# Status Of Women



## ssgg (Feb 19, 2009)

GURFATEH,
        Our gurus have given equal status to women in the society then why women r not allowed to do kirtan in Dabar Sahib, Amritsar.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 19, 2009)

Sometimes culture trumps religion and spirit ssgg ji. Good question. Also, I am led to believe from various things I have read that seva in Darshan Sahib is very political. A matter of who knows who and connections. So there may also be men who are excluded but who may be very sincere. Hope I am wrong.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 19, 2009)

ssgg said:


> GURFATEH,
> Our gurus have given equal status to women in the society then why women r not allowed to do kirtan in Dabar Sahib, Amritsar.


 
SSGG,

Guru Fateh.

Because we men remain chauvinistic **** who do not care about our Gurus nor about their teachings, BUT we have memorised the SGGS.

In other words, parrots with  big pugs and long beards not a Sikh make.


Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Astroboy (Feb 19, 2009)

It could be that Muslim women are seen more inferior than Sikh women. But I disagree in some ways. Not in all ways though.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

Equal rights for women in Sikhism? Please provide scriptural evidence. I am curious.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Equal rights for women in Sikhism? Please provide scriptural evidence. I am curious.



Why should we provide scriptural evidence.Panth itself can take take timely decisions
BTw look who is talking about equal rights for women the person who follows  religion That is considered as most oppressive religion for women on earth:}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}:


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Equal rights for women in Sikhism? Please provide scriptural evidence. I am curious.



*You are not good at answering questions if asked, that I have learned yesterday,  yesterday, you even couldn’t echo for the harmony of the world with many faiths.*
*Yesterday you kept blaming Raj Khalsa for the same thing you were doing. As a scholar you really disappointed me.*
*After having said that, I am going to give you verses from Sri Guru Granth Sahib that advocates men and women having the same light of the Creator, no difference, no inferiority or superiority exists if there is  the same light.*
*Now do me a favor, give me a verse from Holy Quran if it says so in context of women. Thanks*

*ਧਰਣਿ ਗਗਨ ਨਹ ਦੇਖਉ ਦੋਇ **॥ 
**Ḏẖaraṇ gagan nah ḏekẖ▫a▫u ḏo▫e. 
**In the earth and in the sky, I do not see any second. 

**ਨਾਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਸਬਾਈ ਲੋਇ **॥**੩**॥ 
**Nārī purakẖ sabā▫ī lo▫e. ||3|| 
**Among all the women and the men, His Light is shining. ||3||*

*ਪੰਨਾ 983, ਸਤਰ 3**ਨਾਰੀ**ਪੁਰਖੁ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਸਭ ਨਾਰੀ ਸਭੁ ਏਕੋ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਮੁਰਾਰੇ **॥
**Nārī purak**ẖ** purak**ẖ** sab**ẖ** nārī sab**ẖ** eko purak**ẖ** murāre.
**Women and men, all the men and women, all came from the One Primal Lord God.

*


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

kds1980 wrote:



> Why should we provide scriptural evidence.Panth itself can take take timely decisions
> BTw look who is talking about equal rights for women the person who follows religion That is considered as most oppressive religion for women on earth:}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}:



I asked a simple question of jurisprudence. The first poster said the Gurus gave equal rights. I have no problem with that. I just want to see scriptural evidence of jurisprudential nature from the Gurus.
As for the rest of your post I would appreciate the comment if it didn't come from a person who belongs to the community that has the worst gender imbalance in teh world and that is known for commiting a daily holocaust on baby girls and female foetuses.And if you wish to discuss fiqh regarding the rights of women why not start a discussion with real points instead of just relying on fox news...


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

pk70 wrote:



> *ਧਰਣਿ ਗਗਨ ਨਹ ਦੇਖਉ ਦੋਇ **॥
> **Ḏẖaraṇ gagan nah ḏekẖ▫a▫u ḏo▫e.
> **In the earth and in the sky, I do not see any second.
> 
> ...


That is a nice passage agreed. But this is not a jurisprudential text. It just states that men and women were created by God. It does not refer to their righst and duties. My question wasn't about the ontological status of men and women as creations which is exactly what the Quran states. My question is jurisprudential not theological as it deals with rights. If someone says that xyz are given rights then we are dealing with jurisprudence. It's one thing to state the common origin of men and women, yet another to define their rights.I hope I made myself understood.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> pk70 wrote:
> 
> That is a nice passage agreed. But this is not a jurisprudential text. It just states that men and women were created by God. It does not refer to their righst and duties. My question wasn't about the ontological status of men and women as creations which is exactly what the Quran states. My question is jurisprudential not theological as it deals with rights. If someone says that xyz are given rights then we are dealing with jurisprudence. It's one thing to state the common origin of men and women, yet another to define their rights.I hope I made myself understood.


 *When the same light exists then why discrimination? Who are you and I to give right to them, they have the same light as you and I have. The problem is this that dominating spice took away their right away from them. You are here just excusing to be in denial of the fact. Human are humans regardless the gender. Many regard that, they are known as civilized and progressed ones though many dont, they are known as frozen in old times*


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

Pk70 wrote:



> *When the same light exists then why discrimination? Who are you and I to give right to them, they have the same light as you and I have. The problem is this that dominating spice took away their right away from them. You are here just excusing to be in denial of the fact. Human are humans regardless the gender. Many regard that, they are known as civilized and progressed ones though many dont, they are known as frozen in old times*



These are your personal thoughts, which I am sure are inspired by good intentions. But I didn't was for you own opinion on an issue which you continue to situate at the level of ethics. We are not discussing ethics here which is a fascinating subject. We are discussing law and jurisprudence as the first poster spoke of rights. There is no issue that women have the same ontological status as men. But that is not what we are discussing.
Animals and trees were also created by God, does that mean that they have the same rights as humans from that fact alone? Or rather are these rights to be defined by scriptural evidence that is jurisprudential in nature?


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> kds1980 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Female foeticide is a cultural problem mainly of North India Its obvious that 99% sikhs are punjabi's so there imbalance is going to be high compared to another religions.Just go and visit Mewat Region of Haryana and see that girls are sold cheaper than cattles and It is Mev muslims that living their and sex ratio among them is also very poor.BTW also check the crime rate of Muslim youths in India and it is among the highest but do I blame Islam for Crime rate The answer is NO.Only an ignorant person can say that sikhism is responsible for female foeticide.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Pk70 wrote:quote]
> 
> These are your personal thoughts, which I am sure are inspired by good intentions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

kds1980 wrote:



> Female foeticide is a cultural problem mainly of North India Its obvious that 99% Sikhs are punjabi's so there imbalance is going to be high compared to another religions.Just go and visit Mewat Region of Haryana and see that girls are sold cheaper than cattles and It is Mev muslims that living their and sex ratio among them is also very poor.BTW also check the crime rate of Muslim youths in India and it is among the highest but do I blame Islam for Crime rate The answer is NO.Only an ignorant person can say that sikhism is responsible for female foeticide.



Then stop your stupid remarks about Islam being oppressive to women because much of that bad stuff that happens to ladies in Islamic countries is based on culture not religion. So please spare me the Fox news rhetorics.

Now back to our issue at hand: we are discussing law and jurisprudence regarding rights of women in Sikhism as given by the Gurus (so the first poster claims).


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> kds1980 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Still you respond very aversively. I gave you instruction of Guru who asks us to see the same light in both sexes (Nari=woman, no mention of animals), reason behind is very simple, Guru witnessed the discrimination and penned down the instruction.*
*What you are doing just taking refuge in denial that is fine with me; I know such instruction doesn’t exist in Holy Quran. If it does, I am sorry, its your duty to share it with us.*
*Again you are asking KDs1980 to stop talking about Islam in context of women discrimination without any support from your scripture- dictation. When you take an issue and the way you want to have answer in fairness, be kind enough to act in the same way. From religion to culture is a twist, we are not discussing people but scriptures. So stick to it. Please come up with your religious scripture that proves that Islam doesn’t carry any negativity or inequality for woman and surprise the world*


----------



## Archived_member7 (Feb 19, 2009)

The poor illiterate fools from the sands of Saudi Arabia needed everything in writing ..common sense was not that common..so the man who lacked peace (pbuh) had to tell them everything...he alone had decided what should be the rights...otherwise how could they have known !!!


----------



## Archived_member7 (Feb 19, 2009)

I peity Persia (present day Islamic Iran) which was such a forward Nation was captured and converted ..from a noble religion of Zaruthushtra to a primitive uncivilised crude ideology of suppression


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

pk70 wrote:



> *Still you respond very aversively. I gave you instruction of Guru who asks us to see the same light in both sexes (Nari=woman, no mention of animals), reason behind is very simple, Guru witnessed the discrimination and penned down the instruction.*
> *What you are doing just taking refuge in denial that is fine with me; I know such instruction doesn’t exist in Holy Quran. If it does, I am sorry, its your duty to share it with us.*
> *Again you are asking KDs1980 to stop talking about Islam in context of women discrimination without any support from your scripture- dictation. When you take an issue and the way you want to have answer in fairness, be kind enough to act in the same way. From religion to culture is a twist, we are not discussing people but scriptures. So stick to it. Please come up with your religious scripture that proves that Islam doesn’t carry any negativity or inequality for woman and surprise the world*


Pk70 I am not denying the good intentions of the Gurus or the way they treated women. The first poster said they came with "rights" but that entails a jurisprudential system of which I am asking scriptural proof of.There is a huge difference between on the one hand making theological statements about the dignity of women and giving these statements a legal or jurisprudential system to sustain it.
As for Islam give me an example of inequality regarding women given the fact that the Quran considers men and women to be equal before God.

Rajkhalsa wrote:



> The poor illiterate fools from the sands of Saudi Arabia needed everything in writing ..common sense was not that common..so the man who lacked peace (pbuh) had to tell them everything...he alone had decided what should be the rights...otherwise how could they have known !!!   Today 01:22 AM


You contradict yourself:
1. There was no Saudi dynasty at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) hence no Saudi Arabia.
2. You state that Arabs were illiterate yet needed everything in writing.
3. Define common sense.
4. The Prophet (pbuh) didn't speak from himself. He related what God revealed to him.



> I peity Persia (present day Islamic Iran) which was such a forward Nation was captured and converted ..from a noble religion of Zaruthushtra to a primitive uncivilised crude ideology of suppression



1. Persia is a part of Iran. Iran is the real name of the country not Persia.
2. Iranians converted gradually to Islam and it took several centuries until the majority of the country became Muslims.
3. Maybe you should re-read teh Avesta that contains the same punishments for adultery, theft etc as the Quran. Maybe you shouldn't talk about Hazrate Zartosht (as) when you can't even read Avestic.
4. The greatest genius of Islamic civilization were Iranians. If anything Iranian culture flourished under Islam. Maybe you should take some classes on Iranian history before making ignorant comments.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 19, 2009)

I am back and have a couple of requests.

1. rajkhalsa ji - There is not a single forum rule that requires moderation of avatars. But I humbly ask you to take a look at your avatar and ask yourself if you are creating a context for reading your comments that is positive and constructive. SPN has to date been a very lightly moderated forum compared to most other religious forums. If you do not believe me take a look at the TOS on e-Sangha a Buddhist forum. 

It would be a good idea if you voluntarily chose to switch to another image.

2. Muslim Taxi Driver will not be back on line for the foreseeable future. The reason: It was going nowhere, getting repetitious and engaging in defamatory language. It is not important who threw the first punch at this point in time. *Please consider the fate of that thread when responding to this one.*

So far everything looks like legitimate debate. 

3. Most if not all of the mod's are not moved by appeals to sentiment, passion,  and symbolic exercises in saving face. We are only moved by forum rules, the law of the Internet and basic respect for fair play. Off line that is a different story. We are not perfect. Please abide by same.

Thank you
Antonia


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

I have changed my avatar given the fact that some people felt offended by it.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 19, 2009)

javanmardj i

So you have. Apologies for not noticing before you called my attention to it. I was blinded by smoke and flames coming from an automatic rifle. Just now regaining my vision.

Would you explain the symbolism -- if any -- I would appreciate it.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

It is the coat of arms of the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran and it is a stylized version of the name of God in Arabic "Allah".


