Gurus, prophets, religious leaders who led exemplary lives?

[Satnaam]

Guru Nanak Dev Ji would definitely be there, in fact he should be in any list.

He travelled around the world preaching against tyranny, blind rituals, opression, discrimination (caste, religion and gender) etc. Visiting as far as Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Mecca in 4 journeys
He, unlike some other religious leaders, had basic vices such as lust under control. The ruler of Sri Lanka is said to have tried enticing the Guru by sending beautiful courtesans to meet him but the Guru adressed them as his daughters.

No offence to Muslims and Hindus but Muhammad and Krishna were, according to your own religious scriptures, not able to control lust and other vices... How could they be exemplary then?

 

[Chakra]

How was Krishna not able to control lust? Just because he had 16108 wives?

 

[Kirran]

Guru Nanak Dev Ji would definitely be there, in fact he should be in any list.

He travelled around the world preaching against tyranny, blind rituals, opression, discrimination (caste, religion and gender) etc. Visiting as far as Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Mecca in 4 journeys
He, unlike some other religious leaders, had basic vices such as lust under control. The ruler of Sri Lanka is said to have tried enticing the Guru by sending beautiful courtesans to meet him but the Guru adressed them as his daughters.

No offence to Muslims and Hindus but Muhammad and Krishna were, according to your own religious scriptures, not able to control lust and other vices... How could they be exemplary then?

Krishna is by no means the founder of Hinduism. There are a lot of different teachers and sages of great renown in Hinduism. Adi Shankara, Gaudapada, Sai Baba, Yoganathan and Ramana Maharishi spring to mind.

Certainly, Guru Nanak was a great soul. Great wisdom.

 

[Chakra]

How was Krishna not able to control lust? Just because he had 16108 wives?

My bad, I forgot the question of the thread.

I would say that all Vedantic teachers have led exemplary lives such as Shankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Desika, Madhusudhana Sarasvati, Vyasatirtha, Mamunigal, etc.

 

[Satnaam]

BTW, I respect Hinduism. My ancestors were Hindus, like most Sikhs

But what Krishna did according to the Puranas, stealing clothes of bathing women and then forcing them come out... Lets say thats not nice thing for a religious prophet/avatar to do.

I don't know about most of the names you mention (with the exception of Sai Baba, can he really be considered a Hindu? Or is someone other than Shirdi Wale Sai Baba?). Will google the names.

 

[Treks]

I once read that Guru Nanak Sahib Ji was not exemplary in that he left his family and neglected familial duties in order to travel. It was on an anti-Sikh website.

 

[Satnaam]

Thats a Muslim website. And it is very funny that the worst they could find was this. Atleast is not rape, genocide and lying like Muhammad.

All they think about is sex, Guru did not sexually satisfy his wife this that. Their whole life resolves around that, distributing women after war, having turns every night with a different wife and what not. Nymph Muhammad.

 

[LuisDantas]

Abdul Ghaffar Khan seems to have been a saint by any reasonable meaning of the word.

 

[Satnaam]

From what I've read he was a pious & brave man.

 

[ShivaFan]

I have a huge list, but it would be volumes so I will only list a couple for now (I might get back later).

The 24 Tirthamkaras and sign:

1.Bhagavân Rishabha Dev ( श्रीआदिनाथ ) bull
2.Bhagavân Ajitnath (श्रीअजितनाथ ) elephant
3.Bhagavân Sambhavanath (श्रीसंभवनाथ) horse
4.Bhagavân Abhinandananath(श्रीअभिनन्दननाथ)monkey
5.Bhagavân Sumatinath ( श्रीसुमतिनाथ) curlew
6.Bhagavân Padmaprabha (श्रीपद्मप्रभ) lotus
7.Bhagavân Suparshvanath (श्रीसुपार्श्वनाथ)swastika
8.Bhagavân Chandraprabha (श्रीचन्द्रप्रभ) moon
9.Bhagavân Pushpadanta(श्रीपुष्पदन्त ) Crocodile
10.Bhagavân Sitalanath (श्रीशीतलनाथ) Kalpavriksha
11.Bhagavân Sreyansanath (श्रीश्रेयांसनाथ) rhinoceros
12.Bhagavân Vasupujya (श्रीवासुपूज्य) female buffalo
13.Bhagavân Vimalanath (श्रीविमलनाथ) pig
14.Bhagavân Anantanath (श्रीअनन्तनाथ) Sehi (Porcupini)
15.Bhagavân Dharmanath (श्रीधर्मनाथ) Vajra
16.Bhagavân Santinath (श्रीशांतिनाथ) deer
17.Bhagavân Kunthunath (श्रीकुंथुनाथ ) goat
18.Bhagavân Aranath (श्रीअरहनाथ) fish
19.Bhagavân Mallinath (श्रीमल्लिनाथ) Kalasa
20.Bhagavân Munisuvrata (श्रीमुनिसुव्रनाथ] tortoise
21.Bhagavân Naminath (श्रीनमिनाथ) blue lotus
22.Bhagavân Neminath (श्रीनेमिनाथ) conch
23.Bhagavân Parshvanath (श्रीपार्श्वनाथ) snake
24.Bhagavân Mahavira (श्रीमहावीर)

