# Anti Sikh Site



## vijaydeep Singh (Jan 22, 2006)

Gurfateh

due to wrong image of Panth by some of our own people we have pseudo Muslim misinterpreting Islam.

Have a look.

http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/


----------



## hps62 (Jan 22, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

dear Vijaydeep ji


SSAKAL

Visited the  site 

nothing  on it.

Dont  get scared Sikhs will never embrace  Islam.

If a few our girls run away . They were never  worthy of being in our camp.

have self  confidence .

this is no battle .

with luv

hps62


----------



## ISDhillon (Jan 23, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Khanda Daa Mukti :}--}: 
(Salvation Through Khanda)



Aavaw khanda da bardush karaw
Come let’s exercise our double-edged swords

Zalam da rooh noo azaadi devaw
Free the trapped souls of the tyrants

Bani inna noo mittaa na lugai
Gurbani doesn’t seem sweet to them

Paar khanda da japee naal marai laalkarai
But they scream in ecstasy when embracing our double–edged swords

Anaak naal takhat see vakaundei
With pride they showed their strength

Takhat naa rehi baas tukre tukre
Strength vanished, now just dismembered remains

Atam noo millai phere ek mocka
Now we have given their souls another chance

Jummeh aw jeevan jis kaye gursikha
To be born in a life as a gursikh

Phere naa zalam da nazar takreh
Never again allow the glance of the tyrants

Sareer teh rooh khanda karoo bakreh
The double-edged sword again will separate the soul from its body

By Inderjit Singh Dhillon

:crazy:


----------



## hps62 (Jan 23, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Dear Indyji 

SSAKAL

well said.
It is a pleasure to see your  response

WGKWGF

hps62


----------



## etinder (Jan 27, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*



			
				hps62 said:
			
		

> dear Vijaydeep ji
> 
> 
> SSAKAL
> ...


 
Just check this link..
http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/theo/nir_1/nir1.htm 


It seems like there is a difference in how the site is beginning..with all those shaking hands icon..but inside they are trying to refute the baani.
please check the above article and  lets deliberate..

gurufateh


----------



## hps62 (Jan 28, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Dear SPN sewadaarsji

SSAKAl

See khanda
See khalsa
Say deh Siva var moha

and feel the  power of  Sikhism

The global answer to all religious problem on this planet.


WGKWF

BSNSSA

hps62


----------



## FireStorm (Jan 28, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

I think we all know who these people are. They have earlier raised this issue with their very idiotic "The Universal Law of non-Contradiction" at on of the forums. They were fittingly answered and did not turn up or debate. 

I wonder who coined this law of non contradictions - they must have applied the the basic mathematics sets theory to arrive at this. 

Poor wrecks - they fotgot that the same mathematics gives births to Physics and the popular equations which proove that even such things (which God has created can have dual nature) for e.g. light which has wave and particle nature. Next we will know these guys flouting these physics rules as well. 

They also seem to forget that some subatomic particles can exist at two physically separate places at the same point in time (I am talking about quantum particles). 

The above are mere particles- creations of God. Imagine what God who created them would be capable of.!!!

Last but not least, the fools think they can apply rules of set theory to God.

In essence not only do these guys have a poor knowledge of sikhi, but also a poor knowledge and application of both maths and physics. 

:whisling:
*[FONT=verdana, arial][/FONT]*


----------



## ISDhillon (Jan 28, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

I agree with Firestorm Ji, 

This law of non-contradiction is ridiculous, you will always see these semitic faiths say things like, god is reasonable and would never contradict himself and then they rush in with the law of non-contradiction expecting everyone to bow down in defeat because they have accepted a common frame of reference instead of their own faith being a measure of its own definition.

The premise of this law in religious dialogue is quite sneeky, it follows that if god made man in the image of himself then god has a mind and is rational.  God in sikhism is not as per this definition, we in sikhism believe that god made creation in the image of the souls purpose, thats why all rivers lead to the sea, thats why we have so many joons if we interpret last stanza of Japji Sahib from Pavan guru pani pitta... it is quite self explanatory how creation is made in the image of the souls purpose ie, to be one with god, the spirit is a divine essence which defies all that our minds are capable of interpreting this central theme runs throughout the whole of sri guru granth sahib ji but the semitic ones have failed to draw on such references when making their conclusions therefore this unequivically proves their motives to be suspect.

I have tried to discuss things with them by email but it appears that it is a group of schoolboys having a laugh and the stinking pride in their emails makes me want to vomit, they told me their main aim was to change the perception of islam that sufis had done and that sikhi is also a pseudo-spiritual faith.  I have rebutted them quite adequately as once you revoke the law of non-contradiction the foundations of their whole arguments crash down around them and you can hear them screaming maaaashallahaaaa!!!!! lol.

Isdhillon


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jan 30, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Looking at this site it seems logical to one who is unaware of the terminology used or Muslims who assume all other religions are false anyway [they will instantly accept anything that talks against anything unIslamic].
I am COMPLETELY aware of the terminology they are using on their website and their logical language trickery is hilarious.

For example, the article:
*THE CONTRADICTION KNOWN AS RELIGIOUS PLURALISM*

They look at the sentence:
"Sikhism teaches that all religions lead to God. "
With the stupid interpretation:
"Sikhism teaches that all religions COME from God, and they can all take people immediately after this life to God"...

Typical Abrahamic-religion style thinking.

I just love the claim: "Allaah has given humans the faculty of reason."
Of course, the logical beings know that he has only given reasoned thinking to the PROUD kafirs on this forum...

If our logic is given to us by God then
why has he given us logic by which we can sucessfully construct arguments against his religion [see Qu'ran section of skeptics annotated website], why does he ask women to cover up so much skin if Islam works with science? Do they not realise such covering gives vitamin deficiencies?... I could go on forever!

Furthermore, they are using a athiestic, {censored} ideas [philosophy] to propigate their religion.

I have no idea why they use Kant on their website, seeing as he was non-religious and even argued against some theories for God's existence [the ontological argument], even though he did believe in God he stated originally that only European males were rational beings and only later changed this to the whole of humanity... this shows that no-one's logic or rational nature is a-priori... Kant clearly needed experience to show himself what was right!!


----------



## thinkingoutloud (Feb 16, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

try faithfreedom.org its where the disscussion between ali sina and the muslim took place


----------



## Qasim (Jun 30, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Looking at this site it seems logical to one who is unaware of the terminology used or Muslims who assume all other religions are false anyway 
*Other religions are not false brother. Those religions were from God for there people at their time, since then interpolation has played on their holy scriptures.(which were  not for the whole of mankind or till the end of time. Unlike Islam.)Sikhism wasn't a religion, it became one.

*[they will instantly accept anything that talks against anything unIslamic].
*If you believed Sikhism was God's guidance, wouldn't you do the same? For who knows better than God Himself?

* I am COMPLETELY aware of the terminology they are using on their website and their logical language trickery is hilarious.
*As a Muslim I trust other Muslims, "logical language trickery" doesn't enter my mind when reading his words. Any form of deception is a sin and not the way.*

For example, the article:
*THE CONTRADICTION KNOWN AS RELIGIOUS PLURALISM*

They look at the sentence:
"Sikhism teaches that all religions lead to God. "
With the stupid interpretation:
"Sikhism teaches that all religions COME from God, and they can all take people immediately after this life to God"...
*You're the one that has interpreted it that way not the writer. Sikhism only exists due to The Almighty's will, so in a sense even Sikhism came from God. But is it the truth? That's the question.*


Typical Abrahamic-religion style thinking.
*Ignorant remark. Brother, don't play dice with your soul.*

I just love the claim: "Allaah has given humans the faculty of reason."
Of course, the logical beings know that he has only given reasoned thinking to the PROUD kafirs on this forum...
*Use your akal (intellect), read the word of God and use your own reason to discern the truth from man-made falsehod. Look around you, the moon, the sun, the stars, even your mind! and ask whats the purpose of all this, whats the truth? Ask Him and if He Wills He will guide you to the truth. Your vision is being blurred and filtered due to emotions such as "pride". (i'm speaking out of past experience)*

If our logic is given to us by God then
why has he given us logic by which we can sucessfully construct arguments against his religion [see Qu'ran section of skeptics annotated website], 
*If free will didn't exist, a man wouldn't know the difference between walking around freely, or being chained to a lamp post. think about it. i.e. use your logic. Everyone is mentioned in the Quran, read it and decide your position because the one you're in now isn't the best thing, don't underestimate the magnitude of the situation. you're playing dice.*

why does he ask women to cover up so much skin if Islam works with science? Do they not realise such covering gives vitamin deficiencies?... I could go on forever!
*Men have the same obligation. think about your sister or mother, do you want them to wear skimpy dresses? no! note: the full cover you see today has more to do with modern times - the more women show the more a man wants to see. so for a woman with something called modesty will cover herself up.*


Furthermore, they are using a athiestic, {censored} ideas [philosophy] to propigate their religion.
*Good observation. Brother, theres no sense behind this comment...what are you talking about? save yourself.*

I have no idea why they use Kant on their website, seeing as he was non-religious and even argued against some theories for God's existence [the ontological argument], even though he did believe in God he stated originally that only European males were rational beings and only later changed this to the whole of humanity... 
*Kants experience is his own, as is my experience, and yours. No man can see past his own experiences unless there is a Divine Intervention. What if Kant read a book (explaining that we are all rational beings) that he UNDERSTOOD and ACCEPTED (using his logic and intellect) before his experience?*

this shows that no-one's logic or rational nature is a-priori... Kant clearly needed experience to show himself what was right!!
*Couldn't he have been told? Reading The Almightys word is an experience. Who else can guide man other than The Almighty.

this is in no way an attack but just a plea to open your mind a little bit, see past your own experiences and understand thats all they are, its whats made you who you are today, but really apart from being indian (man made), or Sikh (man made), or any other thing, you are a human being, with a soul, with a purpose. that purpose  is to  praise  God in the best way, in submission.
*


----------



## ISDhillon (Jun 30, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

*



Other religions are not false brother. 

Click to expand...

* 
*agreed*





> *Those religions were from God for there people at their time, since then interpolation has played on their holy scriptures.
> *


 

*so they became false when islam appeared?, sikhism also appeared and and showed how muslims strayed from gods message read the sggs and you will learn what a muslim is supposed to be.*




> *(which were not for the whole of mankind or till the end of time. Unlike Islam.)
> *


*

a recent invention by islamic scholars, christianity also claims to be for the whole of mankind, the quote you used from the koran about  messengers sent to different tribes does not mean that those tribes could not spread the same message to all and sundry.*



*



Sikhism wasn't a religion, it became one.

Click to expand...

* 

*sikhism still isnt a religion sikhism is sikhism their is no paralell it is the only direct revelation from god (something which can never be rebuked) compiled by the pen of the guru, no angels and no devtas were involved god made sure he did the job well their is no parallel in the world history if you know of one then bring forward the proof and we will discuss it.*





> *If you believed Sikhism was God's guidance, wouldn't you do the same? For who knows better than God Himself?
> *


*


angel gabrielle was not god and koran  was also compiled in the hearts and minds of the companions where did you here that it was gods guidance? certainly not from islam, compare this to sikhism which is a direct revelation.*








> *As a Muslim I trust other Muslims, "logical language trickery" doesn't enter my mind when reading his words. Any form of deception is a sin and not the way.
> *


*


then muslims are very sinful people indeed.
*

*



You're the one that has interpreted it that way not the writer. 

Click to expand...

* 
*ok lets see how you interpreted it:*

*



Sikhism only exists due to The Almighty's will, so in a sense even Sikhism came from God. But is it the truth? That's the question.

Click to expand...

