Morghe Sahar

The cut needs to be done in one go. Try harder. Mate you can find me x videos of illiterate tribesmen in Afghanistan and Pakistan doing whatever. I don't care. Consult a jurisprudential source about what the halal way of slaughtering implies instead of posting youtube videos. I have seen plenty of videos of jhatka mishaps where Nidar's students had to hit a bakra three times before it was dead whilst laughing their heads off doing it, and laughing whilst cutting the animal's flesh. SO please spare me the "you're so barbaric" song. You're as bad the people you accuse. And it doesnt take away the fact that your first video proved that you can't differentiate between a non Muslim tribal sacrifice and halal slaughtering. So leave it mate...

Jattboot you forget that the animal looses consciousness straight away as the main vein is cut whereas with jhatka the animal's head is still conscious during the whole process. Guys you have just shown to the whole world how much brain you Nidarpanthis have. Try searching youtube when you're not in afeem, degh or sharab. Might work...

Just in case you say I am lying, here is the original video shown in the blog: Oh my God!!!ROFL!!! I am not surprised to see Nidarpanthis stooping to the level of lying...

That's not even how halal is done you idiots!!! These guys are not even Muslims. This is a traditional non-Muslim buffalo sacrifice from Toraja in Indonesia. They also sacrifice pigs there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMVoe8yPTUg...feature=related Oh my God, I can't believe you guys are so thick, shooting yourselves in the foot. LMAO

Tony32hp wrote: "No thanks, I'm not interested in coming to Iran especially since it looks like the 'evil' Zionists will soon be bombing Iran into the stone age. I suggest you start improving your stone working skills!" 1. Israel bombing Iran? ROFL man you joka, has anyone ever told you you should do stand up comedy? 2. My stone working skills...maybe your brother should have used me to build Southall that way it wouldn't be the open air latrine it is now...

Kamalroop Singh wrote: "from my limited understanding of the holy Qur'an. Is that a human should surrender to the will of God. All things that happen on Earth are the will of God. Including religious diversity, and cultural differences. As for reconcilation of faith, nobody can make even a leaf move, all is his divine will. It was his will that a Sikh, Buddhist, and Muslim would walk around the Sri Darbar Sahib together. The reconciliation is His, nobody can claim it; no man or religion. It is His alone." 1. Surrender to God must be done in the way He Himself teaches through his prophets and imams. It can't be the result of a man's own musings even if there is a good motivation behind it. 2. You make humans to be robots acting on God's will. God has granted humans free will to chose between truth and falsehood, light and darkness. If EVERYTHING is the result of God's will then God is guilty for all the rape, murder, massacre etc on earth as it is done by His will, which then again would mean that he is not compassionate and hence not God. Japuji Sahib reminds us that it is on acting on His Hukam and in being in his Ridha that man can be saved. That only makes sense if man has a choice. Otherwise man would only be a robot and religion would have no purpose at all. "In the Qur'an the Prophet Mohammed states" The Quran is not Muhammad's (pbuh) words but the words of Allah (swt) and none other.

Dear Kamalroop Singh, the picture you showed is proof of good intentions such as "we're all one" but who has the right to unite humanity? Who has the authority to bring all divinely revealed religions together? Secular organisations? Falible human beings? Imam Ali (as) said: A person may not be your brother in faith but he remains your brother in humanity. Brothers can disagree and sometimes fight. Who will judge who is right and who is wrong, and who can reconcile them? "The Mahdi will extract the Torah and the other Divine Books from their caverns and will judge amongst the faithful of the Gospels according to the Gospels, amongst the faithful of al-Zabur (The Book of David) according to the al-Zabur and amongst the faithful of the Koran according to the Koran." Only God's infallible, sinless proof on earth can reconcile the different divine faiths. All others who attempted that failed. Look at Akbar. Without any doubt a great king, with good intentions. But wasn't his Din Illahi a proof of spiritual arrogance? Trying to give himself a role that wasn't his...it was doomed to fail.

