Guest Javanmard Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 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. would maharaj include Bhagat Ramanand's bani in Adi Guru Granth Sahib and criticise him in Bachitar natak? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 This was sent by a friend of mine This appears to be another example of poor and motivated scholarship. This is particularly relevant as you seem to miss no opportunity to abuse others by trying to show yourself to be knowledgable in northern indian languages but your translation is both inept and highly suspect. You have translated the word Mahdeen to refer to Islam or sunni islam in particular. A scholar worth his salt would make sure that his translation of a particular word fits in firstly with the spirit of the work he is translating but more importantly the translation he has made of that word (Mahdeen ) is consistant and make sense at places were the same word reoccurs. Terms used have to necessarily be of the same category. Why would Guruji break this rule and refer to personalities like Gorakh, Ramanand and yet mean Sunni Islam instead of Mohammed? Looking at the inept translation I can only assume that you have not read the whole of the Bachittar Natak otherwise your translation exercise would not have been so shoddy. The word Mahdeen occurs at a number of places in the Bachittar Natak Here using the same ISO conventions here is the places were it occurs pun har gorakh ko uprAjA, sikh karai TinhOn badRAjA sravan fAr mudrA duai dArI, Har kI prit rIt n bIchArI pun har rAmA nand ko KarA, bhes bairagI ko jin dharA kanthi kanth kAth kI dArI, prabh kI kriyA kachu bichArI jai prabh param purkh upjAae, tin tin apnai rAh chAlai MahAdeen tab prabh uprAjA, arab des ko kIno rAjA ling binA kInai sabh rAjA, tin bhI ek panth uprAjA ling binA kInai sabh rAjA, sabh tai apnA nAm japAyou sat nAm kAhou n drirhyou, sabh apnI apnI urjhAnA pArbrahm kAhu n pachhAnA, tap sAdhat har moh bulayou eim keh kai eih lok pathAyou Then I brought Gorakh into existence and he made great kings his disciples He tore the ears of his followers for the ear rings of the yogi but gave no thought to God's path of love Then I created Ramanand who assumed the garb of a bairagi He placed a wooded necklace around his neck but minded not the way of God Those I created each and everyone created their own sects/religions I then created Mohammed and made his king of Arabia He too started his own path making the kings undergo circumcision He made people utter his own name and not the name of the eternal God Thus they all involved only in themselves recognising not God The whole import of the verses is clearly delineated by the Guru when he states jai prabh param purkh upjAae tin tin apnai rAh chAlai Those whom God created each and everyone created their own sects/religions The import of these verses is that God had sent down saints and bhagats to teach people the right way but they all set up their own religions and sects. The Guru mentions here the personalities of those who strayed away from God. Mahdeen has always been translated to mean Mohammed. Each and every Sikh scholar I have read whether he was Udasi, Nirmala or Singh Sabha has always translated Mahdeen as Mohammed. Because it is keeping with the essence of the verse. It can only be down to motivated or inept scholarship that can translate Mahdeen as 'Islam' or 'Sunni Islam' mainly because that person does not like his 'beloved prophet' being shown as someone who went astray from the path of God. Previous to this verse these line occur kitai krisan sai kIt kotai banAi kitai rAm sai mait dArai upAi mahAdIn kaitai prithI mAj huay samai ApnI ApnI ant muay Many worms like Krishna did you create Many Ramas did you also create and brought to an end Mohammeds too were many on earth They came and disappeared when their appointed time came So it is clear here that Mahdeen is a person and not an allegorical figure used to represent Sunni Islam. Such inept scholarship can only be expected from those whose mother tongue is not Punjabi or one of the other indian languages. Only those who require Shackle glossary can come up such amateur translations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 Can one of the moderators please transfer the above two posts onto another thread as this thread is going off topic? Thanks Mod's Note: Done!!!. Keep it Clean!!! We cant stress this enough. Follow the Rules! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamuka Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 That's probably why I asked for the Islamic threas NOT to be closed!!! Regarding the Prophet (pbuh) not my fault if Bhai Gurdas calls him yara on two opportunities... What does it matter what Bhai Gurdas said or may have said? Are you saying that because of what Bhai Gurdas said, we cannot mentione what is written in the Quran or the Hadiths? We are now not allowed to discuss Islam anymore? Is this what you're trying to say Lalleshwari? Such inept scholarship can only be expected from those whose mother tongue is not Punjabi or one of the other indian languages. Only those who require Shackle glossary can come up such amateur translations. Ooops, you shoudn't have said that Sikh Princess. Watch now how the likes of Guv will now make a complaint against you claiming you have made a racist statement. Do I see another ban? I hope not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 Jamuka, Let me make it clear to you. Bhai Gurdas ji gurbani have been given same respect as guroo's bani. If you doubt in this and dont consider bhai gurdas bani gurbani. Then go join your wahabi(ram raie) freinds! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamuka Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 You don't get it. I am not critisizing Bhai Gurdas stature or place in Sikhism. I am questioning Lalleshwaris contention about what Bhai Gurdas may or may have not said and using that as a means to stiffle any criticism brough forth against Islam. I am not going to go into the polymics of what one religion says about another for that itsef is another story. What Bhai Gurdas may or may have not said has nothing to do with one's ability at critisizing Islam or any other religion for that matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 Jamuka Veer Lalleshvari is at mistranslating in order to protect his 'beloved prophet'. He uses the translations on Sikhi to the max site for his 'yaara' translation. No other scholars makes 'yaara' mean 'beloved of God'. Even someone with basic punjabi knowledge would know that 'yaara' does not mean 'beloved of God' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 Yara means friend or beloved! Mahadin is not to be found in any Arabic dictionary and only occurs in bachitar natak. Maharaj could have used another name to fit in the chhand if he really wanted to refer to the historical Muhammad. Ramananda is mentioned in Bachitar Natak but let's not forget that he is one of the Bhagats: would Maharaj cuss one of the Bhagats or is the Ramananda of the Bachitar NATAK (play) an allegorical figure for Vaishnavism? Now let's look at thinks logically: You guys are saying that the term MahAdIn refers to the Prophet right? OK: let's check if it was ever used for the Prophet: NO! Is it an Arabic word? Let's see: the ending -In in Arabic refers to the plural: but we are supposed to talk about a single person here so it can't be the case! Is there a similar word in Arabic? Oh there is mohadin from the root HDN: mohadin would mean the one who makes the truce or peace: this surely does not refer to the Mahadin of Bachitar Natak! It's written differently and the long vowels would make it impossible for it to be an existing Arabic word! Mahadin can't be found in any Arabic dictiobary: try it yourself you'll see! So it can't be an Arabic word and it surely is not a name of the Prophet! Now let's look at who wrote Bachitar natak: Guru Gobind Singh. Maharaj uses a lot of words that are combination created by him only with one part Indic the other Arabic. In fact already Vahiguru is such an example. are we dealing with such a case with MahAdIn. Quite possible: mahA (sanskrit: great) dIn (arabic: religion): the great religion (in geographical terms of course). I think one can't be more logical than that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 So you admit it doesn't mean 'beloved of God' so why use the translations of sikhi to the max website when you now admit are wrong. They stretched the meaning of 'yaara' to ridiculous lengths? Can I have your views on the post regarding Bachittar Natak quote? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 1. where did I use "Beloved of God" in my translation of Bhai Gurdas? ikasi-ikasi brahmandi vici dasi dasi kari avatAra utArA / kete bedi biAs kari kaI kateba muhammada yArA / kudarati iku etA pAsArA / Glossary: ikasi-ikasi: locative of iku: one brahmandi: locative of brahmandu: world (sansk: egg of Brahma) vici: locative postposition : in dasi dasi:locative of dasa:ten *locative used here with instrumental use avatAra: nominative plural of avatAru (sansk: avatAra, ava-TR; to descend) :descent (of the Divine) avatAra is not to be confused with the Christian concept of Incarnation. theophany would be a good semantic equivalent utArA: nominative : passage accross, deliverance (same root as TR for avatAra) kete kete: plural of ketA : how much?, how many? bedi biAs: nominative: Veda Vyasa, rishi who composed the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatapurana kari: absolutive with past tense meaning: he/she created kateb: plural of kitab: four books of the Abrahamic tradition: Torah, Psalms, Gospels and Qur'an Muhammada: Prophet Muhammad yArA: nominative: friend, dear one kudarati: nominative: power, God's power, omnipotence, creation iku:nominative: one etA: nominative : so many pasArA: spread, extent expanse Translation In one* universe he came as the ten avataras He created so many dear ones such as the Veda's Vyasa and the Kateb's Muhammad** His One power*** has spread into so many. * could alternativerly also be translated as "in each one of these universes" referring to the many universes emanating from the pores of Akal Purakh. ** parallelism : Ved Vyas - Kateb Muhammad *** kudarati having many meanings I chose "power" as I find it more appropriate as it deals here with Akal Purakh's creative power. But one could easily refer to it as "nature" or "creation" as well. 2. For Bachitar Natak read my previous posts. 