[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Don't apologize to allah. Apologize to the first sikh person you see today.
[/QUOTE]
What rubbish.
Why would inquiring about the validity of hearsay warrant an apology?
She heard something,
didn't beleive it straight away,
and rather wanted to know if anyone had answers or views regarding it?
Nothing wrong with that.
How can asking about something (they don't know about) and actually believing it to be true straight up be equated?
well indeed there is a great deal of animosity among the sikhs and the muslims historically and if you read the sikhs scritptures there is indeed great deal of venom against the muslims but you must understand here that the context of the animosity and the history surrounding it
actually sikh religion was basically a sufi religion which baba guru nank founded to find a middle way between hindusim and islam and sikhism in indeed a mixture of these 2. but what happened latter was that the muslims rulers of the time did not like a emergence of a new religion which challenged thier belief and infact there was equal opposition to it from the hindu educated class. but since the muslims were in power it was primarily the muslims who saw it as a threat and hence persecuted the sikhs esp thier leaders so thats what brings the hatred . the last guru of the sikhs guru gobind singh was born in exile his father was put to death by the mughal rulers and hence guru gobindh singh became a symbol of the sikh resistance against the mughals or muslims
but the present generation of the sikhs must realise that what happened at that time was more of a political clash of ruling mughals against the sikhs and not exactly a muslim versus sikh clash because a great number of muslims used to fight in sikh army esp pathans
as far as present generation of sikhs are concerned i dont see a great deal of anti muslim feeling among them yes i did notice it among te old bones the partition types but the present generation of sikhs seems to be much friendly towards muslims
i personally know a lot of Sikhs and to date, none of them, even for once, said a word against Islam or Muslims. They dont' hate us and we dont' hate them. it was all in the past and the new generations (including my dad's generation) of both sides understand that.
well indeed there is a great deal of animosity among the sikhs and the muslims historically and if you read the sikhs scritptures there is indeed great deal of venom against the muslims
<<<
Kabir, can you please name the scriptures and few specific quotes from those scriptures condeming the muslims and Islam?
actually sikh religion was basically a sufi religion which baba guru nank founded to find a middle way between hindusim and islam and sikhism in indeed a mixture of these 2. but what happened latter was that the muslims rulers of the time did not like a emergence of a new religion which challenged thier belief and infact there was equal opposition to it from the hindu educated class. but since the muslims were in power it was primarily the muslims who saw it as a threat and hence persecuted the sikhs esp thier leaders so thats what brings the hatred . the last guru of the sikhs guru gobind singh was born in exile his father was put to death by the mughal rulers and hence guru gobindh singh became a symbol of the sikh resistance against the mughals or muslims
<<<
To your surpise I agree 100% with that...plus there were Muslims in the guru Gobind singh's army. Actually one muslim named Pir Budhu Shah saved Guru Gobind singh's live and fought for the guru sacrificing few of his own sons in the battle.
but the present generation of the sikhs must realise that what happened at that time was more of a political clash of ruling mughals against the sikhs and not exactly a muslim versus sikh clash because a great number of muslims used to fight in sikh army esp pathans
<<<
you just contradicted yourself. In previous paragraph you say Muslim rulers did not like the emregence of Sikh religion so they tried to quell it. Now you say it was a political clash. What was it? Please clarify.
Kabir, I think Muslim rulers were using religious sentiment to win support of native muslims by raising the slogan of islam khtaray main hai and to strengthen their rule in the region. Remember all major players in the Mughal court and Afghan court were non-native Muslims. I have not seen a single Punjabi muslman name in a influential position in the whole Muslim rule of 1000 years in India. If I am wrong please name a few.
Your problem is you want to claim Aurganzeb, Jahangir and others as role models of Islam and Ghazis who ruled with a big joota on our kafir ass for 1000 years but at the same time you claim they were very secular and did not meant any harm to the Sikh religion just following the rule of law.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChannMahi: *
Kabir, can you please name the scriptures and few specific quotes from those scriptures condeming the muslims and Islam?
WELL all you have to do is to go to the golden temple in amritsar you have all sorts of pictures depicting sikhs being tortured by bearded muslims any young sikh who visits the place will come out hating muslims more
you just contradicted yourself. In previous paragraph you say Muslim rulers did not like the emregence of Sikh religion so they tried to quell it. Now you say it was a political clash. What was it? Please clarify.
well what iam trying to say it that it was the ruling class of muslims or muslim rulers who were againt the emergence of the new cult but this does not mean that the average muslim of that time esp the punjabi muslim was against the sikhs thats not true
Your problem is you want to claim Aurganzeb, Jahangir and others as role models of Islam and Ghazis who ruled with a big joota on our kafir ass for 1000 years but at the same time you claim they were very secular and did not meant any harm to the Sikh religion just following the rule of law.
[/QUOTE]
well where on earth did i suggest that? i have never ever condoned what the muslim rulers did? and its for the present generation of sikhs to understand that what happened around that era was a political clash and not a clash of religions there are people among hindu and sikh community who keep chanting of aurangzeb ghazni etc at the same time completly ignoring the fact that there were great number of muslim sufis and other muslims who secular and peace loving for eg why is it not mentioned again and again that the land where golden temple stands today was donated by muslim? who was baba farid the revered punjabi saint? who was bulle shah? were they not muslims? what about heer ranjha? soni mahiwal ? mirza sahiban? were they muslims or were the related to aurangzeb?
Kabir, yes we all love Baba Farid, Heer, Sohni, and our bulleh shah but that does not take away the point that I raised. All these persons were very small fishes at the time and had no say in the state of affairs. We are talking about the people who were at the helm of state affairs and used religion to stay there but you now call them great ghazis.
BTW I did notice the two questions in my post that you totally avoided. where are quotes and name of scripture? Believe me if you produce one I will condenm it unlike you skirting around the issue with rhetoric.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChannMahi: *
...BTW I did notice the two questions in my post that you totally avoided. where are quotes and name of scripture? Believe me if you produce one I will condenm it unlike you skirting around the issue with rhetoric.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think he meant that the religion of Sikhism endorses hate against Muslims. What he meant was that the hatred originated from the clash between a Muslim ruler and Sikhs and not because Sikhs' scripture says so.
Changez, thats fine and dandy with me..either way. but read what Kabir wrote again.
"well indeed there is a great deal of animosity among the sikhs and the muslims historically and if you read the sikhs scritptures there is indeed great deal of venom against the muslims "
He seems to be very convinced about this stuff.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChannMahi: *
Kabir, yes we all love Baba Farid, Heer, Sohni, and our bulleh shah but that does not take away the point that I raised. All these persons were very small fishes at the time and had no say in the state of affairs. We are talking about the people who were at the helm of state affairs and used religion to stay there but you now call them great ghazis.
BTW I did notice the two questions in my post that you totally avoided. where are quotes and name of scripture? Believe me if you produce one I will condenm it unlike you skirting around the issue with rhetoric.
[/QUOTE]
well my friend i had been to golden temple some time back i really admired the place and the devotion of the pilgrims there but there was a building inside the premises where they had huge portraits of muslims torturing sikh gurus any young child who visits that place will come out hating muslims. not just that particular place but i found pictures all over punjab where they show sikh warrior fighting muslims and the muslims in the pictures are bearded men. imagine been fed with this sort of anti muslim stuff all the time no doubt there will be hatred for muslim men in beard
Kabir, Then the holocaust museum must also be very hateful for you?
ps: I don't think highlighting bad stuff in history achieves anything in the long run, it does create bitterness but denying it also does the same. If one must take higher ground by denying, other must remind as a reality check. There is no doubt that this denying and reminding has been going on on both sides but a far cry from "" if you read the sikhs scritptures there is indeed great deal of venom against the muslims "
Imagine being fed that there is one god only and that land of one religion is the land of peace and the rest is of non-believers. Imagine being fed that the perfect society existed 1500 years ago or that infidels are your enemies...imagine being fed that jews, christian and idolators are responsible for your current condition of impotence and the fault always lies with those lesser people who have not gotten the supposed divine message. Imagine what kind of inbred hatred that would cause and the violent repurcussions thereafter.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Imagine being fed that there is one god only and that land of one religion is the land of peace and the rest is of non-believers. Imagine being fed that the perfect society existed 1500 years ago or that infidels are your enemies...imagine being fed that jews, christian and idolators are responsible for your current condition of impotence and the fault always lies with those lesser people who have not gotten the supposed divine message. Imagine what kind of inbred hatred that would cause and the violent repurcussions thereafter.
[/QUOTE]
imagine someone worshipping wild monkeys, snakes and elephants....imagine people taking bath in a river of piss....imagine what kind of idiocy it would spread and fun part is those who do it dont even know that....
first of all, as far as i know six biggest religions of the world (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddism, Sikhism and Hinduism) all basically in the end teach that there is only one GOD (superme Being). ok first three explicitly believe in one God, but the later three, also ultimately believe that everything comes from ONE thing and goes back to it. Buddism calls it Nirvana and even though i forgot my grade 12 religion class, i do remember that there was a name given to the SUPEREME BEING in Hinduism, so i went to the following site and got the following.
**“Hindu dharma accepts the existence of several Gods or deities, it accepts only one God, the Supreme.
Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. are not three independent and separate deities, but three different aspects of the same Supreme God, while engaged in the processes of creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe, in that order” **from http://www.hindunet.org/god/Gods/index.htm
and i think even though Sikhism doesn’t follow the Gods in Hinduism (i think), they also do believe in ONE SUPERME BEING.
Which religion doesn’t say that, that religion is the true religion? all of em do.
However, i do agree with you abt that hatred is taught in Islamic mudrasas toward the other religions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChannMahi: *
Kabir, Then the holocaust museum must also be very hateful for you?
ps: I don't think highlighting bad stuff in history achieves anything in the long run, it does create bitterness but denying it also does the same. If one must take higher ground by denying, other must remind as a reality check. There is no doubt that this denying and reminding has been going on on both sides but a far cry from "" if you read the sikhs scritptures there is indeed great deal of venom against the muslims "
[/QUOTE]
THE basic difference is that while the holocast museum depicts the suffering of jews but here the jews never blamed the germans for being christians or its not shown as a christian holocast against the jews its directed at a regime. even today the jews do remember thier dead and deplore hitler but the germans of the present generation are not humiliated or reminded again and again that thier fore fathers commited murders. the jews dont shown pictures of german flag while showing the jewish dead. while the sikhs simply show muslims are the villains which is foolish
My problem is that I can't blame/criticize/condemn a Mughal, Afghan, Ghaznwi, Bin Qasim etc etc without offending Islam in your eyes. How can I? While present generation Germans look down on Hitler, present generation of yours looks up to Abdalis, Nader Shahs,Ghanavis,Aurenghzebs ,Bin Qasims as not only their role models and savier of their faith but also as their true ancestors and fore fathers. How can I come out as not anti-muslim in the face of such opposition?
Sikhs have their share of fanatics and people in clergy whose main agenda is to propagate a certain religious thought process. I am not here to defend them but for every 1 time I had heard Muslims did this or that, I have heard at least thousand times mughals, afghans did this and that..most often with names being mentioned. In the same way Congress and Indra gandhi is condemned, British is condemend for the Jalliawala bagh massacre and others. So don't feel too bad if your Zakaria Khan and Aurenghzaib are standing next to Indra Gandhi and Gen O'dwayer.
For the time being here is a quote from Tuzk-e-Jahangiri for you to chew on.
""In Goindwal, which is situated on the Bank of the river Biyah (Beas), there lived a Hindu, named Arjun in the garb of Pir and Shaikh, so much so that having captivated many simple-hearted Hindus, nay even foolish and stupid Muslims, by his ways and manners, he had noised himself about as a religious and worldly leader. They called him Guru, and from all directions fools and fool-worshippers were attracted towards him and expressed full faith in him. For three or four generations they had kept this shop warm. For years the thought had been presenting itself to me that either I should put an end to this false traffic or he should be brought into the fold of Islam."
"At last when Khusrau passed along this road, this insignificant fellow made up his mind to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was. He (Guru Arjun) came and saw him, and conveyed some preconceived things to him and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Hindus in their terminology call qashqa (tika) and is considered propitious. When this came to the ears of our majesty, and I fully knew his heresies, I ordered that he should be brought into my presence, and having handed over his houses, dwelling places and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property, I ordered that he should be put to death with tortures."
Let me say it again, mughal emperor Jahangir ordered it. Muslims didn't. Mian Mir of Lahore was on Guru's side. But when was the last time you heard his name anyway.
People who want to remember there was Mian Mir, a sufi saint, still beleive in reconciliation. The who want you to forget that there was a Mian Mir are the ones who want you to remember only hatred.