Tony32hp, many people in the Islamic world offer charity instead of sacrificing sheep, and they don't get fatwas. Good God I feel like sponsoring you to come to Iran so we finally can have tea together but then again I think and....naaaaaaaaaa

Chelo Kabab anyone?

kamalroop singh wrote: "thats a fair point, scholars do change their positions........but this is quite a radical change, would you agree?" Taking into account the opinions of various generations of sampradaik scholars is not a radical change. Tony32hp wrotw: "As for Sikhism, each and every soul is given the chance to move through various life forms until they finally achieve liberation through Manas Janam. Although some will miss this chance yet they will have other opportunities. the Gurus clearly state in Gurbani that many before their earthly life others have achieved liberation." Achieved liberation without the Guru? defeats the very purpose of Sikhism.lol

Mithar wrote: "Bahadur, what happens to Muslims whose bodies get burned to ashes in a war situation or any other situation? How will their bodies get raised from the dead?" This issue has been raised in eschatological discussions. I would have to consult my sources. Funny you mention this as I am reading a book on Mola Sadra's theories on resurection and reincarnation. Tony32hp you're boring.

If anything what I wrote highlights obvious contradictions in Sikh discourse regarding certain personalities. I tried to reconcile them but most Sikhs scholars haven't and this a problem.

To Kamalroop Singh: Yes I did and I will revise my position in my next article. I don't know a single scholar who doesnt revise his position if his research proves that his previous position was incorrect. I am not ruling out that that interpretation. I am just saying that given the fact that it is not endorsed by the sampradayic scholars, I doubt it can be called representative. All it is, is my interpretation at that time.

spiderman wrote: "''God never leaves humanity without a human, sinless and guided master for humanity'' Says who?" The hadiths of Ahlul Bayt (as). Imam Riza (as) said: "God, the Wise, never leaves His creatures without a guide. "

Mithar wrote: "According to you yes, Not according to us. For us it is the truth. " 1. The Prophet was never crowned king. 2. Never put his name above God's name. 3. Never circumcised kings. These are lies.

Ok ok one at the time darlings... 1. Dear Shaheediyan, I am talking about jurisprudence here. So yes Sikhs who believe in that version of things would be considered muharib. In a secular state it would of course be different and it would just be a matter of personal behaviour concerning person to person dealings with the thought in mind that no violence can happen. It's all just a matter of where Islamic jurisprudence applies and how. I can imagine that if the Iranian authorities realized this they would try to clear this up with the Sikh community first and then see how Iranian Sikhs stand on this question. 2. Mithar wrote: "Before Mohammad Sahib was born, it was the era of Jahilliyaa according to the Muslims." Jahiliyya refers to the cultural state of the Arabs before Islam and refers to practices such as female infanticide, fornication, idolworship and magic. For the rest humanity has always had Prophets and Imams to guide it since Adam (as), and every Prophet has had a successor to continue his mission. 3. Spiderman wrote: "We can say the same about Islam and the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Was the whole of humanity mislead and or misguided untill the emergence of the Prophet (PBUH)?" Humanity was guided by the prophets and imams before the Prophet (pbuh) such as Jesus, Moses,Abraham and Zarathustra. Regarding India many scholars consider Krishna and Rama to be prophets and Vedic texts to be divine revelations prior to Islam though because they are not mentionned in the Quran, less open minded scholars would disagree. God never leaves humanity without a human, sinless and guided master for humanity.

Shaheediyan wrote: "Oh stop talking rubbish and get a life. You have clearly changed your view for obvious reasons. Since when do you care about the 'apparent' majoritys thought? You having interviewed all Sikhs and and processed a statistical analysis, you plum. I keep telling you, the majority haven't even heard of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib (non-initiated). Other than tht, most bachans I have heard from Mahapursh, do acknowledge the divine status of 'God'Men' before the arrival of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Lastly, it's stupid, in sane persons book, to think that an opinion on someones/movements success/failure is a declaration of war. This is the sought of thinking that starts wars and creates terrorists! why should every non-muslim have to think that actions of Muhammed Sahib or the evolution of Islam have been perfect? If they don't then they are declaring war? Complete nonsense, as we have come to expect from your confused and deranged self. If thats how you interpret Islam, then I dno't agree with your intrepitation." 1. I am talking about commentators of Dasam Granth, jathedars, gianis etc not your average Sikh (whatever that means) 2. Yes there are Sikh saints who have great respect for the prophets of the past. But their laudable opinion conflicts with certain texts. It's an interesting question nothing more. Is their opinion the result of their Vedantic leanings, how do they reconcile their declarations with that of dasam granth. In clear: you can't say that Krishna was a divine avatar and at the same time consider a text that Krishna is a dog to be compatible. 3. As for the declaration of war. Present the lines of mentionned from Bachitar Natak to any Sunni or Shi'a faqih couples to your 10th master declaration to be the only one to have a direct phone line to God and you'll get this as a declaration: Anyone who has declared this is a muharib if he does this publicly for he encourages rebellion against Islam and the Islamic state. This is a question of jurisprudence not opinion. There are plenty of Christians and Jews who respect the Prophet (pbuh) without agreeing with him. That's not the issue. The issue is that Bachitar Natak tells lies about the Prophet (pbuh). That is the issue.

Opinions that are respectfully expressed on shiachat even when they contradict Shi'a belief are tolerated as long as they provide an occasion to debate as uncomfortable as it may seem. On shiachat we have many christians and Hindus who clearly come to debate and the moderators let them. I find it ironic that you constantly reproach to me the fact that I changed religion and opinion when your second and third masters themselves treaded different paths before becoming Sikhs. As for my views on Bachitar Natak, this may have been my view when I was following Sikhism, but as much as it may be a possibility the fact is that most Sikhs agree with tony32hp's view. And this would lead any rational person to ask the following question: Would a compassionate God let humanity be mislead humanity until he finally choses to send 10 people with the real deal whom 0,0001 % of humanity follow? This is a purely rational question. I am sure someone can provide an explanation. As for your 10th master making mistakes: 1.The Prophet (pbuh) wasn't the king of Arabia 2. He didn't circumcise kings 3. And he surely didn't get his name recited over God's name Sorry but that just didn't happen. We all know most Sikhs don't take these line symbolically, all the satiks I have read say that Mahadin is the Prophet. So yes this is utter blasphemy against Ahlul Bayt (as) and a declaration of war on Islam as a whole. The status of Sikhs who consider Dasam Granth as bani is simply that of a muharib, someone at war with Islam. This is what jurisprudence says. For some reason countries with an Islamic constitution have ignored this fact because they are ignorant of Sikhism. But you can be sure that not one faqih would hesitate to consider these lines (and others) as a clear declaration of war. The question of course is, are these your 10th master's lines? That is a question your people are still debating. The question remains: If God is compassionate why did he let humanity be misguided for so long before sending your ten masters? How is that compatible with God's role as Guide for his creation? What about the billions of souls mislead?

Shiachat.com is a forumn where different opinions are voiced by Shi'as and non-Shi'as. You have pro and anti IRI people there as well as others. Jihadwatch and Pat Condell speak for themselves and present whatever they understand of Islam with the limited academic credentials they have in the field.

Your link doesn't provide any information on who did this. You might want to read this just in case you want to know how your taxes are being used by your government: Fake Terrorism Is a Coalition's Best Friend Iraqi police recently caught two terrorists with a car full of explosives. Would it surprise you to learn they were British Special Forces? The story sounds amazing, almost fantastical. A car driving through the outskirts of a besieged city opens fire on a police checkpoint, killing one. In pursuit, the police surround and detain the drivers and find the vehicle packed with explosives — perhaps part of an insurgent's plan to destroy lives and cripple property. If that isn't enough, when the suspects are thrown in prison their allies drive right up to the walls of the jail, break through them and brave petroleum bombs and burning clothes to rescue their comrades. 150 other prisoners break free in the ensuing melee. Incredible, no? Yet this story took place in the southern Iraqi city of Basra recently. Violence continues to escalate in the breakout's aftermath... just not for the reasons you think. You see, the drivers of the explosive-laden car were not members of an insurgency group — they were British Special Forces. Their rescuers? British soldiers driving British tanks. That's right — two members of the British Armed forces disguised as Arab civilians killed a member of the Iraqi police while evading capture. When the people of Basra rightfully refused to turn the murderers over to the British government, per Coalition "mandate," they sent their own men in and released over 100 prisoners in the process. Winning the hearts and minds, aren't we? Sadly, this story is really not all that surprising. After hearing countless accounts of using napalm and torture against innocent civilians in addition to the other daily abuses dished out by American overseers, the thought of British scheming seems perfectly reasonable. So what we have here is a clear instance of a foreign power attempting to fabricate a terrorist attack. Why else would the soldiers be dressed as Arabs if not to frame them? Why have a car laden with explosives if you don't plan to use them for destructive purposes? Iraq is headed towards civil war, and this operation was meant to accelerate the process by killing people and blaming others. Nothing more, nothing less. That the British army staged an over-the-top escape when it could rely on normal diplomatic channels to recover its people proves that. Such extreme methods highlight the need to keep secrets. There have been a number of insurgent bombings in Iraq recently. Who really is responsible for the bloodshed and destruction? The only tangible benefit of the bombings is justification for Coalition forces maintaining the peace in Iraq. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the Iraqis — they already believe most suicide bombings are done by the United States to prompt religious war. After reading about this incident, I'm not inclined to disagree. Even though this false-flag operation was blown wide open, I'm afraid it might still be used in the mainstream media to incite further violence in the Middle East. Judging by the coverage that has emerged after the incident, my fears seem warranted. Several articles have already turned the story against the angry Iraqis who fought the British tanks as they demolished the jail wall, painting them as aggressive Shia militia attacking the doe-eyed, innocent troops responding to the concern that their comrades were held by religious fanatics. A photograph of a troop on fire comes complete with commentary that the vehicles were under attack during a "bid to recover arrested servicemen" that were possibly undercover. All criminal elements of British treachery are downplayed, the car's explosive cache is never mentioned and the soldiers who instigated the affair are made victims of an unstable country they are defending. Hilariously, all of this spin has already landed Iran at the top of the blame game. Because when the war combine botches its own clandestine terrorist acts, what better way to recover than by painting the soulless, freedom-hating country you'd love to invade next as the culprit? In a way, I almost admire the nerve of officials who are able to infer that Basra's riots have nothing to do with fake insurgent bombing raids and everything to do with religious ties to a foreign country. It's a sheer unmitigated gall that flies in the face of logic and reason. "The Iranians are careful not to be caught," a British official said as the UK threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Too bad the British aren't! Maybe then they'd be able to complete their black-ops mission without looking like complete fools in the process! Make no mistake — any and all violence to erupt from Basra over this incident lands squarely on the shoulders of the British army and its special forces. Instead of stoking the flames of propaganda against a nation it has no hope of ever conquering, maybe Britain should quit trying to intimidate the Iraqis with fear and torture and start focusing on fixing its mistakes and getting out of the Middle East. These actions are inexcusable and embarrassing; however, they should make you think. If a country like the United Kingdom is willing to commit acts of terror, what kind of false-flag operations do you think the United States is capable of? If you thought the U.S. wouldn't blow up people it claims to support in the hopes of advancing its agenda, think again. Use this incident as your first reference point. Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society. http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/...est_friend.html

Tony32hp wrote: "Morghe, In your rush to counter what you believed to be my argument you actually misunderstood what I wrote. Islam teaches that the Jews corrupted the message of the Jewish prophets, not the Prophets themselves. Whereas much to your chagrin in the Bachittar Natak it is Mohammed himself who subverts and corrupts the message that he has been given. Even the layman would be able to understand the difference. As for Shia Militias. Here are your great soormey fighting in defence of er..er.. makeup and uncovered hair! http://observers.france24.com/en/content/f...lamic_tradition Unfortunately the British army which seems to be PC rampant was not serious about tackling these murderers but since the British disengaged from Basra the not so PC Americans have pretty much forced Muqtada to disband the Mahdi army. Feel free to do a google search for more hair raising stories but then do you really want to remove the blinkers from over your eyes or remove the cobwebs of ignorance from your brain? Beware you may gain your humanity but lose your flavour of the months status on Shiachat! Neo-con porn site like Jihadwatch! Wow talk about a low blow. Most would say that Shiachat is an Islamofascist porn site. I can understand why you have such a hatred for such sites and as well as hatred for our mutual friend Pat Condell. These sites and Pat Condell tell it like it is and don't try and explain away evil under various academic terms and theories." Any punishment given outside the context of a trial given by a legitimate court is illegal in Islam. In Mashhad, a war veteran killed several prostitutes believing he was doing it for the sake of Islam. He got arrested, tried and executed for murder.What these people did in Iraq was illegal from the point of view of Islamic jurisprudence. Just so you know.Iraq is in a chaotic situation and it is sad to see the average Tom Dick and Harry improvise themselves as judges and executionners. It is extremely saddening and if Shia militia men were involved then it must be condemned because this is clearly unislamic. Regarding Bachitar Natak, I agree with you, your 10th master declares that it is the prophets before him themselves who were corrupt which of course leaves a huge theological problem: Why would a compassionate God leave humanity misguided for thousands of years? If so He does not fulfill His role as Guide and is hence not a compassionate God and thus not God. In clear Bachitar Natak is saying that God has sent corrupt prophets to humanity and that as a consequence billions of souls have been doomed because of that. The One True and Compassionate NEVER leaves humanity without a human guide or otherwise He is not God but a deceiver.

Shaheediyan you are basically saying that if a Shia defends himself against Wahhabi and foreign agression he is a fanatic... fyi Muqtada al Sadr and the IRCI have always appealed for peace between Sunnis and Shias in order to concentrate on the fight against Wahabbism and the US.

shaheediyan wrote: "So the numerous Shia 'militias' aren't responsible for uncounted secterian killings/murders? My aim is not to chuck stones, but just get you to take a glimpse in your own backyard, as you have tried to do with Tony. Seems like you are both destined to keep your eyelids glued together." 1. Numerous? There are at the most two main groups. One is the Islamic Revolutionary Council of Iraq set up by late Shaheed Ayatollah Hakeem (ra). Many of them have been trained by Iran during the Saddam period but are not engaged in any open confrontation with the US occupation forces or the Sunni community. The IRCI actually part of the present government and is not known to be one of the destabalizing forces. If I remember correctly they did engage in some action against Al Qaeda. The Mehdi Army of Muqtada al Sadr doesn't depend on Iran, and yes it has been active in retaliating to Wahabbi violence against Shias. It is us the Shi'a who get targetted the most because Saudi Arabia's clerics have declared that killing Shias is a good action.Get your facts right. 3 millions Shias died durinh Saddam and now Wahhabis even bomb Shias duringh Ashura. Even if some excessed were created it is NOTHING in comparison to what has been to us as a religious community. Does al Qaeda provide medical help, education, protection and food to the local populattion? NO. Sadr does. You can't even compare al Qaeda and the Mehdi Army. be khoda you're giving me a heart attack

Sorry repost: Tony32hp wrote: "Islam was founded on a conspiracy theory, that Jews were given a scripture which they then corrupted and that Jesus was a 'prophet' of Allah and not the Son of God. Here's a collection of the better known Islamic conspiracy theories. Even the Shia seem to not be immune from conspiracy theories either-; http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Conspiracy_Theories" If that's the case then Sikhism was founded on a conspiracy theory too as your 10th master keeps repeating in Bachitar Natak that all prophets before him failed and that he's the one coming with the right message... People who live in glass houses... Mind you tony32hp you are always true to yourself quoting real academic authorities on Islam like wikiislam.com. You know Tony, beyond Southall there are more cities with less people like you but who are also human beings (I know it's hard for you to swallow this truth at first). It so happens that there are three cities not to far away from Southall called, London (capital of a country called Britain, just next to Southall), Oxford and Cambridge. Now these cities have things called universities. Think of it as big schools where they teach other things besides dentistry, accountancy and IT (WOW). These also happen to have Islamic studies department in which scholars in that field work and teach. You can even go and have courses there. (exciting isn't it?). Now when grown up and serious people talk about Islam they normally refer to books written by these people NOT by the neo-con (emphasis on "con" both French and English). I am sure one day you'll gather all your courage to take that train ticket to either visit these places and meet those scholars or that you'll be able to give up your addiction to neo-con porn sites like jihadwatch.org etc... I believe in you Tony, muah

Tony32hp wrote: "Islam was founded on a conspiracy theory, that Jews were given a scripture which they then corrupted and that Jesus was a 'prophet' of Allah and not the Son of God. Here's a collection of the better known Islamic conspiracy theories. Even the Shia seem to not be immune from conspiracy theories either-; http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Conspiracy_Theories" If that's the case then Sikhism was founded on a conspiracy theory too as your 10th master keeps repeating in Bachitar Natak that all prophets before him failed and that he's the one coming with the right message... People who live in glass houses... Mind you tony32hp you are always true to yourself quoting real academic authorities on Islam like wikiislam.com. You know Tony, beyond Southall there are more cities with less people like you but who are also human beings (I know it's hard for you to swallow this truth at first). It so happens that there are three cities not to far away from Southall called, London (capital of a country called Britain, just next to Southall), Oxford and Cambridge. Now these cities have things called universities. Think of it as big schools where they teach other things besides dentistry, accountancy and IT (WOW). These also happen to have Islamic studies department in which scholars in that field work and teach. You can even go and have courses there. (exciting isn't it?). Now when grown up and serious people talk about Islam they normally refer to books written by these people NOT by the neo-con (emphasis con both French and English). I am sure one day you'll gather all your courage to take that train ticket to either visit these places and meet those scholars or that you'll be able to give up your neo-porn sites like jihadwatch.org etc... I believe in you Tony, muah