3. I never said youc ould not discuss Islam. In fact I am very critical of legalist Islam especially the Hanbali school and I could show you proof of Hanbali scholars twisting the truth to justify homosexual sodomy (disgusting!!!!). But there is a difference between being critical and just slandering without knowing what one is talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Quick question before I post a more comprehensive answer What is you view for the reason why Bhai Gurdas used the word 'Kateban' rather than 'Koranan'?. Mohammed doesn't belong to the four books of the semites but the koran alone. Any ideas for this apparant anomaly? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 This is in no way an anomally. Bhai Gurdas and gurbani mentions the Vedas, Puranas and other Indic literature together even though they referr to different religions and types of religiosity. The Katebs (Torah, Psalms, Gospels and Quran) form the semitic traditions whereas the Vedas, Puranas etc.. stand for the Indic traditions (vedic, shaiva, Vaishnava etc..). The Prophet (pbuh) as the last prophet of the Abrahamic lineage represents the other prophets of that tradition as synecdoche or pars pro toto. Sikhi is the third way! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Mohammed doesn't belong to the four books of the semites but the koran alone. Any ideas for this apparant anomaly? I think according to the Islamic belief shortly before the first Prophet, Adam, was expelled from the 'Garden of Eden' he had seen the name of Mohammed on the throne of Allah. The name 'Mohammed' itself means something like 'most praised' and his coming had been prophesied. So, according to them (Muslims) Mohammed does indeed belong to the first book... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Exactly Jahan, the word Muhammad comes from the Arabic root HMD, hamd means praise and mu-hammad means the praised one. The throne of God in Islamic tradition contains the names of the Prophet (pbuh) and his daughter Fatima Zahra (as) and the 12 Imams (as). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 other then Bahadur is there any referance by other other teekakaar or kathakaar that the bachittar natak is allegorical like the parbodh chandar natak? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 the fact that all of the information given in the line of Muhammad are historically wrong(3-4 errors in the lines) could mean either: -Guru Gobind Singh was ignorant of historical facts - Guru Gobind did not write the bachitar natak - It is not to be taken literally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbreakable Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 .. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Unbreakable: ok lets look at what Maharaj is saying: Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.26. He started a religion and circumcised all the kings. He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone.27. in these two lines, the following is said: -Muhammad(Mahadoon) was made the king of arabia -He circumcised all the kings -He caused all to utter his name instead of Allah's name. The first thing is the name. Why would Guru Gobind Singh use the name Mahadoon when this is not a name of Prophet Muhammad in arabic or indian literature? Bhai Gurdas has used the name Muhammad, and Guru Gobind Singh in the Zafarnama has also used the word Muhammad, so where does Mahadoon come from? Guru Gobind Singh in the Zafarnama says: You neither follow the teachings of Islam nor you understand its meaning. You do not know the ways of the Lord nor you have any faith in Prophet Mohammed.(Na sahib shanasi Muhammad yakeen) it goes on to say that Muhamamd was made the king of arabia which is not true, as Muhammad only ruled Mecca, Madina and a few local villages.. this was hardly all of Arabia at the time. next it talks about circumcision... or does it? The original text says Ling Bina koone sabh raja. Ling is the male genital, which would mean that he cut of the male genital .. as we all know this is not true... furthermore, circumcision was already practiced by the arabs before the birth of Muhammad, even jews and christians in arabia did this(and still do till this very day) Next, Muhammad never went to war with any kings so who'se privates did he cut of? last thing, it says he made everyone chant his own name. Now show me how muslims are chanting the name of Prophet Muhammad? EVERYTHING it says about the Prophet is wrong, these things were comited by the muslims after his death, and not by him what the text is dealing with here is the actions comited by the muslims after death of the prophet... They were the ones who conquered all of arabia, they were the ones who fought the persian and roman king. on the issue of cutting of genitals and chanting Muhammad instead of Allah, it could talk about the whols Spiritual vs ritual issue.. That they became extremists in their sharia (why Guru Gobind Singh says they cut of their genitals whereas the sunnah only talks about the foreskin) and the thing of PRophet Muhammad above Allah is that they forgoet about spirituallity and got stuck in rules and sharia.. either, Maharaj was ignorant, he did not write this Granth, or it is not to be taken literally.