Morghe Sahar

Mehtab Singh: "I have been fooled by 1 year old infants, that too on 2 occasions! They outsmart me!"

It amazes me how people who speak a language that is written by the majority of its speakers in the Persian script and has so many of its words borrowed from Persian (not to talk of copied religious traditions) consider me a fanatic for pointing out simple evident facts. Tonyhp32 I don't really know how posting videos of Salafi converts has any relevance. Suicide bombing is haram in Shi'ism for all I know. I think you still didn't get it and that is why I'll express it in a language you understand: I am Shi'ah i.e. me is not a Sunni or a Wahabi and me not leaving in South-hole. joo undershtand? Me not own kabab shop and scrounge British wellfare system and me not seduce Sikh kurian. So if joo vant 2 talk about Sunni and Wahabi no problem sir but it not concern me.If joo posting Sunni sources joo posting it for wind.

Shaheediyan wrote: "Actually, thats not far off the truth. Pehlvani in Iran is extinct, that exhibition that BA posted is the only famous traditional akara that exists in Iran." Shaheediyan you are a stinking liar. Tehran and other of other Iranian cities have loads of zoorkhaneh. In Tehran there is at least one for every major part of the city let alone in more traditional cities like Esfahan. And no Pahlavani is still alive and not at all extinct you lying /&ç%*/&.

As for Dharma, it is derived from the Sanskrit root DHR, dharati which means to bear. Dharma is the thing that bears. It's meaning is context sensitive and has to be translated differently depending on the context. Dharma means completely different things depending on whether it is found in a jurisprudential text, a Buddhist text or an Upanishad.

Shaheediyan wrote: "For a child to be born in captivity requires a woman to be in captivity. How does that woman become captive in the 1st place. Give it up." So a child doesn't have a gender? Children don't grow up to be adults? Female children don't become women? Let's imagine the situation: Shaheediyan has a daughter and a son and he owns tremendous amounts of money due to failed concerts and decides, as prescribed in Prem Sumarg Granth, to sell his kids to the local landowner and richest guy in the region, Lalu Ram. His kids are sent to Lalu Ram's house where they work as slaves for some 15 years. One day Lalu Ram finds a hair in his daal and decides to get rid of his slaves who are now 21 and 20 and decides to sell them. A compassionate Portuguese Shi'a called Bahadur Ali happens to be in the region and decides to buy the custody of the young slaves. He treats them with dignity and fairness until the day he decides to free them because he sees that the boy has great talent as a cook and could open a restaurant. As for the sister, Satinder, after observing the dignified way of living of Shi'a women, decides to revert to the true religion, becomes Setareh and becomes Bahadur Ali's third wife. I think it answers your question.

People already born in captivity. For example, a Sikh family decides to sell their children to some landowner. These children when grown have children who are born as slaves until a nice Portuguese Shi'a buys their custody and frees them for being forgiven the sin of having spent too much time arguing with Shaheediyan.

Saheediyan wrote: "You will also notice the Saudi has less car accidents than Iran, lol, method and madness." Less women driving I guess (I know it's a lame joke hihihi). Iranian driving: Check who's driving.... Saudi driving:

Hindu pushups and hindu squats? LMAO http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=l1lMKraV28c Pahlavani dates back to pre-Islamic Persia.

Shaheediyan wrote: "How are women and children war captives? They are not fighting in the war, so why were they enslaved? I suppose if the US or it's allies were to enslave Muslim women and children today, then Sharia, being the law for humanity, would not apply somehow...? " Re-read my post. The slavery status applies to two kinds of situations: people already born in captivity and who guardianship is acquired by a Muslim and war captives. So women and children would fall under the first category. There is one instance though where sources seem to diverge, the case of the Bani Quraiza, a Jewish tribe that had broken a treaty they had signed with the Prophet and who had allied themselves to the Meccans against the Prophet. The male members of the tribe were executed for treason and the women and children were entrusted to a Jewish convert. The fate of the tribe itself was subject to arbitration as this case involved another tribe, the Aws from whom an arbitror was chosen upon whom the Khuraiza and Muslim both agreed. In any case the fact that the women and children were entrusted to a Jewish convert proves that they were to be treated with dignity.

Saudi Arabia where women are not even allowed to drive is now better than Iran...you're getting better and better Shaheediyan.

Shaheediyan wrote: "It is man that has made Sharia, that the thousands of 'experts on Sharia' have enlarged it to cover all aspects of life BASED on the koran and selective Hadiths, in my opinion, makes it man made and perhaps, God influenced. The same goes for all the law systems of the world. The example you have given is crap. It talks of 'punishment' of criminals as opposed to the notion of taking away an innocent man or womens freedom. Slavery is outdated. Therefore the Dharam-Shaastras and Koranic Laws relating to slavery are outdated. Proving that laws need to evolve to reflect changing human culture andf thinking." 1. You are confusing fiqh with sharia which makes me wonder if you are at all competent to comment on this issue. Fiqh is the science of sharia. It has freedom of interpretation within the bounds laid down by the hadiths and the Quran.So it is not a man made institution. 2. Islam doesn't permit taking away the freedom of innocent people. I agree that sharia has been ignored by certain Arab tribes in Africa but that doesn't take away the fact that the law is the law. You spoke of taking the freedom away from innocent people right? Here is an interesting text: "If on keeps slaves, whether purchased, captured, or released from bandits, the procedure is as follows. If some parents seel their children to meet their expenses or for any other reason, the purchaser should obtain from the parents written permission properly witnessed. The written testimony should state: "I give my children to (the buyer named) to work (for him) for (thenumber specified) years and in exchange I have received (the number specified) rupees. He will take responsibility for the feeding and clothing of the child. The clothing which they are given must be sufficient to cover their bodies. Whatever kind of food is given to them must be sufficient to satisfy them." The child who is sold in that manner must remain on duty day and night. His parents may visit him. These same parents will be his surety.If the parents should want to have their children back they may not do so unitl they have returned the money. Prem Sumarg Granth Now in Islam slavery is limited to two cases: captives of war and people born in slavery.On top of that Muslims were highly encouraged to free their slaves as an act of great merit. I won't comment on the Prem Sumarg extract. It speaks for itself. 3. The example I gave is not crap as it perfectly illustrates the Islamic position: slavery is an exceptional situation and is reserved for war captives not innocent people.

Shaheediyan wrote: "Sharia law is the law for Muslims - and to a lesser extent, for thopse living in Islamic states, that's all that needs to be said and understood on the subject. Outside of that, man has been given (by God) and/or created his own laws over the course of time. Law is an evolving animal and one that even the most primitive tribes have a workable version of. As I have said before, even Sharia needs to be updated. How would the Sharia concerning slaves apply to todays society for instance." 1. Sharia is the law God gives humanity through his prophets. 2. Who decides of the evolution of law, God or man? And if it is man with which authority? 3. Sharia needs to updated? Who has the authority to update it? As for the slave question, in absence of a situation that is conducive to slavery there doesn't need to be an application of the sharia laws on slavery such as: - slaves can only be captives of war - they receive a salary and decent clothes - intercourse with them can only happen if the agree (raping slaves is haram) If you take a close look at the United States of America you'll find out that it hasn't abolished slavery either: AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." What do you think forced labour is? It's slavery! I have no problem with the concept of law changing I just have an issue about who has the authority to change it.And that can only be someone sent by God none else.

So what is the law that God has given humanity then? Law isn't a question of personal choice btw

Matheen, the first step to understand any scripture is grammar first of all,commentaries are individual and insititutional explanations. Shaheediyan would you say that saying that God's name is Rahman and that the law is sharia in Kaljug is a bad sign?

