Xerxes

No, Sikh. Nope, that's not me, sorry.

I don't think that this belief is actually a part any of the more popular Muslim sects. I've certainly never heard of it, in fact the idea of Muhammad doing something wrong is utterly intolerable to most Muslims. The Wahhabis believe that Muhammad was fallible in areas outside of religion and made a few mistakes on occasion (the Muslim defeat at Uhud is often given as an example), and even that is violently disputed by non-Wahhabis. I am an ex-Muslim. Not an Arab admittedly and I wasn't Muslim for that long, but I was very into it. I suppose at times I did question quite a few of the things Muhammad supposedly did, but generally I had some reasoning to get around it, and when I didn't I'd try to have faith anyway. I'm also very into history, and really when I look back now at Muhammad I just see someone akin to Charlemagne, Frederick II or Alexander the Great: a fairly decent historical figure and definitely an interesting one, but not one that I could call a prophet. If his religion didn't survive his death (as was nearly the case with the Ridda Wars) I'm sure that Muhammad would be in a lot of historical fiction books and would be the subject of at least one international blockbuster. Both the good and bad sides of him have been grossly exaggerated.

I agree, it seems rather odd to me to proclaim a king who did little better than his contemporaries to be God's ultimate creation and final messenger to humanity. If more Muslims focused on the spirit behind what he did rather trying to turn his specific actions into a dogmatic and legalistic code of conduct the world would be a better place. I'll be clear here and state that I'm not arguing in favour of the various actions that Muhammad is criticised for doing, I'm arguing that really the demonisation of him as some sort of sex-crazed pedophile warlord is misplaced and the real people who are to blame for today's problems are the religious legalists who have been claiming to follow Muhammad for centuries. Muhammad is dead, he lived and died more than a thousand years ago in a world so different from today as to be almost unrecognisable. It isn't his fault that some of his followers later decided to turn him into a living rulebook for the remainder of eternity.

1. Muhammad definitely wasn't a pedophile by the standards of the time, all his other marriages were with grown women and he had no special interest in young girls. Of course what he did would certainly be considered an evil and reprehensible crime today. 2. Immoral according to our standards? Sure. Immoral according to the standards of 7th century Arabia? Not really. Aisha's marriage to Muhammad wasn't received with scandal at the time at all. 3. Same thing. 4. The whole ancient world condoned slavery, Islam improved the lot of slaves by encouraging their manumission and setting standards for their proper treatment. Muhammad would probably be pleased (if rather surprised) to see that slavery is now forbidden. 5. The Qur'an doesn't say anything about consent, only that having intercourse with a female slave is not a breach of chastity. 6. No, it's definitely not above criticism and anyone in this day and age (of any religion) who insists on demeaning women or justifying slavery is a cowardly pig in my opinion. However when assessing historical figures we should look at what they did in the context of their time rather than judging them by 21st century standards. And the context is that Muhammad improved the status of both women and slaves in Arabia, what we modern people see as degradation the ancients would have seen as social progress. The idea of women having inheritance and property rights for instance was something quite rare before Muhammad codified it. 7. Same thing. 8. Terrorism is a modern political tactic and is not described in the Qur'an. Every form of violence that is described in the Qur'an was perfectly normal and familiar in the ancient world, and where Islam does innovate it tends to be in ways that we would regard as 'progressive'. For example the killing of non-combatants (or at least non-fighting age males) and the destruction of agricultural lands are proscribed in Islamic law. Not really a massive step forward, the Byzantine Romans for instance developed a much more all-encompassing revulsion towards violence, but it's hardly a step backwards either. I suspect that Muhammad would be pleased to find out about the Geneva Convention as well, although he would probably be shocked and slightly aghast that taking booty in war is now considered abhorrent. 9. Muhammad did not carry out any genocides. He may have killed a portion of the Jewish population of Medina as punishment for them helping the enemy, but clearly this did not have any wider effect on Muslim relations with the Jews as when the Arab armies stormed into Palestine a few decades later they came alongside Jewish allies. Muhammad's supposed expulsion of non-Muslims from Arabia is suspect, there would have been no practical way for such an order to have been carried out. And again, why would the Jews have allied with the Muslims if Muhammad had forcibly expelled their brethren from Arabia? 10. No, that's not really fair even by the standards of the time and it's quite clearly hypocritical. In summary, Muhammad was a historical figure like any other and a man of his time. He was far from a villain, comparatively-speaking. Rather, the real problems come from religious literalists who accept that everything in the Qur'an is the absolute final Word of God and can never be subject to any interpretation, and who place the letter of Muhammad's teachings above their actual spirit. Islamic civilisation has been infected with an obsessive form of legalism from the very beginning, and whilst this has been a positive thing at times, the idea of an eternal, unchanging and infallible Cosmic Law governing all of society really can't be reconciled with modern western liberal philosophy. As for whether or not Sikhs should 'take over the world', that idea seems to have emerged with Basics of Sikhi. I haven't really seen the idea that Raj Karega Khalsa implies the formation of some sort of global Sikh theocracy before those talks came out. I personally view it in a similar way to how some Christians see 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven' in the Lord's Prayer: an exhortation to try to build a better world for all of us and a promise that Faith will ultimately overcome adversity. I don't think that literally there should be Nishan Sahibs raised over the White House or anything.