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 For a start i dont agree with Bahadurs theroy put foreward. It is in conflict with the years of santhiya and vidiyan on the text. It is Mahadeen and not Mahadoon which in itself is a great tile. two points - 1) The circumcision is a central part of the semitic faiths and is not prevelant in the sanatan dharma so it rules out any other prophets, gurus or sadhus other then someone from the fold of Islam as towards Punjab their was a lack of christians who were down in the south of India. 2) King of the arabs or Arabia. Why cant this be about Mohammed when Jesus is referred to as the king of the Jews! On the basis of this then Mohammed can be seen as the king of the arabs. In regards of Avtars Ansa Avtar is that of an avtar who is like a righteous king to treats all of the kingdom or rule as his ow children. Mohammed showed mercy to the meccans and trated all as if they were his children who had committed a fault. The term that Mohammed made all chant his name is from the call to prayer for the namaz where Mohammads name is stated. I bring this up as i was listening to the Sarbloh Avtar Katha by Baba Santa Singh Ji Nihang whilst bored in a meeting and in the katha the critiques that are reflected in the bachittar natak are also in the sri Sarbloh Granth. The Sri Sarbloh Granth no where states it is a natak. (Personally i dont believe that was the case either with the Bachittar Natak as it meant the wonderful drama which the Lord has manifest) The Sri Sarbloh critiques Ramanand as well and this is not play or drama or an allegorical text! Its like Bahadurs interpretation of the Vaaran of Bhai Gurdas where it states Mohammed Yaara. The Yaara according to all the teekas i have read is to do with the four friends of Mohamed Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali. But Bahadur took this to be that Bhai Gurdas Ji was calling Mohammed his friend. If you dont believe me pick up any teeka or listen to Sant Gurbachan Singh Jis Katha. Also Bahadurs interpretation of the word 'Turk' is also misleading. You can listen to the katha by Baba Santa Singh Ji yourself on the following link http://www.keertan.org/keertan/Katha/Baba%...0Parmeshwar.mp3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Kam1825 ji. Jesus was sent as a prophet to the jews to impart the spiritual aspect of the Law, hence why he is the King of the Jews. In the bible he says something like I have come to rescue the lost sheep of Israel. Muhammad in the Quran is sent to all of mankind, so he could not be the king of arabia only as his "kingdom" according to the Quran is the entire world. so what if Muhammad is mentioned in the adhaan? its like saying that the Gurus made all chant their name and status because sikhs say Ik Oankaar SATGUR parsaad, or because all of the ten Gurus are mentioned in the Ardass. one could put the same accusation against Guru Arjan Dev Maharaj for having put the Bhatta de sawaiye into the Granth, hereby the Gurus are honoring themselves instead of God? the adhaan simply means that There is no Gud but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.. where has Muhamad raised himself higher than Allah? what is said about Bhagat Ramanand in the katha? i will download it when im at home ji 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 once again, if the Bachitar Natak is to be read literally, then EVERYTHING about the prophet is historically wrong, hence Guru Gobind Singh Maharj was ignorant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Calm down Amardeep i know you get very sensitive when anything to do with Islam is brought up as Bahadur did. I am sorry to say that no one other then Bahadur will interpret these lines as he does. Go and ask any katha kaar yourself. Again you can look at Bahadurs interpretation for Bhai Gurdas Dian Vaaran. That goes against all the arths given by the Sikh institutions. Looking back further, Guru Nanak Dev Ji according to the Bachittar Natak, Sarbloh and Sri Guru Granth Sahib where Nirinkar in a Sargun from but according to Bahadur he was just a shia dervish or imam? Bahadur i am sure you are reading this and i will recieve an email sometime soon criticizing what i have written! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 I dont think Guru Gobind Singh Ji were ignorant at all i think Bahadur was ignorant to spin such an interpretation to undermine the Bani and in order for it to help his own personal agenda. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 hehe veer ji i am calm.. i am not that good at english which is why i might sound angry, but dont worry ji i am not .. i am not a "chela" of Bahadur, i dont agree with his interpretation of Sikhi at all, but anyone with a little knowledge on Islam will refute what Maharaj has written by saying that the Prophet NEVER did any of this. He never made himself higher than God, he never conquered arabia, he never chopped of the genitals of any men and his name was not Mahadin. historically it is not true 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 if i remember correct, tsingh also belives it to be an allegorical play 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.