Now Muslims Demand Full Sharia Law

[SAadmin]

UK NEWS

NOW MUSLIMS DEMAND FULL SHARIA LAW

Thursday October 15,2009

By Martyn Brown

A RADICAL Muslim group sparked outrage last night as it launched a massive campaign to impose sharia law on Britain.

The fanatical group Islam4UK has ­announced plans to hold a potentially ­incendiary rally in London later this month.

And it is calling for a complete upheaval of the British legal system, its officials and ­legislation.

Members have urged Muslims from all over Britain to converge on the capital on October 31 for a procession to demand the full implementation of sharia law.

On a website to promote their cause they deride British institutions, showing a mock-up picture of Nelson’s Column surmounted by a minaret.

Plans for the demonstration have been ­delivered to the Metropolitan Police and could see up to 5,000 extremists marching to demand the controversial system.

The procession – dubbed March 4 Shari’ah – will start at the House of Commons, which the group’s website describes as the “very place where the lives of millions of people in the UK are changed and it is from here where unjust wars are launched”.

The group then intends to march to 10 Downing Street and “call for the removal of the tyrant Gordon Brown from power”.

The march will then converge on Trafalgar Square where protesters expect it “will gather even more support from tourists and members of the public, making clear in the heart of London the need for Shari’ah in society”.

The group declared: “We hereby request all Muslims in the United Kingdom, in Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, Glasgow and all other places to join us and collectively declare that as submitters to Almighty Allah, we have had enough of democracy and man-made law and the depravity of the British culture.

“On this day we will call for a complete upheaval of the British ruling system its members and legislature, and demand the full implementation of Shari’ah in Britain.”

SEARCH UK NEWS for:

Last night politicians and fellow Muslims condemned the group’s incendiary comments, which come in the wake of recent violent incidents in towns and cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Luton, Beds.

Conservative MP and ex-Army officer Patrick Mercer said: “It is extremely distasteful and is stoking the fires of fear within the British public. “If anyone thinks that those views are a step forward in society they are seriously deluded. They are repellent and repulsive.”

The group was also attacked by Tory MP Philip Davies who said: “This march is clearly a deliberate and provocative attempt to incite racial tension and disrupt community cohesion.

“The simple solution is for these people to move to a country which already has sharia law.”

A spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain said: “99.999 per cent of Muslims despise these people. This only serves to fuel racial ­tensions.”

And Tory MP and Daily Express columnist Ann Widdecombe, said: “You cannot have two legal systems side by side and the one we have now works and the British people are perfectly happy with it.”

The rally has not yet been given final approval. A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: “We have received an application for the march but we have yet to meet with the organisers.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “Everyone has the right to express their view so long as it is done sensibly, without violence and does not incite religious hatred.”

Plans for the march are revealed on the website Islam4UK, which is fronted by preacher Anjem Choudary who has also called for all British women to wear burkhas.

Explaining the Nelson’s Column mock-up he said that under sharia law the construction and elevation of statues or idols is prohibited and consequently the statue of Nelson “would be removed and demolished without hesitation”. At the base of the column the friezes would be replaced with Islamic decoration and giant urns would be filled with gold coins for the poor.

Mr Choudary has said that under sharia law in Britain people who commit adultery would be stoned to death, adding that “anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public”.

He has also mocked the deaths of British soldiers, and branded an Army homecoming parade a “vile parade of brutal murderers”.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/134080

[HSD1]

Wait a minute, are they after sharia law for just themselves or all the people in britain? What about cases involving muslims and non-muslims? Sounds like a bunch of muslims with nothing better to do than whine.

[Kaljug]

Wait a minute, are they after sharia law for just themselves or all the people in britain? What about cases involving muslims and non-muslims? Sounds like a bunch of muslims with nothing better to do than whine.

