Bachitar Natak & Mentioning Of Mohmaad(PBUH)

[golestan]

Deleted repost

[golestan]

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.

[golestan]

Deleted repost

[Xylitol]

"b. The text describes Mahadin as being the king of Arabia. "

one does not need to be crowned a king to actually be one. The truth is, Arabia obeys his dictates, therefore he is a king.

"Not a single hadith describes him as such nor any contemporary source."

When you say not a single hadith describes him that way, it's suspicious. You have a proven history of picking and choosing evidence that suits you while conveniently ignoring the rest. I'm not saying that one exists, just that you're actions are suspect b/c of you're conduct in past debates.

"d. The text says that he ordered others to repeat his name instead of Allah's (swt) (astaghriullah)."

No the text does not say this. It says that he didn't get people to repeat SatNaam, not Allah. Satnaam in Bani refers to Waheguru the gurmantr. This gurmantr is first mentioned by Patanjali, and it was first widely taught by Guru Nanak. The prophet did not teach this to people.

Muhammed's name is also taught to be repeated.

[Xylitol]

"b. The text describes Mahadin as being the king of Arabia. "

one does not need to be crowned a king to actually be one. The truth is, Arabia obeys his dictates, therefore he is a king.

"Not a single hadith describes him as such nor any contemporary source."

When you say not a single hadith describes him that way, it's suspicious. You have a proven history of picking and choosing evidence that suits you while conveniently ignoring the rest. I'm not saying that one exists, just that you're actions are suspect b/c of you're conduct in past debates.

"d. The text says that he ordered others to repeat his name instead of Allah's (swt) (astaghriullah)."

No the text does not say this. It says that he didn't get people to repeat SatNaam, not Allah. Satnaam in Bani refers to Waheguru the gurmantr. This gurmantr is first mentioned by Patanjali, and it was first widely taught by Guru Nanak. The prophet did not teach this to people.

Muhammed's name is also taught to be repeated.

As for your false claim about Sikh vidvaans not understanding the language, a bhramgiani knows all languages.

[shaheediyan]

Grow up Bahadur, I am not attacking you, just stating the facts that are entirely relevant here, be them historical.

In any case, Chameleons in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, all this self-sensitivity is rich coming from the proud Shia, who preaches to his new brothers that the Panth is a house of heresy and should be burned down to the ground.

"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."

The actions of Mahadin reflect the evolution of the Islamic community as clear as day. I am not attacking the founder, but simply reflecting the loss of purpose in the community which lead to many acts of tyranny, forced conversion, intolerance etc. Fine, there are some good examples also, but ew speak as always, in general terms. There are many references in bani to support as you very well know, as well as the loss of direction of the Indic community - HENCE, the Guru's God given purpose.

As for your comment on lack of comment on the great civilisations blah blah, bani focuses on spiritual success, not world dominance in any numbre of non-spiritual fields, so this angle is nonsensical.

[golestan]

Be nam-e Khodavand

Xylitol wrote:

"b. The text describes Mahadin as being the king of Arabia. "

one does not need to be crowned a king to actually be one. The truth is, Arabia obeys his dictates, therefore he is a king.

"Not a single hadith describes him as such nor any contemporary source."

When you say not a single hadith describes him that way, it's suspicious. You have a proven history of picking and choosing evidence that suits you while conveniently ignoring the rest. I'm not saying that one exists, just that you're actions are suspect b/c of you're conduct in past debates.

The concept of kingship in Islamic societies appeared several centuries AFTER the demise of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The idea that just because a country obeys the order of a man doesn't make that man a king. Caesar ruled Rome but was never king, nor did Hitler nor is Bush. Kingship implies a whole range of conditions which were not met in the case of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Your argument is hence void. I don't see anyone declaring George W. Bush as king juste because he rules a country.

Xylitol wrote:

"d. The text says that he ordered others to repeat his name instead of Allah's (swt) (astaghriullah)."

No the text does not say this. It says that he didn't get people to repeat SatNaam, not Allah. Satnaam in Bani refers to Waheguru the gurmantr. This gurmantr is first mentioned by Patanjali, and it was first widely taught by Guru Nanak. The prophet did not teach this to people.

Muhammed's name is also taught to be repeated.

The text does actually say that. As for the Prophet (pbuh) not teaching "satnam" doesn't your gurbani teach you that God is known by many names? Your claim that Patanjali teaches satnam is purely false, I have studied his grammar and his yogasutrani in Sanskrit nowhere does he teach it. I don't know why God would limit himself to be named in an Indian language only. Islam accepts Persian titles and names for Allah (swt) and is very clear that God is not to be limited by language. So much for universality I guess.

Shaheediyan wrote:

Grow up Bahadur, I am not attacking you, just stating the facts that are entirely relevant here, be them historical.

In any case, Chameleons in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, all this self-sensitivity is rich coming from the proud Shia, who preaches to his new brothers that the Panth is a house of heresy and should be burned down to the ground.

The argument here is about Mahâdîn. If you wish to continue the ad hominem attacks be my guest.

Shaheediyan wrote:

The actions of Mahadin reflect the evolution of the Islamic community as clear as day. I am not attacking the founder, but simply reflecting the loss of purpose in the community which lead to many acts of tyranny, forced conversion, intolerance etc. Fine, there are some good examples also, but ew speak as always, in general terms. There are many references in bani to support as you very well know, as well as the loss of direction of the Indic community - HENCE, the Guru's God given purpose.

Your brothers don't seem to agree with you as they think it is the Prophet (pbuh). Clear as day? I beg to differ...

As for the acts of tyranny etc they are in contradiction with Islam and the acts of individuals. Forced conversions are not allowed, nor the killing of innocents, nor the destruction of churches, temples etc Such acts are committed by men of all cultures and nations. If the Islamic and Indic traditions have fallen from grace so have Sikhs.

Shaheediyan wrote:

As for your comment on lack of comment on the great civilisations blah blah, bani focuses on spiritual success, not world dominance in any numbre of non-spiritual fields, so this angle is nonsensical.

Your own tradition claims to take care of miri and piri. The passage about Mahâdîn talks of kingship, conquest and domination: worldly matters. If this passage really reflects the Islamic community then it should be loyal to historical reality and not confine itself to a caricature of facts.

kind regards

Bahadur Ali Shah

[shaheediyan]

"Your brothers don't seem to agree with you as they think it is the Prophet (pbuh). Clear as day? I beg to differ..."

Selective reading as usual, I have stated many times in this thread, the community can be seen as reflection on the founder - whether right or wrong.

What the Islamic community is supposed to do, and what it did do i.e. in medieval India amongst other places is two different things. You can argue til the cows come home re the oppressors not being true Muslims, and I would agree, but fact remains, atrocities were commited under the said banner.

And yes, some bad acts have been commited under the Sikh flag, same as any other community, but thats a different topic.

"Your own tradition claims to take care of miri and piri." Miri does not equate to world domination through intimidation and cruelty. The passage quite easily relates to the spread of Islam through the sword.

The rest of your post (and absence of opinion on interpretation) makes it clear that either you no longer hold 10th Masters writing as authentic and thus sacred or that you no longer have an explanation for the bani.

Your wasting your time here, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, but by openly critising others opinions and not stating your own, you show yourself as nothing but a coward.

Khuda Hafiz

[golestan]

Be nam-e Khoda

Shaheediyan wrote:

The passage quite easily relates to the spread of Islam through the sword.

Yes the usual myth. My ancestors freely adopted Islam centuries ago. Nobody forced them. Some cases of forced conversion don't take away the fact that the majority overwhelmingly chose Islam as a way of life. And the same thing happened in India. Islam already existed in India at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) way before the first Arab incursion into Sindh. La ikra i fi dîn as the Quran says: No compulsion in religion.

The rest of your post (and absence of opinion on interpretation) makes it clear that either you no longer hold 10th Masters writing as authentic and thus sacred or that you no longer have an explanation for the bani.

Your wasting your time here, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, but by openly critising others opinions and not stating your own, you show yourself as nothing but a coward.

Personal insults aside,the reason for my temporary return has been clearly stated: the issue of Mahâdîn being the Prophet (pbuh). As to the interpretation I leave it to you Sikhs to find one. I have kept great love for Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah (ra) and find great spiritual comfort in his poems as I find it in Rumi (ra), Hafez (ra) or Baba Tahir (ra). For what followed after his demise I leave it to Allah (swt), he knows best. I am a Shi'a of Ahle Mohammad (as) and my guide is Imam Sahib ul Zaman (ajf). In that context the authenticity of dasam bani is of no concern to me. The only thing that matters is to defend Allah (swt)'s beloved seal of prophethood,Abi Qasim Muhammad (pbuh) and Ahl ul Bayt (as) when lies are being spread about them be it by Sikhs, Sunnis, Christians, Hindus or atheists.

Khuda Hafiz

Motshakram va Khoda Negahdar e shoma.

[tonyhp32]

Wow from simply Bahadur Ali he now becomes Bahadur Ali SHAH! Such a meteoric rise! Anyway since most of the people referred to as SHAH in Punjab are Bania traders who uses all their guiles to sell substandard wares and with dodgy weights and measures hoodwink the simple people of Punjab, perhaps he has chosen his name wisely!

As with the Bania traders of Punjab, our very own SHAHJI uses his self proclaimed scholarship to try and subvert three centuries of Sikh vidhaani and try and convince us that Mahdeen isn't his prophet.

Let's look at his arguments (along with those of a similar viewpoint)-;

1. Mahdeen is not known in Arabic or any other middle eastern literature?

As Shaheediyan has stated this, who are we to limit the words that maharaj can use or not use. Jaap Sahib is replete with description of God many of which are no doubt the first time that such descriptions have been used. As a supposed scholar, SHAHJI makes the mistake of a novice by failing to understand that with all writings belong to and make the most relevance to the people who read or heard them at that time. It is with this in mind that we can best understand them. Trying to find mahdeen in Arabic or other middle eastern literature is a fools search. What is important is what the people who listened to or read the texts at the time of its composition would have understood by it. SHAHJI has also made this mistake previously by saying TURK was a term used to describe a Muslim-Hindu combine against the Mughals and not as ALL Sikh vidhvans and historians have understood it to mean, namely that TURK and MUSLIM were interchangable terms. A reading of Gurbani and Sikh literature makes this quite clear but as with all self proclaimed scholars they need to put their own spin on a subject otherwise they will just regurgitate the works of previous scholars.

With the above in mind then it is easy to understand the true import of the verses from Bachittar Natak.

2. Mohammed didn't convert any kings.

What about the King of Oman? Mohammed sent him a threatening letter and he submitted.

In the light of note 1, we need to consider what the word Raja mean to the people of the Gurus time. The term for the highest temporal king was Badshah or Padshah. The use of Indic regal terms had fallen into disuse and did not always mean what they meant only a few centuries earlier. The Mughals allowed a number of minor Rajas to exist mostly on the very edges of their empire in the hills of Himachal and Kashmir and in Rajasthan. Some of these Rajas were in conflict with Guru Gobind Singh in the Anandpur Hills. Raja could easily mean a Tribal chief and not as an equivilent of Badshah with all the rights to issue coins and right to inflict capital punishment as SHAHJI implies. The term Rajas here could easily mean tribal chiefs and as anyone who has studied Mohammed's career would know he converted a number of tribal chiefs. SHAHJI's argument that only the Byzantine Emperor and Persian Shah could be considered Rajas is a nonsense.

3. Mohammed was never a King of Arabia

Again in the light of note 1, Raja could refer to any minor potentate and Mohammed was one of these in Medina. Later after his invasion of Mecca he acted as a conqueror, so he could very well be considered as a Raja by the people of Guru Gobind's time.

4. Mohammed and Satnaam.

The whole import of the verses are about people raised by God to serve his purpose of bringing the people to worship Him but who instead subvert the message and make themselves more important than God. Mohammed is a classic example of this and instead of being surprised that a man who is considered a prophet my millions of people is given such a treatment, one would have been more surprised had Mohammed not been used as an example in Bachittar Natak. Look at the Hadiths where Allah is seen rushing to pull out verses to support Mohammed's position on issues such as adoption (Mohammed wanted his adopted son's wife and Allah provided the verses to outlaw adoption), rumours of adultery (Child bride Aisha left behind with a youth- 4 witness to prove charges of adultery) etc.

The next verses states that-;

Everyone looked after his own interests and did not comprehend the supreme Lord.

The accusation towards Mohammed is that he did not give the message as God wanted him to and subverted it in his own interests. No doubt Muslims as well as SHAHJI would be aghast at this but this is the import of the verse about Mohammed. Given the way that Mohammed used to get the verses to support his position and lifestyle then it is a fair accusation. Any way to look at this is that given the major differences between the way God is described in the Quran (hates unbelievers, changes his mind over direction to pray, is a deceiver etc) then if one accepts Sikhism's view of God then the only way to look Mohammed is that he was at best a faulty broadcaster of God's message or that he deliberately subverted God's message.

Comments on some of SHAHJI's side issues

1. His ancestors converted to Islam by choice and Islam wasn't spread by the sword.

That might or might not be the case. We will never know but given that Dhimmis had a much lower status under Sharia law then even a conversion undertaken to escape second class status is in a sense a forcible conversion. Only a fool would think that Islam was not spread by the sword. Look at all the accounts of the then contemporary Muslim historians and how they praise the way the Muslim invaders and Kings persecuted the Hindus. Millions were killed by Islam which in todays terms is equivalent to hundreds of Millions. If as you say, Islam says there is no compulsion in religion then why would these historians want to praise the Muslim kings for doing unislamic things? As you are well aware that verse belongs to Mohammed's docile Mecca period when he did not have any power and was at the mercy of the Quresh tribe. This verse has been abrogated by later more belligerent verses from the time when Mohammed had power. I'm surprised that a supposed scholar like you believes the lie about Islam not being spread by the sword!

What will be get next time SHAHJI? Embryology in the Quran?

Btw I can't believe that you posted a photo of Ayotollah Khomeini, are you following his instructions not to sell a sheep that you've had sex with in your own village but sell it in the next one..LOL

[golestan]

Be name-Khoda

tonyhp32 wrote:

Wow from simply Bahadur Ali he now becomes Bahadur Ali SHAH! Such a meteoric rise! Anyway since most of the people referred to as SHAH in Punjab are Bania traders who uses all their guiles to sell substandard wares and with dodgy weights and measures hoodwink the simple people of Punjab, perhaps he has chosen his name wisely! As with the Bania traders of Punjab, our very own SHAHJI uses his self proclaimed scholarship to try and subvert three centuries of Sikh vidhaani and try and convince us that Mahdeen isn't his prophet.(...) What will be get next time SHAHJI? Embryology in the Quran?

Btw I can't believe that you posted a photo of Ayotollah Khomeini, are you following his instructions not to sell a sheep that you've had sex with in your own village but sell it in the next one..LOL

As I said earlier I won't respond to personal attacks.

1. Mahdeen is not known in Arabic or any other middle eastern literature?

As Shaheediyan has stated this, who are we to limit the words that maharaj can use or not use. Jaap Sahib is replete with description of God many of which are no doubt the first time that such descriptions have been used. As a supposed scholar, SHAHJI makes the mistake of a novice by failing to understand that with all writings belong to and make the most relevance to the people who read or heard them at that time. It is with this in mind that we can best understand them. Trying to find mahdeen in Arabic or other middle eastern literature is a fools search. What is important is what the people who listened to or read the texts at the time of its composition would have understood by it. SHAHJI has also made this mistake previously by saying TURK was a term used to describe a Muslim-Hindu combine against the Mughals and not as ALL Sikh vidhvans and historians have understood it to mean, namely that TURK and MUSLIM were interchangable terms. A reading of Gurbani and Sikh literature makes this quite clear but as with all self proclaimed scholars they need to put their own spin on a subject otherwise they will just regurgitate the works of previous scholars.

With the above in mind then it is easy to understand the true import of the verses from Bachittar Natak.

I am glad you admit that the majority interpretation of Mahâdîn within the Sikh community is a. subjective b. not based on linguistic and historical facts c. translates a profound hatred of Islam

tonyhp32 wrote:

2. Mohammed didn't convert any kings.

What about the King of Oman? Mohammed sent him a threatening letter and he submitted.

In the light of note 1, we need to consider what the word Raja mean to the people of the Gurus time. The term for the highest temporal king was Badshah or Padshah. The use of Indic regal terms had fallen into disuse and did not always mean what they meant only a few centuries earlier. The Mughals allowed a number of minor Rajas to exist mostly on the very edges of their empire in the hills of Himachal and Kashmir and in Rajasthan. Some of these Rajas were in conflict with Guru Gobind Singh in the Anandpur Hills. Raja could easily mean a Tribal chief and not as an equivilent of Badshah with all the rights to issue coins and right to inflict capital punishment as SHAHJI implies. The term Rajas here could easily mean tribal chiefs and as anyone who has studied Mohammed's career would know he converted a number of tribal chiefs. SHAHJI's argument that only the Byzantine Emperor and Persian Shah could be considered Rajas is a nonsense.

3. Mohammed was never a King of Arabia

Again in the light of note 1, Raja could refer to any minor potentate and Mohammed was one of these in Medina. Later after his invasion of Mecca he acted as a conqueror, so he could very well be considered as a Raja by the people of Guru Gobind's time.

You are basing your assumption about the Omani tribes on the "letter" produced by Kharijite Ibadis. Being raja or king implies a coronation. The arabic concept of malik as in the case of the Omani tribes means lord but does not equate that of kingship which at that time were Persian and Roman concepts in the Middle East. As small as a red apple may be it remains an apple not a cherry. Just because the rajas around Guru Gobind Singh were small kings doesn't make them chieftains and it doesn't make small chieftains kings. In India being raja implies a whole crowning ceremony, as in Persia and Rome.

tonyhp32 wrote:

4. Mohammed and Satnaam.

The whole import of the verses are about people raised by God to serve his purpose of bringing the people to worship Him but who instead subvert the message and make themselves more important than God. Mohammed is a classic example of this and instead of being surprised that a man who is considered a prophet my millions of people is given such a treatment, one would have been more surprised had Mohammed not been used as an example in Bachittar Natak. Look at the Hadiths where Allah is seen rushing to pull out verses to support Mohammed's position on issues such as adoption (Mohammed wanted his adopted son's wife and Allah provided the verses to outlaw adoption), rumours of adultery (Child bride Aisha left behind with a youth- 4 witness to prove charges of adultery) etc.

Quote Sunni hadiths if you like, I am sure the walls are interested.

1. His ancestors converted to Islam by choice and Islam wasn't spread by the sword.

That might or might not be the case. We will never know but given that Dhimmis had a much lower status under Sharia law then even a conversion undertaken to escape second class status is in a sense a forcible conversion. Only a fool would think that Islam was not spread by the sword. Look at all the accounts of the then contemporary Muslim historians and how they praise the way the Muslim invaders and Kings persecuted the Hindus. Millions were killed by Islam which in todays terms is equivalent to hundreds of Millions. If as you say, Islam says there is no compulsion in religion then why would these historians want to praise the Muslim kings for doing unislamic things? As you are well aware that verse belongs to Mohammed's docile Mecca period when he did not have any power and was at the mercy of the Quresh tribe. This verse has been abrogated by later more belligerent verses from the time when Mohammed had power. I'm surprised that a supposed scholar like you believes the lie about Islam not being spread by the sword!

What worldly rulers do and the way their court poets praise them for oppressing innocents has as much to do with Islam as bombing planes and raping Hindu women has to do with Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah's (ra) teachings. As for my Muslim ancestors: anyone who studied the history of al Andalus knows that the locals adopted Islam in the very first years of its arrival in Spain and Portugal and that they were converted by force to Catholicism later. Up until the 17th century the people still sang "Qalbi Arabi" (my heart is Arab) in the streets of Lisbon. As for your ideas on abrogation for verses we don't accept that argument in the school of Ahl e Mohammad (as), it's a Sunni argument.

This portrait of Holy Virgin Maryam (as) the mother of 'Isa (as) was made in front of the Danish embassy in Tehran as a response to the Danish cartoons.

Khoda Negahdar e Shoma

[Matheen]

As for my Muslim ancestors: anyone who studied the history of al Andalus knows that the locals adopted Islam in the very first years of its arrival in Spain and Portugal and that they were converted by force to Catholicism later. Up until the 17th century the people still sang "Qalbi Arabi" (my heart is Arab) in the streets of Lisbon.

Interesting since the Portuguese explorer Vasco De Gama built a fort to fight the Arabs at the town of Mombasa in East Africa and proceeded to attempt to convert the local population to Catholicism.......(this was in the 1490s - 1500s way before the 17th Century) but we digress.....

[golestan]

Be nam-e Khoda

Interesting since the Portuguese explorer Vasco De Gama built a fort to fight the Arabs at the town of Mombasa in East Africa and proceeded to attempt to convert the local population to Catholicism.......(this was in the 1490s - 1500s way before the 17th Century) but we digress.....

As you can see Portuguese and Spanish Catholics proceeded to do abroad what they already accomplished in Al-Andalus. I hope this was your point because I get the impression that you misunderstood my statement: by the 15th century 99% of Portuguese were Catholics yes, ruled by a French based aristocracy. Though Catholics in practice remnants of Islamic culture remained and are still transmitted through music and popular religious traditions.

Speaking of which a professor of religious anthropology at the University of Lisbon has written an interesting book about the apparitions of Fatima (the place) in Portugal. The Catholic Church claims the lady of light who told the children she was the lady of the rosary (sayyedat ul tasbih, a title of Fatimah Zahra (as)). After carefully studying the history of the place, its traditions and the events themselves (based on the original reports) he concluded that the lady of light was none other than Fatimah Zahra (as) herself.

Espirito Santo, Moises.2006.Os Mouros Fatimidas e as Apariçoes de Fatima, Lisboa: Assirio & Alvim.

You'll find it an interesting read I am sure. Just in case your wondered, the author is not Muslim and is a leading academic in Portugal.

For works on Islam and Portugal you may want to look into Dr. Adalberto Alves' works as they are all about that subject.

Khoda Negahdar

[golestan]

Deleted repost

[golestan]

Deleted repost

[golestan]

Deleted repost

[Matheen]

I hope this was your point because I get the impression that you misunderstood my statement: by the 15th century 99% of Portuguese were Catholics yes, ruled by a French based aristocracy. Though Catholics in practice remnants of Islamic culture remained and are still transmitted through music and popular religious traditions.

No, my point is that I don't see why/how this would happen centuries after practically all the country became Catholic: "Up until the 17th century the people still sang "Qalbi Arabi" (my heart is Arab) in the streets of Lisbon."

Anyway, back to Mahadeen.....

[Kam1825]

Quick thing

Bahadur you say Mahadeen has no meaning.

Mah - great

Din = day

It is maha deen not din. Deen means dharam.

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha the creator of the Mahan Kosh also states that Mahdeen is Hazrat Mohammed i will let you have a look for your self. all the 'scholars agree it is Hazrat Mohamed. Due to yor hidden agenda you twist what is obvious (Yes this is a personal attack before you make it obvious)

I have a question for you. You states the Shias belive that the holy imam such as Ali is considered the face of God. What is mohammed considered to be then considering he is the greater of the two according to the Bhai Mani Singh Ji Janamsakhi where Guru Nanak Dev Ji talk to the habitants of Baghdad.

Wha is greater then the face of God?

[golestan]

Be nam-e Khoda:

Matheen wrote:

No, my point is that I don't see why/how this would happen centuries after practically all the country became Catholic: "Up until the 17th century the people still sang "Qalbi Arabi" (my heart is Arab) in the streets of Lisbon."

Anyway, back to Mahadeen.....

It is possible because it is reported in the literature of the time. Ethnomusicological studies have been made and there many popular traditional songs that are exactly the same as those sung in certain regions of Morroco. Just because people have converted to Catholicism doesn't mean they don't remember their past.

Kam1825 wrote:

Quick thing

Bahadur you say Mahadeen has no meaning.

Mah - great

Din = day

It is maha deen not din. Deen means dharam.

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha the creator of the Mahan Kosh also states that Mahdeen is Hazrat Mohammed i will let you have a look for your self. all the 'scholars agree it is Hazrat Mohamed. Due to yor hidden agenda you twist what is obvious (Yes this is a personal attack before you make it obvious)

I have a question for you. You states the Shias belive that the holy imam such as Ali is considered the face of God. What is mohammed considered to be then considering he is the greater of the two according to the Bhai Mani Singh Ji Janamsakhi where Guru Nanak Dev Ji talk to the habitants of Baghdad.

Wha is greater then the face of God?

1. In all of my posts I wrote Mahâdîn not Mahadin. I used two circumflex accents on the second a and i to signify that they are long vowels.

2. The fact that Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha wrote it in his Mahan Kosh doesn't take away the fact that the character of Mahâdîn in Bachitar Nâtak does not correspond to the historic person nor does it philologically fit with either Ahmad or Mohammad which are names of the Prophet (pbuh) based on the root HMD. It is very probable that Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha simply followed the Islamophobic trend of his fellow Sikhs. As to whether this is the intention of the author of these verses is another question.

3. The dialogue you refer to takes place in Mashad not Baghdad. Anyone familiar with hadith collections such as Al Kafi knows that the 14 Infallibles (as) emerged from the same light. They are all one light in 14 persons. To talk to superiority in terms of nûr is foolish. The difference between the blessed Prophet (pbuh) and the holy Imams (as) is that the Prophet came with the external aspect of the shari'a whereas the Imams whilst protecting that external aspect manifest the hidden meaning to their devoted followers, the Shi'a of Ahl e Mohammad (as). Several traditions also relate who the bodies of Imam 'Ali (as) and the Prophet (as) became pure light and merged into one. In fact in the Alevi and Ahl e Haqq traditions that reality is known as the light of Mohammad-Ali.

[shaheediyan]

"Being raja or king implies a coronation."

If your going to set such a biased stringent framework for this discussion:

3 words - Elvis Aaron Presley - the uncrowned King. An apropos response to a inapropos comment.

In any case, in keeping with your strict historical angle interpreting "Naataks", the Islamic nation did very quickly evolve into a nation of self-appointed monarchs - the general rule to royal claim being -descendants of the Prophets blood line.

[Mithr]

Good point Shaheediyan. It's very obvious to all who Mahadin was. The term Raja could have been used simply because that was the only political term available at the time for Mohammad Sahib. Tarkhans call Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgaria as "Maharaja", even though he was never crowned.

I think the problem with Golestan jee is that he cannot accept any opinion which is not in agreement with his opinions on a subject. Sikh vidhvaan from the start have always translated Mahadin as Mohammad, yet according to Bahadur Ali Jee, those people don't know anything, only he knows the truth. This is hankaar to the max.

If I state my opinion according to my soch, he says I don't know anything, if I state that all Sikh schollars from the start also hold this opinion, he says they are also wrong. That means, only he is right. He has a very (overly) high opinion of himself to be honest.

[golestan]

Be nam-e Khodavand-e Restakhirz

Shaheediyan wrote:

"Being raja or king implies a coronation."

If your going to set such a biased stringent framework for this discussion:

3 words - Elvis Aaron Presley - the uncrowned King. An apropos response to a inapropos comment.

In any case, in keeping with your strict historical angle interpreting "Naataks", the Islamic nation did very quickly evolve into a nation of self-appointed monarchs - the general rule to royal claim being -descendants of the Prophets blood line.

Kingship in India and Iran implied in both cases a specific coronation and ritual initiation. In Iran it was also combined with the notion of fahr or xwarna. As for Rome the characteristic feature of the imperator was precisely that he was not rex. Rome had driven out the tarquinian royal dynasty and has not know a king since. Even though roman emperors ruled "like" kings they were not kings.

As for the Holy Prophet (pbuh) there has always been a clear distinction in Abrahamic tradition between priesthood, kingship and prophethood. The very characteristic feature of Hazrat 'Isa (as) was that he fulfilled the Jewish prophecy regarding the meshiach: namely that he will be a priest, prophet and king. The separation between the three functions is very clear in the Gospels and it is also clear that Hazrat 'Isa was a unique case. David (as) was a prophet and a king but not a priest, whereas 'Isa (as) had the three functions. Before the emergence of a king in Israel, Allah (swt) appointed divinely inspired guides and prophets to the 12 tribes of Israel and at NO MOMENT are they called kings. The fact that they exerted political power didn't make them kings.

In the case of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) it is very clear that at no point he has been called a king either by Allah (swt) or his people. To call him a "raja" would hence be pure non-sense. Even Firdawsi (ra) doesn't do that in his Shahnamah.

The only descendants of the Prophet to have ever created a dynasty were the Fatimids and the Safavids. The Fatimid empire was an imamate NOT a kingdom, even to this day the Maulana Karim Shah Agha Khan IV does not hold the title of king even though he has the blood of several royal families in him.

As for the Safavids they are the only dynasty of sayyids to have declared themselves Shah (king of Iran) NOT on basis of their prophetic bloodline but because they resurrected the old Iranian institution of Shah-i Shahan Shah. It's an Iranian tradition of the Achemenids, Parthans and Sassanids the the Safavids wished to restore. This is also why the royal Iranian crown was called the taj-e khiyani, the name of traditional pre-Islamic crown. To insinuate that kingship was due to descent from the Prophet (pbuh) through Fatimah (as) is hence non-sense. The Qajar were not sayyids nor were the Pahlavis and they were Shah-i Shahan Shah of Iran, a clear proof that kingship has nothing to do with bloodline. You might be tempted to mention the Alawi dynasty of Morroco but they are not sayyids. They are descendants of Imam Ali (as) through another wife, not Fatimah (as).

I hope you now realize that in Islamic civilisation and theology kingship and prophethood-imamate are completely separate concepts.Unless of course the intention of the Mahâdîn interpretation of Sikhs (or intention of the author) is to deny the prophethood of Mohammad (pbuh). Your claim of a rule about monarchs having to be sayyids is hence I am afraid not correct. In any case all the rajas mentioned in Dasam Granth are supposed to be kings in the classical sense. As much as the Bachitar Natak may be an allegorical play the fact remains that the Mahâdîn passage only appeals to Islamophobic prejudice not commonly acceptable facts recognizable by everyone.

