tonyhp32

Some Shias add the words 'Ali is a friend of God' at the end of the Shahada. I'm not sure if Bahadur Ali did that when he converted or re-converted ( since Muslims think everyone is born a Muslim then probably it would be re-re-reconversion) to Shia Islam. If he did say the Ali thing then probably over 90% of the Muslims today would think him a Kafir. His re-re-reconversion is not a big deal, the thing is that a lot of bukwas has been spread by him about the links between Sikhi and Shias which will take years to undo as well as the effect he had on a few Sikhs who chose to follow his manmat. Some Sikhs go all ga ga over the fact that some Muslims call Guru Nanak as a Pir when we should be taking issue with such mischief as it is designed to relegate the Guru who is the one whose teachings will ferry all across the ocean of life into just a plain pir following the teachings of a 7th century 'prophet'.

I don't think his heart was ever in Sikhi and neither were his karms such that he could take advantage of any company of Gurmukhs. In the end everyone is responsible for their own actions and as such each of us will have to answer for whatever we do. He came to Sikhi with his own ideas and previous beliefs many of which were against Sikhi such as his unhealthy obsession for the Shia leaders. Personally I don't this is a loss to Sikhi as having someone who was never a Sikh in his heart keeping the Bana of the Guru is liable to mislead a lot of people. Already the Shias on that site are asking him to 'work on' on his Sikh crew or the people who he used to take to the Shia siapa. I hope that the Sikhs who were so influenced by this guy and able to see what comes out of following a person like him. Now that he is a Shia it is easier to understand what all his previous arguments were leading him to. The ironic thing is that the people he called Ram Raias are very much still in Sikhi and he has become a Tankahiya! He complained a few months ago that he was not being treated properly and that someone who was a Shia was getting his tickets paid for him to speak. Let's see if the Shia will be so jubilant if true to form he starts perverting their beliefs as he did with Sikhi when he was in the bhes of a Sikh.

A read of the Hadiths is enough to show that these guys were on the right track but just went a bit too extreme.

Get yourself an education my friend and understand that atrocities were committed on both sides. Far from the Muslims being the only victims, they were the ones that started the whole episode of violence. It's rich you complaining on behalf of Muslims, a bit like if the Nazis complained about the bombing of Dresden by the RAF even though they had been the ones to hit civilian targets during the battle of britain earlier. So what if Shias can be killed in Saudi Arabia, that's between Muslims and if they think killing a fellow Muslim gives them access to heaven then this just shows what kind of people Muslims are. The Jathas did more for the Sikhs at that time and had it not been for those people not only would Sikhs have had to leave West Punjab due to Muslim violence but Muslims would have stayed behind in East Punjab and there would have been no place to rehabiliate Sikh refugees in East Punjab. Muslims in East Punjab would have remained 20-30% of the population (with all the problems that Muslims create) and Sikhs would have been spread out all over India and would not have been a majority in anyplace. Parnaam San Santali de Jathiyan Nu!

What's happened to my buddy, Singho? He said Mohammed's law was perfect and yet we see that gouging eyes seem to be the order of the day for this advanced system of 'law'. I read somewhere that there are different levels of financial compensation depending on whether the victim is a Muslim man/woman, Christian man/woman etc. Hardly the enlightened system of jurisprudence worthy of God!

The guy/gal's been frequenting too many liberal websites of getting his news from the BBC!

The Janamsakhi actually makes an erroneous assertion about the Shia-Sunni in that it makes the Shias ask Guru Nanak "who is better, Mohammed or Ali?" Whereas there is no real split over these two personalties but between Aisha/Umar/Abu Bakr on the one side and Ali on the other. JM did not highlight this fact as it would have negated the knowledge of the writer of the Janamsakhi on Shia and Sunni beliefs and thus hardly an authority on how the Guru treated both of these sects. The Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi being as it is the product of the times of the Khalsa struggle with the Muslims, it certainly could have been attempt to take advantage of the Sunni-Shia split and at least to pander to the Shia obsession with Ali by making the Guru narate a Sakhi where it is said that Ali was the guardian of Heaven in the shape of a lion. On the superiority of the Indic over the semitic, it was noted by most travellers that the inhabitants of India believed that their land/culture/religion was superior to any other and certainly better than the semitic and thus their allusion to all things semitic as Malesh.

