Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mystical

KARBALA: When Skies Wept Blood

Recommended Posts

Sigho quick thing just being anal.

Internet Fraud is not covered by the theft act 1968 but is covered by the Fraud act which came out a few years ago!

Sure that has got nothing to do with this thread as all but i was bored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigho quick thing just being anal.

Internet Fraud is not covered by the theft act 1968 but is covered by the Fraud act which came out a few years ago!

Sure that has got nothing to do with this thread as all but i was bored

Ah well, OK but this goes to show the transitory nature of imperfect man-made laws.

Further, my point still stands because in the case of there not being any specific provision under sharia law dealing with 'internet fraud' specifically, then it would be dealt with under fraud provisions as it was with all fraud under English law until 15 January 2007 when the 2006 Act came into force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of sharia was formulated as new issues arose after the passing of the Prophet. This is the way with all legal systems. This is how the English common law built up to be become a comprehensive body. This is how sharia law built up to become a comprehensive body. This is how law in a Sikh state will build up to become a comprehensive body. It's interesting that you guys are basically claiming the superiority of Islam based on the fact that it's been around long enough to have built up a comprehensive body of law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Singho' one law we do have is how to deal with nindaks of Guru Sahib. Your responses clearly show you know nothing of Guru granth Sahib Ji let alone Dasam and Sarbloh Granths.

Why did Mohammed need a new judicial system? was he setting himself up to be ruler of a new country?

No doubt I will get the answer that most of Sharia was developed much after his death and even today there are 4 different schools of thought. If it was such a clear, black & white revelation of jurisprudence then why are there now 4 different schools? (These are the approaches of al-Shâfi`î, Abû Hanifâh, Mâlik, and Ahmad b. Hanbal.)

What about Ja'fari jurisprudence - the creation of the 6th Imam. Why did it take so long?

I suggest you read A Short History of 'Ilmul Usul by Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr.

Singho (a misnomer if there ever was one), you are vigorously defending Sharia, yet in your own words " have no way to check the facts."

Religion to people like you is about everything BUT Allah! Like Bhagat Kabeer Ji says " Numskulls! you have totally lost the point!"

There is a very good reason why I asked for the fatawah by the Ayatollah. If some of those laws are 'divine' then pray, what is evil?

I have no hate for Islam, but I do dislike arrogance and so does Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"5 dudes and some ideas is not a judiciary system..."

The Panj Pyare are an intergral part of the Sikh faith. Kindly 'watch your mouth'. Have your flawed discussion (until admin come back from holiday and ban you again), but do not show such disrespect to our faith.

Even Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj was held to account by the Panj Pyare.

If you think your faith is being disrespected and you don't like, you can leave.

Who are you to set the parameters of how law should work? Surely Nirankar can give different laws (or lack of them) to his people, or is that you or your interpretation of Islam have contained God and his thoughts?

Here Sikhi differs, for we do not try to restrict God, but accept the existance of his colours in all forms.

Back to the discussion, BAS and Singho, why do you live and earn money in a western democracy which does not recognise Sharia (directly)?

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I have asked this question before and there was no answer so here goes again with some VAT:

1 - If you (God forbid) caught your wife commiting adultery) how would Sharia be exercised where you currently live?

2 - If your son turned out to be homosexual, how would sharia be exercised where you live?

Simple answer, it wouldn't - and if it was, you would be jailed for a version of honour killing, which incidentally, is one of the reasons (adultery) both Muslim (more so) and Sikh Punjabis commit this henious act, which would make what you classed as a despicable act, aceptable under sharia (just a more humane punishment)?

Point to all this is your plug regarding how great and beneficial it would be for all us 'lawless' people to be living under a divine law, well it ain't going to happen. Like everything else, there is no guarantee or conclusive evidence that the current sharia systems were created by Muhammed Sahib. They have been an evolving system, just like the various rehitnamai (not comparing this to sharia) over the years.

Before you go on about how western law is in fact influenced by 'Judaic' law, I know. But it has evolved and been made fair for all people irrelevant of background. I am not saying sharia isn't a good law system, it is agrguably one of the worlds most comprehensive (older), but it is out dated.

We take lead from our Guru Sahiban, they did not operate under sharia, nor promoted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Singho' one law we do have is how to deal with nindaks of Guru Sahib. Your responses clearly show you know nothing of Guru granth Sahib Ji let alone Dasam and Sarbloh Granths.

So are you saying that any of these variously-attributed texts contain a system of laws?

Haven't you got the picture yet? You don't have any system of law in your religion. You have less than nothing by way of laws or a judicial system in those books. And yes, I have a reasonable knowledge (the standard of an average Sikh perhaps) of the content of those books.

Why did Mohammed need a new judicial system? was he setting himself up to be ruler of a new country?

Think what you like. There's a place for blasphemers who insult the Holy Prophet (pbuh) like you.

No doubt I will get the answer that most of Sharia was developed much after his death and even today there are 4 different schools of thought. If it was such a clear, black & white revelation of jurisprudence then why are there now 4 different schools? (These are the approaches of al-Shâfi`î, Abû Hanifâh, Mâlik, and Ahmad b. Hanbal.)

If you really wish to know the answer to this question you will have to research it yourself. I'm not in the business of anonymous unqualified opinion-making.

What about Ja'fari jurisprudence - the creation of the 6th Imam. Why did it take so long?

It was present from the beginning, but revealed only during the time of Imam Jafar As-Sadiq (a.s.). I could explain further, but not to one who blasphemes against the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Singho (a misnomer if there ever was one),

Thank you kindly for this compliment.

you are vigorously defending Sharia, yet in your own words " have no way to check the facts."

Actually I do, by reference to others who are learned and well versed in the subject.

Religion to people like you is about everything BUT Allah! Like Bhagat Kabeer Ji says " Numskulls! you have totally lost the point!"

LOL. You are great comedy material. Maybe you should start a dera and start spreading these ideas of yours. Would you like an initiation ritual to go with that? Why not use the Shia futuwwad orders' initiation rituals of the Safavid period as 'inspiration'?

There is a very good reason why I asked for the fatawah by the Ayatollah. If some of those laws are 'divine' then pray, what is evil?

I have no hate for Islam, but I do dislike arrogance and so does Allah.

You have no authority to speak for Islam or Allah, and are equally unqualified when discussing jurisprudence of any kind, whether secular or Islamic. For pointing out this fact, I am called arrogant by you. So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, where did I insult Mohammed?

It was present from the beginning, but revealed only during the time of Imam Jafar As-Sadiq (a.s.). I could explain further, but not to one who blasphemes against the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Keep deluding yourself brother. Ok, so studying the origin of sharia is blasphemous against the Prophet.

How about you provide proof from the Holy Quran.

Actually I do, by reference to others who are learned and well versed in the subject.

so you were lying earlier? What proof do you have of your friends' qualifications?

Not surprising when you bear in mind that being dishonest is common when performing D'awa.

You have no authority to speak for Islam or Allah

As far as Islam is concerned, you don't know me or my history so don't jump to conclusions.

As for Allah - know them intimately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys keep ignoring the fact that much of sharia came about in response to new issues after the passing of Prophet Mohammed. so it's manmade like most other law in the universe.