It's Anjem Choudury who wants everyone in the UK to be able to enjoy the Islamic paradise of polygamy, paedophilia, wife-beating and banging one's head against the floor 5 times a day.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the UK is about to explode soon. While the British politician dhimmis may get their kicks brown-nosing Saudis for their oil money and bowing to their every demand, the general public has had enough of Muslim fanatics having their way here. Sooner or later, the Abduls and Alis of Britain are going to realise that, without the police, the liberal media and the politocos to protect them from their own stupidity, they are going to get slaughtered by the English masses.

I just hope that not too many innocent Sikhs will suffer, though some of our naive brethren with their pro-Palestinian flag-waving aren't gonna help the situation much.

Ah well, y'all are welcome to shack up at my place - I've been preparing for the inevitable Zombie Holocaust ever since reading Max Brook's World War Z.

Oh yes, and watch how few of these so-called anti-fascist organisations, who caused violence and choas on the streets of Britain when the EDL were demonstrating, turn up to counter these demos. "We hate fascists, but not the Islamic kind" is their lunatic message.

K.

[tonyhp32]

One thing you have to hand to Anjem Chaudhry, although he is scum but at least he tells the truth unlike all those liars who go on TV and say how 'peaceful' Islam is.

Here is is telling the truth about Islam while the interviewer instead of listening to what he is saying keeps interrupting him.

[shaheediyan]

Anjem Chaudhry is the scum of the Earth hated by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

There are over 1 million Muslims in the UK, lets see how many turn upto his pathetic rally.

[dsd108]

The UK has more Muslim ghettos than France. The BNP party speak the truth about whats happening in these ghettos (especially Manchester and Birmingham). The Sikhs should align themselves with Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

[Kaljug]

Anjem Chaudhry is the scum of the Earth hated by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

There are over 1 million Muslims in the UK, lets see how many turn upto his pathetic rally.

I'd be more interested in seeing how many of the million+ British Muslims who apparently disagree with his views come out and demnonstrate against Sharia law being introduced in the UK. My guess is that there will be none because very few disagree with the idea of Sharia replacing British Law, though some may have slightly different interpretations of Sharia than good old Anji.

K.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Kaljug

[SURYADEV]

coincidently we also have the Dutch right-wing MP (and maker of FITNA film?) coming over to the UK after he had been barred for his anti-islamic views.

[Kaljug]

coincidently we also have the Dutch right-wing MP (and maker of FITNA film?) coming over to the UK after he had been barred for his anti-islamic views.

Geert Wilders. He wised on to the threat of Islamisation of Western countries when his film maker friend Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim who didn't like his questioning of Islam's doctrines.

It's testament to the psychological submission to Islamic demands that plagues UK politicians - the same subjugation that Dasmesh Pita attempted to remove from His Sikhs by banning Muslim practices in the rehat maryadas - that they tried to ban him from entering the country on the grounds that his speeches would increase inter-faith conflicts (read: offend British Muslims) yet they choose to allow Muslims to wave around placards which read "Death to the Infidels," "Kill those who offend Islam" etc on the streets of Britain, and allow demonstrations by Muslims who want to turn Britain into a thirld-world Islamic cesspool.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8308982.stm

Controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders has hailed his arrival in the UK as a "victory for freedom of speech".

He told a packed press conference in Westminster he was "proud of the UK asylum and immigration tribunal" for overturning the ban.

And he repeated his criticism of Muslim ideology and defended his call for the Koran to be banned in Holland.

His press conference was moved inside amid angry scenes, with demonstrators chanting "Wilders go to hell".

About 40 Muslim protesters gathered outside the Abbey Gardens buildings, opposite the Houses of Parliament, where the hastily rearranged press conference was held.

Held back by a police line, and surrounded by camera crews from around the world, they chanted slogans such as "Sharia for the UK" and "Freedom go to hell" and held up placards saying: "Sharia for the Netherlands" and "Islam will be superior".

''Defend freedom'

One protester, Sayful Islam, said they wanted to see Mr Wilders "tried in an Islamic court" for "insulting the Prophet", adding: "We need to put this dog on a leash".

