tonyhp32

Don't worry about the Sikh families in Iran. Maharaj is there to protect them. No doubt Bahadur spreading his hate in Iran will come as no surprise but the Iranian have more pressing problems to deal with like their country being bombed to the stone age by the 'evil' Zionists and 'yankees' in the near future!

Shaheediyan, As I don't personally have neither the time nor the inclination to have 'darshan' of someone who subverts the message of the Gurus, could you ask our friend to stop spreading his lies about the Gurus as alluded to in the thread below http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...pic.php?t=10194

Nice pictures but the disturbing bit and one which shows the mentality of that part of the world is the ones where women are being tortured in Hell for the 'crime' of showing strangers their hair or going out of the house without their husbands permission. People might be able to paint beautiful paintings but still they remain barbarians tied to a 7th century desert religion.

Shaheediyan I have to disagree on one point with you. The eating of pork was not a test to find out whether a convert from Islam who wanted to join the Khalsa was a spy or not. The Khalsa of that time knew exactly how the Muslims behave and they knew that a Muslim can LIE as well as do things which are against Islam if forced to do so. This pretty much negates your argument about the eating of pork being a voluntary act of a convert. Another factor is that living in the jungles of Punjab, wild boar would have been one of the prized meats of the Khalsa. Eating of pork was a powerful symbol of the convert leaving his previous faith. If that hurts Bahadur's sensibilities and causes him to throw his toys out of his pram then so be it. As for Bahadur, he is a liar as always and totally suited to his new faith. He claimed to be Amritdhari and now he says he was not fully initiated! Maybe he's scared that there might be 'no exit' clause in Sikhism like there is in Islam and he's facing a death sentence for leaving. That wouldn't surprise me because at best his knowledge of Sikhi was superficial and coloured by his fixation with Ali and Shias. He seems to have a problem with the Sikhs having given 'sudhar' to the syed descendents of Ali at Samana. If anything Banda Singh's action here was proof that if you are a raping bunch of fanatics then you're not safe from reformatory action by the Sikhs not matter which Ali ouli you may be descended from!

This thread seems to have degenerated long ago. Can one of the mods please take out or at least reduce Singho's avatar? Quite apart from the wastage of bandwidth, I think he's made his point about how 'servile' and 'docile' Sikhs are to the UK government..lol I suppose his idea of living in the UK is to blow up some planes while carrying condoms and dirty mags on the plane. Oh I forgot those guys were X Muslims and he is a Y Muslim. The X Muslims of course follow a different prophet and use a different Quran! Does anyone else notice how close our friend Singho seems to be close to getting his butt renditioned to Guantanamo. I guess he should get himself measured up for those very gay orange jumpsuits that the most trendiest Islamic terrorist is wearing nowadays! His constant harping on about terrorist camps run by UKPHA or Niddar Singh seem to point to him being close to buying a rucksack and boarding the nearest underground train! Maybe the guys from UKPHA might want to get their lawyers on the case because he's pretty much libeled their organisation. Muslims, Shia or otherwise are the hypocritical people around. They have never heard of the expression 'those is glass houses..". Singho complains about Sikh Gurdwaras accepting Lottery money but how does Singho managed to live in a kuffar state like the UK given that his mickey mouse religion has burdened him with all sorts of do and don'ts that make normal life virtually impossible. How does he live without having to engage in an activity that does not involve interest? I suppose his answer would be the common one amongst Muslims.. so called Islamic finance. I thought the hadiths were the most hilarious read but reading some of the ways in which Muslim financial organisations try to use Arabic euphemisms to what would be called "interest" in any other culture are priceless. Our friend Singho can rest assured that he hasn't strayed from the 'true' path because his Islamic bank gives him a regular Hibah or gift based on the amount of money he has deposited with them! How about car or medical insurance? Haram according to some Imams.

I doubt it belonged to Guru Gobind Singh. The auctioneers have been very clever and although denying that it belonged to Guru Gobind Singh they will be happy that these rumours continue. The armour kept with the Patiala royal family is much more likely to been the original. At best this could be a copy made many years later. No doubt some fool with more money than sense will pay over the odds for this piece.

Thanks Shaheediyan. I will certainly try and visit their headquarters the next time I am in India and make a donation. Btw I think it would be a good idea to ask the Sikh Sangat guys if they would do a Sikhgiving project on behalf of KCT.

Geert Wilder's is a brave man. If only some of the other politicians had some backbone then Europe might just be saved from a civil war between Non-Muslims and Muslims.

Coming into a religion and attempting to change it to suit ones own bias and lifestyle. Sounds familiar!

If Bahadur is right about that Sheikh chappie's views about Guru Nanak and I have do doubt he must be as we all know birds of a feather stick together then I see no reason why this Sheikh is worthy of any praise. No doubt Bahadur will come back with some superlatives about his departed friend but the crux of the matter is that he was wrong about Guru Nanak. I wonder if it was the chela who convinced the guru or the other way around.

