Guest Javanmard Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 It would be an illusion to say that the Gurus did not criticise certain exoteric aspects of certain religious traditions though they did not attack the esoteric aspect of those traditions. Ooh-young-man quotes Bachitar natak to mention Muhammad but the name of Muhammad is not mentioned there.In Bachitar Natak the Mahadin figure is allegorical. There is not a single time where the Prophet is known as Mahadin in any islamic or nonislamic work and this means that we are dealing here with a wordplay. Mahadin is not an arabic word, it can't be found as a proper name in any arabic dictionary and is not found as one of the many titles of the Prophet (looked myslef: did not find; confirmed by my colleagues who teach arabic). The Prophet was called by different names such as Ahmad, Mustafa etc.. But Mahadin never appears neither in the lists of names nor in any arabic dictionnary. Of course it plays with its homophony with Muhammad but still it is not exactly Muhammad i.e. a word play is here intended. Mahadin is an allegorical figure inspired by the historical Muhammad but who represents the exoteric Sunni Islam. My take on it is that it is a hybrid word (so typical and characteristic of Guru Gobind SIngh's compositions see Jaap Sahib) composed by a Sanskritic half and an arabo-persian other half. maha (sansk. great) and din (arab. religion or creed)= the great religion referring to its geographical and political expansion (he conquered Arabia...). As such it would refer to the Islam of the Sunnis and its characteristic exoterism. Sunni Islam (and even some branches of Shia Islam such as the official Iranian version of ithnasharia) is characterised by a strict and sometimes very blind adherence to the external aspect of religion. What Maharaj is telling us here is that all these religions were brought about by Akal Purakh but that they started caring more for the exeternal aspect of religion than for the research of the Truth inside of each one of us. Don't forget that Bachitar Natak is, from its title a natak, a play. Indian drama is mainly allegorical specially during the medieval period. Guru Gobind Singh uses the language of allegory in this part of the composition as he is talking about higher mystical realities as most mystics do when talking about those matters. The SIkhi of Guru Gobind Singh (certainly not the SGPC's) is the religion that not only sticks to the inner and true meaning or religion but also invites other religious traditions to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooh-young-man! Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Lalleshvariji I don't think your are right that Mahdeen is a word that Guru Gobind singh uses for Sunni Islam. If that were so then why would Guruji use the names krishan and Raam along with Mahdeen. Surely all the names shoudl belong to a similar category. You cannot have Guru Gobind Singh referring to Krishan as Krisha and Raam as Raam Chander but believe that Mahdeen doesn't mean Mohammed and means Sunni islam. Also there are other verses in Bachittar Natak where the words Mahdeen and deen are used in the same sentence to mean Mahdeen ( Mohammed's ) religion ( deen ). In my quote the line states that Mahdeen was created and died when his time came. How does this square with your theory that Mahdeen means Sunni islam ?, Has sunni islam came and gone ?. The past sense has been used, so Guru Gobind Singh was referring to Mohammed. Let the love shine through ohh-young-man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Bachitar natak is a natak: an allegorical play meaning that the characters quoted don't necesseraly represent the historical personalities but rather represent their movements. Otherwise why would Maharaj contradict himslef and criticise Ramananda whilst his bani is in Adi Guru Granth Sahib as well. Why would the Prophet be criticised when Bhai Gurdas calls him "yaaraa". We have to go back to literary criticism and realise that we are dealing here with allegory and theatre! This part of Bachitar Natak should be read like Goethe's Vorspiel im Himmel in Faust itself inspired by Kalidasa's Shakuntala who uses that kind of style! Fact is Mahadeen is never used for the Prophet in any other source! love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 We might spilt this thread into two, or rename the title... I ll keep you guys posted.