Jump to content

Bachitar Natak & Mentioning Of Mohmaad(PBUH)


Guest Javanmard

Recommended Posts

Where ever you look in the Koran there are soooo many refferences to Muhhamad's audha being raised sooo high that it seems its above that of God.

For example it says that May the angels behold Muhammad and shower him with praises etc.

No where in bani does it say please God praise Satguru Nanak etc

Sure in Gurbani it says "Naanak paar uthaar" whereby Satguru ji is saying to save Nanak as he is seen as equal o humanity, but in the Koran Muhhamad is given a status which is similar to a devta.

When satguru nanak wrote Mool mantra Satguru Ji write "Gur Parsaad Jap" With the grace of the Guru recite... Who was Satgurus guru with whose grace Satguru Nanak wrote the mool mantra.

My personal opinion is in most cases the reference of Satguru is to Waheguru in Gurbani. Because there is no truer or bigger teach than God alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here i could bring in the Bhatta de sawiye where the Gurus are given names and atributes of God ie Nirankar, Ajuni, saibhang, al demigods are praising Them etc

so using this logic we could say the Gurus raised their own status equal to God when Guru Arjan Dev Maharaj added bhatta de sawaiye

to the Aad Granth. but lets put this aside.

that Muhammad's name is mentioned here and there does not mean that he is higher than God.

as i said, historically Muhammad never:

-Ruled arabia

-chopped of the genitals of any kings

-was renamed Mahadeen

-raised himself higher than God.

again, i am not saying that i agree with Bahadurs vision on Sikhi, but its difficult to accept the bichatar Natak literally when you know that which is written is wrong

when read literaly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is to be read as an allegorical play... all the prophets and avatars mentioned is not a ridicule of these avatars, but rather a criticique of their communities that have went astray from the right path.

Guru Gobind Singh has portrayed the prophets in the way that their own comunities regard them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great debate Amardeep & Kam.

I would like to start off by quoting Javanmard on the 1st previous page of this thread “Sikhi is the third way!â€â€¦ once, the sky was so much clearer……

Many of the arguments on all sides are incomplete, I am playing devils advocate here and although I am no longer a fan of Bahadur Ali (his latest incarnation), I have to say that historically he has brought many a good point to this forum through his research of historical texts and traditional Sikh schooling, so we should not throw out everything he has said, especially if it is backed by evidence. Amardeep if you are still in touch with him, may be worth asking him if anyone else (traditional, perhaps some Nirmalai) follows the allegorical thought.

1. Javanmards comments on the use of Maha-deen. He says that the word does not in fact refer to the Muhammed Sahib. Guru Gobind Singh Ji was an artist and poet of the highest creed, the word as Kam says is a grand title, why would Maharaj not use a new unique grand title for Muhammed Sahib? Doe Maharaj not use many new names for Vaheguru in Jaap Sahib/Akal Ustat?

2. If Javanmards argument was correct, then why would Maharaj still use Bhagat Ramanand Ji’s proper name in Sri Dasam Granth in a negative aspect? Surely an alternative title should be used for Bhagat Ji in keeping with the allegorical theory?

3. Re the reference to sunni rather than shia, there is absolutely no evidence for this, if the bani is referring to the followers of Islam, it refers to them all, not just sunni.

4. Does the bani refer to the Prophet or his followers? We need to be careful here, there are, what seem to be, many negative references to Sri Krishna in bani also, if this rule of reference to the person rather than the followers was to be followed, it would need to be followed for all personalities mentioned, not selective ones. Although Islam and the prophet do not receive much defence anymore, Sri Krishna certainly does, but the same should apply. There are both positive references and negative references to both in Sikh canons, so treatment needs to be consistent.

5. Another way to look at this is that a religion is a direct representation of it’s founders. Although this may not be true in the strictest sense (as religions have been modified (even created) by followers), in the worldly and outside perspective sense, the religion represents the founder. This is true of people who attack Jesus because of over zealous missionaries, those who attack Muhammad due to fanatical Muslim factions etc etc. So in this case both argument could be valid i.e. it represents both the followers and founder (as represented by the follower). Ultimately when Guru Nanak Dev ji said “no Muslim no Hindu†they were referring to the people (and their lost of understanding) rather than the founders…

6. Lastly, if the literal option of understanding this bani is to be taken then how does one reconcile this to the positive mentions of Islam, Muhammad sahib, Sri Krishna ji etc….

Ta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting points shaheediya veer ji.

my mind was stuck on one thing however. If it is possible for avatars, manifestatios of God, to fail and get caught up in haumei and self pride etc, then how do we know that the Gurus did'n? If the Pooran avatar of Satyug, Dwapar and Treta all failed and messed up, how do we know that the Pooran avatar of This Yuga, Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj did'n fail as well? Quoting Gurbani in defence of the Guru's will not do, because if the Pooran avatars are capable of failing, then they are also capable of liying to save their own honour ie write "THe Guru is perfect" which he might not be.

i remember having a friend who once asked me how come as soon as Guru Har Gobind got power, he completely changed the pattern of the former Gurus, from living in simple houses to big mansions and palaces, and as soon as Guru Maharaj got power, he did'n write any Bani. he said something like "to me it looks like these were ordinary good men who tried to make a change in society, but the sixth Guru got caught in the luxurios lifestyle of a king, and therefore stopped living as the former Gurus who wrote bani, and started to live as a king with many wives, big palaces etc..." ...

if it is possible for these pooran avatars to mess up and get caught in their own life style, how do we know that the Gurus did'n get caught haumai and a luxurius lifestyle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at their lives.

It's also the reason why Maharaj Ji said not to call them God.

I personally believe that previous Avatars were devte, while Guru Ji was/is Nirankaar themselves.

Guru Hargobind Sahib didn't have big mansions or palaces. It was through the necessity of fighting oppression that they demonstrated how to balance miri and piri. Their dwellings were actually very modest.

Bani contined to be revealed by Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"i remember having a friend who once asked me how come as soon as Guru Har Gobind got power, he completely changed the pattern of the former Gurus, from living in simple houses to big mansions and palaces, and as soon as Guru Maharaj got power, there were no more banis written.... "

Thats a pretty ignorent comment. The events leading upto the shaheedi of Sri Guru Arjun Dev Ji amply answer that question. If 6th Master had not taken up arms, Sikhi would not exist today (imho). In any case 9th and 10th Master have bani, so how did the bani end? 6th Masters life was devoted to turning a nation of humble and peaceful men into a nation of warriors. 6th Master gave power to his Sikhs and started royal/political activities i.e. hunting, creating takht sahib etc to directly oppose the tyrannical rule.

It seems as though it's you has doubts rather than your friend...

Re your other comments, read my post again, I am not saying that puran avtars failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that are some huge accusations you throw on me.. how can you say that i have doubts when you hardly know me? that comment actually hurt!...

my point was that if all the avatars of the past failed, how can mankind be sure that the Gurus did'n fail as well? i am talking from an objective point of view here, not a personal one.. i have 100% trust in my Guru..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think a big reason why the 6th 7th and 8th Gurus did not write any bani down was due to the Mina movement at the time dispersing their own bani under the 6th Guru (Prithi Chand) 7th Guru (Meharban) and 8th Guru (Har Ji) Just so the kachi bani was not taken to be real they refrained from writing bani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim

Assalamo Alaikom wa Rahmatollahi wa Barakatu

Just in case you wondered it's Bahadur Ali. I am only entering the debate here to correct a few untruths about the seal of prophethood, Mohammad (pbuh). I am not here to attack anyone on personal grounds and shall ignore any personal attack. Nor am I here to convert anyone for it is Allah (swt) who guides the hearts to the truth of his divine religion. As soon as my points will be made I shall leave again.

Let it be noted that I wont use nor accept any sources from the Ahl-e Sunnah (Sunnis) and shall rely only on the approved sources of the school of Ahl ul Bayt (as).

Here are some of my observations:

1. Mithr and Unbreakable judge the question about Mahadin being the Holy Prophet (pbuh) according to "their own opinion and throughts". The matter at hand is not what untrained individuals think or rather feel about a matter but rather analyzing and discussing with philological proof.

2. Unbreakable's "opinion" about Mahadin being His Lordship Mohammad (pbuh) is based on the idea that the passage describes accurately the life of the Prophet (pbuh).

This is nevertheless a great untruth to say the least. Why?

a. Mahadin is neither an Arabic nor a Persian name, noun or verb. It has no meaning in those languages. For a Muslim the term "Mahadin" means absolutely nothing. The basis for civilized communication is the sharing of common vocabulary in order to convey meaning understood by a majority. The term Mahadin fails that purpose.

To recapitulate: Mahadin is a made up name never used anywhere else for the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

b. The text describes Mahadin as being the king of Arabia. This couldn't be the Prophet (as) nor any of his Immaculate Imams (as) as none have ever been crowned kings. Kingship implies royal descent, being crowned king and creating one's own money. The three conditions were never met in the case of the Rasulallah (pbuh).

Kam1825 argues that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was considered like a king or could be compared to a king. Not a single hadith describes him as such nor any contemporary source. The case of 'Isa (as) is completely different as he actually was or royal descent through the house of Dawud (as).

c. The text says that Mahadin slashed the ling (sexual organs) of kings he conquered. The only kings around the Prophet (pbuh) where the Byzantine and Sassanid emperors. He never conquered or subdued any of them nor did he impose circumcision as it was a widely practiced ritual among all Arabs be they Hanifas, Christians, Jews or Pagans.

d. The text says that he ordered others to repeat his name instead of Allah's (swt) (astaghriullah). This is a complete and utter untruth. There is no evidence to that accusation. Anyone who knows the rules of prayer knows that the only focuss is Allah (swt) and that the name of the Prophet is only mentioned in the adhan and the tashahud and even then he is mentioned as follows "ashhadu ana muhammadan 'abudu wa rasulu": I witness that Mohammad his His servant and messenger, and this is after saying that God is the only divinity and that there is none like him. Again the Mahadin passage is replete with untruths on this matter.

2. Mahar Kharag Singh writes:

Where ever you look in the Koran there are soooo many refferences to Muhhamad's audha being raised sooo high that it seems its above that of God.

Quite the opposite, there is none above Allah (swt). The fact that angels are ordered by Allah (swt) to bless His beloved Prophet (pbuh) doesn't mean that he is higher than Allah (swt). Hadhrat Mohammad (pbuh) represents the insan e kamil, the complete man, and as such like Hadhrat Adam (as) he is the mazhar (manifestation) of the divine attributes. To honour him (without worshipping him) is to obey the initial order given by Allah (swt) to his angels to bow in front of Adam (as). The one who refused was none but Shaytan (la).

I hope I have been clear

Bahadur Ali Shah

miraj-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a really informative post Bahadur Ali Jee. But the thing is all Vidhvaans to date have translated Mahadin as the Prophet Mohammad whether it is Giani Randhir Singh, Giani Narain Singh, J P Sangat Singh. Even puraatan Sampradayas like the Taksals, Nihangs, Nirmalas have translated Mahadin as Prophet Mohammad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mithr wrote:

That was a really informative post Bahadur Ali Jee. But the thing is all Vidhvaans to date have translated Mahadin as the Prophet Mohammad whether it is Giani Randhir Singh, Giani Narain Singh, J P Sangat Singh. Even puraatan Sampradayas like the Taksals, Nihangs, Nirmalas have translated Mahadin as Prophet Mohammad.

The fact that all these learned men have translated Mahadin as "Mohammad" doesn't mean they were right. You are using the "authority argument" which means: it has got to be Mohammad because X, Y, Z said so. Personal authority and charisma does not replace facts and the facts are the ones I have show earlier. There is simply no way, be it linguistic or historical to justify that Mahadin= Mohammad.

Also being a vidvan in the Sikh sampradayas doesn't mean one is a full fledged scholar. Most of the time students parrot the interpretation of their teacher. Very few are those who have learnt Sanskrit properly let alone Farsi and Arabic. They themselves rely on the "personal authority" scheme: it is Mohammad because X, Y , Z said so. If thi really is Mohammad then the author of that passage has done a really bad job at describing him accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Golestan wrote: a. Mahadin is neither an Arabic nor a Persian name, noun or verb. It has no meaning in those languages. For a Muslim the term "Mahadin" means absolutely nothing. The basis for civilized communication is the sharing of common vocabulary in order to convey meaning understood by a majority. The term Mahadin fails that purpose.

NOT true, Bahadur! I have a few friends from Jordan who are all called Mahadeen. It's a common name in Oman and Jordan.

Just do a Google search for both Mahadeen and Mahadin and tell me it's not a Middle-Eastern name.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim

Assalamo Alaikom wa Rahmatollahi wa Barakatu

Matheen wrote:

NOT true, Bahadur! I have a few friends from Jordan who are all called Mahadeen. It's a common name in Oman and Jordan.

Just do a Google search for both Mahadeen and Mahadin and tell me it's not a Middle-Eastern name.......

I never seize to be astonished by the ability of some to think that they are able to discuss an issue without the necessary linguistic knowledge.

The term mahâdîn in Bachitar Nâtak contains a long "â" vowel after the haha.

The Middle Eastern name you mention is written with a short vowel after the he.

Grammatically speaking it is impossible to have a term like mahâdîn (or mahaadeen) in Arabic or Farsi.

Mahâdîn and the Jordanian "Mahadeen" are completely different and even if Mahâdîn were an Arabic term it would derive from a completely different two-three lettered root than Mahdeen which is an obvious regional corruption of the name Mahdi, so not even classical Arabic.

The term mahâdîn is only used in one Ismaili text called Qalam e Mowla and is not even derived from Arabic. It simply means "the Great Day" meaning the Yaum ul Qiyyamah, the Day of Resurrection and it is purely Indic in origin: mahâ: great and dîn: day. No trace of Arabic. In any case it does not refer to a person.

It is hence clear that the Mahâdîn of Bachitar Nâtak is NOT a Middle Eastern name, neither Arabic nor Farsi and that it is completely different from Mahadeen, which is a regional corruption of Mahdi. In any case the term Mahâdîn is not to be found in any Arabic dictionary.

It might be an idea, just an idea Matheen, to have an idea of Arabic and Persian grammar before making claims about the origins of words like Mahâdîn.

kind regards

Bahadur Ali Shah

muhammad.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bahadur Ali Shah, I can see that you are still going around in circles, but hey, seems like you are finally learning some tameez in your communication, thats a good thing.

First you say"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."

Then you say "It is hence clear that the Mahâdîn of Bachitar Nâtak is NOT a Middle Eastern name, neither Arabic nor Farsi ".

Clap clap.

This whole discussion on Maha"a"din is pointless. As even acknowledged by you, the term refers to Islam in some shape or form. As I pointed out earlier, it may refer to the current practitioners or to Muhammad Sahib as now represented by the current followers, either way it matters not, what is clear is that it represents what is bad in the Islamic world and does not differentiate between islamic sects/mainstream/factions what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be nam-e Khodavand-e Restakhiz

Shaheediyan wrote:

Bahadur Ali Shah, I can see that you are still going around in circles, but hey, seems like you are finally learning some tameez in your communication, thats a good thing.

First you say"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."

Then you say "It is hence clear that the Mahâdîn of Bachitar Nâtak is NOT a Middle Eastern name, neither Arabic nor Farsi ".

Clap clap.

This whole discussion on Maha"a"din is pointless. As even acknowledged by you, the term refers to Islam in some shape or form. As I pointed out earlier, it may refer to the current practitioners or to Muhammad Sahib as now represented by the current followers, either way it matters not, what is clear is that it represents what is bad in the Islamic world and does not differentiate between islamic sects/mainstream/factions what you will.

After ignoring the gratuitous personal attack I will quickly move on to respond to you.

1. I have not come back to discuss my "take on it" rather the validity of the facts both linguistic and historical presented in the passage of Bachitar Natak. One thing is what the verse says another what we make of it. I no longer hold that Mahâdîn is a hybrid word. As for the interpretation of the verses there is a variety of possibilities.

2. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of "scholars" in the Sikh world have interpreted Mahâdîn as being the Holy Prophet (pbuh) even though it is very clear that it isn't him because the linguistic and historical facts simply don't match!

As for the whole "it is clear that it represents the current followers" argument. It's an interpretation not what the verses say.

The verses say that there was a man called Mahâdîn, who was a king in Arabi, circumcised other kings and had his name repeated over God's.

And fact is that such a man never existed and fact is that this man isn't Mohammad (pbuh) because the linguistic and historical information of the verses do not match reality.

kind regards

Bahadur Ali Shah

91.75.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for the use of metaphor to relay the drama of the world in poetic fashion, all of sudden, Bachitar Natak is supposed to be a factually correct historical text!

Like you so correctly say, there are a variety of possible interpretations - which contradicts your attempt to analyse the bani through facts - it is meant to be interpreted, not taken literally, thats my interpretation.

Yuor attempt at assesing the bani through comparison with standard Arabic/Persian use of words is quite silly, for Guru Gobind singh was not bound by these rules, as no poet is - it's called artistic licence.

All the facts can quite easily be used to prove that the bani refers to Muhammed Sahibs rule (associated) over the centuries after his death i.e. the rule of his religion and it's keepers. Same way people interpret that the quote that the world was made in 7 days, who is to say Gods day is the same time span as ours....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bahadur Ali Jee,

Most Sikhs don't know farsi or arabic, we all know that, this is especially true after 1947. But what about vidhvaans who have done the entire teekaa of Dasam Granth including farsi Banis like Zaffarnama, even they translate Mahadin as Mohammad. Surely they pass the criteria of having the knowledge of Farsi. Everyone in the Panth and various sampradayas unanimously agree that Mahadin is Baba Mohammad Sahib Jee. There is no second opinion in the Panth about this, and neither has there been a second opinion about this. This is one of the few things that the entire Panth unanimously agrees with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be nam-e Khoda

Shaheediyan wrote:

So much for the use of metaphor to relay the drama of the world in poetic fashion, all of sudden, Bachitar Natak is supposed to be a factually correct historical text!

Like you so correctly say, there are a variety of possible interpretations - which contradicts your attempt to analyse the bani through facts - it is meant to be interpreted, not taken literally, thats my interpretation.

Yuor attempt at assesing the bani through comparison with standard Arabic/Persian use of words is quite silly, for Guru Gobind singh was not bound by these rules, as no poet is - it's called artistic licence.

All the facts can quite easily be used to prove that the bani refers to Muhammed Sahibs rule (associated) over the centuries after his death i.e. the rule of his religion and it's keepers. Same way people interpret that the quote that the world was made in 7 days, who is to say Gods day is the same time span as ours....?

1. The theory of poetic license only makes sense to a certain point. One can interpret the Mahâdîn verses as being allegorical indeed but it is a minority who does so, even though it would make sense to a certain extent. As to what that allegory means is a different thing. It could mean as you say a critique of Islamic civilization but even then it would have weaknesses with what the verses actually say. The fact remains that the majority of Sikh scholars have interpreted it as Mohammad (pbuh) which as I have shown is problematic. Either their interpretation is faulty due to ignorance of Islamic languages and history or the author of the passage (whoever he may be) didn't get his facts right.

2. Mithr wrote:

Bahadur Ali Jee,

Most Sikhs don't know farsi or arabic, we all know that, this is especially true after 1947. But what about vidhvaans who have done the entire teekaa of Dasam Granth including farsi Banis like Zaffarnama, even they translate Mahadin as Mohammad. Surely they pass the criteria of having the knowledge of Farsi. Everyone in the Panth and various sampradayas unanimously agree that Mahadin is Baba Mohammad Sahib Jee. There is no second opinion in the Panth about this, and neither has there been a second opinion about this. This is one of the few things that the entire Panth unanimously agrees with.

You are using the "personal authority charisma" argument i.e. "surely if THEY said it is it must be right and it means that they know Farsi and Arabic".

The truth is that these scholars are not as learned as they seem to be and most of them parrot their teachers santhya which is the parroting of someone else's santhya. Very few have been those who have actually mastered the required languages to study gurbani properly. In fact in my interaction with most of this sampradayic "scholars" I have often come across cruse ignorance and prejudices against other religious traditions be they Islam, Christianity or other Indic traditions.

Mahâdîn does not mean Mohammad. Either the author was ignorant, or Sikh scholars are ignorant. But the person described there is not the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). It's the opinion of misinformed ignorant Sikhs scholars vs hard linguistic and historical reality.

kind regards

Bahadur Ali Shah

attachment.php?attachmentid=51202

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the once gallant defender of Ragmalla and Dasam Bani, and most foul mouthed curser of it’s sceptics, looks like doubt has finally crept in due to the strong influence and ever watchful eyes of the latest wallpaper.

So question to you, as you are so interested in correcting everyone elses views, who do you think wrote Bachitar Natak and what do you think the Mahadin episode is referring to, kindly don’t try and brush the question aside.

That aside, you have provided no decent argument to dismiss the interpretation that the bani refers to Islam (nation of) and therefore a reflection (even if unfair) on it’s founder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be nam-e Khoda

Shaheediyan wrote:

For the once gallant defender of Ragmalla and Dasam Bani, and most foul mouthed curser of it’s sceptics, looks like doubt has finally crept in due to the strong influence and ever watchful eyes of the latest wallpaper.

So question to you, as you are so interested in correcting everyone elses views, who do you think wrote Bachitar Natak and what do you think the Mahadin episode is referring to, kindly don’t try and brush the question aside.

That aside, you have provided no decent argument to dismiss the interpretation that the bani refers to Islam (nation of) and therefore a reflection (even if unfair) on it’s founder.

Leaving aside the recurrent personal attack with reference to my past, I have to admit that the authorship of the Dasam and Sarabloh Granth is a question that no longer concerns me and that is only of importance of Sikhs in terms on knowing whether those writings are Guru Gobind Singh's or not.

The reason why I have come back is not to discuss the authorship of the Dasam Granth but to discuss the validity of the passage of the character Mahâdîn.

As for disproving the interpretation according to which that passage refers to the Islamic community I will add that:

-in the Sikh community that interpretation is in the minority, the majority thinking falsely that Mahâdîn is Mohammad (pbuh) which is the point I am discussing and have clearly disproved.

- as much of the actions of the Mahâdîn may reflect the actions of some Islamic rulers as individuals they do not reflect the teachings of Islam. If it really were a passage reflecting the actions of the Muslim ummah (a wide range of nations, kingdoms and dynasties) one wonders as to why the passage does not refer to the great achievements of Islam as a civilization. If that passage is to reflect the collectivity of all Muslims then it should represent all aspects of Islamic society. Unless of course that passage is nothing but vulgar Islamophobia.

darashikoh.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...