God exists in all. How can a law system be divine if it doesn't recognise this fact and treats women as if God exists in them to a lesser degree? makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, perhaps the thread needs to be split as we have moved away from one type of Muslims killing another type of Muslims over 1300 years ago. Not much change since then either.

I will try to answer all the ridiculous statements made by Singho but if I miss one of his statements as there are so many then feel free to point that out.

Singho wrote-;

Ah well, OK but this goes to show the transitory nature of imperfect man-made laws.

As Xylitol said, Sharia has had to adapt to the changing circumstances. The views of Singho and SHAHJI about Sharia being a 'divine' law would be legitimate if Sharia Law at it's inception was able to forsee the great changes that would occur between a desert culture of 7th century Arabia and the 21st century and beyond. Sharia law may have been the best law when Abdul stole Ali's camel in 7th century Arabia but it's a bit of a joke in the 21st century. Gather 10 Muslims together and each one will disagree with each other about which state is implementing 'pure' Sharia law. In any state when Sharia law is implemented then a lot of the same people who were clamouring for it are the ones who flee that country to try and get asylum abroad.

4) What do you mean by 'the local imam'? Which type of islam and system of shariah are you referring to here? It's important.

There you have the crux of the problem, a 'divine' law which is different in different versions of the 'clear guidance' religion that Islam claims to be. Only a fool would not understand that the very fact that Sharia law has so many versions is the reason why it cannot be 'divine'! If you accept as all Muslims must do that God has defined all crimes and punishments which are not subject to change then you would not have different versions of that law! Sikhs, apart from the injunctions set in the Rehat Maryada do not accept that all crimes and their associated punishments are set in stone.

1) It applies only to members of your club, and if a person (say, someone who murdered his daughter) refuses to submit then you expel him. Expulsion is no punishment at all.

It is up to the offender to present himself for tankah. The performance of tankah does not exclude him from punishment by the state. The Panj Pyare have never taken on the role of inflicting punishments such as capital punishment. This is left in a non-Sikh state to the authorities of that state and in a Sikh state to the laws of the Sikh state. The laws of the Sikh state would be based on the laws which Sikhs institute. This is the difference between Sharia law which takes on the role of the state. As there is no Sikh state in existence at this stage, Sikhs have to be judged under the laws of the state that they live in.

The crux of your argument appears to be that as Muslims you have to abide by an out of date 'divine' law which depending on which sect or school of jurisprudence you place yourself may very well give varying judgements in the exact same cases. As such you think that the fact that Sikhs do not have this all encampassing law then somehow Sikhism is inferior to Islam. The fact is that the Gurus in their wisdom did not institute a Sharia type set up of law for Sikhs. The injunctions in the Rehat Maryada deal with infringement of the Rehat.

2) It is unjust because it is not based on a judicial system. This makes it inconsistent and inherently unfair. One gang of 5 hard-cases might decide to whip a man 100 times for adultery, and another might give a murderer just 5 lashes.

This is your take on the issue. Your statement seems to express a view that there can be no mitigation. The facts around the case which would have been looked into do not matter. In Sharia law these are discussed but only to the level of in say the case of theft, where and in what place it was committed, 4 witnesses saw it etc. as for punishment this in many cases is set in stone. If certain criteria is met in a case of theft then the punishment is set in stone, ie amputation of a limb. The inferiority of tankah and the superiority of Sharia law which you are trying to show in this issue is actually quite the reverse.

3) The members of the 5 'beloved' may or may not have a sense of justice, or be trained in law or morality or ethics, and may not even be mentally sound and capable. There is no criteria for assessing your 'judge dreads'.

Rehat maryada defines who the Panj can be. Although I can understand your point about mental soundness, going by the fatwa issued recently for allowing men to be able to work with women (ie woman breastfeeds man, man becomes her 'son', so they are related and can't get up to any hanky panky), your fear of mental soundness in a legal authority is well made but totally misdirected.

Let's look at a hypothetical case.

SHAHJI sitting at his laptop defrauds a bank of £100 million. The crime isn't witnessed by anyone (ok, accepted that the rules of Sharia law might very well be stretched to the limits and anyone who sees the audit trail many months later can be deemed to have 'witnessed' the crime). But in true Sharia law it has to be eyewitnesses. Meanwhile in some Saudi Arabian town Singho, steals a loaf of bread in full view of over 10 witnesses. In his bag are a few more loaves of bread which be had brought earlier. Now who will get the worst punishment according to 'divine' Sharia law? ie amputation.

It would be poor Singho who would get his lamb amputated because his crime was witnessed and he had no dire need for the bread. As SHAHJI sitting at his computer was not witnessed taking the money then he would not have his limb amputated. Sharia might well be stretched to provide for witnesses who examined the audit trail. This in itself presents a problem, if only one person examined the audit trail then he would still keep his limbs but if 2 people examined it then he will lose his limb. How arbitary is that for a 'divine' law! As Singho said

Ah well, OK but this goes to show the transitory nature of imperfect man-made laws.

I see that Singho and SHAHJI did not dispute the fact that they needed to provide witnesses for the hypothetical wives' indiscretion. This is where 'divine' laws devised by people living in simple 7th century environments fail miserably in the light of human advancement in the 13 centuries since.

Here's another issue which is prevalent in the land created for 'Pure' Muslims. If a woman is raped but unable to provide 4 witnesses then by making the claim of rape she has virtually admitted to the crime of adultery and is herself liable to punishment!

How about alcohol consumption. SHAHJI always used to write that he enjoyed a glass of wine often. Well if he still enjoys his tipple then he best do that behind closed doors as a lot of Muslims do or he could well be whipped for it.

Now to SHAHJI

adultery is a crime in all religions and the overwhelming majority of civilizations have treated it as such. If you are ok about adultery being unpunished that's up to you: God disapproves of it! If you are of those that encourage sin don't claim to believe in law!

Adultery in Sikhism get punished by a bare excommunication for the sinner.

What about the people whose trust he/she has broken?What about the value of being faithful in marriage?

What about the bad example given to the rest of society?

What about the treason to the partner?

Your religious system says that an adulterer has to take tankah before being accepted in the community again. It ranges from cleaning shoes to whatever else may go though the panj pyare's mind (what about the rule of law tonyhp32, ever heard of that concept?). This tankah does NOT bring justice to victims: it rehabilitates the sinner. He may get away with cleaning shoes for a month or washing dishes. Where is the justice?

All religions? It might well be true of the Abrahamic religions but not all religions. Someone commits adultery and they automatically get stoned to death! Now let's have a look at adultery and fornication. If a woman is unmarried and she has sex then she is given just 100 lashes, if she was married it would be stoning to death. How is that a good example to society as you asked? Isn't it encouraging for unmarried women to sleep around but stop when they get married? is this the reason for the high rate of hymen restoration operations amongst Muslim women? How about the trust she has broken of the parents? It's ridiculous to treat the pre-marital relationships much more lightly than adultery.

