Hmm...proof that Gurus questioned the Koran for women?

[SinghMunda]

Is there more to this than meets the eye...that Guru Granth Sahib Ji says Muslim women suffer because of what is written in the Koran? Also, I have heard that this was also Hukamnama on September 11, 2001...any truth in that..?

TILANG, FIRST MEHL:

As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O

Lalo. Bringing the marriage party of sin, Babar has invaded from

Kaabul, demanding our land as his wedding gift, O Lalo. Modesty and

righteousness both have vanished, and falsehood struts around like a

leader, O Lalo. The Qazis and the Brahmins have lost their roles, and

Satan now conducts the marriage rites, O Lalo. The Muslim women read

the Koran, and in their misery, they call upon God, O Lalo. The Hindu

women of high social status, and others of lowly status as well, are

put into the same category, O Lalo. The wedding songs of murder are

sung, O Nanak, and blood is sprinkled instead of saffron, O Lalo. || 1

|| Nanak sings the Glorious Praises of the Lord and Master in the city

of corpses, and voices this account. The One who created, and attached

the mortals to pleasures, sits alone, and watches this. The Lord and

Master is True, and True is His justice. He issues His Commands

according to His judgement. The body-fabric will be torn apart into

shreds, and then India will remember these words. Coming in

seventy-eight (1521 A.D.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1540

A.D.), and then another disciple of man will rise up. Nanak speaks the

Word of Truth; he proclaims the Truth at this, the right time. || 2 ||

3 || 5 ||

Monday, 1st Assu (Samvat 535 Nanakshahi) (Page: 722)

[SinghMunda]

I wonder why no one has replied as of yet :?

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

I am thinking that the Muslim women are not miserable because they are reading the Koran. Perhaps the falsehood, bloodshed and hatred surrounding them is prompting them to cry out to the Almighty and to read the Koran for answers?

But I am a moorakh...

[Guest Javanmard]

The bani you quoted has nothing to do with the Qura'n provoking women's suffering. and anyway the QUra'n is not the only source of Islamic fiqh so really do...

In BHai Mani SIngh's Janamsakhi we find Guru Nanak holding the Prophet in high esteem so... being SIkh and anti-Islam is a bit of a contradiction

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

The bani you quoted has nothing to do with the Qura'n provoking women's suffering. and anyway the QUra'n is not the only source of Islamic fiqh so really do...

In BHai Mani SIngh's Janamsakhi we find Guru Nanak holding the Prophet in high esteem so... being SIkh and anti-Islam is a bit of a contradiction

Contradiction for you maybe, but in Sikhi we hold the truth to be paramount. Perhaps a reference or page number would be good as well as the context in which Guru Nanak held the prophet in 'high esteem'

It is the Guru Granth Sahib which should guide our views and there is not one word of praise for mohammed. He is not even named whereas supposedly lesser Bhagats ( in Muslim eyes ) are named and some of the stories of their lives alluded to. Amazing that if Guru Nanak or any of the other Gurus held Mohammed in high esteem that they did not refer to him by name in the Guru Granth Sahib.

BTW how does your theory stand with the reference made to Mohammed in the Bachittar Natak in Dasam Granth.

As many did I create, they were all anxious to go their own way. I created Mohammed and made him king of Arabia. He, too started his own path, making circumcision an essential part of his religion. He made people utter his own name and not the name (only ) of Eternal God. ( Chaupai 26-28 )

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[Guest Javanmard]

Don't have the text at hand but it's inone the sections when Guru Nanak travels in the Middle East: He declares that Muhammad was given widsom by God and that Ali had been given martial courage by God. B40 Janamsakhi has passages on the Panjatan as well. Don't have the texts at hand but will try to give you guys the references when I get hold of the books again.

[Gupt Singh]

the janamsakhis arent exactly 100percent reliable....i trust dasam granth more......

besides.......you have wisdom.......who gave it to u? god obviously......god gives everyone everything......mo wasnt differnet in that respect

[Guest Javanmard]

Well from the hadith and the sira it seems that the prophet was a very good husband and father. He used to do the shopping, cooking and other household tasks himslef and helped his wives in every respect. So I really don't see how one could be able to slander him. :roll:

[Guest]

Well he would have had an easier time doing the housework if he had married less women perhaps?

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

lallesvari instead of telling us that Mohammed was a 'Mr Mum' could you actually comment on the Bachittar Natak.

So when he wasn't attacking caravans, destroying the habitations of the Jews and others who he did not agree with as well as ordering the murders of those opposed to him, he was a good Husband. That's alright then. We shouldn't slander him.

while on the Hadiths what kind of a guy gets caught in the bed of one wife while it was the night he was supposed to be in bed with another wife on her allocated turn.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[SinghMunda]

Please people, show the highest respect for our Creator, do not call Him "god", but "God", thanks!

[lil_princess]

what's the difference from God, god, or GOD, you said HIM! thats a far bigger crime! lol j/k i just thought i say that GOD is not a GUY!

one

ps. no offence!

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

what's the difference from God, god, or GOD, you said HIM! thats a far bigger crime! lol j/k i just thought i say that GOD is not a GUY!

one

ps. no offence!

Why don't we just use the name Waheguru when we refer to God. Then we wouldn't need to refer to Waheguru as Him.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[Guest Javanmard]

Bikramjit wrote

lallesvari instead of telling us that Mohammed was a 'Mr Mum' could you actually comment on the Bachittar Natak.

So when he wasn't attacking caravans, destroying the habitations of the Jews and others who he did not agree with as well as ordering the murders of those opposed to him, he was a good Husband. That's alright then. We shouldn't slander him.

while on the Hadiths what kind of a guy gets caught in the bed of one wife while it was the night he was supposed to be in bed with another wife on her allocated turn.

GurFateh

Bikramjit is totally right. Unlike the Prophet we Khalse never attacked caravans and never destroyed anyone's habitations when fighting against the Mughals. :twisted: IN fact we never killed anyone because we had the "flower power". and of course the destruction of Sirhind was just a gas cooker accident, we Khalse never destroyed Sirhind. We just waited for the accident to happen and Wazir Khan slipped on a banana skin!

Regarding the Prophet's polygamy it's true that he had nine wives and that's really not on!!! :evil: Look at our Gurus: Guru Hargobind only had three wives, Guru Gobind Singh had only three wives and Guru Hari Rai restricted himself to eight wives only (source Sant Gurbachan SIngh Bhindranvale Gurmat Rahit Maryada).

[SinghMunda]

Hey! Guru Gobind Singh Ji only had one wife, often called with two different names, and the other one did not marry the Guru I believe, but lived almost as if she was...correct me if I am wrong. And did Muhammed marry nine wives to satisfy his lust, and did he say to Muslim men to do same?

[Guest Javanmard]

Birkramjit quoted Bachitar natak

As many did I create, they were all anxious to go their own way. I created Mohammed and made him king of Arabia. He, too started his own path, making circumcision an essential part of his religion. He made people utter his own name and not the name (only ) of Eternal God. ( Chaupai 26-28 )

First of all the name Muhammad is not used in the text but Paigambar. Then it goes on that the Paigmabar had all the kings circumcised.

well if one looks a few verses earlier Ramananda is quoted as well for the same reason: sent by God, fulfilled his mission but he became more important than God.

Bachitar Natak and I insist here on Natak is to be read as an allegorical play. The holy persons quoted represent their religious community rather than themselves as holy persons. The case of Ramananda. The character Ramananda is criticised but at the same time he is one of the bhagats of the Adi Guru Granth Sahib. THis means that the character Ramananda represents his community that started attaching too much importance on the exoteric aspect of religion. In the same wasy the Paigambar does not represent the Prophet as such but rather the Islamic community who started attaching more importance on the sharia and the exoteric aspect of Islam rather than to devote itslef to God. BHai Gurdas uses the dearing expression Muhammad yaaraa in his varan clearly showing that the Prophet was repsected in our community.

I hope this satisfies the readers.

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Bikramjit is totally right. Unlike the Prophet we Khalse never attacked caravans and never destroyed anyone's habitations when fighting against the Mughals. :twisted: IN fact we never killed anyone because we had the "flower power". and of course the destruction of Sirhind was just a gas cooker accident, we Khalse never destroyed Sirhind. We just waited for the accident to happen and Wazir Khan slipped on a banana skin!

Regarding the Prophet's polygamy it's true that he had nine wives and that's really not on!!! :evil: Look at our Gurus: Guru Hargobind only had three wives, Guru Gobind Singh had only three wives and Guru Hari Rai restricted himself to eight wives only (source Sant Gurbachan SIngh Bhindranvale Gurmat Rahit Maryada).

Lallesvari I suppose you know from our PM exchange what i think of your your knowledge of Sikhi. Yes, you know some fragments of detail which you bring into the debate to show how knowledgable you are.

Given my low opinion of your knowledge about Sikhi I am still astounded that you can write such drivel as you have written above. The comparison you make is laugable and can only come from someone how is clutching at straws to try and make his argument appear solid when the facts prove it otherwise.

A few points for you to ponder

1. You have purposefully ignored the reference to Mohammed in Bachittar Nanak which by any stretch of the imagination criticises him for starting him own religion instead of keeping to the worship of God. You ignore this because you wish to keep to your pet theory that Guru Nanak held mohammed in 'high esteem'. Your pet theory has more to do with your own admiration of mohammed and Ali and your sufistic beliefs rather than a true reflection of what the Gurus believed.

You take a obscure passage from the Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi to prove your point that a Sikh cannot be anti-Islamic.

2. If you cannot see the difference between the way the Khalsa fought against the Mughals and the tactics used by mohammed when he attacked caravans and enslaved the women and children of the Jews and his enemies then you need to research a bit more about this matter. When did the Khalsa enslave the women and children of the Muslims ?. Even the enemies of the Khalsa praised the way in which the Khalsa never resorted to causing any harm to women and children of their enemies. Do you have any references in which the enemies of Mohammed praised his method of warfare.

3. Your comment about the Gurus having more than one wife is a clever attempt to evade the question. If you read what I have written rather than that which you think you can answer you will realise that the question is not of polygamy but trust. Since you are very knowledgable on the Hadiths you will know that Mohammed due to the number of women he married had a 'day' set aside for each. Since mohammed was fond of one particular wife he was caught in bed with her by the wife whose turn it was that day !. Now answer me this, is this the actions of someone who is honourable and worthy of 'high esteem' ?.

4. You have the audacity to compare mohammed with the Gurus. Which of the Gurus ordered his follower to murder his enemies by the use of devious methods ?. Which of Gurus killed the entire menfolk of a tribe and then shared their women and children amongst their followers ?.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Birkramjit quoted Bachitar natak

First of all the name Muhammad is not used in the text but Paigambar. Then it goes on that the Paigmabar had all the kings circumcised.

well if one looks a few verses earlier Ramananda is quoted as well for the same reason: sent by God, fulfilled his mission but he became more important than God.

Bachitar Natak and I insist here on Natak is to be read as an allegorical play. The holy persons quoted represent their religious community rather than themselves as holy persons. The case of Ramananda. The character Ramananda is criticised but at the same time he is one of the bhagats of the Adi Guru Granth Sahib. THis means that the character Ramananda represents his community that started attaching too much importance on the exoteric aspect of religion. In the same wasy the Paigambar does not represent the Prophet as such but rather the Islamic community who started attaching more importance on the sharia and the exoteric aspect of Islam rather than to devote itslef to God. BHai Gurdas uses the dearing expression Muhammad yaaraa in his varan clearly showing that the Prophet was repsected in our community.

I hope this satisfies the readers.

Firstly apologies as I put up my comment about you ignoring the Bachittar Natak in my previous post. Appears that you were writing your response as I was writing mine.

O.K. Now you seem to have added wilful distortion in your attempt to support your pet theory.

First of all the name Muhammad is not used in the text but Paigambar. Then it goes on that the Paigmabar had all the kings circumcised.

The words used in the Bachittar Nanak is not 'paigambar' or messenger but Mahadeen. So your attempt again fails.

As for explaining it away as an allegorical play which alludes more to the followers who practiced the religion after the prophet, this is again just another theory. Where it falls flat is because there is no mention of the followers of these persons in the way you interpret them..

Since you seem to have read Mahadeen as Paigambar perhaps I had better write the complete chaupais

Pun Har Rama Nand ko Kara

Bhes Bairagi ko jin kara

Kanthi Kanthi kaath ki daari

Prabh Ki Kriya Kachhu Bichari

Mahdeen Tab Prabh Upraja

Arab Des ko keeno Raja

Tin bhee ek panth upraja

Ling Bina keenay Sabh Raja

Sabh tey apna naam japayo

Satnam Kahuu na drirhayo

From any reading of the above lines in bold it is clear that this is a criticism of Mohammed and not to the ways adopted by his followers. You claim to be a scholar of languages and are quick to chide others for their lack of knowledge of Braj, Persian and Sanskrit, perhaps you could translate the lines in bold, without resorting to a allogerical meaning.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[Guest Javanmard]

I quoted the Bachitar Natak out of memory and my memory is not perfect. The term used is not Muhammad nor Paigambar (as I said) but Mahadin, an interseting wordplay on Muhammad. Apologies. I think I might have had the verses on Imam Mehdi from Dasam Granth in mind where the word Paigambar does occur. Apologies to the readers. Apart from that I stick to what I have said about the Natak from a literary perspective.

Bikramjit says a lot of things about me and as it seems to be his favourite pastime and is seems to make the boy happy ,I'll let him do. It's his marzi and if he finds pleasure in it (Freud would probably say that he is in his anal or oral phase) then good!!!

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Bikramjit and I have differences of opinion and probably of sources. I quoted the Bachitar Natak out of memory and my memory is not perfect. Bikramjit says a lot of things about me and as it seems to be his favourite pastime and is seems to make the boy happy I'll let him do. It's his marzi and if he finds pleasure in it (Freud would probably say that he is in his anal or oral phase) then good!!!

Lallesvari

A person who takes part in a serious discussion would never try and quote from memory. It is usual to check with the text on which you are basing your entire argument before actually quoting it. I wonder how many other quotes that you have posted are from your memory.

I hope in future you will quote from a text that you actually have access to otherwise as in this thread you will soon lose your crediblity.

I have no issue with you but I have issues with people who twist and misquote texts to support their arguments.

Quoting Freud is a favourite with those who wish to appear knowlegable in the eyes of others. When it isn't possible to support your argument any longer than it's a case of ' I know, I'll quote Freud and that should impress some people'

Kithay Gangu Teli Kithay Raja Bhoi - Punjabi proverb

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[Guest Javanmard]

errare humanum est

I make mistakes therefore I am human. I don't live for sikhawareness.com and I don't feel insercure when I make mistakes or when my memory is not at its best: i correct the shot that's it!

I tend not to twist reality and the fact is that Bhai Gurdas calls Muhammad as Muhammad yaaraa in his Varan. Now that's neither twisted nor invented.

Yes the Prophet used devious military tactics and enslaved the Jews but Bikramjit seems to hide the reasons for it. And by the way what is the status of the slave in the SUnnah.mmmm

regarding devious ways: they're part of war and even we used some of them but then again it all depends on what Bikramjit defoines as devious. Had the Prophet really hated the Jews and enforced his religion on others then why were two of his wives a Jew and Christian who never embrassed Islam?

Regarding sleeping with one wife when he promissed to be with another: well well, the tortuous complications of polygamy. I tend not to juge as I have not experienced that life style.

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Yes the Prophet used devious military tactics and enslaved the Jews but Bikramjit seems to hide the reasons for it. And by the way what is the status of the slave in the SUnnah.mmmm

You have a tendency to go off at a tangent when your knowledge is questioned. You compared the military tactics of Mohammed with that of the Khalsa yet offered nothing in support of your comparison. Rather than making statements it is usual to back them up with some facts. So it is o.k. to enslave women and children provided there are 'reasons' for this !. Well then you can justify just about any crime as long as there are 'reasons' for it.

You find is easy to make reference to the the Guru Mahals but for some reason can't comment of Mohammed not keeping his word and sleeping with the wife whose day it was. Lets have some consistancy.

regarding devious ways: they're part of war and even we used some of them but then again it all depends on what Bikramjit defoines as devious. Had the Prophet really hated the Jews and enforced his religion on others then why were two of his wives a Jew and Christian who never embrassed Islam?

Devious- using assassins to befriend your enemies and then kill them. Any ideas why Allah wanted all the Jews and Christians out of Arabia ?. Did He or Mohammed hate them ?

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Just a quick question for Bikramjit;

As you have placed a great amount of validity on the particular quote from Bachittar Natak, do you accept it as Guru Gobind Singh ji's own writings?

curious to know your view

cheers

[Guest Javanmard]

Gurfateh

1. Enslavement of the Jews: The Jewish tribes tried to poison the Prophet and get rid of the Islamic movement. War opposed the Jews to the young Muslim community. The Jewish males having been killed the women and children were left without providers. The hadiths on slavery are very clear about thenature of slavery: A slave is not someone who you abuse and exploit day and night but rather a person who serves you and is dependent on you but to whom who should show respect and dignity. The hadiths clealry say that it is only Sunnah to have a slave if the slave eats the same food as you and wears the same clothes as you. We are far from the Roman Empire here. Also the Prophet always insisted on the fact that it is a very good deed to set a slave free. (this does not mean that I condone slavery in the 21th century. Slavery might have been a medieval reality but nowadays it's out of order. But at the same time one should judge a society on the values of its time, not our time)

2. On the devious and tricky ways here is an example taken from Sikh history. (I have taken it from the following website: http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/warriors/mahtab.html). It's on the way how Massa Ranghar (may he burn for eternity) was punished and killed by Bhai Mahtab SIngh JI and Bhai Sukha SIngh Ji (may their names bring joy to the hearts)

On the next morning before starting from Damdama sahib, they disguised themselves as Muslims of Patti and filled two sacks with the pieces of broken eartherwares and loaded them on the backs of their horses. They had hung their hair loose behind their necks (as the Pathans do). Entering Harminder Sahib they tethered their horses to the berry tree and went inside with the sacks on their shoulders. They saw that Massa Ranghar was sitting on a bed smoking hubble bubble (hookah), prostitutes were dancing and wine was flowing freely. They placed the sacks under the bed and said, "We have come to pay the revenue." When Massa Ranghar bent to feel the sacks, Mehtab Singh cut his head in a flash and put it in a sack after empting it of the potsherds. Sukha Singh made short work of the company of Massa Ranghar. Having finished their work with the speed of lightening, the Singhs mounted their horses and were out of sight in no time. By evening both the Singhs reached Damdama Sahib. The next day they presented Massa Ranghar's head on a spear to their leader at Budha Johar. The gathering congratulated them and ordered that the head be consigned to the flames.

3. Do you actually dare to contradict BHai Gurdas when he writes in his Var 1 Pauri 4 (taken from :

http://allaboutsikhs.com/gurbani/gurdas/vaar01-01.htm)

Pauri 4 (Jagat utapatti karan)

Oankaru akaru kari ek kavau pasau pasara.

Panj tat paravanu kari ghati ghati andari tribhavani sara.

Kadaru kine na lakhia kudarati saji kia avatara.

Ik du kudarati lakh kari lakh biant asankh apara.

Romi romi vichi rakhinni kari brahamandi krori sumara.

Ikasi ikasi brahamandi vichi dasi dasi kari avatar utara.

Kete bedi bias bias kari kai kateb Muhamad yara.

Kudarati iku eta pasara.

Pauri 4 (Creation)

All prevading Oankar through His One Word created the whole expansive cosmos. Through the five elements, as the quintessence He permeated in the three worlds and their denominations. That creator could not be seen by anyone who to expand Himself created the infinite nature(prakrti). He made myriad forms of nature. In His each one hair He gethered up millions of worlds and then in one universe He comes in tens of forms. He has created many a dear personality such as Vedavyas and Muhammad dear to the Vedas and the Katebas respectively. How wonderfully the one nature has been expanded into many.

Bhai Gurdas (the jewel of SIkhi) is the key to Gurbani his exegetical authority was recognised by Guru Arjan who considered his writings as the correct exegesis of Gurbani. Because of this the Mahadin of Bachitar natak is to be seen as an allegorical figure representing the Islamic Sunni community and not the Prophet as such.

[Guest kaur1699]

Fateh Ji,

Just a quick note for the Sangat,

When referring to or quoting any Bani, please state the full Shabad and page numbers so that if need be readers can find the quotes in question easily and that way we won't have any misquotations.

Thanks

Fateh Ji