----------



## Archived_member7 (Feb 19, 2009)

You are again moving away from the main point trying to get into another arguement...thus ignoring the main issue ...

but it answer u ..it is always mentioned as Saudi Arabia..so thats understood..i doubt whether it was known as a Arabia...since you are name specific ..

well dint yor prophet according to you 'educate' them ? 

For your info..since you want to define common sense ..and since it seems you need guidence for english terms 
This is something authentic..
*Common sense* (or, when used attributively as an adjective, _commonsense_, _common-sense_, or _commonsensical_), based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" (in common) as their common natural understanding. Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common". Thus "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people allegedly have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

rajkhalsa wrote:



> *Common sense* (or, when used attributively as an  adjective
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1."consists of what people in common would agree on" so it's what people decide, not God.
2. "without reliance on   esoteric knowledge 



 Esoteric_knowledge 
  or study or research", so no divine origin.
3."but based upon what they see as   knowledge 



 Knowledge 
  held by people "in common".

So this is knowledge that isn't divine in origin and that is determined by the majority of common people who are themselves not perfect. In gubani there is a word for that: manmat. All source of knowledge in terms of spiritual, ethical, social and political guidance has got to be of divine origine because man being the imperfect creature that he/she is, is unable to to come up with a spiritual, ethical, social and political guidance that transcends human imperfection. Hence why humanity since Hazrate Adam (as) is to follow divine guidance through God's sent prophets.
Any form of system that is outside divine ordinance is based on fallible and imperfect human nature and hence rebellion against God. In gurbani this is called manmat.
I am glad to see that you admit to be following manmat. 

I again go back to the question of women's rights in Sikhism and ask for scriptural evidence that is legal and jurisprudential in nature so as to discuss the issue of women's rights in Sikhism.


----------



## Archived_member7 (Feb 19, 2009)

Manmat and common sense..hehehehehehe you seem to be just a confused and illogical person ..

Going back to answer the question ??? That makes sense ..!!! It takes so much hammering to make a person following the ideology of suppression understand this !!! :happy:


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

Rajkhalsa wrote:



> Manmat and common sense..hehehehehehe you seem to be just a confused and illogical person ..
> 
> Going back to answer the question ??? That makes sense ..!!! It takes so much hammering to make a person following the ideology of suppression understand this !!! :happy:



You have given me the definition of what defines manmat as well:
manmat: human judgement based on non-divine conceptions and hence devoid of divine validity. That's exactly what is in your definition of common sense.


----------



## Archived_member7 (Feb 19, 2009)

u seem to be good at getting into arguements and avoid issues ..


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

Here is the issue:

The first poster stated that Gurus gave equal rights. As such he/she puts them in a position of legislators giving out a body of laws. There is no doubt that their hymns are women friendly and encourage a respectful attitude towards women. That is beyond doubt and shouldn't even be questionned. But what needs to be questionned is whether it is appropriate to talk of "rights" when this actually implies giving them a legislative and jurisprudential function that is completely lacking in their hymns which are foremost theological and mystical statements. I am rather dissapointed that some member saw my posts as an attack on the Guru's teachings when in fact I was questioning the appropriateness of the use of the term "rights" and hence the idea of jurisprudence  in the context of the teachings of the Sikh Gurus.

Rajkhalsa wrote:



> u seem to be good at getting into arguements and avoid issues ..


 And you seem not to know anything about debatting or English for that matter.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> pk70 wrote:
> 
> Pk70 I am not denying the good intentions of the Gurus or the way they treated women.
> *Thanks*
> ...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 19, 2009)

The facts of the Islamic world








*Women and girls in Iraq live in constant fear of violence as the conflict intensifies and insecurity spirals.* Within their own communities, many women and girls remain at risk of death or injury from male relatives if they are accused of behavior held to have brought dishonor on the family. 
Recently, in *Bashika, Mosul, hundreds of men beat and stoned a 17 year old woman named Du’a Khalil Aswad to death,* in a gruesome example of collective ‘honour killing’. The woman, a member of the Yezidi religion, which is practiced by Kurds in Northern Iraq, ran away from her family to join an Arab Muslim man with whom she had fallen in love and had been meeting secretly, but who rejected her. Damned under the ‘honour’ code, for running away, for choosing outside her own community and for being ultimately rejected, Du’a had nowhere to go.
For a couple of days, she had put up with a local Yezidi tribal leader but to live in peace was not in her destiny. *She was abducted and brutally murdered in front of hundreds of men by her relatives — who stripped her body, beat and kicked her, and killed her by crushing her body with rocks and concrete blocks.* The police officials too participated in the disgusting communal murder.
*Stoning: Is it the part of culture in Iraq?*
Death by stoning is slow and painful. *Islamic code prescribes *that ‘the stone should not be so big as to kill the offender with one or two stones’ and ‘nor should it be as small as pebbles’. 
The Islamic groups resort to every possible method to terrorize Iraqi women. *Today, stoning is only practiced in order to maintain the submission of its women* and those in the lower cast. Also, those impoverished or socially unimportant are punished by stoning.




*Silent Killings*
There are frequent reports of ‘honor crimes’ in Iraq - in particular in the predominantly Kurdish north of the country. Most victims of ‘honor crimes’ are women and girls who are considered by their male relatives and others to have shamed the women’s families by immoral behavior. 
Often grounds for such accusations are *flimsy and no more than rumor. *
*What is the situation like?*
The *government’s failure to protect women,* and enforce laws against criminals, has created a situation where thousands of women become victims of so called honor killings. Violence has risen as a result of patriarchal and religious traditions. 
In the 21st century, for such crimes to be carried out in broad daylight is not only a shame on society as whole, but most of all, it is a shame on a government that is unable to protect women from such inhumane and backward practices. 
With officials largely silent on the issue except to deny that it occurs, it is unclear how many more women in the province are stoned to death.
The barbaric and violent practice of stoning will continue as long as people will water the cult of Islam, MuHAMmad, which has put his hands everywhere especially in this inhuman practice of ’stoning women to death’ and in imposing uncivilized* Sharia Law *upon human culture. 
It forces me to ask a question, *can women in Muslim countries ever expect to breathe in the air of self- approbation? *

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/entry/is-stoning-women-to-death-mandated-by-koran-or-islam/


----------



## Archived_member7 (Feb 19, 2009)

keep your personal opinions to yorself ..Mr Javaan Mard ....accepted that you come from a barbaric mindset but atleast behave when you come among the civilised ...

Mods...if u cannot keep this piece of nonsense quiet ..dont blame me when i loosen my tongue ..


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

pk70 wrote:



> *Guru advises his followers to follow him to see His light in all to seek the Creator, I gave you a couple of them, there are more but essence is the same .* *So that question of yours was answered, now zig zagging is on. I am more interested in to be focused on the issue that triggered your question(answered already, you take it as Guru intention, it serves the purpose)*


You are talking here about a personal ethical code which is fine. But these aren't laws or rights. To be able to give and define righst one needs to be a legislator.



> *I asked you,again you are throwing that question back on me evasively? Why couldn't you quote from Holy Quran what is really advocated in favor of women's equality in all respects keeping in mind we are not discussing cultures
> If I have some thing on this issue I will quote right away to ask you why "this thing is said" about women in Holy Quran? Fair enough?
> *   Today 02:27 AM


Here are some treaties on the issue by famous authorities:

The Rights of Women in Islam by Shahid Motahari (ra)
Woman And Her Rights

This work contains all the Quranic passages and the hadiths necessary for their understanding. Enjoy the reading.


Vaheguruseeker, your link refers to a famous stoning case in the Yezidi community. The Yezidis are not Muslims at all but are mistaken to be Muslims by ignorant Westeners. I am sorry you have been mislead.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> pk70 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Look,Sikhs are called learners, we learn from our Guru, He teaches us to see the Light of the creator in all human beings regardless the gender, faith or race. That is the instruction. That is what they need. So, after accepting Guru-intention alright, you are pathetically again try to make an issue which as per your own words" Guru Intention" is addressed. Yes Guru-intention, that is what we follow as his followers. "Where is this written and that written" holds no logical ground.

I asked you repeatedly please give me quotes from Holy Quran, as per your habit of dodging, you are referring to some one's theory, I am not interested in others but in what Holy Quran says, so again, give me the quotes. I gave you original Verses.Thanks.
*


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

pk70 wrote:



> *Look,Sikhs are called learners, we learn from our Guru, He teaches us to see the Light of the creator in all human beings regardless the gender, faith or race. That is the instruction. That is what they need. So, after accepting Guru-intention alright, you are pathetically again try to make an issue which as per your own words" Guru Intention" is addressed. Yes Guru-intention, that is what we follow as his followers. "Where is this written and that written" holds no logical ground.*


Re-read my post. I am not at all questionning the fact that the Guru is principle of emulation for Sikhs. Rather I am stating that this is a personal ethical code NOT a code of laws as the Gurus didn't assume the functions of legislators.So talking of "women friendly teachings" would be more appropriate rather than saying that the Gurus, who weren't legislators gave "rights".

All the quotes on women from the Quran are in the link I have given you with the original Arabic and the translation. So yes pk70 I have given you the quotes. As a matter of principle I don't quote scripture without giving its context as this is a scholarly requirement in the school of Ahlul Bayt (as). The ayah always needs to be given with its context. Given the fact that I am not the best scholar in Islam I referred you to a bona fide scholar. You may chose to bypass his comments in order just to read the quotes.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> pk70 wrote:
> 
> Re-read my post. I am not at all questionning the fact that the Guru is principle of emulation for Sikhs. Rather I am stating that this is a personal ethical code NOT a code of laws as the Gurus didn't assume the functions of legislators.So talking of "women friendly teachings" would be more appropriate rather than saying that the Gurus, who weren't legislators gave "rights".
> 
> ...


*We have context- women gentleman and that is " Women's Equal rights in all aspects" Prove your stand that Islam gives full equality by giving quotes from Holy Quran, I can help you a little bit, it can be found in "SURAH 1V"*


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 19, 2009)

After taking some time to read through all the posts in this thread I think that the discussion took a turn away from the original question and response in Posts 1 through 4. The discussion then veered to a comparative view of Women (Sikh, Islamic, Zoroastrian to a lesser extent). Some portions of the debate are rooted in culture, others in the use of language, others in appeals to scripture. So the thread was moved to Interfaith Dialogs. 

ssgg ji - If you would like to continue a thread on Seva and Women at Darbar Sahib, let me know and we can start a new thread.

Thank you.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 19, 2009)

pk70 wrote:



> *Civility progressed on understanding and personal codes of ethics, it is also called transformation of stagnant thinking. Guru has said to his follower to figure out ethics and morality. No controlling concept exists in Guru Teachings still it marvelously changed millions of people. So you should move on from that"right" If you are not aware of, let me inform you, when we read Gurubani, we call it "Hukamnama" which means "ordinance of Guru" that can also be translated into "given right as per inspiration" When thinking is changes, prospectives and application change*



This has nothing to do with rights or law. You're discussing ethics which is fine. I am discussing law. You and I are discussing two totally different things I am afraid. Nevermind.



> *No Javanmarad, you have just referred me to another guy. I didnt refere you to another guy. If you couldnt why did you ask others? *



As I told you all the quotes are in the link I gave you. I don't see why you make such a drama out of it.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 19, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> pk70 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Reason is very simple, I want you to question your advocacy of Islam in context of Women Equality just as you asked Sikhs. Well obviously you like yesterday, are not interested in real debating. I, considering you highly educated, thought you would, obviously you are not bending from you irrational stand about quoting others views instead of your own in case of understanding the support Holy Quran in Equality of women. So it be.*


----------



## Astroboy (Feb 19, 2009)

*



			Look,Sikhs are called learners, we learn from our Guru, He teaches us to see the Light of the creator in all human beings regardless the gender, faith or race. That is the instruction. That is what they need. So, after accepting Guru-intention alright, you are pathetically again try to make an issue which as per your own words" Guru Intention" is addressed. Yes Guru-intention, that is what we follow as his followers. "Where is this written and that written" holds no logical ground.
		
Click to expand...

*Sri Guru Granth Sahib does teach us common law and common sense and points out what is right and what is wrong. But there is a big difference between priority in Islam and Sikhism therefore what we here are trying to do is comparing apple with an orange. There is hardly a common ground of purpose with regards to jurisprudence for the suppressed. Suppressed in what way ?  Physical abuse as in Islam or spiritual abuse as in Sikhism? or vise versa. The very belief systems differ in nature for e.g. in Sikhism - "we are spirit-born" whereas in Islam it might be different belief, hence the basic belief being different, thus the need to implement jurisprudence would follow its basic belief. 

How many percent of the Quran actually deals with spiritual laws as compared with physical ones. And how many percent of SGGS deals with the same comparison? Point to ponder. 

Why does it become more necessary to emphasize on written laws of women rights to a greater extent in certain cultures as compared with other cultures?

Maybe we should discuss this with an open mind.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

pk70 wrote:



> *What is meant by Ordinance? Law triggers Ordinance, We take Guru Teachings as Law unlike man made or passed laws for own needs, So you are just now going back to trolling, first you wanted from us to state scriptural proof, (I did and explained how they are Ordinance for Guru Followers)now you are trying to define law.*



1. It is divine ordinance that brings about Law, not the opposite.
2. You provided a quote that talks about the ontological status of woman and man: that is NOT a jurisprudential or legal argument.
3. You are talking of ordinance for "Guru followers" but you have a socio-political programme: Khalsa Raj. What about non-Sikhs? What are the laws concerning them?



> *Reason is very simple, I want you to question your advocacy of Islam in context of Women Equality just as you asked Sikhs. Well obviously you like yesterday, are not interested in real debating. I, considering you highly educated, thought you would, obviously you are not bending from you irrational stand about quoting others views instead of your own in case of understanding the support Holy Quran in Equality of women. So it be.*



1. If that is your wish then create a new thread for a one on one debate and ask the questions. The burden of presenting the case that Islam treats women unjustly is on you.
2. I am simply questioning the fact that you see law and jurisprudence in ethical and theological statements which are two completely different areas.

namjap wrote:



> Sri Guru Granth Sahib does teach us common law and common sense and points out what is right and what is wrong. But there is a big difference between priority in Islam and Sikhism therefore what we here are trying to do is comparing apple with an orange. There is hardly a common ground of purpose with regards to jurisprudence for the suppressed. Suppressed in what way ? Physical abuse as in Islam or spiritual abuse as in Sikhism? or vise versa. The very belief systems differ in nature for e.g. in Sikhism - "we are spirit-born" whereas in Islam it might be different belief, hence the basic belief being different, thus the need to implement jurisprudence would follow its basic belief.
> 
> How many percent of the Quran actually deals with spiritual laws as compared with physical ones. And how many percent of SGGS deals with the same comparison? Point to ponder.
> 
> ...



Well I am sorry but any tradition that envisages the creation of a state ruled by divine law has a body of law to which the citizens can refer to. If I am to believe your tradition's desire of Raj karega Khalsa that means that this Raj would come with laws unless of course you want to keep the citizens under the arbitrary desires of five men. Buddhism doesn't have a body of laws because it has no ambitions to rule society hence why in Japan and China it is Confucianism that takes over that role. Sikhism has a socio-economic project and I think it would be only fair to give the potential citizens of that state knowledge of its laws or jurisprudential system. If there is no such thing but rather a body of ethical teachings then Sikhs have to cope with the internal contradiction of claiming a socio-political project on one hand and yet lacking the necessary legislative body to carry it out. India has known the Dharmashastras,Judaism has its jurisprudential system, So does Islam, whereas Christianity opted for a mixture of Judaic and Roman law.
If women friendly attitudes in gurbani are to be implemented into socio-political realities how would that be done? and on the basis of what jurisprudential system? That is the question. What would regulate inheritance? Laws regarding marriage? Rights of women to refuse a wedding? Issues of domestic violence etc
I am not denying that the Gurus had a woman friendly attitude. What I am questionning is the idea that Sikhism has a jurisprudential system that enables these friendly attitudes to be translated into socio-political realities.
And btw the Quran is ONE of the sources of jurisprudence, the other is the body of hadiths going back to Ahlul Bayt (as) in which there huge sections on jurisprudence as well as the rules to engage in ijtihad.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> pk70 wrote:.





It is      divine ordinance that brings about Law, not the
 *It depends whom you and I accept Divine Laws
*2. You provided a quote that talks about the ontological status of woman and man: that is NOT a jurisprudential or legal argument.
*Of Course it has nothing to do with political power to abuse people, we are in democratic times, people are able to take care of themselves by hiring  leaders for limited times and replace them if needed, they do not want to look into every day issue  to be solved by centuries old  thoughts so called divine laws, this is the way our scriptures guide, this is our Guru’s Ordinance, they are not limited in their application like woman has the same light as man has, therefore they stand equal. What you call divine law is what laws are made based on Holy Quran, not even written or dictated by Mohammad Sahib; still, you have the right to call it divine law as we call our Guru Teachings are divine laws that we are bound to. These are two different thoughts, pretty much inclusion with each others; that is the reason, why you are Muslim and I am Sikh. Difference is this as per our divine Guru Ordinance, all faiths are as per His Ordinance and we have no problem with what others believe in.*
  3. You are talking of ordinance for "Guru followers" but you have a socio-political programme: Khalsa Raj. What about non-Sikhs? What are the laws concerning them?

*Muslim Bhai Sahib, your Islamic laws have no meaning for the people of other faiths*. *Neither does our Guru Teachings has, it is a given fact. Basically Sikhism is to progress in thinking while in love with the Only One Creator of all seen and unseen. Who wants to join this religion shouldn’t fear from any so called divine laws that abuse the humanity like stoning, cutting hands off, the brutal and barbarian punishments that are still practiced under divine laws. So if you have concern about people who are not Muslims, show them a height of civility and God given human rights often taken away with force, assured in Islam, otherwise all your concern is a fairy talk*



If      that is your wish then create a new thread for a one on one debate and ask      the questions. The burden of presenting the case that Islam treats women      unjustly is on you.
 *Look, you asked “proof from scriptures” it has been given but you are still evasive, why should I waste my so precious time on an individual who is shy off quoting  his own Holy Quran
*2. I am simply questioning the fact that you see law and jurisprudence in ethical and theological statements which are two completely different areas.
*Well this was not the issue to begin with our debate, you asked scriptures-reference, I gave and when I asked you reference from your scriptures, you referred another person. If I cannot get answer from you, why should I bother what Islam is all about?*

  Sikhism has a socio-economic project and I think it would be only fair to give the potential citizens of that state knowledge of its laws or jurisprudential system. If there is no such thing but rather a body of ethical teachings then Sikhs have to cope with the internal contradiction of claiming a socio-political project on one hand and yet lacking the necessary legislative body to carry it out. 
*Look around, there are many countries, they are ruled under democratic laws not so called divine laws and they have TOTAL freedom of practicing any religion. This is the age we are in, as per your own words, just face it. India is a democratic country, we have rights to practice our religion, no bans what so ever.*
  India has known the Dharmashastras,Judaism has its jurisprudential system, So does Islam, whereas Christianity opted for a mixture of Judaic and Roman law.
*We opted Democratic ways of juristic procedures*
If women friendly attitudes in gurbani are to be implemented into socio-political realities how would that be done? and on the basis of what jurisprudential system? That is the question. What would regulate inheritance? Laws regarding marriage? Rights of women to refuse a wedding? Issues of domestic violence etc
*Democratic protects all these rights, I have enjoyed through out my life here in US and back in India, no problem, only insecure minds fear of this kind of things, fearless proceeds to face any difficulty comes by.
*I am not denying that the Gurus had a woman friendly attitude. What I am questionning is the idea that Sikhism has a jurisprudential system that enables these friendly attitudes to be translated into socio-political realities.
*The answer lies in above statement- Guru Teachings is binding for true followers, who go astray; I am not talking about them that population is in every religion.
*And btw the Quran is ONE of the sources of jurisprudence, the other is the body of hadiths going back to Ahlul Bayt (as) in which there huge sections on jurisprudence as well as the rules to engage in ijtihad. 
*That was my question, I want to look at it how human rights and equality of woman in all aspects, is secured in there, or still some them are questionable? Religion is about spiritual progression and growth of thinking , not for controlling people BTW*


----------



## Astroboy (Feb 20, 2009)

The common law (British or American, if I may) is ample enough to give us a day-to-day guidance on issues. It may be different in case of family law in different cultures, in which Women's Right is a part. Since Sikhism sticks to one wife, it is the same as British Law but not the same as Shariah Law. 

Why re-invent the wheel when there is hardly any difference between English Family Law and Sikh Family practices?
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/jurisprudence.htm


----------



## tony (Feb 20, 2009)

WJKK WJKF

I have been away for sometime but glad to be back. Ive read all five pages of this thread and no one seems to have resolved the issue. So lets try, as far as im aware all the prophets of every religions say the same thing that all are equal regardless of their race or sex, in the Quran Mohamed says the same, yet it is the only book that goes on to say that a man may chastise a women if she does not comply, this i believe was not written by a prophet but by a another man who had no dealings with God. it was put in so as to make it more acceptable to mans own failings and so for the religion to grow. So if the prophets have said we are equal and they speak of what God has told them, please tell me what earthly being has the right or ordasity to question God or his will. No single person or groups has that right to Question his will, only the devil and his desiples would dare. the problem seems to be that women are still being punish for what Eve did back at the start of time and because she failed, it is assumed that all women are the same , Yet in my eyes women seem to be more virtuous that men. It was god that chose Women to give birth to all men, so man should give respect to the one that brought him into this world. Christ was sent to us because of the failings of the Jews, Islam because of the same in the Christians and then Sikhism because of theirs, so is it time for another prophet. I dont think God would bother after telling us so many times, its time to for us to remember what the Prophets have told us, the alternative is the destrution of all mankind because if we cant give the same rights to someone who shares our home what chance is there of affording the same rights to our neighbours. This is not an attack on Islam as Sikhs are as guilty as any one of this injustice. believe in true equality and become another step closer to achieving your seat in heaven. God bless all Women and shame on any man who treats them with disrespect.
Tony


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 20, 2009)

Nam Jap ji,

First of all thank you for moving the discussion to the plane of reason and temperate discussion. Second -- Your thinking about common law and family law stirs some reflection on my part because in a simple way you have high-lighted multiple layers of issues -- complicated is not the right word.

Common law has changed with the centuries in both Britain and the US. The US takes much of its legal theory from British Common Law as the US was once a colony and after the revolution the country retained what was sensible in the common law. The key idea I want to stress is that the common law changes with the times. So does codified law such as the body of family laws which are legislated. Both countries have historically appealed to a sense of virtue regarding right and wrong that is inspired by God. In other words we are accountable to deeply embedded religious values in the course of judicial practice. The key to what is unique: Both depend on the ability of the common man (man/woman) to come to decisions based on their logical ability to apply a set of laws to a set of objective facts. God does not inspire decisions or speak through judges and jurors when decisions are made.  That is the part that has never changed as far back as the Magna Carta when the King of England was forced to sign off on the basic elements of today's notions of justice in the Anglo-American tradition. The right to trial by jury by a jury of one's peers, the right to be presumed innocent, the right to be protected against self-incrimination, the right to habeas corpus (bail) and most importantly the implied and not given right to be governed by consent of the governed. These principles have been violated throughout history but the basic values have been so strong that in the end they prevail. That is why we can protest openly against false imprisonment of political prisoners or torture of prisoners by our respective governments (for example Iraq) without being thrown in jail (contrast what is now happening in Zimbabwe). 

On the subject of women -- women under British and US common law and family law are still unequal to men in terms of actual application of fundamental principles. That is a problem of societies not a problem of legal principles. The fact that the legal framework is time-tested and robust is what makes it possible for the law to change. Laws change societies and societies change the laws. When a framework of legal principles (e.g., Magna Carta) remains constant it is easier to change without social disruption and consensus is easier to achieve. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Archived_Member5 (Feb 20, 2009)

Until women become responsible, accountable and reasonable they are accorded as much right as their conduct and sense permits and commands. If all women aren’t equal in conduct, in devotion, in sense and ideology how then, pray tell can society treat all with the same measure of respect. Of course we are courteous to all. But unfortunately I have witnessed far too many men henpecked, nay nagged into dispirited submission to heed any claims from such envious and covetous women frenzied with a will to power their demeanour does not naturally inspire.

