KARBALA: When Skies Wept Blood

[Mystical]

''Karbala: When Skies Wept Blood'' examines the final days of the life of Imam Hussain (AS), the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and sets out to establish the reasons behind the tragedies that took place at Karbala in the year 61 of the Islamic Calendar. Using unique footage, and talks by leading scholars, the viewer is presented with an excellent presentation for followers of the Ahlul Bayt (AS), and as an introduction to followers of other faiths. "

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...h&plindex=1

[tonyhp32]

It's strange how people who were faithful followers of Mohammed were assassinating each other only a few years later. The guy who broke down needs to get some perspective in his life

Interesting how Abu Sufyan got his revenge against Mohammed through his grandson who killed Mohammed's grandsons. Mohammed destroyed all the idols in the Kaba which was a place of worship for the non-Muslims before Mohammed.

Just my views.

[golestan]

Thank you Mystical lfor posting this video.

Thank you tonyhp32 for confirming yet again your hatred against Ahle Mohammad (as) to the point supporting Yazid.

[tonyhp32]

SHAHJI,

So having a critical view of Islam means someone is Islamophobic.

Not crying over someone dying 1400 years in a civil war between Muslims is having hatred for Ahle Mohammed.

You remind me of that character Citizen Smith from the 70s TV series. Do you also go around calling anyone who doesn't support your viewpoint as a Fascist?

[tonyhp32]

SHAHJI,

So having a critical view of Islam means someone is Islamophobic.

Not crying over someone dying 1400 years in a civil war between Muslims is having hatred for Ahle Mohammed.

You remind me of that character Citizen Smith from the 70s TV series. Do you also go around calling anyone who doesn't support your viewpoint as a Fascist?

[Mithr]

This is a good movie made about a very tragic event in Islamic history. This event for Muslims I beleive is just as tragic as the Shaheedi of the Chote Sahibzadas are the hands of the faujdar of Sarhind.

Bhaji Tonyhp32 Jee, Bahadur Ali Jee gets way too over melodramatic trying to create a scene out of nothing. Anyone who does not agree 100% with Muslims or Islamic history is a Islamophobe to him. This is something that alot of Muslims in the west are doing now days to make people shamed to even question Islam.

Please watch the following video by Pat Condel

We should not get intimidated by bullys like these Islamofascists(like Bhaji Bahadur Ali Jee) who try to intimidate us into staying quiet. If people like him can question Sikhi openly, then surely we should also reserve the right to question Islam.

[golestan]

To support the massacre of of 72 outnumbered men, the murder of Imam Hussain (as), the capture and ill treatment of innocent women and children at the hands of Yazid under the excuse that it was a revenge against the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is not being "critical of Islam" . It is being a blasphemer and supporter of tyranny,rape, injustice and superstitious idolatry.

Nobody asked you to cry actually. It is amazing to which depths your hatred leads you. Your supported the Spanish Inquisition now Yazid. I am sure if I found some evidence that Hitler gazed Muslims you'd praise him as an enlightened leader.

No tonyhp32 I won't call you a fascist. I believe some of the Italian fascists like Giovanni Gentile, Gabriele D'Annuncio or Luigi Pirandello had more humanity than you will ever have. I respect these fascists too much to call you one.

[Xylitol]

Indeed, Muslims extremists are trying to creates ''pockets'' of Islam in weak European countries such as France. I've read that there have been no go zones created by these extremists and any non muslim entering the neighbourhood gets attacked. The pathetic racist (but sniveling and weak) governments of these states bend over backwards to accomodate. And then when the extremism becomes unmanageable they pass a pathetic stopgap measure such as the ban on hijabs in France that turned into a ban on all religious symbols b/c the French did not want to look like bigots.

[Xylitol]

Indeed, Muslims extremists are trying to creates ''pockets'' of Islam in weak European countries such as France. I've read that there have been no go zones created by these extremists and any non muslim entering the neighbourhood gets attacked. The pathetic racist (but sniveling and weak) governments of these states bend over backwards to accomodate. And then when the extremism becomes unmanageable they pass a pathetic stopgap measure such as the ban on hijabs in France that turned into a ban on all religious symbols b/c the French did not want to look like bigots.

[golestan]

Xylitol, t'as vécu en France pour affirmer ça ou tu ne fais que répéter les mêmes âneries que tes amis?

[Mithr]

You have the right to question Islam provided you master the intellectual tools to do so i.e.

master classical Arabic, Persian, middle eastern history, fiqh, usul e din and history of Arabic literature.

Study these first and you can question all you want. See you in 10 years

I don't need to meet your criteria to do anything. If Muslims or even Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Hindus do anything which is hypocritical, double standard I don't need your approval to question that religion. I live in a free country, unlike your Sharia countries like Iran where people get stoned to death for living life the way they want to live.

So until I come to Iran, I can do whatever I want without the fear of persecution and being stoned to death.

[golestan]

These are not "my criteria" just what any academic would ask of anyone criticizing Islam. You need to know your subject in order to criticize it. You sound like someone saying:" I don't need to know the rules of basketball to comment on the game".

[tonyhp32]

As Groucho Marx would say-;

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

So unless you know classical Arabic, Persian, Middle Eastern history etc you can't comment on a hadith where Mohammed allows his followers to rape captured women, or comment on the hadiths that state Aisha was 6 when Mohammed married her. Common sense and basic human morality and ethics don't come into the equation.

These are not "my criteria" just what any academic would ask of anyone criticizing Islam. You need to know your subject in order to criticize it. You sound like someone saying:" I don't need to know the rules of basketball to comment on the game".

No, what you are asking is that someone read the history of basketball in another language, read books on the social conditions prevalent at the time that basketball was founded, read the autobiography of the person who founded basketball, complete a refereeing course and of course read all the books that have been written which state that basketball is the best thing since sliced bread in order to be sufficiently qualified to comment that basketball is a boring game!

SHAHJI somewhere along the line of you reading all those books on fiqh, usul e deen and a host of other subjects you've lost your common sense and ingrained sense of morality. This is why as Kavita you defended Muta Marriage which anyone who has not been brainwashed by Shi'ism would easily class as an immoral practice and just a case of religious sanctioned prostitution.

How does your new found Islamic sense of justice deal with the fact that Shi'sim also believes that an apostate should be killed if he/she leaves Islam? The question is quite relevant because I have no doubt that after the novelty of being a convert wears off you will try and find pastures new.

As for Yazid and Hussain, I couldn't care less who won and who lost. Isn't everything God's will so why do you cry over them and beat your breasts in (fake) displays of mourning? I was just commenting that Abu Sufyan got his revenge in the end. He might have lost his ancient religion to Mohammed and his followers but his grandson bequeathed to Islam a curse of disunity between Sunnis and Shias in which one would kill the other without a second thought. The bombings in Iraq are a testimony to this fact. How many times have you cursed Aisha, Abu Bakr etc just because in your sects view Ali's family should have kept the Caliphate? Cursing people who lived centuries ago isn't very healthy is it? Oh I forgot I should have read some books on fiqh and usul e deen before I comment on something like that!

[Mithr]

Comparing something so simple as basketball with something as complex as Islam is the most ridiculous analogy you can give. A better analogy would be the religion of Islam with a law of a nation. Now if a nation has such laws which are outdated, violate basic human rights, double standards, hypocritical then it doesn’t take a lawyer or a law professor to question that law. It just takes some common sense. Now if Islam like a nation’s law has some Usuls which violate human rights, have double standards, are hypocritical rules then it just takes common sense to question it. In other words, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to have common sense. Just use your Aql if you have any.

Now you claimed when you wrote to me:

“Your own tenth master praises wine in the hikayatan, some rahitname allow it and your medicinal granths mention wine quite often. So there is scriptural evidence in your "religion" to justify what most of you do anyways and for which you are famous for: getting pissed.

I don't touch alcohol at all and have gone back to my pre-Sikh ways: no alcohol, no vulgar music.â€

Now if you had some common sense or Aql before your ‘reversion’ you would know that Sharab is forbidden in Sikhi. You even argue with Sikhs when they would tell you it's forbidden to drink Sharaab. But the Begharat, Bewakoof that you are, you pick and choose what you want to follow while people warned it is against Sikhi. Now you insult Sikhi when you say you were just following “Sikh ways†by drinking and listening to vulgar music.

You also wrote on the other thread:

“These poisonous blasphemous statements are what has the transformed the noble house of unity between Muslims and Hindus into the whorehouse of hatred and heresy that is modern Sikhism, the brother of Wahabism and Hindu fascism.â€

Now Sangat Jee, here we have this NaaMard calling our Sikhi a ‘whorehouse’. We all know the only whore here is Bahadur Ali himself. He is the kind of whore who chooses a new Khasam every few years. First it’s Chatholocism, New Age, Sikhi, Shia Islam. This whore changes Khasams as he is changing and wearing new clothing. Out with the old and in with the new. Who knows who his future Khasam is. Then he has the audacity to question our Dharm.

It’s not that he has converted to a new religion, but it’s really annoying to see this Naamard trashing our dharm after converting to a new religion.

[singho]

Comparing something so simple as basketball with something as complex as Islam is the most ridiculous analogy you can give. A better analogy would be the religion of Islam with a law of a nation. Now if a nation has such laws which are outdated, violate basic human rights, double standards, hypocritical then it doesn’t take a lawyer or a law professor to question that law. It just takes some common sense. Now if Islam like a nation’s law has some Usuls which violate human rights, have double standards, are hypocritical rules then it just takes common sense to question it. In other words, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to have common sense. Just use your Aql if you have any.