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Please let's not get into the sarcastic name calling. I never said I have Brahm Gyan so please be so kind as not to put words in my mouth. Hardly an attitude I would expect from a site admin. Ooh Young Man! let me explain why I have used "Bram-Gyan" and its simple to understand. When you can judge someone and hold capability to describe someone's personality it means either you know that person personally and you don't know me personally so thats why I made that comment on the other hand one can be called Bram-Gyani if they hold the power to read others mind if he/she are standing in front of them and here I was just writing you made statement that I was having debate and tried to show that I was showing that Bibi Ji is wrong. This was the reason to come to this conclusion that you hold Bram-Gyan and if you go back and read it then it was in question tone so I wasn't sure about it. Am I clear? Like I said before I didn't have any intention to start debate and I asked one question to raise my point. Also, im wondering howcome knowledgeable person like you can distinguish Bhagats Banees and Gurus Bani? At the end its Guru Granth Sahib's bani which was compiled to have similar views. If any ignorant guy who doesn't know about Sikhism would have said it then it was fine but knowledgeable person like you is saying this made me surprise who is not reading about Sikhism from childern books. I think you are totally mistaken in thinking that criticism of other religions is a 'modern tradition'. I wish some people would try and do some research before they start posting incorrect statements which do not have any basis in Gurbani. Looks like something you picked up in a children's book on Sikhism. I'm not mistaken and please visit that post once again and then check the word "bashing" which I have used. There is always a difference between online fake khalistanis's Sikhism and real sikhs the ones are offline and love humanity and come online once a while to enlighten people like us :wink: Looks like something you picked up in a children's book on Sikhism. Are you saying that books related to Sikhism made for Sikh childers are useless? And they have no knowledge? I think you should not judge others work or accept you hold Bram Gyan then I have no problem reading your posts. Lalleshvari said: It would be an illusion to say that the Gurus did not criticise certain exoteric aspects of certain religious traditions though they did not attack the esoteric aspect of those traditions. I agree with you lalleshvari. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Heyy!!!!!!! I sent an e-mail to da site!!!!! :yo: Dis is wot i wrote: Hello Brother. Im a Sikh, my friend has tried to convert me to Islam and I have not done so. If ur ganna talk bout our Way of Life I suggest dat u read up fully first b4 passing ne false propoganda and not to replace falsehood with Truth. If u wanna find out about Guru Nanak Dev Ji life, I suggest u read his storys from Sikh Books and not websites. Guru Nanak said "Im am neither Hindu nor Muslman". And our holy Book was Revealed directly from Allah himself to Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Learn Gurmuki and dont spread falsehood. I kno spreading falsehood in Islam is even anti-Islam. But Allah is Most Gracious, Most Merciful. It is Allah who can only pass Judgement. =============================================== If i get a reply bak from dem, i'll try to put a reply up here. Guess wot i got a reply bak from dem. =============================================== You say: " And our holy Book was Revealed directly from Allah himself to Guru Nanak Dev Ji". But I can see that your book contains the writings of not only Guru Nanak, but also of many other Gurus, who lived later, and of persons like Bhagat Kabeer and Sheikh Farid. How come that the Revelation that was given to Guru Nanak contains the writings of others? It is not an easy task for people like us (who live far away from India) to learn Gurmukhi. So the best we can do is to learn from people who have read Adi Granth and other books. It is from them, and from translations and books on the Sikh religion that we learn. You may ask us to read books by real Sikh writers and learn about Sikhism. That is fair. But to say that only if we learn Gurmukhi, we can know about Sikhism is unreasonable. Again, if you ask us to learn about Sikhism only from books and not from websites, that also is not easy. The best you can do for us is to send us the URLs of some good websites; and I believe there are good websites on Sikhism. Regards and greetings of peace. Prof. Shahul Hameed, Islamonline.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Ask him to visit this forum and post his questions. Also, send www.sikhs.org as he will get the whole knowledge in simple method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 There is a garden, in which so many plants have grown. They bear the Ambrosial Nectar of the Naam as their fruit. Consider this, O wise one, by which you may attain the state of Nirvaanaa. All around this garden are pools of poison, but within it is the Ambrosial Nectar, O Siblings of Destiny. There is only one gardener who tends it. He takes care of every leaf and branch. He brings all sorts of plants and plants them there. They all bear fruit - none is without fruit." (Guru Arjan Dev, Asa, pg. 385) "The temple or the mosque are the same, the Hindu worship or the Musalman prayer are the same; all men are the same; it is through error they appear different. Deities, demons, Yakshas, heavenly singers, Musalmans and Hindus adopt the customary dress of their different countries. All men have the same eyes, the same ears, the same body, the same build, a compound of earth, air, fire, and water. Allah and Abhekh are the same, the Purans and the Quran are the same; they are all alike; it is the one God who created all. The Hindu God and the Muhammadan God are the same; let no man even by mistake suppose there is a difference." (Guru Gobind Singh, Akal Ustat, pg. 275) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 wow dats nice. I've repled to his e-mail, he might even join dis forum? Lets see wots happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 I am waiting for him That is going to be very very funny!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugermach Singh Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 right, i'll get the popcorn ready again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 ooh young man wrote The word Abhakia - which is Bhakia which in Braj means Language. The A prefix turns the word into it's opposite. So Abhakia means non-language or to be more precise 'unintelligible language' Language being something that is understood. Therefore is this verse describing the name of Allah as 'unintelligible language' ?. abhakhia is not exactly Braj but Sadhu Bhasha which has links with the older forms of Prkarit and Apabhramsa. abhakhia is a derivative of the Sanskrit a-bhashya. the prefix a- is privative whilst the suffix -ya which designates a sense of obligation or value. For example pujya means: that which should be venerated. bhashya means "that which should be uttered" and a-bhashya or abhakhia means: "that which should not be uttered". It does not refer to Allah as the Arabic name of the Divine (used by Muslims and Arabic Christians) is alos used in the compositions of the Adi Guru Granth Sahib. ooh young man's translation is therefore wrong from a philological point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmless Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 wow dats nice. I've repled to his e-mail, he might even join dis forum? Lets see wots happens? Rupz, invite him here and also ask him what he thinks of faithfreedom.org. This site is set by real ex-muslims, the owner of the site has a long way to to go, to learn about humanity particulary freeing himself from hard core Islamic tendencies such as intolerce and bigorty towards other religions. But the guy is doing a good job in education muslims about the real Islam. He is originally from the midddel East now living in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 faithfreedom.org is probably the shittiest site I have ever seen in my whole life and probably in the next lives to come. You can expect any ex-something to start dissing his ex-religion. does that mean he gives an accurate image of his religion. If you want a proper and unbiased idea about any religion the best thing is to consult academic sites of high standard universities which will direct you to proper sources and not just the frustration of some ex-something! :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 faithfreedom.org is probably the shittiest site I have ever seen in my whole life and probably in the next lives to come. I agree with you 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmless Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 faithfreedom.org is probably the shittiest site I have ever seen in my whole life and probably in the next lives to come. You can expect any ex-something to start dissing his ex-religion. does that mean he gives an accurate image of his religion. If you want a proper and unbiased idea about any religion the best thing is to consult academic sites of high standard universities which will direct you to proper sources and not just the frustration of some ex-something! :evil: The owner of the site has lived his life as a Muslim, has an in depth knowledge of Arabic and interprets the Koran as it is, without bias or apologies. I believe he is giving an accurate but a blatant image of his religion without making apologies. Academic research is not always accurate, very rarely you'll find about how Islam was spread in around the globe. Muslim scholars and academics still believe that Hindus including Brahmins embraced Islam willingly and were not converted by force. I do not like the owner of the site :twisted: he is still very insecure and megalomaniac but where I respect him is that he has questioned Islam and have left it for good. I would only recommend this site to wannabe muslims or muslims. I think the rest of us knows true Islam. :twisted: Religion of peace :roll: HA HA! PS: This site saved my black friend from falling into Muslim conversion propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 I don't agree with his style of moderation. He approves anything against any religion on his message board. I think if he thinks that its hard to read all the posts then he can have phorum.org type of message board where he can read all the replies and then approve them. I count on Ali Sena's knowledge as far as it goes to Islam but his attitude/opinion is really dangerous for other religions as well. He is biased towards Bhahi's religion so it should tell you that his claims that he is freethinker is just an excuse to get rid of blames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmless Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 I don't agree with his style of moderation. He approves anything against any religion on his message board. I think if he thinks that its hard to read all the posts then he can have phorum.org type of message board where he can read all the replies and then approve them. I count on Ali Sena's knowledge as far as it goes to Islam but his attitude/opinion is really danger for other religions as well. He is biased towards Bhahi's religion so it should tell you that his claims that he is freethinker is just an excuse to get rid of blames. I fully agree with you truth, Exactly what I had said earlier. I don't like him or his site but he does serve a purpose. My black friend who had almost fallen for muslim conversion propaganda, started to view and question Islam from a humanitarian perspective. And therefore was saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbarSher Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Guru Granth Sahib contains the baanis of various bhagats, which was tested on the 'kaswatti' touchstone of Gurbaani by the Gurus and then only incorporated. The touchstone itself provided the tool necessary to separte the divine from the non-divine. It is a known fact that the Baanis of various Bhakats was collected and tested by the Guru Ji. Baani by various bhakats was rejected, as well as they were found to be deficent. Moreover the 'jot' in all the Gurus remains the same...from Guru Nanak Dev Ji to Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and Guru Gobidn Singh Ji (he did not incorporate his baani into SGGS) and the name used in baani by all Gurus is 'Nanak' for e.g. the fourth Guru, Guru Ram Dass Ji says: Page 96 of 1430 jnu nwnku bolY AMimRq bwxI ] [/font:7264b8a3f2] Servant Nanak speaks the Ambrosial Bani of the Word. jan naanak bolai amrit banee. Its amazing though that there is no contradiction of principles anywhere in the Baani despite the different physical authors, testatment to the fact that the Jot was the same and the Baani divine. Please remember that in case of the Gurus there was no 'making a statement' for the prupose of gaining converts and then going back on the same, as happened with the Prophet Mohammed when he acknwoledged the 'intercessors' to Allah in front of the Koriesh at Kaaba. No such compromises were made in the Gurbaani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niranjana Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Slightly off topic, but if you will I would appreciate the ofrum's thoughts:- The view that Guru Gobind Singh did not include his Bani is the Adi Guru Granth Sahib appears to be something that we have all grown up with through books, sermons and sikh-lore over the past 50 years or so, however I have also come to learn that this could in fact be an over-simplification... ...I this I may reference to (a) the common theme that he did this out of being humble and that Dasam Bani is somehow not on par with Guru Granth Sahib (something I personally do not agree with, but anyway this is not the question here) and ( that Guru Ji did include his bani (dohra) after Salok M9, although over time this has been ascribed to Guru Tegh Bahadur alone... ...it is ( that would appreciate the Forum's opinion...did Guru Gobind Singh write this verse and if so why where did the notion we commonly hear as per (a) come from? Regards, Niranjana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooh-young-man! Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 I fully agree with you truth, Exactly what I had said earlier. I don't like him or his site but he does serve a purpose. My black friend who had almost fallen for muslim conversion propaganda, started to view and question Islam from a humanitarian perspective. And therefore was saved. The forum is good in that all allows the other picture of what islam is to be publicised. People are growing weary of being told the same old trash that Islam is a religion of peace. The forum allows people to make their own minds and not just rely on the glossy and rose tinted glasses view of Islam available on Muslim sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 consult academic sites if you want an unbieased and accurate idea of a religion is about. forums are there for discussion but can never replace academia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauge Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 The title of the topic of this thread is non-sequitur. Why is there discussion? Gauge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts