Morghe Sahar

"After the 2006 Lebanon war Hezbollah claimed a victory even though Israel had destroyed the terrorist infrastructure." You must be joking LMAO Man I wished I could pay you a trip to Lebanon for you to see for yourself. Anyways I am not surprised by your post.Then again Robert Baer knows the situation way better...

Mekhane'ch Jannat wrote: "Exegesis and jurisprudence are only tools, to be used to break up or build up. You choose how you wish to use them. If you want to utilise the divine gifts of exegesis and jurisprudence for the demonic aims of discord and 'causing bad feeling' then go ahead but do not blame 'sikh tradition' for your weakness. Bad feeling or negative energy is the food of demons. You are creating a large brood." Exegesis and jurisprudence are based on rules and have boundaries. It has nothing to do with feelings. If you wish things through the glasses of wishy washy negative vs positive "energies" (again you would need divine guidance to define negative and positive) that is up to you. Tonyhp32 wrote: "our argument fails on many levels. Not least as other works such as Bhai Gurdas Vaar 41 and Uggardanti refer to the demise of Islam. My views are that Bachittar Natak is not in conflict with what Bhai Gurdas writes about Mohammed. Unfortunately Sikh sites translate Yaara as 'beloved of God' whereas it possibly refers to -; 1. Mohammed and the four yaars - Mohammed accomplices in his undertaking. The way in which Mohammed and the yaars are mentioned is negative. The world becomes replete with sin with the advent of Mohammed. 2. Mohammed 'the friend' not 'beloved of God'. Nowhere in the Sikh scripture is Mohammed referred to in a positive way." If Mohammed is indeed depicted in such a negative way then maybe God should chose his friends better won't you think...but then again there is the author of the Bachitar Natak to correct God's mistakes... If Islam is indeed such a bad thing then building a mosque is in fact an act of impiety. It would be like the Vatican building a Satanic chapel or a Jehowa's witnesses hall inside the Vatican city. Pure nonsense.

Mekhane'ch Jannat wrote: "Everything must return to its cause. Misguidance is indeed a form of hell, but it is not a permanent state. Some people only learn by suffering, to speed up this suffering for some is an act of grace. You before said conscious misguidance, this is different from ignorant misguidance, ignorant misguidance will increase Karma, undoubtedly, but conscious misguidance lessons the weight, even though you may have to spend some time in hell." I am talking about the conscious misguidance provided by a guide. It is one thing to tell a person: "Keep on drinking" so they realize the evils of alcohol by themselves and building a pub. This is problematic: 1. The advice my lead to the total ruin of the person instead of taubah. 2. Building a pub would encourage others to drink This is the very opposite of guidance. It would be like a guide building rape, torture and murder houses for people to "realize" that it is bad. This is the very opposite of guidance and completely contradictory to God's attribute of mercy, compassion and justice. If Islam is indeed adharma then building a mosque is an adharmic act likely to misguide people. "Who am I? I am less than some (admin-cut). What can I say on this topic, people believe what they want. If you wish to make Sikhs an enemy than let us add to the hatred in the world, I am sure if you try hard enough you can breed the hatred the israelis have for the palestinians but this is indeed a mighty task. But without effort nothing is possible, If SIkhs hate Paki's let the Muslims hate Sikhs tenfold more. Those Sikhs even degrade the prophet in their Holy Books (even though his name is not mentioned, and when it is by Bhai Gurdas it is with the word 'yaara') Spread this around that Sikhs denigrate the prophet and the work of Baba Nanak can be destroyed properly. I call all Sikhs and muslims let us destroy the work of Baba Nanak so he may guide us adharmis and that we may purify ourselves through suffering it seems the only way we will learn." Emotional demagogy. I am talking about scriptural exegesis and its implications on a jurisprudential level. I am not talking about hatred. I have stated times and times over that I have absolutely no issues with those followers of Baba Nanak (ra) who don't follow this whole Mahadin issue and the anti-Islamic part of the rahit. I am simply pointing out an exegetical issue i.e. how do Sikhs conciliate the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) is called yara by Bhai Gurdas and that in Bachitar Natak they read Mahadin to be the Prophet (pbuh). As you may know I have proposed the idea in the past that Mahadin didnt have a literal meaning but: 1. ALL other traditional Sikh institutions cleary state that it is the Prophet (pbuh) 2. The secondary literature confirms it. I cannot in all honesty say that my previous interpretation corresponds to what the majority of Sikhs believe and I have to respect that fact. And to be even more frank I admit that my interpretation was based on the belief that the two granths couldn't possibly contradict each other hence my attempt to theologically conciliate them. But my attempt conflicted with 200 years of traditional Sikh exegesis and there comes a time when you have to listen. If these Sikh scholars say it's the Prophet (pbuh) then that means that they really mean what they and read. This means unfortunately that their official position is that the Prophet (pbuh) was a false prophet in which case if they live in an Islamic state they are muharib. I am not applying emotion here, I am merely thinking in terms of exegesis and jurisprudence.