All faiths require woman’s submission to mans will, for the Lord husband or Father in her home is not entirely distinct from the God or Lord who rules the nations. Make peace, inspire love, create a swarg like Eden in your home with your governance of love and understanding and the kingdom of the hereafter is yours. 

Man is born of woman, nurtured by woman, married to woman and is as successful as or despite the support and love or lack of it from his partner. I have witnessed far too many devoted wives be cast aside for the pursuits and destruction of a matrimonial home and marriage to ever heed any nonsense from these right demanding women.

Each mortal is given as much right as he accords his fellow man, is a beautiful and simple tenet. If woman seeks equality let her earn it, man is as valiant, loyal and fair as the mother, wife and sister inspire in him. It occurs far too often good men are given domineering manipulative wives who enjoy the fruits of a well reared son, whilst the daughters of such good families are married to small minded, jealous oppressive men, themselves creations and victims of the women who raised them. 

Love conquers all, heals and cures the most hardened heart, battered women, domestic violence and matrimonial discord have a woman inciting such action somewhere in the picture. Men have lost so many rights, they are dragged to court for the smallest slights whilst the domineering, cunning and spiteful erosion in nagging of man goes unreported and untold, for men being far greater in dignity than women reduced to necessity of demanding of rights than inspiring and earning them ...

Until all are equal in will, mind, and spirit to confer privileges upon those who demand overlooking the dignified and humble do not creates a disparity in society resulting in unfair rights accorded to the weak wilful. The bridegroom and spouse who live in understanding, respect and love for one another and their mutual families are the truly blessed ...


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> kds1980 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A typical reply That I was expecting from you.But there is a problem Punjab is not a sikh country neither it is according Governed by laws of Khalsa. but treatment of muslim women is governed by islamic laws in many islamic countries


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

Pk70 you still confuse ethics and laws. Pointless. I just had my colleagues over who are professors of law and who read the thread. You guys provided good entertainment. You just didn't get the point. You're still confusing the two areas and you're making amazing grandiloquent statements about Islamic law of which you have no knowledge of appart from the usual prejudiced views of your white masters.
But you have answered my question in admitting that Sikhism has no jurisprudential system and is hence incapable of establishing a Khalsa Raj. All you do is adopt a foreign law system that isn't based on divine principles. Finally you admitted. Khoda Hafez.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 20, 2009)

I mentioned a few posts back that the fate of this conversation depends on whether it becomes defamatory of individual forum members. It is not the place of forum moderators to do anything other than enforce terms of service. Please abide.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Pk70 you still confuse ethics and laws. Pointless. I just had my colleagues over who are professors of law and who read the thread. You guys provided good entertainment. You just didn't get the point. You're still confusing the two areas and you're making amazing grandiloquent statements about Islamic law of which you have no knowledge of appart from the usual prejudiced views of your white masters.
> But you have answered my question in admitting that Sikhism has no jurisprudential system and is hence incapable of establishing a Khalsa Raj. All you do is adopt a foreign law system that isn't based on divine principles. Finally you admitted. Khoda Hafez.



*Check out the confusion you have tried to put javanmarad

* GURFATEH,
Our gurus have given equal status to women in the society then why women r not allowed to do kirtan in Dabar Sahib, Amritsar.( quote ssgg)
 Equal rights for women in Sikhism? Please provide scriptural evidence. I am curious(quote javan mard).

*SPN Sangat ji please read quotes of ssgg who started the thread, then javanmard who got curious to know the evidence in Sikhs’ scripture, note it down, scripture-evidence, not divine laws that he later on  inserted it to preach that Islam has those Divine laws without  being aware of the fact that they are aggressively questioned by people of other faiths. So what is going on?*

* Again,the thread was started as” equal status of women given by Guru Sahiban”, Javanmarad wanted scriptural reference but later on he dragged it to Divine laws and later on by namjapji Common laws are brought in. Neither divine law in a sense javanmard talks about nor common law has any thing to do with what sggs meant in thread.*
*The poster is pointing out that when Guru ji clearly states through Hukamnamas (Gurbani) that women are supposed to be treated equally why this fuss? Obviously these idiots are disobeying Guru, I feel they should be boycotted by the public. Guru says His light permeates in them also, in protest Guru also says that there is nothing without women, its she  without who nothing moves in human race, it is she who gives birth to so called  big guys. This is the only reason, Sati tradition was abolished, widow marriages were started and Sikh ladies were chosen to preach Guru Teaching. Guru Sahib started that too. Why now suddenly “Seva of Harminder Sahib” is not allowed? If Guru is disobeyed, the place where Guru is disobeyed and the people who disobey Guru have nothing to do with Guru.*
*Answer is very simple, the power is not in the hands of true Guru Followers but in religious hypocrites; Gurbani gives equal treatment but “macho man” mentality and deep rooted nostalgia for old thinking of considering woman inferiors still prevails.*

*Who is confused? Who is confusing. Where is the focus? What a scholarly entertainment!
*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmarad has been in denial eversince his first post which shows how insecure he is in his own faith that he has been hop scotching from one to the other for quite sometimes.

Below are the headlines regarding Muslim women and their treatment by the people of their religion:

*1. An american muslim  the founder of Bridges TVnetwork beheads his wife in Buffalo NY.
Brutal Irony In New York Woman's Beheading*
Brutal Irony In New York Woman's Beheading, Police Say Couple Founded TV Network To Fight Muslim Stereotypes; Husband Suspected Of Killing Her At Office - CBS News


*2.Sharia law a danger to women*
TheStar.com | Opinion | Sharia law a danger to women

*3.Freedom dies as radical Islam advances,It shows dead female victims of honor killings, a kneeling woman in a burqa being executed.*www.dcexaminer.com >> Meghan Cox Gurdon

*4.I will tell you about another similar horror story. *
*It's about a Muslim convert who became a polygamist who tortured, starved, imprisoned and beat his three wives and 19 children*
More carnage from multiculturalism

This is just the snippet of what happens in the Msulim world daily. What a shame! and people like Javanmarad  have the blindfolds on.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

Vaheguruseeker, I suggest you take some classes on Islamic law before posting stuff about that subject. Anyways, I got what I wanted out of you guys. You have been really helpful. Thanks. More than you can imagine.

Ich vermisse die Einsatzgruppen...


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

Vaheguruseeker,none of the links you provided have got anything to do with Islamic law. They're just crimes that Islam itself condemns.
As for pk70, how to say it clearly: you are confusing jurisprudence and ethics because you don't know what these things mean. But you have already answered my question. So I thank you for your contribution.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

Vaheguruseeker, honour killings are forbidden in Islam and the other cases you gave links too have nothing to do with Islamic jurisprudence.  *Deleted*

PK70, *Deleted *I do have to thank you though for having shown me yet again that your "tradition" doesn't have a jurisprudential system that would enable the establishment of a Sikh state.
I thus shall leave you to your folkloric gurdwara fights and saron da sag. 
I shall go back to finishing my article whilst listening to Wagner, wondering if the Nietzschean notion of Der letzte Mensch applies to Sikhs and if the Einsatzgruppen shouldn't have been used on Sikhs instead.
Zum Wiedersehen.

*Deletions are by aad0002, following 2 thread warnings.*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Vaheguruseeker,none of the links you provided have got anything to do with Islamic law. They're just crimes that Islam itself condemns.


 
Javanmarad,

Time to seek the truth as a Muslim now.  Please post the headlines of the newspapers from the Islamic countries who have condemned the News I have posted.

Do not run away this time or ignore the questions as you have done before.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 20, 2009)

"Ich vermisse die Einsatzgruppen..."

"I shall go back to finishing my article whilst listening to Wagner, wondering if the Nietzschean notion of Der letzte Mensch applies to Sikhs and if the Einsatzgruppen shouldn't have been used on Sikhs instead.
Zum Wiedersehen."

Interesting case of nostalgia for constructs of a philosopher who was opposed to organized religion. Just wondering. Is it nostalgia or sentimentality?


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

Du bist derjenige der hier Nostalgie in meinem Satz sieht, deshalb ist es an dir zu entscheiden ob es sich hier um Sehnsucht oder Sentimentalität handelt. 
Zum Wiedersehen.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> quote]
> *Javenmard *
> *Thanks for thanks*
> *I just want to suggest, do not take refuge in words in “confusing, confused etc”. that doesn’t convey the substance of the debate either. After having your answer you started zigzagging from on point to another. Regarding Jurisprudence and Ethic, I am pretty much clear; they were brought in just for ( in both ways), you failed to co operate. *
> ...


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 20, 2009)

Chacun a son gout.... Have to sign off....


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

PK70, as Goethe would say: L.M.A.A. 
I feel no hatred for my fellow human beings.


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> PK70, as Goethe would say: L.M.A.A.
> I feel no hatred for my fellow human beings.


 * I have been standing for fair Muslims for whole life, every one tried to convince me” they are the same, just a little smell is different” Today I have realized the truth in their statement, the ones frozen in times have no chance to see today’s light.*
*You are the one who failed to echo with me in favor of human rights, of course they were not existed in the times of your religion conceived get it?
*


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

pk70 wrote:



> *I have been standing for fair Muslim for whole life, every one tried to convince me” they are the same, just a little smell is different” Today I have realized the truth in their statement, the ones frozen times have no chance to see today’s light.*
> *You are the one who failed to echo with me against human rights, of course they were not existed in the times of your religion conceived get it?
> *



I have two options to chose from:
- either you're seriously dyslexic
- or your English grammar is inexistent

Which of course confirms yet again my ideas about immigration. Gott beschütze uns...


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> I have two options to chose from:
> - either you're seriously dyslexic
> *Look at your own posts; they will prove that who is dyslexic*
> 
> ...


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 20, 2009)

> *another proof why I was wrong to see you guys in better way and how my friends were right about you*



Who is "you guys"? Care to explain because as far as I can see I only represent myself. Unless of course you're unable to conceive that the individual transcends your tribal notion of identity which of course begs the question as to why you ever migrated to federal republic.


----------



## Astroboy (Feb 20, 2009)

*"When two dogs fight over a bone, a third one carries it away." (Dutch proverb)

It is pointless to argue over trivial matters which are really off topic. 
This thread will be removed if you guys don't settle down. 
*


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Who is "you guys"? Care to explain because as far as I can see I only represent myself. Unless of course you're unable to conceive that the individual transcends your tribal notion of identity which of course begs the question as to why you ever migrated to federal republic.



*I made it clear earlier but you just don't get it, that is your problem since from the moment I tried to answer you question; . I don't feel to elaborate  on any thing if you ask since I already hinted " who these guys are", one just needs a little brain-tip.
Here is another one, there is a saying in Punjabi, I am going to translate it
* *“Even if we tie a dog’s tail straigt for  a decade, at untying ,still it remains bent” That is the truth applicable to 'you guys'. You start with being nice but eventually fall into the expected smelly dirt, in your case you are the champion in this context. You have just proved today" how was I wrong to see 'you guys' as better human beings than usually portrayed by others" Why? Look all your posts you have posted under the influence of your low class thinking about others, they are proof of what I am saying. I write again, "the ones who are frozen in old times will never see todays light"*


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

*From today on ward i will not speak in favor of muslims ever on this site as i have been doing it for a while due to your dirt you threw on others uncalled for*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 20, 2009)

Javanmarad,

A person with a name like yours can easily produce the headlines or the news from the  Islamic papers from the Muslim countries condemning what you say is not Islamic. If they do not then it shows they condone it and it is part of Islam to  behead women. Prove me wrong with the real proof not with your usual babble.

So the ball is in your court mate, otherwise as they say in Brazil, Voce nao vale porra nem uma.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## pk70 (Feb 20, 2009)

But I didn't was for you own opinion on an issue which you continue to situate at the level of ethics.( Quote by javan mard)
  or your English grammar is inexistent(quote javanmard)
* Read your own first quote, obviously it is an example of your mastery over English BTW there are many instances like this in your posts, even the following one quote states the same truth. Always be aware of your own backward before pointing at others. When we type mistakes occur and a fine mind just follows the vital idea unlike you.*
  As for Islam give me an example of inequality regarding women given the fact that the Quran considers men and women to be equal before God.?(quote javanmard

* You remained evasive about what I repeatedly asked you and u kept pressing your hypocritical stand in favor of women as per Holy Quran.  Here is the truth, face it, there are other quotes (I have no time to go through all) that degrade woman*

*Sarah 1V*
*“11. Allah chargeth you(men) concerning(the prevision for) your children: to  the male the equivalent of the portion of the two females, and if there be women more than two, then there is two third…. *

*(What equality!)*

*24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those-captives- whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you….*

*What an inspiration for humans! I can imagine what kind of world it would be if it was followed through out all countries!*
*34 Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other and because they spend of their property (for the support of women…)*
*Oh No Please !*

*From” Glorious Quran by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall Page 74, note brackets used in all quotes are of the author who too boasts (except in black bold letters) about equality of women in Holy Quran  ironically)*

*After reading above quotes, any fair mind can figure out how much Equality of women is given as per Holy Quran *


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 21, 2009)

Oh Good God LOL

PK70 Islam does recognize that women and men are equal in the eyes of God and are equal in dignity, but it also recognizes the specificities that differentiate women from men. Given that women are physically weaker it is men's duty to take care of them. It is only in that context that this verse need to be understood.
As for inheritance it is true that women get half a man's share...because they receive their dowry later on which compensates for that. A man simply has more expenditures to make because he has to pay a dowry when he marries and of course provide his wife with financial stability. In fact to be very strict a woman is entitled to ask her husband for a salary if she does housework. And if she works outside of the home  her husband is to compensate her as well. That is why you can't just quote the Quran alone you need the hadiths and the body of jurisprudence to understand the verses. That is why we have a clergy.
As for the slave girls, these are captives of war or born into slavery. The contract between a master and a slave shouldn't exceed 7 years and contrary to much propaganda made by Islamophobes, intercourse with a slave girl can only be done with her consent and a muta' marriage. If she becomes pregnant her child is born free and recognized as the master's child and she gets the status of ummul aulad which equates freedom. Again look at the hadiths and jurisprudence before quoting the Quran.
A woman who gets beaten or abused by her husband may ask for divorce.And a woman may refuse a marriage.


Sikhism allows slavery outside war time. The Prem Sumarg Granth says that Sikh parents may sell their children something that is impossible in Islam. Sikhism doesn't recognize divorce.So if a Sikh woman gets abused and beaten by her husband or his relatives she has to rely on secular law in order to escape that fate but from the point of view of religion she cannot divorce. There is not a single passage in Sikh scripture or the rahitname that enables a woman to refuse a marriage. What this means is that generations of Sikh women have been forced into marriages without having the power to say no and had to endure continual marital rape for centuries. Agreed this also happens in ignorant Muslim families but at least Islam forbids it. The punishment for someone who kills his daughter is that of tankhah whereas as someone who smokes or cuts his hair is a patit. In clear: smoking and cutting hair is considered a bigger offense in Sikhism than killing a baby girl or a woman. Sikhism doesn't state anything about rights of inheritance at all. And in practise Sikh women didn't inherit anything from their parents as since they got married they belonged to another family which also means that they're not considered as individuals at all. In fact the Akali Dal has been against women inheriting land so that the land could stay in the same family.Worse because of the ethics of pativrata a woman is de facto her husband's complete slave and she is asked to suffer in silence if she is ill treated.
Neo-Sikhism demands of women to deny their womanhood by adopting male dress like turban. That is to say that women are only equal in as much as they forget that they are women. In Islam women's femininity is to be cherished and respected and protected and that protection is the duty of men.

The other unrelated question is the following:
Given the fact that Sikhs believe the Prophet (pbuh) to be  a fraud as per Bachitar Natak's passage on Mahadin, are they aware that this makes them traitors to the Islamic state and muharib (people in war with Islam)? So why do they abuse Islamic countries by staying in countries like Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf States when the laws of these countries would make it impossible for them to stay there?
The answer is that they have been able to do so by hiding these facts from their host states and are thus abusing their hosts ignorance of Sikh tenets. But that ignorance won't last for long. If these states find out what you really believe you will have to get kicked out. I wonder why nobody has informed these states about your real beliefs...


Deletion


----------



## pk70 (Feb 21, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Oh Good God LOL
> 
> PK70 Islam does recognize that women and men are equal in the eyes of God and are equal in dignity, but it also recognizes the specificities that differentiate women from men. Given that women are physically weaker it is men's duty to take care of them. It is only in that context that this verse need to be understood.
> As for inheritance it is true that women get half a man's share...because they receive their dowry later on which compensates for that. A man simply has more expenditures to make because he has to pay a dowry when he marries and of course provide his wife with financial stability. In fact to be very strict a woman is entitled to ask her husband for a salary if she does housework. And if she works outside of the home  her husband is to compensate her as well. That is why you can't just quote the Quran alone you need the hadiths and the body of jurisprudence to understand the verses. That is why we have a clergy.
> ...



*Deletion
In my last quote it was a Muslim who translated Holy Quran,  and I didn't write much,
I wanted to prove SPN that you were fake, you helped me a lot with this post.
As usual, you have failed to defend your Holy Quran, you were supposed to explain it, I didn't hope it from a pseudo scholar like you.  Now I unnderstand why you were evasive in quoting Holy Quran, I shouldn't have asked you as they say "do not play music before a buffalo "
I did, look what I got.
You are no scholar man, you are fake, filled with hatred towards other faiths. What you have written here is childish reaction, any fine mind would try to explain what was in question but you have proved that you are not that fine mind.Here a shallow personality  under Id javanmard trying to impress others unsuccessfully. I feel sorry for you.*:down:

deletions by aad0002


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 21, 2009)

javanard ji

Let's keep attacks on the grammar and spelling of all posters out of the discussion. No one has complete perfection as far as I can see. So far I have let a few of these unkind comments pass. You can make your point just as easily. I have just deleted the previous instance. Thanks much


----------



## Admin (Feb 21, 2009)

*Dear SPN'ers,

It is shocking to see so much bitterness all around. Is this how so called scholars talk in a congression? Is this how you represent your faith to a world-wide audeince? It is shameful to read so many of hateful messages being posted in the forum in last few days by so called self-professed scholars of sikh philosophy in particular and religion in general! 

Friendly Warning: A scholar, who cannot appreciate the views of other "scholars" in a positive vein should not participate in SPN!! SPN is not for people who have no love & compassion for fellow human beings. SPN is not a place to vent your personal frustrations... **Every issue has various perspectives. **If you disagree, simply present your perspective and learn from different opinions rather than concertraing on settleing personal scores with members. Discussions should be to the point and all un-necessary trash talk, personal comments irralivant to the topic would be removed without notice. Please discuss The Topic not the Person (raising the Topic). Thank You.

Forum Leaders are advised to keep stern vigil on offenders of this very basic tenant of SPN and this includes everybody. No Trash Talk Would be Accetable at All! The freedom of speech at SPN is not to be abused! 

All concerned are warned.

Thank You Again for Behaving like Scholars. 
*


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 21, 2009)

Forum members --

I am taking the previous two posts out of the thread to analyze them. The rhetoric is hot -- and not contributing to further development of the thread. After the mods take a look they may/may not be returned.

One thing a forum leader can and should do is redirect the conversation. It would make sense then to go back to an earlier and unresolved issue in the debate. The Koran and related law speaks to the protection and value of women. Actual practice over the centuries up until today contradicts the religious ideas. Why not think about the reasons why that occurs? Recently the King of Saudi Arabia reorganized the Sharia court (forgive me that is not the official name) and gave the dangers of extremism as the reason. He took a risk doing this. The treatment of rape-victims was one of his given examples. Likewise in Sikhism Guruji and related scriptures speak of the importance of woman, their parity with men, yet we read of honor killings among Sikhs. The argument -- Oh well you don't know what it is like in India! - won't work in this case. From reading the news, it seems like it happens in Canada every month! 

Why do the ideal images of religions play out very differently in history? Why does culture trump religion when we are looking at behavior? Why does the religious establishment seem to be unable to call an end to this? Why do various sects within Islam and/or Sikhism have different views of women in their traditions, even within the same religion? For example, women can participate in the sema ceremony of Turkish Sufis. And yet, Turkey has outlawed the sema ceremony. 

I might learn something from this discourse. Please be patient with me.


----------



## tony (Feb 23, 2009)

WJKK WJKF
Quite agree that personal attacks should be left out of the discussion and im not here to discuss islam, so back to the origins of the thread What is the status of Women in Sikhism and are they being treated equally. Quite simply the answer is NO they are not treated as  equals. Sikh men (not all may i add) treat their women as badly as muslim men inequality is inequality regardless of the actual crime. I chose Sikhism as my religion 12 yrs ago because it apppeared to be a religion of equality of all and it is, when you read it, however it simply isnt practised that way, my partner wasnt treated like her brother at home, my children where subjected to rascist abuse at punjabi school (children dont see colour differences so they where taught to be rascist by the parents). They are denied their Grandparents and other relatives. they no longer go to punjabi school and my partner refuses to have anything to do with Sikhs because of this. If Sikhism is to grow into a Great religion this inequality has got to change, Sikhs have got to accept that to be a Sikh doesnt mean you have to be of indian origin and to be a great sikh you have to be a man. Im really sorry if Ive offended any one but as you can see this is a subject that ive experienced first hand and my partner continually suffers because of it, so my apologise to all those who have changed and to those who havent who cares what you think
sat sri akal 
Tony


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 23, 2009)

tony said:


> WJKK WJKF
> Quite agree that personal attacks should be left out of the discussion and im not here to discuss islam, so back to the origins of the thread What is the status of Women in Sikhism and are they being treated equally. Quite simply the answer is NO they are not treated as  equals. Sikh men (not all may i add) treat their women as badly as muslim men inequality is inequality regardless of the actual crime. I chose Sikhism as my religion 12 yrs ago because it apppeared to be a religion of equality of all and it is, when you read it, however it simply isnt practised that way, my partner wasnt treated like her brother at home, my children where subjected to rascist abuse at punjabi school (children dont see colour differences so they where taught to be rascist by the parents). They are denied their Grandparents and other relatives. they no longer go to punjabi school and my partner refuses to have anything to do with Sikhs because of this. If Sikhism is to grow into a Great religion this inequality has got to change, Sikhs have got to accept that to be a Sikh doesnt mean you have to be of indian origin and to be a great sikh you have to be a man. Im really sorry if Ive offended any one but as you can see this is a subject that ive experienced first hand and my partner continually suffers because of it, so my apologise to all those who have changed and to those who havent who cares what you think
> sat sri akal
> Tony



Tony ji

99% of sikhs are punjabi's and mostly practising sikhs live in strict social system.Once a person lives in social system then he/she have to accept social norms and if you break the laws then Its not only the person but also his/her parents are a topic gossip,mockery.This social system is more harsh on women.Many, punjabi sikhs don't even accept their children
marrying out of caste because of this even if the partner is punjabi sikh so what you are saying is true but your complaints should have been against social system and not against sikhism


----------



## Archived_Member5 (Feb 23, 2009)

Fathers are similar to God in that one must obey and abide by their doctrine. Once an individual turns against the father and marry’s or acts against his will, they are expelled as in the beginning to make their own lives exercising personal responsibility.  Politicians tend to entertain feminist sympathisers, you will find little support in a religious forum attuned to a creator disempowered by the divisive and wilful behaviour of his creation, especially women. 

The US and UK women are emancipated yet remain as miserable as they were before. No matter how much independence we gain there is always a need of our peers or a detachment to live and walk alone.  It is far easier to sanctimoniously rouse the latent feminists in the womenfolk of foreigners before attending to one’ own domestic problems.  Sikh women as with all come in high minded strong matriarchal types or domineering, manipulative deceiver types. One takes and judges them as one finds them.


Following religious values gains spiritual peace and union with ones soul, demanding rights may gain a woman an inflated or elevated opinion of herself and status soon burst by others equally as zealous of her ilk ...


----------



## tony (Feb 23, 2009)

Rubbish I was brought up amongst  rascist and sexist, actually being a member of the BNP and the NF, but by the age of 22 still living amongst these people started to listen to my own mind realising that asians where not what id been told. I changed my views. I suffered beatings and was disowned by my friends. 24 yrs on most of my friends from back then now share my views as does the rest of the UK. you cannot use your culture to hide behind when you know what your doing is wrong. the Guru jis fought to change what they believed was wrong under fear of death. For a father to impose his will with threats is nobetter than living in a dictatorship, An opion is fine to have even if it is different but to impose makes a man no better than Hitler. If one claims to be a practising Sikh then dont hide behind cultural believes stand up and make a change its amasing how many follow when one has the courage to lead. With the people who dare challence the norm we would all still be living in caves worshipping idols


----------



## Archived_Member5 (Feb 23, 2009)

‘’Thou shalt honour thy Lord God your father’’ is the same in all languages and scriptures. We are all indoctrinated to be wary of the unfamiliar. Once we all know one another we can then make our judgments beyond the racial and religious, as people and the children of the One God.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 23, 2009)

pk70 said:


> *Deletion
> In my last quote it was a Muslim who translated Holy Quran,  and I didn't write much,
> I wanted to prove SPN that you were fake, you helped me a lot with this post.
> As usual, you have failed to defend your Holy Quran, you were supposed to explain it, I didn't hope it from a pseudo scholar like you.  Now I unnderstand why you were evasive in quoting Holy Quran, I shouldn't have asked you as they say "do not play music before a buffalo "
> ...



pk70 ji 

My reaction There are statements by Javanard ji that raise a lot of questions in my mind, as they do for you. Lot's of questions.

I am not by any stretch of imagination an expert on the historical facts and subtleties surround many of the claims made. I however suspect that the concerns raised may have been more true during the raj when Sikhism had become extremely compromised by the political confusion of the day. For example, Maharaj Ranjit had several wives and concubines. So what! It proves nothing about basic tenets of Sikhism. The fact that Sri Guru Granth Sahib may be silent on the specifics proves nothing. 

It would be helpful if someone would respond with actual evidence and historical documentation. My basic intuition is that culture and politics have been tangled up with misunderstandings of the basics of Nanakian philosophy. Apologies if I have offended anyone.

We


----------



## tony (Feb 23, 2009)

kds1980 said:


> Tony ji
> 
> 99% of sikhs are punjabi's and mostly practising sikhs live in strict social system.Once a person lives in social system then he/she have to accept social norms and if you break the laws then Its not only the person but also his/her parents are a topic gossip,mockery.This social system is more harsh on women.Many, punjabi sikhs don't even accept their children
> marrying out of caste because of this even if the partner is punjabi sikh so what you are saying is true but your complaints should have been against social system and not against sikhism


kds1980 ji
i have read your post several times and still think that it is an excuse for poor sikhism. If it is said by Guru Nanak ji that we are all equal then it is part of sikhism. to treat anyone differently must therefore be against sikhism, citing a social system is no more than a poor excuse. this is exactly why sikhism came to be, to change the way people live and are treated. How can you stand in front of our lord and say i have followed the preachings of the Guru ji's when you havent treated all equally.it does not take scriptural evidence just basic human kindness if you cannot treat your fellow man and that includes women equally then you have failed. Social and cultural behaviour are man made and as such man can change them. stop blameing others and change. for those who have already change then this post is not intended to offend, for those who havent then it is. SEXIST and RACIST behaviour is not acceptable nor is their any defence. It takes a strong man to stand in front of others and say they disagree. i thought sikhs where to supposed to be strong looks like i was wrong. sikhism is destined to remain an Indian religion if change doesnt come about, with more and more girls marrying white boys the religion will die and with it the gurus dream. who'd want a life of oppression when they see freedom, 
Tony


----------



## pk70 (Feb 23, 2009)

aad0002 said:


> pk70 ji
> 
> My reaction There are statements by Javanard ji that raise a lot of questions in my mind, as they do for you. Lot's of questions.
> 
> ...



*aad Bhain Jio
I agree.*
*The question was “give scriptural reference in context of women status”*
*It was answered with Gurbani quotes.*
*The guy who asked the question, kept zigzagging and ended up stooping low to point out cultural practices in Sikhism and to find out faults in others( Ironically he himself had those faults). It’s an illogical bashing of a faith and people because that was not the point of discussion.*
*The bottom line:*

*If we see scriptural support from any religion in favor of women, it must be applauded; however, if scriptural reference of a faith degrades women, it must be condemned.  *


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 23, 2009)

pk70 ji

And once again I agree with you. One more thought to add. When a scripture does not specifically mention, x or y or z -- then a objective person will not then make conclusions based on missing information. *The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence *-- or anything else for that matter.  And that is what we have been reading for a week now.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 23, 2009)

aad0002 said:


> Forum members --
> 
> I am taking the previous two posts out of the thread to analyze them. The rhetoric is hot -- and not contributing to further development of the thread. After the mods take a look they may/may not be returned.
> 
> ...



Antonia ji

I am sorry But I am unable to understand your post .On one hand you quoted example of saudi king on the other hand you quoted example of honor killings I don't understand what is the relation between these 2 examples.

Also I want to say That if you or any want to scrutinise religions then its better to scrutinise them indivisually


----------



## Archived_member7 (Feb 23, 2009)

Aaad ji if there is a strong resentment to accept the evidence then no matter what ..all evidence is in vain...


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 23, 2009)

tony said:


> kds1980 ji
> i have read your post several times and still think that it is an excuse for poor sikhism. If it is said by Guru Nanak ji that we are all equal then it is part of sikhism. to treat anyone differently must therefore be against sikhism, citing a social system is no more than a poor excuse. this is exactly why sikhism came to be, to change the way people live and are treated. How can you stand in front of our lord and say i have followed the preachings of the Guru ji's when you havent treated all equally.it does not take scriptural evidence just basic human kindness if you cannot treat your fellow man and that includes women equally then you have failed. Social and cultural behaviour are man made and as such man can change them. stop blameing others and change. for those who have already change then this post is not intended to offend, for those who havent then it is. SEXIST and RACIST behaviour is not acceptable nor is their any defence. It takes a strong man to stand in front of others and say they disagree. i thought sikhs where to supposed to be strong looks like i was wrong. sikhism is destined to remain an Indian religion if change doesnt come about, with more and more girls marrying white boys the religion will die and with it the gurus dream. who'd want a life of oppression when they see freedom,
> Tony



Tony ji

Its True that Guru's preached equality But apart from equality they also preached many things.The guru's never said that sikhs should chase money but a very high percentage 
of sikhs are madly chasing money.The guru's said not to consume Alchol but the consumption of Alchol is very high among sikh men.Guru's advocated simple life but still sikhs are known for their luxurious life style.So the fact is That very large percentage of sikhs are just cultural or social sikhs .Very very few sikhs are actually trying to follow what Guru's said.

Btw What make's you think that more and more sikh women will marry white boys?do you beleive that all white men are free from
Racist and sexist behaviour.I am sorry to say but white women too have lot of complaints against white men and Divorce rate is very high In USA and europe.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 23, 2009)

kds1980 said:


> Antonia ji
> 
> I am sorry But I am unable to understand your post .On one hand you quoted example of saudi king on the other hand you quoted example of honor killings I don't understand what is the relation between these 2 examples.
> 
> Also I want to say That if you or any want to scrutinise religions then its better to scrutinise them indivisually



kds ji 

I need to disagree. In each case there is a common theme, and a common way out. Important not to miss the forest for the trees.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 24, 2009)

Pk70 your gubani quotes were just stating that men and women were created by God. It's an ontological statement about creation not a jurisprudential one. Example:

"It is forbidden to do x y z" is a jurisprudential or legal statement

whereas 

"Fish and trees were created by God" is a statement about the creation of fish and trees and has no implication on the legal stated otherwise in some other part of scripture, something like "...and therefore you should not kille fish and trees". Statements about rights and duties are to be derived from scriptural passages that are legal in nature.

That was my only issue with your posts. You still keep on missing the point by making me into some conspiracy monger. I leave you to that choice.

It's one thing to state that men and women are created by God, yet another to state their rights and duties. You gave me quotes that are ontological in nature. Not a single jurisprudential one. Then you moved on to the typical "tun tun main main" game of "oh what about in Islam" which could have been answered in a different thread. You then mentionned different ayahs of the Quran WITHOUT giving the necessary hadiths and context to understand them. It might come as a surprise to you but there are rules about quoting the Quran of which of course you had no idea of.
I am just writing this to make things clear. If you have a personal problem with me leave it for the pm messages.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 24, 2009)

Javanmarad,

You have lost any credibility as a Muslim and more important as a person. You have not have had the guts to show me the News from the Islamic countries condemning the atrocities committed by Muslim men against Muslim women like beheading, rapes, punishment  by lashing etc etc., despite my reminders.

So for you to babble about jurisprudence and mock others is nothing but hot air with myopic thought process. 

Are you sure you are a professor as you claim to be because with the qualifications you have shown here, you were able to flunk yourself with commendations?

This proves that you are  a man or a woman that lacks character. Is that an Islamic trait?

Tejwant Singh


----------



## tony (Feb 24, 2009)

kds1980 said:


> Tony ji
> 
> Its True that Guru's preached equality But apart from equality they also preached many things.The guru's never said that sikhs should chase money but a very high percentage
> of sikhs are madly chasing money.The guru's said not to consume Alchol but the consumption of Alchol is very high among sikh men.Guru's advocated simple life but still sikhs are known for their luxurious life style.So the fact is That very large percentage of sikhs are just cultural or social sikhs .Very very few sikhs are actually trying to follow what Guru's said.
> ...


kds1980 ji
I cant agree more with the first paragraph, Which doesnt say alot for Sikhism nor does it make it right to discriminate against women or do any of the afore mentioned, It does seem however that this a male problem. As for the second part, I dont for one minute think that white men are any better nor are they free from sexism or racism, the fact is women have the right to complain and initiate divorce proceedings without fear of being disowned or rejected by friends and family in England. The statement I made that more and more sikh girls will marry white men is based on my own personal observation as a Door supervisor, 25 yrs ago a mixed couple was very rarely seen especially asian white couples, yet in the last 3 yrs there has been a rapid rise in the number that ive seen and as more and more Sikh girls go to Uni then this is set to rise even further. Im not having ago at Sikhism merely at the people who preach it and then practice the opposite, It is like I said to follow the crowd doesnt make it right. Change is required, again i say stand up and lead the way and many will follow, Sikhism is perfect the flaw lies in those who follow the flawed. I did and am now richer in friends and purer in soul. stop defending the fault and try mending it
TONY


----------



## pk70 (Feb 24, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Pk70 your gubani quotes were just stating that men and women were created by God. It's an ontological statement about creation not a jurisprudential one. Example:
> 
> "It is forbidden to do x y z" is a jurisprudential or legal statement
> 
> ...




*If on my way, I see a smelly dirt- pond, I cover up my nose and I pass by.*


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 24, 2009)

tony said:


> kds1980 ji
> I cant agree more with the first paragraph, Which doesnt say alot for Sikhism nor does it make it right to discriminate against women or do any of the afore mentioned, It does seem however that this a male problem. As for the second part, I dont for one minute think that white men are any better nor are they free from sexism or racism, the fact is women have the right to complain and initiate divorce proceedings without fear of being disowned or rejected by friends and family in England. The statement I made that more and more sikh girls will marry white men is based on my own personal observation as a Door supervisor, 25 yrs ago a mixed couple was very rarely seen especially asian white couples, yet in the last 3 yrs there has been a rapid rise in the number that ive seen and as more and more Sikh girls go to Uni then this is set to rise even further. Im not having ago at Sikhism merely at the people who preach it and then practice the opposite, It is like I said to follow the crowd doesnt make it right. Change is required, again i say stand up and lead the way and many will follow, Sikhism is perfect the flaw lies in those who follow the flawed. I did and am now richer in friends and purer in soul. stop defending the fault and try mending it
> TONY



Tony ji

First of all I am not defending the fault

Now let me tell you about myself.I belong from a Delhi City Family where polite culture was practiced.Drinking alchol,domestic voilence were the things that we never heard even in distant families.I still rememer how when I was living in joint family It is the women that used to dominate and fight with each other.Majority of men in our family were under their wives and later on The joint family was broken.But even still the present generation of sikh girls of my family(I mean my cousins did not marry sikhs or are not much into sikhism).I know you have seen lot of sikh familes mostly from Rural punjab where macho culture is practised.and in macho culture men are always favoured..

