Islam What Do You Think Of Islam?

[aristotle]

evidence is from a source which i trust..morever i taked just about all prophets being circumcised.

Well, Jesus, who was one of those Prophets didn't apparently give much importance to circumcision. There is no point of including Jesus in those who supported circumcision, because he was circumcised probably immediately following birth as most Jews do. What is evident is that he openly encouraged Gentiles to remain uncircumcised, and the uncircumcised were also included among his Apostles. On the contrary, Muhammad commanded Muslims to be circumcised and made this obligatory in Islam. So, both these things don't fit together.

 

[riskygujjar]

i have no motives.just needed to ask some questions about sikhism.

they came in my mind when i started reading about sikhism.lately.

its just excitement firing one question after another.

 

[riskygujjar]

plz in which hadees

 

[aristotle]

plz in which hadees

Well, you should be telling me that since you brought up the topic of circumcision.

 

[riskygujjar]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Holy Qur'an does not impose an obligation on parents to circumcise their children, but the prophet Mohammed is reported to have stated that "Circumcision is a sunnah (customary or traditional) for the men. Most references to male circumcision occur in the examples and traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore the scholars strongly recommend circumcision for male. [/FONT][/FONT]

 

[aristotle]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Holy Qur'an does not impose an obligation on parents to circumcise their children, but the prophet Mohammed is reported to have stated that "Circumcision is a sunnah (customary or traditional) for the men. Most references to male circumcision occur in the examples and traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore the scholars strongly recommend circumcision for male. [/FONT][/FONT]

So there are uncircumcised Muslims too?

 

[riskygujjar]

he said it is a sunnah.u said its obligatory.

never heard of.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Islam strongly emphasises cleanliness and purification both spiritual and physical. The mental and spiritual purification cleanses the heart while the social and physical purification cleanses the body as in circumcision. It also indicate that circumcised males are regarded as more pure (clean).

Although circumcision is not one of the Five Pillars of the Faith, which consist of: the profession of faith, daily prayer, fasting at Ramadan, giving money to the poor (charity), and the pilgrimage to Mecca. However, this ritual is an act of purification and connects the person to the Prophet Ibraheem (peace be upon him) and his religion, Islam.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[riskygujjar]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Circumcision: a measure of protection against cancer
and the HIV infections
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] Circumcision, throughout history, has been thought to provide a measure of protection against infections of the foreskin. The surgical removal of the skin surrounding the head of the ***** makes it easier to keep the ***** clean because urine cannot get trapped there.

It is also a preventive measure against infection and diseases, becuase without circumcision excrements may collect under the foreskin which may lead to fatal diseases such as cancer. It's been suggested in modren studies that penile cancer and transmission of the HIV infection are less likely in circumcised men. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[spnadmin]

Disclaimer

SPN cannot be responsible for grossly inaccurate information posted by members, including statements that clearly contradict scientific facts. In this case, circumcision does not protect from HIV nor from socially transmitted disease nor from cancer. Even condom use does not "protect" from HIV with 100 percent confidence.

And we are crossing an ethical boundary at this point, TOS not-withstanding. Therefore I have to make a strong request that this aspect of discussion stop immediately before innocent and uneducated people are misled. It is almost criminal.

 

[riskygujjar]

no inaccurate information posting the links.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done

if wrong plz sue me

These links use language that include the word "might" prevent. Some believe that sex with virgin girl children clears one of HIV - Aids. If this does not stop immediately it is all going into the trash can. As far as I can tell we have too many examples on this thread of trolling and outright immorality.

 

[riskygujjar]

The joint WHO/UNAIDS recommendation also notes that circumcision only provides partial protection from HIV and should not replace known methods of HIV prevention.[12]

Edited out all the misleading information to get down to the main point.

 

[riskygujjar]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249567.php

last link no more.

are people here that much illiterate.
seriously
spnadmin note
I am going to close with this point and then riskygujjar ji you are finished as an SPN member. The charts etc at that link show the incidence of HIV-AIDS in combo with a country's incidence of circumcision. Variables that are not controlled are the prevalence of unprotected sex, and the prevalence of sexual relationships outside of marriage or monogamous relationships, in other words more liberal attitudes toward sexual relationships. Another variable that is not controlled is the adoption of sexuality education and with it tendency to use condoms. Another variable that is not controlled is the prevalence of HIV-AIDS transmitted through intravenous drug use in high incidence populations.

consider these other problems in addition to my comments

The AAP report indicates that circumcision can lower your chance of getting infected with HIV. Meanwhile, virtually every European country has a significantly lower HIV rate than the US; ditto for China, Japan, and Australia. All places where circumcision is relatively rare.. The AAP task force report is based on studies in sub-Saharan Africa, and contains the following gem: "Specifically, the Task Force recommends additional studies to better understand the impact of male circumcision on transmission of HIV and other STIs in the United States because key studies to date have been performed in African populations with HIV burdens that are epidemiologically different from HIV in the United States." That is, the AAP is throwing it's weight behind slicing the genitals of male infants in the United States based on studies which it admits may not even be applicable! Not really great for their credibility. Then there is the troubling comparison to female genital cutting. In the case of baby girls, would the AAP even dare to conduct studies designed to determine "potential health benefits"? Absolutely not, because girls are rightfully protected by law against ANY form of cutting, even a symbolic ritual nick (as previously recommended by the AAP), with no legitimacy given to arguments based on "potential health benefits", parental choice, religious tradition, etc.

 

[Luckysingh]

Weeeey....hey......
What was that all about ???
I fear that the risky carrot may attempt to come back in a new disguise after jumping on a few other forums .:angryyoungsingh::angryyoungsingh:
A desi kasaund (fist) may do the trick with a bellnah(rolling pin):angryyoungsingh:

 

[Ishna]

Hahahaha!
http://www.shabdkosh.com/pa/translate/ਗਾਜਰ/ਗਾਜਰ-meaning-in-Punjabi-English

Nice one Lucky ji :grinningsingh:

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Kabirji spoke more about the oneness and the blind rituals that he encountered in his upbringing as a hindu. Whilst Faridji spoke more about the people lost in religious practices and being blinded from the real Truth.

This implies an objective truth. For an objective truth to exist, would you agree that it needs to have come from an objective source? If so, what is your (not you in particular, I mean all Sikhs) objective source? Is God not the only possible objective source on morality and truth? Was it not established in my first thread that the Gurus did not actually speak to anything divine? Given this, how are you able to assert that your idea of the truth is the "real truth"?

Are the Prophets like Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus etc etc who came long before Islam..actually "Muslims" ?? Or are they JEWS ? Jesus is "CHRISTIAN" or also "JEW"
IF Mulsims can claim these are all "OURS"/OUR PROPHETS..even if they are JEWS..whats the problem with Farid Ji kabir Ji vis a vis SIKHS ?? I dont get it...

Good question Gyani Ji, the answer lies in the fact that Muslims do not claim Islam to be "new religion", in that they do not think that it was only ever revealed to Muhammad. Muslims believe that Islam has existed since the dawn on mankind, when Adam and Eve first stepped onto Earth. They believe that God revealed the same message to multiple different prophets (about 140,000) including Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus and others. They claim those prophets as their own because they believe them to have been spreading the same message as Muhammad, hence them being called Muslims.

If Farid and co. were Muslims (real Muslims, who wholeheartedly believed in the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah), and Sikhs wish to claim them as their own, then Sikhs would also need to assert that Sikhism is a continuation of the same message God gave to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, that Sikhism isn't actually anything new. Sikhs would then need to prove that the last of the Abrahamic religions, Islam, has changed since the time of Muhammad, hence the need for Sikhism to come into existence.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Perhaps a discussion of "What do you think of Sikhi?" would be in order. The question arises, how far would we go in allowing negative opinions?

This would make for an interesting conversation, but are there enough active non-Sikh members on this board to hold down a lively discussion?

On another note, if it did happen, I wonder if the non-Sikh members would be able to get away with repeatedly claiming that Sikhs are brainwashed for believing in Sikhi. Probably not, if I had to guess.

 

[spnadmin]

I think some of us need to get over the notion that Sikhs are claiming Baba Farid and Kabir ji "as their own."

Apologies for having to repeat what has already been stated! There have been however a continuing string of red-herrings regarding the connection between Baba Farid and Kabir and Sikhism.

Only those aspects of the hymns of Farid and Kabir that are consistent with the Sikh idea of one, all pervading creator, have been included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It does not follow that anyone and everyone Sikh is claiming Farid and Kabir as their own because everything else that Guru Arjan Dev rejected was not consistent with the teachings of Guru Nanak. Hence the red-herrings.

Both Farid and Kabir were part of the Bhakti movement of northern India. This movement preceded Guru Nanak and apparently had an impact on his own religious perspective.

Though a Muslim, Farid is believed to have been a Sufi. The religious perspectives of Sufis from time to time have been castigated as heresy by one or another larger sect of Islam. Such was the case during the times of Guru Sahibhan, when Sufis were martyred.

Almost nothing is known about Baba Kabir ji. That Guru Nanak possessed original copies of Farid's beej is accepted by most scholars. There are however legends that abound regarding Baba Kabir, including the life-sketch that he was the cast-away son of a Brahmin woman who was then raised by a family of Mulsim weavers, and the legend of his death when Muslims and Hindus squabbled over possession of his body. Allegedly he disappeared the night of his death, and only flowers remained on site. Muslims and Hindus thus claimed Kabir jij "as their own" if the legends are taken seriously. The Kabir Panth however is a movement which is not identified with any organized religion, in so far as Kabir ji himself in his hymns was indifferent to formal practice.

So what do Sikhs claim as "their own" in this convoluted story? We certainly do not claim Farid as our own because no one owns another person. We do claim Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as Guru Nanak's gift to humanity. We do acknowledge that the idea of tuhi nirankar, the all pervading divine nature of God, which was anticipated in the Bhakti movement.

I could continue for pages about Baba Farid, more about the legend of Kabir ji, on and on about how Guru Nanak both recognized the important ideas of the bhakti movement and then recreated bhakti in a way that is particularly Sikhi. But I will not because it is off-topic.

There is nothing like a handful of red-herrings however thrown in the path of debate to get people off topic and pushed to the wall to defend their own beliefs. This thread's topic is What do you think of Islam?

 

[Luckysingh]

This implies an objective truth. For an objective truth to exist, would you agree that it needs to have come from an objective source? If so, what is your (not you in particular, I mean all Sikhs) objective source? Is God not the only possible objective source on morality and truth? Was it not established in my first thread that the Gurus did not actually speak to anything divine? Given this, how are you able to assert that your idea of the truth is the "real truth"?

Sounds like a recently departed member ??

My idea of truth or the idea behind the idea, to just start off with would be the Mool Mantar.
Mool mantar starts with using terms to give us an idea of what the God or real Ultimate Guru is-
terms that we know .....ek onkaar, satnaam,karta purakh, nirbhau, nirvair, akaal moorat, ajhuni saibhang.......
(i'm not going to describe or go in detail because then we are off topic into another discussion)

Now, importantly for me, is the next word which is ''Gurprasad''.
This is telling me that all the above mentioned terms around this ONE and ONLY TRUTH, can be experienced, felt, confirmed, acknowledged..etc. if HIS GRACE Gives us the blessing. (gurprasad)
(again, we can go off topic once again and start discussing gurprasad itself, so I will just keep it at that for this thread)

 

[spnadmin]

This thread's topic is NOT "Describe and Defend Fundamental Principles of Sikhism.

0 :whatzpointsing: :singhsippingcoffee:


Red Herring alert !!!!
Red herring: avoiding the issue or some tough question by introducing a distraction. Red herrings are bogus emotional appeals which seek scapegoats to distract from dealing with the issue at hand. Deal with the issue at hand.

 

[Ishna]

But isn't the Muslim idea of "real truth" established not by God speaking with his mouth to Muhammad, but by an angel Gibreel coming to talk to him instead, than Muhammad told people, who wrote it down after his death, which scholars now interpret for Muslims? Muslim objective truth sure has had to come a long way from it's source.

One thing I've noticed about Muslims in particular (most people really but Muslims in particular) is that they fiercely try to assess the world through the lens of their religion only. They choose not to use any other methods of examination except through the lens of Islam and then use that to try to prove others wrong but, like, more actually exists in the world other than Islam and its just one set of mythology and isn't relevant for everyone. I could just as easily say that Islam is false because it makes no mention of Odin who is supreme God in the Norse Eddas.