tonyhp32

Far be it for me to teach a few facts to the 'strict' Muslim about his own religion. A few questions for you-; 1. Do you believe that friendships can be formed with non-Muslims without an ulterior object of being afforded the chance of performing da'wa ( propagation of Islam). I can point you in the direction of a few sites run by Imams who I would venture to argue know a bit more about your religion than you do. They say friendships can only be undertaken with da'wa in mind. Did you have that in mind when you first approached this girl? 2. As Sikhs are not accepted as 'people of the book' like Jews and Christians, did you not realise at any relationship which was to lead to marriage would involve conversion on her part. Did you tell her this at the beginning or did you string her along? 3. Being a 'strict' Muslim did not seem to stop you from the Islamic injunction of not meeting females in private and not approaching females who are alone. Or is this injunction just meant for Muslim women and non-Muslim honour doesn't amount to much in your eyes. Either you're the hypocrite or Islam is? 4. How would you feel if a Sikh guy was carrying on with your sister clandestinely and without the knowledge of you or your family? Since you've done the same to a Sikh family I would assume that you would have no problem with that? Or are you just the usual Muslim hypocrite pretending to be a normal human being?

What makes you think he doesn't know Sanskrit? From what I know he's doing a lot of good positive work clearing up the Kali Bein as well as promoting the need for saving the environment from a religious angle.

So can we now say that the bulk of the Budha Dal as MDS claims that is aligned with Baba Joginder Singh is now against having a separate bata for lower castes. This raises an interesting question, was having a seperate bata a part of the 'original' Budha Dal rehat or was it something that was introduced at some stage which was contary to the rehat? Personally I favour the latter explanation as having a discriminatory attitude to the lower castes would have been suicidal for the Khalsa in the period 1708-1799. Faced with extreme persecution the Khalsa would have effectively been rejecting the manpower resources of around 1/4 of the Punjab population at a time when they needed it the most.

How easy is it to impress someone by quoting Gurbani, Gita or other religious texts especially if the listener doesn't have any indepth knowledge of Gurbani himself? Most of the people who frequent these type of fakes have very little knowledge of Gurbani so are easily impressed. Those who have indepth knowledge of Gurbani have no need to visit or listen to such charlatans. A friend of mine went to one of his diwans in the 80s and he said he left as soon as Darshan Das started on his favourite subject of trying to criticise Guru Gobind Singh by saying that it was wrong for Guru Gobind Singh to use violence! It didn't come as much of a surprise to him when heard that he had been shot in a local school in Southall in 1987. The local Punjab newspaper Des Pardes published a picture of his corpse as it lay on the slab in the mortury. Now that's what I call investigative journalism!

1. Are you implying that Guru Amar Das would make one rule for a Hindu princess and another for a Muslim woman? 2. According to Islam a woman wears a Niqab in order not to arouse the men. Since in Sikhi both sexes are assumed to be able to control their kaam then allowing a Muslim woman in a niqab into a Gurdwara is an admission that her beliefs (about men unable to control themselves) have validity.

As Niranjana said the issue of who can perform Kirtan in a Gurdwara pretty much depends on what the stance is of the committee or the pardhan. The issue of the so-called descendents of Bhai Mardana is complex. I write so-called because not many of them have been able to prove their claims of descent from Bhai Mardana. Although there are a number of Mirasis in Punjab who are Sikh by religion yet the claim to be Bhai Mardana's descendents is mostly made by Muslim Mirasis from Pakistan. They were allowed in earlier days to do Kirtan at Durbar Sahib but have since been disallowed due to the more fuller implementation of the Rehat Maryada. I remember reading some time ago of one of the so-called descendents that they do a Kurli after the Kirtan as a sort of purification after having done an unislamic thing (ie sung). The more stricter implementation of the Rehat Maryada was started when the youth naturally questioned the reason why a non-Sikh can sing Kirtan, which in essence is a type of parchar, when he/she does not follow the teachings of the Gurus.

Whenever I've been there I've brought a pre-paid dial up connection (costs a few hundred rupees) and then you can dial up from the pind.

Whenever I've been there I've brought a pre-paid dial up connection (costs a few hundred rupees) and then you can dial up from the pind.

No, this work or Suraj Parkash do not hold Gurbani status for me. Having seen your comments on various threads which are usually a smart alecy remark which ends any intelligent discussion I thought I would stoop to your level for a few minutes so you don't feel left out

Amardeep, The easiest way to eay to explain away some of the unsavoury things in Mohammed's Sunnah is to play verbal gymnastics and tamper with the definition of words. I think you are assuming the way that black slavery in the USA is depicted in films as accurate. Slaves are a commodity and as such it is the interests of the owner to treat them well so that they work hard as well as being a sellable commodity if required. The harsh treatment of slaves is only when slaves are cheap and plentiful. Mohammed is known to have kept and traded slaves and according to Islamic accounts during his lifetime he brought more slaves than he sold. Most of these slaves were captured during many of his raids against rival Arab or Jewish tribes. During one particular raid the following occurred-; Vol. 5-#459 Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu said, "We went out with Allah's messenger for the Ghazwa (attack upon) Banu Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus we said "How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's messenger while he is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." The rape of captured women (slaves) is also in Mohammed's Sunnah, which incidently you chose not to comment on, perhaps because it is difficult to play verbal gymnastics with rape. Slavery existed in Islamic societies and wars were undertaken to obtain slaves. During the invasion of Spain thousands of slaves were taken to Syria. Contary to recent Islamic apologetics which seem to paint slavery as some kind of guest status, slaves in Islam have few rights are can be-; According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example a) Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves - Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49. Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God - Sura 16:77 c) According to Islamic Tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with. d) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals. e) Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED! f) It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves. g) According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this. h) According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this. i) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. - Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9. j) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. - Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155. Interesting enough we have all these stories from Muslim websites about Muslim women being raped by American soldiers in Iraq. In most cases these are false and in the cases which have been proven the US authorities have punished the guilty. But according to the Sunnah of Mohammed the Americans are quite within their rights as a conquering power to do what they wish with the women of Iraq. The only thing is that as the Americans are infidels then they have no right to do the things that Muslims are allowed to do. As with most things Islam/Muslims are true hypocrites! The last bout of Islamic slave gathering in India was during Abdali's invasions of India. I assume since this in the Sunnah of Mohammed that the Gurus would not have been against this? As for the Gurbani tuk, the mention is of being veiled and not being covered with the veil of delusion.

Amardeep One doesn't need to have been on Faithfreedom in order to have knowledge of the unsavoury aspects of Mohammed's sunnah. Although the site is probably one of the best for anyone who wants to see the other side of the argument in the debate of whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. On the subject of the prohibition of the veil (Purdah, Ghunghat), in Gurbani wherever it is mentioned it always in a negative sense of being a veil of delusion, doubt, duality etc. The act of casting of the veil is described in the sense of casting out all these negative traits. A Verse which could possibly be used to justify restricting someone wearing a veil from having Darshan of the Guru Granth Sahib could this one-; ਮਃ ੫ ॥ मः ५ ॥ Mehlā 5. Fifth Mehl: ਜਾਣੁ ਵਸੰਦੋ ਮੰਝਿ ਪਛਾਣੂ ਕੋ ਹੇਕੜੋ ॥ जाणु वसंदो मंझि पछाणू को हेकड़ो ॥ Jāṇ vasanḏo manjẖ pacẖẖāṇū ko hėkṛo. Know that He dwells within all; rare are those who realize this. ਤੈ ਤਨਿ ਪੜਦਾ ਨਾਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਜੈ ਗੁਰੁ ਭੇਟਿਆ ॥੨॥ तै तनि पड़दा नाहि नानक जै गुरु भेटिआ ॥२॥ Ŧai ṯan paṛ­ḏā nāhi Nānak jai gur bẖėti­ā. ||2|| There is no obscuring veil on the body of that one, O Nanak, who meets the Guru. ||2|| Niranjana, I assume that you are referring to the veiling of non-Muslims women in the last few centuries. This is put down to two reasons-; 1. The Rapacious nature of the Muslim invaders and thereby the need for non-Muslims to veil their women to protect them. 2. Aping the style of the Muslims which Guru Nanak incidentally criticises the Khatris and Brahmins for. Contary to the claims of the Muslims that Islam was a positive influence on the cultures of the countries in invaded, in India it is well known that Islam restricted the lives of non-Muslim women and brought forth a host of new and previously unknown restrictions such as seclusion/veil as well as underage marriage.

As is keeping of slaves, rape of women captured in battle, temporary marriage (Sunni Misyar not Shia Muta), marriage with 9 year old girls are all part of the Sunnah of Mohammed but you would be looking in vain to find an endorsement of any of these in Gurbani or in the Rehatnamas.

I think a better item for Ripley's believe it or not would be the Namdhari fairy stories of Guru Gobind Singh living another 110 odd years after 1708 and of course the Harry Potter version of Baba Ram's Singh supposed return

Surely the women who are allowed to take Amrit should then also be allowed to act as Panj Pyare at some stage. If I can put it plainly then it's a bit like joining an organisation knowing that one will never be allowed to advance to the highest level within that organisation. Trying to defend the reason why women cannot be part of the Panj Pyare by basing it on that fact that no woman stood up that day can then easily be used to imply that no one apart from Jats, Chimbas, Jhiwars, Khatris and Nais should be Panj Pyares.

This is what I feel as well. I think he's sitting in Iran at the moment (hopefully next to some nuclear installation!) but his mischief via the internet is able to create problems around the world. The Shias on the site don't seem to have a clue about what Sikhism is and some seem to be prepared to believe the worst. As a scholar he is entitled to his opinions but when his chief aim now seems to be is to spread misinformation about Nihangs in particular and Sikhs in general. I think it casts a doubt on his antecedents previous to his becoming a Shia. There is already a lot of bukwas on Islamic sites about Sikhs shouldn't cut their hair until they kill all Muslims etc and now Bahadur has contributed to this by his claims about the Boar tusk. With his knowledge about many aspects of Sikhi he has been able to pass himself off as someone with knowledge. As the expression says 'Ghar Da Bhedi Lanka Dhayai'.

Hijab is a covering which is used to cover all of the head and just leaves the face visible. Burka is where the whole body is covered and slits are available for the eyes. This is similar to Niqab which also covers the entire body apart for the eyes.

Apologies here is the link http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...188&start=0

A friend of mine recently sent me some links where our old friend Bahadur Ali has been spreading misinformation about Sikhi. Even by his previous low standards he's really plunged the depths of nindya. Some gems. On a Muslim making a joke about Guru Nanak and Paan tamaku. If he wants to believe that Guru Nanak was a Muslim then he has every right to believe that. He is even trying to pass himself off as some kind of scholar on Sikhi whom none of the Sikhs could debate with. Well we all know he's a legend in his own lunch break. He's now says that he beat Ali Sina in a debate..lol. He can have all the foki sobha he wants but when he spreads bukwas like this... Now everyone here knows that I am hardly best friends with any of the sanatan crew but when someone spreads misinformation that could very likely lead to hatred against any Sikh and not just Nihangs then something has to be done.

Deep Singh Probably a Hijab because it covers the head would be allowed but not a full Burka or Niqab since it conceals the entire face. As you said Guru Amar Das refused to give Darshan to a lady who was wearing a veil.

MDS The two opposing points of view here are that-; 1. The Budha Dal is the original Khalsa as created by Guru Gobind Singh and it has kept the original rehat. 2. The Budha Dal as with all historical organisations is susceptable to being influenced by the non-Sikh majority community and some of it's current usages may actually be contary to Sikhism. The Banda Singh Bahadur comment was to show that at one stage shudhars were given pride of place in the Khalsa and not relegated to being given a chautha paur status.

Ironically the UK Nihangs do not have a good word to say about Banda Singh Bahadur and some even deny that he took Amrit. About the social revolution that Banda Singh undertook after the sacking of Sirhind the historian Irvine writes-; In all the paraganahs occupied by the Sikhs, the reversal of previous customs was striking and complete. A low scavenger or leather dresser, the lowest of the low in Indian estimation, had only to leave home and join the Guru, when in a short time he would return to his birthplace as its ruler with his order and his order of appointment in his hand. As soon as he set foot within the boundaries the wealthy and well-born went out to greet him and with joined palms awaited his orders. Not a soul could disobey an order, and men who had often risked themselves in battlefields, became so cowed down that they were afraid even to remonstrate. I wonder if the same low born were first given Amrit by seating them as chautha paur and then giving them sardari over their places of birth?

I think that's a very cynical statement. I highly doubt that any Sikh would begrudge fellow Sikhs of whatever background their share of the assistence offered by Sikh charities. I have yet to come across someone complaining that Pingalwara is helping Jats more than Tarkhans or Khatris!

That was my point I didn't notice any discrimination at that time, although I have gone past that place many times afterwards I haven't had the opportunity to visit it again. As for my mate proactive I agree with most of what he says!

I remember an online discussion I had with a representative of Khalsa Aid in 2001 when they had just been formed for about two years and his take on why they were concentrating on helping non-Sikhs was that they wanted to become a credible NGO and then they would be able to take part in projects in Punjab. He said that the Indian govt would stop them doing anything in Punjab if set up any projects there. That was about 8 years ago and to give them their due they and United Sikhs did do some work in Kashmir amongst Sikhs during the earthquake a couple of years ago they have yet to start major projects in Punjab. Another reason that I would not personally support them is that they are not able to guarantee that donations that you make will reach the people you want them to reach. A case in point is that during the 2001 Nagar Kirtan they were collecting money using megaphones asking for donations for the Sikhs of Chattispura and when I asked a rep of theirs whether they could give me an assurance that the donation that they were asking in the name of the Sikhs of Chattispura would go solely to them, he could not give me that assurance. This is not to say that if they are doing an appeal for Bangladesh then the money will not reach them. Anyway I'm not sure that the Bangladesh thing is a good idea, the country will be underwater in a few years time anyway

The problem unfortunately is that some people are just not prepared to use their own matt in order to decide whether a particular act is in line with or against Sikhi. Using excuses such as lineage of the organisation and that such and such leader is a brahmgyani did not hold any water with the Singh Sabha. The whole reason for the creation of the Singh Sabha was that certain rituals and beliefs had entered Sikhism which were not in line with Gurmat. Fortunately the Singh Sabha Gurdwaras which are the legacy of the Singh Sabha might not be perfect but one would be hard put out find an overt display of caste discrimination such as the one you have ascribed to the Buddha Dal. The problems that the UK Nihangs face is that they like to portray the Buddha Dal as being the entity that has kept their rites and rituals pure whilst others have become angrejified. So if the Buddha Dal stance on caste is pointed out they would much rather ignore this glaring diversion from the Gurus teachings because if the Buddha Dal couldn't keep the Gurmat teaching on equality then what other teachings have been subverted in this 'pure' Khalsa? I visited the Damdama Sahib Gurdwara at Rakba during the Baisakhi of 1988 and either it was being re-built or it was being built for the first time. I didn't notice people being asked their castes and being seated in the Langar according to their answer but then at that time the Kharkoo movement was particularly strong in that area or the Dal in that place did not deem themselves strong enough to impose their Buddha Dal practices in that area. On the Buddha Dal what I find surprising is that some of the Nihangs are accusing Balbir Singh of being a police cat and being in league with the Indian government! That's rich coming from supporters of Santa Singh! Btw if Santa Singh is so infirm that he is powerless to prevent his fauj being subverted by a person like Balbir Singh then does that mean that he's not a Brahmgyani?