Anyway I agree with you that change is required But it is required from both sides and not only From men because if you think that discrimination is the only reason that sikh women are marrying outside their religion then it is not fully true.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 24, 2009)

Mr. Bahadur ali Here are some wonderful incidence of Justice from your beloved Shia Iran
Information on individual cases: 

Iran was reportedly talking to the son of a neighbour in the courtyard of her house, when her husband attacked her with a knife. She was badly beaten and left bleeding and unconscious on the floor. While she was unconscious, it is alleged that the man killed her husband with his own knife. While police were interrogating her about the killing, Iran reportedly confessed to adultery with the son of her neighbour. However she later retracted her confession. A court in the city of Khuzestan sentenced her to five years' imprisonment for being an accomplice in the murder of her husband, and to execution by stoning for adultery. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2006. Her lawyer has appealed against the sentence. She is detained in Sepidar prison, in Ahvaz city.

Khayrieh an Ahwazi Arab, was reportedly subjected to domestic violence by her husband. She allegedly began an affair with a relative of her husband, who then murdered him. She was sentenced to death by Branch 3 of Behbahan Court, in Khuzestan in southwestern Iran, for being an accomplice in the murder of her husband, and death by stoning for adultery. Khayrieh has denied any involvement in her husband's murder, but confessed to adultery. The sentence was upheld, and the case has reportedly been sent to the Head of the Judiciary for permission to be implemented. Talking about her fate, Khayrieh said "I am ready to be hanged, but they should not stone me. They could strangle you and you would die, but it is very difficult to have stones hitting you in the head".

Kobra Najjar, who is detained in Tabriz prison in northwestern Iran, is at imminent risk of execution. She was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for being an accomplice to the murder of her husband, and execution by stoning for adultery. She was scheduled to be executed after serving her prison sentence, which was finished two years ago. She has reportedly written to the Judicial Commission for Amnesty to ask for her sentence of execution by stoning to be commuted, and is awaiting a reply. Kobra Najjar was allegedly forced into prostitution by her husband, a heroin addict who was violent towards her. In 1995, after a severe beating by her husband, she told one of her regular customers that she wanted to kill her husband. The customer allegedly murdered her husband after Kobra Najjar took him to an arranged meeting place. He was sentenced to death, but he was pardoned by the victim's family, to whom he paid diyeh (blood money). 

Soghra Mola'i was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for being an accomplice to the murder in January 2004 of her husband Abdollah, and to execution by stoning for adultery. During interrogation she said "My husband usually tormented me. Nevertheless, I did not intend to kill him. On the night of the incident ... after Alireza killed my husband, I ran away with him because I was scared to stay at home, thinking that my brothers-in-law would kill me." Alireza was sentenced to death for the murder of Soghra Mola'i's husband, and to 100 lashes for "illicit relations". The sentences are pending examination by the Supreme Court. It is believed that Soghra Mola'i is detained in Reja'i Shahr prison, Karaj, near Tehran.

Fatemeh (surname unknown) was sentenced in May 2005, Branch 71 of the Tehran Province Criminal Court to retribution (qesas) for being an accomplice to murder, and execution by stoning for having an 'illicit relationship' with a man named Mahmoud. Her husband was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment for being an accomplice to the murder of Mahmoud. The case is currently being examined in the Supreme Court. According to a May 2005 report in the newspaper Etemad, an altercation occurred between Mahmoud, and Fatemeh's husband. Fatemeh confessed to tying a rope around Mahmoud's throat, which resulted in his strangulation. She has claimed that she intended merely to tie his hands and feet after he was unconscious and hand him over to the police.

Ashraf Kalhori who was scheduled to be stoned by the end of July 2006, has had her execution temporarily stayed by the Head of Judiciary. Ayatollah Shahroudi. Ashraf Kalhori remains under sentence of death. Ashraf Kalhori was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, in accordance with laws relating to married women. She was also sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment for allegedly taking part in the murder of her husband. According to Ashraf Kalhori, the killing was accidental, but police accused her of having an affair with her neighbour and encouraging the attack. She reportedly confessed to adultery under police interrogation, but later retracted her confession.

Abdollah F. (m) has been sentenced to death by stoning. 

Parisa (surname unknown) appealed against the stoning sentences with the Discernment Branch of the Supreme Court. On 8 November 2006, Branch 15 of the Supreme Court reviewed the cases, to determine whether the sentence of stoning had been appropriate and consistent with Islamic law. During the entire court session, Parisa was holding the hands of her three-year-old son. On 27 November, the Supreme Court changed the sentence to flogging for both Parisa and her husband. Her husband Najaf has reportedly been sentenced to a period of exile in a different city.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 24, 2009)

I don't know what your problem is kds1980? These people have been arrested, confessed to their crimes and are receiving the punishment as prescribed by the law. Adultery is a serious crime for which death is the punishment. Mind you some of these cases may have been judged too harshly. If a woman has been forced by her husband into prostitution that is a different issue and in that case her husband should get punished for it. Adultery is a crime, not just a sin and there is a punishment for it.

What punishment exists in Sikhism for someone who kills his daughter? Cleaning shoes at the gurdwara? Washing plates in the langar?

But my point is: there is a legal system based on legal ordinances in scriptures. I didn't join this thread to show that Islam was better. I joined because of the claim of there being "rights" in Sikhism, a religion that DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM AND IS HENCE INCAPABLE OF UPHOLDING ITS CLAIM TO ESTABLISH KHALSA RAJ.
What you think of sharia law and Iran is of no relevance here because that is not what I am discussing. The discussion is: do women,and as a matter of fact men, have duties and laws established in Sikh scripture? The answer is NO! So how legitimate is the expression "rights" in a religion that has no legal system.

Rajkhalsa, Ranjit Singh's fondness for young boys has been well documented in historical sources from that period including French travellers' accounts who met Ranjit Singh.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 24, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Vaheguruseeker, the links you posted were for the most part lies. You posted stuff about Yazidis who are not even Muslims and hence shown your complete ignorance.



Javamard,

Thanks for confirming what I mentioned in my post that you have lost all your credibility as a Muslim and as a person. Now you are up to lying to defend yourself. 

Is this one more Islamic trait along with lack of character?

Following are my 2 different posts about Muslim atrocities. Rather than apologiisng for your Muslim brethren, you called the Yazidis not Muslims. Well one can say the same for you. If a person says he/she is a Muslim, a  so called proffesor like you saying they are not shows how insecure you are in your own skin. That may be the reson of you hop scotching from one religion  to the other. It shows as I said before your myopic mindset.

*My first post to show you what happens to the Muslim women. read the word MUSLIM WOMEN*.


1. The facts of the Islamic world








*Women and girls in Iraq live in constant fear of  violence as the conflict intensifies and insecurity spirals.* Within their  own communities, many women and girls remain at risk of death or injury from  male relatives if they are accused of behavior held to have brought dishonor on  the family. 
Recently, in *Bashika, Mosul, hundreds of men beat and stoned  a 17 year old woman named Du’a Khalil Aswad to death,* in a gruesome example  of collective ‘honour killing’. The woman, a member of the Yezidi religion,  which is practiced by Kurds in Northern Iraq, ran away from her family to join  an Arab Muslim man with whom she had fallen in love and had been meeting  secretly, but who rejected her. Damned under the ‘honour’ code, for running  away, for choosing outside her own community and for being ultimately rejected,  Du’a had nowhere to go.
For a couple of days, she had put up with a local  Yezidi tribal leader but to live in peace was not in her destiny. *She was  abducted and brutally murdered in front of hundreds of men by her relatives —  who stripped her body, beat and kicked her, and killed her by crushing her body  with rocks and concrete blocks.* The police officials too participated in the  disgusting communal murder.
*Stoning: Is it the part of culture in  Iraq?*
Death by stoning is slow and painful. *Islamic code prescribes  *that ‘the stone should not be so big as to kill the offender with one or two  stones’ and ‘nor should it be as small as pebbles’. 
The Islamic groups  resort to every possible method to terrorize Iraqi women. *Today, stoning is only practiced in order to maintain the  submission of its women* and those in the lower cast. Also, those  impoverished or socially unimportant are punished by stoning.




*Silent Killings*
There are frequent reports of  ‘honor crimes’ in Iraq - in particular in the predominantly Kurdish north of the  country. Most victims of ‘honor crimes’ are women and girls who are considered  by their male relatives and others to have shamed the women’s families by  immoral behavior. 
Often grounds for such accusations are *flimsy and no  more than rumor. *
*What is the situation like?*
The  *government’s failure to protect women,* and enforce laws against  criminals, has created a situation where thousands of women become victims of so  called honor killings. Violence has risen as a result of patriarchal and  religious traditions. 
In the 21st century, for such crimes to be carried out  in broad daylight is not only a shame on society as whole, but most of all, it  is a shame on a government that is unable to protect women from such inhumane  and backward practices. 
With officials largely silent on the issue except to  deny that it occurs, it is unclear how many more women in the province are  stoned to death.
The barbaric and violent practice of stoning will continue  as long as people will water the cult of Islam, MuHAMmad, which has put his  hands everywhere especially in this inhuman practice of ’stoning women to death’  and in imposing uncivilized* Sharia Law *upon  human culture. 
Source:: Sikhism Philosophy Network http://www.sikhism.us/showthread.php?t=24065
It  forces me to ask a question, *can women in Muslim countries ever expect to  breathe in the air of self- approbation? *

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/entry/...oran-or-islam/


Your timid unmanly insecure response like a typical insecure Muslim:-

*"Vaheguruseeker, your link refers to a famous stoning case in the Yezidi  community. The Yezidis are not Muslims at all but are mistaken to be Muslims by  ignorant Westeners. I am sorry you have been mislead."

*Javamard, your above timid  response shows you are lying and misleading people who questio you about Islam. Is that part of your Muslim faith?

Just to defend your lies you even sent me a PM with the same. Next time do not send PM  if you are not man enough to respond in the room truthfully.
LOL.... you are laughable or you do not know how to read and you love to lie just to defend the violence in your own religion. Shame! Are all Muslims start behaving like you do when confronted with the the truth.

*Then following is my second post about the violence by Muslim men against Muslim women:*

*
2.Javanmarad has been in denial eversince his first post which shows how insecure  he is in his own faith that he has been hop scotching from one to the other for  quite sometimes.
Source:: Sikhism Philosophy Network http://www.sikhism.us/showthread.php?t=24065

Below  are the headlines regarding Muslim women and their treatment by the people of  their religion:

**1. An american muslim the founder of Bridges TVnetwork  beheads his wife in Buffalo NY.
Brutal Irony In New York Woman's  Beheading
Brutal Irony In New York Woman's Beheading, Police Say Couple  Founded TV Network To Fight Muslim Stereotypes; Husband Suspected Of Killing Her  At Office - CBS News


**2.Sharia law a danger to women
TheStar.com |  Opinion | Sharia law a danger to women

**3.Freedom dies as radical  Islam advances,It shows dead female victims of honor killings, a kneeling woman  in a burqa being executed.www.dcexaminer.com >> Meghan Cox Gurdon

**4.I  will tell you about another similar horror story. 
**It's about a Muslim  convert who became a polygamist who tortured, starved, imprisoned and beat his  three wives and 19 children
More carnage from multiculturalism

This is just the  snippet of what happens in the Msulim world daily. What a shame! and people like  Javanmarad have the blindfolds on.


Javanmard,

And you timid  response once again:-

"Vaheguruseeker, I suggest you take some classes on Islamic law before posting  stuff about that subject."*

lol... You mean Islamic law says to  beat hellout of Muslim women and behead them? You see you fake proffesor how you slip on your on. That made no sense as a response and you call yourself a proffesor? Cheeky, arn't you. Proffesor.

Then to top it of one more of your non seniscal justification, one more illitrate after thought to prove how guilty you feel within.:-

*"Vaheguruseeker,none of the links you provided have got anything to do with  Islamic law. They're just crimes that Islam itself condemns.*"

Your one more timid response:-

*"Vaheguruseeker, honour killings are forbidden in Islam and the other cases you  gave links too have nothing to do with Islamic jurisprudence." *

Your above response made no sense once again but showed how insecure you are about your own faith.


Javanmard, 

Inspite of the facts you kept on lying, I gave you 2 more chances to prove your manlyhood and your rpide Muslim side and asked you to show me which Mullahs in which Mosques of the Muslim countires condemned these violent acts done by your Muslim brethren?

I asked you to  show me the Newspapers from the Islamic countries, you as a man with no character said:-

*"Vaheguruseeker, the links you posted were for the most part lies. You posted  stuff about Yazidis who are not even Muslims and hence shown your complete  ignorance."*

LoL.. you are funny to say the least. You mean repeating something makes it true?

It is you who is ignorant and insecure and you have shown you lack character.

Prove me wrong by showing the Muslim clergy condemning these violent acts against the people of your own religion. Shame on you that you are a bystander and watch these things happen in your own religion.

As they say in Brazil, Voce e um viado nao um homem.

And you call yourself what?

Tejwant Singh


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 24, 2009)

> Adultery is a serious crime for which death is the punishment. Mind you some of these cases may have been judged too harshly. If a woman has been forced by her husband into prostitution that is a different issue and in that case her husband should get punished for it. Adultery is a crime, not just a sin and there is a punishment for it.



So you want to say that if a woman commits adultery then she should be condemned to Death and still you say that there is nothing against women in Islam.



> What punishment exists in Sikhism for someone who kills his daughter? Cleaning shoes at the gurdwara? Washing plates in the langar?



Have you ever heard of Guru Panth?If anytime Khalsa Raj is established then Panth itself will decide what punishment is there for people who kill their daughters.



> But my point is: there is a legal system based on legal ordinances in scriptures. I didn't join this thread to show that Islam was better. I joined because of the claim of there being "rights" in Sikhism, a religion that DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM AND IS HENCE INCAPABLE OF UPHOLDING ITS CLAIM TO ESTABLISH KHALSA RAJ.



Now don't pretentend to be innocent You joined this thread to attack sikhism.You already had plenty of discussions with sikhs and you were part of many threads on sikhawarness
Now don't say that you missed this point at that time.

As far as legal system is concerned One do not need a legal system written in scripture's
only
Many problems of legal system arise with time and law has to deal with them accordingly.
I am very much interested That what kind of punishment is written in Islam,quran for committing internet crimes.I am sure you people have already searched Quran and other islamic scripture's as you people only want to follow legal system written in scripture's



> What you think of sharia law and Iran is of no relevance here because that is not what I am discussing



This thread is about status of women in sikhism.You derailed this thread that what is written in scripture's about it Now you don't want to discuss islam or shariat laws because you know you can't defend them


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 24, 2009)

kds1980 wrote:



> So you want to say that if a woman commits adultery then she should be condemned to Death and still you say that there is nothing against women in Islam.


The punishment for adultery in Islam is the same for men and women. Not just women. And yes the punishment for adultery is death.



> Have you ever heard of Guru Panth?If anytime Khalsa Raj is established then Panth itself will decide what punishment is there for people who kill their daughters.


On which legal basis will it base its laws. For laws to be established there needs to be a scriptural basis. If not all you have is the musings of imperfect people. In 1925 the Udasis were banned from the Panth and in teh Anandur Resolution they were reintegrated: did the Panth change its mind?
And who is the Panth anyway. The only institution that can claim direct link with Guru Gobind Singh is Budha Dal.



> As far as legal system is concerned One do not need a legal system written in scripture's
> only
> Many problems of legal system arise with time and law has to deal with them accordingly.


Man has to be guided in ALL circumstances by God's law. If not he is outside of God's hukam. The European legal system is based on Roman law and hasn't changed much in terms on its jurisprudential principles. Same with Jewish and Islamic law. For example in Roman law rights of custody used to be based on the principle of "ownership of the field" i.e. a woman's children would belong to the man she marries with. A legal system may change but all these need to be based on principles. These principles in religious systems are to be based on divine revelation. Even with a Guru Panth these decisions must be made on the basis of legal principles otherwise the citizens of that state are faced with an arbitrary system based on the decisions of fallible individuals based on their own will.



> This thread is about status of women in sikhism.You derailed this thread that what is written in scripture's about it Now you don't want to discuss islam or shariat laws because you know you can't defend them


From what should I defend sharia against? What are your accusations? State them and maybe we can discuss them. If you are going to state some arguments at least try something better than vaheguruseeker's illogical links such as links about Yazidis. 


Vaheguruseeker:
Yazidis are not Muslims. If your American source doesn't know that too bad. if Yazidis kill their own women that is a Yazidi problem not a Muslim problem. And as we say in Portugal:10000 brazileiros valem um viado.


Guru Gobind Singh had 300 masands burnt and thrown in a well in Anandpur Sahib.I don not condemn this because the masands were guilty of a crime. What I want to know is: on what basis was the condemnation issued? What verses of Sikh scripture says that half burning people and throwing them into wells is a punishment for betraying the Guru?


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 24, 2009)

*forum members

Off-topic comments, defamatory statements and trash talk have been moved from the thread. Future examples of off-topic comments, defamatory statements and trash talk will also be moved from the thread. Thank you

aad0002*


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 24, 2009)

For Vaheguruseeker:

This is an example of Iran's top judiciary Ayatollah Shahroudi intervening in favour of people:



> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*January 2009
> *[/SIZE][/FONT]        [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Equality             Now Welcomes News Of The Commutation Of Kobra Najjar’s Stoning       But Condemns The Sentence Of 100 Lashings To Take Its Place*[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The       Iranian government has commuted the execution of Kobra Najjar, an Iranian       woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery—a judgment based on       the prostitution her abusive husband forced upon her in order to sustain       his heroin addiction.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kobra       requested clemency from the Head of the Judiciary, Ayatollah Shahroudi,       after her appeal for amnesty was rejected three times by the Iranian Commission       of Amnesty. Ayatollah Shahroudi has recently ruled for the stoning sentence       to be converted into 100 lashes. Kobra has already served eight years in       prison as an accomplice to the murder of her husband who was killed by       a sympathetic client, plus a further three years awaiting execution. Kobra       has recently suffered from a stroke whilst in prison and has been spending       her days under very difficult conditions. Subjecting her to lashes not       only violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights       (ICCPR) to which Iran is a party, as it clearly prohibits torture, cruel,       inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, but could cause serious       harm and potentially be life-threatening.[/FONT]
> ...


This is not an Islamic website: Equality Now News Alert

In Islam we have laws. If a court gives an unjust ruling, then that ruling may be overturned by the judiciary as is the case in the Islamic Republic of Iran.May I just add that the lashings are to be executed in the following way:
- the hand of the executioner has to be tied to a Qoran so as to prevent him fron hitting hard
- the hits cannot leave any marks

These are the rules.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 24, 2009)

Javnmarad,

You still do not get it. I told you NOT to send me PM if you are not man enough to  interact here, which you have shown you are not. Violence happens everyday  against Muslim women in Muslim households and in Muslim countries around the world and you have not shown me a single proof of the Newspaper editorials or the clergy where these violence take place daily condemning these acts as you gleefully said that this is not an Islamic thing to do. Nice slogans but nothing else coming from you and you claim yourself to be a professor? That is  funny to say the atleast.

It seems from your repeated post that Islam is not about seeking the TRUTH but to babble falsehoods as you have done.

Voce e um viado, em vez de um homem.


And NO PRIVATE MESSAGES. You do not have the privilege.

Tejwant Singh.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 24, 2009)

Once again ...
*forum members

Off-topic comments, defamatory statements and trash talk have been moved from the thread. Future examples of off-topic comments, defamatory statements and trash talk will also be moved from the thread. 

Thank you. 


aad0002*


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 24, 2009)

Vaheguruseekr I just posted you an example from Iran which is the only country I consider to be Islamic. For the rest I leave you to your Brazilian comments.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 24, 2009)

I have shown you one such reference.If you chose to ignore it that's your choice.

Aaad0002 could you please ask Vaheguruseekr to stop insulting me in Brazilian Portuguese? Thanks. My Portuguese comments were a reply to his.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 24, 2009)

Javanard ji

English is the official language of this forum. And upon reading the post by the worthy Vaheguruseekr ji -- what he wrote did not deserve your response. What you wrote in reply does not need to be discussed. Two different levels of conversation. Each person chooses his level of discourse.


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 24, 2009)

Wise words


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 25, 2009)

Javanmard said:


> Vaheguruseekr I just posted you an example from Iran which is the only country I consider to be Islamic.


 
Javanmard,

Thanks for admitting for the first time that you are in denial and reject more than one billion Muslims belonging to the same religion as you claim that you do, for now.

If you were a brave and a truthful person who calls himself a Muslim, then you would declare what your claim in this forum in a Sunni newspaper. But you have shown your bark of a pit bull with dentures.

It is nothing but cowardice on your part to declare that Iran is the only Muslim country in a Sikh forum, which again shows you have no guts, but in the same breath you do admit that violent acts against Muslim women are commited daily by Muslim men like you all around the world and for you to deny that they are Muslims is one more proof that you are living with your head in sand which the Muslim world has plenty of.

It is sad to see people like you who call themselves proud Muslims and ALLAH fearing act as by standers when atrocities are commited by your own brethren. Rather than admitting and then confronting and hence finding the ways to tackle the problems, you chose the low road of denial. It shows your lack of character to say the least and you have exhibited that quite gallantly.

Congratulations!

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Astroboy (Feb 25, 2009)

Page 151, Line 7
ਅੰਧਾ ਅਖਰੁ ਵਾਉ ਦੁਆਉ ॥੩॥੧॥
अंधा अखरु वाउ दुआउ ॥३॥१॥
Anḏẖā akẖar vā▫o ḏu▫ā▫o. ||3||1||
His words are worthless and empty, like the wind. ||3||1||
*Guru Nanak Dev*   -  [SIZE=-1]view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok[/SIZE]


----------



## Javanmard (Feb 25, 2009)

Tejwant you */&%ç*/&ç* I am a Shi'a not a Sunni you morron.I don't care about what Sunnis do.
The day your community stops killing its baby daughters you may start your holier than thou campaign about Iran.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 25, 2009)

> The punishment for adultery in Islam is the same for men and women. Not just women. And yes the punishment for adultery is death.



So you support Death for a minor civil crime like adultery.Good to see the so called liberal muslims supporting such a cruel punishment and still beleive that Muslims should be treated with respect all over the world
Btw law of stoning the is clearly more harsh on women



> BBC NEWS | Middle East | End death by stoning, Iran urged
> The majority sentenced to death by stoning are women, Amnesty says.
> 
> 'Unfair trials'
> ...





> On which legal basis will it base its laws. For laws to be established there needs to be a scriptural basis. If not all you have is the musings of imperfect people. In 1925 the Udasis were banned from the Panth and in teh Anandur Resolution they were reintegrated: did the Panth change its mind?
> And who is the Panth anyway. The only institution that can claim direct link with Guru Gobind Singh is Budha Dal.



Panth itself means all sects who have faith in 10 guru's and who beleive's Guru granth sahib as their living guru.



> Man has to be guided in ALL circumstances by God's law. If not he is outside of God's hukam. The European legal system is based on Roman law and hasn't changed much in terms on its jurisprudential principles. Same with Jewish and Islamic law. For example in Roman law rights of custody used to be based on the principle of "ownership of the field" i.e. a woman's children would belong to the man she marries with. A legal system may change but all these need to be based on principles. These principles in religious systems are to be based on divine revelation. Even with a Guru Panth these decisions must be made on the basis of legal principles otherwise the citizens of that state are faced with an arbitrary system based on the decisions of fallible individuals based on their own will.



I don't understand Your obsession with Laws in scripture.If Islam has perfect divine law then why islam is divided in various sects? Even Talibans beleive that they are imposing
Divine law of god.In India a muslim woman Imrana was raped by father in law and islamic scholars were debating whether she can live with her husband or not .If you people have
perfect Divine law then why this confusion?

BTW i still want to know what is Divine islamic law for Internet crimes?


----------

