secular muslims will shout with their full voice that they are discriminated in non muslim countries but I have never seen  muslim organisations pressuring muslim countries to allow religious freedom to minorities



Dear KDS1980 Ji

In my haste I forgot to reply to the second part of your post

I think I agree with what you say

It is my belief that the hardcore I referred to earlier have now created such a culture of fear that societies bend over backwards to accomodate Muslims so that they will be less risk of reprisals from disaffected individuals...some of whom have been reared on our own soil

I hope I don't sound xenophobic when I say that

Examples are things like the provision of Halal food regardless without telling people, changing the wording of long-standing traditional Christmas Carols, referring to a Winter festival instead of a Christmas festival, allowing Sharia Law for certain disputes etc

All thin end of the wedge stuff

All stuff that gives ammunition to white extremeist groups

All stuff I fundamentally disagree with and I blame the government for not making a stand


----------



## Searching (Oct 16, 2011)

> What makes you think that Islam is hijacked my small minority? I am really sorry but whenever you conduct elections in hardcore islamic countries the islamic parties end up winning with huge victories,while secular parties hardly secure many votes.So the idea of small rotten minority is just to please muslims.
> 
> I have a question for you how many times these secular muslims have asked the islamic countries to adopt secular values? These secular muslims will shout with their full voice that they are discriminated in non muslim countries but I have never seen muslim organisations pressuring muslim countries to allow religious freedom to minorities




KDS1980 ji
You need to read more about Turkey and Tunisia. Both are secular middle eastern nations with majority Muslim population (almost 98%). Both have banned Hijab in public places. Homosexuality is legal in Turkey, Polygamy is illegal in both the countries.
There are other majority Muslim countries that are secular like Lebanon, Syria, Indonesia etc.
I have met Muslims that are very extreme in their approach (most of them online) but I do agree with ohcuppycake ji in reality most of them are different from their online avatars.
So please don't fall into the trap of negativity against Muslims.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 16, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> In the same vein, kds1980 ji don't you believe Sikhs were stupid in not asking for a seaparate Punjab in 1947 which would have included Haryana, Himachal, parts of Kashmir and parts of Rajasthan!  Perhaps the Muslims so then what Sikhs never saw.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.



Sikhs did ask for a separate nation  and Britishers replied to them to Submit their plan but Sikhs did not have any as There was not even a single Sikh majority district.Personally I would love to see all these became Sikh country but demography was against the sikhs.If we take present day demography of these area then there will be no more than 20-25% of Sikhs in these area ,so making it a sikh country  was nearly impossible


----------



## ohhcuppycakee (Oct 16, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Personal experiance in these cases are irrelevant.Most of people never disclose their extremist views ,many times its only in their deep hearts.Before Partition of India manu Punjabi muslims and Sikhs were living very peacefully with each other but at the time of partition First Muslims pounced on Sikhs and later Sikhs retaliated.When the division of India was proposed and muslim league was aggressively  pursuing the the demand of separate muslim state then 90% of muslims of India voted for Muslim league irrespectively whether their area will be in India or Pakistan,so if muslims wanted they could had opted for secularism and undivided India but they preffered a muslim land which according to their leaders would be like jannat to them



First of all, the religious tension on the Indian subcontinent that caused the partition was between Muslims and Hindus.  Sikhs were just caught in the crossfire, and I am sure that there are plenty of Hindus that have invoked anti-Sikh rhetoric. Second, your argument that anyone could be a secret extremist is a serious logical fallacy.  If a person makes a claim you do not like, you label them an extremist.  If a person claims that not everyone with certain views is an extremist, you will claim that either they are an extremist or have been fooled by extremists.  The only way you can be convinced that a person is not a "closet extremist" (which is an oxy{censored} in its own right) is to agree with your perspective.  Also, the Muslims of India and Pakistan in 1947 are not the Muslims of India and Pakistan today.  Many Muslims were most likely hoping to leave Hindu dominated India to move to Muslim dominated Pakistan to avoid discrimination.  If there had been a vote to create a separate African-American dominated state at the end of slavery, I am reasonably sure the African-American vote for the creation of that state would have be heavily in favor of it, even if they did not live in the region.  Also, if India was so concerned with having a united Indian subcontinent, they did not have to have a vote.  They could have subdued Pakistani nationalists by force.


----------



## findingmyway (Oct 16, 2011)

ohhcuppycakee said:


> I contacted the local gurdwara by e-mail, but no one replied back.)



Unfortunately Gurdwara details on the internet are often outdated! TRy calling if there is a phone number (sometimes you'll need to call a few times if its only open part time and some of the people don't understand English to return answerphone messages). Good luck!


----------



## ohhcuppycakee (Oct 17, 2011)

findingmyway said:


> Unfortunately Gurdwara details on the internet are often outdated! TRy calling if there is a phone number (sometimes you'll need to call a few times if its only open part time and some of the people don't understand English to return answerphone messages). Good luck!



Yeah, I never like to call though since I'm a little shy on the phone. xD The last time I called a house of worship before going it was incredibly awkward, haha.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 17, 2011)

> Second, your argument that anyone could be a secret extremist is a serious logical fallacy. If a person makes a claim you do not like, you label them an extremist



Dear OCC

I think you have not understand what I am saying.A secret Extremist means Who Despite knowing that his leader is guilty of intolerance will still vote or support for him irrespective of fact what other community is going through.This happened in Gujarat 2002 and in North India 1984 when Hindu's  despite knowing who were responsible for riots people still went to vote for them .In other words it is silent support given to killer politicians.

As far as muslim world is concerned ,a very large percentage of muslim world give silent support to their extremist.No government in the world can survive without the support of masses ,if out of 50 plus muslim countries you only have 2-3 secular muslim countries then it clearly mean that large number of muslims are giving silent support to their non secular islamic governments


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 17, 2011)

Searching said:


> KDS1980 ji
> You need to read more about Turkey and Tunisia. Both are secular middle eastern nations with majority Muslim population (almost 98%). Both have banned Hijab in public places. Homosexuality is legal in Turkey, Polygamy is illegal in both the countries.
> There are other majority Muslim countries that are secular like Lebanon, Syria, Indonesia etc.
> I have met Muslims that are very extreme in their approach (most of them online) but I do agree with ohcuppycake ji in reality most of them are different from their online avatars.
> So please don't fall into the trap of negativity against Muslims.



Seeker ji

There is difference between analysing facts and negativity.Out of 50 plus muslim countries you only came up with few names and except Turkey Religious freedom in those country could be debatable


----------



## Ambarsaria (Oct 17, 2011)

KDS1980 ji I believe you really are talking from a pedestal a bit here.

On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is bad and 10 is good.  How do you score India's so called secularism?

Name 1 minority which has not had its fair share of persecution by the majority.  I don't want to hear about all the faults in the minorities argument.  Majority is supposed to have benevolence.

I will say India rates at 2.5 and publicizes itself at 10+ and is getting worse!

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 17, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji

I will rate India as 5/10 these days and 3 in 80s and 90s.


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 25, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> Verma1 ji there was nothing to believe in Hindu Idols/Gods or Allah for Guru Nanak Dev ji.  So it wasn't just Allah.
> 
> Again I say it is great to see Hindu, Muslim and Christian wanting to claim closeness with Guru Nanak Dev ji like the Sikhs do.  It is great.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.



Actually, Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born into a Hindu Kshatriya family.  So the root of the Sikh religion lies in Hinduism.  The Sikh religion was actuallycreated by Guru Gibind Singh Ji much later.  Sikhism now has become a religion in its own right.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply wanted to create peace hence why said he does not belong to any religion.  He went on to marry a Hindu lady and His children also had Hindu names.

Whether or not you want to believe this or anyone, does not change the fact that this is true.


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 25, 2011)

Sinner - you obviously need to read The Granth and actually understand it.  You have underlined various parts of my paragraph stating your own opinions alongside.  However, the simple fact is there was a war going on when Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born and He therefore wanted to create peace between the two religions.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born and brought up in a muslim environment and His best friend was a muslim so many quotes actually came from his friend and pthers around him which were used in The Granth, they were not quotes by Guru Nanak Dev Ji, which the group Ahmeddins use to falsley state they were.  Sikhs need to be aware of this fact rather than be brainwashed.  At the end of the day, you have your opinion however that does not change the facts.


----------



## findingmyway (Oct 25, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> Actually, Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born into a Hindu Kshatriya family.  So the root of the Sikh religion lies in Hinduism.  The Sikh religion was actuallycreated by Guru Gibind Singh Ji much later.  Sikhism now has become a religion in its own right.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply wanted to create peace hence why said he does not belong to any religion.  He went on to marry a Hindu lady and His children also had Hindu names.
> 
> Whether or not you want to believe this or anyone, does not change the fact that this is true.



Jesus was born into a Jewish family. It does not make him a Jew. Since Sikhi was so new when Guru Nanak Ji was married how could he possibly marry a Sikh? His wife lived the life of a Sikh so was no longer a Hindu. That is the fact.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 25, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> Actually, Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born into a Hindu Kshatriya family.  So the root of the Sikh religion lies in Hinduism.  The Sikh religion was actuallycreated by Guru Gibind Singh Ji much later.  Sikhism now has become a religion in its own right.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply wanted to create peace hence why said he does not belong to any religion.  He went on to marry a Hindu lady and His children also had Hindu names.
> 
> Whether or not you want to believe this or anyone, does not change the fact that this is true.



Actually there was never a religion that is called Hinduism,what most of people use to follow was vedic religion which certainly Guru Nanak did not accept


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 25, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> Actually, Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born into a Hindu Kshatriya family.  So the root of the Sikh religion lies in Hinduism.  The Sikh religion was actuallycreated by Guru Gibind Singh Ji much later.  Sikhism now has become a religion in its own right.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply wanted to create peace hence why said he does not belong to any religion.  He went on to marry a Hindu lady and His children also had Hindu names.
> 
> Whether or not you want to believe this or anyone, does not change the fact that this is true.



Verma ji,

Guru Fateh.

As Judaism, Christianity and Islam come from the one Abrahamical umbilical cord, would you call all three religions one and the same?

Hope to hear from you.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Oct 26, 2011)

He might have been born into a Hindu family but He rejected _janeu, caste system, idols etc. _Guru Nanak lived a life independent of Hindu lifestyle and Truth, Humanity, Honest hard work and Knowledge are the roots of Sikhism.


----------



## rajneesh madhok (Oct 26, 2011)

Guru Nanak Dev ji was born in HIndu family "How the word might arise". In birth the word of might is meaningless. Sikhism is comparatively a new religion in India. This religion was established by Guru Nanak. Guru Nanak was born into a Hindu family in 1469 in the   Punjab_region . Since childhood he loved to travel, learn and preach humanity. In those days people who taught and preached were titled Guru meaning teacher, his followers became to be known as Sikhs meaning learners. The creators of Sikhism tried to abolish some of the Indian customs such as the   Caste_system and Sati (practice) - burning of the widow. In Sikhism everyone has equal rights irrespective of caste, creed, color, race, sex or religion. Sikhism rejects pilgrimage, fasting, superstitions and other such rituals. Sikhism does not have a clergy class as it considers this as a gateway to corruption. However, they have readers and singers in their temples.


  Sikhism_in_India Rajneesh Madhok


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 28, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Actually there was never a religion that is called Hinduism,what most of people use to follow was vedic religion which certainly Guru Nanak did not accept



Kds1980....where does Guru Nanak Dev Ji say he does not accept Vedic religion?!!  Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply reiterated how people should live and only said people should not get caught up in religious practices if they are forgetting the main purpose of spirituality and religion.  Vedic religion is the oldest of the world, the people of that age were actually Aryans.  The Vedic religion is from a different era, so old that it has been passed on through generations from age to age, era to era.

As people started to forget the real purpose of the religion as time went on, Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply explained this to the people again and reminded them of the true meaning and the real interpretation of the religion.  Hinduism is the name given to those of Vedic ancestory and was given by the British in this age.

Unfortunately Sikhs nowadays are so easily manipulated and can be told anything and they will follow without correctly understanding the Granth.  A lot of people have used this to divide the two religions apart and unfortunately from what I see especially from this post, have succeeded.

What Guru Nanak Dev Ji was saying was definitely not a rejection of the Hindu religion, instead they were bringing to light that caste, etc does not matter and to remind people that the true meaning of religion is to meditate!  There were problems between the Hindus and muslims and Guru Nanak Dev Ji's point was to make peace between the 2.   If you actually look at the two religions, the basis is the same...both believe in meditation, both in re-incarnation, both in no meat, both in the cycle of birth and death!  These are just some of the similarities.  As time has gone on, people have changed parts of the Granth for their political reasons.  

It is actually a similar situation now, people have misinterpretated the teachings of the Guru's so much its unbelieveable.  The point of this discussion and thread was actually a different poit...its about muslims claiming that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was muslim and that is the important thing to educate in the Sikh community and they are using false information to try convert Sikhs into muslims.


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 28, 2011)

findingmyway said:


> Jesus was born into a Jewish family. It does not make him a Jew. Since Sikhi was so new when Guru Nanak Ji was married how could he possibly marry a Sikh? His wife lived the life of a Sikh so was no longer a Hindu. That is the fact.



'Finding my way' I think you are confusing christianity and islam with Spiritual religions like Hindusim, Buddhism and Sikhism and to some extent Judaism.  Firstly, the origin of christianity and islam were from violence.  Christianity is based on Judaism and Jesus also went to India to learn about spirituality as well.  islam had a very violent beginning where mohammed was at war with the Jewish!!  They do have the same basis yes, BUT mohammed has changed a lot of the original parts of Judaism to actually go to war with the, which may I add is still going on!  islam is something that was creating for war!  It is not a real religion at all.  

