Leaderboard

I have no idea how it infiterated Sikhi but I do few things with which we can tackle it: 1. Start with yourself 2. Spreading Gurmat to your younger generation, your younger siblings, your kids, grandkids 3. Having Inter-caste marriage... Don't ask and Don't tell RULE.. If each and every one who reads this, follow it.. we can make a difference...

this is a point you should really think on "and Muslims have defended it as well" lets say mohammed was a great saint and married aisha when she was 19 if he was truly a good man how would he feel if saw muslims defending him having sex with a nine year old you basically admitted that muslims will defend islam no matter what even when it should be indefensible and thats why some users here have so many problems with muslims instead of recognizing that there are serious problems in your community out of proportion compared to other communities muslims will make excuses as seen in this thread(regarding inbreeding) and many other threads on this forum

i seriously doubt you actually believe that but if you do theres nothing i can really say one also has to keep in mind this rarely ever happens iv never in my whole heard of anyone do this the first time iv heard of it is from a user on this forum who said hes seen it happen once, while on the otherhand cousin marriages are common in the muslim world

This is what Islamic morals and ethics is all about, How can they be against grooming when the head honcho Mohammed groomed Aisha? I know our inbred buddy will find the above insulting so I will amend the above line to ' FINAL Head Honcho' to conform to his Islamic beliefs!

If that's the reason then why doesn't that Pakistani go one better and marry his own sister. That way the wife will treat her sass even better because her sass will also be her mother!

You would think that might be true, but despite having your aunt as your MIL, still the inherent nature of women eventually kicks in and MILs and DILs become sworn enemies after marriage.

I asked my Pakistani classmate in college the same question, as to how can you guys marry your own cousins. His response was even more funnier than the cousin-marrying concept itself. "chaache ya phuphee (bhuaa in their terminology) di kudi naal viah karn da eh fayda hunda ki oh teri ammi nu sass nai balki apni khaala (aunt) hi samjhugi te hor zaada khidmat karugi" "The benefit of marrying a cousin is that she won't see your mom as her sass (mother-in-law) but as her aunt and so will server her more and better".

I was listening to a katha once where the veecharak made a very controversial but critical point. Hindus don't need to open any temples today because gurughars have become parallel ritual-houses of theres. Cast is just one of the many problems we face. This is going of on a tangent but is still related, families hold akhand paaths but how many actually stay with maharaj and do seva????

Any help/suggestions on how to get bigger arms? diet training core exercises etc? Thanks

Happy Canada day to all Canadian Sikhs!!. Please see very nice clip from peter mansbridge on what's define to be Canadian...All sikhs naturally meant to be a perfect Canadian, because of our very nature of selfless service(seva) caring to whole humanity and our belief of one vision/non dual vision of humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2394351463/

The Khalsa Panth is Guru ROOP, not the Guru itself, similar to how the punj pyare are Guru roop. This makes sense b/c the Guru is one, and does not hold opinions or beliefs that contradict himself. But the panth has different groups in it with different beliefs. A self-contradicting Guru makes no sense. Additionally, there is a sakhi from the time of the jungs with the hill rajas. The Khalsa was crushing their armies when the Guru sent his messenger with the message to the Sikhs to turn back and cease the battle. The Khalsa ignored him thinking that they were so powerful and amazing and none could stand before them. Guru ji withdrew his kirpa and the Singhs were soundly defeated. Humbled they apologized, realising that all kirpa comes from the Guru. This sakhi shows that the panth, in and of itself, is not Guru, but rather a roop of the Guru through which the Guru can spread his kirpa and achieve his aims in the world.

