Who will Sikhs Support?

[Iqbal_Brar]

Most Sikhs hold more grudges against Muslims as compared to hindus.. so ofcourse they will support Hindus and India

we don't hold grudges against anybody.. you keep repeating that but that goes both ways... most Sikhs generalize all Pakistani muslims after looking at people like Omar1984 and say all Muslims hold ill feelings towards Sikhs... same way you generalize all Sikhs... so really... its a mutual feeling going both ways.. i don't see why you call only one side on it...

secondly, on the topic of fighting for India.. it has nothing to do with siding with Muslims or Hindus... Sikhs are not gaddaars and our loyalty cannot be questioned.. we will fight for India.. especially more so because our land lies within borders of India and that means it is our responsibility do defend it...

Sikhi is as different from hinduism as say buddhism or jainism.All the gurus(using the term loosely including buddha or teeranthkaras) found something wrong in the way hinduism(as we now call it) was being practised at that point in time.All religions thus have there own strands of individuality.Sikhs(talking about just them) do not want their religion to be submeresed into hinduism and want it to be distinct.The more talks out of R.S.S the more they will withdraw into themselves otherwise they had no problem with hindus, they just want to be left alone as far as their religion is concerned.

You're right!! And the most stupid thing is that when a Sikh fights for his distinct identity.. he is called "anti-national" "extremist" "terrorist" "khalistani".. but it is the RSS who is biggest anti-national force in India.. they will not let anyone live in peace.. they are causing problems with sikhs... RSS motive has to be questioned... they try to put hatred between sikhs and other communities.. they want to use sikhs as their personal weapon against other religions... few years ago RSS burned down this church in Punjab and they left back a copy of guru granth sahib to make it look like sikhs did it.. but when police caught them they were Hindu RSS cadres... it is stuff like that which gets our blood boiling.. even recently in Ludhiana when that Bihari baba set up camp there and Sikhs protested... the BJP/RSS people went to his camp with weapons and said they will defend him from sikhs.. they were only trying to anger sikhs.. because they were hiding behind police and doing that.. they will never confront sikhs face to face..

I read somewhere that Ram is mentioned in the gurbani but would like to point out that the Ram that sikhi talks about is not Sri ram that hindus talk about .The ram in sikhi is more akin to the brahma of vedas(The only one).This is a very crude analogy and would require a lot more space,pls excuse if offended anybody.

yes.. ram... shiva.. waheguru... allah.. rabb... all are mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib but all refer to only one god... the message the gurus were trying to send out was that god is one.. it doesn't matter what name you call him... we don't believe that everyone has their own exclusive god... there is only one god who judges everybody.. based on their deeds...

 

[jinxeD_girl]

we don't hold grudges against anybody.. you keep repeating that but that goes both ways... most Sikhs generalize all Pakistani muslims after looking at people like Omar1984 and say all Muslims hold ill feelings towards Sikhs... same way you generalize all Sikhs... so really... its a mutual feeling going both ways.. i don't see why you call only one side on it...

Ok Iqbal Brar sorry.. I take that back... Anywayz, I dont hate Sikhs, neither do I hate hindus.

 

[biplob]

Listen, I tell you again, no Jatt was ever a Guru. I am myself a Jatt so I'd know.

Now lets take this Sikhism's similarity with other religions to another forum. It is off-topic.

Nowhere i said Sikh Gurus were Jatts.

Infact i had said the were all khatris.

The Bedi sub caste which u claimed gurus belonged is part of Khatri clan too.

Check u facts before making smartass comments and calling names .

 

[biplob]

You are right.. this thread is stupid... Most Sikhs hold more grudges against Muslims as compared to Hindus.. so ofcourse they will support Hindus and India

I don't know why some Pakistanis start such stupid threads...

and that guy biplob is annoying... trying to force his beliefs on Sikhs when Sikhs themselves are claiming again and again it is a different religion..

Listen madam,

Dont get into things beyond ur area of awareness which is already very small and narrow.

Stick to issues such as skin colors and how fair & lovely Pakistani ppl look ,type topics on which u seems have abundant knowledge.

 

[RobbieS]

Nowhere i said Sikh Gurus were Jatts.

Infact i had said the were all khatris.

The Bedi sub caste which u claimed gurus belonged is part of Khatri clan too.

Check u facts before making smartass comments and calling names .

I misread your post. You had in fact mentioned that most of the followers were Jatts.

But spare us Sikhs the gyan on Sikhism the next time.

 

[jinxeD_girl]

Listen madam,

Dont get into things beyond ur area of awareness which is already very small and narrow.

Stick to issues such as skin colors and how fair & lovely Pakistani ppl look ,type topics on which u seems have abundant knowledge.

Oh Shutup... !! This is Pakistani forum and I will discuss whatever I like and share my opinions on whatever topic I like..

 

[EjazR]

There is this some weird and bigoted notion among people that there were "religious wars" going on when in fact most of the time it was geo-political wars between different alliances. A mentality still kept from the time of the colonial British who inculcated this.

Someone quoted about Sikh rulers banning cow slaughter, but what about the large number of Mughal and other Muslim rulers who did the same (including surprise surprise Aurangzeb as well) to respect Brahmins and Jains under their rule.

It wasn't just "sikhs" fighting "muslims" to save "hindus". The reality was that the Mughals were allied to the Rajputs in almost all their battles. The Sikh armies included large contingent of Punjabi muslims as well and they fought against the Mughal-Rajput alliance as the colonial hold of the Mughal empire over Punjab became overpowering and finally turned into oppression.

Similarly the Marathas had large number of Muslim soldiers and the Navy consisted of mainly Pashtoon recruits. I could go on and on with such examples. In the Firs War of Independence under Bahadur Shah Zafar, his War cabinet consisted of Hindu Sikhs Muslims all planning and fighting together against the British

Islam came to India at the time of the prophet (SAW) when King Perumal of present day Kerala/Karanatka became the first Indian King to accept Islam in the company of the Prophet himself. Islam has been in the sub-continent for 1400+ years since.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...-mosque-kerala-first-mosque-subcontinent.html

 

[Draft]

.... became the first Indian King to accept Islam in the company of the Prophet himself.....

What does the statement "in the company of the Prophet himself" supposed to mean?

 

[tibetan]

Will Sikhs support and fight against India in case of all out war between India and Pakistan?

sikks are indian and they will support india..........

 

[biplob]

...

Akali Dal (Badal) is a power hungry party, they don't represent Sikhs.. and the most funny thing is you're pointing out their alliance with BJP/RSS to me and you don't even know that Akali Dal (Badal) is the same party which also shakes hands with extremist Sikhs and has allowed the picture of the Bhindrawala to be hung in the main Sikh museum at Amritsar... they play both sides and people like you blindly fall into their trap.. lol.. go learn something about Punjab politics first before talking..

Okay, Akali Dal (Badal) who is currently in power doesn't represent Sikhs ...u alone(with an UN flag) do and knows everything about Sikhism .what an awful try.

What about Navjot singh Siddhu, a BJP MP from Punjab himself who was seen doing Yagnyas and taking names of Hindu god.He must be an apostate for u.

Ohhh.... he is a "prominent Sikh" writer now.. LOL.. you can call him a "prominent writer".. that is it.. otherwise, his views go against the mainstream... he has described himself as not-religious.. and his views on Sikhism are hardly in line with the mainstream Sikh community and they tread the line as blasphemous

... .

Again here u go ,a renowned writer of many books and editor of several news papers like Khuswant singh know nothing about sikh religion .His views on on Sikhism can hardly be in line with the mainstream as he praised the actions of RSS units who saved many Sikh life dUring Delhi riots of 84 .I guess ur views must be main stream Sikhism to the sea of nirvana.

Who is Tariq Ali? And why should we care? As for cow slaughter.. I don't know nor do I care.. all I know is that all animals are the same.. either you don't eat any.. or you eat them all..

No one asking about ur habits or persoanl preferences.
I was talking about Sikh traditions and practices.Cow meat and cow slaughter was banned during sikh rules in predominantly muslim areas.

Dont know Tariq Ali??
How about reading something else beside Khalistani literature.

Worse lay ahead, however. In 1819 the soldiers of Ranjit Singh, the charismatic leader of the Sikhs, already triumphant in northern India, took Srinagar. There was no resistance worth the name. Kashmiri historians regard the 27 years of Sikh rule that followed as the worst calamity ever to befall their country. The principal mosque in Srinagar was closed, others were made the property of the state, cow-slaughter was prohibited and, once again, the tax burden became insufferable – unlike the Mughals, Ranjit Singh taxed the poor. Mass impoverishment led to mass emigration. Kashmiris fled to the cities of the Punjab: Amritsar, Lahore and Rawalpindi became the new centres of Kashmiri life and culture. (One of the many positive effects of this influx was that Kashmiri cooks much improved the local food.)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n08/tariq-ali/bitter-chill-of-winter

 

[biplob]

There is this some weird and bigoted notion among people that there were "religious wars" going on when in fact most of the time it was geo-political wars between different alliances. A mentality still kept from the time of the colonial British who inculcated this.

No thats not exactly true.
Both religious wars and political were going on simultaneously.sometime political wars fought with religious facade.Even the most liberal Mogul ruler Akbar fought Hindu King Hemu on Jihad plank .The Second panipat war had become a holy war Akbar and troops against Hindu Hemu .Later on ,though Akbar tried to be more liberal for the political compulsions and it payed him great dividend.

Someone quoted about Sikh rulers banning cow slaughter, but what about the large number of Mughal and other Muslim rulers who did the same (including surprise surprise Aurangzeb as well) to respect Brahmins and Jains under their rule.

We areno talking about liberal gestures shown by Mogul kings granted in Hindu dominated areas.We are talking about state practices and law of the land at that time.

Ranjit singhji had banned cow slaughter in Muslim dominated areas during his time as the ruler of Punjab as part of state law in accordance with his sikh religion.

India, took Srinagar. There was no resistance worth the name. Kashmiri historians regard the 27 years of Sikh rule that followed as the worst calamity ever to befall their country. The principal mosque in Srinagar was closed, others were made the property of the state, cow-slaughter was prohibited and, once again, the tax burden became insufferable – unlike the Mughals, Ranjit Singh taxed the poor. Mass impoverishment led to mass emigration. Kashmiris fled to the cities of the Punjab: Amritsar, Lahore and Rawalpindi became the new centres of Kashmiri life and culture. (One of the many positive effects of this influx was that Kashmiri cooks much improved the local food.)

LRB · Tariq Ali · Bitter Chill of Winter

It wasn't just "sikhs" fighting "muslims" to save "hindus". The reality was that the Mughals were allied to the Rajputs in almost all their battles. The Sikh armies included large contingent of Punjabi muslims as well and they fought against the Mughal-Rajput alliance as the colonial hold of the Mughal empire over Punjab became overpowering and finally turned into oppression.

Similarly the Marathas had large number of Muslim soldiers and the Navy consisted of mainly Pashtoon recruits. I could go on and on with such examples. In the Firs War of Independence under Bahadur Shah Zafar, his War cabinet consisted of Hindu Sikhs Muslims all planning and fighting together against the British

Again u are going into white washing thats hallmarks of communist historians of india ,but never part of folklore of those regions or hardly measured up against common sense and solid historical evidences.

We are talking about rulers here and their statecraft and laws go ,not some minority supporters from other religions who lend their services in exchange of land grants and money.

The Sikh armies tied up and fought as part of British army during the 1857 Sepoy revolution.
so does that make them look against a national cause??
No,they were just doing their duty as the servants of British east Indian army.

Islam came to India at the time of the prophet (SAW) when King Perumal of present day Kerala/Karanatka became the first Indian King to accept Islam in the company of the Prophet himself. Islam has been in the sub-continent for 1400+ years since

well another designer whitewash attempt.
Islam didn't spread when a lone king in kerela become Muslim at the at the of the prophet.But when Arab general conquered sindh.Muslim rules stated conquering and ruling different part of India in later centuries.
Syrian Christianity came to Kerala even before the the prophet Mahmoud was born ,but it cant spread to nearby Goa until it came under Portuguese rule.

Lets change history according our own conveniences and keep in comfort zones by manipulating it.

 

[EjazR]

What does the statement "in the company of the Prophet himself" supposed to mean?

In Islam anyone who accepted Islam in the company of the Prophet has a special position also known as "Sahabi" OR "Companion"

King Perumal falls in this category.

 

[manish123]

Sikhs, Jains, indian buddhists, hindus will fight for India since it is their motherland.Period.Pls close this thread.Its pure flamebait.

 

[su-47]

Sikhs, Jains, indian buddhists, hindus will fight for India since it is their motherland.Period.Pls close this thread.Its pure flamebait.

as will Indian christians,muslims and atheists. Please don't forget them!

 

[EjazR]

@biplob
It seems that anything that doesn't seem to fit in your pre-conceved notion of "religious warfare" theory is inccoreect or some communist propaganda.

I suggest you read up on Upinder Singh's excellent book
'A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India from Stone Age to the 12th Century’
Incidentally she is MMS daughter and it shows that between short periods of violent invasions greek, mongols turks or arabs or persians - regardless of faith, there were large periods of peace and innovative developments and flowering of cultures.

I give you examples of how muslim rulers had banned cow slaughter to respect sentiments of their subjects, but that is not enough for you. Did you know that even now, the ulema from for example Dar-ul-uloom Deoband issue advisory that sacrificing of Cows should be avoided to prevent hurting the sentiments of Brahmins and other hindus? Please note that Dalits and Tribals and many south Indian Hindus are beef eaters. And infact in Nepal Hindus sacrifice upwards of 200,000+ animals most recently in 2009.

According to Quranic teachings you can't convert a person by force, this is not accepted. And you can't destroy places of worship either. But that doesn't mean that no Muslim ruler has ever done that, they have and they should be condemned. It only means that they were not following Islam properly. However, there is this unsavory practice of exaggerating and coloring everything in religious terms. This is not any different from what some Muslims do as well so I am quite familiar with this.

And Islam didn't spread even after Sindh came under muslim ruler. It was because of the preaching of sufis, their counterpart was the Bhakti movement among Hindus. Coincidentally, these sufis were also very critical of the Muslim rulers as well for not being frugal and leading pompous lives while the poor suffer.
Even until the late 1880s, Punjab was barely 50% muslim and Sindh less than 75% muslim.

It is time to understand that building up religious or ethnic nationalism will not make a nation, history has prove this to us. It has to be composite nationalism. Infact, even if someone migrates to India from the US or Europe for example and passes all the requirements to be an Indian citizen. Then he has all rights to call himself Indian. This was the reason why the US has been successful, where immigrants from all walks of lives are given equal opportunity and have contribute to its growth. This has what India has done for the pat 1000s of years and this is what we should continue to uphold.

India is probably the only country in the world where all ethnic groups and religious groups are found in such large numbers. Infact, India is minor Asia as Iqbal once said. The power in the idea of India is whether the entire world can continue to co-exist as it becomes a smaller place. Lets show them how its done.