He described Mr Wilders as "the open voice of democracy" and claimed the Dutch MP's views were shared by "every government in Europe".

Mr Wilders said he was not setting out to insult Muslims - the majority of whom were "law-abiding" - but he defended his right to criticise the actions of a minority who he said posed a threat to society.

"My aim is not to insult anyone but it is to defend freedom," he said.

Asked about the protests that greeted his arrival in Westminster, he said: "I am very proud that people - even if they totally disagree with me - can use their democratic right to protest."

Explaining his views on Islam, he said: "I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get."

He denied his abortive attempt in the Dutch Parliament to get the Koran banned flew in the face of his commitment to free speech.

"Even in the United States, where they have a first amendment, there is one red line, which is the incitement of violence and this was exactly my point," he told reporters.

He also denied responsibility for the publicity which has greeted his visit, saying: "If anybody has responsibility for this publicity it is the UK government and the home secretary and not Geert Wilders."

Mr Wilders, who faces trial at home for inciting hatred, was allowed into the UK after a ban on him was lifted.

The Freedom Party leader was turned away from the UK in February on the grounds that his allegedly anti-Islamic views posed a threat to public security but that decision was overturned earlier this week.

Although agreeing not to challenge the decision, the Home Office has said Mr Wilders' comments will be closely watched by the authorities.

Mr Wilders was invited to the UK by UK Independence Party peer Lord Pearson.

Asked whether he too wanted to ban the Koran, he said: "I disagree with Geert in fact, who has said that if Mein Kampf is banned in Holland, then so the Koran should be banned. I don't agree with that at all.

"I want the Koran discussed very much more and I want it particularly discussed by the 98% or whatever it is of the Muslim community who are mild, peace-loving people.

"But what I want them to do is to get up off their bottoms and take on their violent co-religionists who do base these acts of evil on the Koran."

'Inter-faith violence'

When he tried to visit the UK in February, Mr Wilders was back by immigration officials at Heathrow airport on the grounds that his views could stir up "inter-faith violence".

However, on Tuesday the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled there was no evidence to suggest he represented a real and serious threat to the "fundamental interest" of society.

The judges said that even if there had been evidence, it would still have been wrong to turn him away because in the event of any trouble the police would have been able to deal with it.

The Home Office said Mr Wilders' statements and behaviour during his visit "will inevitably impact on any future decisions to admit him".

Officials say his case differs from that of a larger number of individuals - including Islamic extremists and white supremacists - who are on a list of people excluded from Britain for "unacceptable behaviour".

The power to impose such exclusions was introduced in 2005, following the London bombings, and applies predominantly to non-EU nationals who would seek to "foster hatred or promote terrorism".

[jaikaara]

I have been going through their website : http://www.islam4uk.com

They want our hindu brothers

http://www.islam4uk.com/non-muslims/62-non-muslims/90-why-hindus-should-embrace-islam

Why Hindus Should Embrace Islam

Introduction

The terms Hindu or Hinduism are usually associated with individuals who follow a mixture of beliefs originating from the Indian Subcontinent. Religious practises include the worship of God via mediums such as idols, parents or saints through various complicated rituals approved by priests otherwise known as brahmins.

Although, claims have been made connecting Hinduism with books such as the Bhagavat Gita or Vedas, little can be said about their authenticity given the fact that there are no legitimate chains of narration affirming the purity of these texts. Differences in religious practises between Tamil Hindu’s and Gujarati Hindu’s, for example, help to illustrate this fact.

Re-incarnation: injustice?

Re-incarnation is paramount to Hinduism, asserting the fact that disabled individuals are products of evil deeds performed in previous lives and consequently looked down upon, while healthier and more able individuals are assumed to be closer to the path of liberation (moksha) and deemed more reputable. Glen Hoddle’s (former England football manager) famous comments on this topic are a good example to refer to.

Nationalism: proud to be Indian?

