golestan

Be nam-e Khoda 1. Paradise Found: A Documentary on Islamic Architecture (Channel 4 ) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...h&plindex=0 2. The Islamic History of Europe (BBC 4) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=49...h&plindex=1 3. The Message: a movie about the life of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) with famous actor Antony Quinn http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77...h&plindex=1 I am as usual expecting the usual Islamophobic comments, but I doubt the BBC, Channel 4 and Antony Quinn are all part of what some members of this forum call the "great Islamo-fascits conspiracy" Enjoy and open your eyes and hearts.

I love the air-conditioner: very tasteful!!!

Then tell us the context of your topic...Just throwing a gurbani quote in the void is not a topic: it's a quote and for that I just need to read gurbani

"Thou shalt not use God's Name in vain" .Strike a bell?

Yes one is to study the other to listen to some old guy at the gurdwara...

Jo prabh ko milbo chahai khoj shabad mai leh Research doesn't seem to be forbidden...

Jo prabh ko milbo chahai khoj shabad mai leh Research doesn't seem to be forbidden...

And of course humanity was not divided before Islam...

Kam1825 says: Bhai Gurdas talks about Mohammad (as) and the four khulafa Tonyhp32 says: One of them was a rapist Consistence at its height indeed! Kam1825 you say Mahâdîn refers to movements but that's not what your sateeks say: they all say it was Mohammad (pbuh). Who' picking and choosing now? Tonyhp32 is honest at least in dropping his political correctness and being consistent with his hatred of Islam. At least he's open about it (not that there is any virtue in it).

Kam 1825: What is it now? Personal attacks for want of real arguments? Let's forget I am Shi'a. Let's even forget Mahâdîn. Let's take Bhagat Râmânanda (ra). In the Adi Granth he is a bhagat but in Bachitar Natak he is said to have gone astray. Let's take Hazrat Krishna (as). In the Adi Granth the Bhattan de Svayye clearly say he was an avatara and that Hazrat Baba Nanak (ra) was him in a previous age. Yet in Dasam Granth Krishna (as) is copiously insulted. In Bhai Gurdas' Varan, Mohammad (pbuh) is called yârâ, beloved of God yet in Bachitar Natak he is accused of leading humanity astray. So who is the blasphemer and the liar?

Or a smokescreen to hide your ignorance...

LOL quote all the Sunni hadiths you want tonyhp32 you're just preparing your place in hell, so go on. Blaspheme more and more and go and join Yazid & co. In fact if you actually even knew anything about Islam you would know that even in Sunnism, to insult Imam Ali (as) or to tell lies about him is an act of blasphemy. The hadith you quoted is a nasibi one, one illustrating hatred of 'Ali (as). All the hadith is saying is that Buraida and Khalid ibn Walid hated Imam 'Ali (as) and were ready to lie about him which of course is a sin. Tonyhp32 go on blaspheming...

90% LOL I can hear the Schindler's List tune played on a sarangi...whining and lying playing pseudo-Holocaust victim. Very credible indeed considering the absence of something called census in pre-colonial India. very credible indeed.

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

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

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

To support the massacre of of 72 outnumbered men, the murder of Imam Hussain (as), the capture and ill treatment of innocent women and children at the hands of Yazid under the excuse that it was a revenge against the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is not being "critical of Islam" . It is being a blasphemer and supporter of tyranny,rape, injustice and superstitious idolatry. Nobody asked you to cry actually. It is amazing to which depths your hatred leads you. Your supported the Spanish Inquisition now Yazid. I am sure if I found some evidence that Hitler gazed Muslims you'd praise him as an enlightened leader. No tonyhp32 I won't call you a fascist. I believe some of the Italian fascists like Giovanni Gentile, Gabriele D'Annuncio or Luigi Pirandello had more humanity than you will ever have. I respect these fascists too much to call you one.

