Now Muslims Demand Full Sharia Law

[Kaljug]

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

What? Do you even know what Sharia law is? You are fine with non-Muslims paying taxes for not being Muslims, or having less rights than their Muslim countrymen, or being punished for trying to bring a Muslim criminal to justice because he can't provide upright Muslim citizens to give evidence?

India was Islamic territory when Dasmesh Pita taught his Sikhs to completely ignore such ignorant, racist and hateful laws.

K.

[amardeep]

So this must be the scenario you imagine:

1.Aurangzeb recieves a letter

2.In the letter Aurangzeb is accused of not being familiar with Allah, His deen nor the prophet

3. Aurangzeb calls his court mullahs and sheikhs and asks them what Islam says about warfare

4. The court mullahs tell him that what he did was in absolute accordance to islamic tenets

5. Aurangzeb starts laughing at Guru Gobind Singh because Guruji talks about something he knows nothing about.

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

So this must be the scenario you imagine:

1.Aurangzeb recieves a letter

2.In the letter Aurangzeb is accused of not being familiar with Allah, His deen nor the prophet

3. Aurangzeb calls his court mullahs and sheikhs and asks them what Islam says about warfare

4. The court mullahs tell him that what he did was in absolute accordance to islamic tenets

5. Aurangzeb starts laughing at Guru Gobind Singh because Guruji talks about something he knows nothing about.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Well, if you are asking for my personal opinion, Islamic precedence in Sharia law does not prohibit breaking treaties if it is the best interest of the Islamic ruler. This is clear if you read the Sharia texts that were written before or around the time of Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb would have been cognizant of this fact without having to consult his Maulvis who no doubt would have told him the same thing. I believe that, based on the immense bhagti that Aurangzeb had done in his former incarnation in the Himalayas, that Dasmesh Pita gave Aurangzeb the chance to see through these Islamic laws that he was using to justify his rape, murder and enslavement of the Indian population and to come to a realisation about the true nature of Deen.

Next time, Singh, if you continue to be patronising, I'm just going to ignore your whining and immature inanities. If you can't ask a question politely of me, don't ask.

Regards,

K.

[amardeep]

What are you talking about? When did i patrionize? Im interested in the way you think and interpret things. I dont ask questions for the sake of discussion.

You say that Aurangzeb who was a mass murderer, fanatic, deciever and lunatic, actually followed the prophet and Islamic tenets.

Then i ask you again. How do imagine Aurangzeb interpreted these lines when he read the 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.

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.

do you think Aurangzeb thought this when he read the letter:

This Gobind Singh says that I am far away from the teachings of Farid and Sufism, even though i've never claimed to be following either of them. Why is my enemy Gobind Singh reffering to litterature of sufism and Farid when im a muslim and only follow hadith and Quran? Does'nt he know that i only follow Quran and Sunnah? Maybe i should write him a letter that says he is far away from judaism and Moses. I dont see why mentioning Moses will be relevant to him, but maybe i should mention it anyway to follow his high example of mail correspondance and communications!

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

What are you talking about? When did i patrionize? Im interested in the way you think and interpret things. I dont ask questions for the sake of discussion.

You say that Aurangzeb who was a mass murderer, fanatic, deciever and lunatic, actually followed the prophet and Islamic tenets.

Then i ask you again. How do imagine Aurangzeb interpreted these lines when he read the 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.

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.

Sweet jesus on toast, man. I've already answered your question. Try reading what I say before asking me to repeat myself.

K.

[amardeep]

Here is what you answered

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.

Then i wrote a post about standards of communications. That you have to speak the same language in order to understand each other. I think we both agree that Maharaj knew how to communicate and present a message (see how udasi's introduced gurmat via puranic litterature and myths, how the Gurus spoke in the language of the masses etc). So my point was that Guru Maharaj could'n have been talking about Gurbani's interpretation of True Deen, The True Muslim etc as this would imply that Aurangzeb would know what this was.

Then you say

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.

So i ask: If Maharaj knew that Aurangzeb was a strict sunni muslim, and not a sufi, then why would Maharaj refer to sufi Islam to make a point? If I wish to convince you of something then i would'n quote the talmud or Quran because you dont follow these books to begin with. Their edicts and words will mean squat to you. So what is the point in Maharaj tellin Aurangzeb that he does'nt follow Sufism when Aurangzeb never claimed to be a follower of sufism?

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

Amardeep,

If you are going to ask me a question then tell me what I answered, perhaps you should just talk to yourself in private.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that Aurangzeb had done enough bhagti in a former life to know what True Deen means. You don't need to be an erudite scholar to know in your heart that the essence of true religion is not so far from being the essence of being a good human being. I am not talking about definitions written down in books. Zafarnamah was written as a final chance for Aurangzeb to turn over a new leaf and give up the evil he committed; when he refused, his destruction was assured.

Regards,

K.

[amardeep]

If you are going to ask me a question then tell me what I answered, perhaps you should just talk to yourself in private.

did'n i quote your replies in the above post????