Nationalism is neither despised nor dispraised but rather encouraged and viewed as something good. The preservation of India or Bharat generally remains an important issue among Hindu’s fuelling racism as well as restricting the religion to an ethnicity; the caste system although disapproved by the government openly flourishes, condemning dark-skinned individuals, with particular surnames, to a life of hard labour and ridicule, albeit at the expense of their supposed ‘evil deeds’.

Free-Mixing: non-existent

Segregation between genders is generally overlooked, especially between distant relatives, and tends to fluctuate given the trend of the society as well as compromise heavily in areas such as education i.e. schools, colleges and universities, for example. The beauty of the Hindu woman is often exposed in terms of her arms, hair and stomach and the Hindu man commonly reveals his private body parts in religious practises such as the Kumbh Mela.

Secular: no system of life

Hinduism, by its nature is a secular religion, providing no system of life for mankind to live under. Integration with democracy and man-made law are part and parcel of its composition and thus it is subject to manipulation and dilution.

A call to embrace Islam

Oh reader! Islam came to liberate mankind from the worship and obedience of the creation to the exclusive worship and obedience of the Creator (without intermediaries), it is a divine belief from which emanates a complete system of life (shari’ah), containing answers for everything you could possibly think of from tying your shoe laces to conquering the world!

In addition to that, it is not enough for you to simply affirm the existence of God, or His right of worship, rather you must declare and accept His final messenger Muhammad (saw) and the Deen of Al-Islam which abrogates all other religions that have passed or are to follow:

Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an, “The only Deen accepted by Allah is Al-Islam.” [EMQ 3:85]

Oh reader! Muhammad ibn Qasim (ra) brought Islam to the Indian Subcontinent in the year 715 C.E. and indeed many responded to his call...isn’t it time you responded?

[shaheediyan]

Geert Wilders is just as stupid and inciting as his fanatical Muslim counterpart.

Our Guru Sahiban never insulted Islam or their Prophet, neither do any Sant/Mahapurkh.

On the contrary, Guru Nanak Dev Ji won over the Islamic Intelligentsia all over the Islamic world, he didn't do this using jackass Neanderthal methods like the idiot Geert Wilders. Seva Panthis also eluded to the same using classic Islamic mystical texts like the Masnavi.

Our Gurus only opposed the hypocritical and fanatical practices of some. Our Gurus tried to kept good relations with Mughal Raaj as much possible, they only reacted when injustice was done. If our Gurus were so anti-Islamic they would not have lead by the example of having relations (both friendly, spiritual and political) with so many Muslims.

We are a Niyaara Panth, not a devisive, insulting and fanatical one, as seems to be the case today in some cases.

[HSD1]

They want our hindu brothers

They can have them.

Anyone who falls for Glenn Hoddle's logic is a moron who deserves to spend an afterlife on a wet cloud or getting barbecued.

Has anyone noticed the massive terrorist attacks in pakistan recently? I dont know why but something inside me feels contented to see this in pakistan. I hope that if muslim punjab goes radicalised it will shock sikhs back into how we were before the brits turned up.

[shaheediyan]

"I hope that if muslim punjab goes radicalised it will shock sikhs back into how we were before the brits turned up."

Your'e dreaming mate, Most Punjabi (and Delhi) youth couldn't give a rats **** about Sikhi. MTV is the new Guru.

The Khalsa was created through hate (violence) towards enemies it was created through love (devotion) towards the Guru.

Read up on Gurus speach in 1699.

[jaikaara]

these guys should suffer the way we did. I shall be happy too. I want to smile too at that firghtened face of that citizen who's paid his zakat to get the funds diverted to terrorists to kill me !!

[tonyhp32]

What goes around comes around. The Pakistanis used the Khalistan movement against India and were never serious about working for the achievement of Khalistan. So whenever a bomb goes off in Pakistan then it is just karma payback. I hope there is a general conflagration in Pakistan and the country dies the death of a thousand cuts. A country that was formed on the death of lakhs of Sikhs does not deserve to survive. It is only the billions in aid that the US is giving to Pakistan that is keeping the country afloat otherwise it would have been destroyed some years ago.