Hinduism is a Spiritual religion that has influenced the peaceful spiritual religions of the east - Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.  Sikhs were not at war with the Hindus at any point, if anything they were very much together and thats the basis of the religion.  Nowadays unfortuately Sikhs are failing to see the real point of the Sikh religion.  Guru Nnanak Dev Ji dod not actually start a new religion, instead he enlightened them on the main purpose on the religion to get them on the right path!  The religion Sikhism was not actually created until Guru Gobind Singh Ji actually and that is a fact.  Sikhism was a way of life before then and to try and explain to people to be good human beings and not mistreat each other.  The 'Panj Pyare' were actually Hindu's who then took on the surname 'Singh' after that to be warriors, to fight the mughals and protect the Indians from being converted and killed.

The word 'Guru' itself comes from the Vedas.  If there was any connection to muslims surely they would have taken a muslim name, not 'Guru.'

The fact is, Sikhism was not actually a separate religion until Guru Gobind Singh Ji and that too for warrior purposes, where Hindu boys were given the 'Singh' surname change.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji's children also had Hindu names.

People nowadays are taking quotes from the Granth out of context and in small parts without looking at the deeper meaning and interpreting in a way they want to.  They are making points about the Hindu religion and Sikh religion without knowing the facts, based on hearsay or parts taken from it without looking at the context!  This is really apalling.  I myself am Hindu and Sikh and understand both the religions as someone who has looked into and believes in both. In history, every Hindu family would have their eldest son sent to the Khalsa and have the Singh surname to protect them from conversion and be trained to be warriors against the muslims.   Guru Nanak Dev Ji's mission was not to do what some Sikhs are doing now, dividing the Hindu and Sikh religion, but then again that is the nature of humans, to corrupt and use everything in the wrong ways as time goes on.  This is one of the main reason Guru Nnak Dev Ji reiterated everything, to put people back on the right path, not to divide the Hindu and Sikh religions when they are actually the same.  I am just glad that the majority of Sikhs understand the two religions are the same and those that consider the two religions apart are clearly not educated enough and are in the minority.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 28, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> Kds1980....where does Guru Nanak Dev Ji say he does not accept Vedic religion?!!  Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply reiterated how people should live and only said people should not get caught up in religious practices if they are forgetting the main purpose of spirituality and religion.  Vedic religion is the oldest of the world, the people of that age were actually Aryans.  The Vedic religion is from a different era, so old that it has been passed on through generations from age to age, era to era.
> 
> As people started to forget the real purpose of the religion as time went on, Guru Nanak Dev Ji simply explained this to the people again and reminded them of the true meaning and the real interpretation of the religion.  Hinduism is the name given to those of Vedic ancestory and was given by the British in this age.
> 
> ...



The first master was not a Hindu or a Muslim, he was a Sikh, he may have been born into a Hindu family but that does not mean that Sikhism came from Hinduism, Sikhs do not believe in reincarnation, Sikhs eat meat, and the cycle of birth and death is open to interpretation,

As far as dividing the two religions apart, what do they have in common other than those that cling on to ritual and tradition within Sikhism?

The true meaning of Sikhism goes deeper than meditating, it is being connected to Creation and Creator by your actions, thoughts, words, and at the same time using the world as a playground within which to explore the concepts as stated in the SGGS. There is no magic in Sikhi, no praying to Idols, no fasting, its very simple, believe in Creator and behave as Creator designed you to behave, and thats it. 

I respect Hinduism hugely, and, thanks to Rajneeshji, have read a book about it that he quoted from, I found it quite superstitious and ritualistic, perhaps you could correct me on that point as I find Sikhism neither


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 28, 2011)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Verma ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Tejwant Singh,

I do not see christianity and islam in the same light as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.  Christianity has caused war, converting, etc not to the same extent as islam , but still has.  Then theres islam, muslims actually do accept Jesus as one of their prophets and also I do not see this as a real religion, it was used by mohammed to start a war and I do not believe that he was a prophet so it is not a religion.  The two religions are branches of Judaism and to some extent islam has also taken and misused information form the Torah and from the Hindu religion and tailored it into what he wants from life fpr his own objectives - to turn the world muslim....something muslims are still trying to do now.  What religion that spreads hatred amongst other religions, that partakes in animal sacrifice, witholds women, treats women as inferior to men, there are a million things I do not agree with in that religion!  How can that be called a religion?!  No way.  

So, I believe their base is in Judaism, however things from that religion have been misinterpreted to achieve the personal and political gains by mohammed.

In Hinduism it is very different.  Guru Nanak Dev Ji and other Gurus and Sikhism in general was not made to fight the Hindus at all, the two religion always are and have been in unity.  If anything Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the Sikhism a warrior clan to fight against the moghals who were ruling India at that time.  The main belief system for Hindus and Sikhs are the same as with Buddhism and Jainsim.  The spiritual aspects are the same, the only differences are in terms of caste and wordly way of life, which people had lost along the way and had to be put on the right path.  A bit like now really.  It wasn't supposed to be a different religion at all, this was not the objective.  People have now created divisions as they are not understanding the core of Sikhism and letting others brainwash them and are easily influenced.   

I am both Hindu and Sikh, therefore have studied both religions and its amazing how people misinterpret a few quotes and paragraphs without understanding the context.  In this thread, the post is actually about muslims falsifying the truth to convince people that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was muslim.  This is disgusting that muslims actually have the guts to say this (mainly the ahmadiyya muslims if you google this and put Guru Nanak Dev Ji next to it it will show how they have misused information), but unfortunately some Sikhs (although in minority) have started to convert thinking this is true and are not educated enough to know this is certainly not true. This is the problem, they are very easily influenced without knowing the truth about their own religion.  


Verma


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 28, 2011)

> Unfortunately Sikhs nowadays are so easily manipulated and can be told anything and they will follow without correctly understanding the Granth. A lot of people have used this to divide the two religions apart and unfortunately from what I see especially from this post, have succeeded.



Just read the following vaar of Bhai Gurdas ji ,it looks he too was manipulated 

ਚਾਰਿ ਵਰਨ ਇਕ ਵਰਨ ਕਰਿ ਵਰਨ ਅਵਰਨ ਸਾਧਸੰਗੁ ਜਾਪੈ।

Chaari Varani Ik Varani Kari Varan Avaran Saadhasangu Jaapai.

चारि वरनि इक वरनि करि वरन अवरन साधसंगु जापै ।

Since the true Guru integrated all the four varnas into one, this assemblage of varnas has come to be known as the holy con

1 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੩ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੯ ਪੰ. ੧
Share


ਛਿਅ ਰੁਤੀ ਛਿਅ ਦਰਸਨਾ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਦਰਸਨੁ ਸੂਰਜੁ ਥਾਪੈ।

Chhia Routee Chhia Darasanaa Guramoukhi Darasanu Sooraju Daapai.

