Way to go! Respect!

[Morghe Sahar]

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

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[tonyhp32]

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.

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[Morghe Sahar]

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

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[Guest]

Morge Shahar,

you wrote:

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.

Wow you really can change your colors like chameleon to suit your agenda, not long ago when you were singh, you mentioned numerous times on this forum about bachitar natak- how sri guru gobind singh ji is talking about movements(dharam/mat) over time started by previous avtars failed not the prophet or avtars themselves, now you seem to make full U turn and came to : conclusion that bachitar natak is mentioning prophets/avtars are corrupt or have failed their duties just because for sake of debate with tonyh32.

Majority of Sikhs don't endorse what tonyh32 has to say regarding Islam, thats based on his personal experience with muslims in U.K. On the same token, indicating sri guru gobind singh ji may have made a mistake in bachitar natak is consider blasphemous in Sikh Dharam and will not be tolerated on this forum. If that's your beleif mubarak to you, take it over the pm with tonyhp32 for sake of arguing but not on the forum. It's like going to shiachat and subtly making blasphemous statements against prophet mohammad sahib (PBUH) or Imam Ali. I am sure that will not tolerated at all.

[Morghe Sahar]

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?

[shaheediyan]

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.

[spiderman]

1

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[shaheediyan]

"There are plenty of Christians and Jews who respect the Prophet (pbuh) without agreeing with him"

Not agreeing with him means they think he was fallible, thinking aloud publicly = declaration of war, don't be so stupid.

"Anyone who has declared this is a muharib if he does this publicly for he encourages rebellion against Islam and the Islamic state."

If this was done in an Islamic state, you may have a case - with the understanding that democracy and freedom of speech does not exist. An opinion does not = a declaration of war.

Outside of an Islamic state, how can this opinion (as peryuor interpretation) be a rebellion?

[Mithar]

Before Mohammad Sahib was born, it was the era of Jahilliyaa according to the Muslims.

[spiderman]

2

[Mithar]

The issue is that Bachitar Natak tells lies about the Prophet (pbuh). That is the issue.

According to you yes, Not according to us. For us it is the truth.

Just as Muslims interpret the lives of the earlier prophets according to how Mohammad Sahib had told of them even if they are not in agreement with Old and New testament, we also have our own interpretations which may not be in agreement with the Islamic interpretation. It's simple as that. If you are going with "older is better" arguement, then the same applies to Islam with respect to the previous Abrahamic traditions.

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[spiderman]

3

[amardeep]

Guru Gobind Singh on Krishna:

Page 694, Line 2

The poet Shyam appears indecisive in his mind about his beauty and says that he has not been able to find a winsome person like Krishna though he has roamed from east to west in order to see one like him.239.

Page 721, Line 6

Krishna, the son of Nand, is the giver of comfort to all, enemy of Indra, and master of true intellect; the face of the Lord, who is perfect in all arts, ever gives its mild light like the moon; the poet Shyam says that the sage Narada also remembers him, who is the destroyer of the sorrow and anguish of the saints;

Page 723, Line 12

All repeat His Name; the poet Shyam says, that the Lord (Krishna) is the gretest of all; he, who saw him slightly with his mind, he was assuredly allured by his power and beauty in an instant.381.

Interpret the saying of dog with these lines in mind.. Guru Gobind Singh also calls himself a bug in bachitar natak, keep that in mind also

[jsingh96]

take a look at bahadurs previous writtings...

[kamalroop singh]

Did you not write this in Sikh formations

titled:

Francisco Jose´ Luis

THE KHANDA AND THE DHULFIQAR

Sikh–Shi’a parallelisms and crossings in

history and text, concept of the Divine

Guide and sacred chivalry

Sikh Formations, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2006, pp. 153–179

The meeting of the Shi’a and Sikh traditions in text and

history

If one were to compare the main sources of Sikh scripture (Adi Granth or GuruGranth Sahib, Dasam Granth and Sarabloh Granth), it would probably be in the Dasam Granth that one would find most references to Shi’a Islam. However, such references in the Dasam Granth need to be understood in the context of the work entitled Bachitra Natak. Along with the Charitropakhyan,3 this work forms one of the largest sections of the Dasam Granth. The term Natak indicates that this work should be read as a play (natak). The sixth section of the Bachitra Natak deals with Guru Gobind Singh’s own story. As a narrator he places the context of his birth

on earth in a much larger divine and cosmic context, here told in a kind of Vorspiel im Himmel.4 Guru Gobind Singh narrates how he was meditating in a place called Hemkunt and how the Divine ordered him to take birth in this world. The Timeless Being (Akal Purakh) recounts how different beings were sent by Him and strayed away from the right path by having their followers worship them. Although different names are quoted, such as Gorakh, Dattatreya and Shiva, I want to focus here on two names: Ramananda and Mahadin. Ramananda is said to have been sent by God but to have gone astray:

Then Hari sent Ramanand who assumed the garb of the bairagi, around his neck he wore a wooden rosary, he too did not know the love of the Lord [Prabhu].