* 
*none of which bears any relation to caramel chocolates statement, in sikhism we believe god can create sovereign doctrines and it is the people who strayed from the message, no where does sikhism guarantee salvation for sikhs themselves let alone members of other faiths, its about discovering god within and that will always be a subjective truth, your defintion of truth is defined differently to sikhisms you must accept our defintion or not debate because if you approach the study of sikhism from your man-made defintion of truth, then you will be off tangent, truth has never been given an all round defintion and if it is given a moral or logical character then we will seek the redefintion of a new word which we attest to be the correct defintion of truth in terms of sikhi.*



*



Ignorant remark. Brother, don't play dice with your soul.

Click to expand...

* 

*religious rhetoric brother dont you tire of playing these games.*


*



Use your akal (intellect), read the word of God and use your own reason to discern the truth from man-made falsehod.

Click to expand...

* 

*this why you have strayed from the truth, and this is why sikhism has come, the path to truth in islam by way of qasims statement is that the truth or god is to be found on the outside, wheras as sikhism is dedicated to taking man within, all that will remain from your 5 senses is zero so what truth would islam like us to take from this false illusion?*



*



Look around you, the moon, the sun, the stars, even your mind! and ask whats the purpose of all this, whats the truth?

Click to expand...

* 
*ask a scientist this is not a matter of religion. spiritual enlightenment is the purpose of human birth.*



*



			Ask Him and if He Wills He will guide you to the truth.
		
Click to expand...

* 
*this is correct*


*



Your vision is being blurred and filtered due to emotions such as "pride". (i'm speaking out of past experience)

Click to expand...

* 


*pride is not a problem the problem is ego these are not the same, i am proud of my religion i say that to you with humility, i am not proud of islam nor does islam offer me anything which causes me ego, i have never revaluated my faith in the wake of islam i dont think this will ever change, so i would question your own blurred past experience.*

*



Everyone is mentioned in the Quran, read it and decide your position because the one you're in now isn't the best thing, don't underestimate the magnitude of the situation. you're playing dice.

Click to expand...

* 
*everyone? not in depth like sikhism, hindu muslim and buddhist and countless other "everyones" why would i read about semitic prophets it means nothing to us, dont underestimate the pointlessness of knowing about the "everyones", you see how your arguments can be counterargued give this some food for thought.*


*



think about your sister or mother, do you want them to wear skimpy dresses? no! 

Click to expand...

* 
*fake religious astonishment which should make me think that it is somehow sinful or wrong for a sister to wear skimpy clothes, whilst i may not prefer it ultimately my argument is culturally based, not all societies have men who are out to rape women and those which do are afflicted with something, it is not the women we need to address or dress.*



*



so for a woman with something called modesty will cover herself up.

Click to expand...

* 
glorified slavery


*



Good observation. Brother, theres no sense behind this comment...what are you talking about? save yourself.

Click to expand...

* 

*is this a logical argument which islam has aided you with?*


*



No man can see past his own experiences unless there is a Divine Intervention. 

Click to expand...

* 

*self realisation is mans personal experience it is also divine cos the lord resides within all, again your views are off tangent, save your self and stop playing with the dice etc etc.....*


*



Who else can guide man other than The Almighty.

Click to expand...

* 
*through self-realisation man can save the whole world its called enlightenment.*




> *with a purpose. that purpose is to praise God in the best way, in submission.
> *


*
[/quote]


if your religion satisfied your conditions then you would be in a state of submission but something inside makes you feel like saving others, i would say your religion does have a great purpose but not to save mankind but to enslave it and glorify the slavery whith alot of rhetoric, but we wont be fooled.


anytime buddy anytime!!!!!!!:}--}: 

isdhillon*


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 1, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*



			
				ISDhillon said:
			
		

> Khanda Daa Mukti :}--}:
> (Salvation Through Khanda)
> 
> 
> ...


 
Beautifully said...I love it.

Gyani Jarnail Singh Dhillon "Arshi"


----------



## BSD416 (Jul 1, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

To accept the "law of non-contradictions" (I use the word law loosely), is to live in a world that is black and white. A world where only one race of people is the correct race, where only one choice is the right etc. It is this kind of thinking that lead the Nazi's to beleive the "Aryan race" to be the true race of god. 

Consider that god is the creator of all and has provided the universe with its attribtes, are these attributes not a part of god? But at the same time the attributes of the universe are insuffcient in describing god as a whole since god has obviously preceeded the creation of the universe and its attributes thus is god also not formless or without attributes?


----------



## Harman Singh (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

lol the site is pretty funny... extremely stupid at best... it's funny tho how he trys to switch up words and translations to suit his cause. and islams prophet not being a paedophile is answered with more questions than answers... and our holy book doesn't have all teh answers so it is incomplete unlike the quoran, HA HA... he obviously has no knowledge of what sikhi preaches and what it means to do simran etc... it's pretty comedic tho, made me laugh for a good while.


----------



## Qasim (Jul 3, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

*To Mr I.S. Dillon*

*My questions were related to “CaramelChocolate” comments which I thought needed tackling as statements such as “*Typical Abrahamic-religion style thinking” are insulting to soooooo many people, billions (it’s bad enough to insult one person!)*. I think you’re undermining him/her by answering questions that weren’t for you, nevertheless, I’d like to lay some ground rules for discussion between you and me because phrases like, “anytime buddy anytime!!!!!!!:}--}:” suggest to me you speak from emotion rather than from reason, (I may be wrong for only God truly knows but your replies seem rather hostile towards Islam and Muslims and lack any evidence for statements such as, “a recent invention by Islamic scholars”.) A religious discussion should not be about scoring points, it’s not a competition, it should keep pride far at bay for the souls fate rests with the Truth not pride and honour, so I respectfully ask you brother Dillon to keep insulting remarks (such as “glorified slavery”) away from this debate, I’m looking for facts and real thought provoking arguments from the Sikh community. *
*One other point is misinterpretation, it’s understandable that it can happen and proves how we have filtered vision and understandings of the world around us. But deliberate misinterpretations are not the ways of a respectable person. Any genuine mistakes are fine though.*



*so they became false when islam appeared?
*  Other religions are not false because *remaining elements* of truth still exist in them (i.e. the belief that God is One), in fact this proves that all religions come from the same source, God, unless they are completely false (i.e. scientology) (which only exist due to the Will of The Limitless). The Almighty speaks in many places of past religions and past prophets that were sent for a people for a certain time. As Muslims we are told to love and accept all prophets all religions and all books.
*
sikhism also appeared 
* How did Sikhism “appear”? Were there revelations from The Almighty guiding mankind to live as Sikhs? The same God that sent revelations to mankind before Sikhism? (Show me some scripture pls)

*
and and showed how muslims strayed from gods message 
* In the same way I can say that God shows how Sikh people have strayed from the truth even though Sikhism came after Islam. Every religion has its black sheep, people of all kinds stray from religion. The righteous exist in all religions. 
*
read the sggs and you will learn what a muslim is supposed to be.*
The sggs is a little late in telling what a muslim is supposed to be as the Quran already does this, maybe its because Sikhism “borrows” heavily from Islamic teachings? (Is this true?) 
*
a recent invention by islamic scholars,
* (about Islam sent for the whole of mankind)


 
False. There are many places in the Quran where God speaks to mankind as a whole. 

*O mankind!* Worship your Lord (Allah), who has created you As well as those before you; Do so that you are saved. It is He Who has made the earth A resting-place for you, And the sky a canopy, And sent down water from above With which He brought forth fruits for your sustenance. Do not, then, set up rivals to Allah When you know (the truth). (The Qura'n 2:21-22)

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true. 
Qur'an 2:23
*
 christianity also claims to be for the whole of mankind, 
* Not in their scriptures. Jesus (p.b.u.h) was for his nation at his time.



"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.'  (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:5-6)"


 
"He (Jesus) answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 15:24)" 


Even the Bible prophesises the coming of the final Messenger for the whole of mankind, Muhammad (p.b.u.h) http://jamaat.net/deedat.htm. So does the jewish scripture and hindu scriptures. Dr Zakir Naik, Islam and Hindusim debate on google video. 

*
the quote you used from the koran about messengers sent to different tribes does not mean that those tribes could not spread the same message to all and sundry.*

I didn’t use a quote from the Quran in my last post. But here’s one,

"*Mankind was one single nation,* and God sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed; but the People of the Book, after the clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. God by His Grace Guided the believers to the Truth, concerning that wherein they differed. For God guided whom He will to a path that is straight.  (The Noble Quran, 2:213)"

*sikhism still isnt a religion sikhism is sikhism their is no paralell 

* What is Sikhism then? Isn’t it a compilation of Hinduism and Islam, and an attempt to join the two? 


This is the definition of religion,
*a. *Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
*b. *A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
*2. *The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
*3. *A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
*4. *A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
   (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/)
 doesn't this make Sikhism a religion?*

it is the only direct revelation from god (something which can never be rebuked) compiled by the pen of the guru, no angels and no devtas were involved 

* Contradiction: Direct revelation from God – compiled by the pen of the Guru. Don’t believe in Angels or the Unseen? 
    [16:8] ...and He creates other things beyond your knowledge... 
    [24:45] ...Allah creates what He wills... 

    He knows what you know not.

*god made sure he did the job well 
* 
“God made sure?” This is not the God of Islam, He doesn’t make sure of anything, 

    [41:39] "...For He (Allah) has power over all things." 
    [3:47] "...when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, 'Be', and it is." 

*
their is no parallel in the world history if you know of one then bring forward the proof and we will discuss it.*

I can write a book and call it unique, but is it the Truth? Tell me, what is parallel in world history? The answer is nothing is.

*
angel gabrielle was not god and koran  was also compiled in the hearts and minds of the companions
* The Quran was revealed to Muhammad (p.b.u.h) over a period of 23 years. The revelations came to him through various means, sometimes through dreams, sometimes through the Angel Gabrielle, and sometimes through inspiration. 
"Sometimes it comes to me like the ringing of a bell and that is the hardest on me, then he departs from me and I retain in memory from him what he says; and sometimes the Angel comes to me in the likeness of a man and speaks to me and I retain in memory what he says."
Prophet Muhammad.
If we revealed this Quran to a mountain, you would see it trembling, crumbling, out of reverence for GOD. We cite these examples for the people, that they may reflect. Quran [59:21]

*
 where did you here that it was gods guidance? 
*  God says in the Quran.


This is the Book (the Qur'an), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are _Al-Muttaqun _[the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)]. (2:2)

"You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for 
yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the
brain, and you are responsible for using them." (17:36)  
*
then muslims are very sinful people indeed.
*
These are the types of comments I’d like to keep clear from. It’s an attack on a people; if you’re a true Sikh then such thoughts shouldn’t cross your mind. To a small minded person it would seem you’re giving a bad name to Sikhism but, praise be to The Almighty, I can see that this is a personal problem, Dillon and not associated to the thoughts of the majority of the Sikh faith.

*no where does sikhism guarantee salvation for sikhs themselves let alone members of other faiths, 
* true. If I didn’t have guarantee from The Almighty for salvation then all actions could be in vain i.e. hopeless if they’re not in the remembrance and name of Allah.

*
its about discovering god within and that will always be a subjective truth,

* “I *looked* upon every Cross, in every church, Yet He was not there. I went to the temples of India And the shrines of China Yet He was not there. I searched the mountains of Herat and Candalar Yet He was not there. I scaled the distant peak  of Mount Qaf Only to find The empty nest of the Phoenix. I visited the Ka'be But He was not in that tourist site Amidst pilgrims young and old. I read the books of AvicennaBut His wisdom went beyond all the words. I went to the highest court, Within the distance of “two bow-lengths,” But He was not there. *Then* I *looked* within my own heart And there I found Him-He was nowhere else.”​ Imam Rumi​ 
   It’s ironic how you’re using Islam to fight Islam, but at the same time you’re preaching Islam.

* your defintion of truth is defined differently to sikhisms 

* Only one definition is True. God has not forsaken mankind to mere definitions of truth, the Truth is plain and simple.