There is no such thing as Islam. There are so many different ways of understanding that religion (most of which are mutually-exclusive with each other) that using the word today is pointless. Whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is moot. In the past Islam was more of a cohesive religion, but all of its institutions have now either fragmented or disappeared completely.

Nobody is using Alexander as an excuse to 'defend homosexuality', that's a gross misrepresentation. The only reason ancient civilisations were brought up was to refute the oft-repeated argument that homosexuality is caused by some kind of modern degeneration. To be clear nobody in this thread has used that argument yet, which is why my original statement was confined to an asterisked footnote. As for the 'politically-correct' admins allowing people to 'spread their garbage', there's no point in having a discussion forum if you don't actually have a discussion, is there? If you only want one point of view, go and read a blog or something.

The Spartans were the real boy-lovers, they institutionalised the eromenos system that Balkaar describes and made it a core part of their notoriously-gruelling military lifestyle. When Spartan men made love to their wives for the first time, the woman would have her hair shaven off and she would be dressed as a man. Also in my opinion the Persian invasion of Greece was an entirely justified response (by the standards of the time) to Athenian support for anti-Persian rebels in Asia Minor, but what would you expect from a user with a name like Xerxes...

Collapsing Pakistan won't lead to India disintegrating, this isn't the 1970s any more. India is a power in its own right and no longer needs a common enemy to unite it. As for what's best for Pakistan, I'm afraid neither I nor anyone else who isn't a Pakistani can make that choice. I suspect though that pushing the densely-populated Indian leviathan next door into anarchy will be far from a wise move. It would be stupid for the UN Security Council to invite India. The western powers don't really want yet another Asian behemoth with its own foreign policy agenda at the table, the current two already give USA, UK and France enough trouble as it is. Also, India is rather indecisive owing to the Byzantine complexity of its political system. China and Russia think in the long-term, and the democratic powers can also make decisive moves from time to time (particularly the French), but India? They'd take the UNSC seat for prestige then just sit back and do their own thing. It takes a hard push for India to even protect its own interests. Is India intervening in Afghanistan to stop Opium production? Nope. Has India intervened in Iraq after the discovery that ISIS murdered dozens of their own citizens? Nope. Did India quickly deal with their atrocious border with Bangladesh? Nope, they've sat around on the problem for decades and only just sorted it this month. And of course the western press are lavishing accolades on Modi for solving the Bangladesh enclave issue now. Real powers receive praise for making real progress, India gets it for solving a ridiculously-obvious problem half a century too late. That's the nature of Indian prestige: it's a mirage, hype created by the confluence of lofty government propaganda with an anti-colonial western media narrative of a triumphant underdog. The trouble is that India believes its own hype. Hopefully the UNSC are more intelligent than that, though I have my doubts.

On one hand, one can create a relatively weak (but still defensible) argument against gay marriage using a literal interpretation of Gurbani. On the other hand, the recent issues with certain members of the community have shown that a situation where Sikhs with homosexual inclinations can't relieve their desires normally is rather dangerous. Whilst the arguments against gay marriage haven't really faltered, the alternatives have been shown to be fundamentally destructive. Involuntary celibacy does not work, this has been shown time and time again in the Catholic priesthood. Bottled-up sexual desires often become perversions, which in turn can lead to sexual harassment and child abuse. Forcing homosexual Sikhs to marry members of the opposite sex can also result in similar psychological damage, but in addition this is compounded by the harm done to the other half of the couple trapped in a sham marriage. There are three solutions to the issue of homosexuality in the Sikh community. The first is simply to somehow expel any Sikh who turns out to be gay, to prohibit anyone with homosexual desires from taking Amrit. This is of course far more contrary to Gurbani than gay marriage would be, and I doubt any but the most bigoted hardliner would advocate such a thing. It also wouldn't be enforceable anyway. The second is to fully permit gay Anand Karaj. This would be the most equitable solution to gay marriage supporters but it would also cause conflict with traditionalists and those who support a literal interpretation of Gurbani. The fact of the matter is that both Scriptural arguments strongly for or strongly against gay marriage are weak: one relies on taking verses meant to condemn infidelity or promiscuity and using them for a different purpose, and the other relies upon 'sidestepping' the Guru's concrete words in favour of a more nebulous and subjective understanding of 'what Sikhi is really about'. There is also a third solution: a compromise between both sides. gay Anand Karaj would remain prohibited, but instead a new form of 'secular' Sikh marriage would be introduced which would be different to the full Anand Karaj. Perhaps it would simply be an exchange of vows in the Gurdwara with the Granthi giving an Ardas to bless the couple. This radical solution has been talked about before as an answer to the question of interfaith marriages and would be able to solve multiple problems with one stone. Anand Karaj would be kept as a sacred, spiritual bond between an Amritdhari couple of opposite sexes, and those who fall outside of those categories would still be able to receive a religious blessing for their marriage. This might seem like the perfect solution but there are major issues. Firstly, it's just a compromise and the hardliners on each side aren't going to be happy with it. Pro-gay rights Sikhs will still keep pushing for full equality in the form of a gay Anand Karaj, and some traditionalists will be incensed at the very idea of any form of gay wedding happening in a Gurdwara. There's also the religious side. Whilst the Word of Guru sahib is not being changed, altered or re-interpreted in this scenario at all, a new institution is being created here and one could argue with (some justification) that if a ceremony or institution wasn't originally conceived by Guru ji Himself then it is illegitimate and unnecessary. Looking further ahead there is another problem. If the 'secular Sikh marriage' became a reality, a large number of Sikhs would probably end up choosing it over Anand Karaj, especially if it were to be decided that Anand Karaj would be reserved for Amritdharis. In the long run, this might weaken the entire institution of Anand Karaj, even to the point that it disappears entirely and becomes little more than a talking point for Sikh historians. For now, the Sikh community will remain in a state of disagreement about gay marriage, and the current combination of quiet tolerance of homosexuality with open disavowal of gay marriage will remain in place. Until this deadlock is solved, thousands, possibly millions, of gay Sikhs will suffer in limbo unsure of their status in life. Men and women will continue to be led into doomed sham marriages, gay Granthis and Parcharaks will continue to secretly turn into perverts and inflict their torment upon innocent people, and the reputation of Sikhi as a tolerant and modern religion that judges its disciples by the goodness of their hearts rather than by the form of their observances will continue to be eroded. Homosexuality has always existed* and will continue to exist in the future. Our modern awareness of its nature will only continue to increase and it is our duty as a nation to remain 'ahead of the curve' and act according to the challenges we face. In the eyes of God there are no straight people and no gay people, we are all His children. As the gay rights movement has gathered force more and more people have gotten fixated with homosexuality, to the point where it, or their opposition to it, has become their sole identity. In reality, no-one is 'gay', no-one is 'straight', these are divisive labels that we thrust upon ourselves to reduce our humanity to a single aspect of our existence. Don't let sexuality become your identity, and don't let it define others. Guru sahib has given us the right to wear a Dastar, he has given us the right to wear the Kirpan. We are kings! Not slaves, whether to others or to ourselves. God is the only master we recognise. Abraham Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Until the gay marriage debate is resolved we are a house divided, even if in public any discussion is frowned upon. *The argument that homosexuality results from some aspect of modern western culture is most certainly false. Homosexuality has been identified, in one form or another, in all modern cultures and quite a lot of historical ones too. Homosexuality exists in animals too. It is a normal part of our existence on earth, rather than an aberration. This of course doesn't win the argument for the pro-gay marriage side as "it's natural therefore it's right" is one of the worst logical fallacies, and even if that were true it doesn't dictate how exactly we should treat gay marriage.

There is absolutely no ulterior motive behind Christian missionary activity, especially nothing to do with the western governments. This isn't the 19th century, Britain and America don't care one iota about spreading the Gospel. The only reason missionary activity happens is because certain Christian sects (usually weird heterodox ones) are more interested in scoring points for the afterlife by 'saving souls' than in following their own faith to themselves. And besides, that conspiracy theory makes no sense whatsoever. If the west was able and willing to engage in religious social engineering on a vast scale, they'd be using it in the middle east against the Wahhabi cult rather than going after a tiny corner of India for no reason. Is there any evidence of that? Nope, the Wahhabis are only growing from strength to strength. The reason missionaries target Sikhs in particular is because our social institutions are weak and we are therefore vulnerable to their tactics. Socially-speaking Sikhs offer very little any more: caste discrimination is rife, religious education is minimal to non-existent and Sikh charitable organisations can't match the western-based missionary leviathans. These are the same factors that lead Christians to pick on low-caste Hindus and the followers of African and Chinese traditional religions too. Notice that in the Islamic world missionaries barely have any success, and in the west people have gotten wise to their tricks and kindly ignore them as the nuisance they are. In all the major western humanitarian charities (even the Christian ones) despise missionaries because they completely wreck legitimate operations by driving away the people they're trying to help. Please do not re-post the videos produced by missionaries as you're only spreading their propaganda. They also demean their subjects and reduce these human beings to walking adverts for their evangelist's soul-saving prowess.

Oh, definitely. People moan and complain about 'disunity' and the like all the time, but they don't seem to realise how awful it would be if one single group took power and started to force their ideas on everyone else. This is one of the big advantages of the physical symbols of Sikhi: they create an all-inclusive religious ingroup and reduces splitting, sectarianism and other nasty tendencies. Most Gurdwaras have female Kirtanis, and there are also of course many female Punjabi singers, some of whom cover religious topics. If you are looking for something akin to western Gospel/Soul music though you have to look outside of Punjabi culture to things like 3HO. I won't post any videos here as 3HO is rather controversial with some (I personally have never really had any contact with them) but if you look you'll definitely find it.

It's not unusual to get provocative questions in a religious studies paper. The idea is to either a) present a clearly-incorrect statement and test you on your overall knowledge by having you argue against it, or b) present something controversial and test your ability to argue for your own views on the subject. It's entirely fair that the exam board is asking things like those that you described above. If anything I'd take it as a good thing, clearly the exam writers believe (correctly) that the "Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism" theory is simplistic enough for even a school student to debunk. Mind you, the wider education system doesn't really know much about Sikhi so unfortunately there might be less variety in terms of what they can ask about. And of course Sikhi is a very inclusive religion, so naturally we don't even agree ourselves on a lot of things.

