golestan

Be nam-e Khoda: Matheen wrote: It is possible because it is reported in the literature of the time. Ethnomusicological studies have been made and there many popular traditional songs that are exactly the same as those sung in certain regions of Morroco. Just because people have converted to Catholicism doesn't mean they don't remember their past. Kam1825 wrote: 1. In all of my posts I wrote Mahâdîn not Mahadin. I used two circumflex accents on the second a and i to signify that they are long vowels. 2. The fact that Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha wrote it in his Mahan Kosh doesn't take away the fact that the character of Mahâdîn in Bachitar Nâtak does not correspond to the historic person nor does it philologically fit with either Ahmad or Mohammad which are names of the Prophet (pbuh) based on the root HMD. It is very probable that Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha simply followed the Islamophobic trend of his fellow Sikhs. As to whether this is the intention of the author of these verses is another question. 3. The dialogue you refer to takes place in Mashad not Baghdad. Anyone familiar with hadith collections such as Al Kafi knows that the 14 Infallibles (as) emerged from the same light. They are all one light in 14 persons. To talk to superiority in terms of nûr is foolish. The difference between the blessed Prophet (pbuh) and the holy Imams (as) is that the Prophet came with the external aspect of the shari'a whereas the Imams whilst protecting that external aspect manifest the hidden meaning to their devoted followers, the Shi'a of Ahl e Mohammad (as). Several traditions also relate who the bodies of Imam 'Ali (as) and the Prophet (as) became pure light and merged into one. In fact in the Alevi and Ahl e Haqq traditions that reality is known as the light of Mohammad-Ali.

Deleted repost

Deleted repost

Deleted repost

Be nam-e Khoda As you can see Portuguese and Spanish Catholics proceeded to do abroad what they already accomplished in Al-Andalus. I hope this was your point because I get the impression that you misunderstood my statement: by the 15th century 99% of Portuguese were Catholics yes, ruled by a French based aristocracy. Though Catholics in practice remnants of Islamic culture remained and are still transmitted through music and popular religious traditions. Speaking of which a professor of religious anthropology at the University of Lisbon has written an interesting book about the apparitions of Fatima (the place) in Portugal. The Catholic Church claims the lady of light who told the children she was the lady of the rosary (sayyedat ul tasbih, a title of Fatimah Zahra (as)). After carefully studying the history of the place, its traditions and the events themselves (based on the original reports) he concluded that the lady of light was none other than Fatimah Zahra (as) herself. Espirito Santo, Moises.2006.Os Mouros Fatimidas e as Apariçoes de Fatima, Lisboa: Assirio & Alvim. You'll find it an interesting read I am sure. Just in case your wondered, the author is not Muslim and is a leading academic in Portugal. For works on Islam and Portugal you may want to look into Dr. Adalberto Alves' works as they are all about that subject. Khoda Negahdar

Be name-Khoda tonyhp32 wrote: As I said earlier I won't respond to personal attacks. I am glad you admit that the majority interpretation of Mahâdîn within the Sikh community is a. subjective b. not based on linguistic and historical facts c. translates a profound hatred of Islam tonyhp32 wrote: You are basing your assumption about the Omani tribes on the "letter" produced by Kharijite Ibadis. Being raja or king implies a coronation. The arabic concept of malik as in the case of the Omani tribes means lord but does not equate that of kingship which at that time were Persian and Roman concepts in the Middle East. As small as a red apple may be it remains an apple not a cherry. Just because the rajas around Guru Gobind Singh were small kings doesn't make them chieftains and it doesn't make small chieftains kings. In India being raja implies a whole crowning ceremony, as in Persia and Rome. tonyhp32 wrote: Quote Sunni hadiths if you like, I am sure the walls are interested. What worldly rulers do and the way their court poets praise them for oppressing innocents has as much to do with Islam as bombing planes and raping Hindu women has to do with Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah's (ra) teachings. As for my Muslim ancestors: anyone who studied the history of al Andalus knows that the locals adopted Islam in the very first years of its arrival in Spain and Portugal and that they were converted by force to Catholicism later. Up until the 17th century the people still sang "Qalbi Arabi" (my heart is Arab) in the streets of Lisbon. As for your ideas on abrogation for verses we don't accept that argument in the school of Ahl e Mohammad (as), it's a Sunni argument. This portrait of Holy Virgin Maryam (as) the mother of 'Isa (as) was made in front of the Danish embassy in Tehran as a response to the Danish cartoons. Khoda Negahdar e Shoma

Be nam-e Khoda Shaheediyan wrote: Yes the usual myth. My ancestors freely adopted Islam centuries ago. Nobody forced them. Some cases of forced conversion don't take away the fact that the majority overwhelmingly chose Islam as a way of life. And the same thing happened in India. Islam already existed in India at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) way before the first Arab incursion into Sindh. La ikra i fi dîn as the Quran says: No compulsion in religion. Personal insults aside,the reason for my temporary return has been clearly stated: the issue of Mahâdîn being the Prophet (pbuh). As to the interpretation I leave it to you Sikhs to find one. I have kept great love for Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah (ra) and find great spiritual comfort in his poems as I find it in Rumi (ra), Hafez (ra) or Baba Tahir (ra). For what followed after his demise I leave it to Allah (swt), he knows best. I am a Shi'a of Ahle Mohammad (as) and my guide is Imam Sahib ul Zaman (ajf). In that context the authenticity of dasam bani is of no concern to me. The only thing that matters is to defend Allah (swt)'s beloved seal of prophethood,Abi Qasim Muhammad (pbuh) and Ahl ul Bayt (as) when lies are being spread about them be it by Sikhs, Sunnis, Christians, Hindus or atheists. Motshakram va Khoda Negahdar e shoma.

Be nam-e Khodavand Xylitol wrote: The concept of kingship in Islamic societies appeared several centuries AFTER the demise of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The idea that just because a country obeys the order of a man doesn't make that man a king. Caesar ruled Rome but was never king, nor did Hitler nor is Bush. Kingship implies a whole range of conditions which were not met in the case of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Your argument is hence void. I don't see anyone declaring George W. Bush as king juste because he rules a country. Xylitol wrote: The text does actually say that. As for the Prophet (pbuh) not teaching "satnam" doesn't your gurbani teach you that God is known by many names? Your claim that Patanjali teaches satnam is purely false, I have studied his grammar and his yogasutrani in Sanskrit nowhere does he teach it. I don't know why God would limit himself to be named in an Indian language only. Islam accepts Persian titles and names for Allah (swt) and is very clear that God is not to be limited by language. So much for universality I guess. Shaheediyan wrote: The argument here is about Mahâdîn. If you wish to continue the ad hominem attacks be my guest. Shaheediyan wrote: Your brothers don't seem to agree with you as they think it is the Prophet (pbuh). Clear as day? I beg to differ... As for the acts of tyranny etc they are in contradiction with Islam and the acts of individuals. Forced conversions are not allowed, nor the killing of innocents, nor the destruction of churches, temples etc Such acts are committed by men of all cultures and nations. If the Islamic and Indic traditions have fallen from grace so have Sikhs. Shaheediyan wrote: Your own tradition claims to take care of miri and piri. The passage about Mahâdîn talks of kingship, conquest and domination: worldly matters. If this passage really reflects the Islamic community then it should be loyal to historical reality and not confine itself to a caricature of facts. kind regards Bahadur Ali Shah

Deleted repost

Be nam-e Khoda Shaheediyan wrote: Leaving aside the recurrent personal attack with reference to my past, I have to admit that the authorship of the Dasam and Sarabloh Granth is a question that no longer concerns me and that is only of importance of Sikhs in terms on knowing whether those writings are Guru Gobind Singh's or not. The reason why I have come back is not to discuss the authorship of the Dasam Granth but to discuss the validity of the passage of the character Mahâdîn. As for disproving the interpretation according to which that passage refers to the Islamic community I will add that: -in the Sikh community that interpretation is in the minority, the majority thinking falsely that Mahâdîn is Mohammad (pbuh) which is the point I am discussing and have clearly disproved. - as much of the actions of the Mahâdîn may reflect the actions of some Islamic rulers as individuals they do not reflect the teachings of Islam. If it really were a passage reflecting the actions of the Muslim ummah (a wide range of nations, kingdoms and dynasties) one wonders as to why the passage does not refer to the great achievements of Islam as a civilization. If that passage is to reflect the collectivity of all Muslims then it should represent all aspects of Islamic society. Unless of course that passage is nothing but vulgar Islamophobia.

Deleted repost

Be nam-e Khoda Shaheediyan wrote: Leaving aside the recurrent personal attack with reference to my past, I have to admit that the authorship of the Dasam and Sarabloh Granth is a question that no longer concerns me and that is only of importance of Sikhs in terms on knowing whether those writings are Guru Gobind Singh's or not. The reason why I have come back is not to discuss the authorship of the Dasam Granth but to discuss the validity of the passage of the character Mahâdîn. As for disproving the interpretation according to which that passage refers to the Islamic community I will add that: -in the Sikh community that interpretation is in the minority, the majority thinking falsely that Mahâdîn is Mohammad (pbuh) which is the point I am discussing and have clearly disproved. - as much of the actions of the Mahâdîn may reflect the actions of some Islamic rulers as individuals they do not reflect the teachings of Islam. If it really were a passage reflecting the actions of the Muslim ummah (a wide range of nations, kingdoms and dynasties) one wonders as to why the passage does not refer to the great achievements of Islam as a civilization. If that passage is to reflect the collectivity of all Muslims then it should represent all aspects of Islamic society. Unless of course that passage is nothing but vulgar Islamophobia.

Deleted repost

Be nam-e Khoda Shaheediyan wrote: 1. The theory of poetic license only makes sense to a certain point. One can interpret the Mahâdîn verses as being allegorical indeed but it is a minority who does so, even though it would make sense to a certain extent. As to what that allegory means is a different thing. It could mean as you say a critique of Islamic civilization but even then it would have weaknesses with what the verses actually say. The fact remains that the majority of Sikh scholars have interpreted it as Mohammad (pbuh) which as I have shown is problematic. Either their interpretation is faulty due to ignorance of Islamic languages and history or the author of the passage (whoever he may be) didn't get his facts right. 2. Mithr wrote: You are using the "personal authority charisma" argument i.e. "surely if THEY said it is it must be right and it means that they know Farsi and Arabic". The truth is that these scholars are not as learned as they seem to be and most of them parrot their teachers santhya which is the parroting of someone else's santhya. Very few have been those who have actually mastered the required languages to study gurbani properly. In fact in my interaction with most of this sampradayic "scholars" I have often come across cruse ignorance and prejudices against other religious traditions be they Islam, Christianity or other Indic traditions. Mahâdîn does not mean Mohammad. Either the author was ignorant, or Sikh scholars are ignorant. But the person described there is not the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). It's the opinion of misinformed ignorant Sikhs scholars vs hard linguistic and historical reality. kind regards Bahadur Ali Shah

Be nam-e Khodavand-e Restakhiz Shaheediyan wrote: After ignoring the gratuitous personal attack I will quickly move on to respond to you. 1. I have not come back to discuss my "take on it" rather the validity of the facts both linguistic and historical presented in the passage of Bachitar Natak. One thing is what the verse says another what we make of it. I no longer hold that Mahâdîn is a hybrid word. As for the interpretation of the verses there is a variety of possibilities. 2. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of "scholars" in the Sikh world have interpreted Mahâdîn as being the Holy Prophet (pbuh) even though it is very clear that it isn't him because the linguistic and historical facts simply don't match! As for the whole "it is clear that it represents the current followers" argument. It's an interpretation not what the verses say. The verses say that there was a man called Mahâdîn, who was a king in Arabi, circumcised other kings and had his name repeated over God's. And fact is that such a man never existed and fact is that this man isn't Mohammad (pbuh) because the linguistic and historical information of the verses do not match reality. kind regards Bahadur Ali Shah

Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim Assalamo Alaikom wa Rahmatollahi wa Barakatu Matheen wrote: I never seize to be astonished by the ability of some to think that they are able to discuss an issue without the necessary linguistic knowledge. The term mahâdîn in Bachitar Nâtak contains a long "â" vowel after the haha. The Middle Eastern name you mention is written with a short vowel after the he. Grammatically speaking it is impossible to have a term like mahâdîn (or mahaadeen) in Arabic or Farsi. Mahâdîn and the Jordanian "Mahadeen" are completely different and even if Mahâdîn were an Arabic term it would derive from a completely different two-three lettered root than Mahdeen which is an obvious regional corruption of the name Mahdi, so not even classical Arabic. The term mahâdîn is only used in one Ismaili text called Qalam e Mowla and is not even derived from Arabic. It simply means "the Great Day" meaning the Yaum ul Qiyyamah, the Day of Resurrection and it is purely Indic in origin: mahâ: great and dîn: day. No trace of Arabic. In any case it does not refer to a person. It is hence clear that the Mahâdîn of Bachitar Nâtak is NOT a Middle Eastern name, neither Arabic nor Farsi and that it is completely different from Mahadeen, which is a regional corruption of Mahdi. In any case the term Mahâdîn is not to be found in any Arabic dictionary. It might be an idea, just an idea Matheen, to have an idea of Arabic and Persian grammar before making claims about the origins of words like Mahâdîn. kind regards Bahadur Ali Shah

Mithr wrote: The fact that all these learned men have translated Mahadin as "Mohammad" doesn't mean they were right. You are using the "authority argument" which means: it has got to be Mohammad because X, Y, Z said so. Personal authority and charisma does not replace facts and the facts are the ones I have show earlier. There is simply no way, be it linguistic or historical to justify that Mahadin= Mohammad. Also being a vidvan in the Sikh sampradayas doesn't mean one is a full fledged scholar. Most of the time students parrot the interpretation of their teacher. Very few are those who have learnt Sanskrit properly let alone Farsi and Arabic. They themselves rely on the "personal authority" scheme: it is Mohammad because X, Y , Z said so. If thi really is Mohammad then the author of that passage has done a really bad job at describing him accurately.

Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim Assalamo Alaikom wa Rahmatollahi wa Barakatu Just in case you wondered it's Bahadur Ali. I am only entering the debate here to correct a few untruths about the seal of prophethood, Mohammad (pbuh). I am not here to attack anyone on personal grounds and shall ignore any personal attack. Nor am I here to convert anyone for it is Allah (swt) who guides the hearts to the truth of his divine religion. As soon as my points will be made I shall leave again. Let it be noted that I wont use nor accept any sources from the Ahl-e Sunnah (Sunnis) and shall rely only on the approved sources of the school of Ahl ul Bayt (as). Here are some of my observations: 1. Mithr and Unbreakable judge the question about Mahadin being the Holy Prophet (pbuh) according to "their own opinion and throughts". The matter at hand is not what untrained individuals think or rather feel about a matter but rather analyzing and discussing with philological proof. 2. Unbreakable's "opinion" about Mahadin being His Lordship Mohammad (pbuh) is based on the idea that the passage describes accurately the life of the Prophet (pbuh). This is nevertheless a great untruth to say the least. Why? a. Mahadin is neither an Arabic nor a Persian name, noun or verb. It has no meaning in those languages. For a Muslim the term "Mahadin" means absolutely nothing. The basis for civilized communication is the sharing of common vocabulary in order to convey meaning understood by a majority. The term Mahadin fails that purpose. To recapitulate: Mahadin is a made up name never used anywhere else for the Holy Prophet (pbuh). b. The text describes Mahadin as being the king of Arabia. This couldn't be the Prophet (as) nor any of his Immaculate Imams (as) as none have ever been crowned kings. Kingship implies royal descent, being crowned king and creating one's own money. The three conditions were never met in the case of the Rasulallah (pbuh). Kam1825 argues that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was considered like a king or could be compared to a king. Not a single hadith describes him as such nor any contemporary source. The case of 'Isa (as) is completely different as he actually was or royal descent through the house of Dawud (as). c. The text says that Mahadin slashed the ling (sexual organs) of kings he conquered. The only kings around the Prophet (pbuh) where the Byzantine and Sassanid emperors. He never conquered or subdued any of them nor did he impose circumcision as it was a widely practiced ritual among all Arabs be they Hanifas, Christians, Jews or Pagans. d. The text says that he ordered others to repeat his name instead of Allah's (swt) (astaghriullah). This is a complete and utter untruth. There is no evidence to that accusation. Anyone who knows the rules of prayer knows that the only focuss is Allah (swt) and that the name of the Prophet is only mentioned in the adhan and the tashahud and even then he is mentioned as follows "ashhadu ana muhammadan 'abudu wa rasulu": I witness that Mohammad his His servant and messenger, and this is after saying that God is the only divinity and that there is none like him. Again the Mahadin passage is replete with untruths on this matter. 2. Mahar Kharag Singh writes: Quite the opposite, there is none above Allah (swt). The fact that angels are ordered by Allah (swt) to bless His beloved Prophet (pbuh) doesn't mean that he is higher than Allah (swt). Hadhrat Mohammad (pbuh) represents the insan e kamil, the complete man, and as such like Hadhrat Adam (as) he is the mazhar (manifestation) of the divine attributes. To honour him (without worshipping him) is to obey the initial order given by Allah (swt) to his angels to bow in front of Adam (as). The one who refused was none but Shaytan (la). I hope I have been clear Bahadur Ali Shah