Let's just consider the laws of a nation. Where do you think your ideas of 'basic human rights' are derived from? Your own self-righteous sense of what's right and wrong for others in the world?

In jurisprudence, laws flow from a concept of 'natural law', 'natural justice' (Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke). This is the foundation of justice in basic jurisprudence - an elementary stage in the education of any lawyer. It is not something that's left to an uneducated mob-handed buffoon's 'common sense'.

In addition, if you want to question a law, it doesn't matter WHO you are. It matters that you specify the law you are questioning, specify your grounds for why the law is bad (the list of grounds is limited and does not include your commoner's touch) and cite references in support of your arguments, before an authority that is competent to change the law or the way it is interpreted. Let's take the House of Lords as the highest court in England and Wales as an example. If you want to involve yourself in a 'test case' to effect a change in the law by presenting a reasoned case, you have to be a qualified barrister yourself, or you have to hire one. If you can't manage either of those, then get lost bozo. The law is not an amateur's game.

Alternatively, you can petition the legislative arm of government, or get yourself elected to office instead, and use whatever cleverness you can wield to change the law. As you can see, the chances of you succeeding in this way (politically) are limited.

So, just regarding it from the perspective of 'the law', I hope you can appreciate that a lawyer is someone with years of education and training, with expert skills and the requisite knowledge making them competent to discuss points of law before competent authorities. Everybody else needs their advice on matters of law. Only a fool has himself for a lawyer.

So now take this analogy and apply it to whichever branch of usul of whichever branch of Islam you thought you were referring to (if any).

[Xylitol]

I'm in law school. Laypersons are qualified to criticise the law if they inform themselves of what it is that they are criticising, as is the case with some board members here.

[golestan]

Xylitol, you should drop law school. If brahmgianis know all languages, you should go and take a brahmgiani course in law so you'll know all the laws in the universe!

[singho]

I'm in law school. Laypersons are qualified to criticise the law if they inform themselves of what it is that they are criticising, as is the case with some board members here.

Qualified in whose eyes though? Without the provenance (such as the certificate you're working towards) and the proper forum to hear, it's just pissing in the wind. As a law student you must surely realise how stupid it looks when laypeople clamour for changes in the law without understanding the principles affected by the proposed changes or the scope of the new provisions. Dangerous Dogs Act, anyone?

Let's not foster an attitude here, where some Islamophobe with a deep spiritual malaise against Islam in all its manifestations thinks that Wikipedia and his local council library give him all the ammunition he needs to make full-on assertions about matters he has no idea about nor even the faintest idea HOW to research. Depending on where you are in your study of law, you may be aware that the research resources used by the professionals are themselves a matter of expert knowledge (assessed on both the LPC and BVC here in the UK) and are substantially different from the resources used in the academic institutions. So how could Joe Bloggs find an up-to-date perspective on the law on any particular point right now, unless he has had the training enabling him to know where to look and how to search?

[Mithr]

singho,

A person in Iran's Sharia state gets stoned to death because of their sexual freedom, do you support that? I don't agree with homosexuality or adultry, but do people guilty of these crimes really deserve being stoned to death in your honest opinion?

In Sharia Law a person who changes their religion away from Islam is killed, do you support this Singho? Yes or no?

[Xylitol]

The law example you provided was to justify the portrayal of a need for a great level of scholarship before one's criticisms of anything in the Islamic world could be considered worthy of consideration - basically, you were trying to say that unless one is an authority, what they say on this topic is worthless. Such appeals to authority are simply smokescreens to hide an inability to defend the indefensible.

[golestan]

Or a smokescreen to hide your ignorance...

[username]

Xylitol, t'as vécu en France pour affirmer ça ou tu ne fais que répéter les mêmes âneries que tes amis?

Xylitol, you live in France to assert this or are only repeating the same silly remarks as your friends?

jus in case anyone was wonderin...

[Xylitol]

No, I don't live in France. No, I'm not repeating what friends say. This was in various news sources. It's happening. Feel free to search for them yourself.

[golestan]

Well I lived in Paris for 5 years and taught in the suburbs and I can tell you this: you are a liar.

You're a liar when you say that you don't hate Islam and Muslim yet spread these lies about the events there.

The problems of the suburbs concern ALL communities not just the Muslims (my kids didn't even know who Fatimah (as) was so much for being "Muslims"). Come live here speak the language, work with the people here, talk to the police, teachers and families like I did, maybe then you can open your mouth about France!

[tonyhp32]

Singho doesn't seem to want to answer any of the questions put to him. Wasn't he raging about how great Sharia law was a few months ago.

I was going to post some blood curdling photos of little kids with blood over their faces where their parents had cut them for Ashura but then this is a family forum so here's some pics which are nonetheless still pics of pointless actions