छिअ रुती छिअ दरसना गुरमुखि दरसनु सूरजु थापै ।

Among six seasons and six philosophies, the Gurmukh-philosophy has been established like the Sun (among the planets).

2 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੩ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੯ ਪੰ. ੨
Share


ਬਾਰਹ ਪੰਥ ਮਿਟਾਇ ਕੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਪੰਥ ਵਡਾ ਪਰਤਾਪੈ।

Baarah Pand Mitaai Kai Guramoukhi Pand Vadaa Parataapai.

बारह पंथ मिटाइ कै गुरमुखि पंथ वडा परतापै ।

Wiping out all the twelve ways (of yogis) the Guru has created the mighty Gurmukh-way (panth).

3 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੩ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੯ ਪੰ. ੩
Share


ਵੇਦ ਕਤੇਬਹੁ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਅਨਹਦ ਸਬਦੁ ਅਗੰਮ ਅਲਾਪੈ।

Vayd Kataybahu Baaharaa Anahad Sabadu Aganm Alaapai.

वेद कतेबहु बाहरा अनहद सबदु अगंम अलापै ।

*This panth keeps itself away from the boundaries of the Vedas and the Katebas and always remembers as well as sings the uns*

4 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੩ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੯ ਪੰ. ੪
Share


ਪੈਰੀ ਪੈ ਪਾਖਾਕ ਹੋਇ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾ ਰਹਰਾਸਿ ਪਛਾਪੈ।

Pairee Pai Paa Khaak Hoi Gurasikhaa Raharaasi Pachhaapai.

पैरी पै पा खाक होइ गुरसिखा रहरासि पछापै ।

On this Way of absolute humility and becoming dust of the feet of the Gum, the disciple learns the right conduct.

5 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੩ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੯ ਪੰ. ੫
Share


ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਚਿ ਉਦਾਸ ਕਰਿ ਆਪੁ ਗਵਾਏ ਜਪੈ ਅਜਾਪੈ।

Maaiaa Vichi Udaasu Kari Aapu Gavaaay Japai Ajaapai.

माइआ विचि उदासु करि आपु गवाए जपै अजापै ।

This panth remains detached amidst maya and obliterating the sense of ego remembers the Lord spontaneously i.e. always rema

6 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੩ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੯ ਪੰ. ੬
Share


ਲੰਘ ਨਿਕਥੈ ਵਰੈ ਸਰਾਪੈ ॥੧੯॥

Lagh Nikadai Varai Saraapai ॥19॥

लघ निकथै वरै सरापै ॥१९॥

It has gone far beyond the influence of boons and curses.

7 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੩ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੯ ਪੰ. ੭


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 28, 2011)

> the basis is the same...both believe in meditation, both in re-incarnation, both in no meat, both in the cycle of birth and death! These are just some of the similarities. As time has gone on, people have changed parts of the Granth for their political reasons.



Meat was always part of Sikh diet ,Nihangs still do Chatka and eat meat


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 28, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Just read the following vaar of Bhai Gurdas ji ,it looks he too was manipulated
> 
> ਚਾਰਿ ਵਰਨ ਇਕ ਵਰਨ ਕਰਿ ਵਰਨ ਅਵਰਨ ਸਾਧਸੰਗੁ ਜਾਪੈ।
> 
> ...



kds1980 - do you know the actual meanings of the verses?!  The Gurus are not rejecting the Vedas and never did.  They explain what spiritual life should really be like.  I said, todays Sikhs are very easily influenced and manipulated  The title of this post confirms so after all, whoin their right mind would even think for one moment that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was muslim?!  However I know quite a few people who actually think this is true.  Hence why I said some  Sikhs although in the minority can be easily manipulated.

I did not say the Guru's were manipulated, but some information in the Granth has been changed as time has gone by people and some people interpret quotes according to what they think and take them literally without knowing the deeper meaning of them and take the meaning away from what the Guru's actually MEANT.


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 28, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Meat was always part of Sikh diet ,Nihangs still do Chatka and eat meat



This is a prime example of the Granth being manipulated and changed by people.  Think about it, do you really think any Guru would say its ok to kill an ani,al or any other living being?!!!!  Seriously, read the Granth and UNDERSTAND it more importantly and spot the information that has been manipulated and changed by people as time has gone on to what they want to do.  Sikhism outlined Karma, meditation, etc, do you really think they would have said its ok to kill?!

This is exactly what I mean.  Also look at the Sikhs when they were made Sikhs by Guru Gobind Singh Ji - the diet was strictly vegetarian and no alcohol or toxic substances!!!!!!!!


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 28, 2011)

harry haller said:


> The first master was not a Hindu or a Muslim, he was a Sikh, he may have been born into a Hindu family but that does not mean that Sikhism came from Hinduism, Sikhs do not believe in reincarnation, Sikhs eat meat, and the cycle of birth and death is open to interpretation,
> 
> As far as dividing the two religions apart, what do they have in common other than those that cling on to ritual and tradition within Sikhism?
> 
> ...



As I said before, I myself am both Hindu and Sikh and therefore follow both religions deeply.  As a result of studying and learning both religions, I have found that both religions are the same, however Sikhism has been manipulated on a huge scale now.  The true meaning of the Gurus' Teachings have been distorted.  If you actually look at Sikh Teachings, The Gurus do believe in Karma, Re-incarnation, not eating meat and meditation.  This is the original teaching.  This has been manipulated by muslims and Sikhs over time and some now seem to think these are not the teachings of Sikhism when in fact they are. All the Gurus believe in all these things and there yet more Spiritual similarities between the two religions, however due to hearsay people have started to drift away from the original message.

As far as meat is concerned, Guru Gobind Singh Ji created Sikhism and at the time of the Panj Pyare, they were initiated into the Khalsa and one of the terms was not to eat meat nor take toxic substances.  People over time, again have manipulated this to achieve their personal gains.  It is just common sense that any real religion would not allow the killing of any other being.  Unfortunately some Sikhs are unable to see this.

In Sikhism one must meditate to attain Mukti.  Hinduism is a very deep religion and has many deeper meanings than what meets the eye.  The Vedic Scriptures that Hinduism is based on are the oldest known to humanity, so old they cannot be traced back to the date of origin.  As time goes on, people detract from the right path.  

There is no praying to idols because at the time, that is all people were doing and they forgot what the Real Teachings of Hinduism were and thought they didnt have to meditae if they went to the Mandir alone.  This is why the Gurus said not to and just focus on what the real teachings are- meditation.  Hindus do not worship idols, they simply pray to Gods and Goddesses in the image of God.  Just as there are pictures of the Gurus in the Gurdwara, similarly Hindus also have pictures and idols, they are praying to God.  This is fine as long as one also meditates, that is the message.

I believe if you love someone, you will always have pictures of them!  Its natural, it doesnt mean you think that person is actually in the camera for example, thats another way of expressing your feelings.

Over time, there have been many reasons as to why people have changed the meaning fo religion, for division, political reason and this is human nature.

Thank you


----------



## Verma1 (Oct 28, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> Meat was always part of Sikh diet ,Nihangs still do Chatka and eat meat



NOT TRUE it does not say this anywhere.  In fact the Gurus all say all these things are to be AVOIDED.  Another example of manipulated information to be used by people to do what they want.  It is disgusting to even associate these things with the teachings of the Gurus.  Read up the Panj Pyare you will see for yourself.  I will let you do your research.  I am simply shocked to see how ignorant and manipulated people really are, its unbelievable.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 28, 2011)

this is clear violation of TOS, so there really is no point in my continuing of this debate only to find it deleted tomorrow, good day


----------



## misskaur1 (Oct 28, 2011)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> *New Spn'er welcome , I offer my view, it is given free but it is not without cost, take from it what you will*
> *If you know what you are ,why worry about it? *
> 
> *Sat Sri Akaal*



Hi Scarlet Pimpernel, I actually stumbled across this thread and post and felt I need to comment.  I do not agree with what you say here

1)  I think Verma1 is referring to the muslims causing problems in India, hence why Guru Nanak Dev Ji was creating an understanding between the 2 groups.  Not mecca in trouble.  The Guru travelled to various muslim religious places to *undermine* the practices they use and to prove how they conduct themselves is not religious at all.  Including the situation with the feet, the Guru slept with His feet towards mecca and when told not to face his feet that way, whichever way he did, mecca would also rotate.  There is no place to call Guru Nanak or any other Guru a muslim.  Look at how they treated our Guru Gobind Singh Ji and his children.  Its disgusting and a sin to call our Gurus muslim.

2) It is not something to be flattered about for Sikhs when muslims claim Guru Nanak Dev Ji was muslim.  It would be ok if they were following his teachings but they are not, they are misleading Sikhs into thinking the Guru was a muslim so that they can convert Sikhs into muslims by making them believe this completely false information.  Sikhs need to be educated that this is not true.  Here, read this 

http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000180.html

They would not accept if a Christian person was to say that Jesus was a muslim, so we should not be ok with this.  Some Sikhs do not know the history and they may be seen as easy targets to manipulate.  This is unacceptable.  The Sikhs should not forget how the muslims treated our Gurus, to even think let alone say that the Guru was a muslim is intolerable and yes, insulting.


3) As a Sikh girl, I have met many muslims on the face of it who seem ok, but underneath they still make trouble.  I have met someone posing as a Sikh guy, with a Khara, Sikh name, etc all to try and get Hindu and Sikh girls.  They try and use the Sikh religion and falsly claim the Guru was a muslim to try and convert Hindus and Sikhs.  There were also threats made to Gurdwaras about this, one should never forget this nor how they treated our Gurus in the past, its unforivable.  Sikhs need to beware and know not to fall into the trap of this and need to be taught there is no way any of our Gurus were muslim, if anything they were against the muslims hence why Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the Khalsa to fight them.

I will not be on here much to reply and I really do not want to get into a heavy debate about this, but I agree with Verma1 and on a large scale most Sikhs do know this, but its good to educate Sikhs anyway.


----------



## misskaur1 (Oct 28, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> ohhcuppycakee ji don't get discouraged but be wise to see beyond poster names.  Many a poster are not necessarily what they post themselves to be .  We run across agent provocateurs, etc., and it takes a bit of practice to realize some people's agendas.
> 
> Why don't you start a topic on Islam as not everyone may be as knowledgeable but as Sikh (learner) we always love to learn.
> 
> ...



Ambarasria, you are forgetting how the muslims treated our Gurus and hpw they still treat Hindus and Sikhs by trying to convert them.  Its naive to think muslims and Sikhs are 'friends'.  After the acts muslims committed, you cant blame people for hating them!  Its still happening now, only now the whole world knows what muslims are like, before it was just India who knew.

I am a Sikh girl and have had plenty of bad experiences from muslim people.  Dont be fooled.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Oct 28, 2011)

Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims are all humans, anyone can give bad experience!


----------



## misskaur1 (Oct 28, 2011)

ohhcuppycakee said:


> First of all, the religious tension on the Indian subcontinent that caused the partition was between Muslims and Hindus.  Sikhs were just caught in the crossfire, and I am sure that there are plenty of Hindus that have invoked anti-Sikh rhetoric. Second, your argument that anyone could be a secret extremist is a serious logical fallacy.  If a person makes a claim you do not like, you label them an extremist.  If a person claims that not everyone with certain views is an extremist, you will claim that either they are an extremist or have been fooled by extremists.  The only way you can be convinced that a person is not a "closet extremist" (which is an oxy{censored} in its own right) is to agree with your perspective.  Also, the Muslims of India and Pakistan in 1947 are not the Muslims of India and Pakistan today.  Many Muslims were most likely hoping to leave Hindu dominated India to move to Muslim dominated Pakistan to avoid discrimination.  If there had been a vote to create a separate African-American dominated state at the end of slavery, I am reasonably sure the African-American vote for the creation of that state would have be heavily in favor of it, even if they did not live in the region.  Also, if India was so concerned with having a united Indian subcontinent, they did not have to have a vote.  They could have subdued Pakistani nationalists by force.



cuppy cakes, why do islamists try to divide Hindus and Sikhs, I see this all the time, it is to cause tension between the 2 religions, when in fact Hindus and Sikhs were defending the same cause.  To prevent muslims converting their women in India.  Hence the objective is the same.  Most Sikhs can see right through this and to be honest muslims have not done themselves any favours seeing as most of the trouble in the world and extremist views are possessed by muslims on a huge scale, in fact no other religion has been the cause of so much disrespect against another religion nor wars as islam.  Even today.

Have a look on muslim threads...see how they disrespect other religions on there and try brainwash people of other religions with their false views.  They are the extremists, not Hindus and Sikhs.  We just retaliate which should be expected, after all you reap what you sow.

I an firm in what I believe and understand that unity between Hindus and Sikhs should and will always remain.  Its clear to see what muslims try and do, to cause division between the two, but they will never achieve this.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 28, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> NOT TRUE it does not say this anywhere.  In fact the Gurus all say all these things are to be AVOIDED.  Another example of manipulated information to be used by people to do what they want.  It is disgusting to even associate these things with the teachings of the Gurus.  Read up the Panj Pyare you will see for yourself.  I will let you do your research.  I am simply shocked to see how ignorant and manipulated people really are, its unbelievable.




Mr Verma

Show me where Guru said to Panj pyare  not to kill or eat meat?

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-rehat-maryada/sikh-rehat-maryada-the-code-of-sikh-conduct

Here are 6 Puratan rehat written by Sikhs close to Guru gobind singh not even a single one mentioned not to eat meat.Sikhs Fought with muslims using guerrilla warfare technique,in that technique you have to Eat animals as you cannot solely rely on vegetarian food.