Even the best Muslim sources are openly admitting Hazrat Aisha was 6 when marriage began + Hazrat Muhammad was 51. And that sirf unki suhaag raath was when Hazrat Aisha was 9 and Hazrat Muhammad Sahib was 54 years old Aisha's Age of Consummation {C}{C} {C}From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam{C}{C} {C}{C}Jump to: navigation, search {C}{C} The age difference between 9 year old Aisha and 54 year old Muhammad was 45 years This article discusses the DMS (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of mental disorders and cites sahih hadiths to prove that Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile according to clinical definitions. For all related sahih hadiths confirming Aisha's age at marriage and consummation, see: Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Aisha. For a comprehensive refutation of all the claims that Aisha was older than 9, see: Refutation of Modern Muslim Apologetics Against Aisha's Age. And for all other apologetic arguments, see: Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha. Contents [hide] 1 Pedophilia1.1 Pedophilia according to DSM-IV-TR 2 Was Muhammad a Pedophile? 2.1 Only pre-pubescent girls were allowed to play with dolls 2.1.1 Sahih Bukhari2.1.1.1 Alternative Translations 2.1.2 Does the phrase 'little girls' mean pre-pubescent? 2.2 Aisha was pre-pubescent when Muhammad consummated the marriage 2.3 Consummating the marriage means sexual intercourse 2.3.1 Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 49142.3.1.1 Proof One 2.3.1.2 Proof Two 2.3.1.3 Proof Three 2.3.1.4 Proof Four 2.4 Summary 3 Conclusion 4 See Also 5 External Links 6 References [edit] Pedophilia Many critics of Islam claim Muhammad's relationship with Aisha was a pedophilic relationship, therefore Muhammad was a pedophile. Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: "Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old." Sahih Muslim 8:3310 In psychiatry, the most commonly used diagnostic criteria for diagnosing psychiatric ailments are those from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders. The latest issue is DSM-IV-TR. The DSM classification is a system that classifies and defines all accepted psychiatric ailments and symptoms, with their inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following are the inclusion and exclusion criteria for pedophilia (302.2): [edit] Pedophilia according to DSM-IV-TR A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Note: This does not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old. Diagnostic Critiera for Pedophilia Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Psychiatry Online "According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child. Some individuals prefer females, usually 8- to 10-year-olds. Those attracted to males usually prefers slightly older children. Some prefer both sexes. While some are sexually attracted only to children, others also are sometimes attracted to adults.Pedophiliac activity may involve undressing and looking at the child or more direct physical sex acts. All these activities are psychologically harmful to the child, and some may be physically harmful. In addition, individuals with pedophilia often go to great lengths to obtain photos, films or pornographic publications that focus on sex with children. These individuals commonly explain their activities with excuses or rationalizations that the activities have "educational value" for the child, that the child feels "sexual pleasure" from the activities or that the child was "sexually provocative." However, child psychiatrists and other child development experts maintain that children are incapable of offering informed consent to sex with an adult. Furthermore, since pedophiliac acts harm the child, psychiatrists condemn publications or organizations that seek to promote or normalize sex between adults and children." Diagnostic Critiera for Pedophilia Medem Medical Library In the following article, it will be shown that Muhammad's relationship with Aisha did indeed meet all the criteria to make the diagnosis of pedophilia, and therefore Muhammad was undoubtedly a pedophile. [edit] Was Muhammad a Pedophile? Modern day Islamic apologists, and Islamophiles alike, will very often claim that Aisha had reached puberty by the time Muhammad married and had sexual intercourse with her. However, they never provide verifiable proof for this bold assertion. Instead, they rely on the pre-Islamic culture and traditional practices of 7th Century Arabia as evidence of their claim. This is of course completely false, as demonstrated by the hadith and the commentary of one of Islam's most famous scholars, Imam Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani, Commander of the Faithful in Hadith, Qadi of Egypt, and author of the celebrated commentary on Sahih Bukhari, "Fateh al-Bari." To prove that Aisha was still pre-pubescent when Muhammad married and had sex with her, one has to understand Ibn Hajar's explanation of the permissibility of doll-playing for pre-pubescent girls in Islam. Applying this doll-playing exegesis to the ahadith of Aisha getting married or when she first had sex with Muhammad, one can effectively demonstrate that she was pre-pubescent on these occasions This evidence will be examined in the following three sections. [edit] Only pre-pubescent girls were allowed to play with dolls This is what the great hadith scholar, Shaykh al-Islam Imam Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani, Commander of the Faithful in Hadith, Qadi of Egypt, had to say in regards to doll-playing and little girls: [edit] Sahih Bukhari Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151 How do we know that it was Ibn Hajar who made the above (bolded) doll-playing exegesis? We know this by the reference to Fateh-al-Bari and also due to the fact that when we look at other translations of Bukhari 8:73:151, the same message is conveyed. [edit] Alternative Translations One On the authority of Aisha (RA), who said: I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (SAW). And I had girl-friends (playmates) who played along with me. They would hide (feeling shy) from him (SAW) whenever he entered. But, he (SAW) would send for them to join me and they would play with me. (Sahih Bukhari & Muslim) Little Girls Playing With Dolls The Islamic Ruling Concerning Tasweer, Abu Muhammad Abdur-Ra'uf Shakir The translator then provides some discussion on translations of various versions of this hadith before he follows up with Ibn Hajar and Fath-al-Bari: Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baaree (Fath al-Baaree, no. 6130, Kitaab: al-Adab, Baab: al-Inbisaat ilaa an-Naas): This Hadith has been used as a proof for the permissibility of possessing (suwar - of) dolls and toys for the purpose of the little girls playing with them. This has been especially exempted from the general prohibition of possession of images (suwar). Little Girls Playing With Dolls The Islamic Ruling Concerning Tasweer, Abu Muhammad Abdur-Ra'uf Shakir Two But if these images and dolls are toys for children, the Sunnah indicates that they are permissible. In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had female friends who would play with me…” al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440. Ibn Hajar said: This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to have images of girls (i.e., dolls) and toys for girls to play with. This is an exception from the general meaning of the prohibition on having images. This was stated by ‘Iyaad and was narrated from the majority. They permitted the sale of dolls to girls so as to teach them from a young age how to take care of their homes and children. Ibn Hibbaan stated that it is permissible for young girls to play with toys… He is asking about dolls and three-dimensional toys, and whether that affects his fast Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 49844 Three Aaishah said, “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (pbuh), and my girlfriends used to play along with me. Whenever, Allaah's Messenger (pbuh) would enter, they would hide from him. So he called them to play with me.”In the classical commentary on Saheeh al-Bukhaare entitled Fat-h al-Baaree, Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaanee wrote the following: “This hadeeth is used as evidence for the permissibility of making dolls and toys with human and animal forms for the purpose of girls playing with them. This category has been specifically excluded from the general prohibition against making images. ‘Iyaad stated this to be categorically so and related that it was the position of the majority of scholars. He further related that they permitted the selling of toys for girls in order to train them from their youth in their household affairs and in dealing with their children…” Fatwa on the use of Images for children (p.1) BilalPhilips.com Note the great similarity in the commentary of Ibn Hajar in Fateh al-Bari to all four versions of the hadith. The words are different due to the different translators but the essential message is unchanged – only little girls (i.e. before puberty) are permitted to play with dolls. [edit] Does the phrase 'little girls' mean pre-pubescent? How do we know that these "little girls" are pre-pubescent? This is due to Islamic customs and laws specifically stating so. For example: Girls reach puberty and adulthood when they experience the above three signs. However, they have a fourth sign, that is, menstruation (hayd). Whenever a girl experiences it, she is a woman even if she is 12 years old. For Whom is Fasting Necessary? USC - Muslim Students Association, Compendium of Muslim Texts Islam And the Age of Puberty Islam clearly teaches that adulthood starts when a person have attained puberty. The Young Marriage of `Âishah® Madrassah In'aamiyya These Islamic websites provide us with the evidence, that in Islam when a girl reaches puberty, she ceases to be considered a girl and becomes a woman. Therefore, little girls must be pre-pubescent according to Islamic customs and laws. We also have commentaries by hadith scholars that reinforce this point: Al-Qaadee 'Iyaad has stated this position with definiteness, and transmitted it as the position of the Majority (Jumhoor) of the Scholars; and that they declared permissible the selling of toys/dolls (al-lu'ab) for little girls, to train them from childhood for the household responsibilities and child-rearing. Al-Khattaabee said: … it is understood that playing with dolls (al-banaat) is not like the amusement from other images (suwar) concerning which the threat (wa'eed) of punishment is mentioned. The only reason why permission in this was given to Aisha (RA) is because she had not, at that time, reached the age of puberty. Little Girls Playing With Dolls The Islamic Ruling Concerning Tasweer, Abu Muhammad Abdur-Ra'uf Shakir … Abu 'Ubaid, who said: We don't see there being any reason for that (permission to play with her dolls), except due to the fact that these toys are a source of amusement (lahw) for the children. So, if they were owned by adults, it would definitely have been detestable (makhrooh). Possession of Dolls By Little Girls The Islamic Ruling Concerning Tasweer, Abu Muhammad Abdur-Ra'uf Shakir [edit] Aisha was pre-pubescent when Muhammad consummated the marriage “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.” Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131 This hadith suggests that Muhammad had sex with Aisha in her house on her wedding day. However, was this event really on her wedding day? This is proven by the Sahih Bukhari hadith below. Note the similarity in accounts, although the Bukhari 5:58:234 hadith is more expansive on the fact that the events took place on Aisha’s wedding day: Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Sahih Muslim 8:3311 Also note that Sahih Muslim says Aisha still had her dolls with her when she was taken to Muhammad’s house as a bride. Applying Ibn Hajar’s doll-playing exegesis from Part 1, it becomes clear that Aisha was pre-pubescent when she became a bride. Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the hadiths, that Aisha was pre-pubescent when Muhammad first had sex with her on her wedding day. [edit] Consummating the marriage means sexual intercourse Sunan Abu Dawud is the third most respected collection of ahadith, and the relevant narration used here is considered Sahih by some of the most authoritative ahadith scholars, including Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Qaari' (Imam of Masjid Qubaa and professor of tafseer Quranic recitation at the Islamic University of Medina). "Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old." Abu-Dawud 2:2116 Here we see that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was 9 lunar years old. Is this age confirmed by any other (Sahih) ahadith? Yes it is: Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed (sic – consummated) that marriage when she was nine years old. Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' Sahih Bukhari 7:62:65 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). Sahih Bukhari 7:62:88 Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter. Abu Dawud 41:4915 Apologists will insist that the term "consummate the marriage" means the completion of the 'nikah' ceremony, not sex. This is in spite of the Abu-Dawud hadith Vol. 2, No. 2116 translation that explicitly states 'intercourse' . Be that as it may, does 'consummate the marriage' mean sex? Here is proof that it does. In Sahih Bukhari, vol. 7, No. 64, the root word used is "dakhala". From the Hans-Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary: to enter, to pierce, to penetrate, to consummate the marriage, cohabit, sleep with a woman. Hans-Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary, P. 273 But how do we know that at the age of nine Aisha was still pre-pubescent? Here is the evidence from Sunan Abu-Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 4914 (This hadith is also repeated in Sunan Nasa’i): On the authority of Aisha (RA), that she said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) returned from the battle of Tabook or Khaibar (the narrator of the hadith was in doubt about whether he was told "Tabook or Khaibar."). There was a curtain covering her 'sahwah' (chamber or small room in front of the house). The wind blew a side of the curtain and uncovered Aisha's dolls. He (SAW) said: What is this, O Aisha? She said: My dolls. The he (SAW) saw amongst them a horse with two wings from scraps of cloth. He (SAW) said: What is this which I see amongst them (amongst the dolls)? She said: A horse. He asked: What is upon it? She said: Two wings. He (SAW) asked (in astonishment): A horse with two wings? She said: Didn't you hear that Sulaiman (Solomon - AS) had horses with wings? She said: Then he (SAW) laughed until I saw his molar teeth.[1] Abu Daawood, An-Nasaa'iee as-Sunan al-Kubraa, Albani (ra) says the chain of narrators of an-Nasaa'ee is authentic (Saheeh). As for the chain of narrators of Abu Daawood, Albani (ra) has also declared it to be authentic (saheeh) Shaykh Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-'Adheem Aabaadee, in his Sharh (explanation) of Sunan Abu-Dawud, says: This hadith and the one before it (Hadith #20) is used as an evidence of permissibility of possession of dolls and toys for the purpose of little girls playing with them. This (permission) is a special exception from the general prohibition of possession of images (suwar). This position has been stated with certainty by al-Qaadee 'Iyaad, and he has quoted it as the opinion of the Jumhoor (Majority of Scholars). He also said that the Jumhoor has allowed the sale of toys (dolls) for little girls, in order to train and prepare them from childhood for their household affairs and the raising of their children.According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. The battle of Khaibar took place in Muharram-Safar 7 AH. The siege of Tabuk took place in Rajab 9 AH. Therefore, to be generous, I will accept the Khaibar explanation and not the later, Tabuk explanation. It is generally accepted that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 in the year 3 BH. This is confirmed by reports that the marriage was consummated in Shawwal, which came seven months after the Prophet's hijra from Makkah to al-Medinah. Shaykh Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-'Adheem Aabaadee So the Abu-Dawud hadith says that Aisha was still playing with dolls as late as 7 AH. That is 6 or 7 years after her marriage. Using the doll-playing exegesis of Ibn Hajar, Abu Ubaid, al-Qaadee 'Iyaad, and Shaykh Muhammad Shams al-Haqq, Aisha did not reach puberty until at least 6 to 7 years after her marriage when she would have been about 15 or 16 years old, but lets say 14 years old to be generous. [edit] Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4914Note that some apologists will try to say that this hadith is not sahih. They will use the following translation of the same hadith and highlight the phrase "the narrator is doubtful": Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: When the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her. He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth. Abu Dawud 41:4914 The evidence that this hadith is indeed sahih, and that the phrase "the narrator is doubtful" does not mean to imply that the hadith itself is doubtful, but the fact that the narrator was doubtful in regards to whether or not he was told it was Khaybar or Tabuk, is as follows: [edit] Proof One Various versions of the hadith include confirmation that it is sahih/authenticated/authentic, including one that refers to Sahih Abu-Dawud (a collection of Abu-Dawud hadiths that are deemed sahih): On the authority of Aisha (RA), that she said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) returned from the battle of Tabook or Khaibar (the narrator of the hadith was in doubt about whether he was told "Tabook or Khaibar."). There was a curtain covering her 'sahwah' (chamber or small room in front of the house). The wind blew a side of the curtain and uncovered Aisha's dolls. He (SAW) said: What is this, O Aisha? She said: My dolls. The he (SAW) saw amongst them a horse with two wings from scraps of cloth. He (SAW) said: What is this which I see amongst them (amongst the dolls)? She said: A horse. He asked: What is upon it? She said: Two wings. He (SAW) asked (in astonishment): A horse with two wings? She said: Didn't you hear that Sulaiman (Solomon - AS) had horses with wings? She said: Then he (SAW) laughed until I saw his molar teeth.[1] Abu Daawood, An-Nasaa'iee as-Sunan al-Kubraa, Albani (ra) says the chain of narrators of an-Nasaa'ee is authentic (Saheeh). As for the chain of narrators of Abu Daawood, Albani (ra) has also declared it to be authentic (saheeh) Aboo Daawood and an-Nasaa’ee collected this hadeeth in another chain from Aaishah in which she said, “When Allaah’s Messenger (pbuh) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar, the wind raised an end of a curtain which hung in front of my closet, revealing some dolls which belonged to me. He asked me, ‘What is this?’ I replied: My dolls. He saw among them a horse made of wrapped cloth with wings, and asked, ‘What is this I am seeing among them?’ I replied: A horse. He asked, ‘A horse with wings?’ I replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? Allaah's Messenger (pbuh) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth.” Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 3, p. 1373, no.4914 and authenticated in Saheeh Sunan Abee Daawood, vol. 3, p. 932, no. 4123. This hadith is very clear that the meaning of playthings (lu‘ab) mentioned in the earlier narration does not refer to humans.[2] On the authority of Aa'ishah (radiyallahu anha), who said: 'The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) returned from the battle of Tabook or it was Khaybar. There was a curtain over my room. The wind blew, lifting the curtain and exposing a part of my room in which, Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) saw some dolls with which Aa'ishah (radhi allahu anhu) used to play. He said: “What is this O Aa'ishah?” She replied 'my daughters (Arabs used to call dolls, daughters). He saw among them a horse with two wings made out of a piece of cloth. He said: “What is this?” She replied: 'A horse' He said: “and what are those on the horses?” She replied: 'Two wings' He said: “A horse with two wings?!” Aa'ishah said: 'The Prophet laughed until I could see his molar teeth.'[3] Authentic - Abu Dawood An Nisa'ee in Al-Ishrah Not only is the chain of narrators authentic according to Albani - but two other Islamic sources say 'authentic' or 'authenticated.' [edit] Proof Two The version taken from the pro-Islamic website, themuslimwoman.com, states that, “the narrator of the hadith was in doubt about whether he was told "Tabook or Khaibar”.[1] That is, not in doubt about the hadith. [edit] Proof Three Alternative translations do not carry the word ‘doubt’: Also on the authority of Aisha who said: “The Prophet (saw) returned from the battle of Tabuk, or it was Khaybar. There was a curtain over her room. The wind blew, lifting the curtain and exposing part of the room in which the Prophet (saw) saw some dolls with which Aisha used to play. He said, “What is this, O Aisha?” She said: “My daughters.” (Arabs used to call dolls for “daughters”) He saw among them a horse with two wings made of pieces of cloth. He said “And what is this in the middle?” She said, “A horse.” He said, “and what are those on the horse?” She said: “Two wings.” He said, ”A horse with two wings?!” Aisha said: “The Prophet (saw) laughed until I could see his molar teeth”[4] Abu Daawood, an-Nasaa’ee On the authority of Aa'ishah (radiyallahu anha), who said: 'The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) returned from the battle of Tabook or it was Khaybar. There was a curtain over my room. The wind blew, lifting the curtain and exposing a part of my room in which, Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) saw some dolls with which Aa'ishah (radhi allahu anhu) used to play. He said: “What is this O Aa'ishah?” She replied 'my daughters (Arabs used to call dolls, daughters). He saw among them a horse with two wings made out of a piece of cloth. He said: “What is this?” She replied: 'A horse' He said: “and what are those on the horses?” She replied: 'Two wings' He said: “A horse with two wings?!” Aa'ishah said: 'The Prophet laughed until I could see his molar teeth.'[3] Authentic - Abo Dawood An Nisa'ee in Al-Ishrah [edit] Proof Four Authoritative Islamic scholars still use this hadith in their judgment of Islamic laws and customs. Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Qaari' (Imaam of Masjid Qubaa and professor of tafsir and Quranic recitation at the Islamic University of Madeenah) had this to say about image-making in al-Usrah: “Regarding the hadeeth of Aaishah that she played with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (pbuh), and, in some versions of the hadeeth, that one of the dolls was in the shape of a winged horse, and that when the Prophet (pbuh) asked her about it, she replied, ‘Didn't you hear that [Prophet] Sulayman had a horse with wings?’ to which the Prophet (pbuh) responded by laughing; this hadeeth indicates the permissibility of children’s figurative toys, owning them and using them, whether they are clearly representative or not, and whether skillfully or crudely fashioned. There is no basis in the hadeeth for making a distinction. Those who say that Aaishah's dolls were not distinctly representative have made an arbitrary judgement not based on any evidence. What do they say about a winged horse?”[5] Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Qaari' How can apologists claim that the Imam of Masjid Qubaa and professor of tafsir and Quranic recitation at the Islamic University of Medina uses a hadith that is not sahih in deciding the permissibility of doll-playing among Saudi Arabian children? For by doing so, even Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Qaari' of Saudi Arabia seems to accept that this hadith is sahih. If using a weak hadith, a scholar must warn the reader of its weakness: “Generally, in Islamic law, only the authentic (sahih) and good (hasan) hadiths are used in deriving the rules. The weak (da`if) hadiths have no value for the purpose of Shari`ah. However, the scholars of hadith sometimes differ among themselves in the determination of whether some Hadiths are weak or not. The scholars have sometimes used weak hadiths for moral and spiritual (fada'il) matters. It is important that when one uses a weak hadith for any reason, one should explain it to the people that this is weak hadith and that it is being used for this particular reason." What is the Value of a Weak Hadith? Islam Online, Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of Fiqh Council — North America, March 22, 2006 It is clear from this article that Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Qaari' (Imaam of Masjid Qubaa and professor of tafseer and Quranic recitation at the Islamic University of Medina) did not say anything about Abu-Dawud 4914 being weak - thus it cannot be considered as such. Also note what the reference says at the end of the article: Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 3, p. 1373, no.4914 and authenticated in Saheeh Sunan Abee Daawood, vol. 3, p. 932, no. 4123 [edit] Summary In the first section, it was shown that in Islam, doll-playing girls are pre-pubescent according to the doll-playing exegesis of Ibn Hajar and Islamic laws and customs. In the second section it was shown, using Ibn Hajar's doll-playing exegesis that Aisha remained a pre-pubescent child when she was married and had sexual intercourse with Muhammad. In the third section it was shown that Aisha remained pre-pubescent as late as 6 or 7 years after her marriage to Muhammad. [edit] Conclusion Does Muhammad meet all the criteria needed to be classed a Pedophile? Criteria A: Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).Yes, Muhammad had sexual relations with a pre-pubescent child over a prolonged period - likely to have been at least 6 to 7 years. Criteria B: The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.Yes, Muhammad had acted on his sexual urges - as demonstrated by Tabari IX:131 and various other Bukhari ahadith that state that consummation had taken place at the age of nine when it had been established that Aisha had not reached puberty until she was at least 14 years of age. Criteria C: The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.Yes, Muhammad was 54 years old while Aisha was only 9 years old at the time of sexual intercourse. Therefore, even according to the most stringent clinical definition of pedophilia - the DSM-IV-TR - Muhammad would be found guilty as charged.