*the path to truth in islam by way of qasims statement is that the truth or god is to be found on the outside,
* 
The entire universe is *inside of you*. God can only be acknowledged in the heart of man because that’s where everything exists. Even when we read a physical book, we’re the ones who interpret it inside our heads. All that exists outside is an illusion which even science agrees with. Muslims don’t associate God with anything physical, don’t praise the creation praise the Creator.
http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_video_index.htm watch the secret beyond matter.


 Does Sikhism have an Exoteric side?


*ask a scientist this is not a matter of religion. 
* Do you have faith in scientists? Science can describe to you in great detail what you are seeing, but Islam prescribes to you what you’re experiencing (it gives it meaning), for only God Almighty can do such a thing.
“Science without religion is lame i.e. a pathetic excuse)” Albert Einstein.

*
spiritual enlightenment is the purpose of human birth.*
  Show me proof of this purpose.



*pride is not a problem the problem is ego these are not the same, 

* The ego has pride. Pride does not belong to the soul for the soul understands the universal truth that we are all equal. The ego wants superiority over others and acts arrogantly. Even if the Truth were to be as visible as the stars pride would cast clouds over his horizon filtering his vision and make him deny it. 
Spiritual pride suffocates the soul and detaches it from nature.

*Everyone is mentioned in the Quran.*

When you read the Quran it tells you your position, which group you’re in, you can’t escape God. 

    He knoweth all that is in the heavens and the earth, and He knoweth what ye conceal and what ye publish. And Allah is Aware of what is in the breasts (of men).


*(about womens clothing) whilst i may not prefer it ultimately my argument is culturally based, 
*  Culture

The      totality of *socially transmitted      behaviour patterns*, arts, *beliefs*,      institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
 What behaviour is good is what God has permitted what is sinful is what God has made forbidden. Societies are changing across the globe following what they say is good and bad without any moral contemplation, slowly the whole world will  follow one capitalist culture, so should we sit back and wave goodbye to ours? 

*
not all societies have men who are out to rape women

* It’s ironic how the highest rape figures are in countries with an “open and free” culture i.e. America (which is a deception in it self), however rape has existed for centuries and should be dealt with justly. Think Islam is unfair and degrading to women? Why then are most converts in the West women? Check out google video, Zakir Naik, women’s rights in Islam.

* glorified slavery

* What’s your goal in saying such a thing? Read:
    He knoweth what ye conceal and what ye publish. And Allah is Aware of what is in the breasts (of men).

*is this a logical argument which islam has aided you with?*

Once again you direct any faults of a person or people with Islam. That’s called small minded.


*through self-realisation man can save the whole world its called enlightenment.*



_Consider the human self and He Who perfected it__
And how He imbued it with awareness
of what is right and wrong. 
The one who helps this self to grow in a clean way
attains to happiness.
 The one who buries it in darkness is really lost._

    Only The Almighty can help and guide the self to self realisation for the self belongs to Him. He guides whom He Wills. You can have a thousand years experience but if you don’t have the understanding you won’t see behind the veil of your own experiences. Islam is this understanding.  
*


if your religion satisfied your conditions then you would be in a state of submission but something inside makes you feel like saving others,

* It is a duty of every Muslim to invite people to the Truth, it’s out of necessity as well as love. Google Video Zakir Naik Islam Hinduism debate with Ravi Shankar.

*
 i would say your religion does have a great purpose but not to save mankind but to enslave it and glorify the slavery whith alot of rhetoric, but we wont be fooled.

* Would you except Islam if every single one of your questions and uncertainties were to be made clear? Yes or no.

 God does not wrong people in any way; rather it is people who wrong themselves. Quran 10:44




*Aavaw khanda da bardush karaw
Come let’s exercise our double-edged swords*

_Islam is a religion of peace, the only sword it hold is that of intellect, the one that spread across the world._

*Zalam da rooh noo azaadi devaw
Free the trapped souls of the tyrants*

_Who is man to free a trapped soul? It is only Allah Lord of The Worlds who is in full control._

*Bani inna noo mittaa na lugai
Gurbani doesn’t seem sweet to them*

_The words of man can be useful but not mistaken for Absolute._

*Paar khanda da japee naal marai laalkarai
But they scream in ecstasy when embracing our double–edged swords*

_Very bad consequences, so would you save mankind by killing them all?   _

*Anaak naal takhat see vakaundei
With pride they showed their strength*

_Who are you talking about here?_

*Takhat naa rehi baas tukre tukre
Strength vanished, now just dismembered remains*

_Good observation. It’s called death and it comes to all._

*Atam noo millai phere ek mocka
Now we have given their souls another chance*

_So by killing the soul you give it another chance? Who gave you this right?_

*Jummeh aw jeevan jis kaye gursikha
To be born in a life as a gursikh*

_Justifying your actions. Drinking also helps._

*Phere naa zalam da nazar takreh
Never again allow the glance of the tyrants

*
_Romanticism is a weapon of satan._

*Sareer teh rooh khanda karoo bakreh
The double-edged sword again will separate the soul from its body*

_This is pretty violent and seriously puts me off Sikhism (if this is what it preaches.)please explain the meaning and purpose of this “poem”._


----------



## ISDhillon (Jul 3, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*




> are insulting to soooooo many people, billions (it’s bad enough to insult one person!)*. *


 
*your whole post stank of the filthy self-righteous pride you seem to depise so strongly*


*



I’m looking for facts and real thought provoking arguments from the Sikh community. 

Click to expand...

* 

*no you are looking to guide the sikh community i guarantee you will learn nothing from us because you have to want to initially, what facts are you looking for address those facts and we will be pleased to answer, try using your rhetoric and you will be revoked harshly zero tolerance.  you are no position to lay down ground rules.*








> Other religions are not false because *remaining elements* of truth still exist in them


 
this is the same between all  religions islam is no different we love the oneness of god in islam and verily reject the rest.





*sikhism also appeared *
How did Sikhism “appear”? Were there revelations from The Almighty guiding mankind to live as Sikhs? The same God that sent revelations to mankind before Sikhism? 


http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6214-sikhism.html

i have this almighty discussion already read all of it then advise i know the ending though ego because i not only answered all the questions put forward they then banned me and continued to hold on to their denial and asked the exact same questions its very cheap to ask us sikhs to not be blinded by pride.  Have a read then get back to me.


as for the rest someone else can respond.

indy


----------



## Qasim (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*



			
				ISDhillon said:
			
		

> *your whole post stank of the filthy self-righteous pride you seem to depise so strongly*
> 
> This is absolutely unacceptable Mr. Dillon. Have some honour. It seems to me that a reply like that is not of a man who has Faith in God, you're too proud. It sounds to me you're a romantic nationalist and a hypocrite of your Faith, for if Sikhism truly preaches equality and fairness then this reply is not a good example of this.
> 
> ...


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Gurfateh

Let the match contune between Borther Qasim Sahib and Bro IS Dillhon but das wants to put a humbale opinion that Gurmat refered as Sikhism is more the les same as Islam rather Islam itself after das underwent study of holy text of Both and intereacted with Wahabis along side Shias and and a few Sunni Tabighi people.

Brother Qasim you are welcome to do dawa to us but we are just like you as your and our God Allah is same.Forgive das is we hurt the sentiments of any.Refer to Sura 4 and Ayat 126 about women and there the way is our God as mentioned in Holy Kuran.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*



> The Quran has remained unchanged for over fourteen centuries, surely this is a sign of its authenticity for those of understanding.



http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html
the myth of unchanged quran  

Myth #1

The Qur‘an is Preserved and Unchanged Revelation from Allah

The Tangible Evidences

Manufacturing the Qur'an

Garbled in Transmission

Homegrown Inspiration

Most people are probably familiar with the place accorded to the Qur'an by Islam, that it is the "holy book" of the Muslim religion. Perhaps foremost among Muslim claims concerning the Qur'an is the belief that it was given to Mohammed by direct revelation from Allah. The ahadith state that the angel Gabriel transmitted the Qur'an word for word to Mohammed from Allah, and that Mohammed then recited these words to his companions, who memorised, and sometimes transcribed, these qira (recitations) which form the Qur'an 1. Further, this revelation from Allah has remained the same, never changing across all the centuries of transmission and transcription. A typical presentation of the orthodox Muslim claim can be found in the statement of the Pakistani revivalist and religious authority Maududi below,

“The original texts of most of the former divine Books were lost altogether, and only their translations exist today. The Qur’an, on the other hand, exists exactly as it had been revealed to the Prophet; not a word - nay, not a dot of it - has been changed. It is available in its original text and the Word of God has been preserved for all times to come.” 2

And further,

“So well has it (the Qur'an) been preserved both in memory and in writing, that the Arabic text we have today is identical to the text as it was revealed to the Prophet. Not even a single letter has yielded to corruption during the passage of the centuries. And so it will remain forever, by the consent of Allah."3

Many Muslims claim that after Mohammed's death, fear that portions of these teachings of Allah would be lost due to battle and deaths of those who had heard the words of Mohammed motivated early Muslim rulers to begin compilation of the revelations which Mohammed claimed to have received. The end result of this compilation, began by Mohammed's successor Abu Bakr, and finished by Caliph Uthman (644-656 AD), is said to be the Qur'an in its present form 4 (though what usually remains unmentioned is that Uthman is reported in the traditions to have also carried out the destruction by fire of all variant readings which did not conform to his compilation.)

The Tangible Evidences

Textual and archaeological evidences, however, do not support these claims. Most of the actual evidence which has been found post-dates Uthman by at least a century, and additionally differs from the present “standard” version of the Arabic Qur’an on a number of points. This divergence is true even for that evidence which is chronologically nearer to this Caliph.

To begin, Muslim scholars claim to have uncovered 7th century copies of the original Quranic manuscript, sent throughout the newly formed Arab Empire by Uthman, these being the Topkapi MSS in Istanbul, and the Samarkand MSS in Tashkent. However, manuscript experts have ruled out that possibility, and instead date these manuscripts as being from the late 8th century, at the earliest. Their reason for doing so is that these two manuscripts were copied in what is known as the Kufic script, a style which originated in the Iraqi city of Kufah and was largely used from the late 8th to the 11th centuries, only gradually finding widespread use in the rest of the Muslim world until it was replaced generally by the Naskh script5.

In addition to the anachronistic Kufic script used, other evidence from examination of the Samarkand codex suggests a later date. This manuscript bears artistic ornamentation between many of the surat, as well as medallions containing kufic-style numerals gauging progress through each individual surah, all of which suggests an 8th or 9th century age for the manuscript. Islamic calligraphy expert Safadi says,

“It is significant that, until the beginning of the 9th century, Kufic Qur'ans received little illumination, but once this initial reluctance was overcome, various ornamental devices were evolved, many of which served necessary functions. Notable among these were the Unwan (title pages), Surah (chapter) headings, verse divisions, verse counts, section indicators, and colophons.”6

The same sort of ornamentation appears on the Topkapi codex as well, likewise indicating its later date. Further, in contradiction to the claim that this manuscript is one of the original copies sent out by Uthman to the various Muslim centres, the Samarkand codex is very eclectic, with the text from page to page alternating between careful copying and hasty, untidy transmission; and some pages containing flowing broad text, while on others the text is cramped and compressed. This evidence seems to discount the notion that a single scribe copied the whole manuscript, and even calls into question whether the whole manuscript would have been copied at one time. 

Further, in the Samarkand codex, several differences in reading exist with respect to the “standard” Quranic text existing today and said to date directly back to Mohammed’s revelations. Perhaps the most well-known example is found in the difference on Surah 37:103. In the Samarkand manuscript, this ayah reads “wa ma aslamaa...”, which translated means “and they did not submit” (i.e. become Muslims). Yet, the present Arabic “standard” Qur’an reads “Falammaa aslamaa..” which when translated means “and they submitted”7. Thus, the change of one word alters the meaning of the passage to a diametrically opposite meaning! Additionally, other differences between the Samarkand codex and the present Arabic version had been noted. They amount to the same sort of changes in consonantal readings (the Samarkand is without vowel pointings) and even the changing of whole words, in Surat 2:15, 2:57, 2:284, 5:99, 6:11, 7:27, 7:69, 18:83, 19:72, 20:3, 20:79, 20:108, 36:20-21, 38:26, as well as other ayat8. This shows us, despite the claims made by many Muslim scholars and theologians (those quoted above, for instance) that no changes were ever introduced into the Quranic manuscript history and that the Arabic Qur'an has always remained the same, that there were indeed alterations in Quranic manuscripts during the early years of Islam and that the original Arabic readings have not been preserved intact in each daughter manuscript. Thus, the Muslim apologetic argument which points to the "perfect and uncorrupted" Qur'an as a proof of the finality and truth of Islam, since it has "obviously" been protected by Allah throughout its history, rests on shaky ground.