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

Be nam-e Khoda Matheen wrote: Thank you Matheen for bringing this up. The "mahâdîn turkan pahcânâ" is quite amazing. The text is saying that "Turks" recognized king Raghu, the founder of the Raghuvmashya clan, as "Mahâdîn". Given the fact that: - the hypothetical king Raghu lived several centuries before the Prophet (pbuh) - that Turks didn't even exist as a nation back then - that here Raghu-Maâdpin is praised for spreading dharma yet in Bachitar Natak is accused of the same old Islamophobic stereotypes I beg to find any consistence in line with the claim of divine revelation. (Don't try the age old "contradictions and abrogation in Quran" trick, it works with Sunnis only) What did I learn from this thread? a. That the majority of Sikhs are Islamophobes b. That shaheediyan and tonyhp32 know Portuguese and Spanish history better than the Portuguese and Spanish academics themselves without knowing a word of Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic or Latin. It doesn't matter because as Xylitol told us... c. "brahmgianis know all languages", which of course enables them to decide that d. Abu Huraira's hadiths are authentic even though he was one of the main ennemies of the Prophet (pbuh) and persecuted Ahl ul Bayt (as). e. I also learned that words such as holocaust can be twisted to mean anything when used by Indians f. It's ok to attack a person using outdated personal information when one doesn't have arguments. Very honourable indeed! I thank you for the precious pearls of wisdom from Atlantis and leave this topic for good. kind regards Bahadur Ali Shah Ya Saheb e Zaman (ajf)

Be nam-e Khoda Mithr wrote: You seem to have a problem with hermeneutics when it comes to my posts. You seem to also have a problem with lying about Imam Khamenei. Neither Imam Khomeini (ra) nor Imam Khamenei have said anything against Judaism or the Jews. You also seem to ignore that the Islamic Republic of Iran has a separation of powers (judiciary, legislative, executive and the rahbar). Recently Imam Khamenei appealed for the privatization of certain public companies: his appeal was not followed by the executive power, the head of which is President Ahmadinejad. Iran has the largest community and oldest communities of Jews in Asia outside Israel and Imam Khomeini (ra) has on many occasions given strict orders for their protection. Even though the Islamic Republic of Iran opposes the concept of a Zionist state it does not propagate hatred against Jews. Jews are represented in parliament and have rights. As for your jeremiad about the holocaust in India I find it personally scandalous to see people who have no idea of what the real holocaust was like use that term without recognizing the uniqueness of the Nazi crime.There is no doubt that an Afghan ruler coming into an Indian town to kill, rape and loot is a horrible crime, but it doesn't have the characteristics of a genocide or the holocaust. The obscene way how many Sikhs and Hindus shamelessly use the holocaust to talk about normal medieval violence is just pornographic. There is simply no common measure between the crimes of a medieval warlord be he Hindu, Sikh, Hindu or Christian and the carefully scientifically planned eradication of a race. The reason why the Catholic Church recognized its guilt in the crimes against humanity in Latin America is due to the fact that through many bulls from the Pope it has authorized Spain and Portugal to introduce slavery on the basis that black people and Native Americans had no soul. Sunnism doesn't have a central authority, nor does Shi'ism have. When Muslim rulers committed massacres they did so WITHOUT the approval of a central religious authority because it simply doesn't exist in Islam. Furthermore in Islam the laws about war are very clear and not open to interpretation. The killing and rape of innocent civilians is forbidden in Islam. If "Muslims" rulers did so , it was not a religious act, rather a sin. The fact that some court historians and poets embellished their deeds doesn't make them more acceptable or Islamic. Before talking about Iran or Catholicism you might want to study these before expressing uninformed views. Shaheediyan wrote: Even though I disagree with your interpretation you have the merit to be clear about your ideas. It would of course be too much ask you to undergo a thorough and serious study of the spread of South Asian Islam beyond the usual Islamophobic distorted stereotypes but at least you have presented your views which reflect the opinions of many in your community. It lacks the complexity and hermeneutic tools of a scholarly analysis. Your views of "Islam spread by the sword" are as rubbish as the New Age Sufi views that make Aurangzeb and Mahmud Ghaznavi into saints. Historical reality is more complex but you and your brothers and sisters in faith don't realize that. By any account both interpretation translate a profound sense of mistrust if not hatred towards either the Prophet (pbuh) if one believes Mahâdîn means Mohammad or the Muslim community in general in one believes Mahâdîn refers to Islamic history. To mutilate the Prophet's name, to lie about him by ascribing to him actions he did not do and to claim that he placed his name about God's name is by any standards an act of utter blasphemy and hatred. What is even stranger is that the religion that was really spread through violance i.e. Christianity, with the approval of the popes and the participation of missionaries to help the white European colonizing powers does not get a single mention, not a word.Why is it that a supposedly divine texts with universal value does not have a single mention on the way how Christians spread their faith or how they deviated from Jesus' (as) teachings. Strange isn't it? The Ancient Testament has explicit passages justifying genocide but that doesn't seem to bother the author of Bachitar Natak. Instead those who think Mahâdîn is Mohammad (pbuh) love to quote the Sunni hadiths of Abu Huraira and Omar that are infested with similar justifications which we Shi'a, the true followers of Ahl e Mohammad (pbih) consider a pure lie. You are blind to the real passages of the Ancient Testament yet fully accept hadiths from known sinnders such as Omar and Abu Huraira, both ennemies of the Prophet (pbuh). Islamophobic selection at its best. The true Islamic way of governance has been explained clearly in Najhul Balagha in a letter of Imam Ali (as) to Malik ul Ashtar, his devoted Shi'a and governor of Egypt. This letter has been referred to by Kofi Annan as a model for governance and advised Arab nations to go back to its teachings. It is a letter that teaches justice, social equity and goodness. It has an important passage that Islamophobes on this website should carefully read and ponder upon: "Beware! Abstain from shedding blood without a valid cause. There is nothing more harmful than this which brings about one's ruin. The blood that is willfully shed shortens the life of a state. On the day of judgment it is this crime for which one will have to answer first. So, beware! Do not wish to build the strength of your state on blood; for, it is this blood which ultimately weakens the state and passes it on to other hands. Before me and my God no excuse for willful killing can be entertained." These are the words of the lion of God, the real successor to the Prophet (pbuh)! Yet you chose to follow the hadiths of the persecutors of the Prophet's family (as) to suit your hatred of Islam and Muslims. Behind the deceitful talk of tolerance of others those who consider Mahâdîn to mean the Prophet (pbuh) are in fact nothing but Islamophobes. And those who claim that Bhagat Ramanand (ra) has gone astray as the Bachitar Natak says have committed nindia against a bhagat whose writings are in the Adi Granth and hence considered by Hazrat Guru Arjan (ra) to be a saint. These positions not only contradict the teachings of Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah (ra) but are pure blasphemy and an insult to God and his saints. These poisonous blasphemous statements are what has the transformed the noble house of unity between Muslims and Hindus into the whorehouse of hatred and heresy that is modern Sikhism, the brother of Wahabism and Hindu fascism. I find it amazing how people who have fortified their holiest shrine in the 80's twice are surprised at the armed forces intervening, wage a campaign of terror against Panjabi Hindus, celebrate the assassination of a democratically elected prime minister (a disarmed woman...how brave) in the streets of everywhere they pretty much live (from Jalandhar to Jackson Heights and Southall), hag the pictures of their "heroes" pretty much in all gurdware in the world and then have the nerve and arrogance to claim they support tolerance, telling the West they are not terrorists. Thank God there are still some rare real disciples of Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah (ra) left of the kind that would befriend a Mian Mir (ra) or a Budhu Shah (ra). I thank the participants for their honesty in admitting to their blasphemy against the Prophet (pbuh) and his saints. At least things are clear. I will now leave and pray for your souls whilst you continue your cheap personal attacks for lack of real arguments. kind regards Bahadur Ali Shah

Be nam-e Khoda Mithr worte: 1. Holocaust of India? There has never been any such thing as a scientifically planned extermination of any group in India, whether by Hindus, Sikhs, Jain, Buddhists or Muslims. 2. Do you imply that the majority of Indian Muslims are not really Indian? From your post it seems to me that you don't accept them as your fellow Indians. 3. As I said the head of the Islamic republic of Iran, Imam Khamenei, has never denied the holocaust. There are Jewish representatives in the Iranian parliament. The conference that you have mentioned gather people from all kinds of way of thinking even Jews. I have to admit that inviting ex-KKKmembers wasn't the smartest thing but at least there were Jewish delegates there too. As you see your attempts to portray the Rahbar as an anti-semite are just plain ridiculous. 4. I never said massacres by Muslim rulers didn't take place in India and I didn't brush these accounts aside as fantasy. They are like all primary sources to be taken with care and analyzed. The issue at hand is to determine whether these action are Islamic or not. And the reply is that they clearly weren't. 5. Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib are not the only scholars I mentioned. So your broad denial of serious scholarship as being leftist is in and of itself a right wing biased statement. The topic at hand wasn't Iran but the issue about Mahâdîn. It seems you have not much to contribute to the discussion at hand. Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism Khoda Negahdar

Be nam-e Khoda Shaheediyan wrote: 1. I never denied the facts you presented. They have indeed taken place. 2. The Sunni Talibans are not my brothers. I have nothing against statues as long as they are not said to contain God. The taliban destruction of Buddhist art is in my view a crime. 3. The spread of any empire is done by force as was the case of the Sikh kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Whether this political expansion equals the spreading of a faith is questionable. 4. Your master employs the Persian verb "manam kushteh am" which means "I have destroyed" and the object here is clearly referred to as "kohian", the "mountain people". The word "keh" implies cause: he waged war on them BECAUSE they were "but parast". Waging war does not necessarily imply the destruction of civilian property or rape. I doubt your master would have done such things as I believe he (unlike his modern followers) was a man of honour. In any case this verse doesn't refer to some esoteric reality. 5. Again I do not pretend to know the intention of the author. What I am saying is that the Mahâdîn does not correspond to the Prophet (pbuh). If the author's intention is to: - insult the Prophet (pbuh) by mutilating his name and ascribe to him actions he did not do or - refer in allegorical fashion to excesses of Islamic rulers is a question I leave open. The majority of Sikhs have opted for the first blasphemous interpretation. You on the other hand seem to go for the second. It is an interpretation that I did favour but which does have its problems too. I am not here to decide which one is correct. All I am doing is stating the facts proving the fallacy of a literal interpretation of Mahâdîn being Mohammad (pbuh). Mithr wrote: I have not sidelined the issue. If you read my post you would have read that I make reference to the work of serious scholars in the field of Indian Islam. There is no doubt that some rulers committed excesses as did Hindus and Sikhs. Whether those are to be qualified as "Islamic" is another question. As to the credibility of some of the so-called exploits you have passages such as: "'he purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed it from the thorn of God-plurality, and the impurity of idol-worship" "'left not one temple standing'" It isn't the first time in history pays his court poets to exaggerate his military exploits. No temple standing left in India? But of course... The Iranian government doesn't have an official position on the Holocaust. The head of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khamenei has never made a public statement denying the Holocaust. Khoda Negahdar e Shoma

Be nam-e Khoda Shaheediyan wrote: 1. On the accusation of promoting ethnic cleansing: I do not support ethnic cleansing in any way or form and I am not an anti-semite. I do oppose Sunnism and Wahabism as an ideology for certain. I do also oppose Zionism and the political existence of a state for Jews by Jews only which is presently called Israel and I am in favour, like the orthodox rabbis of Satmar, Neturei Karta and other Hassidic families, of a secular state in Palestine with equal representation for Jews, Christians and Muslims and other groups. As for Sikhism I have no problem with those following the teaching of Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah (ra) be they Nanakshahi Muslims or Indic followers of his teaching who have chosen to conserve the age old Indic traditions except for idol worship. I respect them as much as I respect the Brahmo Samaj of Sri Devendranath Tagore and Rabindranath Tagore. As for others I have no problem with them as long they do not encourage seperatism and hatred of other communites which is unfortunately not the case. Shi'ism forbids offensive jihad and allows only defensive jihad, in line of course with the teachings of the Quran and Ahl ul Bayt (as). This would in any way exclude ethnic cleansing which is not permissible both legally and ethically. Ethnic cleansing has been supported by tonyhp32: The reconquista was achieved by forceful conversion of Muslims, Jews and Mozarab Christians to Catholicism and by expulsion or execution of those unwilling to comply. Tonyhp32 is clearly supporting this sort of actions. 2. As for the mong series of examples of idol-breaking actions, I have never said that Islamic rulers have not done this sort of actions. As I said earlier the court poets of these rulers did praise such actions as Islamic. Whether they were is a totally different question and is a matter of jurisprudence. The case of Mahmud Ghaznavi (a known alcoholic and homosexual) looted the temple of Somnath. The source you mentioned surely considers his action as Islamic BUT there are problems with it. First of all you come up with outdated scholarship. From an academic point of view your source is interesting for analysis itself because of the underlying ideology behind it. If you were so keen to present scholarly works on the issue of idol breaking and temple destruction by Muslim rulers, I wonder why you haven't even mentioned Romila Thapar's famous book on the subject which analyzes ALL sources on the subject including the one you have presented. Romila Thapar is to date one of the best Indian historians, a serious academic acclaimed both in India and abroad. She wrote a book on the issue you mentioned. I can clearly remember how she was warmly welcomed when she visited our research team in Paris at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Sorbonne, Paris) and how she amazed a plethora of the best Indological scholar from Europe and abroad with her article on Mahmud Ghazanavi where she has clearly shown how the looting of Somnath was only later on given an Islamic justification whereas the real motive was clearly looting. Here is her book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Somanatha-Voices-H...5021&sr=8-7 Just in case you haven't read it yet. I am not denying that other rulers may have done it for religious reasons as is the case of Aurangzeb. But I fail to see how this has got anything to do with the spread of Islam. Indic traditions do not need temples as people most often have their personal altars at home. Mandirs came quite late in Indian history. What I mean is that even if temples were destroyed, people continued their puja at home. I also don't see any of you quoting academic authorities on South Asian Islam such as Annemarie Schimmel, Denis Matringer, Cristopher Shackle or Irfan Habib, who are whether you like it or not leading authorities in the field. Either you are not familiar with their work, which leads me to question your ability to discuss the spread of Islam in South Asia, or you have read them and are intellectually dishonest, unwilling to present serious scholarship that would shatter your propaganda about the evil spread of Islam. The problem is not idol breaking as such, as it a holy acts performed by prophets like Ibrahim (as), David (as) and Mohammad (pbuh). The problem is the circumstances, intentions and aim. To destroy idols as a result of a looting raid has nothing to do with Islam and its praise by court poets is a poor fig leaf covering the shame of greed at best. Last but not least your sources. It would have been nice if you mentionned your source from which you copy and pasted your "scholarly reply". http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/temple1.html Which is a part of: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html a Hindu website that says: "Islam imposes a threat to the whole world which is far worse than deforestation, nuclear destruction or AIDS. It is an insidious, devilish disease creeping into the veins of the world. Every individual must realise the destructive and evil nature of this religion, for it eats away at the very foundation of humanity which is an individual's ability to think individually and act accordingly. The following articles logically analyse different aspects of this so called religion and bring forth the true nature of Islam." Somehow this seems to contradict your earlier statement that you have nothing "against Mohammad Sahib or Islam". The website is sponsored by "Jai Maharaj", a vedic astrologer whose academic credentials are: "American Federation of Astrologers Association For Astrological Networking National Council for Geocosmic Research International Society for Astrological Research International Society of Business Astrologers Planetary Gemologists Association Internet Engineering Task Force International Vegetarian Union Vegetarian Union of North America Association of Investigative Journalists South Asian Journalists Association Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ActressActor.com" 3. I am puzzled by a Sikh's use of these incidents in Indian history when his own 10th master writes to Aurangzeb saying in his Zafarnameh: manam kushteh am kohian but parast / keh u but parastand va man but shikast / I have destroyed the idol worshiping hill people because they are idolaters and I am an idol breaker. Your 10th master himself admits to waging war on the hill rajas for religious reasons namely the fact that they are "but parast" , idol worshipers and that he is a "but shikast", a breaker of idols. Prophets, Imams and holy mean inspired by God have always opposed idol worship as it is an abomination. Your own 10th master confirmed it. Maybe you should have added this passage to your long list of examples. Fact remains: Mahâdîn is not Mohammad (pbuh). Khoda Negahdar e Shoma