What you refuse to acknowledge is that Aurangzeb had done enough bhagti in a former life to know what True Deen means.

This is the second time you mention this. First i thought you were being sarcastic but since you mention it again im wondering if you've read/heard some katha that i have'nt ?? If so, please expand more on this.

You don't need to be an erudite scholar to know in your heart that the essence of true religion is not so far from being the essence of being a good human being. I am not talking about definitions written down in books. Zafarnamah was written as a final chance for Aurangzeb to turn over a new leaf and give up the evil he committed; when he refused, his destruction was assured.

Would you please answer my previous question and tell me how you interpret the lines of Maharaj saying Aurangzeb does'nt know God or the proplet? What you said before about farid and sufism does'nt make any sense

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[amardeep]

You say that when Maharaj says deen he is talking about the esoteric "Higher Deen" as mentioned by Baba Fareed and other sufis.

What about when Maharaj says "you dont know the prophet".. What does he mean here? What esoteric Muhammad is reffered to here?

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

This is the second time you mention this. First i thought you were being sarcastic but since you mention it again im wondering if you've read/heard some katha that i have'nt ?? If so, please expand more on this.

Unfortunately I've forgotten where I heard this sakhi, but the gist is that the Singhs asked Guru Gobind Singh Ji whether they would attack Aurangzeb after Dasmesh Pita had sent Zafarnama to Aurangzeb. Dasmesh Pita said that the letter had destroyed him. When the Singhs asked why this was not done earlier, Dasmesh Pita tells them that Aurangzeb had done immense bhakti on Mount Kailash at the same time as He was there doing tapasya. Aurangzeb had used up all of the fruits gained from his bhakti by the time he read Zafarnama. Hopefully one of the Gursikhs here will be good enough to point out the source.

Would you please answer my previous question and tell me how you interpret the lines of Maharaj saying Aurangzeb does'nt know God or the proplet? What you said before about farid and sufism does'nt make any sense

I feel it's a gentle nudge to remind Aurangzeb that he has committed evil while disguising himself as a devout religious person and to mend his ways. It was also to point out Aurangzeb's hypocrisy at considering Mohammed to be this great spiritual being but then committing atrocities in his name. I don't feel that it offers any comment on Mohammed's character unless you believe that Dasmesh Pita was ignorant of Mohammed's real nature. Also, by ths point, Aurangzeb's tapas had been used up and he truly was completely ignorant of religion.

K.

[shaheediyan]

Kalyug Ji,

It seems as though you are making out there are 2 options:

1 - Guru Gobind Singh was ignorant;

2 - Guru Gobind Singh felt the same way about Islam that you do.

In actual fact, there is a 3rd option, that you may be wrong.

We are going around in circles. There are too many actual physical testimonies that exist that show Gurus did not hate Islam or its Prophet, may be they know something we did not, as did the Sufis.

Guru Hargobind Sahibs Masjid which Nihang Singh Khalsa so caring restored and lovingly handed back to hugely grateful Shias as of late (who now make pilgrimage to this site), the Dhulfiqar with its inscription praising Ali as the true knight of God - which is placed in Sach Khand at that most sacred place - Kesghar Sahib - where all Sikh sangatan bow their head, inscriptional evidence of Guru Nanaks grateful 'Muslim' following in Iraq/Turkey, Nanak Shahi Sikhs, Muslim Dhadis and Rababis which exist up until now, the amount of Muslim help/friendship accepted by Gurus etc etc, the list goes on.

If Guru Sahiban were so anti-Islam, they would have had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims full stop, neither would there be such great extant love by Muslims for our Gurus today. To this day many Sufis still sing Gurbani qwaal as per inherited tradition, as do many Bengali Sadhs (of which little is heard or known).

Sadly, against this and much more i.e. our Gurus or Sants never commenting on the character of the Prophet etc... one obscure reference about Auranges alleged bhagti in previous life hold little water, as do personal interpretations of Zafarnama etc.

[shaheediyan]

Guru Ji has spoken about Indian dharma and Semetic dharma in the same light - we take and use language and concepts from both.

This is something worth doing vichaar on.

[Kaljug]

Shaheediyan,

The Gurus were here to bring people closer to Nirgun Brahman, as such it's not too difficult to see the reasons that our Gurus said little about the character of Mohammad and simply urged people to follow pure bhakti marg. However, in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, it is clear that a good Muslim is not necessarily one who follow's Mohammed's example.

Gifts given by Muslim followers hardly offer evidence of our Guru's respect for Islamic teachings, nor does the fact that Guru Ji had good followers who were Muslim. Instead consider that Islamic Sharia teaches that practices like halaal and circumcision are demancded by God and the Guru's complete rejection of these and orders to sikhs to abandon all thse things. This says much more about the views of the Gurus on the veracity of Muhammed's message.

Consider that there are many Sufi Qawalis who sing Guru Nanak Dev Ji's bania because they are convinced that He was a Muslim and that Sikhs are misguided fools who need to be brought to Islam.