Your questions about what about the broken trust and treason to the partner is an ignorant statement. As a Muslim you should know that adultery is a crime against Allah and nothing to do with the break of trust or treason to the husband. Even if the husband said that he was willing to take his wife back, she would still be executed because her crime was against Allah who contrary to the usual hogwash of being merciful tends to be a very vindictive.

I think your are confusing the fact that there is no death penalty for adultery in Sikhism to encouragement of adultery.

Your questions raise quite a contentious debate. Whereas in Sikhism the emphasis is on admission of guilt and reformation of the individual, the Islamic way is for punishment. There is no emphasis on admission of guilt. The adulteress could go to her death still claiming her innocence. How do you deal with cases of miscarriage of justice. Or do you live you life with the Utopian dream that there can be no miscarriage of justice in a Sharia court? Given that a lot of Muslims are not the most reliable of witnesses as anyone who has ever been involved in a car accident will testify! They do tend to be able to produce witnesses on demand! So a woman wrongly accused is stoned to death. Then what? Spiritually you might say she will go to heaven and her false witnesses to hell. Not much of a consolation if the Islamic heaven turns out to a figment of Mohammed's imagination. So look at the Sikh way of dealing with the case of adultery. If the person is an Amritdhari, she will approach the Panj Pyare who will institute a tankah. Chances are it will not be stoning. She has a chance to reform her life. She might or might not depending on the husband stay with him or they might divorce. If a person is unrepentant then there will be a social boycott. That is that all persons who are related to her or those who have contact with her will boycott her. This might not be as drastic as stoning but is still a chance for reflection and then pesh and reformation.

The things which you try and use to prove Sikhism as inferior are the very ones which are its strengths. It's not a religion of vengence and retribution. Your way of stoning may give the husband some sense of contentment that she who betrayed him has been killed but in the spiritual sense such a attitude just leads to the hardening of the heart.

You talk of justice in your mickey mouse legal system but what about the blood money for a murder. Blood money for non-Muslims is on a downward graded scale. It is the maximum for a Muslim man, less for a Muslim woman, even less for Dhimmis like Christians and Jews and less than that for their women etc. Only a fool would consider this to be justice.

One of the beauties of one of the Abrahamic faiths, in this case Christianity is Jesus saying 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. It is impossible for someone brought up in or converting to a religion that believes in retribution for an offence to understand the beauty of this simple saying. Sikhism also has a similar attitude. 'Bhullan andar sabhko Abhul Guru Kartar' everyone is liable to make mistake only the Guru and Creator is without error.

I doubt there is anything of the beauty of the above two sayings in Islam. But then that is why most believing Christians tend to be great loving people and Sikhs take part is so much sewa in the community. Unfortunately Muslims distinguish themselves in the field of blowing their fellow beings to kingdom come!

Regarding narimar (killing a woman) and kurimar (female infanticide) it's the same. A man or a woman may kill their daughter in law or kill their baby daughter and get away with a tankah. This means that in a Sikh state the Atwals would have gotten away with washing dishes, maybe two slaps. Is this justice?

I think you are getting confused here. The Panj Pyare will pronounce on tankah for a number of infringements the major ones being, adultery, cutting hair, eating halal or using tobacco. In your haste to find fault with Sikhism you are comparing a religion with a faulty 7th century legal structure with a religion in which law is left to the state to legislate on whether the state is Sikh or not. Kurimaars are automatically socially boycotted as are people who associate with them. If as you state the Panj Pyare were to be approached by the Atwals, the likelihood is that the Panj Pyare would refuse to hear them as their crime is for the state to prosecute. Offenders offer Pesh when they have infringed the Rehat. Does a person stop being a Muslim just because he or she has committed a crime?

There is no doubt that in a Sikh state the case would be the same and in all likelihood going by how historically Sikhs in power have dealt with capital offences, they would also have been jailed instead of being killed.

The major problem with these kinds of 'divine' laws is that in the end they will end up being used to regulate everything that occurs. The Taliban used to flog people for not attending the Mosque at prayer times. The Iranian authorities stop women whose Hijab is too loose and does not cover all their hair. This leads to the ridiculous state of affairs where people need to be be told how many stones to wash their butts with after they go to the bog or that it is best they sit when going for a leak, or what prayer to say when they go to the bog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys keep ignoring the fact that much of sharia came about in response to new issues after the passing of Prophet Mohammed. so it's manmade like most other law in the universe.

Apparently it's blasphemous to consider this.

When you look at how long it took for these laws to be formulated after Mohammed's passing, (in the 10th Hijri century, the Shiites of Iran managed to form the first religious government, which was run by the Safawite Dynasty) it's clear that they were anything but divine.

As I said before, some of the Fatawah issued by the Ayatollahs in recent times are anything but divine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the funniest things I have ever read is that in Sharia law for a crime of adultery to be proven the best evidence is of four witnesses saw the act (yes, I mean the act and not the two offenders in bed having a cigarette afterwards!) in progress. One can wander what kind of society Islam envisages where 4 witnesses can actually see the act take place. This is due to an event that took place when Aisha, Mohammed's child bride was left behind when she went to relieve herself and the caravan left without her. A young Arab whose name I forget discovered her later and took her to Medina. There were a lot of rumours about what might have taken place between the two, Islamic view of self control being that if a man and a woman are alone together they inevitably end up in bed together. Mohammed was at his wits end so lo and behold Allah sends him a verse about charges of adultery needing four witness and if they cannot provide four witnesses then these charges are false! Mohammed's attempt to protect his honour from these rumours have led to thousands of Muslim women being charged with adultery because they cannot provide four for rape!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

singho can you clarify this statement you made?

I know enough of Gurbani to be aware of the extent of what passes for the corpus of something that's supposed to be a coherent Sikh liturgy but which has been shown many times on this forum to be not much more than a collection of hearsay. None of this, shall we say, 'archive', contains anything remotely resembling a judicial system.

are you implying that gurbani is not much more than collection of hearsay???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our new and eager self appointed dai friends seem to be missing the crux of their transparent agenda, let me remind you:

"Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! thy Lord is best aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright."

But not according to Batman and Robin, they seem to have had a mystical vision blessing them with the gift of knowing who strayeth from his way.

"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."

Beautiful preaching.... blatently blasphemising the Holy Guru's and the Jagdi Jyot, and ridiculing as many aspects of this 'life' giving path as they can find... I think not.

You are not able minded, cultured, compassionate, educated, experienced, disciplined and 'God-Aware' enough to defend, preach or promote Islam.

From Mu’min to Muslim, from self appointed experts in Batin to Zahiris.

Jokers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question Bahadur, you had a vast knowledge on Hindu Dharam at a point in time.

The sakhis of Ganka and Ajaamal were committed adultary but later due to reciting the name of God their sins were vanquished.

What about Ahuliya who was duped into sex with Indar Devta when he assumed the form of Rishi Gautam

Under Islamic law i am guessing they would have been stoned. They never would have had the opportunity to repent their actions and worship the lord if they were killed?

If Sharia law was implemented at the time would you have stoned them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to our confused heretical friend Singho (maybe it's time you updated your username, as it's pretty stupid using Guru's gift (please don't claim your a Rajput) and then blasphemising against the same Guru.

In any case, as you seem to have lost the plot as to what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji represents, I think this beautiful shabd should rekindle some memories (if there are any in the first place), reminisce and enjoy...

ਭੈਰਉ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥

ਵਰਤ ਨ ਰਹਉ ਨ ਮਹ ਰਮਦਾਨਾ ॥

ਤਿਸੁ ਸੇਵੀ ਜੋ ਰਖੈ ਨਿਦਾਨਾ ॥੧॥

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥

ਏਕੋ ਸੇਵੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ॥੨॥

ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਉ ਨ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਉ ॥

ਏਕ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਉ ॥੩॥

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥

ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹੁ ਕੀਆ ਵਖਾਨਾ ॥

ਗੁਰ ਪੀਰ ਮਿਲਿ ਖੁਦਿ ਖਸਮੁ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥੫॥੩॥

Oh, and you may want to reflect on the 'over-fixation' of sharia according to Guru Ji:

ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥

ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨਾ ਸਿਫਤਿ ਸਰੀਅਤਿ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

ਬੰਦੇ ਸੇ ਜਿ ਪਵਹਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਬੰਦੀ ਵੇਖਣ ਕਉ ਦੀਦਾਰੁ ॥

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਾਲਾਹਨਿ ਦਰਸਨਿ ਰੂਪਿ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥

ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨਾਵਹਿ ਅਰਚਾ ਪੂਜਾ ਅਗਰ ਵਾਸੁ ਬਹਕਾਰੁ ॥

ਜੋਗੀ ਸੁੰਨਿ ਧਿਆਵਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਜੇਤੇ ਅਲਖ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ॥

ਸੂਖਮ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨ ਕਾਇਆ ਕਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥

ਸਤੀਆ ਮਨਿ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਉਪਜੈ ਦੇਣੈ ਕੈ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥

ਦੇ ਦੇ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਸਹਸਾ ਗੂਣਾ ਸੋਭ ਕਰੇ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥

ਚੋਰਾ ਜਾਰਾ ਤੈ ਕੂੜਿਆਰਾ ਖਾਰਾਬਾ ਵੇਕਾਰ ॥

ਇਕਿ ਹੋਦਾ ਖਾਇ ਚਲਹਿ ਐਥਾਊ ਤਿਨਾ ਭਿ ਕਾਈ ਕਾਰ ॥

ਜਲਿ ਥਲਿ ਜੀਆ ਪੁਰੀਆ ਲੋਆ ਆਕਾਰਾ ਆਕਾਰ ॥

ਓਇ ਜਿ ਆਖਹਿ ਸੁ ਤੂੰਹੈ ਜਾਣਹਿ ਤਿਨਾ ਭਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਸਾਰ ॥

ਨਾਨਕ ਭਗਤਾ ਭੁਖ ਸਾਲਾਹਣੁ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਆਧਾਰੁ ॥

ਸਦਾ ਅਨੰਦਿ ਰਹਹਿ ਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਤੀ ਗੁਣਵੰਤਿਆ ਪਾ ਛਾਰੁ ॥੧॥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"divine law" :From Ayatollah Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh":

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”

Incredibly, it gets worse....

O Rasoolallah, what have they done to your religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bhagat Kabir Ji: Vedas or Quran

Does Khuda, live only in the mosque?

Is Ram, only in idols and holy grounds?

Have you searched and found Him there?

You imagine that Hari is in the East, and Allah is in the West;

But search for Him only in the heart-that is where Ram and Karim both live.

Which, then, is false, the Quran or the Vedas? False is the man who does not see the Truth.

It is One; It is the same One in all. How can you imagine that It is two?

Says Kabir: 0 Lord, every man and every woman are Your own forms;

I am the simple child of Allah-Ram; He is my Guru, my Pir

Brother, where did your two gods come from? Ram, Allah; Keshav, Karim; Hari, Hazrat-so many names!

There may be many golden ornaments, but there is one gold; it has no two-ness in it.

Merely for the sake of exposition, we make of the One, two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"divine law" :From Ayatollah Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh":

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.â€

Incredibly, it gets worse....

O Rasoolallah, what have they done to your religion?

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be nam-e Khoda

Tonyhp32 wrote:

SHAHJI sitting at his laptop defrauds a bank of £100 million. The crime isn't witnessed by anyone (ok, accepted that the rules of Sharia law might very well be stretched to the limits and anyone who sees the audit trail many months later can be deemed to have 'witnessed' the crime). But in true Sharia law it has to be eyewitnesses. Meanwhile in some Saudi Arabian town Singho, steals a loaf of bread in full view of over 10 witnesses. In his bag are a few more loaves of bread which be had brought earlier. Now who will get the worst punishment according to 'divine' Sharia law? ie amputation.

It would be poor Singho who would get his lamb amputated because his crime was witnessed and he had no dire need for the bread. As SHAHJI sitting at his computer was not witnessed taking the money then he would not have his limb amputated. Sharia might well be stretched to provide for witnesses who examined the audit trail. This in itself presents a problem, if only one person examined the audit trail then he would still keep his limbs but if 2 people examined it then he will lose his limb. How arbitary is that for a 'divine' law! As Singho said

Tonyhp32 yet again demonstrates his utter ignorance of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). I fail to see what he means by "true Sharia law" when he means that only eyewitnesses can be used for a case of fraud. Fiqh works with usul e fiqh that are applied, it's their application that may know adaption to changing circumstances. The audit trail would suffice as evidence.

As for Singho stealing bread:

- if he is a sane mature adult

- steals in full knowledge that the stolen property is not his

- steals out of greed NOT out of necessity or hunger

he is guilty.

If he steals because of economic conditions (misery, hunger, feeding his family) a mild sentence will be given.

As for "Shahji" diverting 100 million dollars he will be sentenced to having his fingers cut off.

All religions? It might well be true of the Abrahamic religions but not all religions. Someone commits adultery and they automatically get stoned to death! Now let's have a look at adultery and fornication. If a woman is unmarried and she has sex then she is given just 100 lashes, if she was married it would be stoning to death. How is that a good example to society as you asked? Isn't it encouraging for unmarried women to sleep around but stop when they get married? is this the reason for the high rate of hymen restoration operations amongst Muslim women? How about the trust she has broken of the parents? It's ridiculous to treat the pre-marital relationships much more lightly than adultery.

The punishments you speak of are for both genders! There is a legal difference between fornication and adultery hence why the punishment is different for both. 100 lashes is the punishment for both genders. Islamic law ordains the executioner's hand to be burdened by a quran attached to it so that the lashes have a more psychologically humiliating function rather than a physical one.

There is no emphasis on admission of guilt.

Utterly false! In crimes such as adultery and fornication admission of guilt is a necessary condition for a sentence to be applied. This has been illustrated recently by the Zahra Ebrahimi case. This Iranian actresses' boyfriend filmed them whilst having sex. Somehow the file got public. The boyfriend is in prison whilst Zahra Ebrahimi escaped the sentence of 100 lashes by stating that she is not the person on the tape and that it would be another girl using makeup to look like her.

The things which you try and use to prove Sikhism as inferior are the very ones which are its strengths. It's not a religion of vengence and retribution. Your way of stoning may give the husband some sense of contentment that she who betrayed him has been killed but in the spiritual sense such a attitude just leads to the hardening of the heart.