He's an Iranian following a religion started by an Arab. That was what the comment about the Arab and 7th century was about. Iranians at the moment are just 2nd class copies of Arabs, even though some of the intellectuals understand that their ancestors were more cultured and had a higher civilisation than the Arabs ever did. Israeli Arabs are not conscripted into the Israeli army solely to spare them the clash of loyalties should Israel ever have to beat some more Arab armies! Some Arabs have volunteered for the army and done well.

Israel is a democracy and the Arabs there have equal voting rights. There is even an Arab political party and one of its MPs recently called for Sharia Law to be imposed in Israel. I guess you can take the Arab out of the 7th century buy you can never take the 7th century out of the Arab! Nutjob has no sense of reality probably caused by his unhealthy obsession about when the 12th Imam will make a comeback. He probably thinks that if Take That and the Spice Girls can make a comeback then anything is possible! The Rabbis at his conference are as mad as he is. They belong to an ultra-conservative group which believe that the Jews have no right to have an Israel and only the Messiah will give them back their holy land. Until then the Jews should get used to the gas chambers in Europe and second class status in the Islamic world.

The Shiva Temple reference is made in the Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi. The same janamsakhi that Javanmard/singho used to justify the fact that in their view Guru Nanak supported the Shias against the Sunnis. The Janamsakhi relates that the Mujawars or custodians do not enter the Kaba unless they are blindfolded because they will go blind if they see the Shivling that is installed there. There is also an interesting story that Mohammed has not achieved Mukti and has to be born into the family of a Hindu in order to achieve it. This sakhi just shows that ideas about the superiority of the Indic over the semitic and the belief that much of the middle east was heavily influenced by Hindu ideas and beliefs is not a new thing. It certainly predates the RSS and Arya Samaj as the Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi is an 18th century work.

Abu Ghraib has been used as a reason for all types of nuts to attack the united states. FYI the people who tortured Iraqis there have been jailed. The West has its faults and it's share of racists but I would much rather live here than in some Islamic shythole like Iran. That Ahmed nut job guy in change of Iran has already said the wants Israel wiped off the map and arranged a seminar about what the world would be like without USA and Israel. If the USA and Israel wanted they could wipe Iran off the map with that's the difference between civilised people and janglis like the Iranians.

WB, You're confusing a Guru a bringer of light into darkness with a mere 'prophet' If you read the life of Mohammed you will realise that he was consumed with all the five vices that Gursikhs are warned to always be of the guard against. Kaam - Having been a kept man in his earlier years by a wife who held the purse strings, after her death he just let go of all restraint. He married countless women and kept sex slaves. He had to institute a rota system for his wives so that he they would get to spend a nigh eahc with him. Having said that he wasn't that bothered about keeping to it as he was literally caught with his pants down when he was caught in bed by his wife Hasa whose turn it was in the bed of his sex slave, Mary. Mohammed made an oath to her that if she kept this a secret he would never touch Mary again. He later reneged on his oath with Allah supplying a verse to help him out. Krodh - He had people assassinated who criticised him. Some poets who used the power of verse to criticise him were killed. One woman who killed whilst she was asleep with her baby. Lobh - He also had a man tortured so as to find out where some treasure was. He also took a cut from all the bandit raids his followers undertook against merchant caravans and Jewish villages. Moh - He loved the good things in life. He was attached to some of his wives who were young and pretty but not the ones he had married in order to cement political alliances. Ahankaar - By claiming to be the perfect man, his followers now try and do even the most basic and mundane things in life according to how Mohammed would have done them. Even down to wiping ther backsides or the way of walking and matters of great importance for Muslim scholars.

I thought Singho was the troll, talking bakwas about Guru Nanak being a sufi and a Shia Muslim and talking up Islam and Mohammed's way being the best.

That remark by Singho is one of the most ridiculous I have ever heard. The so-called immaculate way of Mohammed is highly flawed. This is why the intellect of men is needed to correct the many errors that exist there. Inheritance is a case in point as many have pointed out on various forums. Trying to portray the Punjabi culture as devoid of any merit and backward whilst trying to mislead people into thinking that the Brahmanical code and Mohammed's religion give dignity and rights to women is a laughable suggestion. Most of the disadvantages that Muslim women have and solely down to the paranoid nature of Mohammed and the events within his family life.

Singho, You're appearing to be more and more naive with each and every post you write on the forum. For someone who claims to be a grown up with an education and with some life experience you are doing your best to rubbish your own claims with the arguments you keep coming up with. Lets see, do all sword attacks get reported in the news. You have to be extremely naive to believe that. How many sword attacks have I seen or am aware of against racists? About 4 in the last 15 years. How many sword attacks I have seen or am aware of against Muslims? about 3 in the last 2 years. Were any of these reported? I don't think so. One was reported recently in the midlands when a Muslim hooligan was slashed with a sword during a mela after a Nagar Kirtan. That made the news but only local but that was because the attack occurred when there was hundreds of witnesses and the Police were on site. Added to this was the fact that the hooligan's father made a big song and dance about the attack. I don't know about you but whenever there is ruck both parties will fight it out and none of them will rush off to the Police after the fight just because they got they got attacked with a sword. Both sides keep weapons so unlike the people you might know, a fight is a fight and not something to get the Police involved in.

Well I don't need to call them liars because you have just proved that. Initially your point was that sigheh was just so that couples could date and meet each other. Now you are telling us that three of your friends have had sex with their sigheh husbands. So where does your earlier point of "calling my Iranian colleagues at uni who have boyfriends they are going to marry prostitutes because they have done sighe" come into it. If they have a sigheh contract then they are married but only for the duration of the contract. Your confusion is understandable beacause no one wants to admit that their colleagues may be doing something immoral. Your comparision with dowry from a husband does not make sense. If you read what the Islamic scholars say about sigheh and not what you friends might be saying. If you read the statements in bold then you may realise why I called this type of marriage prostitution. Just because Shias can get beaten up in Mecca doesn't mean that non-Muslims should not be allowed to practise their faith in Saudi Arabia. This prohibition is the gift of Mohammed to the world and is based on his direct statements. So it has everything to do with ISLAM

Wow you're a grown up and you have life experience! I don't know where you're from but I've seen plenty of fights when Singhs have used a sword against racists. Maybe you should get out more and you might broaden you life experience a bit more. So what's you view on the breastfeeding fatwa. Just goes to prove my point that most Muslims suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder. They need to given the most minute details of what is right and what is wrong. maybe if their religion taught a bit of self control they wouldn't have to wonder why they aren't allowed to be with a female on their own.

Boyfriends who they are going to marry?? Do you understand the concept of sigheh? If they have done sigheh then they are married but married for pleasure and they have a set date on their contract when it will expire. Sigheh is not a licence to date and meet up in order to find out whether they are conpatible, it is a contract for which a man pays a woman money and she lets him have sex with her. Sorry to be so blunt but your Iranian colleagues might not be telling you the whole truth about sigheh. Saudi Arabia bans the public worship of other religions and non-Muslims are not allowed to have copies of their holy books. This is an ISLAMIC precept and nothing to do with what kind of Islam is followed by the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Ask any Muslim whether they are Wahabi, Sunni, Shia, Ahmedi and they will all say that no other forms of worship should be allowed in Saudi Arabia.

Doesn't Pak mean Pure? So what's with the feining deep hurt from Singho all about? In India Paki is not a derogatory word so as long as Wahegurubol doesn't repeat it then learn from it and move on. Singho, I would run to the Gurbani guy because chances are he's pull his Kirpan out and cut the racists apart whereas you would be running around crying Islamophobia! Islamophobia- what a word. I know an Pakistani who tried to take time off work by ringing his employer up and saying that he was suffering from a bout of Islamophobia and the pakistani doctor had given him a sick note and advised plenty of bed rest and fluids!!

Apologies I thought that AIDS and rape were problems of immorality or is Islamic morality different from that of normal people? Dowry is against Sikhi whereas Muta is a religiously sanctioned marriage. So your comparison is invalid. A prostitute doesn't have to have 6 men a night to make a living. It all depends on how much mahr (dowry but in this case the fee) she receives. As for your comments about my Taliban Sikhi, well if your such a knowledgable guy you would know that Taliban and Sikh though meaning the same thing in different languages are totally poles apart. We allow Mosques in Amritsar, do Muslims allow Gurdawaras in Saudi Arabia? They don't because the person who you claim is the model for humanity was so insecure about his religion that he instructed his followers make sure that no non-Muslim religion is allowed in Arabia. If find my reference to Muslim women having registered male partners, sorry but I write it as I see it. I find the woman as a prostitute because she accepts money in return for letting the man have his way with for a specified period. The man is nothing more than a client and the Mullah who conducts the marriage is the pimp.

Mohammed asked his chld bride to breast feed one of his friends so that she could be alone with him as the act of breastfeeding makes Aisha his milk mother and this precludes marriage. Mohammed was very paranoid about his wives and once when Aisha was accidently left behind with some Muslim man he was very upset and came close to divorcing her on Ali's instigation. That's where the original Sunni -Shia split originates from as both Aisha and Ali hated each other.

The fact that it is registered by the state does not mean that is not akin to prostitution. A Muta marriage has a time span which is written into the contract, it can be as low as the time it takes to do the sex act or as high as a few years. The whole basis of this marriage is that the man is paying a 'fee' called a dowry to the woman for which he expects the use of her body for his pleasure! This is not nothing like the apologists for muta would ike us to believe that it is just a way for a couple to see each other! The whole basis of the meeting up is for the man to use the woman sexually. The very name Muta Nikaah means marriage for pleasure! For those who think that just because the woman has to wait a few months before she gets another husband shows that this is not prostitution are mistaken. Prostitution is taking money for granting sexual favours. The is no limit to how many times someone has to take this money before they can be called a prostitute. A Muslim woman can technically have 6 clients in a year so that makes it prostitution. Amusing fact is that Singho our resident Shia was presenting Sigheh as some kind of solution for the west's immorality!

Kavita, there is nothing wrong with wearing a Hijab. The difference between the Rehat rules is that if a woman chooses not to wear a Dupatta she is not immediately hauled up before the Panj Pyare and punished. It's all about choice and unlike Islam, Sikhi has never been about enforcing a set of regulations on unwilling people. Such is not the case in Iran. Recently the religious aithorities have been stopping women on the street if they show even a few strands of hair through their hijab. It's all about personal freedom and the right to live ones life as one sees fit. Singho would never support someone born in a Muslim family the right to live their lives contary to the teachings of Islam. This is the difference between Sikhi and Islam. As for crime, if you regulate the lives of people to an oppressive degree then you will get a docile population. We can make rules that on one is allowed out after 6pm and that would cut crime drastically but then would you be willing to give up your personal freedom and allow your lifestyle to be curtailed so that crime could be reduced? Iran is not the crime free utopia that some people make out. For one it has a massive drugs problem, according to studies 11 million people out of 65 million have a drug problem. That is 16.9% of the population. The Great Satan America has 15.9 million out of 310 million with a drug problem. That is about 5.2% of the population. So our crime free paradise of Iran has three times as many people in percentage terms with a drug problem than that beacon of western decadance that is the US of A!

Shaheediyah has given you a thoughtful response to your argument yet instead of reflecting on it and making a comment you chose to take a cheap shot at what Wahegurubol wrote. I thought you were the one asking for a respectful debate? Muslims will always bring out the overtly and obsessively legalistic framework of their religion whenever they debate religious issues with non-Muslims. They will spew forth a countless number of hadiths, fatwas and the like which regulate each and every aspect of their lives. My personal view is that anyone who needs to seek religious authority to explain how to perform even mundane acts of their daily life such as what number of stones are best when wiping their backsides after defacating or that washing out their nose every morning is a good thing because apparently Satan had booked in for the night up there need their heads seriously examined! Freud would have had a field day with just one patient like that but the sad fact is that he would have over a billion people t choose from. This is the number of people who follow such ridiculous rules throughout their lives. An even sadder aspect of this is that rather than being embarrassed by what they do they actually use their mass compulsive obsessive disorder as 'proof' that their religion is superior to all others!

No. This is a singularly Arab contribution to the semitic traditions. Muta marriage was allowed by Mohammed and according to Shia sources never abolished although Sunnis say it was. Not to be totally outdone in the cloaking prostitution as marriage stakes Sunni have a similar type of marriage called Misyar or travellers marriage. This is the form of marriage that rich Arabs contract with young Muslim girls from Hyderabad. They pay a certain amount of money and enjoy the rights of a husband and then after a few days divorce the girl. And there was I thinking that Sex Tourism was a western invention when all along Mohammed had been far ahead of his time and realised that if you were rich enough then you should be allowed to use your wealth to take advantage of those who have very little.