As far research is concerned I have already done it plenty ,no need to tell other that they are ignorant because they don't accept your version of thinking


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Oct 28, 2011)

misskaur1 said:
			
		

> Hi Scarlet Pimpernel, I actually stumbled across this thread and post and felt I need to comment. I do not agree with what you say here


 
Welcome sister If I have encouraged you to enrol even if only so you could disagree with me I'm pleased,however I have a few disagreements running at once ,so I must take your leave for now Mademoiselle ,as a parting gift please accept this quote from the movie Sinbad 'Trust in Allah but always remember to tie up your Camel.'


----------



## Ambarsaria (Oct 28, 2011)

Verma1 ji thanks for your post.  I sincerely would like to know bit more details on how you achieve or what you think about some that I have excerpted.



Verma1 said:


> As I said before, _I myself am both Hindu and Sikh and therefore follow  both religions deeply._
> _1.  Is it a statement of Sikh as in Sikh Rehat Maryada or more a philosophical interpretation of pick and choose parts and discard some?  I just cannot see how it is possible to accommodate otherwise._
> 
> As a result of studying and learning both  religions, I have found that _both religions are the same_,
> ...


It goes without saying that there is much common between people versus what is different and we should try to seek common values.

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## ohhcuppycakee (Oct 31, 2011)

misskaur1 said:


> cuppy cakes, why do islamists try to divide Hindus and Sikhs, I see this all the time, it is to cause tension between the 2 religions, when in fact Hindus and Sikhs were defending the same cause.  To prevent muslims converting their women in India.  Hence the objective is the same.  Most Sikhs can see right through this and to be honest muslims have not done themselves any favours seeing as most of the trouble in the world and extremist views are possessed by muslims on a huge scale, in fact no other religion has been the cause of so much disrespect against another religion nor wars as islam.  Even today.
> 
> Have a look on muslim threads...see how they disrespect other religions on there and try brainwash people of other religions with their false views.  They are the extremists, not Hindus and Sikhs.  We just retaliate which should be expected, after all you reap what you sow.
> 
> I an firm in what I believe and understand that unity between Hindus and Sikhs should and will always remain.  Its clear to see what muslims try and do, to cause division between the two, but they will never achieve this.



If a Sikh does something wrong, I will not blame Sikhism. If a Christian does something wrong, I will not blame Christianity. Likewise, if a Muslim does something wrong and even if they desperately try to use religion as their excuse, I am still not ever going to blame Islam. I understand the message of all religions is positive. Unfortunately though, people like to unnecessarily create divides for their own means. Everyone has prejudice, even if their religion speaks out against it. Despite Sikhism being a religion meant to unite, I see lots of Sikhs with prejudice against Muslims, other castes, etc. Still I do not blame Sikhism because I know that that is not what Sikhism teaches at all.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 31, 2011)

ohhcuppycakee said:


> If a Sikh does something wrong, I will not blame Sikhism. If a Christian does something wrong, I will not blame Christianity. Likewise, if a Muslim does something wrong and even if they desperately try to use religion as their excuse, I am still not ever going to blame Islam. I understand the message of all religions is positive. Unfortunately though, people like to unnecessarily create divides for their own means. Everyone has prejudice, even if their religion speaks out against it. Despite Sikhism being a religion meant to unite, I see lots of Sikhs with prejudice against Muslims, other castes, etc. Still I do not blame Sikhism because I know that that is not what Sikhism teaches at all.



OCC

This is where you are wrong if muslims do something which is wrong but they believe it is O.K to do because they are doing it with non muslims then it is duty of  Muslim scholars to correct them.Muslim scholars like Zakir naik use all their knowledge to convert people and an average muslim go gaga over him when he see that how people are embracing islam why can't these scholars use their energy in promoting harmony telling muslims to live in peace with other religions especially IN MUSLIM DOMINATED COUNTRIES?


----------



## Ishna (Nov 1, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> OCC
> 
> This is where you are wrong if muslims do something which is wrong but they believe it is O.K to do because they are doing it with non muslims then it is duty of Muslim scholars to correct them.Muslim scholars like Zakir naik use all their knowledge to convert people and an average muslim go gaga over him when he see that how people are embracing islam why can't these scholars use their energy in promoting harmony telling muslims to live in peace with other religions especially IN MUSLIM DOMINATED COUNTRIES?


 
KDS it appears your post fails to prove OCC ji 'wrong' - it just pursues a different argument.  

OCC ji summed up a lot of human sentiment, and I concurr.  If we start thinking of each other as humans and not religious labels we might get further.

It is interesting to note that when a member of a religion does something good, it is on their head.  When they do something bad, it is on their religion.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 1, 2011)

Ishna said:


> KDS it appears your post fails to prove OCC ji 'wrong' - it just pursues a different argument.
> 
> OCC ji summed up a lot of human sentiment, and I concurr.  If we start thinking of each other as humans and not religious labels we might get further.
> 
> It is interesting to note that when a member of a religion does something good, it is on their head.  When they do something bad, it is on their religion.



Ishna ji

Forget about religions Humans divide themselves onj the basis of Nation,Region ,language ,caste ,culture and everything what they found.Have you heard of telengana movement in India.It is part of State of North Andhra pradesh who want separate statehood for them .The funny thing is they are of same religion ,speak same language ,have same culture but still they are Voilently demanding separate state.

Coming on OCC's post Religions are blamed if there follower especially the practicing one do something wrong with others.Hinduism get repeatedly blamed for dividing humans between castes so why can't Islam be blamed for dividing between society into muslims and non muslims.

Let me give you historical Example Ghenghis Khan was Budhist/chinese religion follower he did lot of destruction but none of his destruction was based on Religion.His knights belong from all religions infact some historians say no court could match Ghenghis khan's court in term of secularism apart from Akbar's court who was very less practicing muslim.Now what happened later with mongols when they converted to islam? They became One of most intolerant muslims  and wherever they go just destroyed Temples and killed thousands of non muslims

Case-1 Ghenghis Khan cruel ,Killed thousands but never on the basis of religion ,respected all religions.

Case-2 His descendents Muslims cruel killed Thousands but specifically targeted Non muslims and destroyed their places of worship


----------



## Ishna (Nov 1, 2011)

So the point is it doesn't matter how religious or not a person is, their capacity for prejudice and division is the same regardless, so it doesn't matter if that person is a Muslim or a Christian or a Sikh.  It is a human failing, the tendency to divide, form groups, be elitist, oppress others, belittle them, conquer them, convert them.


----------



## Janpreet (Nov 1, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> As I said before, I myself am both Hindu and Sikh and therefore follow both religions deeply.  As a result of studying and learning both religions, I have found that both religions are the same, ........