So according to you singing gurbani is also a sign of Kaljug?

n this turbulent age of Kali Yuga, Muslim law decides the cases, and the blue-robed Qazi is the judge. The Guru's Bani has taken the place of Brahma's Veda, and the singing of the Lord's Praises are good deeds. ||5|| Every age has a law and every age has saints that sing His praises.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji in Raag Raamkalee on Pannaa 902 Raamkalee, First Mehla, Ashtpadeeaa: The same moon rises, and the same stars; the same sun shines in the sky.The earth is the same, and the same wind blows. The age in which we dwell affects living beings, but not these places. ||1|| Those who act like tyrants are accepted and approved - recognize that this is the sign of the Dark Age of Kali Yuga. ||1||Pause|| Kali Yuga has not been heard to have come to any country, or to be sitting at any sacred shrine. It is not where the generous person gives to charities, nor seated in the mansion he has built. ||2|| If someone practices Truth, he is frustrated; prosperity does not come to the home of the sincere. If someone chants the Lord's Name, he is scorned. These are the signs of Kali Yuga. ||3|| Whoever is in charge, is humiliated. Why should the servant be afraid, when the master is put in chains? He dies at the hands of his servant. ||4|| Chant the Praises of the Lord; Kali Yuga has come. The justice of the previous three ages is gone. One obtains virtue, only if the Lord bestows it. ||1||Pause|| In this turbulent age of Kali Yuga, Muslim law decides the cases, and the blue-robed Qazi is the judge. The Guru's Bani has taken the place of Brahma's Veda, and the singing of the Lord's Praises are good deeds. ||5|| Worship without faith; self-discipline without truthfulness; the ritual of the sacred thread without chastity - what good are these? You may bathe and wash, and apply a ritualistic tilak mark to your forehead, but without inner purity, there is no understanding. ||6|| In Kali Yuga, the Koran and the Bible have become famous. The Pandit's scriptures and the Puraanas are not respected. O Nanak, the Lord's Name now is Rehmaan, the Merciful. Know that there is only One Creator of the creation. ||7|| Nanak has obtained the glorious greatness of the Naam, the Name of the Lord. There is no action higher than this. If someone goes out to beg for what is already in his own home, then he should be chastised. ||8||1||

Parmjit is till so cute.

Guru Gobind Singh section 13 of Bachitar Natak: "The successors of both Baba (Nanak) and Babur were created by God Himself. Recognise the former as the spiritual king and the later as the temporal king. Those who do not deliver the Guru's money, the successors of Babur shall seize and take away from them forcibly. They will be greatly punished and their houses will be plundered." Seems the 10th master didn't have a problem with Mughal rule after all... to Budhadal: the Atefeh is being reviewed for irregularities in the decision. And no the majority of the population is with the regime. to Shaheediyan: no need to quote all these sources I know fully well that slavery was practiced in Islamic lands as it was in India before Islam as well. to Tony: In Iran Christians and Jews do military service like all other citizens and don't pay jizya and their families proudly show the pictures of their martyrs who died defending Iran against Iraq and the West.

Guru Gobind Singh section 13 of Bachitar Natak: "The successors of both Baba (Nanak) and Babur were created by God Himself. Recognise the former as the spiritual king and the later as the temporal king. Those who do not deliver the Guru's money, the successors of Babur shall seize and take away from them forcibly. They will be greatly punished and their houses will be plundered." Speaks for itself...

the you're old enough to be executed for crimes like murder, rape and drug dealing.

BudhaDal and Malwe da Sher you never stop amazing me. You have some of your top shaheeds in your history, sons of Gobind Singh, who were teenagers when they fought in battle and got killed and then you act like crying cheerleaders over the executions of teenagers involved in criminal offenses like murder, rape and drug trafic. You guys need to be consistent with your logic. If teenagers are old enough to do ghor savari and fight in Dal Panth then they are also old enough to decide that murder, rape and drug trafic are crimes and suffer the consequences of their actions. Simple as that. Unless of course you wish to declare rapists, murderers and drug dealers to be innocent victims... If at 13 you're old enough to fight and die for the Panth

Shaheediyan wrote: "So, the Mughals weren't responsible for corrupting 'age' old Indian devotional song and dance traditions by taking them and their practitioners to their brothels? They didn't destroy numerous non-Muslim places of worship and all their inhabitants? They didn't enslave and trade millions of Indian men, women and children over their centuries of rule? They didn't forcefully convert untold numbers of Hindus? They weren't responsible for religious persecution and discrimination? No, not all the Mughals were collectivelly responsible, but these things happened under the collective Mughal rule - which you have sought to generalise with your stupid conversation with your so 'clever' mate." Did the Mughals declare one race to be superior to all others? No Did the Mughals try to exterminate a whole racial group in an industrial fashion? No Did the Mughals found their national programme on "blood and land" and the notion of Volk? No The Mughals were not National Socialists. That the Mughal rulers, like most Indian rulers, commited atrocities is not something I would deny. But to always focuss on the Mughals as an isolated brutal incident I feel the need to emphacize the fact they were not more cruel than other Indian rulers. I could tell you about Shaiva kings in Southern India publicly executing Jain monks. India didn't need the Mughals to come up with slavery so please spare us the usual "the Mughals were so cruel". As for discrimination I am sorry but apart from Aurangzeb, the Mughal administration had always employed many non-Muslims.The very fact that Nand Lal Goya was in Bahadur Shah's service nulifies your point. I didn't know the Mughals had an official policy of building brothels...because that's actually haram. So brothels didn't exist in India before the Mughals. Is it just me or don't the Shastras declare deshi musicians to be low castes on equal footing with prostitutes? It is true that Aurangzeb destroyed some Mandirs, but it's also true that Hindus continued to pay hommage to Sri Ram inside the Babri Masjid as Jesuit reports of the century prove. Can't Indian Muslims also pay hommage to someone many of them believe to have been an Indian pre-Islamic prophet? Yes the Mughals, like many other Indian rulers committed crimes, and some may have been cruel, but they were not Nazis because they didn't follow national socialism. I am just fed up of hearing people use the words "Fascist" and "Nazi" for just anyone they dislike. Now some facts: On jizya: It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned. It should be pointed out here that the zakaat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Forced Conversions: Islam clearly says that there is no compulsion in religion and indeed most Mughal emperors respected that. I am not saying that isolated cases didn't exist but the fact is the overwhelming majority of Muslims in India converted out of choice and this fact has been clearly established by great scholars of Indian Islam like Dr Annemarie Schimmel. Had the Mughals wanted to convert the whole of India to Islam they would have done so. But they didn't. Tolerance: It is true that some Mughal emperors showed little tolerance for specific minorities whom they perceived as political threats. It is true that Aurangzeb forbade SHi'as their processions (a measure the Iranian regime would not have disapproved of given that those prcessions go hand in hand with self flagelation with blades).On the other hand...how could Aurangzeb appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief?During Aurangzeb’s long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb’s administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne? Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. But this fact is somewhat less known. Yes Aurangzeb may have destroyed temples. But how do you explain that a stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself? The proof of Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that Mughals were angels. But you should maybe stop reading Amar Chitra Katha and get some proper academic studies on the Mughal rule. It's way more complex than you and Brikramjit think it is. Don't forget that the land of your holiest shrine was donated by a Mughal emperor, Mohammad Jalalodimn Akbar. When Bikramjit talks about ingratitude he should maybe look in the mirror first.

Tony32hp wrote: "What are Shia? 10% of Muslims and isn't your sect a miniscule percentage of that? So apologies for being blunt but the views of your sect in the Muslim-non Muslim issue are of no consequence since the vast majority of Muslims are Sunnis and they for the most part support Bin Laden although the recent shoe thrower may have overtaken Bin Laden of late given that Bin Laden hasn't been able to organise a major attack on the west in the last few years. Iran hasn't attack another country because they don't have the conventional capacity hence the need for nuclear weapons. Although they did do some sabre rattling a few years before 9/11 when the Taliban killed some Iranians in Afghanistan. " Iraq has 60 to 70% of Shia so it does matter. Coming from someone whose community makes up 2 % of India's population I am bit surprised at you "majority" argument. "Shias ill kill Sunnis and Kurds will kill Arabs and Turkmens thereby ensuring intervention by Iran and the Arab states. " Then let them kill each other if they so wish, what does it have to do with America? How would you feel if I came to your house and start "sorting out" your problems. Sovereign state, ever heard that expression? "Some federal system or more likely a partition would be the answer. Iraq and for the most parts most Muslim states cannot last as democracies because the Islamic mentality is not conducive to the freedom which comes with living in a democratic state." Probably why Iranians had Mossadegh in 1953 who was then out of office by a CIA-MI6 coup....bravo! Splendid indeed! "We all know that Iran isn't the utopia you like to portray here. I must say that I am surprised by your insistence on the mutiny of 1857 as 'India's first Hindu-Muslim independence war'. You must read a lot of desh bhagat Indian nationalistic garbage to still believe that old chestnut! Sikhs as well as many Hindus and Muslims fought for the British against the mutineers as well as that hotch potch of Hindustani Nawabs and Rajas and Ranis. What prophecy did the non-Sikhs believe in as their reason for fighting for the British? There was a number of reasons for the Sikhs to fight on the British side such as the Sikhs states threw their lot in with the British, without the Lahore state, Patiala had become de-facto leaders of the Sikhs and the fear of the return of the Mughal empire under that poetry sprouting Hijra ironically named Bahadur Shah Zafar. You wouldn't expect the Jews to support the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany, would you? " What are Sikhs? 2% percent of India's population? What does your opinion count? Fact remains most Indians celebrate that revolution. (A taste of your own majority argument medicine). You remind me of these transexual lesbians (men turned women turned lesbians) who call straight people nazis. I spoke to an orthodox Rabbi once about how you and your people love to portray the Mughals as Nazis. He laughed. It pretty much says it all...

1. I don't like Saddam and I never said Bush went there for the oil. The US went there because of an unfounded suspicion of weapons of mass destruction. 2. Your fantasy about Muslims wanting to conquer the whole world is as ridiculous at the stupid Antisemitic fantasy of Jews wanting to control the world. Bin Laden may say whatever he wants, it has no importance for us Shi'a. Our fiqh is clear about the fact that only Imam e Zaman (ajf) has the right to wage offensive jihad against God's ennemies. When he comes back he will judge the Christians by the Gospel, the Jews by the Torah and the Muslims by teh Quran. So keep your antisemitic turned islamophobic conspiracies for yourself. Iran hasn't attacked a single country for the last 200 years. 3. Americans are giving Iraqis a chance to vote...So a sovereign nation is being the right by another to vote. That's just the cherry on the cake. Who are the US anyways to grant that right? 4. Iraq is a British creation anyways, a totally artifical country with no underlying unity. If it becomes a federal state it might work.But that is up to the Iraqis decide NOT the US, UK or even Iran. 5. "I must be so easy to have such a simplistic view of life. If someone doesn't get taken in by the ISSLAAAM IS A RELIGION OF PEEASEEE bukwas, then automatically he is a BNP supporter. If he not white then he is a BNP lap dog. You really need to get out of your Iranian slum." A person living in London's infamous open air toilet called Southall shouldn't use words like "Iranian slum". If there is one place in the world where I have seen the greatest number of cockroaches it is Southall...nightmare. You are a lapdog of the Empire, by your servile willingness to support the new anitsemtism that is islamophobia. Deep down you seek acceptance from your white masters by doing so, in the same way Sikh soldiers served the Empire by helping crushing India's first Hindu-Muslim independence war in the name of some anti-Mughal prophecy. It's also the way you portray Islam as the new fascism, just like gays call straight people fascist, the way you try to portray the Sikh community as Indian holocaust victims. Your whole discourse is that of the Empire. You fully collaborate with it, you enjoy serving it. The irony in your situation is that when they'll eventually get rid of Muslims you'll be next. You'll find yourself in the situation when you'll say:"But I am British too, I hate Muslims too"