You talk of justice in your mickey mouse legal system but what about the blood money for a murder. Blood money for non-Muslims is on a downward graded scale. It is the maximum for a Muslim man, less for a Muslim woman, even less for Dhimmis like Christians and Jews and less than that for their women etc. Only a fool would consider this to be justice.

One of the beauties of one of the Abrahamic faiths, in this case Christianity is Jesus saying 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. It is impossible for someone brought up in or converting to a religion that believes in retribution for an offence to understand the beauty of this simple saying. Sikhism also has a similar attitude. 'Bhullan andar sabhko Abhul Guru Kartar' everyone is liable to make mistake only the Guru and Creator is without error.

I doubt there is anything of the beauty of the above two sayings in Islam. But then that is why most believing Christians tend to be great loving people and Sikhs take part is so much sewa in the community. Unfortunately Muslims distinguish themselves in the field of blowing their fellow beings to kingdom come!

You might want to take a look at Christian law before the 17th century.It draws its system from Judaic and Roman law. Adulterers, homosexuals etc were punished in accordance to Old Testament standards (which give different sentences to men and women). The recent "mild" aspect of Christianity is the result of the Church's tactical retreat from the legal sphere. Your anecdotal reference to "nice Christian" people is not an argument. Nice people exist everywhere.

I think you are getting confused here. The Panj Pyare will pronounce on tankah for a number of infringements the major ones being, adultery, cutting hair, eating halal or using tobacco. In your haste to find fault with Sikhism you are comparing a religion with a faulty 7th century legal structure with a religion in which law is left to the state to legislate on whether the state is Sikh or not. Kurimaars are automatically socially boycotted as are people who associate with them. If as you state the Panj Pyare were to be approached by the Atwals, the likelihood is that the Panj Pyare would refuse to hear them as their crime is for the state to prosecute. Offenders offer Pesh when they have infringed the Rehat. Does a person stop being a Muslim just because he or she has committed a crime?

There is no doubt that in a Sikh state the case would be the same and in all likelihood going by how historically Sikhs in power have dealt with capital offences, they would also have been jailed instead of being killed.

Again wrong. There is the famous case of Jassa Singh Ramgharia accused of kurimar and later on reintegrated in the Sikh community.

In the sentence "he likelihood is that the Panj Pyare would refuse to hear them as their crime is for the state to prosecute"

likelihood? Does it mean you don't know? How would a citizen in Sikh state be able to live based on "likelihood"?

Is it to the secular state to prosecute them? What happened to "Raj Karega Khalsa" and "Miri/Piri". Sikhism in its modern form emphasizes on the union of spiritual and political power. In a Sikh state which you and your brother wish to bring into existence this principle should be applied. The question is: what judiciary would that state have? based on which divinely revealed laws?

The Iranian authorities stop women whose Hijab is too loose and does not cover all their hair.

I have seen it myself in Tehran. The girl or boy (yes guys as well) get stopped and get told to dress modestly with no major consequence. Only rarely does the police intervene to please some radicals from time to time. And even so all you'll get is sermon by some police officer. One of my friend's sister went through that. The imposition of hijab for both men and women is one of the points of discussion among faqihs as theoretically speaking there is no justification for imposing it. Nevertheless the imposition of hijab was done for social and cultural reasons.

Talibans beating up women who don't wear chadri or people who don't pray concerns me as much as Khalistanis shooting Sikh female school teachers in the head for wearing a bindi or a sari. Barbarity has no religion.

Matheen wrote:

When you look at how long it took for these laws to be formulated after Mohammed's passing, (in the 10th Hijri century, the Shiites of Iran managed to form the first religious government, which was run by the Safawite Dynasty) it's clear that they were anything but divine.

As I said before, some of the Fatawah issued by the Ayatollahs in recent times are anything but divine.

Jafari fiqh was established well before the rise of the Safavids and its history is well documented and it clear that it was established during the life time of our Imams (as). Your point is hence void.

One of the funniest things I have ever read is that in Sharia law for a crime of adultery to be proven the best evidence is of four witnesses saw the act (yes, I mean the act and not the two offenders in bed having a cigarette afterwards!) in progress. One can wander what kind of society Islam envisages where 4 witnesses can actually see the act take place. This is due to an event that took place when Aisha, Mohammed's child bride was left behind when she went to relieve herself and the caravan left without her. A young Arab whose name I forget discovered her later and took her to Medina. There were a lot of rumours about what might have taken place between the two, Islamic view of self control being that if a man and a woman are alone together they inevitably end up in bed together. Mohammed was at his wits end so lo and behold Allah sends him a verse about charges of adultery needing four witness and if they cannot provide four witnesses then these charges are false! Mohammed's attempt to protect his honour from these rumours have led to thousands of Muslim women being charged with adultery because they cannot provide four for rape!

Aisha was 19-20 when she married the Prophet (pbuh) not 9, which is based on a weak hadith in Sunni books.

Aisha's sister was 10 years older than her and died 100 yo il the year 73 of hijra. This means that in the year of hijra Aisha was 17. She married the Prophet (pbuh) on the 2nd year of hijra which means she was 19-20. She also participated in the battles against the Mekkans where only those above 15 yo were allowed to fight.

Yes tonyhp32 , Islam deals with reality and the reality is that most people are weak. The mixing of people of opposed genders who are unrelated is seen as having the potential of bringing about sins of adultery, fornication or rape.

As usual your assumption that four witnesses are necessary to prove rape is false. Other proofs such as DNA tests or other forms of proof would be used. Some countries nevertheless it is true have not harmonized their legal system on that question. But then again the issue of rape victims and the law exists on non-Muslim countries as well. The punishment for rape is death. Most Shi'a faqih will agree that physical proof is sufficient. The use of witnesses of limited to adultery and fornication cases.

shaheediyan wrote:

Our new and eager self appointed dai friends seem to be missing the crux of their transparent agenda, let me remind you:

"Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! thy Lord is best aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright."

But not according to Batman and Robin, they seem to have had a mystical vision blessing them with the gift of knowing who strayeth from his way.

"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."

Beautiful preaching.... blatently blasphemising the Holy Guru's and the Jagdi Jyot, and ridiculing as many aspects of this 'life' giving path as they can find... I think not.

You are not able minded, cultured, compassionate, educated, experienced, disciplined and 'God-Aware' enough to defend, preach or promote Islam.

From Mu’min to Muslim, from self appointed experts in Batin to Zahiris.

Jokers.

Islam is a complete system with an esoteric and an exoteric aspect. Jallaluddin Rumi (ra) was a great mystic but also a great Islamic judge and specialist of jurisprudence. Islam emphasizes the harmony between bothe aspects.

Kam1825 wrote:

One question Bahadur, you had a vast knowledge on Hindu Dharam at a point in time.

The sakhis of Ganka and Ajaamal were committed adultary but later due to reciting the name of God their sins were vanquished.

What about Ahuliya who was duped into sex with Indar Devta when he assumed the form of Rishi Gautam

Under Islamic law i am guessing they would have been stoned. They never would have had the opportunity to repent their actions and worship the lord if they were killed?