Trailanga SwamI of Varanasi (1607 A.D. to 1887 A.D.)

Siddhartha Buddha

Ramalinga Swamigal (Vallalar)

Saint Jayananda Dasa (ISKCON Saint) San Francisco Temple between 1967-1977, b?-1977

Saint Visnujana Swami (ISKCON) San Francisco 1948–1976

Satguru Sant Keshavadas 1934 to 1997

The 63 Nayanars:

1 Sundarar
2 Tiru Neelakanta
3 Iyarpagaiar
4 Ilayankudi Maranar
5 Meiporul Chettinadu king
6 Viralminda
7 Amaraneedi
8 Eripatha
9 Enathinathar
10 Kannappa
11 Kungiliya Kalaya
12 Manakanchara
13 Arivattaya
14 Anaya
15 Murthi
16 Muruga
17 Rudra Pasupathi
18 Nandanar (Thirunalai Povar)
19 Tiru Kurippu Thonda
20 Chandeshvara most earliest Nayanar, who lived in Vedic period
21 Appar (Tirunavukkarasar)
22 Kulachirai
23 Perumizhalai Kurumba
24 Karaikkal Ammeiyar earliest Nayanar, woman saint who lived in the 6th century
25 Apputhi Adigal
26 Tiruneelanakka
27 Nami Nandi Adigal
28 Sambandar
29 Eyarkon Kalikama
30 Tirumular
31 Dandi Adigal
32 Murkha
33 Somasi Mara
34 Sakkiya former Buddhist
35 Sirappuli
36 Siruthondar Army general of the great Pallava king Narasimavarman I
37 Cheraman Perumal
38 Gananatha
39 Kootruva former Jain
40 Pugal Chola Chola monarch
41 Narasinga Muniyaraiyar
42 Adipaththar
43 Kalikamba
44 Kalia
45 Satti
46 Aiyadigal Kadavarkon
47 Kanampulla
48 Kari
49 Ninra Seer Nedumaara Pandya king, and former Jain
50 Mangayarkkarasiyar Queen, wife of Ninra Seer Nedumaara
51 Vayilar
52 Munaiyaduvar
53 Kazharsinga
54 Idangazhi
55 Seruthunai
56 Pugazh Thunai Chola commander
57 Kotpuli
58 Pusalar
59 Nesa
60 Sengenar (Kochengat Chola)
61 Tiru Nilakanta Yazhpanar
62 Isaignaniyaar Sundarar's mother
63 Sadaiya Sundara's father

 

[Treks]

Thats a Muslim website. And it is very funny that the worst they could find was this. Atleast is not rape, genocide and lying like Muhammad.

All they think about is sex, Guru did not sexually satisfy his wife this that. Their whole life resolves around that, distributing women after war, having turns every night with a different wife and what not. Nymph Muhammad.

Are you sure you're not being just a little bit too harsh, bhaji? From what we can gather of the ahadith, Muhammad's wives were not necessarily unhappy. Even Aisha's ahadith are pretty positive. I was reading the other day about how he would still engage in some sexual behaviour with a menstruating woman. This in my eyes is a reduction of stigma and a positive thing. The argument is pretty strong for the allocation of women after war, and is evident in other cultures, too. What else to do with them? War is a fact of life, and I believe the structure Muhammad put in place was for the benefit of the women at the time.

While child sexual relations are just not right, the fact is it was done in the culture of the time. Is it no wonder Muhammad engaged in it, too? The fact is, "prophets" are human and are not isolated from their environments.

I don't think anyone can really comment on Guru Nanak Sahib Ji's sexual relations with his wife. We aren't privy to that information. I imagine he would have cared for her needs. We are all humans, and Sikh Gurus did not eschew family life.

 

[SomeRandom]

BTW, I respect Hinduism. My ancestors were Hindus, like most Sikhs

But what Krishna did according to the Puranas, stealing clothes of bathing women and then forcing them come out... Lets say thats not nice thing for a religious prophet/avatar to do.

I don't know about most of the names you mention (with the exception of Sai Baba, can he really be considered a Hindu? Or is someone other than Shirdi Wale Sai Baba?). Will google the names.

Uhh, when did he do that specifically? The only "incident" I can think of that resembles stealing the clothes of bathing women is when he was a child. His friends all relied on him to help them to get buttermilk (for they were lower caste and so their parents couldn't afford such luxuries.) So Krishna and his friends began teasing and "stealing" from the Milk Maids until they got fed up and told Krishna's mother about his deeds with "proof." Which caused Krishna and his friends to start a "war" (merely a child's game) with them. Krishna then found out they were bathing in a river, he "stole" their clothes and chided them for bathing naked in the river, which he called a "sin." He then made them promise that they would not complain against him and provide him (and by extension his friends) with buttermilk. The children returned the clothes and walked away with their eyes closed so as to not gaze upon the women.

But then again, there are probably 1000 different variants of the escapades of Krishna. So........... I am speaking of my family's tradition more than anything else.
As is my understanding of Krishna, he's much more of a playful cheeky deity/prophet/leader than any others. Even when he defeated demons, it was always presented to me as Krishna just being a child and playing with them. And when he was being all "divine" and coming to the aid of devotees, again it was with a spark of mischief and playfulness.

As for the various Gurus, prophets, religious leaders etc etc, I was always under the impression that Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims have quite a bit of overlap in that regard. With many prophets being venerated in multiple religions.

 

[Kalibhakta]

Imam Ali and Imam Hussain where Christlike. Rumi and the Sufis loved god like how we Hindus do. Jesus himself and Saint Francis too, ect.

 

[Satnaam]

Are you sure you're not being just a little bit too harsh, bhaji? From what we can gather of the ahadith, Muhammad's wives were not necessarily unhappy. Even Aisha's ahadith are pretty positive. I was reading the other day about how he would still engage in some sexual behaviour with a menstruating woman. This in my eyes is a reduction of stigma and a positive thing. The argument is pretty strong for the allocation of women after war, and is evident in other cultures, too. What else to do with them? War is a fact of life, and I believe the structure Muhammad put in place was for the benefit of the women at the time.

While child sexual relations are just not right, the fact is it was done in the culture of the time. Is it no wonder Muhammad engaged in it, too? The fact is, "prophets" are human and are not isolated from their environments.

I don't think anyone can really comment on Guru Nanak Sahib Ji's sexual relations with his wife. We aren't privy to that information. I imagine he would have cared for her needs. We are all humans, and Sikh Gurus did not eschew family life.

1. Muhammad did not pay equal attention to his wives. You have not read enough, he had a special spot for Aisha and there are several accounts about his wives complaining about this. Sahih Bukhari Vol 3 Bk 47 (N 755) mentions one such cat-fight between Zaynab and Aysha, Zaynab clearly asks for equal treatment from Muhammad.

2. There was even an old wife of his who gave up her night turn in favor of Aisha just so she wouldn't be divorced. This is mentioned in the Quran 4:128. Now don't come to me with the fact that she was menopausal or what not, he could still spend the night with her to make her feel good, talk to her and what not, but no he was just a sexual addict who did not care about feelings.

"For instance, the Prophet kept Sawdah bint Zam’ah as his wife after she offered to forfeit her day for A’ishah. - Ibn Kathir, Tafsir on Q4:128"

3. Compare Islams treatment of POW women and Sikhi. Rehatnamas are not an authentic source, but even if you read them they all say don't have sex with Muslim women. This refers to the atmosphere and social context of the 18th century when Khalsa was at war with Muslims and enemy women would definitely fall in their hands. These Rehats (albeit interpolated, but still valid for some points) and even the Guru specifically forbade Sikhs from doing abusing female pows.

4. Sex with menstruating women is okay, but in the case of Muhammad it justs add to his nymph character.

5. Wrong is wrong, even if the whole world is doing so. Someone claiming to be a prophet and then succumbing to cultural dogmas and traditions... Our Gurus did not fall for caste even if it was rampant, nor for dowry, nor for sati, nor whatever.

6. If his wives were really happy, one of them wouldn't have poisoned Muhammad leading to his death...

7. Quran is just a mash up of a lot of things and one of them is Muhammads desires. When he wanted to marry his adopted sons Zayds wife, suddenly a verse comes from Allah favouring that. When he doesn't feel like going to the wife of that particular night, he lets a verse come which allows him to go to another wife (33.51).