It is notable that as yet, no such study has been allowed on the Topkapi codex, which has been kept under wraps except for brief glimpses. Even photographic record of this codex is forbidden, which has made objective analysis of the readings of this document impossible. 

A very ancient manuscript, perhaps slightly earlier than the aforementioned two manuscripts, was housed in the British Museum in London, and was written in the Ma’il style of script, which was indigenously used around the Hijaz, which includes Mecca and Medina. This manuscript, however, has been dated by Dr. Martin Lings (himself a practicing Muslim) to around the end of the 8th century, and is said to be one of the two oldest known Quranic leaves9. In fact, only the Sana’a manuscripts, a cache of ancient Quranic leaves found in a sealed room of an antiquated Yemen mosque, seem to date earlier than the first quarter of the 8th century10. These leaves and fragments date towards the end of the 7th century, but also contain several readings which differ from the standardised text used today, as was reported fairly recently in The Atlantic Online 11. The evidences from these texts are important for two reasons. First, they falsify the Muslim claims to having found the “original” copies made of Uthman’s recension, and thus cannot be used as a proof for the early uniformity of the Quranic text. Second, their readily apparent divergences from the present standard text show that such uniformity did not even exist in the early Qur’an anywise.

Other tangible evidence of the Qur’an’s mutability exists. Cook mentions the existence of Quranic quotations on early Muslim coins which differ from the present Qur’an,

"Equally, when the first Koranic quotations appear on coins and inscriptions towards the end of the seventh century, they show divergences from the canonical text. These appear trivial from the point of view of content, but the fact that they appear in such formal contexts as these goes badly with the notion that the text had already been frozen." 12

Essentially, he is saying that the appearance of divergent readings on what are really official, state-sponsored documents, indicates that the Quranic text was still in a state of flux, even after the time of Uthman. This lack of uniformity has likewise implied to scholars that the Qur’an was not invested with the same air of authority with which it is held by Muslims in our day. As we have seen, there is not any really solid evidence that the Qur'an existed in its final, edited form for at least a century or more after the rise of the Arab Empire. It can perhaps be rightly suggested that rather than the Qur'an being the beginning of Islam (as is often claimed), Islam was the finisher of the Qur'an.

"Schacht's studies of the early development of legal doctrine within the community demonstrate that with very few exceptions, Muslim jurisprudence was not derived from the contents of the Qur'an. It may be added that those few exceptions are themselves hardly evidence for the existence of the canon, and further observed that even where doctrine was alleged to draw upon scripture, such is not necessarily evidence of the scriptural source. Derivation of law from scripture...was a phenomenon of the ninth century...A similar kind of negative evidence is absence of any reference to the Qur'an in the Fiqh Akbar I."13

Thus, we see that from the evidence of the 8th century AD legal creed represented in the Fiqh Akbar I, with its lack of reference to the Qur'an, that the Qur'an probably had minimal to no impact on early Muslim society. Indeed, if the Qur'an had existed in its present form, and was imbued with the gravitas of authority as the revelation of God's law, it seems very strange that it would hardly have been mentioned in a foundational legal document for the Muslim community. Only over time did it develop sufficient status to become a source of law and practice.

Schacht further states in this vein,

"...the first considerable body of legal traditions from the Prophet originated towards the middle of the second [Islamic] century, in opposition to slightly earlier traditions from Companions and other authorities and to the "living tradition" of the ancient schools of law....the evidence of legal traditions carries us back to about the year 100 A.H. only; at that time Islamic legal thought started from late Umaiyad administrative and popular practice."14

He continues,

"Muhammedan law did not derive directly from the Koran but developed...out of popular and administrative practice under the Umaiyads, and this practice often diverged from the intentions and even the explicit wording of the Koran....Apart from the most elementary rules, norms derived from the Koran were introduced into Muhammedan law almost invariably at a secondary stage. This applies not only to those branches of law which are not covered in detail by the Koranic legislation - if we may use this term of the essentially ethical and only incidentally legal body of maxims contained in the Koran - but to family law, the law of inheritance, and even cult and ritual."15

Crone also notes that the early caliphs were more or less free to make and unmake the Sunna (Muslim traditions concerning precepts supposedly set forth by Mohammed), doing so under their own authority as "God's representative", not because of any traditions stemming from the Qur'an or from the example set by Mohammed or his companions16. Only later, as Hinds and Crone have also argued, did the religious elite of the second or third Islamic centuries lend a divine authority to this body of Sunna. Indeed, in another work, Crone points out that, far from being handed down by Allah in the Qur'an, the Islamic shari'a is merely a reshaped version of the provincial law that existed in the Near East from Hellenistic times right down to the Byzantine period preceding the Arab Empire17. In effect, Islamic law was built on the substrate of law as had been found in the region for a millennium, adjusted it according to the custom and preference of the early caliphs, and finally set it in stone at the behest of the Muslim ulama (theologians)as the veritable word of Allah, not to be questioned, only to be obeyed.

Thus, the Qur'an appears to have had only a marginal effect on the body of Islamic law which was building up in the first centuries of the Arab Empire. Of much greater impact were the popular practice of the people themselves and the expedients of governing needed to manage the new order, and these helped to mold the legal system of Islam in preparation for the eventual Quranic overlay onto the system. In other words, the Qur'an was developed and invested with its authority as "scripture" through a process of evolution in Muslim culture, instead of the traditional view that the Qur'an laid the foundation for Muslim society in the ummah. It was not until the 9th century that the Qur’an began to be invested with the authority with which later Islam would view it.

Indeed, it should be noted that even as late as the middle part of the 8th century, contemporaneous sources exhibit a knowledge of the existence of only a part of the Qur'an. John of Damascus was a Syriac Christian priest who lived in the 8th century, during and after the Arab takeover of Syria. In his work De Haeresibus (c. 750 AD), John reveals that he had an intimate familiarity with many Arab traditions. Among these traditions are certain books which he attributes to "this Mohammed". From John's apologetic defences, it has become apparent to scholars that he was only familiar with surat 2-5 of what is presently the Qur'an18. In addition, John deals at length with another book, which he refers to by title as the "book on the Camel of God", which does not appear in the present Qur'an, but yet which he refers to as one of the books of the "Ishmaelites". He lists this book in parallel with "the book of the Table" (Surah 4), "the book of the Heifer" (Surah 2), and the "book of the Woman" (surah 3), dealing with them in the same way to refute the heresy taught within them19, which suggests that they were viewed by the "Ishmaelites" with whom he was dealing as just as scripturally authoritative as the other books which now do appear in the Qur'an. The Qur'an also makes passing references to this Book of the Camel of God (see Surat 7:73,77; 91:13-14), but this book failed to make it into the final compilation of the Arab holy writings.

Another witness to the status of the Arab religious texts from the 8th century would be the Emperor Leo III of Byzantium (r. 717-741 AD). Leo was in a position to be familiar with the religious status of the Syria-Palestine area, as he was raised on the frontier of Syria, and was even reputed to be bilingual in Greek and Arabic, and thus would almost surely have become acquainted with the religious teachings of the Arabs, whether oral or from a holy book, who were increasingly putting pressure onto what was left of the Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor. In a correspondence which he wrote to the Caliph Umar II (r. 717-720 AD), he issued a defence of Christianity against the doctrines of the particular Arab monotheism which was developing. In this defence, he does not mention the Qur'an (indeed, in the older text of his letter, an Armenian text dating from somewhere in the late 8th century20, the Qur'an is not even quoted)21. In his letter, Leo refers primarily to Surat 2-5, while making a handful of scattered references which can be interpreted as pointing to other surat of what is now the Qur'an. Overall, however, the impression is that Leo knew of written compilations of Surat 2-5, but was relying upon oral tradition and/or other more unofficial writings, which had either not yet been assembled into a form of religious compilation by the Arabs, or else had only very recently been assembled and was still in a state of flux as far as its form and order were concerned22. 

Scholars have noted the great amount of influence which Judeo-Christianity, here defined as those sects present in Palestine, Syria, and Iraq which accepted Christ as a Messiah-figure, but who rejected His deity (e.g. the Nazoreans, Ebionites, etc.), had upon the initial development of Islam. Indeed, many beliefs of these groups coincide with those later held by Islam, including a belief that Jesus Christ was not a member of the Godhead, but was instead a subordinated prophet of God, and the emphasis upon Abraham as the first "man of knowledge" who had the knowledge of God conferred upon him by an angel23. Other aspects of these Judeo-Christian groups which were later adopted by the Arabs into their developing monotheism after their military expansion into these regions included the denial of the crucifixion, the obligation to observe the sabbath and other elements of the Mosaic law, the qiblah (direction of prayer) towards Jerusalem, which was the initial direction recorded in Islamic tradition before it was changed to Mecca. The Arabs, of course, would have been exposed to the religious beliefs of these groups, as well as those of the Jews and the various Christian sects, due to the presence of some of these in Arabia, as well as through trade relations. After the Arabs expanded their conquests into Persia/Mesopotamia and the eastern end of the Byzantine Empire, it would not be surprising that these doctrines were accepted into the larger aegis of the developing state monotheism, especially as the Arabs sought to differentiate themselves from both the Jews and the Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire.

This would explain the large amount of borrowing of material in the Qur'an from Christian, Jewish, and especially Judeo-Christian sources. It is likely that the Arabs formulated the belief system of Islam only after leaving the Arabian desert and coming into contact with these Judeo-Christian groups (primarily) and other belief systems outside of Arabia. Wansbrough points out that the internal allusions in the Qur'an itself seem to indicate that it arose against the backdrop of sectarian strife with other religious groups found in Syro-Palestine and Iraq (and thus, was not a product of central Arabian revelation),

"Quranic allusion presupposes familiarity with the narrative material of Judaeo-Christian scripture, which was not so much reformulated as merely referred to....Taken together, the quantity of reference, the mechanically repetitious employment of rhetorical convention, and the stridently polemical style, all suggest a strongly sectarian atmosphere in which the corpus of familiar scripture was being pressed into the service of as yet unfamiliar doctrine." 24

Thus, these Judeo-Christian scriptures were relied upon to formulate and validate the arising Arab monotheism, and the Qur’an as a body of scripture saw its evolution impressed upon by the traditions and teachings of the Judaeo-Christian world which existed outside of Arabia. These traditions and knowledge entered into the consciousness of the Arabs' new religion from the conquered Christian lands (along with the large Jewish populations) taken in Yemen, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Likewise, the trace of Zoroastrian tales in the Qur’an most likely entered the Islamic realm after the subjugation of the revived Persian Empire under Yazdegird III, the last Sassanid Shah. Coming into contact with the higher civilisations of Constantinople and Ctesiphon, each with their own established monotheistic religion, it is not surprising that the Arabs would desire to invest their new religion with the same sort of traditions. As Ibn Warraq points out, the formulation of the Qur'an likely occurred out of a desire to provide Mohammed, said to be a prophet of the Mosaic model, with his very own Holy Writ. Just as Moses received the Word of God from God, so must Mohammed, to legitimise the Arab claims about his prophethood. In fact, it has been pointed out that Muslim philologists have systematically tried to manipulate the evidence from Arabian poetry so as to give a pre-Islamic appearance for such poetry (patterned along the lines of the Qur'an), for the purpose of giving the Qur’an a more Arabian flavour and thus substantiate the claim that the Qur'an was given to an Arabian prophet in pure Arabic, from God25.

