Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, vis-à-vis Islam, 1990 was nothing more than a sheer travesty. In the words of Abul A'la Mawdudi, a leading Islamist of the 20th century, "all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah." Though apologists were out in full force spinning yarns regarding some golden age of Dhimmitude, the more erudite couldn't help but shake their heads; where was the objectivity in this so-called declaration of rights? Sarkar's words, written nearly a century back, lent a grim air to the proceedings in Cairo; non-conformism in a fully fledged Islamic state, which is essentially theocratic and run on the diktats of Shari'ah, is akin to treason and treason-Ipso facto- in the caliphate is punishable by death.

Some of the more radiant facets of this declaration are quoted below:

'Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent permanent body to promote human rights in the Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and to also call for the elaboration of an OIC Charter for Human Rights. Introduce changes to national laws and regulations in order to guarantee the respect of human rights in Member States...'

followed further by the now infamous:

'Mandate the OIC General Secretariat to cooperate with other international and regional organizations to guarantee the rights of Muslim Minorities and Communities in non-OIC Member States, and promote close cooperation with the Governments of the States hosting Muslim communities.'

Put simply, the preamble makes clear the OIC's desire to create and direct international organizations with the aim of preserving Muslim Rights (specifically the practice and promulgation of the Shari'ah as stated further in the charter) in non-Islamic nations even at the expense of the said nations' constitution and constitutional mandate.

And:

'Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commands, which are contained in the Revealed Books of Allah and which were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages and that safeguarding those fundamental rights and freedoms is an act of worship whereas the neglect or violation thereof is an abominable sin, and that the safeguarding of those fundamental rights and freedom is an individual responsibility of every person and a collective responsibility of the entire Ummah...'

It is to be noted here that only Islamic yardsticks are to be utilized to question the faith, any objectivity will not be tolerated on the grounds that it is blasphemy. Put simply apostasy, homosexuality, adultery and criticism of Islam will be severely punished etc etc:

'(a) It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right [of life] against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari’ah prescribed reason.'

More nefarious are the following:

Article 9:

'(a) The seeking of knowledge is an obligation and provision of education is the duty of the society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee its diversity in the interest of the society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and uncover the secrets of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.'

This point is further clarified in Article 10:

'Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.'

 It should be remembered that conscious apostasy in Islam (by an adult) is punishable by death. Again, no parameters are ever set to assist in defining "pressure," "exploit," "poverty" and "ignorance." One cannot help but remember the words of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cordozo here:

'Freedom of thought...is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom...'

-Palke vs. Connecticut (1937).

Generally Muslims lie to deflect attention from such elements of their faith. The truth, however, stands. It must be remembered that because the 5th Guru had Sikhs who were ex-Muslims among his apostles, he was executed; in the words of the imbecile Adeeba:

‘The question that arises is how a community, enjoying sufficient freedom to achieve all that it had, could continue to increase its power establishment, move towards relative self-autonomy whilst impudently converting the Muslims from the truth of al-Islaam to the falsehood and disbelief of Sikhism...?'

It becomes transparent to anyone reading this gross perversion of the UN Declaration of Rights that, vis-a-vis ideology, no separation of Church and State exists in the Islamic spectrum. In the words of Burckhardt:

'In Islam, where this fusion (between state and church took place), the whole culture was dominated, shaped and colored by it. Islam has only one form of polity, of necessity despotic, the consummation of power, secular, priestly and theocratic, which was transferred from the Caliphate to all dynasties. Thus all its pasts were mere replicas of the world empire on a small scale, hence Arabized (sic) and despotic...'

-Burckhardt (1865-1885), 'Reflections on History,' Liberty Fund, 1979, pg. 141.

*OIC- Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The Jihad against non-Muslims has already been declared. Where do you stand? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/04/2017 at 6:29 AM, SinghSabha1699 said:

Very true points listed above 13Mirch.

However, I think we as Sikhs could do more to emphasise to Muslims that Bhai Mardana Ji were the first Sikh in history.

Bhagat Sahibaan like Baba Kabir Ji Maharaj and Baba Farid Ji Maharaj rejected Islam in the most forthright manner - but some within our own community hold misconceptions regarding them - and we need to address this.

 

Did they? The last time I checked, Bhagat Farid Ji was a muslim missionary, the 9th or 10th successor of the chishti order... in the most forthright manner in favour of Islam, the prophet and the Quran etc.

Also, bhai Mardana Ji was the first Sikh in history? Brother, why did bhai Mardana Ji perform hajj if they were a Sikh all along?

Bibi Nanaki Ji is the first Sikh in History.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, S4NGH said:

Did they? The last time I checked, Bhagat Farid Ji was a muslim missionary, the 9th or 10th successor of the chishti order... in the most forthright manner in favour of Islam, the prophet and the Quran etc.

Friend, I'd like to ask you to have another read of Sheikh Farid ji's bani. Sheikh ji explicitly talks of the Guru and Saadh Sangat. Now, in Islam, they have the concept of the Prophet Mohammed being the "Seal of the Prophets". Merely to suggest that there could be a prophet after the time of Mohammed is apostasy in Islam, meaning you're not a Muslim anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Friend, I'd like to ask you to have another read of Sheikh Farid ji's bani. Sheikh ji explicitly talks of the Guru and Saadh Sangat. Now, in Islam, they have the concept of the Prophet Mohammed being the "Seal of the Prophets". Merely to suggest that there could be a prophet after the time of Mohammed is apostasy in Islam, meaning you're not a Muslim anymore.

I shall indeed have a read. Thanks :)

The prophet mohammad according to the Quran was the last of the prophets. Khatam an nabiyin. Guru sahib is not a prophet or a messenger or a partner of god or anything remotely like the prophets. Guru sahib is Akal roop. The prophets were men who were given tasks.

Islam also has a concept of sadh sangat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, S4NGH said:

I shall indeed have a read. Thanks :)

The prophet mohammad according to the Quran was the last of the prophets. Khatam an nabiyin. Guru sahib is not a prophet or a messenger or a partner of god or anything remotely like the prophets. Guru sahib is Akal roop. The prophets were men who were given tasks.

Islam also has a concept of sadh sangat.

There's overlap in alot of religions too. The concept of Sargun,Nirgun is present within Christianity too (the father and the son) but they don't understand it all too well since the concept of the divine and the physical being one is somewhat alien to them. Muhammed came to Earth, same way Jesus, Rama etc all came. But Kalyug and Maya destroyed them, made them so worldly they forgot the message they were sent with. In Muhammed's case he became obsessed with power and had people focus more on his name than God's. You'll notice it in muslim culture too, how many people are named Muhammed. Now compare it to our religion, how many people are named Nanak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S4NGH said:

The prophet mohammad according to the Quran was the last of the prophets. Khatam an nabiyin. Guru sahib is not a prophet or a messenger or a partner of god or anything remotely like the prophets. Guru sahib is Akal roop. The prophets were men who were given tasks.

Depends on what you define a prophet as. I agree that Guru Sahib is Akal rup. But a hypothetical apostate of Muslim background would not be helping himself (in the eyes of Muslims) by stating "No, no, I'm not saying Guru is a prophet after Mohammed. I'm saying he's Akal roop (i.e,. even higher than Mohammed)". You'd be even more apostate than you were before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it would be nice if you could cut down your quote of a multi-screen post down to the part that you're responding to rather than quoting an essay and following up with single line. Anyway:

41 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Do not people who wish to create a khalistani state also want to build it upon theocratic ideals? 

You'd have to ask them. But I do have to ask if you see any difference whatsoever between the Sikh Raj and Islamic Raj (Islamic State).

It seems that you observe that Sikhism is a religion, and Islam is a religion, and therefore conclude they are just equal.

I'm also not sure that supporters of such a state want it to be theocratic (which I think would mean rule by the clergy), as opposed to a state inspired by religious ideals, which is an entirely different thing, and which can also describe a lot of countries, including the United States.

It matters severely what your religion believes when you talk of "theocratic states". If your fundamentals are that every person has the right to worship as he pleases (as shown by Guru Teg Bahadur ji), religious raj may be OK.

If your religion believes in giving non-believers a choice among death, acceptance of that religion, or paying a huge tax (Jizya), then a religious raj may not be OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

Not at all Mr Sangha. Mere acceptance of one God (who may be called Allah, Ram or Vaheguru or other True Names interchangably) does not mean that Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj was an aggressive Muslim missionary espousing the terrorism, genocide,slavery, paedophilia and misogyny espoused and practised by the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Holy Quran.

In order to be Muslim the second line of the Muslim shahada referring to Prophet Muhammad is compulsory. True Sufi's (like Baba Farid Ji Maharaj) being the non-Muslims they are obviously wholeheartedly reject the Prophet Muhammad on account of the well documented and universally acknowledged acts of terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny that the Prophet openly engaged in without remorse. Remember in Pakistan the Muslims make the similarly false allegation that Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj were Muslim.

Think about it logically Mr Sangha.

Can any Sikh ever sit comfortable when such an accusation is labelled against one of our greatest Gurmukhs (who were so blessed that they authored the Truth of Gurbani)!? 

Accusing Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of being Muslim is the most vile accusation thinkable for a Sikh to read. Though to be fair to you it may be that your belief is that all religions are equal and whether one religion condones slavery, terrorism, paedophilia, genocide and misogyny is merely something that should be ignored and is perfectly acceptable to accuse Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj of supporting and proselytising.

This myth perpetuated by Mughal scribes that Baba Farid Ji Maharaj were Muslim needs to be destroyed.

The nonsensical belief that the 1st Sikh in history (Bhai Mardana Ji) despite being the most ardent Guru ka Sikh somehow should be labelled as a non-Sikh is horrible to read. Why was Bhai Mardana Ji the first Guru ka Sikh to do matha tek before Guru Sahib? 

If one does matha tek to Guru Sahib why would they bow down to a stone idol of the Moon God in Mecca?

Do you also believe that Dhan Dhan Baba Namdev Ji Maharaj were Hindu?

Why would any of the billion Muslim plus ever consider Sikhi investigating Sikhi as a path of Truth when we have our own Sikhs falsely claiming that the first Sikh in history (Bhai Mardana Ji) was a Muslim (despite the attack on Bhai Mardana Ji for being an apostate at Gurdwara Panja Sahib).

Do you sincerely believe Mr Sangha that Bhai Mardana Ji advocated the stoning to death of ex-Muslim apostates who did prostrated themselves before Guru Sahib?

Dhan Dhan Baba Kabir Ji Maharaj also positively despised the falsehood of Islam (and yet are somehow labelled as belonging to beliefs that they repeatedly exposed as falsehoods in Gurbani). It's crucial we as Sikhs do not inadvertently sully the great names of Gurmukhs who rejected terrorism, slavery, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny as openly glorified in the Holy Quran.

Who's Mr Sangha ?!?!

For the second time... the first Sikh in history was Bibi Nanaki Ji. NOT Bhai Mardana Ji.

You obviously have an issue with Islam, the Qur'an and the Prophet Mohammad. I'll leave you to it mate. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

No sorry S4NGH but Bhai Mardana Ji was the first Guru ka Sikh. 

I think it's shameful that you cannot accept this historic truth (in contrast to Mughal lies) simply based on your prejudice that Bhai Mardana Ji's parents were Muslims.

But if you believe that Bebe Nanaki did matha tek to Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj first i don't have much of an objection to you holding that opinion - that's totally fine. Both Bhai Mardana Ji and Bebe Nanaki Ji are amongst the highest of the high within the Sikh Panth.

However, what I do take exception to is your false accusation against Dhan Dhan Baba Farid Ji Maharaj that they:

1. supported Slavery

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/slavery.aspx

2. supported Terrorism

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza

3. supported Paedophilia

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/pedophile.htm

If you can kindly provide any evidence in Gurbani that according to your false assertion of Baba Farid Ji Maharaj were supposedly a "Muslim missionary in the most forthright manner in favour of Islam, The Prophet Muhammad and the Quran" then I would be most grateful.

If you feel slavery, terrorism, genocide, paedophilia and misogyny are acceptable human modes of behaviour then how comes you haven't told us about your Hajj pilgrimage? :-)

I always did wonder about you when you previously mentioned that:

a) you'd prefer Sikhs to live in Pakistan rather than east Punjab

b) you felt that an honest Sikh like Master Tara Singh was a Hindu rat compared to your Jinnah

c) you always take great pleasure in defending Pakistani's and being an apologist for Islam and Muslims whilst going out of your way to highlight the faults of a few rare Sikhs

d) you feel that the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs in 1947 in which they killed 20% of Sikhs is no big deal nowadays and that the more hard currency Sikhs can give the Pakistani's via pointless yatra's the better.

You sad little boy. Really do feel for you!

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.

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...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • was researching this and came back to this thread. Also found an older thread:    
    • Net pay after taxes. If you don't agree, think about this: If you were a trader and started off in China with silk that cost 100 rupees and came to India, and you had to pay total 800 rupees taxes at every small kingdom along the way, and then sold your goods for 1000 rupees, you'd have 100 rupees left, right? If your daswandh is on the gross, that's 100 rupees, meaning you have nothing left. Obviously, you owe only 10% of 100, not 10% of 1000. No, it's 10% before bills and other expenses. These expenses are not your expenses to earn money. They are consumption. If you are a business owner, you take out all expenses, including rent, shop electricity, cost of goods sold, advertising, and government taxes. Whatever is left is your profit and you owe 10% of that.  If you are an employee, you are also entitled to deduct the cost of earning money. That would be government taxes. Everything else is consumption.    
    • No, bro, it's simply not true that no one talks about Simran. Where did you hear that? Swingdon? The entire Sikh world talks about doing Simran, whether it's Maskeen ji, Giani Pinderpal Singh, Giani Kulwant Singh Jawaddi, or Sants. So what are you talking about? Agreed. Agreed. Well, if every bani were exactly the same, then why would Guru ji even write anything after writing Japji Sahib? We should all enjoy all the banis. No, Gurbani tells you to do Simran, but it's not just "the manual". Gurbani itself also has cleansing powers. I'm not saying not to do Simran. Do it. But Gurbani is not merely "the manual". Reading and singing Gurbani is spiritually helpful: ਪ੍ਰਭ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਬਦੁ ਸੁਭਾਖਿਆ ॥  ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਪੜਹੁ ਨਿਤ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੈ ਤੂ ਰਾਖਿਆ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The Lord's Bani and the words are the best utterances. Ever sing hear and recite them, O brother and the Perfect Guru shall save thee. Pause. p611 Here Guru ji shows the importance of both Bani and Naam: ਆਇਓ ਸੁਨਨ ਪੜਨ ਕਉ ਬਾਣੀ ॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਿਸਾਰਿ ਲਗਹਿ ਅਨ ਲਾਲਚਿ ਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਨਮੁ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The mortal has come to hear and utter Bani. Forgetting the Name thou attached thyself to other desires. Vain is thy life, O mortal. Pause. p1219 Are there any house manuals that say to read and sing the house manual?
    • All of these are suppositions, bro. Linguists know that, generally, all the social classes of a physical area speak the same language, though some classes may use more advanced vocabulary. I'm talking about the syntax. That is, unless the King is an invader, which Porus was not. When you say Punjabi wasn't very evolved, what do you mean? The syntax must have been roughly the same. As for vocabulary, do you really think Punjabis at the time did nothing more than grunt to express their thoughts? That they had no shades of meaning? Such as hot/cold, red/yellow/blue, angry/sweet/loving/sad, etc? Why must we always have an inferiority complex?
    • I still think about that incident now and then, just haven't heard any developments regarding what happened, just like so many other things that have happened in Panjab!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use