I don't care if Hazrat Muhammad married Hazrat Aisha at age 6 or 9. That was his choice as the Holy Quran gave Hazrat Muhammad special rules for him only. But i do care why Aurangzeb is Aurangzeb Sahib to Pakistani's and why you and Punjabi Muslims respect Aurangzeb.

nope in my school ratio wise it was around the same there were muslim girls in hijabs but there were just as many decent confident and moral amritdhari sikh girls i seriously doubt your being honest when you say there wasnt even 1 muslim girl who acted slutty just because of the situation in my school and how ive seen some muslim girls act but teek ah il take your word for it

At my college Islamic Society even they said that Hazrat Muhammad married Hazrat Aisha when she was 6 and not 9 Because temperature was hotter in Arabia and it was tradition in Mecca for old men to marry young girls.

I am neither for nor pro the EDL. Hazrat Muhammad's life is documented by Muslims. Sikhs pointing out Muslim sources can't be abuse. Sikhs react to oppression only. Wah vi Wah. So your Aurangzeb Sahib was 100% justified in doing what he did. Keep it up. Muslim hatred of Sikhs will never stop our Qaum. Muslim Genocides didn't kill us off either

they justify it by saying the atrocities he committed were for political reasons not religious one but you could say the same thing about stalin it still doesnt make it any less horible to admire someone so evil

Its Ramadan now son. They get extra points for peaceful da'wah during this time. Although lying still plays a devious role in their daily lives.

How you state sufis to be muslims beats me. A majority of sufis themselves consider their ethos distinct from the paradoxical principles of Islam. Abu Said one of the most important figures of the movement held nothing but contempt for Islamic principles and it's psychologically constrained orthodoxy. Others like Sheikh Farid adopted the notion of karma, and re-incarnation. Several where executed or jailed by the various Caliphs who were irked by their universal transcendence. Several sufi mystics signed themselves off as being neither jew nor muslim. Furthermore when various Islamic extremists restricted the practice of music, which in many Islamic circles as per the translation of the Koran is considered 'haram', sufis took the foremost step of defying them. Even today Sufis are constantly discriminated and persecuted in many Islamic circles due to their rejection of Koranic doctrines, the myth of it's infallibility, and the sharia which disrupt universality and the ethics of humanity. "Sufism produced a series of works, which under pretense of orthodoxy and devoutness, in reality substituted for the personal God and the future life of Islam notions that were irreconcilable with either and were supported by an interpretation of the Quran so far-fetched as to be ludicrous and irreverent. The most famous of these are the poem of Ibn al-Farid (1161-1235)... and the treatise of Ibn Arabi (1155-1240)... "Gems of Maxims." Both these works at different times brought their owners into danger, and were the cause of riots (see Ibn Iyas, 'History of Egypt...' where the latter book is described as the work of a worse unbeliever than Jew, Christian, or Idolater). Of the comments on the Quran which this work contains is sufficient to cite that on the story of the Golden Calf; according to Ibn Arabi.... Moses found fault with his brother for not approving of the worship of the calf, since Aaron should have known that nothing but God could ever be worshipped, and therefore the calf was (like everything else) God." -Margoliouth. As was the case with famous scientists, and artisans, sufis were accused of being 'zindiqs' or antagonists of Islam. Whether proven or not proven, under sharia 'zindiqs' were cruelly tortured and executed.

Man, you are so dumb you don't even know when you are writing Islam supremacist bukwas. Although I should not be surprised, you probably come from a long line of inbred people who married their own cousin sisters! I dread to think what a mangled mess your family tree must be like. Imagine having to explain to your kids that Mommy is also your Bhua! You said Muslims will be 10% in 2030 and 15% in 2050. So what is that? A reference to the baby making ability of the average Muslim woman or a shout out to all the illegal immigrant Muslims getting their butts out of the Islamic paradises that are Pakistan and Somalia in order to recreate these same paradises in the UK and other parts of Europe. So reference to increasing numbers isn't supremacist, so as you referred to Copts, what if the Egyptian census found that Copts were 10% in 2001 and 15% in 2011, what do you think the Egyptian government or for that matter any Islamic government faced with non-Muslims increasing in number more than Muslims do about it?

and noone is talking about this in the news.....typical indian media.....

Regardless, you coming on here and openly calling Sikhs stupid without responding to their questions doesn't make your claims look authentic, does it?

Nah Karoon Ab Kee, Nah Karoon Baat Tab Kee. Agar Na Hotey Guru Gobind Singh, To Sunat Hoti Sab Kee. I talk about neither yesterday nor tomorrow; I talk about today. Had Guru Gobind Singh not been there, They would all be under the Islamic way. -Baba Bulleh Shah

By that logic we'll have to neglect all of Sikh history that Aurangzeb used to remove 1.25 mann of janeu each time he sat down for a meal, basically converted thousands of Hindus to Islam before he ate his meal. This explains why the populations of Muslims India+Pakistan+Bangladesh combined is the highest in the world. Where is the Sufism in that? If you're here for time pass, I'd suggest you pay a deaf ear to anyone who talks against Islam. Why do you waste our time if you're here only to time pass? Ehvi apna vi jor laayi jande ho te sadda vi lvaayi jande ho? Yes I grew up in the UAE. Look buddy, Sikhs here openly admit that their ancestors at some point in history were Hindus/Muslims, no matter what "caste" is tagged to them. They are also proud of the fact that their folks were blessed and embraced this divine path. There is 0% chance that anyone was forced because you CANNOT force anyone to become a Sikh. How would you do that? Not possible. On the contrary, chances are that your folks may have been forcefully converted, or converted for money (sorry I am not trying to offend you here, just stating a possibility), or as you say they did come under Islam due to Sufi Saints, no one will ever know how/why. But in our case, our ancestors came to Sikhi purely out of love, and out of their 100% conviction and 100% willingness. Can you guarantee a 100% from your side about your folks? I seriously doubt it.

PakistaniPunjabi, Lets talk about 1400 year old history. Where does your ancestors play part in this history? Majority of the population within subcontinent were forced to convert to Islam and I bet your ancestors were the ones who were forced to convert. So, where do they sit in this great history of Islam? For Gods sake, you guys are are looked at by the Arabs as cannon fodder, piece of crap, worthless. We know, the true Muslims are the Arabs and the rest were converted by force. How long are you going to keep ignoring the fact that the blood which runs through your veins is Hindu. You can justify it as much as you like but the bottom line is your'e not even a true Muslim in the eyes of the Arabs. Mate, You come on a Sikh forum to do what? Majority of the posts you write are pointless. Don't get me wrong, you seem like an intelligent person but what is your reason on this forum. Are you trying to get your place in heaven and your 40 virgins?

You obviously don't see your own hypocrisy, bragging about taking over the west but calling anyone who opposes this a racist! You're wet dream of Islamic domination will not come to fruition. The problem with Muslims including you is that they just cannot bide their time. They will always act prematurely. Rather than waiting until they are strong enough, they will act prematurely and the likelihood is they will bring a whole heap of trouble on themselves. Islamic supremacists like you will carry out terror attacks like the Woolwich murder and the west will finally have had enough. At the moment you have the support of left wing liberals but that will soon evapourate when the Muslims step up their attacks on homosexuals. Europe may seem a soft touch now but when push comes to shove the whole of Europe will be deal with the Muslim problem. It is only a few generations ago that millions were killed defeating another totalitarian ideology and I wouldn't bet against them doing the same against Islam.

Vahiguroo this is just amazing. Words of pearls, diamonds, lotus and never ending ocean bliss. Vahiguroo I am speechless I have nothing to say.

I think you've utterly lost it, you're going around in circles, and your inability to refute anything betrays you Let me make this very simple so even YOU can sorta understand... WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT SIKHS ARE AT THREAT FROM THE WHITE POPULATION OR THE EDL? WHERE IS IT? WHY ARE YOU SO PARANOID? You keep saying you've PROVED something... when you've yet to provide a single shred of evidence. You're just being COMPLETELY paranoid and banging on about a problem that does not actually exist... ALL while ignoring real actual pressing problems. Go watch videos by the SIKH AWARENESS SOCIETY. Are they showing families that are suffering because of WHITE people? No. http://www.youtube.com/user/SikhAwarenessSociety What is your solution to CURRENT Sikh problems? Do you even have one? Let me guess... we all sit, join hands and pray? Then eat Langar? Absolutely pathetic, it's lazy people like YOU that are the problem. I'm afraid your faith IS weak. Why are you even on a Sikh forum if you don't believe it can stand up to criticism? Did you get called too many names as a child? An ideology that cannot stand up to debate or a joke is not worth following. Sikhism CAN stand up to those things and it's just incredibly sad you don't believe that. The purpose of the EDL is to stamp out radical Islam, Sharia Law and obtain equal rights for all in this country. What EXACTLY do you expect this conversation to be about if not Muslims? If the subject was about Gay Marriage... then surely we would be talking about Gay Marriage? Try some logic next time . My life is totally unaffected by Muslims, but my Sikh teachings ask me to stamp out injustice wherever I find it. That is what I intend to do. I also can't ignore the fact that Sikhs themselves have suffered. You on the other hand seem to want to brush everything under the carpet. You're in the wrong decade mate. You clearly don't understand what 'Right Wing' means either. The EDL aren't even a POLITICAL party. Maybe you shouldn't use words you don't understand anymore? You basically ARE saying to join the Muslims. You're saying we should STOP PEOPLE INSULTING RELIGION. Muslims very much wish they could do the same. Well done! I've got the perfect country for you to live in, it's called Pakistan. Please go. The ONLY one excusing acts of violence is YOU. I'm saying these tragedies should never have taken place, and we should SWIFTLY act to ensure it never ever happens again. You're saying that they were completely unavoidable. Muslims are USING Sikhs and anything they can stand behind as a SHIELD to protect themselves. To deny this is ridiculous. The media is also allowing this to happen, even abusing the term ASIAN to hide the true ethnicity of arrested groomers even though it's completely obvious to the world that it's Muslims and in particular Pakistanis. Once again you have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE that Sikhs have anything to fear from the white people in this country. Until you can do that you are just being a paranoid nutcase and ignoring REAL problems that exist TODAY. Once again, go watch the Sikh Awareness Society videos. Are you part of the Turban Campaign or something? You seem deluded enough 29. Dushman naal saam, daam, bhaed, aadiak, upaa vartnae ate uprant udh karnaa| When dealing with enemies, practice diplomacy, employ a variety of tactics, and exhaust all techniques before engaging in warfare. WHERE did the Guru say to scream death threats and act like a violent monkeys when someone insults your faith? OH WAIT, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT ANYWHERE! You're nothing but a hypocrite. You call out the EDL for 'WHO THE EFF IS ALLAH' chants and yet you REFUSE to condemn Sikhs saying EVEN WORSE things (against one defenceless Sikh woman). If you can dish it out, then you should be able to take it. Pathetic. Like I said. JUST A HYPOCRITE. Oh really? You blabbing on about promiscuity was to do with the topic of honour? To me it just sounded like you were angry at women for not paying any attention to you I can't blame them... I was talking about HONOUR KILLINGS. You know... a problem that ACTUALLY EXISTS. It is the fault of the Sikh community for its continued silence on the matter and allowing these to take place for so long. When the dam broke and someone finally tackled that taboo subject, what do you EXPECT to happen? Did you expect to love what was being said? Did you ever consider she made it as controversial as she did JUST SO that horrible subject could never be ignored again? To save lives? Are you really silly enough to bring up the BNP in a topic where they aren't even remotely relevant? The BNP have always been against EVERYTHING non-white including Islam. The Shere Punjab used to fight with their lot plenty back in the day. I already stated that the BNP have nothing useful to offer Sikhs PERIOD. Unless you can think of a reason otherwise... how about you start trying to argue intelligently instead of relying on flippant comments? I LIVE next to white people, they feel quite safe and welcome. Maybe that is different where you live. Maybe you should do something about that? You want EVIDENCE of Muslims using violence and intimidation on locals? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0S6cQxhFVM Enjoy trying to deny that. The only way YOU will stop repeating the same things is when you stop typing. If only... That is correct. They DIDN'T burn the Koran. They never HAVE burned the Koran. If they DID burn the Koran then riots would take place somewhere and non-Muslims would likely DIE. On the other hand Radical Muslims have burned poppies, flags, Bibles, screamed at returning soldiers. You name it they've done it, and NO Muslims have been killed for it. So WHICH group is more unhinged? Here are videos of the EDL supporting Sikh protests trying to get Professor Bullar released. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFslu0LhSq8 The EDL were also present at the Sikh protest in Luton in 2012. So tell me, who is seeking out who here? Who is desperate for assistance? Clearly it's the ordinary White British man. Just as the Kashmiri Hindu's pleaded with Guru Tegh Bahadur to save them from their forced conversions by the Mughals. The EDL have come to asks Sikhs to join them against a common oppressor. You can either pass up that offer and keep crying when Muslims annoy us, or we can nip that problem in the bud forever. I am being LOGICAL. You are not... 25. Budh bal da daataa vaheguroo noo jaananaa| Appreciate intellect and power as gifts of the all knowing wondrous Enlightener. First of all there is no OFFICIAL copy of the Zafarnamah available, everyone agrees it may not have been reproduced perfectly. Second, WHY would the Guru insult Islam and the average Muslim anyway? His quarrel was with Aurangzeb, who had lied to the Guru specifically. It is not the average Muslim that is to blame, and nobody has ever claimed that to be the case. You're forgetting the fact that Guru Gobind himself commanded Banda Singh Bahadur to get revenge for the suffering Sikhs had undergone, STRAIGHT after writing the letter. He never told him to attack all Muslims, that would have been ridiculous. With that same thought in mind the EDL also recognises that it is Muslims who are in fact the first victims of Islam, ESPECIALLY the women. In the West Muslims are quite ignorant of what they have been born into. Are you denying that Muhammad married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was 9? Are you denying the words written in the Koran? The most prized Muslims sources SAY THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Are you saying that the Muslim sources are 'TYPICAL CHAV LANGUAGE'? Is that REALLY how you want to go about this? You sound like an Islamophobe... 50. Jhutthi gavaahee nahee daenee| Do not make false statements. I am simply doing as my Guru says I should and SPEAKING THE TRUTH. Maybe you should try it? Well there's at least 2 mate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzWJddc9gkA I DO love making you look silly. And WHAT exactly do we do about these problems? You have NO ANSWERS WHATSOEVER . No YOU are a perpetual bottom licker. You are licking Muslim bottoms. You are licking Leftist and Socialist bottoms. THEN you want to hide and cry in the corner until the problems we face go away, but they NEVER EVER will. Without action NOTHING will ever be fixed. What I PERSONALLY am saying is we should answer the call of those who are suffering because of Islam and NEED HELP (which the EDL have asked for), whether that be the White population or our own fellow Sikhs who have been victims. We need to end that sort of rubbish forever, and we'll never get a better opportunity than this. We ALREADY look stupid protecting the only group of people who ever even attempt to harm us. Do you HONESTLY think Pakistani Muslims respect us? Seriously? Yes, we should be proud of them. If only more were capable of that sort of strength... Too many of us are more than happy to moan and complain and never lift a single finger. Like you for example . Ahhh but you see we ARE already protecting them! By not separating ourselves from Muslims we are protecting them. Protecting the very people who have committed crimes against us. The 'Turban Campaign' is standing in the way of the EDL and protecting Muslims. The 'Sikhs Against The EDL' are standing in the way of the EDL and protecting Muslims. The message that Sikhs give off now is very BLURRED. We have supporters of the EDL and we have people against it. WE ARE NOT NEUTRAL whether you want to believe it or not. If we WERE totally neutral and not connected to any group, that would be BETTER than the mess we have right now. Although I would prefer it if Sikhs (and Hindu's of course) were quiet supporters, allowing the White population to drive the EDL message harder into the mainstream with the greater moral grounding we could offer them. The government would be forced to tackle pressing issues. Sharia would be forever shut down as it should. We would all get what we want with the minumum amount of work. Indians would be respected as those who stood up for British rights. Easy peasy. And STOP dodging my questions. Tell me WHAT have ever Muslims done for us? WHAT have they done to protect us? WHAT better ideas do you have to sort out our problems? When you should KNOW that putting pressure on governments is a numbers game. I look forward to your reply... ... Also, have you noticed how PakistaniPunjabi01 (our resident Radical Muslim) seems to like you posts? How very interesting...

I know I will probably be QC'D for this one or even banned but how long can a lie last??? In this case Islamic lies are unravelling and to prevent the creed's ultimate self-annihilation it's fundamental (we know in what context) adherents are running around trying to gain more "reverts." On the other yhand his Al-Taqiya is already evident from his b*lls*it on this forum. Need we bother more??? Let him bark its what they are born for.

Vahiguroo- manas ki jaat sabhae eko pehchaanbo

Under three pillars of sikhism you got a typo; 11, 2, 3 Don't think there are that many Sikhs in Afghanistan anymore. At this point it's probably a couple of thousand only. And Australian Sikh population is 72,000 (2011) not 110,000. btw why isn't sehajdhari a branch of sikhi anymore?

Dedicated to my beloved vidhiya Guru: Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa (Bhindraa(n) jatha) In their remembrance, Dhan baba Thakur Singh Ji for all of my Sikh brothers and sisters - I love you ALL... Nitnem 6 written Santha.pdf

Good luck with your book and message sister! Here Guru Sahib tells us which rituals and religion is the best: http://sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?ShabadID=897

Someone get this cop out of country before he gets killed like jaswant singh khalra...yes this cop murdered innocent people on order of big officers, he should face ultimate fate in criminal court but he is small fish in the big pond..real crocodile is kps gill , sometimes you have to use small fish/work with small fish in the pond in order to get to crocodile..hopefully someone record all his statements and register the case in international criminal court and get him out as prime witness.

Each community has it's traitors. Criminals who cannot make it in normal society so they willingly become the tools of others to oppress their own people. No doubt had Hitler successfully invaded England, he could have relied on thousands of English men and women to act as collaborators and to oppress their own people. All the occupied countries had this situation, so you can understand the mentality of such people if you consider Punjab to be an occupied land. What needs to happen if we really want to being greater understanding of what the Sikhs suffered to the wider western audience is to start to take affidavits from the people who lost sons to fake encounters. There must be hundreds of such people in Canada, USA and UK. Then use the laws already available in the free west to track down the lower rung killers. Those haram.zadas like that police officer who killed hundreds and then afterwards married their sons and daughters in USA and Canada and then joined them by being sponsored into that country. These haram.zadas are now living in retirement enjoying the fruits of a free society whilst they killed hundreds who also wanted freedom. If organisations like Sikhs for Justice can get a few convictions in the West, the floodgates will open and these haram.zadas will be singing like canaries implicating murderers like Gill and Saini.

for above reasons Chief Constable - Simon Cole should RESIGN!!!

ok lets all forget the atrocities that were committed to make canada the nation it is now and wave the maple leaf flag, seriously east indians in canada are up their own a**es, here in the uk we are not proud of britain's past so would not celebrate a britain day, anyway lets leave it their before you get upset again and i get accused of being on a witch hunt. :biggrin2:

In the case of Christian murderers Jesus didn't give them a full length tutorial in rape or murder. Obviously we all know the man didn't have a virgin birth or resurrection though. In the case of Hindutva murderers, there isn't really any cow or monkey god that says kill all non-hindu's + attack places of worship because half-elephant Ganesh says this or that. In the case of Atheism there is no Atheist Holy Book which instructs atheists to kill innocents. Sadly in the case of these Muslim pedophiles (groomers) you know full well they are following pedophilia in the footsteps of a 54year old Arab who had sex with a 9year old. In that respect these Pakistani's seem to have less of an age gap between them and their non-Muslim victims. Furthermore, they have only followed part of the Sunnah + Hadiths. As you know the Holy Quran is explicit in saying that Muslim men can freely have sex with their slavegirls + who their right hands possess (which translates as grooming victims nowadays). You have to be honest with your conscience Pakistani bro. Remember you are answerable to none other than Allah (swt). When Allah(swt) questions u if it was reasonable to believe in a Nabi that at the age of 54 had sex with 9year old child Aisha ... will you be able to honestly say that u genuinely believed "HE" was the final messenger of Allah(swt) despite clear evidence to the contrary? When Allah(swt) questions u whether it's believable that the Quran is the exact word of Allah(swt) will your conscience answer yes? Is Allah capable of condoning slavemasters? Despite such damning evidence proving that the Quran was clearly not written by Allah(swt) as presented by Tandoori Singh, are u still adamant that Allah(swt) is the author? Sincerely, if u don't see the link between these groomers and Islam+Muhammad then we all pray that Allah(swt) guides u the right way because it's sad to see this type of brainwashing done on a fundamentally decent fellow Punjabi. It's truly sad u don't see it.

All we know is that 5 of them are pakistani, 2 are african, and the common denominator that unites them is Islam. For muslims or pakistani's to try to wash their hands off this and claim that "the men are mirpuri", as if Mirpur is somewhere in Argentina or something, is worrying. Whenever an issue occurs involving pakistani muslims, be it terrorism, paedophilia, grooming, the response is always the same: "don't blame Islam, don't blame pakistani's, don't blame pakistani culture" and instead, so-called community leaders will fall over backwards to blame "western influences on their children". Only last week on a BBC Asian Network debate, a certain Councillor Khan blamed "western culture of drugs/drink and poor social services". Shocking. Especially when one observe that Hindu's, Sikhs, Jews, Afro-Caribbeans etc grow up in with the very same "western culture" and yet they are not engaged in grooming, paedophilia or terrorism. But Pakistani's are. The Metropolitan Police Service has already warned that more plots will be unearthed and that this is the tip of the ice-berg. But one thing remains an absolute cast-iron fact. Be it paedophila, terrorism, grooming, drugs (Pakistani's in Norway), all roads lead to either Pakistan or men of pakistani-origin living abroad - Mirpur or otherwise. PS: Don't even get me started on medical disabilities resulting from genetic malformations from first cousin marriages and benefit fraud (handouts from the UK govt for non-British readers). It's about time British men of Pakistani origin and Pakistani's themselves took ownership of the issue rather then "blaming the west" or "blaming social services".

NOW COME ON GUYS LETS BE FAIR! 2 of those 7 pictured are AFRICAN Muslims . All Muslims are equally capable of reading the Koran (of which there is only one and according to itself, it is perfect and clear) or copying Mohammad, and seeing that rape and slavery of the Kaffir and going after children is well... QUITE JUSTIFIED. This is particularly clear if you see the situation in Europe where Muslims originating from ALL different Muslim countries are causing trouble. In Australia it's Lebanese that are most well known to have been involved in these kinda rape cases. Sura 4:3: You can have 4 wives and unlimited concubines/slaves ‘that your right hand possess’. And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice. Sura 4:24: Forbidden from sex with a married Muslim women, but you can have sex with female captives and slaves. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. Sura 3:110: Says that Muslims are apparently better than anyone else. You [true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad SAW and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fasiqun (disobedient to Allah - and rebellious against Allah's Command). Sura 2:90: Allah REALLY hates disbelievers How bad is that for which they have sold their ownselves, that they should disbelieve in that which Allah has revealed (the Quran), grudging that Allah should reveal of His Grace unto whom He will of His slaves. So they have drawn on themselves wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers, there is disgracing torment. Sura 2:282: A woman is worth half that of a man. O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah , his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Sura 4:16: Those who committed adultery with your women can be punished, but if they repent they should be let off with no consequences. And the two persons (man and woman) among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, punish them both. And if they repent (promise Allah that they will never repeat, i.e. commit illegal sexual intercourse and other similar sins) and do righteous good deeds, leave them alone. Surely, Allah is Ever the One Who accepts repentance, (and He is) Most Merciful. There are many relevant sura's, especially those denigrating women. This will do for now. Mohammed of course married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had PENETRATIVE (as in we don't fully know what came before) sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. Anyway, it just so happens that most of the Muslims in England are Pakistani in origin, some of the men who have been arrested for grooming were even born there. That said Pakistan seems to be one of those countries that seems to take Islam to a whole other level, like they ALWAYS have something to prove... I don't know how these poor girls can ever get over what horrors have been inflicted on them, but I wish them all the best. Hopefully they'll never have to see evil as ugly as this (I mean that literally too) ever again. Also it's funny... I'm not seeing Sikhs involved in these case...

Again...I can't make sense of what you want to say? Should he write in Arabic or your Pakistan's elite language of Urdu so you understand better? How come hindus are 20-100 times stronger? lol.. The odds at Chamkaur Sahib against Muslims were greater than those in 1984 Islam and Sikhism never came across in any strategic conflict....and you should thank Allah for that... Oh? Why? Because Islam would attempt to eradicate Sikhs off the face of the Earth the way the Islam tried to do so many times before? Muslims couldn’t manage it in 1947 despite the horrific losses we suffered, so what makes you think you’ll destroy the Sikh Panth in the future? You will never achieve your dream! Otherwise, who knows, there would not have been a 'Sikh' sangat forum on internet... We are truly grateful to cowardly Hindu’s that converted to Islam because of Aurangzeb letting us survive!?!? LOL Why would I imply that Sikhs are weak? There is nothing to "imply" but just facts. You can guys can live in your own fantasize world. In real world, Sikhs are a non-existent entity in global historical narrative. hahahaha ... Oh and Punjabi Muslims greatly influence the world by being the base of global terror, huh? LOL Yeah "secretly" but yet you know it...lol.. I suppose you conveniently forgot that the punishment Prophet Muhammad ordered for leaving the cult of Islam is death. Islam is spreading Mashallah and it has been for last 14th centuries..and will continue to do so by Allah's will... How great is that? Terrorism, grooming, sex slaves, love jihad conversions, domestic violence against women all increase in tandem with the spread of the cult throughout the world. - More Muslims died during partition than Sikhs/Hindus combined. False lie above but yeah its true that when the Sikhs responded to Islamic ethnic cleansing being attempted in Doaba and Majha, the Sikhs fought back despite the Muslims being more numerous. It still doesn’t change the fact that Punjabi Muslims killed off 25% of the Sikh population in Pakistan in 1947. Would you be happy if 25% of Pakistani’s were killed off by jihadi’s against you like American drones? - Most Sikhs migrated to E. Punjab and left Pakistan after partition by their own will... Yes 75% of Sikhs in Pakistan left due to the 25% of Sikhs there being brutally killed by Pakistan. Imagine if 25% of Punjabi Muslims were killed off today by American drones. Would u scramble to leave Pakistan yourself then? Then why do you like the very Muslims that enslaved your ancestors to fight against your own people in 1947? You said how Muslims somehow 'lost' to Hindus. Answer my question about how do you think am I on the 'losing side' by being a Muslim? You’ve already answered by avoiding a reply to the fact that at age 54 Muhammad had sex with a 9year old child called Aisha. You can’t defend that. You don’t have the cajones to condemn it. Clearly you’re on the losing side! You believe in Islam because your Hindu ancestors were forced to believe in it by the power of the sword. Go worship your ten gurus. Sikhs worship none other than one God alone. It’s Muslims who worship Muhammad and who are actually Muhammadans. Sharia Law proves that. Muhammad practised slavery+pedophilia despite both being immoral. Yeah..just like they have 'stopped' Islam for past 1400 years...oh wait...LOL! That was when people were illiterate. Do you think educated Muslims will tolerate pedophilia and sex slavery as glorified by Muhammad and the Quran? Somehow I don’t think so! No. Islam has been growing since the day it was born Mashallah.. and it will continue to grow Inshallah...while losers like you will keep on crying... If you don’t condemn a 54 year old man for having sex with a 9year old child called Aisha, what makes you think that your children won’t be brave enough to reject that kind of immorality? And I don't go around insulting my fellow punjabis' faith and mocking them. Of course you do. You insult Sikhi all the time but you do it with a sense of Muslim supremacy whilst pretending to be a peaceful dawah jihadist on the surface lol. Who told you that I take Islam zealously? Ok we all feel better now. At least we now know you don’t even truly believe in a pedophile and slaveowner as much as it seemed. Islam. Spread by sword? Yes. Primarily? No. Islam was overwhelmingly spread by the sword So what if Muslims are militarily weaker? Military conquests for spreading one faith are history now... How sad that is for Islam, as it was easier to force subjugated peoples like your ancestors into Islam in old times. Indians had no chance against Pakistan Really? Tell everyone more about this! Indians always faced humiliation when faced Pakistanis on Western Front Do tell us non-Indians how Pakistanis humiliated another country when they lost all those wars? But I do agree, Sikhs saved india Sikhs believe in one God and fighting for humanity. Muslims believe in Muhammad and fighting for to reach paradise where 72 light skinned virgins and young boys of perpetual freshness await. Big difference. But back to the OP, why exactly is it that you refuse to condemn 54 year old men who have sex with 9year old little girls as being evil? Please don’t run away from condemning such an evil and immoral act.

they must be all Mirpuris.

This is evil. When I read the subject only one community sprang to mind. The photo's and names confirmed it

No, free speech should cover EVERY TOPIC. If someone wants to criticize Sikhism they should be ALLOWED to and we shouldn't have a problem with it. If an ideology can't stand up to debate then it's not worth following. Sikhism CAN STAND UP to any debate, so we have nothing to fear. I mean just look at Guru Gobind's 52 Hukams, It's so incredibly righteous IT HURTS. You CAN'T pick holes in the strength of that moral code it's impossible. Modern day values can't even compare to how ridiculously heavenly you're supposed to be in Sikhism . You're missing the point...there is a difference between disagreeing and attempting to insult a religion to cause offence. That was the issue with us with the Narakdharees in 1978; they were slandering the Gurus. Atheists write books and have conferences on why they believe there is no God; no-one has a problem with it. That is having an opinion; deliberately taking the mick is different. But WHO is denigrating Sikhism anyway? The white man? Hardly! I've never heard/read about a white person saying anything but positive things about Sikhs, talking about how we're all warriors and hard working, really fun people to hang around with and never cause any trouble. I don't see ANY Sikhs disagreeing with this either . You CAN'T pick and choose what opinions you're willing to allow.Again, you're missing the point. They're not doing it yet, but we have seen the reaction when we raise issues (the Be-Izatee play, mixed marriages in Gurdwaras).........the majority of the British public have been against us. They want the right to do insult any religion; this will include ours and is why we should oppose it. The play Behzti was WRITTEN BY A SIKH don't forget. Someone in our VERY OWN community wanted to talk about various issues we face and we have to allow that. The only real problem was she set the play in a Gurdwara without any actual given reason for it, and Sikhs were RIGHT TO PEACEFULLY PROTEST about it and not support it. You are also free to call the author a traitor, but violence is out of the question. The violating of the Gurdwara for cheap publicity by Gurpreet Bhatti was much worse. A Sikh ?.....I think she is more westernised and living by western values than Sikh values. The majority of the British public were with her. We do not face the issues she showed in her play; that was just a pathetic attempt to cause controversy and make her name. As for Southall. A white person may not want to LIVE there, but would they ever say they feel totally unwelcome? I don't think so. Tommy Robinson has gone on record saying that even though Southall is basically a Sikh town, it's just as friendly as a white area. Why would white people who have been living in an area for generations move out ? It's not a decision that is taken lightly. Tommy Robinson has already admitted that classic EDL chants like 'WHO THE EFF IS ALLAH' are probably not the best way to win support, but fact of the matter is Islamists have said and done far worse. Free speech isn't always pretty and nobody said it was, but it is the best way to run the world. The people (no matter who/what they are) in the EDL are ANGRY at the injustice taking place in England, and how their country and future is changing for the worse. PROTESTING with the EDL is the best possible outlet for that anger, far better than random people turning to riots and blind violence like Anders Breivik did in Norway. The EDL chants are directed against a religion......against ALL Muslims. It shows that this goes beyond just being against Islamists and is why Sikhs should have nothing to do with it. Again, it is inaction by the government that they haven't arrested Islamists making provocative chants. I disagree, Halal SHOULD be banned. Muslims had their chance to make it work and they clearly failed us all. Halal should CONTINUE to be banned until they can prove beyond doubt that it will never infringe on the rights of non-Muslims in Britain (95% of the country) ever again. As a Sikh I will FOREVER be appalled by Halal. As a British person I will FOREVER be appalled by Halal. Halal goes against British views on Animal Welfare, so the time when Halal will be truly acceptable is probably never. The reason people are being force-fed Halal is not because of Muslims, it is because of retailers who put profit and business efficiency before everything else. Separating Halal and non-Halal is time consuming for them, it's easier to just have Halal. The government needs to make them separate the two and give people the right NOT to eat Halal. The whole meat industry is cruel and exploits animals living in horrible, cramped conditions before killing them. The 'Azaan', the Muslim call to prayer should ALSO be banned. Just like it was banned in the Sikh Empire. WHY should anyone have to hear for miles around AND in their homes, some guy on a loudspeaker chant about how amazing Islam and Muhammad is? How much you suck for being an unbeliever? WHAT would happen if a Gurdwara started using loudspeakers to blast to the world how amazing the Guru's, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Waheguru are? Would Muslims appreciate that? Would anyone actually WANT that? WHAT would happen if someone was to use loudspeakers at their house and blast to the world how much better they are than everyone else? They'd be arrested . If this is happening then it needs to stop. "NOW is the time for the country to decide. Do we want Britain-istan. Or do we want Great Britain? YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. We either have to give Muslims everything they want, or 'limit' them by giving them the SAME rights as the other 95% of this country. There is no halfway point." Yes, everyone should have the same rights under the law.

My DaadaJee was a Sikh, and he told me his DaadaJee was a Sikh, and he told me he never ask this question to his DaadaJee or Father :D

I can admit to being childish now and again, but I think you may have me beat this time. I mean really? Calling Winston Churchill an English Hitler? Did he commit any genocides that I'm not aware of? I'm pretty sure he's hailed as a hero for defending Britain and defeating Nazi Germany in World War 2... Not to mention Churchill served in the armed forces and likely had more experience in Muslim countries and majority Muslim states than YOU yourself have. And you're saying he's less intellectual than... David 'The Chameleon' Cameron! Instead of dissing Winston Churchill, why don't you explain what's actually FACTUALLY WRONG about what he said? Oh you want another quote? About Indian religions this time? NO PROBLEMO! ".....It is a matter of regret that due to the obsession of the present times people are distorting the superior religious and social values, but those who wish to preserve them with respect, we should appreciate them as well as help them. Sikhs do need our help for such a cause and we should give it happily. Those who know the Sikh history, know England's relationship with the Sikhs and are aware of the achievements of the Sikhs, they should persistently support the idea of relaxation to Sikhs to ride a motorbike with their turbans on, because it is their religious privilege." Churchill, further added: "...British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans. At that time we were not adamant that they should wear safety helmets because we knew that they are not going to wear them anyways and we would be deprived of their help. At that time due to our miserable and poor situation, we did not force it on them to wear safety helmets, why should we force it now? Rather, we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud." - Sir Winston Churchill, addressing British Parliment. Happy? It sounds quite positive! This Churchill bloke sounds like a decent guy to me mate ----- Global village? Not quite... I have American friends I speak to everyday, but that doesn't mean I know what it's like to live in Boston day in day out. ----- Sorry to break it to you but it's true, EVERY kind of person and even ex-Muslims are indeed gravitating to the EDL. Maybe it's growing even faster than Islam? If these 'Defense Leagues' are not important enough to care about, then why are so many Muslims and Leftists afraid? Why are they constantly shouting the EDL down and closing down legitimate debate? Why are they trying so hard to get organisations like it banned? The Leftist media and the BBC just look like cartoon clowns now, everyone can see right through them. ----- If Muslims don't want to drink alcohol or eat pork, that's entirely up to them. I don't drink, but pork is just delicious . POLLUTING the food that the other 95% of the country wants to eat? That is unacceptable, and it's happened too often. Too long have supermarkets lied to the masses about where their meat comes from. Schools have served Halal food to children without parental consent. Restaurants serve Halal without making sure people are adequately informed or even get a choice of anything else. All of this for simple moneymaking reasons like CHEAPER COST OF MEAT AND MORE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. It's a travesty and needs to end. The few do not get to erode the rights of the many. Sikhs of course are forbidden to eat Halal, the Guru's rejected barbaric ritual slaughter in ALL of its many forms. However the fact of the matter is NO non-Muslim wants to support the Halal Meat Industry ESPECIALLY without knowing about it, and when they DO know they definitely don't want to support it . Halal slaughter abattoirs? Where animals are brutalized? Where only Muslims can work? Where money goes to Jihad? NO THANKS BRO. In fact lets flip it and think about Muslims suffering! (which is all you care about) How many times have we seen situations where food that is SUPPOSED to be Halal, has not actually lived up to Halal standards? Either it's been stunned and killed 'incorrectly', or it's got Pork DNA in it or has been contaminated in some other way. The system of handling meat has failed Muslims and they've been lied to as well. Halal should be banned in Britain (and Western) countries, it's simply incompatible and doesn't work. If they want to eat Halal meat they can do it in a Muslim country. That way we ALL know where we stand. In Sura 5:3: Muslims are ALLOWED to eat non-Halal meat if it there is no other option for them, so there really shouldn't be a problem. That said Europe is quite used to 'Muslim Uproar' by now anyway . ----- As for Hijabs and Burqa's well... Sura 33:59: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful. To me that sounds like the Koran is saying women should be completely covered, so the Burqa is more 'official' than the Hijab. Quite frankly to be a REALLY GOOD Muslim, women should only have ONE eye hole! What's wrong with the Burqa? Well tell me what's RIGHT about it? It's dull and not very nice to look at. It's a symbol of female oppression. It completely destroys any forms of communication and integration. Oh and... MUSLIM MEN HAVE COMMITTED ROBBERIES WEARING BURQA'S MANY TIMES BEFORE... Nobody has a problem with the Hijab, it's just a scarf after all. The Burqa however is completely different and not welcome in Britain, even if it was the womans 'choice'. ALL face coverings should be banned for security reasons no matter what. ----- No I'm afraid it's NOT Muslims who get to decide who builds Mosques, it's the LOCAL COUNCILS. Without building permission, you can't build ANYTHING it doesn't matter who you are. Some towns/cities have more Mosques than the Muslims who actually live there know what to do with. There should be a quota system in place. I'd be equally against having a Gurdwara or Mandir on every street corner too, but at least I'd know they weren't having regular talks given by HATE PREACHERS! ----- Bigot? Islamophobe? I was wondering when you'd pull those out. I guess that means I've won the argument. You didn't even have a comeback for Sharia Law courts . What about racist? CALL ME RACIST! Oh wait... You can't call me that because we're both brown...

Ostrich syndrome. Is that not what it's called? Unfortunately, this kind of behaviour is quite typical of middle class punjabi muslims. You know what? It's not like these folks don't know that a gutter underclass of muslims, such as somalians and mirpuri paks, exist. However, they've never lived close enough to one to know how their religious cohorts make the lives of non-muslims hell, wherever they form a sizeable chunk of the population. Because they're comfortably holed up in the leafy suburbs, far from the inner city hell that is bradistan/londonistan/luton/chalvey/alum rock. That and the fact that punjabi muslims are very careful about socialising within their class - which means doctors, accountants, solicitors - who all live in the same successful middle class/ aspiring higher middle class bubble, which consists of zero to no interaction with the types of gutter rat muslims that are responsible for petty street crime, child grooming, prostitution, aggressive/forced conversions, brainwashing, blackmail, wanton violence and the general social disarray that you see daily "in the endz". Head in the sand. What a shame.

If you want to march alongside chavs shouting "muhammad is a p***o", "who the f**k is Allah" and do a disservice to Sikhi in the process than that is up to you. Slogans like this clearly show that EDL are not just against militant Islam but Islam itself. This is going to turn moderate Muslims away and polarise people more. They also want the right to insult religion....this will include Sikhi. We saw what happened with the Be-Izatee play and how the majority of the British public was against us for not wanting our religion to made a mockery of. As Sikhs we should be against ANY religion or prophet being insulted. Disagreeing with a religion is OK, but insulting it is not.....there is a difference. We don't like it when our religion is insulted; let's not insult other people's religion. Some of the points they raise are valid and it is due to weak governments and weak community leaders that these have not been addressed. Halal meat is a big one.......it should clearly be labelled. Let people have the choice whether to have halal or non-halal meat. Shere Punjab shouldn't have been dismissed by members of our community when they were highlighting the cases of grooming gangs. They did make a lot of sacrifices for our community and should be given respect. At last the police are putting evil scumbag perverts behind bars. As has been said, there is a higher percentage of them amongst the Pakistani community....this is a problem they need to address. The hate preachers who are against this country should be deported....the government needs to be harder. Regarding EDL members being racist or not, or coming for us afterwards.......have we forgotten the amount of racism we have suffered since 9/11 ? Was this really a case of mistaken identity.......or a chance for racism to rear it's ugly head ? Look at the EDL members........those Sikhs who live in the UK know the reaction you would get if you met one of these on the street. Oh, but it's a case of mistaken identity, they don't know the difference between us and Muslims, I hear you say. Really ? How come no orthodox Jew with an uncut beard is never mistaken for being a Muslim ???? How come no black people are ever mistaken for being Muslim ? This is racism and we need to be fighting against it rather than supporting it. We are never going to be acceptable to them until we have totally assimilated, ie. lost our own heritage and culture. They are desperate now and have their hands full with Muslims; this is why they are trying to push us forward to fight against Muslims. We have to look at the bigger picture and see the issues that have arisen in this country. Multiculturalism has failed.....how many white English people do you know living in Sikh dominated areas like Southall / West London ? They have ALL moved out....why ???? They were saying many of the same things about us that are now being said about Muslims. If you preserve your own culture then you are not integrating with the host community, if you lose your culture then you are a traitor to your own heritage. The economic problems have caused huge anger in the working classes, they are sick of mass immigration and opinion is going towards the right.

Oh we're playing the quoting game? "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." - Sir Winston Churchill And I think we can both agree Churchill will forever be considered a FAR more important and much less annoying Prime Minister than David Cameron in the eyes of nearly everyone . Er... Anyway I thought you were American? How do know what it's like to live in British towns and cities? Or are you simply ASSUMING that problems are just being made up? Videos on Youtube all being staged? Are all the tons of arrests linked to grooming false? Why would people make up these problems? Tommy Robinson IS the EDL, you can't simply ignore everything he says. Debates don't work that way Racists exist everywhere, in every community and organisation and at least Tommy is honest enough to accept that the EDL has its share. That said, I haven't seen any EDL members (not that there is a membership system anyway) kill or rape any Muslims? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm afraid you're simply wrong, people of ALL races and faiths, men and women are siding with the EDL now, it's not just white working class male chavs. The EDL have recently swollen in size after the Woolwich incident and will continue to do so, more and more floodgates are opening. Not to mention, there are 'Defence Leagues' popping up in almost every Western country, and they're all networking together. WHAT is the goal of the EDL? It's pretty plain to see, and I've never even been to a single rally... Sharia isn't welcome in Britain. Any of it. Muslims just have to live without it. That means... No Halal. No Burqa (or any face covering for that matter including balaclava's). No Sharia Law courts. No building more Mosques than necessary in an area. It also means that the police and government need to tackle serious issues and crimes regardless Muslims WITHOUT any of the cover-ups, fear of being called a racist, and just general lack of action and letting Muslims off for the same crimes anyone else would go to jail for. THIS is the kind of thing that is and has been happening in this country for too long and it's led to countless victims. Muslims make up almost 5% of the country in actual fact, not 2-3%. That percentage feels huge when you have whole sections of towns and cities that inhabited almost entirely by Muslims, but this in itself wouldn't be a problem if Muslims integrated better and actually welcomed people. Might I also add that at least 85% of all street grooming cases involve Muslims. Sharia Law courts are NOT recognised by the British legal system, and are only ALLOWED to exist under arbitration rules to oversee small matters. Most importantly they are NOT allowed to go against British Law. Obviously the problem is they go against it ALL the time, conducting marriages that aren't official recognised, handling divorces, wellfare of children and more. Sharia Law in accordance with Sura 4:11 and Sura 2:282 ensures that a woman is only worth half of a man. This has led to Sharia Law courts discrimating against women, and offering dangerous advice such as going back to an abusive husband. This is all documented and PROVEN. As for double standards... Ideally we would have no other system of law in the country EXCEPT for British Law, but at the very least Jewish 'Beth Din' courts don't go against British Law, if they did we would have heard about it by now. Jews understand that the law of the land is absolute. NO OTHER RELIGION goes against British Laws, that is the point. There IS clearly an Islamification of Britain going on, but that time is over now. Muslims are free to live in Britain, but they have to follow the same rules as everyone else and they don't have a choice. I love how you just try to downplay and pass the blame on everything. Please continue it's really quite entertaining .

ok as far as daas knows from his grandparents and father that daas family belongs to basarke which was birthplace of dhan dhan sri guru amardas sahib maharaj ji and dass great great great grandfather was garvai of gurusahib ji...daas has just heard about this....and guru sahib ji gave a pot type something to them and told that they could take out money from it on sangrand without seeing what is inside it...but alas one of daas great grandfather saw inside it and the room in which they saw that is now locked and its entry is banned ....