In fact, the very importance of Mohammed as the true moving force behind the original Arab religion is questionable. Scholars have shown that pretty much all the biographical information about Mohammed presented by early Islamic tradition is of questionable trustworthiness. As Cook states,

"False ascription was rife among the eighth-century scholars, and...in any case Ibn Ishaq and his contemporaries were drawing on oral tradition. Neither of these propositions is as arbitrary as it sounds. We have reason to believe that numerous traditions on questions of dogma and law were provided with spurious chains of authorities by those who put them into circulation; and at the same time we have much evidence of controversy in the eighth century as to whether it was permissible to reduce oral tradition to writing. The implications of this view for the reliability of our sources are clearly rather negative. If we cannot trust the chains of authorities, we can no longer claim to know that we have before us the separately transmitted accounts of independent witnesses; and if knowledge of the life of Muhammed was transmitted orally for a century before it was reduced to writing, then the chances are that the material will have undergone considerable alteration in the process."26

Three eminent scholars of Islam, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, and Martin Hinds, on very valid logical and evidential grounds, reject the whole Islamic history of Mohammed which was supposedly presented "in the clear light of history":

"[They] regard the whole established version of Islamic history down to at least the time of Abd al-Malik (685-705) as a later fabrication, and reconstruct the Arab Conquests and the formation of the Caliphate as a movement of peninsular Arabs who had been inspired by Jewish messianism to try to reclaim the Promised Land. In this interpretation, Islam emerged as an autonomous religion and culture only within the process of a long struggle for identity among the disparate peoples yoked together by the Conquests: Jacobite Syrians, Nestorian Aramaeans in Iraq, Copts, Jews, and (finally) peninsular Arabs."27

Thus, there is a strong and growing scholarly contention against the traditional (and uncritically accepted) view of Mohammed and very early Islamic history, including the origination of the Qur'an. Concerning Mohammed specifically, this will be revisited in chapter 5.

Moving on to a later age, the earliest definitive appearance of the Qur'an in its present form dates from the 10th century, when the text as it now stands was compiled from seven different versions of the Quranic text to form an amalgamated, mutually acceptable text made easier to understand because of the addition of vowel and diacritical marks to the Arabic script (where they had previously been lacking, and hence made the texts harder to read) 28.

Many Muslims claim, however, that Mohammed had already compiled a complete Quranic manuscript before his death in 632 AD, and that following manuscripts agreed with this first text perfectly. The claim is made that there were no conflicting manuscripts produced. These assertions are contradicted both by evidence from scholarly study, and by variant Muslim assertions, mentioned above and articulated more fully below, which claim that Mohammed's followers compiled the Quranic teachings after his death.

"One thing only is certain and is openly recognized by tradition, namely, that there was not in existence any collection of revelations in final form, because, as long as he was alive, new revelations were being added to the earlier ones." 29

Scholars assert that at Mohammed's death, there was no singular codex for the Qur'an 30. Indeed, as has been noted above, there probably was not even a codex of the Qur'an until at after the middle part of the 8th century (the leaves mentioned earlier are single pages, not comprising a whole collection of writings). Given the late appearance of complete Quranic texts, this appears to bear witness to the truth. However, as was seen above, many Muslim scholars make the claim that the Qur'an has existed exactly as it was handed down to Mohammed, even to this day.

Yet, scholarship finds that there was no single copy of the Qur'an even in existence until long after that year ascribed as Mohammed's death. However, there may have been portions of the Qur'an which had been written down at various points, even in the very early years of Islam (most likely the Surat 2-5 observed by John and Leo, as well as a few others). However, not all Muslim traditions teach that the Qur'an was completed in codex form at the time of Mohammed's death. Indeed, one of the more prominent traditions records the compilation of the Qur'an (assumed, of course, to be the whole Qur'an) from various sources (including bones and palm fronds) upon which the recitations has been inscribed. They were these portions, according to the Muslim traditions themselves, along with the portions of the Qur'an present in the memories of various companions of Mohammed, which Zaid ibn Thabit (a companion of Mohammed who produced a compilation of the Qur'an) sought out to make his compilation of the Qur'an codex for Abu Bakr, the first Caliph and successor of Mohammed.

Manufacturing the Qur'an

As was remarked upon before, many Muslims will claim that the Qur'an was handed down in its present and complete form to Mohammed and has remained unchanged since (thus circumventing the traditional process of collection and collation discussed below). However, if such were the case, there would have been no need for the collection of the texts and recitations which Zaid performed for Abu Bakr as indicated in the most generally reliable of the hadith traditions (and which other close companions of Mohammed had also been doing, independently). Why send out a man to make the compilation if you already have the complete and perfect text before you? If nothing else, this affirms the notion, articulated by Cook above, that the body of early Muslim traditions, usually set down in writing over a century and a half after the events which they purport to chronicle, are very untrustworthy as sources for drawing up historical reconstruction of the early Muslim era. These traditional sources, produced as they were within the framework of internecine fighting amongst different factions hoping to gain ascendancy in the Arab Empire, are naturally polemical and written with the aim of bolstering the positions and legitimacy of the factions. Hence, there can be several different versions of the same story, each one placing a different general or other important personage with whom the faction wishes to identify, at the site of an important event31.

Let us now look at the most generally accepted tradition of the Quranic inception, which I will relate in its details. Note that even this tradition seems to contain some contradictory teachings, and in the very least some conceptual flaws. Muslims will often claim that the memories of several hundreds of the close companions of Mohammed were all supernaturally enhanced so as to allow them all to memorise the Quranic recitations, so that the Qur'an was preserved perfectly in their witness as well. But again, this begs the question of why Zaid would have to range far and wide to search out every last ayat if they were readily available in the memories of any one of hundreds of companions who were readily on hand? The fact that these men did NOT have the Qur'an memorised, and that the recitations were scattered all over the place seems evident from the hadith literature itself.

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:" So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him." 32

Note, this tradition says two things: That Zaid had to scrounge up portions of the Qur'an from all over the place (palm leaves, stones, etc.) as well as from the memories of men. Also, it says that Zaid found a verse of the Qu'ran which was known by only ONE companion. Thus, the idea that hundreds of companions knew the Qur'an perfectly by heart is not supported even by this tradition.

The truth is that Zaid probably did not get the entirety of the original Quranic recitations into his compilation. Hadithic tradition demonstrates this by informing us that many of the reciters were killed at the battle of Yamama (a battle waged to re-subdue several Arab tribes who revolted from Islam following Mohammed's death) and that many portions of the Qu'ran were irretrievably lost.

"Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them." 33

Hence, possibly large portions of the original revelation attributed to Mohammed simply ceased to exist (perhaps the Book of the Camel of God would be included in this category?) It was, in fact, the knowledge of this that prompted Abu Bakr to initiate Zaid's mission to compile the Qur'an.

Eventually, Zaid got as much of the Qur'an as he could find compiled together. Once this happened, as Gilchrist reports, the compilation was concealed, receiving no publicity for several years 34.

Then a crisis arose. Nineteen years after Mohammed's death, a Muslim general, Hudhayfah, campaigning in northern Syria, reported back to Caliph Uthman that the troops in his army, some from Syria and some from Iraq, were using different readings of the Qur'an. The reason for this was because two other companions of Mohammed, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, had each prepared their own compilations of the Qur'an independently of each other and of Zaid. They were also close companions of Mohammed who knew much of the Qur'an and had found much of the rest. The problem was that each was propagating a different text from the other.

Caliph Uthman's solution to this problem was to bring the Zaid codification out of hiding, establish IT as the "standard" Quranic text for all Muslims, and he then tried to burn all other codices which differed from the Zaid text. He also had the Zaid text standardised to conform to Quraish-style Arabic (spoken around Mecca, and the dialect Mohammed used). Zaid himself was from Medina, and his dialect and language was slightly different from that of the Quraish.

Narrated Anas (ra): "Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur'an). 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, 'If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language'. So they acted accordingly." 35

Thus, these three Quraishis went over Zaid's text, and altered it at any point at which it was not conformable to the Quraish dialect. Further Muslim historiography reports,

"Abu Amr states that he received the following revelation from Katada as-Sadusi: "When the first copy of the Qur’an was written out and presented to [the khalif] Othman Ibn Affan, he said: ‘There are faults of language in it, and let the Arabs of the desert rectify them with their tongues.'"36

It appears then that Uthman was still not satisfied with the purity of the language, and relied upon the Bedouin (traditional arbiters on questions of Arabic grammar, both before and after the advent of Islam, due to the prestige of the Bedouin speech and its place as the pure language of poetry37 to resolve some issues. In relating the above tradition from Muslim sources, the general sense of unreliability for these traditions must again be emphasised. However, in a garbled form and fashion, the traditions may relate legitimate details about the collection of the Qur'an. While it may not have happened in the manner described by the historiographers, the details of the collation and correction of the Qur'an may well reflect analogous events occurring during the solidification of the Arab Empire and the development of the Arab monotheism, especially from the tumultuous years of the early civil wars. Indeed, the kernel of truth most likely is there, surrounded by the shuck of later literary exaggeration and ornamentation.

Many Muslims will argue that the differences mentioned above between the various compilations, were due to pronunciation differences, and that no difference in the actual text existed. One Muslim apologist with whom I have had much discussion said it this way, "Although minor in nature, yet the differences in the pronunciation were seen with concern by the cautious Caliph who feared they could develop into different versions with the possibility of different meanings. It was required that just like a standard text, a standard pronunciation should also be decided."

The problem with this thesis is that differences in pronunciation between various compilations would not APPEAR in the text, as the use of pointing to mark vowels was not yet in use for the Quranic text. This is because Arabic is a language, like all Semitic languages, based on consonantal word roots, with the weak vowels supplied either by tacit knowledge and context, or (as in later times) by diacritical marks called "pointing", that indicate which vowel is used with each consonant. The same base consonantal root can be used, but have different pointing marks to indicate different tenses, number, gender, etc. Hence, it would be possible to have different pronunciations, yes, based upon regional accents and dialects. BUT, these differences in pronunciation would not appear in the various texts. The texts could all say the same thing as far as the actual consonants which were written down, and still be pronounced differently. The fact that there were significant enough differences in the texts themselves (which would be INDEPENDENT of pronunciation) to cause Uthman to seek to eliminate all competitors to the Zaid text immediately tells us that these readings, the actual WORDS, represented significant differences between texts.

And differences there were between the texts. For instance, the hadithic tradition records the following:

Narrated Ibrahim: "The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abi Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:

'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said,

"I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

'And by Him Who created male and female.' But by Allah, I will not follow them." 38

Thus, we see that the text of Surah 92:3 taught and recited by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud differed from that used by other Muslims, not just in pronunciation, but in the words themselves, in a way which changes the meaning of the verse (in this case, eliminating a reference to Allah). Note also, the reading which it is claimed was spoken by Mohammed himself is not the one presently found in the Qur'an.

Gilchrist and others report likewise that much controversy was engendered through the years by reports that ibn Mas'ud left out Surat numbers 1, 113, and 114 from his compilation.

Four notable differences between the Zaid text and the ibn Mas'ud text are detailed by Gilchrist 39:

Surah 2:275 - Zaid text - Allahiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuun - "those that devour usury will not stand"

Mas'ud text - Allahiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuun yawmal qiyaamati - "those that devour usury will not stand IN THE RESURRECTION DAY."

Surah 5:91 - Zaid text - Fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin - "fast for three days"

Mas'ud text - Fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin mutataabi'aatin - "fast for three SUCCESSIVE days"

Surah 6:153 - Zaid text - Wa anna haathaa siraatii - "Verily this is my path"

Mas'ud text - Wa haathaa siraatu rabbakum - "This is the path OF YOUR LORD"

Incidentally, the text of Ubayy ibn Ka'b also has this reading, except that the word "rabbakum" is replaced with "rabbika".