If Sharia law was implemented at the time would you have stoned them?

Indian religions is still my field...

You are mixing mythology and law. Indian religions have the dharma shastras to decide such matters. The dharma shastras punish the adulterous woman (not the man) with being eaten alive by dogs or having her nose chopped off.The man faces exclusion from his caste unless he undergoes a purification ceremony. The sentence may be harsher depending on the caste of the offenders.

Even Rama chops the nose of Shurpanaka for trying to seduce him in the Ramayana.

You are also mixing spirituality and law. Repentance of a rapist does not equal justice for the victim and society. Justice has to be administered for the crime committed. Whatever the criminal may undergo spiritually is between him/her and Allah (swt) and has no bearing on jurisprudential matters.

shaheedyan wrote:

In response to our confused heretical friend Singho (maybe it's time you updated your username, as it's pretty stupid using Guru's gift (please don't claim your a Rajput) and then blasphemising against the same Guru.

In any case, as you seem to have lost the plot as to what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji represents, I think this beautiful shabd should rekindle some memories (if there are any in the first place), reminisce and enjoy...

ਭੈਰਉ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥

ਵਰਤ ਨ ਰਹਉ ਨ ਮਹ ਰਮਦਾਨਾ ॥

ਤਿਸੁ ਸੇਵੀ ਜੋ ਰਖੈ ਨਿਦਾਨਾ ॥੧॥

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥

ਏਕੋ ਸੇਵੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ॥੨॥

ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਉ ਨ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਉ ॥

ਏਕ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਉ ॥੩॥

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥

ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹੁ ਕੀਆ ਵਖਾਨਾ ॥

ਗੁਰ ਪੀਰ ਮਿਲਿ ਖੁਦਿ ਖਸਮੁ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥੫॥੩॥

Oh, and you may want to reflect on the 'over-fixation' of sharia according to Guru Ji:

ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥

ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨਾ ਸਿਫਤਿ ਸਰੀਅਤਿ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

ਬੰਦੇ ਸੇ ਜਿ ਪਵਹਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਬੰਦੀ ਵੇਖਣ ਕਉ ਦੀਦਾਰੁ ॥

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਾਲਾਹਨਿ ਦਰਸਨਿ ਰੂਪਿ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥

ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨਾਵਹਿ ਅਰਚਾ ਪੂਜਾ ਅਗਰ ਵਾਸੁ ਬਹਕਾਰੁ ॥

ਜੋਗੀ ਸੁੰਨਿ ਧਿਆਵਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਜੇਤੇ ਅਲਖ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ॥

ਸੂਖਮ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨ ਕਾਇਆ ਕਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥

ਸਤੀਆ ਮਨਿ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਉਪਜੈ ਦੇਣੈ ਕੈ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥

ਦੇ ਦੇ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਸਹਸਾ ਗੂਣਾ ਸੋਭ ਕਰੇ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥

ਚੋਰਾ ਜਾਰਾ ਤੈ ਕੂੜਿਆਰਾ ਖਾਰਾਬਾ ਵੇਕਾਰ ॥

ਇਕਿ ਹੋਦਾ ਖਾਇ ਚਲਹਿ ਐਥਾਊ ਤਿਨਾ ਭਿ ਕਾਈ ਕਾਰ ॥

ਜਲਿ ਥਲਿ ਜੀਆ ਪੁਰੀਆ ਲੋਆ ਆਕਾਰਾ ਆਕਾਰ ॥

ਓਇ ਜਿ ਆਖਹਿ ਸੁ ਤੂੰਹੈ ਜਾਣਹਿ ਤਿਨਾ ਭਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਸਾਰ ॥

ਨਾਨਕ ਭਗਤਾ ਭੁਖ ਸਾਲਾਹਣੁ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਆਧਾਰੁ ॥

ਸਦਾ ਅਨੰਦਿ ਰਹਹਿ ਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਤੀ ਗੁਣਵੰਤਿਆ ਪਾ ਛਾਰੁ ॥੧॥

The Rag Bhairo card has been played to many times...

This shabad is practically identical to numerous other Sufi poems by people such as Rumi or Baba Tahir:

I am neither a Muslim,a Christian, a Hindu or a Jew etc etc

My true religion is love etc etc

The expression of a mystical station where the spirit reaches a state of intense love is NOT a statement about socio-religious identity, especially when there are numerous precedent poems stating the same by inspired Sufis who still kept the shari'a. Mixing these two levels is a mistake.

Matheen wrote:

"divine law" :From Ayatollah Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh":

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.â€

Incredibly, it gets worse....

If it's shock and surprise you wanted to bring about, then I am sorry missed your point.

There are numerous such fatwas and they have a context: hypothetical situations.

Fiqh implies the use of ijtihad based on the usul e fiqh, these have to be applied to all kinds of situations. Very often students of fiqh are tested on improbable situations to see if they have mastered the principles of jurisprudence. Some of these improbable cases are quite X rated in content but then again you have to spice up such a dry subject like fiqh.

A test situation I was showed by a cleric friend was the following:

A man has intercourse with his 1st wife. She then has illegal lesbian intercourse with her co-wife and impregnates her with the sperm in her womb. It is the 2nd wife who gets pregnant. The question is: is the child legitimate or not?

The untrained will only focus on the typical lesbian fantasy not paying attention to the fact that this a case where one has to look into the principles of inheritance law.

After examination of the case the scholar takes a decision also called fatwa.

Fatwa does not equal divine law, it is a decision NOT the principles of law themselves. The great mistake is to confuse the legal and ethical spheres. Both are related but both cannot be confused.

For example divorce is allowed but is ethically not considered good.

The hypothetical cases Matheen has quoted exist in most fiqh books and there is nothing to be ashamed of it as they are the equivalent of difficult and tricky mathematic exercises. As for the X rated content, I challenge you to study fiqh for more than 6 months without trying to spice your subject up.

It's been a pleasure as usual gentlemen

kind regards

Bahadur Ali Shah

a1-maryam-moghadas10.jpg

Ya Maryam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHAHJI,

As always you conceal more than you reveal. On the penalties for theft you glossed over the inconsistencies that I wanted to highlight.

Singho would have his right had amputated for the theft of stealing a loaf of bread under the 'divine' law. SHAHJI having stolen £100 million would at best get FOUR fingers amputated on his right hand under the same 'divine' law. This shows how varied the ways are that so-called divine law is implemented.

The fact that the Church and the Jews do not stone homosexuals and adulterers means that they moved away from the vindictive Abrahamic God and their civilisation has advanced.

My admission of guilt comment was to do with the emphasis on reformation which begins with an admission of guilt. An admission of guilt in Sikhism is the first stage towards reformation, in Islam an admission in usually the final stage before a stoning! The Ebrahimi woman's 'paris hilton moment' raises more evidence of the idiotcy of Sharia law. She is free because she has not admitted guilt making the excuse that it is someone else. The man in the tape has admitted it is him and that he had had a mu'ta marriage with her at that time.lol. Do they need soap operas in Iran when real life is so much more interesting!

I have seen it myself in Tehran. The girl or boy (yes guys as well) get stopped and get told to dress modestly with no major consequence. Only rarely does the police intervene to please some radicals from time to time. And even so all you'll get is sermon by some police officer. One of my friend's sister went through that. The imposition of hijab for both men and women is one of the points of discussion among faqihs as theoretically speaking there is no justification for imposing it. Nevertheless the imposition of hijab was done for social and cultural reasons.

I see that you never take off your rose tinted spectacles when it comes to Islam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PGw2sfwiTo...feature=related

Although some women do fight back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF7RD3dHU_I

Again wrong. There is the famous case of Jassa Singh Ramgharia accused of kurimar and later on reintegrated in the Sikh community.

In the sentence "he likelihood is that the Panj Pyare would refuse to hear them as their crime is for the state to prosecute"

likelihood? Does it mean you don't know? How would a citizen in Sikh state be able to live based on "likelihood"?

Is it to the secular state to prosecute them? What happened to "Raj Karega Khalsa" and "Miri/Piri". Sikhism in its modern form emphasizes on the union of spiritual and political power. In a Sikh state which you and your brother wish to bring into existence this principle should be applied. The question is: what judiciary would that state have? based on which divinely revealed laws?

You are confusing two different situations. In the present day UK a couple who admit to the Panj Pyare that they killed their daughter in law, I said that the likelihood is that the Panj Pyare may refuse to hear the case because it is one that in the UK is dealt with by a secular authority. Would that be the same case for a Muslim? If a Muslim approaches one of the mickey mouse Sharia courts set up in UK would they try him under Sharia? Of course not.

The case of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia is well known. It took place during a time when the Sikhs were at war against the tyrannical Mughals so there was no recourse to a secular authority. The case was dealt with by social boycott. You keep on mentioning that the Khalsa is both Spiritual and Temporal in relation to there being no Sikh courts such as Sharia court but throughout history the Sikhs have seen no need to devise a set of laws which would replace those of the state. This is because unlike Islam, Sikhism like most of the modern world believe that a person who resides in a particular state should be governed by the laws of that state. The only proviso is that if the laws of that state are in any way against the practice of Sikhism. Then it is incumbent on that Sikh to try and get that law changed such as was done in the UK 30 odd years ago and as it being attempted in France.

In relation to Khalistan, the legal system will be one in line with Sikhism, ie equal rights for all, equality for me and women etc. Such a legal system will mirror most of what is available in the West. I doubt that homosexuals and adulterers will be stoned or thrown off mountains as some retrograde legal systems do.

Aisha was 19-20 when she married the Prophet (pbuh) not 9, which is based on a weak hadith in Sunni books.

Aisha's sister was 10 years older than her and died 100 yo il the year 73 of hijra. This means that in the year of hijra Aisha was 17. She married the Prophet (pbuh) on the 2nd year of hijra which means she was 19-20. She also participated in the battles against the Mekkans where only those above 15 yo were allowed to fight.

Yes tonyhp32 , Islam deals with reality and the reality is that most people are weak. The mixing of people of opposed genders who are unrelated is seen as having the potential of bringing about sins of adultery, fornication or rape.

As usual your assumption that four witnesses are necessary to prove rape is false. Other proofs such as DNA tests or other forms of proof would be used. Some countries nevertheless it is true have not harmonized their legal system on that question. But then again the issue of rape victims and the law exists on non-Muslim countries as well. The punishment for rape is death. Most Shi'a faqih will agree that physical proof is sufficient. The use of witnesses of limited to adultery and fornication cases.

If you want to believe that Aisha was 19 then that is your right, the majority of Muslims believe the Hadiths that you claim are weak. Your knowledge seems to geared towards what you wish to be the truth rather what is the truth. Didn't Khomeini lower the age of marriage for girls to nine? I wonder which 'weak' hadith he got that from?

So having the potential is enough for mixing to be excluded? So let me ask you, when you are back in Europe, at work if you are alone with a woman with whom you work, do you automatically walk out? Do you ask for other people to be present? That kind of thinking might have been relevant in the 7th century when women were kept in the house all day but in the modern it just shows how outdated your belief system has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I challenge you to study fiqh for more than 6 months without trying to spice your subject up."

What a pathetic defence. I studied a 'much' moreboring degree for 3 years, and even more boring post grad, I didn't need to resort to these levels of obsenity to 'spice' up my subject, pathetic.

In any case, kindly comment on the other shabd I posted and reply to my hypothetical questions posed to you and your friend.

"The expression of a mystical station where the spirit reaches a state of intense love is NOT a statement about socio-religious identity, especially when there are numerous precedent poems stating the same by inspired Sufis who still kept the shari'a. Mixing these two levels is a mistake."

Rubbish. Rumi Sahib's father was the expert in Jurisprudence, Rumi Sahib recieved spiritual enlightenment after his destiny brought him in touch with Shams, who was no follower of Sharia.

Also, Bhagat Kabir Ji's words should not be taken so out of context, yes they were also a statement of religious identity, an identity and truth that is above evolving man made laws and restrictions. Same goes for Rumi Sahib, anyone other unbiased intellectual would find your thinking laughable.

Mixing the 2 levels is not a mistake, because as clearly shown in the shabd - Islam and Hinduism (to use the terms loosely) were no longer achieving the aim of God-realisation (in India anyway), as is echoed in many other shabd in sacred and divine Gurbani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bahadur is that last photo of the divine Miriyam from the Iranian film about Miriyam and the birth of Isa. If so have you got a link to the video. i watched it once at a theatre and thought it was great

If you have a link please share it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be nam'e Khoda

SHAHJI,

As always you conceal more than you reveal. On the penalties for theft you glossed over the inconsistencies that I wanted to highlight.

Singho would have his right had amputated for the theft of stealing a loaf of bread under the 'divine' law. SHAHJI having stolen £100 million would at best get FOUR fingers amputated on his right hand under the same 'divine' law. This shows how varied the ways are that so-called divine law is implemented.

The fact that the Church and the Jews do not stone homosexuals and adulterers means that they moved away from the vindictive Abrahamic God and their civilisation has advanced.

My admission of guilt comment was to do with the emphasis on reformation which begins with an admission of guilt. An admission of guilt in Sikhism is the first stage towards reformation, in Islam an admission in usually the final stage before a stoning! The Ebrahimi woman's 'paris hilton moment' raises more evidence of the idiotcy of Sharia law. She is free because she has not admitted guilt making the excuse that it is someone else. The man in the tape has admitted it is him and that he had had a mu'ta marriage with her at that time.lol. Do they need soap operas in Iran when real life is so much more interesting!

I have proven that your assumptions regarding this case were completely false. The gross caricature you present shows how little you know about Islamic jurisprudence.

Your assumptions about Jewish law are ridiculous. Jewish law has not changed at all. Just because it isn't implemented doesn't mean that they renounced it. Your argument about modernity simply doesn't make sense.

I see that you never take off your rose tinted spectacles when it comes to Islam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PGw2sfwiTo...feature=related

Although some women do fight back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF7RD3dHU_I

These videos are famous and everyone knows them. You wanted to surprise me? We're talking about law here not sensational videos taken with a mobile where we don't even know what's really going on.

You are confusing two different situations. In the present day UK a couple who admit to the Panj Pyare that they killed their daughter in law, I said that the likelihood is that the Panj Pyare may refuse to hear the case because it is one that in the UK is dealt with by a secular authority. Would that be the same case for a Muslim? If a Muslim approaches one of the mickey mouse Sharia courts set up in UK would they try him under Sharia? Of course not.

The case of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia is well known. It took place during a time when the Sikhs were at war against the tyrannical Mughals so there was no recourse to a secular authority. The case was dealt with by social boycott. You keep on mentioning that the Khalsa is both Spiritual and Temporal in relation to there being no Sikh courts such as Sharia court but throughout history the Sikhs have seen no need to devise a set of laws which would replace those of the state. This is because unlike Islam, Sikhism like most of the modern world believe that a person who resides in a particular state should be governed by the laws of that state. The only proviso is that if the laws of that state are in any way against the practice of Sikhism. Then it is incumbent on that Sikh to try and get that law changed such as was done in the UK 30 odd years ago and as it being attempted in France.

In relation to Khalistan, the legal system will be one in line with Sikhism, ie equal rights for all, equality for me and women etc. Such a legal system will mirror most of what is available in the West. I doubt that homosexuals and adulterers will be stoned or thrown off mountains as some retrograde legal systems do.

Thank you for confirming yet again that despite your claims of Miri and Piri you have no judiciary system at all. Great!

If you want to believe that Aisha was 19 then that is your right, the majority of Muslims believe the Hadiths that you claim are weak. Your knowledge seems to geared towards what you wish to be the truth rather what is the truth. Didn't Khomeini lower the age of marriage for girls to nine? I wonder which 'weak' hadith he got that from?

I am not chosing to believe these historical and mathematical facts. If ignorant peasants in Morocco or Pakistan still believe that Sunni tradition that's their problem and their ulemas'. The facts I presented are undisputed.

As to the age of marriage being set to nine in Iran, it is a point of discussion depending on the view of marriage. Ayatollah Sanai and the reformist government set it to 13. The discussion at hand is the relation between marriage and the age of reason and physical maturity. Imam Khomeini (ra) thought that marriage does not necessarily imply intercourse and that it is better for a woman and a man to be in a fixed marriage right from the age of puberty so as to strengthen the bonds of faithfulness and avoid exterior temptations. According to his idea a girl would be married at 9 and grow up with her husband until she reaches puberty where only then intercourse would take place.

Then again the Sikh Gurus themselves married at a very early age. Guru Har Rai for example was married at the age of 10. In Iran this is a rare practice as is polygamy.

So having the potential is enough for mixing to be excluded? So let me ask you, when you are back in Europe, at work if you are alone with a woman with whom you work, do you automatically walk out? Do you ask for other people to be present? That kind of thinking might have been relevant in the 7th century when women were kept in the house all day but in the modern it just shows how outdated your belief system has become.

Your comment about Muslm women at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) remaining at home is again another lie. We have famous cases of women fighting in battle and being professionally active.

As for being alone with a woman at work it's simple, I follow the sexual harassment guidelines and I leave the door open. Simple isn't it?

Shaheediyan wrote:

"I challenge you to study fiqh for more than 6 months without trying to spice your subject up."

What a pathetic defence. I studied a 'much' moreboring degree for 3 years, and even more boring post grad, I didn't need to resort to these levels of obsenity to 'spice' up my subject, pathetic.

In any case, kindly comment on the other shabd I posted and reply to my hypothetical questions posed to you and your friend.

"The expression of a mystical station where the spirit reaches a state of intense love is NOT a statement about socio-religious identity, especially when there are numerous precedent poems stating the same by inspired Sufis who still kept the shari'a. Mixing these two levels is a mistake."

Rubbish. Rumi Sahib's father was the expert in Jurisprudence, Rumi Sahib recieved spiritual enlightenment after his destiny brought him in touch with Shams, who was no follower of Sharia.

Also, Bhagat Kabir Ji's words should not be taken so out of context, yes they were also a statement of religious identity, an identity and truth that is above evolving man made laws and restrictions. Same goes for Rumi Sahib, anyone other unbiased intellectual would find your thinking laughable.

Mixing the 2 levels is not a mistake, because as clearly shown in the shabd - Islam and Hinduism (to use the terms loosely) were no longer achieving the aim of God-realisation (in India anyway), as is echoed in many other shabd in sacred and divine Gurbani.

Well your statements about Rumi (ra) are in full blown contradiction with what the leading Rumi experts such as Annemarie Schimmel and Sayyid Hossein Nasr say. Rumi was a faqih as well and this is very clear from his Fihi ma fihi. There is not an ounce of proof that Shams had renounced shari'a at all and it is very clear from Rumi's writings that following shari'a is a necessity on the spiritual path.

Kam1825 wrote:

Bahadur is that last photo of the divine Miriyam from the Iranian film about Miriyam and the birth of Isa. If so have you got a link to the video. i watched it once at a theatre and thought it was great

If you have a link please share it

Here is the link to the torrent file. Enjoy.

http://www.mininova.org/tor/870255

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's shock and surprise you wanted to bring about, then I am sorry missed your point.

There are numerous such fatwas and they have a context: hypothetical situations.

Fiqh implies the use of ijtihad based on the usul e fiqh, these have to be applied to all kinds of situations. Very often students of fiqh are tested on improbable situations to see if they have mastered the principles of jurisprudence. Some of these improbable cases are quite X rated in content but then again you have to spice up such a dry subject like fiqh.

It says " A man CAN......" not "what happens if....." The Farsi and Arabic versions say the same.

Back to the original point about jurisprudence and Sikhi -

If you read the works of Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and all other top scholars, it is crystal clear that Sharia developed in response to the needs of a community that found themselves (took) control of the land and needed a system of jurisprudence. It developed over centuries, helped by far-sighted leaders who founded universities for the subject. It is not a revealed system. Guidance is taken from the Holy Quran, but it is very much a man-made system based on the interpretation of fallible men that came about AFTER they took control of the land.

Yes, the 6th Imam - how many years after the passing of the Prophet?

Almost every tribe in history from the Nandi in East Africa to the tribes of Papua New Guinea to Arabs in the Middle East developed written or oral systems of jurisprudence as a matter of necessity.

If there ever is a 'Sikh state' then a system will develop, hopefully based on Maharaj Ji's teachings.

The example of the Ayatollah's Fatwa was to show that in religious based jurisprudence, as opposed to secular systems, morality can not be separated from jurisprudence. In the example I gave, no punishment is stipulated for the man. But that is a whole new topic.

One more : From Ayatollah Khomeini, from Tahrir-ol-Vasyleh,

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

This is an interpretation of Sharia by a Grand Ayatollah (the word means "Sign of God"), a Marja al-Taqlid and developer of velayat-e-faqih (guardianship of the jurisconsult). It shows that Sharia in its current form is not 'divine'.

Many clerics recommend using the concept of Islamic jurisprudence in performind D'awa when trying to convert people. The sad thing is that most people only find out the truth when it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...