Mithr wrote:

[tonyhp32]

SHAHJI as always goes around in circles. Only he knows what Gurbani says and everyone else is wrong. Is your Nirmala Guru under whom you became a Nirmala wrong if he as the rest of the Sampardas believe, that Mahdeen is Mohammed?

Strange how you who used to say that the Protestants were the worst Christians and Singh Sabha was an imitation of the Victorian protestant mentality yet now Catholics are the bad guys. Could it be that the Catholics were more avowed opponents of your desert religion than the Protestants?

The Catholics in Spain achieved what many countries which had been invaded by Muslims could not. That is, they managed to wrest back their country and were able to expel the Muslims from their midst. A glimpse into what their history would have been like had they kept their Muslim population can be seen by the Madrid train bombings. Recently even some Pakistanis were caught planning attacks in Spain. Unfortunately the successor states of the Mughal empire could not achieve what Spain did and this is why we had to witness the Partition.

Portugal as well as Spain is such a hotch potch of ethnicities that the funny thing is that SHAHJI could very well have Jewish ancestry, the ones whom he has to fight on the judgement day being guided by rocks and trees as to where the Jews are hiding! Ironic that his ancestors could well have been Jews forced to become closet Catholics because of the Inquestion and now thei descendant claims to be proud of his 'islamic' ancestors!

[golestan]

Be nam-e Khoda

SHAHJI as always goes around in circles. Only he knows what Gurbani says and everyone else is wrong. Is your Nirmala Guru under whom you became a Nirmala wrong if he as the rest of the Sampardas believe, that Mahdeen is Mohammed?

Strange how you who used to say that the Protestants were the worst Christians and Singh Sabha was an imitation of the Victorian protestant mentality yet now Catholics are the bad guys. Could it be that the Catholics were more avowed opponents of your desert religion than the Protestants?

The Catholics in Spain achieved what many countries which had been invaded by Muslims could not. That is, they managed to wrest back their country and were able to expel the Muslims from their midst. A glimpse into what their history would have been like had they kept their Muslim population can be seen by the Madrid train bombings. Recently even some Pakistanis were caught planning attacks in Spain. Unfortunately the successor states of the Mughal empire could not achieve what Spain did and this is why we had to witness the Partition.

Portugal as well as Spain is such a hotch potch of ethnicities that the funny thing is that SHAHJI could very well have Jewish ancestry, the ones whom he has to fight on the judgement day being guided by rocks and trees as to where the Jews are hiding! Ironic that his ancestors could well have been Jews forced to become closet Catholics because of the Inquestion and now thei descendant claims to be proud of his 'islamic' ancestors!

1. Sant Baba Sher Singh, whom I respect, is no longer my vidyaguru and as I stated earlier Sant Tirath Singh is a worthier disciple than I ever was. I am quite content to remain a Shi'a of Imam Sahib e Zaman (ajf).

2. The hidden Jews of Portugal are called maranos and live for the most part in the mountainous regions region of Portugal around Serra da Estrela and all the members of that community know they are Jews. As for my family we are of Celtic and Moorish descent. Th people of my father's region get called "mouros" (Moors). So much for my heritage. Even if I had Jewish blood in me there would be nothing to be ashamed of. The Jewish tradition in Andalus has produced great mystics and scholars under Islamic rule and that would be something to be proud of. As much as I may disagree with Zionism as a political doctrine the fact remains that there is much beauty in Jewish heritage.Lisbon had great Jewish kabbalists and alchemists before the crusades massacred the Muslim and Jewish population.

As for the rest I'll discuss Catholicism with people who have studied Greek and Latin, patristic and canon law, someone rooted in classical European tradition, like my historian brother. Hispanic Catholicism is quite a complex world. Under Islamic rule Christians were mozarab, Christians with an Arab culture. The people who conquered Spain were non Hispanic Catholics, French nobles for the most part. The first king of Portugal,Dom Alfonso Henrique was actually a French nobleman. When I speak of Portuguese and Spanish Catholics I speak of these non-Hispanic elites, who didn't hesitate to kill mozarab Christians. In Cordoba mozarabs have survived and have kept their Arabic heritage hidden but still alive."Qalbi Arabi" as we say.

I am not surprised to find support for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, Jews and Mozarab Christians on this site. I doubt whether this is in line with the teachings of Hazrat Baba Nanak Shah (ra). Allahu 'alim.

Khoda Negahdar e Shoma

[amardeep]

as far as i recall, Tsingh also said that the Bachitar Natak was an allegorical play..