Morghe Sahar

You are free not to like me and to have your personal opinion. I am not obsessed with Sikhs, just interested. And no I haven't changed anyone's mind. You are overestimating my powers I think.

Just because a person isn't a Sikh doesn't mean he/she can't have an academic interest in Sikhism.

Just because a person isn't a Sikh doesn't he/she can't have an academic interest in Sikhism.

I think you're way too preoccupied with me.

The only agenda is the one I carry in my pocket to put in apointments and important notes.

I am talking about the CEREMONIALK WEARING AND TYING OF THE KAMARBAND not the sash itself. Read what I write.Of course warriors of any ancient culture wore some sort of belt. I never questionned that.

Mithar wrote: "Bahadur, we go by what Gurbani says above all else. Furthurmore, I can understand that Dhoti was the dress that most people wore, but how can Hanuman Jee wear a Dhoti with his Poonch sticking out? A Kashara can be the only logical thing for him to wear with a little hole in the back for the poonch to come out from." And I go by the facts.Hanuman's people were the Vanaras, a tribe who had the monkey as a totemic symbol NOT actual men with monkey faces or humanoid apes. India in antiquity was inhabited with forest tribes that had animals as totemic symbols.You guys should maybe stop watching these mythological Zee TV series. So there is no question here of tails sticking out. And neither the kachhera nor trousers existed in India at that time as they were Persian clothes.Wrestlers in India wore a langoti not a kachhera There are different types of dhoti and you just need to take a look at South Indian kalaripayat fighters to see that a dhoti doesn't prevent them from fighting.

Shaheediyan, I studied Valmiki's Ramayana in the original Sanskrit and sorry to dissapoint you all, but Hanuman never wore what you people call kacchera for the very simple reason that these didn't exist in India. If ever there was a prince Rama of Ayodhya who fought against southern tribes it happened before the Persian Achemenids included some parts of Western India into their empire. The ceremonial wearing of kamarband and zirjameh for a chivalry intitation is originally a Persian tradition that was completely unknown in India. Even trousers were only known in India during the invasion of the Kushans which is well after the Ramayana was ever composed. And no Shaheediyan: I don't brainwash people. People make their own choices in life. And no N3O I am not rishsafide baba so you can keep your accusation to yourself.

well that's if Hanuman & co ever existed which is of course another issue.

The tradition of the drawers and sash goes back to Prophet Abraham (as) and is part of the initiation ceremony of the knights.

Intersting article. I will comment on it later on. There are some things that are worth being debated here.

That may be so, but the majority of Muslims in those country were not invaders but natives who adopted the faith and don't forget: the Ommayads discouraged conversions to Islam. So if these people converted it's not because they were forced to do so but because they chose to. I believe Maimonides when he sees Arabs were quite ruthless because they also discriminated against converts. But Tony makes the classical mistake of thinking that Arabs came by the millions into tose countries which is of course a lie. They led expeditions but the troops were mostly non Arabs.

Palestine is an Arab country. The language is Arabic.Israel is a colonial state created by European Zionists in contradiction with Jew teaching. Fact remains that the Talmud and othodoy Jewry declares that Jews may only return en masse to Palestani after the Meshiach arrives. I don't mind Jews living in Palestine if Palestine is a multifaith state for Jews, Christians and Muslims. I am just surprised to see you saying that Egypt, Morocco and Spain were his country... No Jewish rulers there ever mate sorry and Jews were always a minority there.

Potential allie, nemesis...or just a dude...

Tonyhp32 wrote: "Maimonide considered the Arab treatment of the Jews to have the worst that the Jews have ever suffered up until then. I would class that as 3rd class citizenship! Btw Maimonides considered the 'prophet' to have been a madman and a fraud." That may well have been the case. Fact is: he decided to stay in an Islamic country after all. He could have gone to other places but he didn't. How do you call a man who works for the caliph as his personal doctor, gets paid lavishly and still says he is a 3rd class citizen? A hypocrite.

Oh God...

To Tonyhp32 : Maimonides writes: "Remember, my co-religionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs" Maimonides affirms the traditional belief that Jews are in exile for having offended God and persecuted the prophets. "Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they" LOL why did he stay then? LOL The enlightened Salahuddin persecuted Shi'as and executed Sufis such Sohravardi. To Malwe da Sher: "I remember hearing news about a year back regarding the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supposedly denying the holocaust - does that represent popular Iranian opinion toward the holocaust? " Iranian state television recently had a series about an Iranian diplomat who saved French Jews when he lived in Paris in occupied France. Iranians don't hate Jews, they just hate Zionism.Ahmadinejad hasn't clearly denied the Shoah but even so Imam Khamenei (ra) has condemned his declarations and so did many Iranian mps.

Khahesh mikonam, my pleasure.

Mithar wrote: "Bahadur, thanks for clearing some things up. But you can't deny the similarities do exist between the two groups who are awaiting the coming or return of a divine entity to create their divinely ruled nation. While I feel for the Palestinians, but at the same time the Jews also have an argument for their nation to be created. It's all the fault of the European allies who won WW2. They could have created a Jewish state in Europe probably on German land instead of giving half of Germany (Prussian area) to Poland." I am afraid Europe has no experience in dealing with diversity. I personally have no problems with Jews coming to the Middle East, buying land and living in peace with their neighbours in the context of a multifaith state instead of an Islamic state. But it needs to be done on the basis of a proper constitution and a strong sense of citizenship. This is what Hezbollah proposes actually. The problem in Lebanon is the electoral law that hasn't been renewed for decades and doesnt reflect the political landscape of the country.But yes a Holy Land state made for Jews, Christians and Muslims with Arab as it state language seems the best solution. "The middle east is like dynamite which could accidently explode any moment. The Jews, Sunnis, Shia, Christians all live there in close proximity to one another and are hostile to one another. It's similar to Punjab where Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus all lived amongst each other yet they were also very hostile to another. But now that Israel is created, I only hope that one day the Jews, Sunnis, Shias, Christians of the middle east find a peaceful solution and don't end up like Punjab in 1947. But I see Iraq going down that same road." The British Empire has been good at creating hatred between communities. That's what Iraq, Panjab and Palestine have in common...

The Sikh use of the word Qaum is very recent and contrasts with the 10th master use of it.

The word "new" is not in the verse. The verb which you translate as "produce" here is "yatiyi" which is derived from the Arabic root: ATaYa . to come, bring, give, present NOT produce. It does not have the idea of producing something new at all. Rather it means that He will bring a people that already exist and shower His blessing on it because of its obedience to Allah (swt). Qaum doesn't mean community, it ,means a people in the tribal-national sense. Jatts are a Qaum. The Sikh panth is made of different Qaum: Jatts, Tarkhans, Khatris, Whites, etc... It is not a nation as it doesn't share the same ethnic origin, language, culture etc

"Ayatollah Khomeini met with the Jewish community upon his return from exile in Paris and issued a fatwa decreeing that the Jews were to be protected. In the Islamic republic Jews have become more religious. Families that had been secular in the 1970s started keeping kosher and strictly observing rules against driving on Shabbat. They stopped going to restaurants, cafes and cinemas and the synagogue perforce became the focal point of their social lives. [6] As Haroun Yashyaei, a film producer and former chairman of the Central Jewish Community in Iran has quoted[32]: "Khomeini didn't mix up our community with Israel and Zionism - he saw us as Iranians,""

1. Sunni sources: I don't care. Talk to the hand coz my ears aint listenin 2. Where did Maimonides go? Fez in Morocco, an Islamic country that wasn't controlled by the Almohads. The problem was the Almohads NOT Islamic civilisation. Ah Tony Tony I knew you'd come up with that one. So predictable. 3. Yes the Qajars did a lot of bad things. Not only did they persecute Jews, they also killed even more mystics among the clergy, Sufis and Ahle Haqq. Whether that was Islamic I doubt so.

1. It's Imam Hussain (as) not Imam Hassan (as). 2. You are referring to ONE ayatollah, namely Sahid Motahari (ra) who cast doubts regarding the tradition. But the majority accepts the traditions. Lady Shahr Bano's (as) grave is situated south of Tehran in the city of Rey.If you take the underground it's the station before Behesht Zahra. What I like about the place is that Shi'as and Zoroastrians go there to honour the Lady.

Amardeep wrote: "isn'nt panth the indian word for Qaum? The word qaum is used in the quran to describe the community of a prophet. Jesus, Abraham and Moses each had their qaum, and the ummah/qaum of Muhammad are all muslims who confess to the shahada, i've asked my learned shia friends on whether sunnis are included in Ummat Muhamad and they say yes, so how can the iranians be a seperate qaum from the arabs, when both of them are under the banner of Ummat Muhammad?" No! Panth means path (same Indoeuropean root) whereas qaum means nation but is different from ummah. Qaum is a nation in the political sense whereas the ummah is the community of all Muslims fromn different qaum. The word qaum is used only once by your 10th master when he refers to the Brar Jatts. And to be honest....I doubt God would have transferred the understanding of Islam to a qaum that practices the same crimes as the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs such as female infanticide... In clear NO no prophets after Mohammad (pbuh)!