Surah 33:6 - Zaid text - Wa azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu - "and his wives are their mothers"

Mas'ud text - Wa azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu wa huwa abuu laahum - "and his wives are their mothers AND HE IS THEIR FATHER."

The ibn Ka'b text has these same words, but reverses the statements about Mohammed's wives being mothers and he being fathers to the "ummah", placing the statement about Mohammed first.

Hence, there WERE very definite differences between these early renderings of the Qur'an, which cannot be explained away by appeals to pronunciation. These that I have mentioned are only four of the differences between early compilations of the Qur'an. Arthur Jeffery's book, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an, contains over 350 pages of details concerning variant readings between early Quranic compilations of the time. Further, the eminent scholar of Islam, W. Montgomery Watt, makes this remark,

"No copies exist of any of the early codices, but the list of variant readings from the two just mentioned is extensive [ed. note - obtained from the various works of early Muslim historiographers who quote these variants], running to a thousand or more items in both cases." 40

Hence, there appear to have been MANY variations in early Quranic texts, despite the claims of perfection and invariance which are made for the Qur'an.

It must be understood what is the place and significance of all that has been said above. Christianity, once it reached a position to be able to investigate this type of field with evidence and scientific methodology, has been able to investigate the textual history of the Bible in a systematic way. This has enabled Christians to ascertain what were the readings of the original biblical autographs, even though said autographs no longer exist today. This has also allowed Christianity to establish and eliminate spurious alterations or omissions made from individual manuscripts, thus maintaining a pure text while yet acknowledging the obvious presence of disparate readings between individual manuscripts. Thus, through recourse to the examination of the sum total of the manuscript evidence, along with concurrent evidence from other ancient versions and the quotations of patristic writers from the early years of the faith, Christians can be certain that the words of God have been preserved for them throughout the ages and are available to them today, even without having the original autographs.

The same assurance cannot be had by the Muslim, who has been barricaded into accepting as the “orthodox” position the view that the Qur’an has never once changed since its original inception, and that the Qur’an does not even HAVE a textual history. Whether a Muslim believes that the Qur’an was handed down intact and whole to Mohammed and has not changed since, or that the Qur’an was preserved in the compilation of Zaid and Uthman and has not changed since, he or she is still placed into the same logically and factually untenable position. Whereas Christianity has been realistic about the matter, has accepted that individual manuscripts can and will become altered over time (whether accidental or purposeful makes no difference), and has developed a fairly simple yet scientific method for discerning the true from the false (even if this method has been abused by those seeking to promote the spurious Alexandrian manuscripts over and above the vast majority of Traditional Text mss.), Islam does not have this recourse. Because of the record of Uthman’s destruction and suppression of alternate Quranic versions, the Muslim has no means by which to truly and scientifically determine whether the readings in his present Qur’an are REALLY the original readings. All that can be truthfully said is that the present readings were those of Uthman’s purported version. Yet, because of the destruction of so much authentic source material, there is no way to judge to what extent, numerically and geographically, the variant Qur’ans of ibn Kaab, ibn Mas’ud, and other compilers were found. The Muslim cannot in any rational way state that certain readings found, for instance, in the Mas’ud version were definitely not the TRUE revelation received by Mohammed. As noted above, the Mas’ud reading of Al-Lail 92:3 as recorded in the hadithic record is said to be that which was obtained from Mohammed himself. YET, this reading does not appear in the present Qur’an, which suggests that an authentic pronouncement of the prophet of Islam was lost in Uthman’s zeal to establish a uniform standard. How can the Muslim EVER know (aside from blind faith) that the current reading of 92:3 is the right one? Islam, with it’s untenable approach to the textual issue coupled with the artificial standardisation of a pre-approved text, has trapped itself into a seemingly inescapable conundrum.

Garbled in Transmission

Thus, from what we have seen above, the text of the Qur'an cannot rationally be considered to have arrived in its present form without any changes from when Mohammed claimed to have received it from Allah. Portions of the Qur'an were (according to Muslim tradition itself) lost forever at Yamama, there were variant readings all over the Muslim world until Uthman reigned them in and established the Zaid/abu Bakr text (after Quraishi revision) as the "standard" text for all Muslims. Even now, many Shi'ite Muslims will maintain that Caliph Uthman had up to a quarter of the original Qur'an removed for political reasons: the ayat spoke of Ali, with whom Uthman had a personal grudge.

But then, what of the other major claim made by many Muslims concerning the Qur'an, which relates to its present perfection and divine authorship? The same Muslim apologist which I quoted earlier had this to say, "That Qur'an is authoritative in Islam, which you'll find in your nearest bookstore. The presence of a SINGLE text of the Qur'an in the whole Muslim world is the proof of this." Is this true? Is there a single text of the Qur'an in Arabic used today the world over?

The answer is, of course, no. The Arabic Qur'ans have come to the present day through a series of what are called "transmissions". Essentially, there were in the second century AH (After Hijra, roughly the 9th century) seven men who were considered authoritative "readers" of the Qur'an, and their recitations were written down (transmitted) by other scholars, and these readings have come down to us today as the various transmissions. Properly speaking, the two main transmissions used today are the "Hafs" and "Warsh" transmissions, though two others (the Qalun and the Al-Duri) are also in print. The Hafs is the most commonly used transmission, though the Warsh is (or at least used to be until recently) the most common in North Africa.

For the Muslim assertion to be true, it would have to be shown that there are NO differences between these various transmissions. It would have to be true that even though there were seven different reciters and several different transmitters, they all recite and wrote the same text with no variance, and this would transmit to us today. Hence, the Hafs and Warsh ought to be identical.

Yet, they are not. Samuel Green, in his work, The Different Arabic Versions of the Qur'an, makes a note of many of the differences in reading between these two particular transmissions, some of which I'll give below. Please note, the difference in ayat references are due to the difference in the numbering systems between the two Qur'ans, but they refer to the same words used in the same ayat/verse:

Surah 3:133 (Hafs) - wasaari'uu
Surah 3:133 (Warsh) - saari'uu

Surah 2:140 (Hafs) - taquluna
Surah 2:139 (Warsh) - yaquluna

Surah 3:81 (Hafs) - ataytukum
Surah 3:80 (Warsh) - ataynakum

Surah 2:259 (Hafs) - nunshizuhaa
Surah 2:258 (Warsh) - nunshiruhaa

Surah 2:9 (Hafs) - yakdhibuuna
Surah 2:9 (Warsh) - yukadhdhibuuna

Surah 2:184 (Hafs) - ta'aamu miskiinin
Surah 2:183 (Warsh) - ta'aami masakiina

These are not merely differences in pronunciation, but instead differences between transmissions both in diacritical marks (for vowels) and also consonantal sounds. So, no, the Muslim claim that there is a single Quranic text used the world over is not substantiated by fact. In short, if the question is asked: Is the Qur'an uniform and unchanged, we would have to answer with a negative in both cases.

Home Grown Inspiration

As was mentioned earlier, after the establishment of the Zaid text as the canon standard across Islam, Caliph Uthman attempted to carry out the complete destruction of all variant readings by fire. Why did Caliph Uthman feel the need to carry out the destruction of manuscripts which conflicted with his compilation? Was Uthman's fear that earlier copies of the Qur'an contradicted his and would reveal his own text to be deficient in authority because of the addition and subtraction of material?

Addition and subtraction to the Quranic text there seems to have been, too. Guillaume reports that many of the original verses of the Qur'an were lost, either to deliberate removal, or to accidents. One surah originally had 200 verses in the time of Ayesha (one of Mohammed's wives), but by the time of Uthman's recension, it had only 73 verses, for a total of 127 verses subtracted 41. In fact, in the scholarly realm, that verses have been removed from the Qur'an throughout its history is almost universally accepted. Many of the Quranic renderings which Uthman destroyed contained verses which Uthman did not approve of, probably indicating an overall tendency towards early addition to and subtraction from what was supposed to be the final, complete word of Allah. Shi'ite Muslims even today claim that Uthman left out nearly 25% of the original verses in the Qur'an for political reasons 42.

Further, there is evidence from the traditions which indicates to us that Mohammed himself made, or at least allowed, direct alteration of the revelation which supposedly came from Allah. The dissident Iranian scholar Dashti related one such tradition, about one of Mohammed's scribes in Medina, a man by the name of Abdollah Abi Sahr. This account relates that Abi Sahr had, "with the Prophet's consent, changed the closing words of verses. For example when the Prophet had said 'And God is mighty and wise' ('aziz, hakim), 'Abdollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down 'knowing and wise' ('alim, hakim), and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, 'Abdollah renounced Islam on the ground that revelations, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe..." 43 It is not surprising to find out that the tradition records that Abi Sahr was one of the first men whom Mohammed condemned to die after Mecca was conquered (though he pardoned him because of Abi Sahr’s uncle Uthman’s intercession, and upon Abi Sahr‘s reversion back to Islam)

There is evidence which suggests that the Hijaz, the region in the Arabian peninsula which includes Mecca, was not even the site of origin for the new Arab monotheistic religion which developed into Islam. Nevo and Koren note that the earliest appearance of classical Arabic (the Arabic in which the Qur'an was supposed to have been handed down in - the pure language of Allah) dates to around 40 AH (650 AD), found near Ta'if44. They further argue, on the basis of archaeological findings in the Hijaz and surrounding regions which show no evidence for the many pagan Jahiliyya cults attributed to the area by Muslim tradition in the 6th and 7th centuries, that the point of origin for the Arab monotheism was not in the Hijaz, but elsewhere45. The conclusion they draw from their investigations is that the point of origin for this new religion was in the conquered lands of Syro-Palestine, where the most interaction between the Arab invaders and the Christian/Jewish/Judeo-Christian subjects would take place. Later, the Arabs sought to establish a more independent identity for their new monotheism, thus creating a biography for Islam based in the Hijaz, the idealised Arab heartland. The information from the Muslim traditional historiography concerning the pre-Islamic pagan system in Mecca and the Hijaz might well have been "imported" from the pagan Arabs living in the frontier regions of Syria and Palestine, and transposed backwards as a programmatic example of the pagan systems which Islam was meant to root out, just as was done in the ideal history of Mecca. The positive argument from the appearance of Classical Arabic in the area nearly four decades AFTER the Qur'an was supposedly handed down and Islam started, is very convincing. It suggests that this Quranic language was brought into the region from the northern areas in Syria and Iraq, regions conquered and occupied by the Arabs, and which had the necessary ferment of religious interaction to cause the Arabs to desire a defining monotheism of their own. This perhaps complements the already-present trend towards monotheism which was growing stronger in Arabia at this time, and which would have flowed out of the peninsula with the invading tribes. Thus, the many high gods of the various Arab tribes would each be folded into the supreme god of the new monotheism, subjugated and assimilated into the developing state religion. The early holy books of the Arabs to which John of Damascus and Leo III allude may have originated in the area of Syro-Palestine, and the dialect began to be recognised more widely as the Arabic of the holy books of the state religion. However, caution must be employed, for we must again recognise that the Islamic traditions often are mutually contradictory and it is a difficult task to piece any coherent chain or chronology of events from them. It is best to draw general inferences of the sort of events which took place, and let archaeology and epigraphy fill in the details.

The early evolution of Muslim doctrine and practice further suggests that present Quranic and hadithic statements were not always viewed as inspired or received from Allah. Additionally, they do not all seem to have existed in Uthman's compilation. Instead, this phenomenon suggests the constant addition to and taking away from the Muslim holy books, and the end result is likely that several different authors over at least two centuries were responsible for the production of the Qur'an. This is entirely within the realm of possibility, given that the first verifiable texts of the Qur'an conformable to the reading of one of today's transmissions dates at its earliest back to the 10th century, while earlier texts (such as the Yemeni) contain variant readings and omissions. In short, the Qur'an appears to be a work which was authored and edited by the Arabs in Syria and/or Iraq which had several variant readings that were destroyed, and which took several centuries to appear in its final form available today.