8. Look what Ayesha is saying, was she really happy?

I asked Aisha, "What did you use to say (in this case)?" She said, "I used to say to him, ‘If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 312)

 

[Aupmanyav]

How was Krishna not able to control lust? Just because he had 16108 wives?

That is right. Having more than one or more wives is not a measure of lust. Lust is not being satisfied even after the act of sex. I do not know about 16100 wives (probably that is a puranic exaggeration), but it seems Krishna did have 8 wives. Hinduism (before the passing of Hindu Code Bill) had nothing against that. Sage Kashyapa is supposed to have had 13 wives.

Stealing clothes, raasa and other mischiefs - I do not know if that is mentioned in any of the main (eighteen) puranas. These are folk stories. And yes, I would not have any complaint if a five year old boy did it. Children do things like that.

But what Krishna did according to the Puranas, stealing clothes of bathing women and then forcing them come out... Lets say thats not nice thing for a religious prophet/avatar to do.

As I said earlier, does anyone know at what age Lord Krishna engage in that kind of thing? By the age of 16 or so, he left Vrindavana, never to return.

Many do not consider Shirdi Baba as Hindu.
Yes, Luis. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was a very wise person.
There is no doubt that Guru Nanak's involvement in religion and travels must have been difficult for his family. But these things happen in special cases. Buddha and Sankara are similar examples.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Satnaam
1. Mohammad was permitted by Allah to be special towards Aisha.
3. That is an Indian tradition. Shivaji Maharaj too returned Muslim captives to their people respectfully.
4. No it is not OK for many women. What is the harm in waiting till it is over? This I consider as lust.
5. "More than 60 percent of Sikhs belong to the Jat caste, which is a rural caste. The Khatri and Arora castes, both mercantile castes, form a very small minority, though they are influential within the Sikh community. Other castes represented among the Sikhs, in addition to the distinctive Sikh caste of Ramgarhias (artisans), are the Ahluwalias (formerly Kalals, brewers, who have raised their status considerably) and the two Dalit castes, known in Sikh terminology as the Mazhabis (the Chuhras) and the Ramdasias (the Chamars)."
Sikhism | religion :: The rejection of caste | Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[Salek Atesh]

1. Muhammad did not pay equal attention to his wives. You have not read enough, he had a special spot for Aisha and there are several accounts about his wives complaining about this. Sahih Bukhari Vol 3 Bk 47 (N 755) mentions one such cat-fight between Zaynab and Aysha, Zaynab clearly asks for equal treatment from Muhammad.

2. There was even an old wife of his who gave up her night turn in favor of Aisha just so she wouldn't be divorced.

Hadith is Hadith, and must be taken with a grain of salt.

"This is mentioned in the Quran 4:128.

Ahem, "And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them - and settlement is best. And present in [human] souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allah - then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted."

Whoever told you that is misinformed themselves. This event is not mentioned in the verse you cite. Ibn Kathir says an example of this verse is found in Muhammed's alleged actions, but Ibn Kathir lived seven hundred years after Muhammed. Not exactly a first-person account.

Now don't come to me with the fact that she was menopausal or what not, he could still spend the night with her to make her feel good, talk to her and what not, but no he was just a sexual addict who did not care about feelings.

Look, these are all events that are over a thousand years passed. You're a Sikh and I'm a Baha'i, we both have the luxury of having our religious founders living in comparatively "modern" times. As a result, the information about our founders is well-documented and much of it can be trusted.

But... do you really think all accounts of Muhammed, who lived 1400 years ago, are all authentic?? Do you imagine events that happened in a mostly-illiterate Arabia have been perfectly preserved over the course of 1400 years?? There've been plenty of times in which stories could've been added to Hadith since then.

3. Compare Islams treatment of POW women and Sikhi.

Do you mean "Islam's" or "certain Muslims'"??

Rehatnamas are not an authentic source, but even if you read them they all say don't have sex with Muslim women. This refers to the atmosphere and social context of the 18th century when Khalsa was at war with Muslims and enemy women would definitely fall in their hands. These Rehats (albeit interpolated, but still valid for some points) and even the Guru specifically forbade Sikhs from doing abusing female pows.

And Islamic War Jurisprudence forbids harming women, children, the elderly, and monks. "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"

It doesn't make sense to me to blame a Law for the people who break that Law.

And while not all Muslims historically follow this Law, some do. Take the account of crusader POW Oliverus Scholasticus: "Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."

4. Sex with menstruating women is okay, but in the case of Muhammad it justs add to his nymph character.

Lol. So it's only bad when Muhammed does it. Nice standard there.

6. If his wives were really happy, one of them wouldn't have poisoned Muhammad leading to his death...

Lol. Okay, so because he died of illness, there's conspiracy theorists say he must have been poisoned, because Disease Isn't Real, and clearly people hundreds of years from the event can diagnose poisoning based on scant information provided and are in a better position to judge than his contemporaries. Then begins the speculation on who poisoned him and, considering that no one conspiracy theorist proposing Muhammad being poisoned agrees on the identity of his poisoner, I really have little faith in your claim that it was one of his wives.

If someone claimed to you that Guru Har Krishan didn't actually die of smallpox, but was poisoned (which is TOTALLY TRUE, trust me, I'm an expert on cause-of-death on deaths that occurred hundreds of years ago), would you believe their random, conspiratorial explanation of a death that occurred almost four hundred years ago?? No?? Then why believe a conspiratorial account of an event that happened over a thousand years ago?? On what basis do you have proof of poisoning??

7. Quran is just a mash up of a lot of things and one of them is Muhammads desires. When he wanted to marry his adopted sons Zayds wife, suddenly a verse comes from Allah favouring that. When he doesn't feel like going to the wife of that particular night, he lets a verse come which allows him to go to another wife (33.51).

Really, proving any of those verses corresponds with any event is impossible without a time machine. This is speculation at best...

 

[Satnaam]

Ahem, "And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them - and settlement is best. And present in [human] souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allah - then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted."

Whoever told you that is misinformed themselves. This event is not mentioned in the verse you cite. Ibn Kathir says an example of this verse is found in Muhammed's alleged actions, but Ibn Kathir lived seven hundred years after Muhammed. Not exactly a first-person account.

Salek Atesh,

The incident is not only mentioned by Ibn Kathir. It is also mentioned by Al Tabari:

"And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband.
Muhammad bin Husain said: He claimed that this verse came down in reference to the messenger of Allah, and Saudah bint Zama'h who became old, then the messenger of Allah wanted to divorce her, but they agreed that he will keep her but give her day to Ai'sha."

It is also mentionned by Al Qurtubi:

In this verse [4:130] there are four issues: the first, Al-Tirmidhi told that Ibn Abbas said: Saudah feared that the messenger of Allah will divorce her so she said, "Do not divorce me and keep me, and give my day with you to Ai'sha." He did and this verse came down: "there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better." He said: this is a good and strange hadith.

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, `O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to `A'ishah.' And he did, and later on Allah sent down,And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no sin on them both."

I will completely destroy your every single argument but lets start on this one because I have often spent hours debunking people only resulting in them running away or saying 'hadith don't count'. Can't spend more hours discussing.

So do you admit you are wrong on this part?

 

[Satnaam]

Aupmanyav, I hope you are not trying to imply that Sikhi or the Gurus promoted caste. Because you are citing a website and a break down of the Sikh community caste wise which does not imply that the religion itself or the founders believed in the caste system.

There are many verses in the Guru granth Sahib against caste based discrimination. The langar tradition is an example of equality. I can't say that same about 'Hindu' granths like Manu Smritee teaching us to treat shudras worse than animals

 

[Salek Atesh]

Salek Atesh,

The incident is not only mentioned by Ibn Kathir. It is also mentioned by Al Tabari:

"And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband.
Muhammad bin Husain said: He claimed that this verse came down in reference to the messenger of Allah, and Saudah bint Zama'h who became old, then the messenger of Allah wanted to divorce her, but they agreed that he will keep her but give her day to Ai'sha."

It is also mentionned by Al Qurtubi:

In this verse [4:130] there are four issues: the first, Al-Tirmidhi told that Ibn Abbas said: Saudah feared that the messenger of Allah will divorce her so she said, "Do not divorce me and keep me, and give my day with you to Ai'sha." He did and this verse came down: "there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better." He said: this is a good and strange hadith.

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, `O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to `A'ishah.' And he did, and later on Allah sent down,And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no sin on them both."

I will completely destroy your every single argument but lets start on this one because I have often spent hours debunking people only resulting in them running away or saying 'hadith don't count'. Can't spend more hours discussing.

So do you admit you are wrong on this part?

Hadith is Hadith. As a Baha'i, I don't believe Hadith to be valid. It is the opinion of various scholars at different points in time, and the closest one that you cite comes to being a contemporary of the people in the story, lived two hundred years after the supposed event in question. A scholar in the 800's professes knowledge of an event that happened in private between individuals in 600's, and you trust this to be true??

I'm curious, why do you think this event from the 600's has been flawlessly recorded in history?? Two hundred years after Jesus and his own followers couldn't agree on his own teachings or history. You have a remarkable faith in medieval, second-hand accounts of even older history.