StarStriker

Talking of scummy goreh and genociding the native americans, this classic comes to mind!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1065803360128781&id=1004021762973608&refid=17&_ft_=top_level_post_id.1065803360128781%3Atl_objid.1065803360128781&__tn__=%2As https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1701777046771528&id=1502564676692767&refid=17&_ft_=top_level_post_id.899482663506027%3Atl_objid.899482663506027&__tn__=%2As https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=782022101931543&id=542402209226868#comment_form_542402209226868_782022101931543 How come bandar sena didnt show up, wen singhs challenged them n gave em a time n place? This cow worshipper has now made a New challenge......well every1 knows wats gona happen. These pr!cks will finally show there faces, and bring the police with them for protection.

I heard this film has been breaking records, good!

Yea these are 'roma gypsies', who r wrongly called "romanians" by typical uneducated fuddhu ppl in england. They r a disgrace of a community, who id quite happily have removed from our nation. Ive encountered loads of these k@njars where i live. They steal clothes from charity clothes banks, they prostitute their OWN sisters and even take baths in water fountains in full view of the public. Biggest shame for us panjabis/n.indian/paks is that these very same roma gypsies r related to us, as a thousand years or so ago, they left panjab/kashmir/rajasthan en masse n went to europe. Some of them still practice some hindu customs, but r mostly christian now i believe. They deliberatly wear long skirts to steal as many things as possible! Yet still u will get dumb PC fools (esp arse lickin goreh), who will come out with that old chesnut of, "they have every right to be here" bakwaas. The roma gypsies who mostly live in uk, r from slovakia, hungary n bulgaria, n those nations r relieved they r finally gettin rid of these chors! Unfortunatly we have to put up with them now, which is a shame for polish/other e.european hardworkers who will be lumped in the same category as these pr!cks.

Shocking!!

Dont bother goin there mate, any talk of meat, n this site closes the thread, its y i never replied to 'big tera'.

Here is a reply to scummy hundals crap article, by ranveer singh, from the 'National Sikh Youth Federation' (NSYF). http://sikhpa.com/seeking-extremism/ https://ranveersp.wordpress.com A critique of accusations of Sikh Extremism, by Ranveer Singh of National Sikh Youth Federation (NSYF) As an activist and writer, I appreciate the importance of providing an informed perspective when it comes to matters affecting the Sikh Panth. To do so however, knowledge of Sikh history, ideology and polity are musts to provide a competent viewpoint. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and any attempt made to open dialogue on matters affecting the Sikh Panth must be commended. That said, ones opinion of Sikh affairs will lose any iota of credibility if it is devoid of Gurmat inspired analysis. That is and always has been the benchmark for resolving Sikh affairs. An article entitled Sikh Extremism was recently published on the Critical Muslim website. Seemingly out of place, a few paragraphs in it becomes clear why this piece is on the site along with articles such as The Top 10 Jihadi Janes. Written by Sunny Hundal, the article sensationalises a handful of protests and the behaviour of a few individuals to tarnish a whole community as having an extremist issue. The author has a track record of denigrating members of the Sikh community with his offensive and mostly ill-informed articles. The real issues which he attempts to discuss lose focus due to his belligerent vilification of the Sikh community with misguided viewpoints that only serve to create controversy. This latest article of his catapults aimlessly from one issue to another in an attempt to provide support for his proposed theory of Sikh extremism. He relentlessly babbles on about the threat of division within the Sikh community with twisted evidence that is grossly out of context. To open he refers to the xenophobic behaviour of two individuals who supported the fascist groups BNP and EDL in 2005 and 2010. The author then compares the isolated behaviour of the aforementioned individuals to what he terms puritanical Sikhs, thus demonstrating the existence of a division in his own mind between the more liberal Sikh. His oxymoronic depiction thus dictates the tone of his entire article and exposes the flaws in his understanding and analysis of Sikh history, ideology, psyche and current affairs. Branding one side religious extremists and another liberal, he instantly tarnishes one group whilst simultaneously painting a positive perception of the other. He appears to show concern over a growing movement of puritanical Sikhs. Let us consider this conjecture for a moment. Guru Nanaks Sikh is liberal by nature. This division which the author talks about exists because of his perceived understanding of Sikh affairs, which is contrary to Sikh polity and Sikh ideology. There can be no liberal, conservative or secular Sikh, as suggested by the author. These terms are a relatively new occurrence created to cause division rather than point out division amongst the Sikh Panth. Derived from the democratic political spectrum, the terms hold no relevance within the Sikh Panth. Secularism, a term used to describe the separation of state and church, is a foreign concept for Sikhs and an affront to the concept of Miri-Piri. This is what I like to term classic neo-colonial objectification; trying to define and view a community and its institutions within the constraints of a foreign system. The author and many of those who admire his work are accustomed to living in a democratic state where secularism forms a central component of democratic governance. Secularism basically implies that ones own beliefs should be kept at a personal level. To ensure that they do not interfere with State politics, the people are then obliged to follow the same law, irrespective of its compatibility with their own belief system. This creates a perception that all religious beliefs share the same level of truth-ness. The Guru challenged such systems and instilled a spirit amongst the people which not only saw them clash with empires and governments for their exploitative and suppressive ways but also saw them challenge the manipulation of religion by high ranking priests who had misled the people into idol worship, superstition and empty rituals. The Gurus mission was to empower the plebeian cause and he created the Panth as an example of how an egalitarian society should function. The implementation of concepts such as, Miri-Piri, Sarbat da Palla, Sangat and Pangat all serve as a testament to this fact. The Guru created a Sikh, whose very existence throughout history has been enough to challenge all the xenophobic and bigoted societal norms. Guru Nanaks Sikh is liberal by nature. Yet Sunny Hundal still feels the need to create a sub-category of Sikh, as if to distinguish between those in tune with Sikhi and those on the conservative periphery. The idea that a Sikh who follows the Gurus mandate is the same today as they would have been in the 15th century seems to create some discomfort for him. These labels can be traced back to the systematic categorisation of Sikhs during the colonial encounter. This manner of division is counterproductive to the Sikh narrative and must be challenged at every opportunity. The prospect of walking the Gurus path, as shown by the Guru and great Sikh scholars, poets and warriors, is not enough for some new age followers of Sikhi. They feel compelled to label those traditions and codes of conduct as archaic. This is done to justify and suit their lifestyle, to claim they too follow Guru Nanak but only on conditions which fit around their own interpretation and implementation of the Gurus instruction, thus creating a total paradox of Sikhi. Hundal seeks to validate this paradox just to seemingly create a point of discussion which he then becomes a self-made expert on. The Sikh community has been in a constant state of war with those who wish to dilute the Sikh way of life. Unsurprisingly, Hundals use of the term religious extremists is swiftly followed by a short and ill-equipped reference to the events of 1984 and the continued suppression of Sikh political activism. The author deems both to be as big a problem as his perception of Sikh extremism which he alleges can fuel hate crimes. Statements such as this that unresolved issues around 1984 are as big a threat to the Sikh community as Tommy Robinson appearing on the Sikh Channel are where Sunny Hundal loses all credibility and descends into the realms of absurdity. Has he forgotten the peaceful agitations made to discuss and resolve the denial of social, economic and political rights of the people of Panjab before the government of India responded with tanks and machine guns? Has the author no knowledge of how Sikhs in Panjab have been systematically robbed of their rivers, land and their language? At what point will it cross the authors mind to consider any real destabilisation of Panjab and the Sikh community is orchestrated by the violence of State sponsored military operations? Instead the author wishes to condemn the actions of those who justifiably agitate for a separate Sikh state. Who are the real extremists in all of this? As a Nation, the Sikh community has been in a constant state of war with those who wish to dilute the Sikh way of life. When Sunny Hundal labels Sikhs extremists based on his own petty interpretations, he either unknowingly or maliciously supports this war against the Sikh Panth. _________________________ Next, the author attempts to build his case for the extreme Sikh by turning the readers attention to the general racial and religious intolerance shown by Asians in Britain before delving into a personal story from his days at university. He ends this section by questioning the efforts of the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) who work tirelessly to highlight the problem of sexual grooming in the UK. The murky depths of grooming circles in the UK largely perpetrated by Muslim men has only recently come to light. SAS have been speaking about this issue for over a decade. Sunny Hundal has the audacity to state that the Sikh girls targeted by Muslim groomers were not targets for conversion, rather for sexual exploitation alone. It is strange of him to say this after admitting a leaflet was found to encourage Muslim men to convert Sikh girls in the mid-90s. It seems he will not let facts get in the way of demonising Sikhs, instead suggesting the SAS were speaking out to create anti-Muslim sentiments. This is his own conclusion based on his own knowledge and experience. It is in no way conclusive or accurate, and citing a BBC Asian Network investigation on the issue does not validate his claims either. So why did the author choose to make such an absurd claim? Well, he is building towards his favourite topic of inter-faith marriages; a topic in which he fails to recognise that much like most of the problems we face amongst the Sikh diaspora, the issue of inter-faith marriages is very simple. The Anand Karaj is not your conventional wedding ceremony. Most marriages in other faiths are legally binding contracts between man and wife regulated by the law of the land. The Anand Karaj at no point specifies responsibilities or duties commonly found in orthodox wedding vows. That is because the Anand Karaj ceremony is a union of two Sikhs (in my opinion practicing Sikhs, so there is no confusion over how one defines a Sikh), with the Guru. The first laav is effectively a declaration of allegiance to the Guru and the Sikh way of life. All four stanzas of the Anand Kaaraj are about commitment to the Guru. This is something that is completely undeniable fact, yet remains largely ignored in debates on the topic. So for someone to get married by way of an Anand Karaj, it is only logical that they are a practicing Sikh, otherwise what they are doing would simply be hypocritical. To partake in an Anand Karaj without fully embracing the Sikh faith belittles Guru, which is why this entire subject causes much distress to practicing Sikhs who hold our Guru in the highest regard possible. Taking part without this reverence for the Guru is usually done to appease either family, friends or a partner, or to do what is required of a Sikh. Allowing only Sikhs to part take in an Anand Karaj is not discrimination against non-Sikhs like the writer has alluded to, rather it is the most logical method to adopt for anyone that wishes to respect the Guru. With regards to the authors vilification of the Sikh protestors: on 23rd August 2015 the Sikh Council UK (SCUK) facilitated a meeting in which over 180 representatives from UK Gurdwaras passed a resolution that only a Sikh, in accordance with the Sikh Rehat Maryada definition, is allowed to participate in the Anand Karaj ceremony. To do something other than this is simply bending the rules for personal appeasements, which not only devalue the Anand Karaj but also question the validity of the Sikh Code of Conduct. Sikhs do not need to adhere to anyone elses view of what equality is other than our Gurus. Furthermore, in a statement televised on Sikh media outlets, the SCUK recognised the efforts of those who protest against inter-faith marriages and described them to be in line with Sikh principles. There is a difference between cultural behaviour and conduct based on the teachings of a certain faith. It seems this subtle difference is lost on many, including the author. The author then jumps on the topic of protests made by around 50 protestors according to the Guardian, regarding the film Nanak Shah Fakir. Whilst I agree the calls of blasphemy seem a little far stretched, the author makes a mountain out of a molehill. With many Sikhs believing the film should have been allowed to have been shown, it is an issue that calls for dialogue between Sikhs, something which Sunny Hundal himself looks to prevent by simplistically labelling protestors extremists. Hundal also provides a brief analysis of Panjab which provides no real substance or wider context to the social problems faced by women, or even men for that matter. The writer wrongfully implies the problems exist explicitly as a result of the shortcomings of the Sikh community, ignoring actions imposed on the State of Panjab by the central government. As a journalist he discredits himself when discussing the issue of female infanticide in Panjab by not mentioning the Sikh Guru openly declared anyone taking part in this practice can no longer be called a Sikh. Yet, Sikh extremist remains his most sellable product, so he ignores the fact this stems from cultural and not religious issues. I concur with the Hundals comments regarding the silence of UK Sikh leaders on issues such as honour killings. However, most of the social problems referred to are due to the imposed cultural tendencies in Panjab that create this type of behaviour amongst the diaspora. Such behaviour has no place in the teachings of the Guru. There is a difference between cultural behaviour and conduct based on the teachings of a certain faith. It seems this subtle difference is lost on many, including the author. Maybe to make his article less absurd he could have named it Panjabi Extremism. ___________________________ An insinuation from Sunny Hundal that 1984 was the tipping point for a defensive mentality where everything reverts to discussions of Khalistan among the Sikhs is unfounded and misleading. The movement for a Sikh homeland began with Guru Nanak when he founded the city of Kartarpur with subsequent Gurus building more cities and raising armies to fortify Sikh space and ward off acts to undermine Sikh sovereignty. This is a fact lost on many people today, partly due to colonial history, partly due to the continued suppression of Sikh political activism by the Indian government and its agencies and partly also due to the ignorance of misguided writers and academics. In the closing paragraphs the author showcases his limited understanding of how an independent Sikh homeland would look. His rhetoric appears to be based on classic anti-Sikh propaganda churned out by the Indian government. The author suggests Khalistan would be a theocratic state, with little explanation for why he believes this to be the case. It is glaringly obvious that the author needs to be educated on Panthic matters so that he can hold informed and intelligent discourse on the subject of Khalistan. The culture of sexism and alcoholism as categorised by Hundal is not a challenge faced by the Sikh community alone, it is a problem faced by every single society on this planet. Due to the soul-draining demands of capitalism, people are glorified based on their gender, women are used as symbols of sex and multi-billion dollar companies have a frighteningly expansive advertising budgets to market and sell alcohol. Instead of disproportionality placing the blame with the Sikh community, how about starting a conversation to tackle the problem of sexism and alcoholism at its root? The author has left the most bemusing and laughable statement till the end; they [the Sikh community] havent yet addressed how to keep Sikhs within the fold even if members start to adapt to different lifestyles and cultures. This is Sunny Hundal at his oxymoronic best. The Sikh have never relied on numbers to uphold the House of Guru Nanak. If a Sikh adapts to a different lifestyle and/or culture which advocates anything contrary to the tenets of Sikhi then they are no longer a Sikh. It is that simple. Historical precedence shows when 40 of the Gurus Sikh left Him during war, He didnt label them apostates, He simply allowed them to follow another path in that moment. When they later approached the Guru to re-join the Panth, He allowed them back in to the fold. The chali mukte (40 liberators) themselves did not attempt to legitimise their stance by saying to their Guru we will still be Sikh, but we are just pacifist Sikhs that no longer wish to fight, they understood the position of their Guru and agreed they would no longer be His Sikhs after leaving His side. They were Sikh as long as their conduct and actions defined them as Sikh. Please note, this article is in no way intended to deny the serious issues that affect Sikhs which the author mentions. However, the tabloid-esque manner of his reporting, combined with a clear lack of understanding of Sikhi itself, do more to harm than help relations within the Sikh community. It must also be noted, that along with the relatively small rise of things such as Anand Karaj protests is a comparatively massive rise in seva (selfless service) by Sikhs. Statistics compiled by the Sikh Press Association show approximately 10,000 meals a week are served to the needy on the streets of the UK by Sikh charities. There is also the recent opening of a free education centre (the first of its kind opened by a minority community in the UK) and increased encouragement towards practices such as meditation and community integration, all stemming from UK Sikhs maintaining a more adherent approach to Sikhi. Contrary to the authors belief, Sikhi will continue to prosper under what many will deem the direst of circumstances, as it has done since inception. The Sikh Panth has faced many external foes but it has learnt that the most destructive enemy is one which lingers within. It would seem the latest threat comes from the many self-appointed writers and commentators who attempt to promote this pseudo Sikh lifestyle and condemn those who follow the Gurus system as too puritanical. It would be more beneficial for them to reflect on their own devisive actions and try walking the journey, before judging those on the path.

Nice one! Also yes, we should get back to the topic of that mug hundals rubbish article. What i dont get is, WHY has he posted this on a muslim site, when the whole purpose u would imagine for article is to supposedly change sikh mindset?

Thats outrageous pretentiousness! I bet hes angry that his mum breastfed him and he didnt have the ability at the time to talk n say no, coz it isnt amritdhari breastmilk.

Funny u mention that, just 2day on nihals show which i was listening back to, a comment was made by an elderly muslim man, which left nihal speechless. The grandad said, how his granddaughter, went on a school trip to a gurdwara, and had langar/coke. She told her grandad, that her friends have told her, she is now a non-muslim/kuffar/dirty n unclean, coz she had food/drink frm kuffars. 8 yr olds r beleiving this in this country! I wasnt that shocked by those comments, but even i was slightly taken back by that...if that makes sense.

Soz i meant to say paul chowdhury, ur right. It just so happens, that i was watchin paul's youtube videos yday, and i came across that routine u quoted...aswel as this vid. POOR davinder's son!

I see u have been watchin imran yusuf's stand up videos.

You should post this on scummy hundals facebook page on this particular article. Id love to see his reaction n backtracking. By him labeling all the grooming/systematic targeting of our girls as lies/urban legend, hes pissin on all victims. Perhaps bhai mohan singh should inform hundal, of how he personally went to pakistan n brought back 15+ of our girls, whom had been taken their n sold as prostitutes by these paks.

Me posting his trash of an article where hes attackin panthic servants like shere panjab and bhai mohan singh/Sikh awareness society is not giving him a platform, but showing those who do/do not know of him, wat type of uncle tom he is. He has a platform, its called facebook/twitter, where liberal lefties/2 faced muslims love kissin his arse. This forum does none of that. 1 thing is for sure, he will NEVER be as popular as his brother, who is genuinely changing lives/minds in the panth, and bringing new ppl into the panth too.

He is the brother of jagraj singh (basics of sikhi), and is the most annoying of all liberal lefties!

Im just merely posting this to show ppl who r not aware of hundals work (particularly non uk sikhs) of wat kind of person this self-hating "sikh" is. I dunno wat ur problem is, but ive noticed tho, in recent weeks or so, u have gone from being a very decent poster, to becoming an incredibly arrogant poster and very unreasonable in ur tone.

https://www.criticalmuslim.io/sikh-extremism/ Whats your opinions on what is written in it? "In 2005 Rajinder Singh made history by being the first non-white Briton to feature in an election broadcast by the British National Party. Ironically, he wasnt even allowed to join the BNP, but he didnt care. I say adapt and survive and give the brave and loyal Rajinder Singh the honour of becoming the first ethnic minority member of the BNP, their communications officer wrote at the time. The party ignored that advice. Singh had developed a deep hatred for Muslims from Indias partition of 1947 when he blamed them alone for the violence and carnage that took place. Britain had a role to play, he admitted to the Guardian in 2009, but the violence [during Partition] sprang from the Quran. The Muslim answer to reasoned argument is knife, dagger and bomb. Such open displays of xenophobia arent frequent among British Sikhs, but scratch the surface and they can be found all too easily. As the BNP started faltering from 2008, the rise of the English Defence League (EDL) was similarly characterised by outreach towards Sikhs and Hindus. In 2010 an EDL rally featured a Sikh speaker called Guramit Singh, who told a reporter: Were not here to be anti-Muslim, anybody in the group who is anti-Muslim will be kicked out. Were here to fight against Muslim extremism. But a trawl through his Facebook page found comments like: the muzzies wanna keep away from me im just looking for an excuse im fucked off at the mo <banned word filter activated> the pakis. i just think we shud burn the cunts now! and others in a similar vein. He claimed he had been provoked into them by death threats he had been receiving. Guramit Singh was eventually arrested by the police for religiously aggravated harm and later jailed for a robbery. But he was the first to publicly try and help the EDL broaden their appeal. In response some Sikh and Hindu groups released a statement in 2011 condemning any association with the EDL, but many Sikhs never really shunned the EDL as they were urged to. Indeed, they were to be seen rubbing shoulders with the EDL in 2012 when tensions had flared up in Luton at the rumour that a Muslim man had abused a Sikh girl. The Mail on Sunday revealed that a secret meeting took place between some Sikhs and EDL leaders two days after the protest to discuss acts of vigilantism. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed after Sikh and Muslim leaders worked together to reduce tension. But the flirtation continued. The EDL even created its own Sikh Division and it has over 12,000 Likes on Facebook. As recently as April 2015, the former leader of the EDL (who has several names including Tommy Robinson), was warmly welcomed on to the Sikh Channel for an interview. Astonishingly, he wasnt asked about numerous examples of the EDLs racism, but instead allowed to pitch for Sikhs to join his campaign against Muslims without challenge. While most British Sikhs are unlikely to be seduced by such overtures, these episodes illustrate the dangerous actions of a loud minority. But the antics of this extremist community seldom get noticed in the British media. There is an implicit assumption that the Sikhs are a model minority that arent plagued by social ills or religious extremists like Muslims. Nor is there a regular slew of controversies to make it an ongoing worry. Within the community however it is a different matter. A number of recent controversies illustrate that a cultural divide is opening up between more liberal-minded and conservative Sikhs. Many fear that a growing movement of puritanical Sikhs could create a schism, leaving the global Sikh community badly fractured and divided. Moreover, as Sikhs are predominantly Punjabi and come from highly patriarchal families, there is a deep blindness to social problems that will likely have big repercussions in the future. But it is difficult to discuss these issues because the shadow of Prime Minister Indira Gandhis assault on the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984 looms large over everything. The attack, called Operation Blue Star, was bloody and heinous enough, but worse were the repercussions: Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards and in retaliation thousands of Sikhs across India were murdered in orchestrated pogroms or wrongly jailed. Many still rot in prison. These events made louder the calls for an independent Sikh homeland, more so in the British and American diaspora communities than in India. As successive Indian governments deny justice to victims of 1984, the big debates among Sikhs continue to revolve around the events of 1984 and the aftermath, at the expense of all else. The discussions and campaigns around 1984 are important, but so are many other problems that threaten to destabilise the entire global Sikh community. The rise of Sikh extremism is one of the main problems. I define Sikh extremism in two ways: open xenophobia that can fuel hate-crimes; and attempts by some to impose their views on others under the guise of religious puritanism. Most Sikhs are liberal-minded and secular, but they live in denial about extremism within their own community. Of course, Im not referring to the violent extremism of the Taliban or al-Qaeda type, but low-level coercion that still impacts lives and makes problems worse. Lets begin with xenophobia. Animosity between Sikhs and Muslims (and in some case, Hindus) was rare in the UK until the 1980s as most focused on battling racism. Under the banner of black unity, Asians identified themselves more along racial than religious lines and fought racists together. The burning of the Hambourgh Tavern pub in 1981, when men from Southall fought with skinheads and police and which was widely seen as a symbolic defeat for the far-right, was one such example. Around the 1980s and 90s, especially after the controversy around Salman Rushdies The Satanic Verses in 1988, an increasing number of British Muslims became politicised and identified along religious lines. That helped push Sikhs and Hindus along a similar path. Tensions didnt come to the forefront until the rise of Hizb ut-Tahrir and its flamboyant leader, Omar Bakri, who actively sought to inflame frictions to push his agenda. Most famously, controversy erupted in Luton in the mid-90s when a leaflet was found offering a reward to Muslim men to convert Sikh and Hindu women to Islam. No one admitted ownership (though Bakri was widely suspected) but it played into fears that Muslim men were preying on Sikh and Hindu girls. Later, while leading the splinter group al-Muhajiroun, Bakri was banned from staging an event in London where Sikh and Hindu girls would apparently publicly denounce their old religions and convert to Islam. Omar Bakris raison detre was to incite a clash between communities so he could get more recruits. Other Muslim groups shunned him, but it gave the impression to Sikhs and Hindus that they silently condoned him. After Bakri left the country, his tactics were adopted by protégé Anjem Choudhary, who became the leader of the extremist al-Muhajiroun. A decade later, some Sikh and Muslim groups sought to play on this urban legend to advance their own agenda. The Hindu Forum of Britain told newspapers that Muslims had aggressively converted hundreds of British Hindu girls to Islam. Newspapers initially repeated his allegations without proof, until an Evening Standard investigation exposed its leader Ramesh Kallidai as the fundamentalist father whose claims didnt stand up. Similarly, allegations by the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) that Muslims had forcibly converted Sikh girls were investigated by the BBC Asian Network and found to be without evidence. When I was at university in the late 1990s, a group of Sikhs broke into the room of a Muslim man one night and stabbed him in the leg because he was dating a Sikh girl. What was also remarkable about the incident was how many people shrugged it off as a danger that cames with the territory of a Sikh-Muslim relationship. Gangs such as Chalvey Boys (mostly Muslim, based in Slough) and Shere Panjab (mostly Sikhs, based around Southall) clashed frequently during that era, sometimes over inter-religious relationships. Not much has changed since. Of course, inter-religious relationships have been frowned upon by many of both religious groups. But some Sikh groups insist on claiming that girls were being duped by Muslim men who merely wanted to convert them for money. Of course, their focus has always been on women as if men were too intelligent to fall victims to such ploys or it didnt matter if a Sikh man was dating a Muslim woman. In 2013 a documentary seemed to confirm their worst suspicions. A BBC1 investigation found cases of Sikh girls being groomed by Muslim men. The Sikh Awareness Society claimed it had been right all along. But this is disingenuous. In this case, young impressionable children were being groomed for sexual exploitation, not conversion to Islam. The men who perpetrated these crimes were not religious but sexual predators, targeting white and Muslim girls too. Their aims werent religious but to prey on girls regardless of their backgrounds. Worse, the abused girls in the BBC1 report were stigmatised by their families and other Sikhs. One victim was warned by her mother not to tell anyone; another was banished to the United States to recover. Mohan Singh from Sikh Awareness Society carelessly said: we know that a girl who is tarnished with this kind of thing would never get married anyway. Why not? Were they defiled property now? The shame and stigma perpetuated by Sikhs also applies to discussion about sexual abuse within Asian families. When Sikh women have raised or campaigned on these issues they have been shouted down or ignored, as if the subject wasnt worth discussing. This strain of xenophobia invents conspiracies about Muslims and casts a shadow of doubt on all Muslim men. Not only is it utterly patronising (are Sikh women so stupid they are so easily duped into conversion?), but it perpetuates the view that Muslims should be viewed with suspicion because they have bad intentions towards Sikh women. Meanwhile, of course, bad intentions of Sikh men are ignored. Religious intolerance is not far behind xenophobia. The controversy over Gurpreet Bhattis play Behzti (shame) in December 2005 was a significant marker of growing intolerance among British Sikhs. It featured a segment where a disabled woman is raped in a Sikh Gurdwara not acted out but as part of the story. Some Sikhs walked out of the play in protest, saying it should have been set in a community centre not a Gurdwara. It wasnt a slur on Sikhism and the writer refused to relent. Radical groups organised protests in front of the theatre until windows were broken and the police could not guarantee security. The play had to be shut down. The furore shocked many in the mainstream media who had earlier assumed Sikhs wouldnt do anything like the events around The Satanic Verses. But the parallels were there. Some wanted to sue the writer, herself a Sikh, for incitement of hatred against Sikhs; others started spreading baseless rumours about the play and the writer; there was the inevitable cry that people shouldnt be allowed to insult Sikhism (the play didnt). Of course, she got death threats too, but since the notion of Sikh extremism doesnt fit the media narrative there was little focus on that. Some claimed the play was inappropriate because women had never been raped in a Gurdwara. In one notable interview, when a Sikh woman called up BBC Radio 5Live debate to say she personally knew of one such incident, the Sikh leader on air dismissed her. I asked writer Sathnam Sanghera, who wrote the acclaimed family memoir The Boy with the Top Knot, whether he self-censors on issues regarding Sikhs. His book attracted criticism from people who claimed it was insulting the community, even though it was about his personal experiences. I definitely self-censor. I avoid discussing all religious issues and refuse all invites to speak at community events, although sometimes I would actually like to do so. Because as a community, we havent yet learned to talk about ourselves, and its just not worth the aggro that always results, he says. And adds: the Jewish people have had centuries of being able to analyse and even laugh at themselves. Muslims were forced to learn to discuss themselves as a result of The Satanic Verses. But the Sikh community has no real tradition, past or present, of self-examination the level of debate is either appalling or non-existent. Were at the stage where to even use the word Sikh as an adjective, a label, in the course of just describing ones life (as a secular Sikh), is to attract the allegation that you are somehow criticising the religion or community. Like many younger Muslims, there is a growing tendency among second and third generation Sikhs to adopt a puritanical version of their religion as their principal identity. Any challenge or criticism of their religion (as they see it) is therefore taken as a personal insult and they become willing to take action against it. The recent campaigns against inter-religious marriages is a good example. In 2012, a group of around forty Sikhs stormed an inter-religious marriage between a Sikh woman and her Christian fiancé, posting a video of the incident online as a warning to others. A BBC Asian Network documentary in 2013 found that some Sikhs had become afraid to speak out because of a continuing campaign of harassment and intimidation; people had their windows smashed and faced other forms of intimidation simply because they wanted a religious ceremony at a Gurdwara. Underneath the radar of the national media, such events have escalated. A group calling itself Karaj has repeatedly disrupted inter-religious weddings at Gurdwaras, claiming they go against Sikh tenets. On the weekend an outerfaith [sic] wedding where a Punjabi bimbo was marrying a non-Sikh (white Christian) was forcefully stopped by the Khalsa. Respect to these lads for standing up for whats right and standing up to a corrupt gurdwara committee, they boasted last year after one event. Such incidents prompted one group of self-appointed community leaders from the Sikh Council to release a set of guidelines in 2014 to further stamp out inter-religious marriages from Gurdwaras. Fundamentalists say a strict interpretation of the Rehat Maryada (a set of codes set out by scholars in 1950), which prohibits marriage between Sikhs and non-Sikhs at a religious ceremony, must be enforced. They would rather have Sikhs who marry non-Sikhs be driven out than be welcomed so perhaps their children may still grow up Sikhs. In effect, they would rather have more liberal and secular Sikhs ex-communicated than have the religion corrupted as they see it. Their thinking is that its better to have a community that closely follows a narrow interpretation of the religion than deal with a myriad of actions and opinions outside that. Due to the centralised nature of Sikh officialdom religious edicts are only meant to come from the central authority (Akal Takht) at the Golden Temple in Amritsar there is a growing cultural divide between conservatives and liberals. Religious leaders in India are not just opposed to inter-religious marriages but have also issued edicts against gay marriages and, until recently, banned menstruating women from helping inside the inner sanctum of the Golden Temple. The controversy over the film Nanak Shah Fakir in April 2015 perfectly illustrates this growing intolerance. The Indian-made film, a biography of the first Sikh Guru, Nanak Dev Ji, was abruptly taken off cinemas worldwide after Sikhs protested in the UK and in India. Mohan Singh, of the Sikh Awareness Society, told the BBC: The sister of Guru Nanak is played by a human being, and we are also led to believe that a human actor played the role of Guru Nanak Dev ji, and that is blasphemy and is one part of why Sikhs around the world are objecting. Lets leave aside the fact that Guru Nanak was a real human being who lived between 1469 and 1539, so it would be impossible to portray him as anything other than human. In fact a human actor didnt play him in the film: the director stated repeatedly that he was briefly illustrated with CGI as a person hidden mostly by a shining light. Sikhs have had illustrations of the ten Sikh Gurus in human form for hundreds of years, so to say it is blasphemous to depict him as human is absurd. Sikh leaders in India, who had earlier commissioned life-like paintings of the Sikh Gurus and signed off on the film, now claimed to crowds that such depictions in films were blasphemous. Meanwhile many British Sikhs were openly disappointed and angry that they were denied from seeing it. A conversation around Sikh extremism and its impact is urgent partly because the community is in the midst of a crisis. Sikh women do face considerable problems, but the uncomfortable truth is that they do so at the hands of Sikh, not Muslim men. The state of Punjab, where most Sikhs are based, is in a mess. Across India it has among the lowest ratios of women to men, due to a mixture of factors that include unusually high ratios of gender-selective abortion, infanticide, neglect of girls, rapes, and dowry related deaths. In 2009 an Action Aid report found there are areas in Punjab with just 300 women to 1000 men; the usual rate is around 1050 women to 1000 men. Parts of Punjab are referred to as kuri mar (girl killer) areas where its not unheard of families to dispose of unwanted baby girls by burying them alive in a pot in the ground. Punjab is also awash with alcoholism and drug abuse. Some call it a drug epidemic. Punjabi women are even trying to organise themselves against this but face a herculean task. In the UK, British Asian women are twice as likely to commit suicide as white women. There have been numerous cases of so-called honour killings of Sikh girls. When Jagdeesh Singhs sister was murdered by her in-laws for daring to seek a divorce, he told the Independent that he was shunned by Sikhs for wanting to talk about the issue. The so-called community leaders, the influential religious groups and the local language newspapers remain deafeningly silent when these killings happen. But that silence makes them just as guilty as the people who kill in the name of honour. Sathnam Sanghera says that when he wrote that Sikh Punjabis had one of the highest rates of alcoholism in the world, a problem that had claimed several members of his family, he was accused of insulting the Sikh religion. I asked Herpreet Kaur Grewal, a British writer and journalist, whether women were excluded from debates among Sikhs. I feel Sikhism is interpreted from a male perspective as so much of everything in our modern world is. I accept this but seek to change it by asking what it is that women think and put across? It is sometimes so easy to accept the often heard and loudest interpretation! It takes guts and muscle to really dig out new perspectives. Any debates are mostly addressed by male voices from the community. She adds: Having said all this I feel Sikh men are very open to the idea of equality between the sexes and listen when issues are brought up. Some are stuck in that old patriarchal, Punjabi way of thinking but they need to be reminded Punjabi does not necessarily mean Sikh. Since it inception, the Sikh community has been a minority community. As Sikhs started becoming a distinct and large community in the 1500s, they came under attack from the Mughals and Hindu rulers. Some Mughals admired them, such as emperors Humayun and Akbar, but a number of the Sikh Gurus were distrusted and attacked by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Even as Sikh numbers prospered and grew, they faced a constant threat from the British. During the partition of India, many Sikhs were resentful because there was little regard paid to Sikh autonomy, as promised by Mahatma Gandhi, despite their over-proportionate sacrifices to gain independence. Even the sole Sikh empire created by Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1799 to 1849) was not a majority Sikh state. Currently 80 per cent of Sikhs live in the Indian state of Punjab, where they form just about two thirds of the population. In India, they are about 2 per cent of the population, but contribute over-proportionally to the army and police force. But, to the chagrin of some, Sikhs are frequently portrayed in films as objects of ridicule or as simpletons. Constantly protecting their identity and being a minority in every country has inevitably made Sikhs a very defensive community. There has always been a long-standing intolerance of religious diversity within the community for fear it would splinter and disintegrate. But it was the events of 1984 that cemented the defensive mentality and persuaded many Sikhs that they needed an independent homeland (Khalistan) to flourish. Subsequent campaigns focusing on justice for victims of the 1984 pogroms have been important, but the debate about Khalistan has frequently crowded out everything else. But heres the irony. Sikhs are heading for a schism precisely because of xenophobia and intolerance the two mechanisms they have adopted to keep the community intact. They have just not adjusted to being a globally dispersed minority community on a diverse and pluralistic planet. In other words, they havent yet addressed how to keep Sikhs within the fold even if members start to adapt to different lifestyles and cultures. Meanwhile, more secular and liberal Sikhs in the US and UK are not going to take orders from ultra conservative elements. They want to know why their co-religionists favour censorship over minor issues, or find it difficult to intellectually discuss controversial issues, or want to discriminate against gays, or reject non-Sikhs, or demand a theological state that could never survive the modern world. Inevitably, some will just move away from Sikhism and further shrink the community. Others will likely try and start their own movements, raising the prospect of a schism. There are plenty of parallels the split in the Anglican and Catholic churches over women Bishops is just one example. The Sikh community, in Britain as well as India, needs self-reflection. The Sikhs need to focus on internal problems which are not about religion or religious education, but a deeply entrenched culture of sexism, alcoholism and anti-intellectualism. The most ironic thing about Sikh extremists is how much their tactics, rhetoric and world-view mirrors that of the group they most claim to hate Muslim extremists. If Sikhs want to prosper and survive, they need an open and vigorous debate about how the most pressing challenges they face come from within, not outside. The defensive mentality that has suffocated important, intellectual debate has to come to an end, or else it could end up suffocating the Sikh community itself".

Oh stop ur nonsense u mug.U say all those groups above belong to wahabbi islam, which is a saudi/british invention of about 100yrs or so, so which group did jahanghir and aurengzeb belong to? Yet these 2 mughal tyrants pre-date saudi wahabbis. Saudis and wahabbi islam btw are an british invention, after the destruction and capture of old ottoman empire land. Stop lying to urself with this garbage thinking. Sufis in those days, were called dirty kuffars like we were too. Bulleh shah, anotha sufi, wore ankle bracelets and sang gods name, was called 'k@njari', which can be heard in nusrat fateh ali khan songs for eg. Like i mentioned, sufis, like farid wasnt allowed a muslim burial and allowed inside mosques says it all. Also even kabir himself, criticised halal meat, circumcision, prayin in 1 direction (mecca) and fasting. Wat kind of muslim was he then?

Erm no they were not muslims, they kuffar sufis. Wat type of muslim was farid, that he was refused entry into mosques and denied a muslim burial?

Bro the west TROOPS/military presence left, but not influence, via maliki, the placed chamcha govt.Also the 10yr iran/iraq war was backed by the west via proxy, to try and gain control of the oil/resources frm iran, which they freely had use of, under the rule of the chamcha pahlavi shah. Btw, the chemical weapons used on the kurdish in the north, was provided by who.......the west. Same idiotic responses? U mean telling u how it is? Chalo koi ni, nice conversing......

LOL, now ur just makin stuff up to cover ur poor knowledge of this whole fiasco and events. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever, but 1 thing does...why did baghdadi get released from iraqi prison, and suddenly handed billions of dollars to create havoc? Where did all this money come from, if iraq, which was run by a US made govt (malaki), was in chaos, bankrupt and in sectarian civil war? Who mentioned illuminati in this? I certainly didnt, its out there in the open media.

Is this ur rebuttal? U "highly doubt" they r related "that much"......speechless. Trump isnt related by family/blood to any past president... wat part of that dont u understand? Who made u a bloody genealogical researcher? Atleast look for substantial, or in ur case ANY evidence to say otherwise.

LIVING IN THE PAST?? wat planet r u on u mug? muslim brotherhood, ISIS, Al-nusra & Free syrian army r all operating right now and funded too, by americans chamchay (51st states), saudi arabia and qatar.

O DEAR O DEAR, u effed up now u mug, u could have just researched on the net, to find out that, yes even a half black man like obama, is actually related to cheney and GW bush, as thie cousins, which was publicly revealed by d!ck cheneys own wife in her own book, as well as genealogical researchers. Funny u try to mock, yet u cannot give suitable/or any rebuttals to wat i state. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/25/barackobama1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03hwl0m There r some very odd/dodgy questions asked here by nikki bedi, like "is it a myth/there proof that sikh women in history ever wore dastar?". Fitteh mooh