[jaikaara]

Tony you are absolutely right. They blackmailed the leaders then to get their so called Pakistan(it should be naapakistan or piggystan hehehehe)They slaughtered thousands of innocent sikhs nad hindus .

What USA is doing is trying to make a sherriff out of a dacoit. They still have to learn from 9/11 some more lessons maybe !

[shaheediyan]

"A country that was formed on the death of lakhs of Sikhs does not deserve to survive."

Does the same go for Indian Punjab too then? Murderers of thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children?

Is the oppression Sikhs have been suffering over the last 3 decades also Karmic payback?

[HSD1]

"I hope that if muslim punjab goes radicalised it will shock sikhs back into how we were before the brits turned up."

Your'e dreaming mate, Most Punjabi (and Delhi) youth couldn't give a rats **** about Sikhi. MTV is the new Guru.

The Khalsa was created through hate (violence) towards enemies it was created through love (devotion) towards the Guru.

Read up on Gurus speach in 1699.

Brother, I understand what you say but I am a brutally honest person and will say what I think even though I know many wont like it. Its not meant to offend, but I believe honesty is the best policy.

Sikhs in india are a mixed bunch. Many kids arent just 'MTV hindustanis' but are awakening. In delhi many of the moneh are gaining inner strength when they learn about 84 and what Sant Ji and the shaheeds did. Of course the other problems still exist, but I think we as a people are better in bad times than peaceful times.

I also dont like the status quo. It's like a state of equilibrium - nothing looks like its changing but there is plenty of stuff going on on both sides to maintain the balance. Some sikhs say if we upset the balance, people will die, bad times will happen etc, but these things already happen it's just that it's easier to ignore in the good times.

These events remind me of our history, when radical violent islam swept into punjab and north india. Yes sikhs died, but i remember reading that a sikh said after Ghallughara, 'the weak have died and the strong will live on'. This was a conflict in which 60000 of the 100000 sikhs in punjab were killed. But what resulted? A stronger panth. A united panth. A nation capable of creating a Khalsa Raj and taking Peshawar and Delhi. Sikh art, culture etc flourished. That is how life and history work. If the terrorist get the upper hand it will be the end of pakistan and hindustan. A window of opportunity will exist. Now of course we could try and maintain the status quo. But if thats what we want, we give up any right to complain or retaliate if another 84 happens or muslims desecrate gurudwaras in pakistan. What is the point of living like a dirty dog on a street full of fine restaurants when you can be a lion acting as a shining light in the darkest jungle? Of course, if you are right, and we do get our asses kicked, well then we deserve it. I know this sounds bad, but we cannot be forced to hold up a rotten system just because it keeps people alive.

Edited October 16, 2009 by HSD

[shaheediyan]

Having been to India last year (Punjab, Delhi and Maharashtra) and having mixed with hundreds (thousands) of sangtan, I can truthfully relay that in both Punjab and Delhi, many Singhs were in tears regarding the state of the Panth and their own families, clearly having lost hope. Only in Nanded did I see hope, courage and stubborn pride in the Khalsa form - the Hazuri Sikhs.

The problems in Punjab are well known without a doubt, that Sants and 1984 have affect on western youth is pretty much irrelevant in Punjab, Sants etc have affect in rural areas (with the poor), hardly in the Cities (where most of the populace has now migrated to).

Delhi situation is relatively unknown, many people in UK still think Delhi Sikhs are strict etc, they were until recently, but much has changed in recent years, I put my hand on my heart and say that a grown, smart, devotional, successful amritdhari Singh cried to me re and said Kalyug has descended in Delhi (re the youth), specifically telling me about his daughters. I had many other such instances from other deppresed Sikhs also. I was also lucky enough to visit the main schools/colleges in Delhi etc (Sikh ones) and can say, 'Sikhs' are in the minority (not so much in the schools due to parental influence, but massively in the colleges).

Lastly, I know first hand that there are many beautiful and amazing people in Pakistan - spiritual, cultural, intelligent and humanitarian - and that most regular Pakistanis actually love Sikhs. People who have zero contact with real Pakistanis and base their experience on some Walsall type trashi youth in the UK, give the wrong impression. If Pakistanis hated Sikhs, there would be none alive their today, nor would there be a Nankana Sahib (irrelevant of being a seeming money spinner as of late).

My mother went to yatra there 15 years ago and tells me how much love and respect regular Pakistanis gave, many doing nishkaam seva.

One 15 stone disabled woman was left alone (as no one in the jathaa could carry her) to the top of the Panja Sahib ithihaasik location. She cried and prayed. 2 young Muslim lads came to her and insisted on carrying her up in sweltering heat (up hill). Then then waited peacefully and carried her back down when she had finished her darshan. They took no money, even upon insistence of the Jathaa. They simply said their Prophet had giving them vision to help a Mata Ji at this place on this day. They gave their salaam and left.

Fanatics do not make up the majority of the Pakistani populace, most are hard working, honest and praying (God fearing) people like most of us. To wish harm on them is a maha-paap.

[tonyhp32]

Geert Wilders is just as stupid and inciting as his fanatical Muslim counterpart.

Our Guru Sahiban never insulted Islam or their Prophet, neither do any Sant/Mahapurkh.

On the contrary, Guru Nanak Dev Ji won over the Islamic Intelligentsia all over the Islamic world, he didn't do this using jackass Neanderthal methods like the idiot Geert Wilders. Seva Panthis also eluded to the same using classic Islamic mystical texts like the Masnavi.

Our Gurus only opposed the hypocritical and fanatical practices of some. Our Gurus tried to kept good relations with Mughal Raaj as much possible, they only reacted when injustice was done. If our Gurus were so anti-Islamic they would not have lead by the example of having relations (both friendly, spiritual and political) with so many Muslims.

We are a Niyaara Panth, not a devisive, insulting and fanatical one, as seems to be the case today in some cases.

The only similarity betweeen Geert Wilders and Chaudhry is that both tell it like it is without the PC whitewash which infects most public debate on this subject. Geert Wilders clearly says that he has no problem with Muslims as people but he has a problem with Islam. Any decent person would have a problem with Islam. This is the direct opposite of what most PC people would say, for them Islam as a religion is 'peaceful' but it is some Muslims who have hijacked it that are the problem.

I have a question for you, do you think that the Gurus were supportive of Sharia law and the Dhimmi status accorded to non-Muslims in an Islamic state? Sharia law, Dhimmi status and Jizya tax are not hypocritical or fanatical practices, they are a part of mainstream Islam agreed by all the schools of Islam. The rehatnamas and the actions of Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 go against the Dhimmi status that the Mughals had accorded to non-Muslims in their empire. Dhimmis are not allowed to keep a sword, ride a horse or basically even oppose by violence any action by the Muslim state. You state that the Gurus only reacted when injustices were done. This is where the preception of a Muslim and a normal person is at odds. For a Muslim, the fact that someone would refuse to be governed by Sharia law, or refuse to accept dhimmi status, then that person has committed an injustice and that person is the one at fault! Islam imposes a certain mindset which is at odds with normal notions of justice and fair play.

If you agree with me that the Gurus were opposed to Sharia law with it's discrimination against non-Muslims such as the difference in blood money compensation etc. Then you have to have a problem with Islam. You can sing all the praises you want of your devout Muslim mates but what you have seen in Britain is the weak Islam prior to before it starts to assume a greater role through a growth in population. Your devout Muslim mates might be all nice and respectful now but should Islam take over the UK, you as a non-Muslim would have fewer rights than a Muslim, renovation of Gurdwaras and building of Gurdwaras would stop. The same would be the case with Churches, Mandirs and Synagogues.

Back to Geert Wilders, he is a homosexual who is proud of the liberal culture of his native country and Europe as a whole. He sees that increasingly there have been attacks on homonsexuals by Muslim youths in Holland and also sees that with the increasing Muslim population these are likely to lead to greater dangers to homosexuals and society as a whole. The Dutch are world renowned for being laid back and tolerant and yet because of the threat they see from Islam they are increasing supporting parties such as Wilders'. To you someone who wants to protect his society from the dangers that Islam represents might is an idiot and a neanderthal but to an increasing number of people waking up to what Islam is like he is a hero.

[shaheediyan]

Tony, the world goes around in circles. People gain kingdoms and loose them.

Sharia is fine in Islamic countries, I have no problem with people opposing it in non-Muslim countries, in fact, I myself oppose it.

If people want Sharia, live in an Islamic country.

If people have a problem with the west or can't stop hating 'whitey', go and live in a non-western country.

If people have a problem with Sharia, then stop being Dhimmis and leave the Islamic country.

Simple.

Other than that, Guru Sahiban fought bad practice/people, not Islam, otherwise they wouldn't have had cordial relations with and even helped some of the Muslim rules like Bahadur Shah (not to mention taking help from Muslims many a time). Taking a help from a Gursikh in actual fact is taking help from Sikhi, taking help from a Muslim is no different - one is taking help from the true parmatma ordained Islam, not the trash that many people associate Islam with today i.e. Wahhabism.

Tony, sadly, your mindest simply reinforces the many myths I have heard some old school Muslims portray re Sikhs i.e. Sikhs keep their kes until the day every single Muslim on this planet has been killed, and whilst during ardas over langar, we cut the parsaad with our kirpan and pray for the death of every Muslim.

Your mindest is the opposite of our Guru Sahibans, so are your mannerisms, compassion, open-mindedness and visions of humanity.

[amardeep]

Kaljug and Tony

how do you interpret these lines from Zafarnamah

ਨ ਈਮਾਂ ਪਰਸਤੀ ਨ ਅਉਜ਼ਾਇ ਦੀਂ ॥ ਨ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸ਼ਨਾਸੀ ਨ ਮੁਹੱਮਦ ਯਕੀਂ ॥੪੬॥

They were neither men of faith, nor true followers of Islam, they did not know the Lord not had faith in the prophet.46.

and later down

ਸ਼ਹਿਨਸ਼ਾਹ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ਆਲਮੀਂ ॥ ਕਿ ਦਾਰਾਇ ਦੌਰ ਅਸਤੁ ਦੂਰ ਅਸਤ ਦੀਂ ॥੯੪॥

Though you are the king of kings, O Aurangzeb ! you are far from religion (deen).94.

Using logic here we can say that anyone who acts like Aurangzeb (being fanatical, being a liar, violent etc) is not acting according to Islam.. Why would Maharaj say that Aurangzeb is far from his deen if he acts according to its tenet in your view? ??

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

Kaljug and Tony

how do you interpret these lines from Zafarnamah

ਨ ਈਮਾਂ ਪਰਸਤੀ ਨ ਅਉਜ਼ਾਇ ਦੀਂ ॥ ਨ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸ਼ਨਾਸੀ ਨ ਮੁਹੱਮਦ ਯਕੀਂ ॥੪੬॥

They were neither men of faith, nor true followers of Islam, they did not know the Lord not had faith in the prophet.46.

and later down

ਸ਼ਹਿਨਸ਼ਾਹ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ਆਲਮੀਂ ॥ ਕਿ ਦਾਰਾਇ ਦੌਰ ਅਸਤੁ ਦੂਰ ਅਸਤ ਦੀਂ ॥੯੪॥

Though you are the king of kings, O Aurangzeb ! you are far from religion (deen).94.

Using logic here we can say that anyone who acts like Aurangzeb (being fanatical, being a liar, violent etc) is not acting according to Islam.. Why would Maharaj say that Aurangzeb is far from his deen if he acts according to its tenet in your view? ??