'Why are there so many moderate Sikhs against Khalistan'? Firstly there is no point talking about 'moderate' Sikhs or 'extremist' Sikhs or 'fundamentalist' Sikhs. The whole 'moderate - fundamentalist' dichotomy is a misleading attempt to use pejorative language to push the debate in one direction or the other. Some describe Khalistanis as fundamentalists or extremists in order to create a false equivalence between the movement and Islamic extremism*. Others (including many in this discussion) describe non-Khalistanis as 'moderate Sikhs' in order to cast aspersions against their religious discipline or orthodoxy. One can be an extremist about any issue, from politics to religion and even to 'frivolous' things like football or music. An extremist Socialist is a person who takes Socialism to the extreme. An extremist Muslim takes Islam to the extreme. An 'extremist' metal fan appreciates heavy metal in an extreme way. In the same sense, an extremist Sikh is a Sikh who is extreme about Sikhi. Now, what is or is not considered to be 'extreme' largely depends upon context and upon the opinion of the beholder. I'd consider a Christian who thought it was mandatory to pray five times a day and fast for a month each year to be pretty extreme, but that's perfectly normal for a Muslim. In the UK there is an NHS and a full ban on guns, but in the US someone who advocated either of those things might easily be called an extremist. An extremist Sikh, in my opinion, is someone who is in favour of unusual and radical stances like beating 'blasphemers' or imposing Sikh religious norms (not drinking alcohol, keeping kesh etc) upon unwilling people. And in the same sense, what is or is not 'moderate' is also highly subjective. The fact remains though that being a Sikh and being a Khalistani are two different things. It's possible to be someone who practices the Sikh religion in an extreme manner who does not support Khalistan at all, whilst there are non-Sikhs do do advocate Khalistan. This was brought up earlier in the thread with the post pointing out that many fervent Khalistanis are in fact clean-shaven 'mona' Sikhs rather than religious fundamentalists (as is frequently asserted by critics of Khalistan). This fact also has the implication (a very unwelcome implication to some) that just as it is possible to be either a moderate Sikh or an extremist Sikh, there are also moderate and extremist Khalistanis, ie those who hold extreme stances on Khalistan (for example that Haryana etc should be included, that it should be run as a theocracy directly by the Sikh religious institutions or that non-Hindus should be expelled) and those who hold more moderate views and are more amenable to compromise. This contradicts the Indian 'patriotic' narrative that being a Khalistani makes one an extremist by definition. And it also contradicts the usual Khalistani narrative as well, since it implies that Khalistan is not some unstoppably popular, monolithic, unified movement. So, why are some Sikhs against Khalistan? Well, the first place to look is at this 'moderate - extremist' dichotomy that I've just examined. This little trick which conflates Khalistan with religious fanaticism has been so utterly successful that not only Indians but vast percentages of the western public have readily fallen for it. Nobody wants to challenge it. Obviously it is very useful for the Indian establishment, clearly they have no interest in breaking down the most important factor they have in their favour. But, rather paradoxically, it also helps self-confessed 'Khalistanis' as well: what better way to get people onto your side and shore up your core support than to imply that if you are a good Sikh you should support Khalistan, and that if you do not support it you are a cowardly irreligious 'moderate' hypocrite? This factor turns the little misleading sentence 'moderate Sikhs oppose Khalistan, only extremists support it' into a powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who don't want to be seen as extremists or extremist sympathisers are driven away from Khalistan. Those who don't want to see themselves as 'weak' moderates who are 'adulterating their Sikhi' in some way are driven towards Khalistan, which in turn makes the movement appear more and more like something for fanatical fundamentalists from the outside. It's this vicious circle of polarisation that has made the Khalistan movement a pariah at a time when Kurdish, Scottish and Catalan aspirations have made separatism trendy. Of course there are many other reasons not to support Khalistan. Some are emotional and personal, nobody in their right mind would support Khalistan if one of their friends or relatives had been killed in a Khalistani attack for instance. Others stem from patriotism and a desire not to harm 'Mother India'. There are many rational and logical arguments against Khalistan as well regarding economic security or the lack of a real plan of how to achieve it. All of these though are small fry compared to what I've described above, in fact many of them are just secondary factors that play into the overarching popular perception that Khalistan and Sikh fundamentalism are the same thing. How can this be fixed? It can't really. The very name 'Khalistan' implies a Sikh state, and the idea of a state devoted to representing the will of a specific religious community will always provoke subconscious fears of religious totalitarianism. Some people here seem to understand this fact and instead are latching on to more secular 'Punjabiyat' nationalism, but the decades of vicious polarisation ever since 1947 have made sure that any Punjabi nationalist movement will end up becoming Sikh-centric and seen as a front for a religious agenda. The idea of Punjab separating from India will only become tolerable to the Indian public and the wider world when 'Punjabi-ness' and 'Sikh-ness' are utterly and irrevocably separated. That means two things: either Sikhi stops existing in Punjab (which would clearly be an even less desirable outcome than the present situation) or Sikhi reforms itself and separates itself from the Punjabi identity (as was once the case). The only future of Sikhi lies in becoming a universal world religion with many followers from different backgrounds (including but not limited to Punjabis) and a strong social agenda beyond petty communalism. The Jews are often used as a positive example and in some ways they are, but in reality in order to survive Sikhi must become just as widespread and adaptable as Christianity and Buddhism rather than becoming an insular minority like the Jews. This does not mean abandoning our religious beliefs or traditions or throwing away the Panj Kakkars or anything, in fact the opposite: we must follow Sikhi as our Guru Sahibs actually instructed rather than adopting backward mindsets and waiting to go extinct. It's almost as if Sikhs have gone into retirement these days, we sit back reminiscing about our glorious history and all the good we've accomplished, mouring what might have been, whilst not actually trying to create any more history. As long as we can wear our turbans and follow our religion peacefully we can just sit and quietly wait for oblivion. People didn't follow the Guru Sahibs just because, they joined the Sikh movement because Guruji actually had interesting and relevant things to say. And Guruji still does today, but the trouble is we mostly aren't actually spreading the word because the active youth who should be going out and doing things are busy pontificating about the merits of a state which never existed. * radical Islam has also been subjected to a similar word-trick. Westerners came up with the misleading phrase 'Islamic fundamentalism' to describe any and all radical strains of Islamic thought, in an attempt to liken it to hardline interpretations of Christianity. This has had a similar polarising effect, with Islamic radicals able to catagorise their opponents as lax irreligious heretics who don't follow the 'fundamentals' of their faith, and non-Muslims able to dismiss legitimate grievances as the ravings of madmen. Just a bit of info about my position so that you can take bias into account: I'm a western Sikh who isn't of Punjabi origin. I am neither for nor against Khalistan. Self-determination is the right of every people whether or not it's in their best interests, and if Punjabis in Punjab want Khalistan then I support their legitimate desire wholeheartedly. If they don't then as a 'foreigner' in a distant country it isn't my right to dispute that. Khalistan itself is not personally very important to me. What is important is respect for the rule of law and the dignity of others.