<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; 	mso-style-noshow:yes; 	mso-style-parent:""; 	mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; 	mso-para-margin:0cm; 	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:10.0pt; 	font-family:"Times New Roman"; 	mso-ansi-language:#0400; 	mso-fareast-language:#0400; 	mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Verma1 ji, if you read and understand Gurbani, you will find almost all practices Hindus does or do in the name of god is condemned in GGSJ. I will list few on top of my head: 

1. Gurbani says God is one but we all know Hindu people worship different types of gods.

2. Gurbani says that one god does everything but as per Hindus; Brahma is creator, Vishnu is preserver and Mahesh/Shiva is destroyer.

3. Gurbani says god is fearless but when we read about Hindu gods, one Hindu god is scared or afraid of another Hindu god.

4. Gurbani says god is genderless but we all know Hindus have male gods and goddesses 

5. Gurbani says god has no form or shape etc but we all know Hindu gods have shape, size, colors etc

6. Gurbani says there is no physical place such as Heaven or hell (its state of your mind) but Hindu's believe 'Inder' is god of heaven and it is a physical place where good people end up after they die.

7. Gurbani puts no restriction on dietary (except intoxicants) but Hindus are supposed to follow vegetarian diet.

8. Gurbani rejects the idea of fasting in the name of god or get some kind of boon from god but Hindus are big on fasting to please god or get special boon for e.g. ‘Karva Chauthh’.

9. Gurbani has no concept of getting boon or 'sharap' but Hindu people practice it very frequently. 

10. Gurbani rejects ritual bathing but Hindus believe by doing ritual baths their sins will magically disappear. 

Trust me I can go on and on and list down probably hundreds of dissimilarity between Sikhism and Hinduism conceptual wise, philosophy wise and day to day practices wise. 

Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying beliefs and practices Hindus does are wrong. They might be right but Gurbani does not accept them hence a Sikh is not supposed to hold such beliefs or practices. 

Therefore you could either be Sikh or Hindu, not both.


----------



## Janpreet (Nov 1, 2011)

Verma1 said:


> I did not say the Guru's were manipulated, but some information in the Granth has been changed as time has gone by people .....



Interesting, do you realize that there are still handwritten Saroops of Guru Granth Sahib ji from times of Gurus?

As far as my knowledge serves, there have no deletion in Adi Granth from the day Guru Arjan Dev ji did very first parkash till this day. Only 'Ragmaala' was added later on which we all are aware of.

Do you have any reference or authentic source which proofs your point that "some information in the Granth has been changed" and what are these changes?


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 1, 2011)

Ishna said:


> So the point is it doesn't matter how religious or not a person is, their capacity for prejudice and division is the same regardless, so it doesn't matter if that person is a Muslim or a Christian or a Sikh.  It is a human failing, the tendency to divide, form groups, be elitist, oppress others, belittle them, conquer them, convert them.



No the point is not that Hindu,Sikh Budhist , ,all have tendency to convert others,if that is the case then why ghenghis Khan was not converting people in to Buddhism? The point is muslims from past 1400 years have been doing crimes in the name of their religion against other Religions .


----------



## Ishna (Nov 1, 2011)

kds1980 said:


> No the point is not that Hindu,Sikh Budhist , ,all have tendency to convert others,if that is the case then why ghenghis Khan was not converting people in to Buddhism? The point is muslims from past 1400 years have been doing crimes in the name of their religion against other Religions .



We have reached a point of disagreement with no impasse.  On the one hand is the belief that Muslims have all committed crimes in the name of their religion against other religions.  In the other hand is the belief that it is the people who commit crimes, not the religion itself.

It is akin to saying it's the guns that kill people, when in fact it is the people who kill people WITH the guns.

To tarnish an entire religion is very divisive.  Sikhi is about creating in people a sense of commonality and unity, not division.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 1, 2011)

Ishna said:


> We have reached a point of disagreement with no impasse.  On the one hand is the belief that Muslims have all committed crimes in the name of their religion against other religions.  In the other hand is the belief that it is the people who commit crimes, not the religion itself.
> 
> It is akin to saying it's the guns that kill people, when in fact it is the people who kill people WITH the guns.
> 
> To tarnish an entire religion is very divisive.  Sikhi is about creating in people a sense of commonality and unity, not division.



Religion itself influence people and  society in big way though common characteristics of humans retain in most of people.The people who kill with gun should have mentality to kill others O/W gun is a useless tool for them.For example just give a gun to jain and ask him to shoot at animal and he may not be able to do that ,but then give it to muslim or christian and they may do it without hesistation.

TBH I don't have any interest in muslim or islam debate but if any secular muslim will come and say that islam has nothing to what muslims did or doing with non muslims then I will reply to him


----------



## Ishna (Nov 1, 2011)

These guys say it best. It's about racism but the idea still stands - you can't say one person's evil mind makes the entire race evil, you can't say one person's evil mind makes the entire religion evil.

Sikhi is about finding common ground in virtue and seeing people as people, not their religion.  Happy to be corrected.

One Tribe by Black Eyed Peas Lyrics - YouTube


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 1, 2011)

The thread has gone off topic for some time now. Let's go back to the original purpose of the discussion.

I have a question. Does anyone know at what point in history Mecca was cut off to non-Muslims? Somewhere in the back of my mind this question is rattling about. If we could answer it, it might resolve the thread questions. Thanks.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 1, 2011)

Yes I too would like to know when and WHY...Mecca was sealed OFF to Non Muslims ??
IS this decision based on Islam or "people"....and IF its NOT Based on ISLAM..why do the 1 BILLION Musims permit such UNISLAMIC Behaviour by "people".....

2. Ask any Pakistani Muslim..to them the Mughals are Heroes of the highest order...even kings like Jehangir shah jehan and aurengzeb or muhd rangila....and Akbar is NOT so great !!! Reason is obvious...AKBAR was a bit too Multi Racial/multi religious compared to the fanatics named....in fact Akbar may even be considered MURTAD for being non-muslim friendly ruler...


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 1, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> The thread has gone off topic for some time now. Let's go back to the original purpose of the discussion.
> 
> I have a question. Does anyone know at what point in history Mecca was cut off to non-Muslims? Somewhere in the back of my mind this question is rattling about. If we could answer it, it might resolve the thread questions. Thanks.


spnadmin ji it appears that there may be periods of open and close access to Mecca dependent upon who was in control.  For example,

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=+2]History of Mecca[/FONT]
Known around 0 CE as Macoraba, and was an important trade and religious centre.

[/SIZE][/FONT]





> *630 - 1268:* Comes under control of Muhammad, and _purged it of all traces of non-Muslim religion_.


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]_So one has to assume that non-Muslims were not allowed from 630 to 1268._
*

1269 - 1516:* Comes under control of the Egyptian Mamluks.
_So one has to assume that in the period 1269 to 1516 there were few restrictions as Mamluks appear less tied to the previous period and as a matter of fact defeated the people of that period to capture Mecca.  These were predominantly warrior driven Sultanates which also spread to India.  For example, _[/FONT]




> The mausoleum of Qutub ud Din Aibak in Anarkali, Lahore, Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_Since such would have encountered non-Muslims and sufism flourished in early part of this period one has to believe there was tolerance on travel and free thought._
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
*1517-1924:* Passes to the Ottoman Empire.
_So during Guru Nanak Dev ji's times Mecca was in flux between the Mamluks and the Ottomans.  Perhaps no one really cared who comes and goes._

*1925 to now:* Comes under control of King Ibn Sa'ud.[/FONT]
_I assume from this point on the restriction on non-muslims was reborn._

Not necessarily Academic quality high calibre write up but if it triggers thoughts in others more capable.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 1, 2011)

Thanks Ambarsaria ji

The year 1925 stands out as a historical milestone. I was indeed wondering if closing of Mecca coincided with the assumption of power by the Saud family and their backers the Wahabi imams. That is why I asked. This seems a very modern development.

It is also really interesting that the open door to Mecca has shifted before.

It makes no sense for anyone to be irked about how Guru Nanak could enter Mecca under the circumstances...for the Muslim world then was more fluid than it is now. I would like to see this point taken up in discussion.


----------



## Ishna (Nov 1, 2011)

At least 1503:

Non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca under Saudi law,<SUP id=cite_ref-peters_206_8-1 class=reference>[9]</SUP> and using fraudulent documents to do so may result in arrest and prosecution.<SUP id=cite_ref-72 class=reference>[73]</SUP> Nevertheless, as a result of curiosity, many non-Muslims have falsely posed as Muslims in order to visit the city and experience the Hajj for themselves. The first such recorded example is that of Ludovico di Varthema of Bologna in 1503.<SUP id=cite_ref-73 class=reference>[74]</SUP> The most famous was Richard Francis Burton,<SUP id=cite_ref-74 class=reference>[75]</SUP> who traveled as a Qadiriyyah Sufi from Afghanistan in 1853. The Saudi government supports their position using Sura 9:28 from the Qur'an: _*O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, God will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.*_​Thank you Wikipedia.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 1, 2011)

Ishna ji the 9th Hijr covers the period of 14th and 15th Centuries.  That is about 1372 to 1471 but I could be wrong.  Hijr is basically a Century counted from the birth of Prophet Muhammad in 571.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 1, 2011)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> The muslim world of Nanaak's time (15th Century) was also very different from today. Traveling from one region to another was common. Then the muslim world was a very open place, and if you were a citizen of one region it was very easy to enter another -- in large part because the idea of nationhood was not really part of the world view. You came from a city-state but were a citizen of the mulsim world.
> 
> Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia today, was under the protection of a sheik. There was no Saudi Arabia with a customs office to check your passport. In fact all of Saudi was a collection of principalities each governed by a ruling family. An entirely different place.



Ishna ji

The subject of panarabism is relevant to some degree in this discussion. The lock down of the arab world into nation states began in 1922 with the dissolution of the British raj. The idea of national borders commences in the arab world at that point. My statement about the Wahabists deserves some consideration...as the purity of the Saudi state and with that Mecca carries a kind of religious ardour with it but it is really very recent in kind. 

That alone provides a context for the thread title. My suspicion is that the thread would seem nonsensical centuries past.

But that is not my main concern...to be historically exact. If we go back to the very first article in this thread the issues are made clear. To ask whether Guru Nanak could visit Mecca if he were not a Muslim has an implied meaning that serves the interests of distorting history. There are those who would like to show that Guru Nanak was nothing more than one more sant from northern India who was greately influenced by the Bakhti movement, as such influenced by muslim sants and gurus. There is a long history to this I fear, and it undermines Guru Nanak and Sikhism to imply that Sikhism is a variant of an islamic philosophy. Yet it has been so stated over and over again here at SPN and elsewhere on the net.

The original article in the thread does a good job of analyzing this puzzle, or should we say concerted act of disinformation and distortion.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 1, 2011)

Ishna said:


> At least 1503:The first such recorded example is that of Ludovico di Varthema of Bologna in 1503.<sup id="cite_ref-73" class="reference">[74]</sup> The most famous was Richard Francis Burton,<sup id="cite_ref-74" class="reference">[75]</sup> who traveled as a Qadiriyyah Sufi from Afghanistan in 1853.​


Ishna ji the travellers mentioned only refers to European travellers.  Guru ji , Indo-Aryans, Arabs, East Asians, Mongolic descendents, and many non-Europeans would likely have been considered locals for all intents and purposes.

Probably even the city boundaries were not that well defined too.  It was very open land for people as long as they did not start a fight to rule a place.

Just a thought.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Ishna (Nov 2, 2011)

Thanks Ambarsaria ji.

SPNAdmin's question was, at what time in history were non-Muslims prohibited from entering Mecca. The example given was to give a ball-park idea that they were definately excluded at 1503 since someone was recorded as sneaking in. So it wasn't in the last 200 years, for instance.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 2, 2011)

Thanks Ishna ji for the answer.

Only thing to watch out is that Europeans were much easily recognized and given the history of crusades were watched out for.  Others coming going in hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) were not looked at.  I think that is projected (not verified) about local dynamics of the time.  Your example nicely shows the sensitivity about it in 1503.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2011)

Ishna said:


> Thanks Ambarsaria ji.
> 
> SPNAdmin's question was, at what time in history were non-Muslims prohibited from entering Mecca. The example given was to give a ball-park idea that they were definately excluded at 1503 since someone was recorded as sneaking in. So it wasn't in the last 200 years, for instance.



It is true that I asked that question. However, I did not play all of my cards in this discussion at one time. It has always been apparent from the very start of the thread the following:

If Mecca was closed to non Muslims when Guru Nanak was a visitor, 
And...if Guru Nanak found his way there,
Must we conclude one of the following:

A. He sneaked in and his identity was not discovered. 
B. He was actually a Muslim.

A does not satisfy our need to know how it is that Guru Nanak was not discovered as a non muslim, or why the Qazis let him preach once he arrived at the center, even after "the mosque turned." (Another specious story whose point is nearly often missed and whose parallel narrative in Hindu philosophy and history is nearly always ignored.)

B would explain why Guru Nanak was not seized, arrested, or thrown out. It also satisfies why he was permitted to preach and was even scolded. B suggests that people though he was a muslim. B also represents the conclusion "we are supposed to draw"... when  we are unaware that this is a trolling exercise that is used to rile the forum and perpetuate unnecessary and venomous discussion, that hurts Sikh religious sentiments and undermines Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Being able to date the times in history when Mecca was closed to non muslims helps us see how the question of the thread can become a tool in the hands of fanatics.


----------



## hashir166 (Jan 10, 2012)

ALLAH MEANS GOD IN ARABIC!!!

ALLAH AS IN

Thusi Allah De Andar Bishwas Kaardeo?

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?


----------