(BN VI, 25)

The importance of this verse is that for Sikhs, Ramananda wasn’t just one of the leaders of the Bhakti movement in Northern India. He is one of the bhagats (devotees) of the Guru Granth Sahib. The term bhagat in the Sikh religious canon designates those contributors to the Guru Granth Sahib apart from the Sikh Gurus. They are viewed as external witnesses and announcers of the path of the Sikh Gurus. If the Gurus can be compared to the sun, the bhagats would be the planets rotating around it. Their status is similar to that of the hujjat in Shi’a Islam who is a witness and proof of the Imam. The bhagat partakes of the sanctity of the Guru

without having an equal status. A literal reading of the verses quoted earlier about Ramananda does in this context appear to be not only surprising but also contradictory:

how could Guru Gobind Singh criticise Ramananda when he himself gave the final shape to the Adi Guru Granth Sahib and thus recognised Ramananda’s status as a bhagat? To appreciate this verse it is helpful to read it as an allegorical text. It would appear, then, that the Ramananda of the Bachitra Natak and the Guru Granth Sahib may not be the same person. In the Guru Granth, Ramananda is one of the bhagats whereas in the Bachitra Natak, he represents a religious movement that, like all the other movements described in this section, was originally inspired by

the Divine but has gone astray because of an exaggerated emphasis on the exoteric

1 54 SIKH FORMATIONS

Downloaded By: [swets Content Distribution] At: 15:06 5 December 2008

and a deformation of the original teachings.5 The same accusation is made about the

character Mahadin, about whom the text says:

Whatever great beings the Lord [Prabhu] created, they created their own paths, then the Lord [Prabhu] created Mahadin and gave him the kingdom of the Arabia [arab des], he too created a path and circumcised all the kings, he had all recite his own name and had none meditate on the true name.

(BN VI, 27)

Many translators of this passage have translated Mahadin as Muhammad, thus interpreting

this verse as an accusation against the Prophet. It is unlikely, however, that Mahadin is one of the many names of the Prophet6 or even a proper Arabic word. The Vars of Bhai Gurdas, on the other hand, clearly mention the Prophet by his name and the verse here is far from being negative:

He has created many beloved ones such as Vyasa of the Vedas and Muhammad of

the Kateba [Abrahamic scriptures].

(BGV I, 4)

Muhammad is here addressed as a beloved of God and one thus wonders how Guru Gobind Singh could criticise the Prophet. The use of the word Mahadin serves here as a hint to the reader: he/she is supposed to understand that this is a persona, a character, a representation, and not the Prophet himself. As in Ramananda’s and the other characters’ case, what is here being criticised is the occultation of the esoteric, the true core of religion by its external manifestations, the exoteric. When the exoteric/

zahir completely covers the esoteric/batin we are left not only with an empty shell but also with an idol.

In one of his key works on Iranian Islamic philosophy, Henry Corbin presents and discusses the thought of the 18th Iranian philosopher, Molla ‘Abdorrahim Damavandi (Corbin 1981, 358–64). He highlights an important theme in Damavandi’s thought: the idea of theophany and the concept of idol and icon. Prophets and Imams as well as the universe are in varying degrees manifestations of the Face of God as affirmed in

the Qur’an:7 theophany serves a purpose as an icon, an image that serves as a window to access the Divine, and a channel through which divine light is transmitted. The distinction between the two-dimensional icon and the three-dimensional idol is fundamental here. The icon as a window lets divine light flow whilst the idol traps that same light in its confines. This is, in many ways, what is being represented in this section of the Bachitra Natak. Theophanies, icons of the Divine through which the world could perceive the Divine, once burdened by the weight of excessive exotericism, become idols masking the Divine. In the case of Mahadin it is a reference to the shari’a bound religiosity of Sunnism and exoteric ithna’shari Shi’ism as the verse refers to circumcision and temporal power. It is interesting to notice that the last persona in this

[Morghe Sahar]

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. "

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[Morghe Sahar]

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.

[kamalroop singh]

thats a fair point, scholars do change their positions........but this is quite a radical change, would you agree?