Waheguru JI Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Sri Guru Granth Sahib is pretty clear on what a True Muslim is and what True Deen is. If you think that this is some kind of defence of Islam by Dasmesh Pita, then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken given that the "prophet" Muhammed was not above lying, violence or fanaticism for the sake of his own benefit.

K.

[amardeep]

One of the first things you learn in communications is to have the same definitions of words as your counter-part. For instance when sikhs speak to each other and use the word halal and haram it will refer to the kurahits meaning adultary and (halal) meat.

If a sikh wishes to speak about adultary with a muslim and says "haram is bad" then the muslim will not be able to understand what is being said because "haram" to him means unpermisable. so for him the sentence will be "unpermisible is bad".. it makes no sense... to the sikh it means "adultary is bad"

The thing is that Aurangzeb was'nt a sikh, nor did he do path of Gurbani or have sikh scholars in his court to educate him in sikh studies and definitions... So when Maharaj used the word deen he was obviosly not refering to a definition that Aurangzeb did'n know. Doing that would be useless as the letter then would'n have any effect on Aurangzeb as he would'n be able to understand what Maharaj was talking about (unless he would employ a sikh scholar afterwards to tell him about Gurbani).

If the word "house" to me means a burger and i write you a letter with a sentence going "I ate a house for dinner" you would probably think i ate the door, windows and bricks..Then you would think im crazy for eating those things, while i just reffered to a burger.

In communications you learn to focus on the language and definitions of the reciever and then you write your letter in a way so that he will understand it the best way possible..

Why would Aurangzeb even care about Maharaj telling Aurangzeb he does'nt follow Gurbani's definitions of being a Muslim when Aurangzeb did'n follow Gurbani to begin with?? Thats like a muslim telling you that you can't eat pork because it says so in the quran!

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

One of the first things you learn in communications is to have the same definitions of words as your counter-part. For instance when sikhs speak to each other and use the word halal and haram it will refer to the kurahits meaning adultary and (halal) meat.

If a sikh wishes to speak about adultary with a muslim and says "haram is bad" then the muslim will not be able to understand what is being said because "haram" to him means unpermisable. so for him the sentence will be "unpermisible is bad".. it makes no sense... to the sikh it means "adultary is bad"

The thing is that Aurangzeb was'nt a sikh, nor did he do path of Gurbani or have sikh scholars in his court to educate him in sikh studies and definitions... So when Maharaj used the word deen he was obviosly not refering to a definition that Aurangzeb did'n know. Doing that would be useless as the letter then would'n have any effect on Aurangzeb as he would'n be able to understand what Maharaj was talking about (unless he would employ a sikh scholar afterwards to tell him about Gurbani).

If the word "house" to me means a burger and i write you a letter with a sentence going "I ate a house for dinner" you would probably think i ate the door, windows and bricks..Then you would think im crazy for eating those things, while i just reffered to a burger.

In communications you learn to focus on the language and definitions of the reciever and then you write your letter in a way so that he will understand it the best way possible..

Why would Aurangzeb even care about Maharaj telling Aurangzeb he does'nt follow Gurbani's definitions of being a Muslim when Aurangzeb did'n follow Gurbani to begin with?? Thats like a muslim telling you that you can't eat pork because it says so in the quran!

Firstly, congratulations on eating a whole house. I hope you chatkaed it first.

Secondly, I can't imagine that even Aurangzeb would be stupid enough not to understand what Dasmesh Pita meant when he said True Religion - Deen is beyond any kind of shariat. I'm sure even gold old Aurry had read Farid or any number of Sufi poets who talk about Deen.

Thirdly, if you believe that Dasmesh Pita is referring to Islam, then Aurangzeb would hardly be doing anything wrong since Mohammed lied when it suited him, borke treaties when it was in his best interest, and is famous for his saying that "War is Deceit".

Regards,

K.