End Notes

(1) - S.N. Fisher, The Middle East, a History, p. 59
(2) - S. Abul Ala Maudadi, Towards Understanding Islam, p.109
(3) - The Holy Qur'an, English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex, p. v
(4) - Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, p. 63; vol. 4, p. 709; vol. 6, p. 507, 510
(5) - J. Gilchrist, Jam’ Al-Qur’an: The Codification of the Qur’an Text, p. 144
(6) - Y.H. Safadi, Islamic Calligraphy, pp. 10-11
(7) - Brother Mark,A Perfect Qur’an, p. 67
(8) - O.E. Sherif and M.A. Elhennawy, “Preserving and Protecting the Qur’an”, published at http://www.submission.org/quran/protect.html
(9) - M. Lings and H. Safadi, The Qur’an, pp. 17,20
(10) - A. Schimmel, Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, p. 4
(11) - Toby Lester, "What is the Koran?", The Atlantic Online, Jan. 1999
(12) - M. Cook, Muhammed, p. 74
(13) - J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, p.44
(14) - J. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammedan Jurisprudence, pp. 4-5
(15) - J. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammedan Jurisprudence, pp. 224-225
(16) - M. Hinds and P. Crone, God's Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam, p. 52
(17) - P. Crone, Roman, Provincial, and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate, p. 99
(18) - see e.g. J. Meyendorff, "Byzantine Views of Islam.", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 18 (1964), pp. 117-118
(19) - see Saint John of Damascus: Writings, trans. F.H. Chase, pp. 157-159
(20) - per A. Jeffry, "Ghevond's Text of the Correspondence between 'Umar II and Leo III.", Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 37 (1944), pp. 269-332; see R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: a Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, pp. 490-494 for his discussion supporting an early 8th century origin for at least some of the material in the text
(21) - Y.D. Nevo and J. Koren, Crossroads to Islam, p. 239
(22) - Y.D. Nevo and J. Koren, Crossroads to Islam, pp. 240-241
(23) - Y.D. Nevo and J. Koren, Crossroads to Islam, p. 193
(24) - J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, p. 20
(25) - see Ibn Warraq, The Origins of the Qur'an, p. 25; J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, p. 97
(26) - M. Cook, Muhammed, p. 65
(27) - R.S. Humphreys, Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry, p. 83
(28) - S.N. Fisher, The Middle East, a History, p. 59
(29) - H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 271
(30) - C. Farah, Islam: Beliefs and Observances, p.28
(31) - see J.D. Nevo and J. Koren, Crossroads to Islam, pp. 87-168 for some examples of this phenomenon, as well as a general reconstruction of the events of the Arab takeover of Syria-Palestine as derived from contemporary literary sources and archaeological discoveries
(32) - Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478
(33) - Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23
(34) - J. Gilchrist, Jam' al-Qur'an: The Codification of the Quranic Text, Ch.2
(35) - Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466
(36) - Ibn Khallikan, Biographical Dictionary, p. 401
(37) - see G.E. von Grunebaum, "The Nature of Arab Unity Before Islam", Arabica, Vol. 10 (1964), p. 14
(38) - Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.441-442
(39) - J. Gilchrist, Jam' al-Qur'an: The Codification of the Quranic Text, Ch.3
(40) - M.W. Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, p. 45
(41) - A. Guillaume, Islam, p.191
(42) - Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, eds. J. McClintock and J. Strong, Vol. V, p. 152
(43) - Ali Dashti, Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed, p. 98
(44) - Y.D. Nevo and J. Koren, Crossroads to Islam, p. 174
(45) - Y.D. Nevo and J. Koren, Crossroads to Islam, pp. 173-174


----------



## ISDhillon (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*




> God does not wrong people in any way; rather it is people who wrong themselves. Quran 10:44


 
dont post quotes from the koran here it is irrelevant to our discussion.





> not just the Sikh community but the whole of mankind, invitation to the Truth is the duty of every Muslm.


 

we will tell you how to behave and live in accordance to gods submission, if you could have guided humanity then god would not have sent 11 motr masters to guide humanity have some shame and stop fooling yourself.






> [36:5] This revelation is from the Almighty, Most Merciful.


 

all scriptures say this




> [36:6] *To warn people whose parents were never warned, and therefore, they are unaware.*


 
all scriptures say this







> [36:7] It has been predetermined that most of them do not believe.
> [36:8] For we place around their necks shackles, up to their chins. Consequently, they become locked in their disbelief.
> [36:9] And we place a barrier in front of them, and a barrier behind them, and thus, we veil them; they cannot see.
> [36:10] It is the same whether you warn them or not, they cannot believe.


 
does not have anything to do with your question you are a pick and choose scholar who uses lines from koran which bear no relation to my the passage they came from und then you use these to support an argument this is a  poor evidence.






> You didn't answer ONE of my questions in my last post so how can i learn if you dont teach?


 
you never read the whole thread on the slamic board you need to read it carefully it answers all your questions and plenty more



> The Sikh religion is regarded by many scholars as a syncretic religious system which borrows heavily from Hinduism and Sufi mysticism. Other scholars treat it as a branch of Hinduism's _bhakti_ mystical devotion, as an attempt to reform Hinduism or as an attempt to harmonize Hinduism and Islam which ended up becoming its own religious tradition. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/


sikh/blfaq_sikh_beliefs.htm

is this your evidence please dont insult our intelligence, if i call your mother a slag is that valid proof that your mother is a slag?, if people spread rumours they will suffer this is gods law, if you personally think that sikhism is as the defintion you have provided then you arrived at this defintion yourself you must challenge yourself and provide evidence from where you found this defintion, these defintions are oblivious to sikhs our religion is a sovereing independant faith any attempt to assimilate it it by other faiths highlights the self-respect deficit in those relligious traditions.





> You stated that the sggs tells Muslims how they strayed from the straight path and how they should be Muslims, can you back this claim up?


 
so you were lying when you said i did not back up the evidence on the islamic board i have answered this question umpteen times and i will provide zero references you will go to that site and with humility read every single page and then if you still thirst for the gyan of sggs then come back and ask more questions i refuse to be taken down this road again. i directed you to the islamicboard website in attempt to help you understand but you have shown yourself to be lazy aswell as ignorant if thats offensive to you then tough!!!!!! i am sick to death of rewirting the same thing because your brains are consumed with denial.




> What is the definition of truth in
> Sikhism? What happens after death? Why are we here?


 

this must have been answered about 10 times too, in sikhism sat is truth sat is also spirit, their is no obkective truth, only a sense of righteousness, we believe the word or gurbani to be god therefore that is sat, your soul is sat and naam is sat, now you will come back with alot of arguments about reducing and limiting god to waords but i have revoked all the arguments that will spring forth again i advise you to read the whole thread.



> what is the concept of God in Sikhism?


 
mul mantar.




*


*If you're moved by the words of the Quran then take it as a sign.[/QUOTE]

the sign if anything is a poor translation of koran and a poor use of supporting evidence, to be fair the only time i have read koran is when people like you flaunt its passages on our websites its just grim, your allah is a very dismal god, thats why it is an angelic revelation it is not godly.</B>




> Islam is different because, Muahmmad (p.b.u.h) was the Final Messenger of God sent as a warner to mankind and the Quran was and is the final revelation from God. God Himself will protect the content of the Quran (which is ARABIC - any other language is not the Quran but a translation or interpretation.) The Quran has remained unchanged for over fourteen centuries, surely this is a sign of its authenticity for those of understanding.


 

wow so much for evidence this is called opion do a dictionary check to find out the difference.


 


> what do you reject exactly?
> does Sikhism believe all religions are true?


judaic mythology and moral law.







> How did Sikhism “appear”? Were there revelations from The Almighty guiding mankind to live as Sikhs? The same God that sent revelations to mankind before Sikhism?


 
god never gave a direct revelation before only angels sent down their opions of what was right this is why isalm is wrong and far from the truth, gurus words came from directly as ther souls were always living in gods charan this is a remarkable difference, your prophet was not even a messenger he wrote nothing down, hearts and minds are not enuff.






> I read your statements and once again they lack any real evidence, you hardly ever back up your statements with religous sources.


 
you have not read it, this is amazing you are a great sinner and a dirty liar




> Why dont you bring those questions one by one to me?


 
what questions i asked no questions question were asked of me so again you are dirty liar who has read nothing from that site.




> purity of Islam.


 
you represent no purity






> why? My first post wasn't intended for you but you felt the necessity to answer for someone else. What are you protecting if you yourself dont know the answers? Faith shouldn't be blind.


[/QUOTE]

all your question and then some were answerd on the islamicboard webi=site go there and relive yourself accordingly, aapnaa paaar haalkaa kaarke moorkeh aaaja tenuu sooot kaaarde - 


dont hate me its just this is the 100th deja vu


indy


----------



## max314 (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Man, that site is so rife with bias that any semi-human with a brain cell would reailse that it's one of those websites you just ignore should you have the misfortune of clicking on it.

People say a lot of crap.  But that doesn't mean you always have to sit and listen to it.

By the way, that poster is right.

Sikkhism is not a religion.  Sikkhism despises religion.

But it respects _belief_ in religion, ideologies and principles.

_"There is no Hindu.  There is no Musalmaan."_

*Guru Nanak*​
Guru Nänak was a sociaist's and post-modernist's dream theologan.  He said that there was one, panthestic God and that everyone was subsequently "made of the same five elements", and thus common humanity was the only logical ideology to practice, regardless of other religious trivialities one may choose to believe in.

So why did the subsequent Gurus turn it into a religion?

Well, they did it out of socio-political necessity to hold of fascist aggressors to humanity.

Our new poster insists that Sikkhism is "not a religion of God", but I say that "no religions are 'religions of God', but are merely human constructions".  By the same token, God's Will is as undefiable as it is inconceiveable, and thus - no matter what *we* do - God's Will shall always be done.

I don't know about any other ideologies, but I know that Guru Nänak certainly agrees with me on this point.

---

And so, don't be in a rush to call Sikkhism a 'religion' like it's some incredibly prestigious title, or something.

It's not.

This poster insists that Islam is a 'True Religion'?  Then let him have it.  Religion is synonymous with politics and with war, and is being increasinly hated by people over the world.

And yet, in a time when people were craving for a _dharm_ to follow, Guru Nänak told everyone that there _was_ none.

Bloody revolutionary, if you ask me.  And brutally honest, too.

God has no religion.

And that *why* all religions can be considered 'true'; because under God, there can be no falsifications.  What exists *is* the ultimate reality, and no amount of arguing or discussion is ever going to change that.

Even 'Sikkhism' is only a man-made label that - when you get down to it - actually has no meaning or use when truly understanding God or the ethical and moral values of living a virtuous and happy life.


----------



## Qasim (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

*dont post quotes from the koran here it is irrelevant to our discussion.*

 You don’t want to read quotes from The Holy Quran because you feel they are “irrelevant to the discussion?” so words like “glorified slavery”, “dismembered remains,” etc etc are relevant? Quit the double standards please. Also why don’t you ever use quotes from your holy books? You’re more than welcome to.


 
*we will tell you how to behave and live in accordance to gods submission,*

Once again I urge you to use your intellect. Look around you at nature. Can’t you see that it is in submission to God? Look at how animals are in their habitat, all submitting to The Almighty in their own ways, the birds sing, migrate etc, cats perform ablution etc, even the trees glorify Him they are all performing their religion, meaning their way of life that fits into the delicate balance of all things. 

Seest thou not that to Allah bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind? Qur’an _22.018_




Mankind is also a part of this nature but the unique characteristic of man is his free will, the freedom of choice which allows him to choose his way of life. Allah taught nature its religion 

"And your Lord taught the honey bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations; Then to eat of all the produce (of the earth), and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord: there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for men: verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought. (Surat an-Nahl (The Bee), 68-69)



and now He is teaching us, the way we learn is through books, the first commandment from Allah in the Quran is “iqra” which is “read”.  The Quran is in a sense mans instruction guide for the heart, mind, body and soul. For the Creator is the only one who knows His creation.