Mohammed's corruption of character and his enslavement to the panj chor are recorded in the Hadiths in glowing terms. It's up to you if you want to ignore them, but don't pretend that they are not there.

Also, Tony veer ji has put some interesting questions above to you that I would like to see you answer, if you have the time and inclination.

Regards,

K.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Kaljug

[amardeep]

I feel it's a gentle nudge to remind Aurangzeb that he has committed evil while disguising himself as a devout religious person and to mend his ways. It was also to point out Aurangzeb's hypocrisy at considering Mohammed to be this great spiritual being but then committing atrocities in his name. I don't feel that it offers any comment on Mohammed's character unless you believe that Dasmesh Pita was ignorant of Mohammed's real nature. Also, by ths point, Aurangzeb's tapas had been used up and he truly was completely ignorant of religion.

So in your view the line about not knowing Muhammad means that you are killing people in his name? What does this have to do with knowing Muhammad? If Muhammad did these things, would'n Aurangzeb actually know who Muhammad was??

If you see a sikh smoking, drinking, comitting adultary and murdering people you can say "he does'nt know anything about Sikhism and the Guru" because then that person is actually doing the opposite of Gurmat.

What you are saying is that Maharaj is pointing his finger towards Aurangzeb saying "You dont know anything about Muhammad even though you're doing everything he did"

What you say makes absolutely no sense.

[Kaljug]

So in your view the line about not knowing Muhammad means that you are killing people in his name? What does this have to do with knowing Muhammad? If Muhammad did these things, would'n Aurangzeb actually know who Muhammad was??

If you see a sikh smoking, drinking, comitting adultary and murdering people you can say "he does'nt know anything about Sikhism and the Guru" because then that person is actually doing the opposite of Gurmat.

What you are saying is that Maharaj is pointing his finger towards Aurangzeb saying "You dont know anything about Muhammad even though you're doing everything he did"

What you say makes absolutely no sense.

I suggest that you actually read what I have written. Perhaps if you read it several times, it might start to make sense. Or ask someone else to read it you and explain it with pictures. Just don't ask me to answer the same question again because it doesn't make sense to you - I'm not your personal translator.

K.

[amardeep]

I feel it's a gentle nudge to remind Aurangzeb that he has committed evil while disguising himself as a devout religious person and to mend his ways.

This has nothing to do with my question on not knowing Muhammad or his deen

It was also to point out Aurangzeb's hypocrisy at considering Mohammed to be this great spiritual being but then committing atrocities in his name.

This has, which is what i commented on.

I don't feel that it offers any comment on Mohammed's character unless you believe that Dasmesh Pita was ignorant of Mohammed's real nature. Also, by ths point, Aurangzeb's tapas had been used up and he truly was completely ignorant of religion.

This is not an answer to my question either.

Edited October 18, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

Amardeep,

I've answered your question. If you still don't get it in a week, PM me and I'll draw you a picture. In the meantime, I'd suggest you also read what Guru Gobind Singh Ji has to day about Mohammed in Dasam Granth - if you can stop obsessing over one expression in Zafarnama because you are so desperate to jump to defend Islamic nonsense. And no, don't ask me to explain it, read it yourself.

Toodlypips,

K.

[amardeep]

You have'nt answered my question at all, or at least what you have said so far does'nt make any sense. I ask you a very simple question and you keep talking about other stuff. Thats why i keep focusing on that one question on knowing Muhammad.

And yeah we all know that the Bachitar Natak is to be read literally haina.

Then I created Mahadeen who was made the master of Arabia.26 (Muhammad was never a king, nor is he reffered to as one)

He started a religion and circumcised all the kings. (He never conquered any kingdoms)

He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone.27.(find me a muslim that does jaap of Muhammad)

all of the above is historically incorrect.

Later it says:

ਜੇ ਜੇ ਭਏ ਪਹਿਲ ਅਵਤਾਰਾ ॥ ਆਪੁ ਆਪੁ ਤਿਨ ਜਾਪੁ ਉਚਾਰਾ ॥

All the earlier incarnations caused only their names to be remembered.

ਪ੍ਰਭ ਦੋਖੀ ਕੋਈ ਨ ਬਿਦਾਰਾ ॥ ਧਰਮ ਕਰਨ ਕੋ ਰਾਹੁ ਨ ਡਾਰਾ ॥੪੪॥

They did not strike the tyrants and did not make them follow the path of Dharma.44.

and then afterwards we have hundreds of pages talking about how the avatars fought the tyrants, established dharma and made people cross over the ocean?

wow that opens up for a literal interpretation huh. Maybe we should reject the entire chaubis avatar as they are in conflict with this one line here.

[Kaljug]

[quote name='amardeep' date='18 October 2009 - 10:54 PM'

Then I created Mahadeen who was made the master of Arabia.26 (Muhammad was never a king, nor is he reffered to as one)

He started a religion and circumcised all the kings. (He never conquered any kingdoms)

He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone.27.(find me a muslim that does jaap of Muhammad)

[Guest]

This topic is now locked due to obvious reasons. If anyone have anything productive to add, open up new thread.