Mekhane'ch Jannat wrote: "But I am not saying this about the Prophet Mohammed's Islam but Mahadin's Islam." So Mahadin and Prophet (pbuh) are not the same even though all your commentators say they are the same? I am just curious how you define Mahadin's Islam. "Yes brother, consciously misguided to expunge all their karmas, the ways of the Guru are certainly marvelous!" I don't see how misguiding people helps expunge their karma when in fact it worstens it. Buddhavtar came to teach shunyavada so that demonic souls would merge with the void and hence dissapear. Islam doesn't teach shunyavada at all. So the comparison with the Budhavtar is misplaced. Misguidance leads to hell not to liberation.

Amardeep I don't know building a mosque weakens Islam or Muslims. But it seems you also agree that Islam is adharma then.

Interesting explanation except of coursethat 1. the Gurus themselves never stated that they came to trap the unguided souls by building "fly traps". 2. a substantial number of Muslim disciples of the Gurus thus remained consciously misguided which again doesn't really add up. But interesting explanation nevertheless.

Londondajatt wrote: "What about, live and let live...?" The cornerstone of dharma is as is stated in gurbani and the Bhagavadgita: protecting the saints and destroying the impious. Impiety and falsehood are to be destroyed otherwise they will endanger the saints and in fact dharma itself. To live and let live means you allow adharma to spread its influence over your society. No responsible ruler can allow this.

Malwed da sher wrote: "Lets go with your logic for a moment. Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji disagreed with the practise of certain Hindu customs so using your logic you would question why Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji saved the tilak and janjoo? You can disagree with an individuals belief and still support their rights to freely practise religion. " Tilak and janeu are not condemned in Bachitar Natak and let me remind you that the Gurus wore tilak and that the gatra is the Khalsa's janeu. I am talking about issues of contradictory discourse. "Do the Saudis not believe non-Muslims to be Kaffirs? Yet in Dubai the royal family is constructing a Gurdwara Sahib. Has the British government and other governments not assisted in the finance of constructing places of worship for religions brought into the country by immigrants? Its the result of liberal thinking in society rather than views on anothers faith." 1. Dubai is not part of Saudi Arabia so your example falls appart. The Saudis surely wouldn't build a gurdwara in Saudi Arabia. Dubai is ruled by a non Wahabi family. 2. We're not talking about liberalism. We are talking about a discourse being consistent within itself. If you say X Y Z is a false prophet then you don't build mosques for him. It would be like Sikhs building a Nirankari or Ram Raheem temple for the sake of "liberal thinking" whatever that means.

Malwe da Sher wrote: "It appears like the passage concerning Mahadin is brought into every topic to make everything in Sikhi appear a conradiction. Things arent always black and white bahadur." 1. We are not talking about "things" 2. We are talking about Guru Ki Maseet and the relationship between teh Sikh tradition and Islam. And it appears, and I am sorry to have to bring it up, that there is an obvious contradiction when the leader of a movement builds a mosque and when his grandson says that the founder of Islam was a false prophet. You can't have it both ways. I know Niddarpanthis love to throw the "abhek and bibek like" gimmick sentence but it means kak. All this wishy washy stuff makes no sense. And I am not the only one pointing it out. One day you're going to have to face this and take position. Either: 1. you believe that Mahadin was the Prophet (pbuh) and in that case you clearly declare that Islam is a false doctrine. That makes you a muharib, an ennemy of the Islamic state and if you live in an Islamic state that means problems. That also means you have reconcile with the fact that the Adi Granth contains the compositions of a Chishti Sufi who practised shari'a and never broke it. Or... 2. you believe that the Mahadin passage is fake. Which means that you either have an issue with Bachitar Natak or that you have one with Dasam Granth as a whole in which case you have a greater issue even with the amrit samchar. You can't have a "something in between abhek and bibek like" position. It just won't happen unless you are happy with wishy washy stuff and in which case you admit not to have clear guidance which is all what religion is about.

Tonyhp32 wrote: "Morge, Even with your 'right on'.. 'groovy'.. and 'hip' new age Shia beliefs would your sect allow non-Muslim worship in Arabia let alone Mecca?" To be honest I dont' know. I should have to ask a scholar about this issue. Sure is I'll make sure you're not part of da party coz I don like ya but its not like u wanted 2 be part of it anyway innit.

I wasn't trying to portray this in a bad way.In fact I have nothing against that gurdwara but as per Akal Takht langar should be served on the floor and this is the mainstream position.I am not saying I agree with it. I am just saying that this is the official position which is respected by the majority of Sikh institutions worldwide.

True I forgot Ramgharia in Slough with its table and chair langar and Jamaican steel drum ensemble playing when the Nishan Sahib gets inaugurated. Very mainstream indeed.

Amardeep wrote: "The reason for the other Gurus not building any mosques might be that there never were any problems between sikhs and muslims at the time. Guru Har Gobind Sahib ji might have build the mosque as a gesture of showing that his fight was not aimed towards Islam but tyrany. I think there is a quote of Dasam Patshah saying "I dont strike men. I strike tyrants"" The issue still remains: If Islam is a path of lies as stated in Dasam bani then building a mosque is an act of impiety and in fact spreading adharma.

Tonyhp32 has a point. If indeed the Bachitar Natak Granth is to be taken as authoritative regarding the Prophet (pbuh) then building a mosque in total contradiction with the Mahadin passage.

Well these are Muslims playing qawwali which would never happen in any mainstream Sikh place.

Shaheediyan, my comments are indeed antagonistic towards those Sikhs who: - believe in the Mahadin issue and hence insult the Prophet (pbuh) - believe in Karni Namah - and believe in the anti-Islamic sections of the rahit and rahit literature That is not a tiny percentage of the Sikh population I am afraid though I do know that many Sikhs simply don't believe in those and don't care. With these Sikhs I have no problem and it is always a pleasure for me to engage in dialogue, friendship and brotherhood with these Sikhs who I believe to be loyal to the original message of Baba Nanak (ra). When I see Neeldharis invite Sufis to play qawwalis, when Guru Arjan invites Mian Mir to put the first brick of the Harmandir, or Guru Hargobind builds a mosque, I feel great joy.I see the potential that was Sikhism in creating a platform for monotheist Indic traditions and Islam to meet in dialogue.

Thanks for this video. Made my day

Brilliant

"I think he is talking demographics - i.e. Sunny domination." As much as I may disagree with Sunnism in its allegiance to the three usurpers that are Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman, you seem to forget the fact that much of pre-modern "Sunni" society from Morroco to Indonesia was highly influenced by Sufism. Which means that although the legalist qazis may have been strict on issues of law and jurisprudence, the spirit of Sufism acted as a counterbalance to that. We have many reports from Morroco where Jews and Muslims visit each other's saints, or Egypt where Muslims ask for the blessings of Coptic exorcists. I am not denying that official dogmatic Sunnism was strong. I am just stating that Sufism dominated society much more than it does today where it has been fought against by secularists who saw it as a sign of backwardness. Strangely enough these same secularists created a vacuum now filled by the Salafi movement. In pre-modern Turkey most of the guilds had initiation rituals drawn from Sufism and most often had Sufi patron saints and were linked to Sufi orders, like for example the Jannisaries who were linked to the Bektashi order. But on the whole UK Sikhs experience of Islam is shaped by their experience with Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims and by what they see on TV as well as an older Islamophobic tradition among some old generation Sikhs though not all.

londondajatt wrote: "hmm, yes, but can dharma be spread in a maseet? Also, we have sufi writings in Adi Guru Granth Sahib right? And they are not kataar muslmaan like mainstream. Ok, I cannot give a clear opinion, I am just trying to make something of it." Some good points: "but can dharma be spread in a maseet?" If it can't spread dharma then it is something else i.e. adharma which means that Guru Hargobind would have built a place that spreads adharma if we are to take Bachitar Natak's stance on Mahadin as authoritative. "Also, we have sufi writings in Adi Guru Granth Sahib right? And they are not kataar muslmaan like mainstream." Baba Farid (ra) was a practising Chishti Sufi who followed shari'a like all authentic Sufis. Your definition of mainstream Islam as being katar i.e. close minded seems to be shaped by your limited experience of Saudi financed Pakistani Muslims in the UK. Islam is way more complex I am afraid.

It's indeed a wonderful thing that Guru Hargobind did. But if we are to believe the Mahadin story it would mean that Guru Hargobind built a place that promoted something other that God's worship. It is one thing to accept someone having the right to a wrong opinion and another to promote a place where it is encouraged. The Gurus said they came to spread dharma. To build a place that promotes the teachings of a man who supposedly placed his name above God's name, became king of arabia and cut the lingas of kings would be to spread adharma. This is why the Bachitar Natak represents a problem: it conflicts with the teachings and actions of the previous Gurus and so do writings like Karni Namah.

The joys of Asian diasporic religiosity... "I just don't understand how or why people try to use logic to explain God and his workings! Its not just Sikhs, but also 'scholars' of other religions who explain their supremacy and inferiority of others beliefs through their 'sciebtific logic and reasonings'. That theirs is a modern scientific religion. Since when has the creator become bound to the laws of logic and reasoning? IS that not an attempt to humanise Him; the next step being to find faults with Him and His creation? If we were to use logic then one easily explain the non-existance of God. Hell, I could even convince you guys that we live in a giant, green teapot! Its a bit like my 7yo niece telling me off for speaking English wrong and not knowing anything. LOL" "The writer of that article seems to use too much logic for every single thing in Bachitar Naatak. Using this type of logic, one can also put doubts on Gurbani of SGGSJ. Where does it all end? Seems like pure bullshit to me!" Too much logic hey... Well ever heard of the term exegesis? The science of interpretation of religious texts? Now... I know that the majority of you think very highly of santhiya which is nothing more than learning someone else's interpretation of a sacred text. But that isn't actually exegesis. All it is , is the swallowing of one intepretation. Now fact is that Sikh literary history has and still has scholars who go beyond the parot understanding of sacred texts and decide to undertake the necessary studies to be able to intertret the text in question. For that you need: 1. Learn the languages and grammars of the sacred text. If you haven't then you might as well keep quiet. 2. Study the socio-historical and religious context of the time. 3. Study the literature of the time and area to be able to compare the use of words. 4. Study the traditional writings about that text. 5. Study of rhetoric, logic and literary criticism. Only after having mastered these among others may one claim to have an idea of what is happening. The historical taksals provided some of these branches of knowledge given the fact that history as a discipline is a very new thing to India. As for the knowledge of other religious traditions I can safely say that one of the only ones to have done his homework was Pandit Tara Singh Narotam regarding Vaishanvism and Tantrism. For the rest I have to admit that when Sikh preacher talk about other religions I can't fail to think that they have no clue of what they are talking about. But that is an Indo-Paksitani thing which is shared by many swamis and mullahs. It is this love for half baked definitions that makes "Sikhs into cow worshippers" and "Muslims into linga worshippers" and what not. Scripture uses language and language is a code made of signs that have a meaning and that are linked to each other through logic. When a text says: "That house is white" when in fact that house is black we have an issue. Either the text has a hidden meaning that must be referenced somewhere OR the text is simply inaccurate. Imagine we have a text that says:"The White House is black" when in fact in reality we all know it is white, we have a problem. Either the text has a hidden meaning or it doesn't and it is absolute nonsense. In that case we look at what traditional interpreters say. Who knows maybe some scholar means that the White House is morally corrupted, or that with Obama is has become black. Now when we check and the traditional scholars say:" the white house is black" means it is really black not white in the literal sense" then we have a problem.Either that text is false or it has not been written by the supposed author. Now let's take the Mahadin issue: - King of Arabia : false - had his name repeated over God's: false - cut the ling of the kings: false i.e. Mahadin can't for all historical and logical reason be the Prophet (pbuh). We have to ask: is there a hidden meaning in the traditional literature? Reply: no All the satiks of Dasam Granth identify Mahadin with the Prophet (pbuh) which is tantamount to saying that the White House is Black because the statement simply doesnt match up with reality. Many will continue to say that the white house is black and that Mahadin is the Prophet (pbuh). But any person who has aqal will ask: -maybe it wasn't written by the 10th master because it is a blatant lie -maybe he did write and Sikhs have to rethink how they can conciliate having a Guru who states things that are not true. - maybe there is another meaning but it got lost, in which case it is a question of rethinking religious practise.

Matheen wrote: "It is not contradictory. Learn it from an Ustad and you will see for yourself. It's like other places in Bani where it says "Ek Hai, Anek Hai, Phir Ek Hai"....without understanding the context of this line it appear contradictory yet in reality it isn't." Either God guides humanity by continuously sending sinless and immaculate prophets and avatars or else he leaves humanity in misguidance which means he is not God. "Anyone can get Mukti but an effort has to be made - in most cases years and years of hard dedication. It's the same with Dasam Bani - until you study it and are able to interpret it correctly, in the right context, some things will seem incomprehensible." If anyone can get mukti why the need of prophets and avataras and indeed your Gurus then`? "I know about 'Khuda' but none of the Kashmiri muslims i've come across ever use 'Shiva'. How does this work with the 99 names in the Quran?" Khoda, Khodavand, are not part of the 99 names and in fact there are more than 99 names listed in the duas of Imam Ali. If you haven't crossed any Kashmiri Rishi Muslims that is your bad luck. "You never proved it to be historically incorrect. We showed you how in the right context, it is perfectly correct. Guru Ji didn't shy from naming the Avtars/Prophet because as they wrote, they stated the truth without fear." The Prophet (pbuh) was not a king, never got crowned and never called himself a king. And indeed it is actually considered an insult. He never placed his name above God's. He never forced kings to be circumcised and in any case circumcision is a practise that already existed before the Prophet and was widely practiced in Arabia. The whole Mahadin passage is in fact a huge blasphemous lie. "There were audio recordings of Bachittar Natak Katha by Mahapursh but I can't find it." Well here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNXlPJmN1VE Historically speaking all of what this foremost student of Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale is saying is nothing but lies without ANY historical proof.Not only that: it is utterly offensive and is from the point of view of Islamic jurisprudence a declaration of war against Islam which would classify the Sikhs who believe in that passage as muharib, people who wage war against the Islamic state.

Dear Shaheediyan, you asked for plays written in that region and that period. I am afraid Panjab doesnt have examples of classical natakas from the 17th century. But one could refer to the Prabodhachandordaya , an allegorical play in which virtues and vices fight against each other. So ignorance is called Ignorance i.e. the vice is personified by a charatcer bearing its name. But from a literary pointz of view you have quite often the figure of the qazi and of the brahman who represent bigotry. Are all qazi and brahmins bigots? of course not but the character represents the misguided follower of that religion. It's a completely different thing when you say that prophet or avatara x y z misguided humanity.

I have no problems with not taking it literally but the problem is that even so it is still contradictory. If the intention had been to criticse the movements then these should have been represented by a figure of a follower as it happens in plays. Shaheediyan states that a mere mortal is not capable of understanding these lines. If that is the case then what is the purpose of revelation at all. If sacred scripture is just about God talking mysterious stuff to himself there is no point revealing it to humanity anyway. When a verse says: all other prophets got their own name repeated over God's, it means all other prophets got their own name repeated over God's. As for Matheen, I worked with Kashmiri Rishis and yes they use the word Shiv when talkiing about God, in the same way as Iranian use the Zoroastrian word Khoda for God. As for the Mahadin passage, what do you define as the "right way"? The passage is blatantly historically incorrect and your scholars say it's the Prophet (pbuh). Your idea that a person who follows a false prophet can still be saved is non-sense. In that case from your point of view there is no difference between an amritdhari and a Nirankari which of course does away with the very purpose of guidance. Why follow prophets if anyone can just do as they please and still get to God? It doesnt add up.