If mankind wasn’t given any guidance from The Almighty we all would have been in extreme turmoil and grave error. Man can become very distant from nature and can cause a lot of corruption and discontentment. Islam connects you back to nature where we all belong, where we all strayed from. It is not a burden but in fact a completion of God’s favour on mankind, the final piece of man as God’s creature. 
*
'This day I have completed your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you and have selected for your Way of Life, Al-Islam."*[Holy Quran, 5:3]

This is why Islam and Muslims have existed since the beginning of time; they were and are the people in submission to the One God and His chosen way of life.



* If you could have guided humanity then god would not have sent 11 motr masters to guide humanity have some shame and stop fooling yourself.*

I haven’t seen any guidance from you, your style of expressing Sikhism doesn’t do it any favours. But I won’t judge a whole people due to the actions of one person. 



*Does not have anything to do with your question you are a pick and choose scholar* 

   I’m not a scholar. But yes I do pick and choose from the Quran the True knowledge Allah has granted all Muslims. Why don’t you ever quote your Holy books? I’d like to compare.

*who uses lines from koran which bear no relation to my the passage they came from und then you use these to support an argument this is a poor evidence.*



Why don’t you try discussing some points like a proper discussion rather than complaining all the time? This is not what i was expecting from a "champion debater."



*you never read the whole thread on the slamic board you need to read it carefully it answers all your questions and plenty more*

“winning” a discussion proves nothing. I’m here to talk to you Dillon. Nevertheless I will reply. Although this is the last of my posts to you on this discussion, God willing I will send you another separate one with answers for ALL your points on the discussion you “won.”


*is this your evidence please don’t insult our intelligence,*

I don’t have to, you do it yourself. READ
This is what I initially wrote in the last post

Look below (its in blue)
*Do you agree with: *
Look above
Can you see it? It says *DO YOU AGREE WITH: *

_(from last post –these words are not) The Sikh religion is regarded by many scholars as a syncretic religious system which borrows heavily from Hinduism and Sufi mysticism. Other scholars treat it as a branch of Hinduism's bhakti mystical devotion, as an attempt to reform Hinduism or as an attempt to harmonize Hinduism and Islam which ended up becoming its own religious tradition. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/_


The link is to show where I got it from (its called referencing) and to genuinely see if you agreed or disagreed. A genuine question, to which, I got this “intelligent” reply.



*if i call your mother a slag is that valid proof that your mother is a slag?, if people spread rumours they will suffer this is gods law, if you personally think that sikhism is as the defintion you have provided then you arrived at this defintion yourself you must challenge yourself and provide evidence from where you found this defintion, these defintions are oblivious to sikhs our religion is a sovereing independant faith any attempt to assimilate it it by other faiths highlights the self-respect deficit in those relligious traditions.*

For this reason this discussion stops here. I heard that you were a “Champion Debater” Mr Dillon and had initially hoped for a deep discussion, but instead I find myself talking to a person who is governed by his emotions and lower self. I don’t think you should be representing your religion on these posts as you’re obviously doing more harm than good. Your language is despicable.


 
*your allah is a very dismal god,*

Wretched ignorant man. How dare you speak of such? It’s clear to me now that you’re not a true Sikh or a man of religion…hypocrite. This is my last post, you’re damaging the respect of Sikh people, as well as the Image of Sikhism itself, you have no right to speak for your religion.


*god never gave a direct revelation before only angels sent down their opions of what was right this is why isalm is wrong and far from the truth, *

Aren’t you contradicting yourself there? Sikhism doesn’t believe in angels or does it? This is the last post to you for I no longer want to hear any brainless insulting remarks towards any religion.


*gurus words came from directly as ther souls were always living in gods charan this is a remarkable difference, your prophet was not even a messenger he wrote nothing down, hearts and minds are not enuff.*

You speak out of shear ignorance. Muhammad was the most influential man in history.

READ the words of a non-Muslim.

http://www.amaana.org/ismailim.html

Well thank you for you replies Mr Dillon; it’s been a time wasting experience talking to you. You need to learn to read replies without your paranoid anti-Islamic vision in order to pose questions and answers with some substance rather than emotional fanaticism. Your post on “Allah being a dismal god” was completely unacceptable, this is the type of statement I would expect from an atheist, or an enemy of God. Not a  Sikh.


 Reply with what you want, i'm done.
peace be to you.


----------



## ISDhillon (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*






> “glorified slavery”, “dismembered remains,” etc etc are relevant?


 
you were asking questions about morality of women wearing clothes and that those who cover up are champions of modesty this is glorified slavery?, the truth is a man or a women can be judged only if they infringe on others skimpy clothes dont infringe on me do they infringe on your allah?

seceondly the dismembered remains were a poem which was added by another participant i had intially added it but not in relation to your post but i agree wholeheartedly with the poem for i am its author.


 





all the stuff about submission is far from mans purpose god tells us that man must discover the divine within revelations from time to time or a social awakening it has nothing to do with nature and order, there is nothing that creation can give me why do you not discover the source within instread of looking outside this is why you have strayed.







> I haven’t seen any guidance from you, your style of expressing Sikhism doesn’t do it any favours. But I won’t judge a whole people due to the actions of one person.


 
fine then read up about sikhism first this threead was about ignorant people like you have not researched into sikhism just looked for fallacies anf then garnished their stupid essays on the website.





> Why don’t you ever quote your Holy books? I’d like to compare.


 
we dont {censored} our religious passages when you love something so much you dont let it fall on deaf ears, read to surah kafiran and be on your way we are not interested in your guidance.






> “winning” a discussion proves nothing.


 

well it proves a point that i am right, i did not get a trophy for it.





> ALL your points on the discussion you “won.”


 

i would like to see you try i challenge you !!!!!!





I





> don’t have to, you do it yourself. READ
> This is what I initially wrote in the last post


 
no the point has been addressed countless times denial is the conclusion it does not matter if the evidence is in black and blue it will mean nothing to those who live by a totalitarian creed.


The link is to show where I got it from (its called referencing) and to genuinely see if you agreed or disagreed. A genuine question, to which, I got this “intelligent” reply.





 



*



Wretched ignorant man. 

Click to expand...

 
i love you too:shy: *










> Aren’t you contradicting yourself there? Sikhism doesn’t believe in angels or does it? This is the last post to you for I no longer want to hear any brainless insulting remarks towards any religion.


 
sikhism believes in farishtas which brought down words but whether they fit with the defintion of angels i couldnt care less about, i dont see the contradiction here but i know that muslims are fond of this word called contradiction perhaps because it is the only word they know which has more than 2 syllables.






> You speak out of shear ignorance. Muhammad was the most influential man in history.


 
i never take your prophets name because i understand their are certain words which are to be used in expressing reverence for him, well i cannot so i dont take his name, i will say that he was influential but for negative reasons, like the yorkshire ripper or micheal jackson.

 



> Reply with what you want, i'm done.
> peace be to you.





ameen lol:}{}{}: :{;o: :u):  








[/quote]


----------



## max314 (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Uh...guys?

Saying "the Granth is true!", "no, the Korän is true!" is called 'argument by assertion'.

It is the single dumbest and most futile form of argument.

Can we try and base this discussion on actual, treatable _points_ as opposed to empty insistence?

Thanks.


----------



## Harman Singh (Jul 6, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

humans quest to learn, it is in their nature. buddha said it best... don't believe a holy book to be true jsut because it is said to be, u must believe it to be true for urself by urself. (or something along those lines). islam and christianity are one in the same... if anything chrisianity holds more ground because they do not deem islam to be true unlike islam does in regards to jesus being a prophet.... end of the day, the mainstream religions have drifted far away from the truth, and science makes a mockery of them on a daily basis... it is the religions based on life, and our reality being an illusion and the energy that is constant from here to the cosmos binding all things living that hold strength through science and ridicule... adn there are only 3 that do so.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 7, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

I think we have many more anti-sikh sites set up by "Sikhs" to worry about............a good example of pro-caste/race/tribe ones and anti-gurmat are www.jattworld.com, www.ramgarhiakom.com, and www.sikh-rajput.com.

You get some seriously twisted stuff on some of these sites.


----------



## Amardeep (Jul 7, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

could we please raise the level into a highlevel debate? this looks more like the one of those in kinder garden.

Allah/Waheguru sent Muhammad, and hereafter sent Guru Nanak.. 
The Quran is considered Divine in sikhi, so people stop bashing Islam and its beautifull teaching.

Dear Qasim Jee, if you have any questions i would be happy to answar them as i have a great knowledge of Islam as i only hang out with muslims, and always have.. the muslims are my sangat, so to say...

sorry. i meant to say that i have great knowledge of Islam so i can compare it with sikhi all the way, because sikhi and Islam has more in common than u think, as both ways are send by the One God..


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Gurfateh
Das just want ot make one out of topic question to Brother Qasim.Does he belvie that Ahul Bait is shirk or not Shirk,das finds it more of shirk.Das wants you to reply and by that Das would like your help on some other Sikh forum.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 16, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

sikhism is a hollow drum so it beats the loudest or sumthing like that ... {censored} is this?
IT sounds good and bad.
I don't think sikhism beats loudest or rather it doesnt make a noise till sumone beats it.


----------



## Dave (Aug 25, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Sat Sri Akaal Ji,

I think this site is worth visiting. http://www.free-minds.org/Arab_Conspiracy.html#_ftnref25.

You can read from here how the Arabs hijacked Islam. I challenged the owners of the anti- sikh website referred to in this present discussion to rebut the 'Book" and until today I have yet to receive a reply. :u): 

Gurfateh.


----------



## thecoopes (Aug 28, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

Ah the “Wisdom of Islam” this surely is an oxy{censored}!

However the danger is not their blind Borg collective thinking, but their sad belief that the whole world must think as them and bend the knee to Islam.

All of us who love our freedom to worship and believe as our souls decree will need to stand up and be counted as brothers in freedom or we shall be swept away by this abomination. :down:


----------



## Anoop (Aug 28, 2006)

*Re: Anti Sikh site.*

The time to fight over islam and sikhism etc...why are we trying to repeat the past ...its like we are bored and got nothing else to do...we are not bloody power rangers...just be yourself in life..and listen to your heart...Guru Nanak Dev jI  and the other GURUS, had a mission, to make a religion for justice... Now think about it, people are only becoming sikh just for the fun of it..sikhs should follow sikhism the right way, dont do it because its fun for you,its about having pure concious...and all this thing about, not allowed to marry to anyone else, sorry to say this, excuse me, but its all bullshit, how are we ever going to learn in life if we stick to to many philosophies. There was a time for religion, now we are spiritual, sikhism is evreything we need to know about god and truth, dont you think this world is getting better now, and there is no need for scriptures, i mean at that time it was actuall yhard to get food etc, and there was poverty but also more spiritual moments. This world is getting spiritual, it doesnt matter what religion you are now, as long as you love urself and provide love..as that is the actual mission of life, to become one, by blending into the light of god while walking in harmony as pure!

And aboutislam, they think they are power rangers,  imean who needs religion now..when we know the truth! Islam is just..they are bored got nothing else to do, and i dont think they even have jobs those people who are islam, i mean they jsut bored and want to believ in something...they get too excited, but i think all religions are doing the same, i mean sikhism is the actual right knowledge of god, since everything is god...but there aint no nede for religion, everything is one, life is god exploring godself, god is not there...god is here..everything has been given by god, god is trying to become us, so stop trying to be god!


----------



## binnz001 (Sep 21, 2006)

Sat Sri Akaal Veero. Im new here. I would like all of you to see this particular page ............... 
Islam Miracles

I've been talking to all these idiots here & trust me , they are as dumb as u can imagine. Just have a look & join me in just telling them the real meaning of a Complete religion which our gurus gave us.  These people have been abusing our gurus & hence i had to raise the sword. 

Gur fateh , 
Binnz


----------