Be nam-e Khoda 1. Sant Baba Sher Singh, whom I respect, is no longer my vidyaguru and as I stated earlier Sant Tirath Singh is a worthier disciple than I ever was. I am quite content to remain a Shi'a of Imam Sahib e Zaman (ajf). 2. The hidden Jews of Portugal are called maranos and live for the most part in the mountainous regions region of Portugal around Serra da Estrela and all the members of that community know they are Jews. As for my family we are of Celtic and Moorish descent. Th people of my father's region get called "mouros" (Moors). So much for my heritage. Even if I had Jewish blood in me there would be nothing to be ashamed of. The Jewish tradition in Andalus has produced great mystics and scholars under Islamic rule and that would be something to be proud of. As much as I may disagree with Zionism as a political doctrine the fact remains that there is much beauty in Jewish heritage.Lisbon had great Jewish kabbalists and alchemists before the crusades massacred the Muslim and Jewish population. As for the rest I'll discuss Catholicism with people who have studied Greek and Latin, patristic and canon law, someone rooted in classical European tradition, like my historian brother. Hispanic Catholicism is quite a complex world. Under Islamic rule Christians were mozarab, Christians with an Arab culture. The people who conquered Spain were non Hispanic Catholics, French nobles for the most part. The first king of Portugal,Dom Alfonso Henrique was actually a French nobleman. When I speak of Portuguese and Spanish Catholics I speak of these non-Hispanic elites, who didn't hesitate to kill mozarab Christians. In Cordoba mozarabs have survived and have kept their Arabic heritage hidden but still alive."Qalbi Arabi" as we say. I am not surprised to find support for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, Jews and Mozarab Christians on this site. I doubt whether this is in line with the teachings of Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah (ra). Allahu 'alim. Khoda Negahdar e Shoma

Be nam-e Khodavand-e Restakhirz Shaheediyan wrote: Kingship in India and Iran implied in both cases a specific coronation and ritual initiation. In Iran it was also combined with the notion of fahr or xwarna. As for Rome the characteristic feature of the imperator was precisely that he was not rex. Rome had driven out the tarquinian royal dynasty and has not know a king since. Even though roman emperors ruled "like" kings they were not kings. As for the Holy Prophet (pbuh) there has always been a clear distinction in Abrahamic tradition between priesthood, kingship and prophethood. The very characteristic feature of Hazrat 'Isa (as) was that he fulfilled the Jewish prophecy regarding the meshiach: namely that he will be a priest, prophet and king. The separation between the three functions is very clear in the Gospels and it is also clear that Hazrat 'Isa was a unique case. David (as) was a prophet and a king but not a priest, whereas 'Isa (as) had the three functions. Before the emergence of a king in Israel, Allah (swt) appointed divinely inspired guides and prophets to the 12 tribes of Israel and at NO MOMENT are they called kings. The fact that they exerted political power didn't make them kings. In the case of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) it is very clear that at no point he has been called a king either by Allah (swt) or his people. To call him a "raja" would hence be pure non-sense. Even Firdawsi (ra) doesn't do that in his Shahnamah. The only descendants of the Prophet to have ever created a dynasty were the Fatimids and the Safavids. The Fatimid empire was an imamate NOT a kingdom, even to this day the Maulana Karim Shah Agha Khan IV does not hold the title of king even though he has the blood of several royal families in him. As for the Safavids they are the only dynasty of sayyids to have declared themselves Shah (king of Iran) NOT on basis of their prophetic bloodline but because they resurrected the old Iranian institution of Shah-i Shahan Shah. It's an Iranian tradition of the Achemenids, Parthans and Sassanids the the Safavids wished to restore. This is also why the royal Iranian crown was called the taj-e khiyani, the name of traditional pre-Islamic crown. To insinuate that kingship was due to descent from the Prophet (pbuh) through Fatimah (as) is hence non-sense. The Qajar were not sayyids nor were the Pahlavis and they were Shah-i Shahan Shah of Iran, a clear proof that kingship has nothing to do with bloodline. You might be tempted to mention the Alawi dynasty of Morroco but they are not sayyids. They are descendants of Imam Ali (as) through another wife, not Fatimah (as). I hope you now realize that in Islamic civilisation and theology kingship and prophethood-imamate are completely separate concepts.Unless of course the intention of the Mahâdîn interpretation of Sikhs (or intention of the author) is to deny the prophethood of Mohammad (pbuh). Your claim of a rule about monarchs having to be sayyids is hence I am afraid not correct. In any case all the rajas mentioned in Dasam Granth are supposed to be kings in the classical sense. As much as the Bachitar Natak may be an allegorical play the fact remains that the Mahâdîn passage only appeals to Islamophobic prejudice not commonly acceptable facts recognizable by everyone. Mithr wrote: