Feeds:
Posts
Comments

 

GURBANI VICHAR BY BAHI HARMANPREET SINGH KHALSA
SUKHMANI SAHIB VICHAR ASTPADI NO. 9 SATNZA NO. 3 PART 3
ਭਗਉਤੀ ਭਗਵੰਤ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਾ ਰੰਗੁ ॥
ਸਗਲ ਤਿਆਗੈ ਦੁਸਟ ਕਾ ਸੰਗੁ ॥
ਮਨ ਤੇ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਸਗਲਾ ਭਰਮੁ ॥
ਕਰਿ ਪੂਜੈ ਸਗਲ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ॥
ਸਾਧਸੰਗਿ ਪਾਪਾ ਮਲੁ ਖੋਵੈ ॥
ਤਿਸੁ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਕੀ ਮਤਿ ਊਤਮ ਹੋਵੈ ॥
ਭਗਵੰਤ ਕੀ ਟਹਲ ਕਰੈ ਨਿਤ ਨੀਤਿ ॥
ਮਨੁ ਤਨੁ ਅਰਪੈ ਬਿਸਨ ਪਰੀਤਿ ॥
ਹਰਿ ਕੇ ਚਰਨ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਬਸਾਵੈ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਐਸਾ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਭਗਵੰਤ ਕਉ ਪਾਵੈ ॥੩॥

Blasphemy it is!


Source: http://asiasamachar.com/2017/01/12/blasphemy-it-is/

Blasphemy it is!

Dr Karminder Singh takes a critical look at the recent act of installation of the disputed Bachitar Natak (Book of Strange Drama) in the presence of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (SGGS) at Gurdwara Sahib Titiwangsa, Kuala Lumpur. Any which way one sees it, it is an act of gross blasphemy to the sanctity and spiritual sacredness of SGGS, he argues.

| Opinion | 12 Jan 2017 | Asia Samachar |

 

 

By Karminder Singh PhD (Boston).

What we feared has finally happened. An organization has eventually laid bare its true agenda. A gurdwara in Kuala Lumpur and its sanggat became the first casualty of a disastrous journey down a slippery slope towards blasphemy.

I am referring to the recent act of installation of the disputed Bachitar Natak (Book of Strange Drama) in the presence of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (SGGS) at Gurdwara Sahib Titiwangsa during a program organised by the erroneously named Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Academy.

Any which way one sees it, it is an act of gross blasphemy to the sanctity and spiritual sacredness of our Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

The Panth Parvanit (accepted) and Akal Takht (AT) sanctioned Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) is unequivocally clear in its stipulation regarding the SOLE authority and COMPLETE sacrosancity of the SGGS as our ONE and ONLY Guru who sits on the throne of Sikh Spirituality in the Darbar.

The fifth stipulation under Section 4 titled Gurdwaras on page 13 of the SRM reads:

sRIgurUgRMQswihbjIdyvwkr (qul) iksypusqknUMAsQwpnnhINkrnw[

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Dey Vakar (Tul) Kisey Pustak Nu Asthapan Nahin Karna.

Translation: No other book may be installed in the presence of the SGGS.

The underlying principles are clear. The Gurdwara is the Darbar (Court) of our Spiritual Emperor which is the SGGS ji. There can be, and always is, and always shall be ONLY ONE Emperor in any court at any one time.

The attempt to install ANY OTHER entity in the same Court is an act of treason, betrayal and treachery. In the spiritual sense it is an act of blasphemy. Such acts are the hallmark of traitors whose loyalty lies elsewhere. No Emperor would tolerate such sedition and betrayal.

Hence the clear stipulation in the SRM – NO OTHER BOOK MAY BE INSTALLED.

At the time of the creation of SRM, the other book being alluded to was Bachittar Natak.  Since the name of Bahitar Natak had been changed eight times and more changes were expected, the words “No Other Book” were deemed suitable to cover all such name change eventualities.

 

THE TREACHERY OF IT ALL

The installation of the Bachitar Natak at Gurdwara Titiwangsa was done under the pretext of a normal Gurdwara program to celebrate the 350th Parkash Utshav of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

A copy of the disputed Bachitar Natak was surreptitiously placed in the Sukhasan Room of the SGGS sometime prior to the program, and stored presumably on the same asan as the SGGS ji.

Then under the second pretext of showing a “historical” copy of the Bachitar Natak, the blasphemous act was committed with blatant disregard for the sanctity of the SGGS.

A Manjee, complete with pillows and cushions, was placed on the kirtan stage. One person carried the Bachitar Natak – fully wrapped up in white sukhasan cloth – on his head, with another following with Chaur waiving.

The Bachitar Natak was placed on the Manjee. The individual then bowed (metha tekna) to the Bachitar Natak – his head touching the floor. The opening of the book was then conducted. The palkan (side rumalas) were installed. And the main rumala was placed over it. All along the Chaur was waived.

The installation of a rival to the SGGS ji was thus deceitfully accomplished.

The sangat appeared to have been caught by surprise. The portion of sanggat (congregation) that constituted as members and supporters of the Academy may have been on it. In any event the Sanggat sat passive and bore witness to the highest act of blasphemy in front of their eyes.

The treachery was complete. The blasphemy had taken place. But there was more to come.

 

ENSURING THE LEGACY OF THE BLASPHEMY.

The speaker from the Academy then went on to provide the fraudulent “maryada” of the “parkash of Sri Dasam Granth” as practiced in the Lakhee Janggal Dera – one of the many deras where such blasphemy is conducted on a daily basis.

He says that the “Dasam Granth is always parkash on the left of the SGGS.” He goes on to say “it is always installed a few inches lower than the platform of the SGGS.”

It was a conniving attempt to “legitimize” something blasphemous. He makes it appear that “the rules of parkash” of BachitarNatak are the norm in Gurdwaras across the Sikh world.

The narrative laid bare the ultimate agenda of the Academy. Clearly and in no uncertain terms. The dubious “maryada” was stated with a pre-determined purpose: which is that the Bachitar Natak can and ought to be installed in our local Gurdwaras.

The dubious “maryada” was stated with another pre-determined purpose: that all Malaysian Gurdwaras can end their spiritual loyalty to the ONE and ONLY SGGS, and install the rival Bachittar Natak.

 

THE COVER IS FINALLY BLOWN

This was no attempt to display any “historical” copy of the disputed Bachitar Natak. It was also not a narrative of the so called “maryada” of a dera. It was a tutorial on how to install the Bachitar Natak. How to do its “parkash” at your local Gurdwara.

It was a ‘HOW TO” lesson. How to go back to your Gurdwara and repeat the blasphemy of Titiwangsa when the opportunity arises.

It was an instruction lecture on how to install Bachitar Natak as the second entity in the Court of the SGGS ji.

It was a coaching session on how to make a mockery of the clear stipulation in the SRM that says NO OTHER book can be installed in the presence of the SGGS ji.

It was a preparation session on how to justify this blatant act when questioned by enlightened and awakened members of the sangat.

 

CREATING SMOKE SCREENS.

The fall-out has been fast and severe. The Malaysian Gurdwaras Council (MGC) issued a strong condemnation of the act, promising more severe follow-up action.

Gurdwaras have put their committees and sangats on alert. The direction and advice from MGC is eagerly awaited for Gurdwaras to initiate their own actions against the Academy.

In the quest to blur the glaring act of blasphemy and to pull wool over the eyes of Malaysian Sikhs, the Academy and its apologists have spun arguments that qualify as hogwash. Some of their claims are as follows:

  • No disrespect whatsoever was shown to the SGGS.

The Academy and its blasphemy-supporting people must surely have a distorted understanding of “disrespect.”

Installing a disputed book – large portions of which are against the teachings of the SGGS and cannot even be read out aloud in the sanggat due to its graphic sexual content – is not mere disrespect. It is an act of treachery, disloyalty, and treason.

  • There was no chandowa over the Bachittar Natak, they say.

Such a lame excuse sounds like the infamous and immoral former president of a country who said he smoked marijuana a lot but did not inhale.

What about the multitude of acts that are reserved ONLY for the SGGS that were carried out on this disputed book. What about the fact that it was carried on someone’s head – an act reserved on for our SGGS? What about it being wrapped as SGGS is, and subjected to Chaur Sewa as the SGGS is?

What about the fact that the Bachittar Natak was installed with palkan and rumaley as the SGGS is, and bowed down to IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SGGS?

  • It was taken away after a short while. No permanent “parkash” was undertaken.

What is left unsaid is the fact that this is a PRELUDE to a permanent installation. It is to mentally PREPARE our sanggats to accept the dubious book as well as it its equally dubious installation.

This prelude is meant to CONDITION the sanggat that WHEN a permanent installation is sought, it would not be such a shocker.

It is to set a PRECEDENT, so that other Gurdwaras can say “but it was done in Titiwangsa Gurdwara” so “what is the biggie in our Gurdwara?”

  • No one should have the audacity to question our respect for the Guru.

What the Academy truly wants to say is “No one should have the audacity to question our DISRESPECT to the Guru.”

Enlightened Sikhs will rise to the occasion and ensure that such agendas are not realised. Blasphemy does not take away audacity, it fuels it.

  • People have used the Chaur over the sandals of Mata Gujri ji so whats the biggie over Chaur being waived of the Bachitar Natak?

Trying to justify a mistake with a previous one is the trademark of twisted minds. But by comparison, however, the mistake of doing Chaur over the slippers may be one that is the result of ignorance.

But the use of Chaur over a disputed book was blasphemy that was pre-meditated.

 

THE OPPOSITION TO EK GRANTH

IN the months leading to blasphemous installation of the Bachitar Naatak at Gurdwara Titiwangs, the Academy and its apologists carried out vicious, rabid, and venomous opposition to the Ek Granth, Ek Panth, Ek Maryada initiative of Malaysian Sikh sanggats led by the MGC.

Two individuals tried to disrupt a Ek Granth program at a local Gurdwara. One stood up in the diwan pretending to ask questions while the Ek Granth katha was ongoing. When asked to sit down by the sangat, a second one stoop up and mouthed vulgarites in the sangat.

An attempted assault on one of the Ek Granth parcharaks by flinging a brick at the car was subsequently undertaken.

Attempts were made to disrupt Ek Granth forums, diwans and katha at two other Gurdwaras – in Ipoh and Selangor. The attempts fizzled out, but not before laying bare the agenda of the Bachitar Natak apologists.

The agenda is now crystal clear.

We are now clear why its apologists were hell bent on disrupting Ek Granth launches, sessions and katha programs.

We are now also clear why the apologists resorted to using depraved methods involving threats and slander of EK Granth parcharaks and MGC leaders on fake ID facebook accounts.

We are further clear as to why the apologists tried so desperately to physically disrupt and stop Ek Granth progams organised by Gurdwara committees and sanggats.

We are finally clear why at least one desperate soul tried to take down the Ek Granth banners posted in 120 gurdwaras nationwide.

We are clear that the above mentioned tactics were methods of desperation undertaken to PREPARE for the installation of the OTHER book – Bachitar Natak.

 

THE ROLE OF PATNA CLERGY IN THE BLASPHEMY

The blasphemous act at Titiwangsa was timed to fit into a global agenda to install the rival Bachitar Natak in as many Gurdwaras worldwide as possible during the 350th Celebration of the Parkash Utsav of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

There were seminars, talks and workshops on Bachitar Natak. There was a Nagar Kirtan in Mumbai with the Bachitar Natak being placed within a palki, complete with rumalley and chaur sewa.

But most notable is the issuance of a “hukumnamma” by the clergy of Patna – mandating that the Bachitar Natak (renamed Dasam Granth) be installed at local Gurdwaras.

Enlightened Sikhs are aware that the clergy of Patna have no authority to issue any “hukumnama”. Only the Akal Takht has the authority to issue edicts of any kind. And that, too, is prescribed by the provisions of the Sikh Reht Maryada (SRM) and Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) protocol.

Enlightened Sikhs are also aware that the clergy of Patna is in gross violation of the Constitution of the Panth – the SRM. Transgressors forfeit the right to advise and dictate to others. They are, therefore, best ignored.

 

THE PATNA “HUKUMNAMA” AS A TOOL FOR ANTI SIKH FORCES

Notwithstanding all the above, the so called “hukumnama” of the Patna clergy was timed and issued with a conniving purpose.

The anti-SGGS agenda constituted the world wide installation of the Bachitar Natak by DEVIOUS means on the 5th of January as Parkash Utsav of our Tenth Guru. OPPOSITION  and RESISTANCE from Sikhs worldwide was to be naturally expected.

The Patna “hukumnama” was the tool to rebut the enlightened Sikhs. It was meant to be read out, posted widely, and used to SILENCE any and all Sikhs who opposed the installation of the Bachitar Natak.

The 5th of January was supposed to have been a D-day for Sikhs across the world. Sikhs in as many Gurdwaras possible were to be greeted with a rival Granth installed side by side the SGGS as they turned up in the morning to celebrate the Parkash Utsav of their beloved Guru.

SEE ALSO: Dasam Granth ‘parkash’ in Kuala Lumpur serious transgression of maryada, says MGC 

Many were expected to oppose the “overnight installation” of Bachitar Natak in their Gurdwaras. The proponents of Bachitar Natak would then take to the stage and read out the Patna Clergy issued “hukumnama” that sanctioned the installation of the rival Granth.  This modus operandi is seen recorded and posted on Youtube relating at least one UK Gurdwara.

In Malaysia, one can only thank the MGC for its swift condemnation and written advise to Gurdwaras nationwide to be on the alert.

 

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO HALT THE AGENDA OF TWO GRANTHS TWO PANTHS TWO MARYADAS.

The MGC must rise to the occasion to provide leadership to the Malaysian Gurdwaras and Sanggats and to hold the Academy accountable for its divisive acts.

The Coalition must step up its efforts to educate the Malaysian sanggats regarding the Leadership of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

Gurdwaras across the country are called upon to hold EK GRANTH EK PANTH AND EK MARYADA diwans and programs for their local sangats. The MGC provides parcharaks, material and advice in this regard. Many Gurdwaras have already done so and are thus safe from the problem of a rival granth.

The sangats must stand up to defend the SOLE authority and sanctity of the SGGS ji in their respective Gurdwaras. Under no circumstances should any sanggat allow a rival granth to be displayed, installed or treated like the SGGS in the presence of the SGGS.

EKA BANI EK GUR EKO SHABAD VICHAAR should be the guiding principle of every Sikh.

 

Karminder-mugshot2

Karminder Singh Dhillon, PhD (Boston) writes on Gurbani and Gurmat issues in The Sikh Bulletin, USA. He also conducts Gurbani Katha in local Gurdwaras. He is based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

  • This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of the Asia Samachar.

 

[ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs in Southeast Asia and surrounding countries. We have a Facebook page, do give it a LIKE! Visit our website: http://www.asiasamachar.com]


The importance of the Guru Granth Sahib to Sikhs

The metaphor ‘living Guru’ emphasises the importance of the Guru Granth Sahib to Sikhs. Unfortunately, as we see in some gurdwaras, some Sikhs take this too literally. I think it is better to describe it as the embodiment of the Gurus’ teachings and the SOLE perpetual guidance for all Sikhs. We emphasise the importance of the Guru Granth Sahib every time we conclude the Ardas with: ‘Saab Sikhan ku hukum ha Guru Manio Granth.’

With this clear injunction in mind, why the deafening silence from Sikh leaders and Sikh organisations about the antics of those in Patna Sahib who have placed the cleverly named Dasam Granth alongside the Guru Granth Sahib? Why the silence over the action of the Jathedhar there asking us, on the 350th anniversary of the birth of Guru Gobind Singh, to ignore the Guru’s clear injunction on the primacy of the Guru Granth Sahib and say, ’Guru manio Granth and Dasam Granth’.

Those who have studied the Dasam Granth will know that for the most part it consists of praises of Hindu avtars, denigration of women and frankly pornographic tales. Could there be a greater insult to our Gurus and the world Sikh community than placing such writings, wholly contrary to the Gurus’ teaching, alongside the Guru Granth Sahib?

Sikhs should wake up and ask, why has the government of India spent hundreds of crores of rupees printing and distributing the Dasam Granth, other than to dilute and Hinduise Sikh teachings?  Something the Punjab government did a few years earlier for similar motives.

The Network of Sikh Organisations UK (NSO), has consistently emphasised that the Guru Granth Sahib is the sole religious guidance for Sikhs and we should shun all sants, babas and now politicians and self-seeking Jathedhars who would have us believe otherwise. This is the position of the NSO.

What though is the position of the Sikh Council, The Sikh Federation, the Sikh Network, Ramgarhia Council, City Sikhs, British Sikh Federation, Nishkam Seva Jatha (whose leader Mohinder Singh is in Patna) and similar organisations in the USA, Canada and other parts of the world. The world Sikh community is entitled to clear unequivocal answers and action from those who claim to represent them. Silence also speaks volumes.

Indarjit (Lord Singh of Wimbledon CBE Director Network of Sikh Organisations)

Source: http://nsouk.co.uk/the-importance-of-the-guru-granth-sahib-to-sikhs/


Read more here: ApehGurchela – KhalsaNews

 



I found this open letter a rather interesting read.

Source: http://indiafacts.org/open-letter-saif-ali-khan-must-pataudi-brides-convert-islam-marry/

Open Letter to Saif Ali Khan: Why must Pataudi brides convert to Islam to marry?

A response to an article in the Indian Express of Saif Ali Khan regarding conversions and Love Jihad.

(Note: This piece was sent by an IndiaFacts reader, supporter and well-wisher who wishes to remain anonymous. You can follow the author on Twitter at )

Dear Mr Saif Ali Khan,

This is in response to your article in the Indian Express, available online at this link:  http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/intermarriage-is-not-jihad-it-is-india/99/

You begin by stating, “I am the son of a sportsman”. At the risk of sounding crass, may I ask if you are the son of a single parent? After all, you haven’t mentioned anything about your mother. I find it strange that at the beginning of your piece, you omit any reference to your female parent but somewhere in the middle of your article, you say, “It is like saying women don’t have a part to play in India.” If you forget to mention your mother’s role yourself, how can you object to others who ignore the role of women in society?

Next you claim, “I am more Indian than any Hindu or Muslim I know because I am both.” May I ask how you are Hindu and Muslim ‘both’ when both your parents are Muslims? In 1998, you had said that “My grandmother was the centre for all our religious education. (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm).” The context indicated that you were talking of your paternal grandmother, and the language implied that she was the only centre for all your religious education. As your paternal grandmother was Muslim and she was the only ‘centre for all (y)our religious education’, how could you be Muslim and Hindu ‘both’?

As a child in England, you told your headmaster that you are “a Muslim (sic)” in order to get the privilege of waking up late. As an adult  in India, are you telling your readers that you are Hindu and Muslim ‘both’ in order to enjoy the privileges being secular brings?

May I ask how you are Hindu and Muslim ‘both’ when both your parents are Muslims?

Next, on your parents’ marriage, you say, “The royals had their issues; the Brahmins theirs.” By the word ‘royals’ if you mean your father’s family, then don’t you think that the word ‘feudal’ would be more appropriate for them? On the other hand, by the word ‘Brahmins’ if you mean your mother’s family, then may I know why you refer to their caste? While writing about ‘issues’ created by the two sides, you conceal the ethnic identity of your father’s side but reveal the religious identity of your mother’s side. Why?

Pataudi Sharmila

You then allege that “extremists on both religious sides issued death threats.” May we know at least a few details of those who  issued these death threats—a few things like when, where and how? And it would also help if you told us what action your parents took against these intimidators? Till the time you publish some evidence of this allegation, people will have a few doubts about it. You see, such assertions will lead to these logical questions:

While writing about ‘issues’ created by the two sides, you conceal the ethnic identity of your father’s side but reveal the ethnic identity of your mother’s side.

First, why would the ‘extremists’ on your father’s side issue any threat when he (a) did not discard his religion, and (b) got your mother to embrace his? Wasn’t it a win-win situation for his side? Second, how is it that your mother could discard her parental religion despite ‘extremists’ on that side supposedly issuing death threats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmila_Tagore#Personal_life)? In the forty-four years since that marriage, how many attempts have been made on her life by those ‘extremists’? Or, in the forty-one years that your father lived after the marriage, how many attempts were made on his life?

Instead of substantiating your allegation, you declare, “But the marriage still happened — the fact that my grandmother also had to fight to marry the not-as-wealthy and therefore not-so-suitable nawab of Pataudi might have helped things along.” Even here, it is clear that by the word ‘grandmother’ you mean your father’s mother. Though, in all probability, it was she who insisted on your mother converting to Islam—http://www.magnamags.com/stardust/blast-from-the-past/SHARMILA-TAGORE-%E2%80%93-WHAT-I-REMEMBER%E2%80%A6-AND-WHAT-I-WANT-TO-FORGET/3235.

Mr. Saif, if you consider acceptance of Islam to be the most important aspect for a marriage, then you may well credit your paternal grandmother for having ‘helped things along.’ In that sense, the fact that your Oxford-educated father did not object to her insistence of getting your mother converted must also have ‘helped things along.’ On the other hand, if you ever accept your mother’s mother as your grandmother too, you may realize that it was she who actually ‘helped things along.’ Had she and her husband (your maternal grandfather) asked your father to convert to Hinduism, chances are the marriage would never have happened. Even if they had insisted that their daughter retain her religion, the marriage might not have happened. It is because they did not think of religion at all that the marriage happened. Isn’t this a more logical explanation? The credit, if any, for your parents’ marriage should go to your maternal grandparents (who were Hindus) and not your paternal grandmother (who was Muslim).

Saif - Amrita

Then you write, “We grew up on real-life romantic stories about our elders marrying for love and not worrying too much about tradition.” May I ask which tradition was it that your elders did not worry ‘too much about’? Here’s a pointer to the answer: were you ever told any story of inter-religious love culminating in marriage without the non-Muslim partner becoming Muslim?

You then allege, “When Kareena and I married, there were similar death threats”. Are you sure that such a serious allegation is not merely your attempt to play victim? The same questions that I asked you on the matter in the connection of your parents’ marriage apply equally to you: how, where, when, and what action did you take? And if you have not taken any action against them, we have a right to know why.

In the two years since your marriage, how many attempts have been made on your lives by those who issued the death threats? If death threats were received during your parents’ marriage and also during your second marriage, how is it that there were no such threats after your first marriage – when you married Amrita Singh?

Instead of substantiating your allegations, you say, “When we purified our new home, we had a havan and a Quran reading”. Well, the fact is that the former does not preclude the latter – it is the latter which denigrates the former. The ‘havan’ says nothing against Islamic readings whereas the ‘Quran’ is virulently against non-Islamic practices.

were you ever told any story of inter-religious love culminating in marriage without the non-Muslim partner becoming Muslim?

Next you lament that “Our religions are based on fear.” Isn’t this an attempt to play the balancing game? Just because Abrahamic religions like Islam ‘are based on fear’, do you have to paint Dharmic faiths like Sanatan Dharma with the same brush? With playful gods like Krishna and colourful festivals like Holi, how can Sanatan Dharma / Hinduism ever be ‘based on fear’? Hindus can make fun of their Gods with complete freedom, without the fear of having their throats cut. I suppose you know what will happen if as much as an unkind letter is said about Allah. If Dharmic faiths were ‘based on fear’, would your mother and your first wife have lived peacefully after discarding these faiths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrita_Singh)?

And then you write, “The Old Testament spoke of a Promised Land”. How is it that you have written of the Old Testament in this article but not of the Rig Veda or Bhagavad Gita? As you have claimed to be Hindu and Muslim ‘both’, why is there no evidence of your knowledge of Hindu scriptures? Or, as I asked earlier, was that claim only to get the privilege of being ‘secular’?

Next you say, “I know good people are scared of marrying their daughters to Muslims.” Do you mean to say that Muslims are happy to get their own daughters married to non-Muslims? If they are, why do so many Muslims keep their daughters covered from head to toe or get them married (to Muslims, of course) during puberty itself?

And further, “I have always thought of Islam as the moon, the desert, calligraphy and flying carpets, the thousand and one nights.” Isn’t it strange that you have written of what you ‘always thought of Islam’ but not what you ever thought of Hinduism? How is it that you thought of ‘the moon’ but not of Surya the sun god, ‘the desert’ but not of the Himalaya mountains, ‘calligraphy’ but not of Ajanta paintings, of ‘the thousand and one nights’ but not the Mahabharata? May I, once again, point to your claim of being Hindu and Muslim ‘both’?

On Islam, you also write, “I have always thought about it as a religion of peace and submission.” Is that the reason for your mother and your first wife ‘submitting’ to Islam as a prerequisite to getting married into the Pataudi family?

If Dharmic faiths were ‘based on fear’, would your mother and your first wife have lived peacefully after discarding these faiths

Then you claim, “The good news is that no one needs to convert from their religion to get married. The Special Marriage Act, when applicable, is the paramount law of the land.” Well, the Special Marriage Act was in effect from 1954 (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/4234/) and your parents got married fifteen years later in 1969 – did you ever ask them why your mother needed to convert from her religion instead of getting married under that Act?

And then, “A major concern in today’s India is that we keep deleting our past.” Well, Mr. Saif, it is not ‘in today’s India’ that the deleting of our past has started. It started in medieval India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath#Timeline) itself, and was brutal, barbaric and prolonged.

And then you try your hand at victim mongering with, “To say Muslims don’t have a role in India is denying their importance and contribution.” Isn’t this another attempt to play victim? Otherwise, when you want to discuss the ‘importance and contribution’ of Muslims in India, would you also discuss their role in killing millions of Hindus and destroying thousands of temples since the medieval ages? Also, Mr. Saif, can we openly discuss the role of Muslims in the forced conversions of Hindus and in the Partition of India?

Saif Kareena

Continuing this streak of Islamic victimhood, you ask, “Why do we need to deny Islam?” Isn’t this an example of the old Latin saying suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (suppress the truth & suggest the false)? You not only suppress the truth that it is Islam which denies the validity of Dharmic faiths but you also speak the untruth that Islam is being denied its validity by Dharmic faiths!

And although your mother and your first and second wife (Kareena Kapoor Khan) converted to Islam for marriage and your siblings and your children are all Muslims, you claim, “I don’t know what ‘love jihad’ is.” This being the reality of the record of your family’s marriages, and you still claim that you don’t know what ‘love jihad’ is, it can only mean that you know well what hypocrisy is.

With the same hypocrisy, you claim, “I know intermarriages because I am a child of one and my children are born out of it.” Isn’t this a double whammy of the Latin saying suppressio veri, suggestio falsi?

Mr. Saif, can we openly discuss the role of Muslims in the forced conversions of Hindus and in the Partition of India?

First, you suppress the truth that your mother converted to your father’s religion for marriage and then suggest the untruth that theirs was an ‘intermarriage’! Second, you suppress the truth that your first wife too converted to your religion for marriage and then suggest the untruth that yours was an ‘intermarriage’! May I know how they could have been ‘intermarriages’, in any meaningful manner, when both the spouses (in both the marriages) follow the same religion whether by birth or by conversion? For it to be a true ‘intermarriage’, the basic requirement must be that the spouses follow different religions – correct? The moment one of them converts to the other’s religion, both of them have the same religion – right? How can the marriage between spouses who have the same religion be an ‘intermarriage’?

Without understanding what a true ‘intermarriage’ is, you assert, “India is a mix.” In that case, why did your family homogenise that ‘mix’ by getting the brides converted to the grooms’ religion? Even if the brides converted ‘voluntarily’, it would only mean that they were liberal – not their grooms. In fact, more than the brides, their maiden families (your maternal grandparents and your previous in-laws, respectively) were the true liberals since they did not object to the conversions of their daughters. What does that say about your family which insisted on (or, at least, were happy with) the conversions of their daughters-in-law?

In order to prove your family’s secularism, you claim, “I am the product of such a mixed marriage and my life has been full of Eid and Holi”. Aren’t you practising the Islamic concept of taqiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya) here? Are you sure that you celebrated Holi all your life? As a child, weren’t you threatened by your Muslim servants that playing Holi would result in being “flayed in heaven with cat–o–nine–tails” (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)? When the atmosphere at your home was so Hinduphobic, how can you claim that your ‘life has been full of Eid and Holi’?

How can the marriage between spouses who have the same religion be an ‘intermarriage’?

You top up that taqiyya with another one when you claim, “We were taught to do adaab and namaste with equal reverence.” If you ‘were taught to do adaab and namaste with equal reverence’, how is it that you spoke of ‘adaab’ alone as coming “naturally” to you in 1998 (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)? Had your family really been so open-minded, why is it that “the servants were all devout Muslims?” (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)

And one more taqiyya follows, “My children were born Muslim but they live like Hindus (with a pooja ghar at home), and if they wanted to be Buddhist, they would have my blessing. That’s how we were brought up.”

Had your upbringing really been so secular, how is it that your mother and your first wife converted to Islam? Had you really  been brought up that way, why did you say that “With my maternal grandparents I never discussed religion?” (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/august98/saif.htm)

Pretending to be secular, you write, “It is our differences that make us who we are.” May I know why your family wiped out the differences by getting the daughters-in-law converted to Islam?

Then you lament, “We are most certainly not a secular country.” Isn’t it quite pathetic to assert that you are a secular family but we ‘are not a secular country’?

  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would your mother have been so popular even after discarding the majority religion?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would your father have been so popular even after getting his wife to convert to a minority religion?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would you have been so popular even after getting both your wives converted to a religion which caused the Partition of this country?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would so many Presidents, Vice-Presidents, one Prime Minister, Chief Justices, Governors, Chief Ministers, Army Chiefs, Navy Chiefs, Air Chiefs, Police Chiefs, sports stars, film stars etc. be from ‘minority’ communities? In fact, is there ANY other country where considerable numbers of people from minority communities have risen to such positions?
  • Had we not been ‘a secular country’, would the population percentage of the largest ‘minority’ been increasing every census?

As you have relatives in the neighbouring country of Pakistan, would you kindly tell us whether that country also should become secular or grow more and more Islamic?

And finally, towards the end, you write, “Teach our children about god and his thousand names”.

Well, dharmic faiths like Sanatana Dharma believe not only in ‘thousand names’ of god but in millions of gods. In fact, pagans like Hindus believe not only in male gods (for whom you have used the pronoun ‘his’) but also female deities. Perhaps, you and the male members of your family could learn some true secularism from them. So there is no need for you to teach Hindus what they already know.

And if you still haven’t understood, here it is: the Pataudi family’s precondition that non-Muslim brides must convert to Islam in order to marry its male members is but one of the ways in which Love Jihad is practiced.

Thanking You,
Sincerely Yours ,

A communal, bigoted, Hindu fascist


Are the vaarans and kabits of Bhai Gurdas g the ‘key’ to deciphering the Guru Granth Sahib?

The answer is a resounding NO.

If for some reason you believe they are, then you clearly have not taken time to study the Guru Granth Sahib.

Did any Guru g bestow any sort of authority to Gurdas g’s vaaran. Answer is a  NO.

The next question you should logically ask yourself is; what or who or where exactly is the ‘key’ to the ‘lock’ and what or who or where  is this ‘lock’… … and so forth.