SHAHJI, So because you cannot show why a 'divine' law would impose a greater punishment on someone who steals a loaf of bread than someone who steals £100 million it shows I know nothing of Islamic jurisprudence! These and a myriad of other situations show that Sharia law is just like other forms of law, subject to change and imperfect if it does not. Whereas other forms of law have changed, Sharia law cannot because apparently it is 'divine'! Rather than being an asset to Islam, Sharia law is open to ridicule by all who are not chained by their religious convictions into accepted such a grotesque set of laws. Unfortunately for you and Singho, the 'divinity' of Sharia law comes as a package and cannot be divorced from Islam. Islam has enough problems with its beliefs without having a primitive set of law to further burden it. Nice to see you have taken your arrogant scholarship into Islam as well. Just as you thought you knew more about Sikhi than those who were born into the religion, you now show the same arrogance towards Muslim peasants that you did towards Sikhs. No Sikh scholar as far I know has ever claimed that Sikhi has a system of laws similar to the Sharia. The Gurus did not leave us with laws which due to the evolving nature of jurisprudence would have been outdated after a few decades. As a scholar I am sure you are aware that any system which seeks to legislate for every minute activity in a person life is bound in the end to end up being open to ridicule and the followers of that religion will end up as drones. Is that not what has occurred in Islam? Go to any 'ask the Imam' type site and you will get ridiculous questions from people who have lost the ability to think for themselves and rationalise. Some typical questions-; Like they say, ask a stupid question and get a stupid reply. I This answer is a classic! Singho, Nice to see you are back. I thought you might have taken your ayotollah's advice to heart and taken a trip to the farm You claim that Sharia law has divine sanction from Quran and Hadiths. But SHAHJI has just stated that some hadiths which Sunnis believe to be reliable are in his view weak. So there it falls, your so-called divine law. There is no consensus amongst your 4 schools of jurisprudence or the Shia school. How can something that was to have been a guidance have different interpretations. If a theft is committed in Saudi, the right hand is amputated but if the same theft is committed in Iran then only four fingers are amputated! How do you explain this difference? No doubt in an evolving system of law, the same crime can attract different punishments, but here we are talking about 'DIVINE' law.

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 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 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. 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.

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!

Does that mean that unless Singho or SHAHJI blow themselves at some American checkpoint in Iraq they will be waiting in their graves until judgement day? Sounds a bit like waiting for Godot!

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-; 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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! 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.

Will wonders never cease? Since when did you become a Shariati Muslim? Weren't you the one who used to say that you followed the Spiritual side and Sharia was for the mundane? Anyway, there's nothing more amusing than someone feigning fake outrage. So sharia solves all these problems of honour killings does it? But doesn't Sharia law contain an element of honour killing but BY THE STATE and not by the wronged husband? If someone is committing adultery then they can be stoned to death, so how does this do away with honour killing? I'm not sure what your sense of outrage is all about, is it that you want the state to punish the adulterer rather than the husband? In some Arab countries such as Jordan, honour killing is not against the law. As far as I am aware, if either Singho or SHAHJI walk in on their respective wives in flagrante delicto with a man then they need to provide 4 witnesses to the sex act having taken place. So unless the two guilty parties are willing to testify against themselves then our friends will be forced to start knocking at their neighbours doors asking them to see the crime taking place! In this age of instant communications they could always turn on the webcam and get a lot of witnesses instantly as there are so many momins trawling the net for such scenes! As for Sikh jurisprudence, Sikhs are covered by the law of the state in which they live. As for an Amritdhari having committed adultery then he has committed a Bujjar Kurehat which entails a tankah (punishment) and either excommunication or readmission into the Khalsa after the tankah has been completed. We are not savages that we kill people for adultery or that our religious authorities stone offenders to death! We leave that to less civilised peoples

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

Here's another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCsLwEKB9Kw...feature=related The Caribs that Colombus met in the new world spoke Arabic! Not entirely about Islamic 'civilisation' but interesting none the less. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16je0v1M2gM...feature=related

There is a contrary argument which dismisses Muslim 'civilisation' as being the creation of non-Muslim non-Arabs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl-IHCBbOGc Present state of Muslim 'civilisation' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTPJVnxbpqo The Syrian guy really hands it to the ignorant Mullah! The Mullah has the nerve to say that the Spanish long for the return of Al Andalus! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVcmY6RKzT0...feature=related My guess is the secret elixir is that cure all portion of the Islamic world, camel urine! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixfk4LsKWnw...feature=related There will be a lot more radiation coming from Mecca if the Muslims ever try some large scale terror attacks in the West!

All Bhai Gurdas says that when humanity become divided then Mohammed and the four yaars were born. Bachittar Natak states that Mohammed did not follow God's will. How are these two statements inconsistent?

Yaara -means beloved of God lol, are you for real and you claim to be a scholar. The Hadith is a salih hadith of Bukhari, where do the Nasibi come into it. If they use this hadith to criticise Ali then that is their business. The importance of the Hadith is that it has Ali who you claim to be an Imam was raping a slave girl who had been captured as part of the booty of war. No doubt in your view coloured by your high regard of Ali you would believe that the slave girl who had just been captured would have been willing to have sex with Ali. I suppose like Mohammed he was showing her 'mercy' Your hypocrisy as well as your fellow Shias is astounding. You go on about women being raped in Iraq by the Americans yet your own Imam raped women captured in war. At least the American prosecute their soldiers who are found guilty of such offences yet your sect allows rape of women captured in war! As for blasphemy, thank you for your kind concern about my future wellbeing. I trust that God has given me common sense and the moral compass to know a rapist when I see/hear/read of one. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks then chances are it's a duck!

You're right there. He was so outraged about Banda Singh Bahadur dispatching some raping and pillaging Syeds of Samana who were oppressing the local Hindus and Sikhs by following the example of their ancestor Ali! Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637: Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."

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. 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!

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?

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?