proactive

If you can prove any of the facts in my post to be wrong then I will withdraw them otherwise your outrage is based on ignorance.

Harjeet.Singh I think you need to understand that whatever the original meaning of a word their meaning changes over time and they can become restricted in meaning. Sikh means learner, but isn't it confusing if we says that the students at university are Sikhs. According to some Hindus, the word Hindu just means an inhabitant of India. So why do we get so upset if a Hindu calls the Sikhs in India as Hindus?

<edited>

Sikhlionz, You obviously didn't bother to read the quotes within my post. It is for Muslims ie believers. Perhaps my post was not clear enough, it is for the BELIEVERS of Mohammed's prophethood to say PBUH after mentioning him. Do you believe in Mohammed as a prophet and all that comes with it? I assume not. There is no need to divert from the question and come up with the usual 'i'm, not as spiritual as abc etc' The Gurus never wrote PBUH after Mohammed because they understood that only those who BELIEVE in Mohammed use PBUH after his name. What next? Will you be fasting at Ramadan or beating your brains out at a Shia siapa over Hussein? At least before acting all ultra PC by using PBUH you should educate yourself over who uses it and what is the reason behind it.

I don't think he's fully understood the fact it's the women that wear the Burka!

Sikhlionz, You are a moderator here so I find it surprising that you write PBUH after writing Mohammed? No Sikh in history has ever written PBUH after mentioning Mohammed. Bhai Gurdas does not write PBUH after mentioining Mohammed. Guru Gobind Singh calls Mohammed 'Mahdeen' and did not write PBUH after his name. In the Janamsakhis when Guru Nanak mentions Mohammed he doesn't say PBUH after mentioning him. So why has it become a fashion amongst some Sikhs nowadays to write PBUH after writing Mohammed. I suggest you or any other Sikh takes the time out to research the reason why believing Muslims say PBUH after mentioning Mohammed. Here's the reason why

This is where you are wrong because you obviously don't understand the way that Muslims are meant to view Mohammed. He is someone that Muslims should follow and about whose actions a lot has been written. Muslims are meant to follow him as an example. Your statement trying to place Mohammed within a specific time is probably more insulting to Muslims because it means that his actions are coloured by the times he lived in and therefore it is impossible for a Muslim to follow him as an example. So do these anti-Dasam Granth writers write that Guru Gobind Singh did anything immoral? If not then you are just using a stupid point to justify your argument. FYI these Muslim writers were the hadith writers whose writings have been checked by Muslim authorities and accepted as reliable. Have Sikh authorities accepted the anti-Dasam Granth writings as authentic? Stop writing bukwas. So does this mean that if a religion was founded today then it would have better morals and ethics than Sikhism? Is Sikhism's superiority over Islam (Oh dear you might have a heart attack after you read that!) solely because Sikhism was founded 900 years after Islam. If we follow your idiotic logic then Buddhism would have been more blood thirsty than Islam. Again Jesus would be going around committing genocide rather than preaching a peaceful religion. If the truth of your Sikhi lies in the truth or falsehood of Islam then I feel sorry for you because truly you are lost. Try bachittar natak for Mohammed and pauri 16 of vaar 41.

Where is the disrespect. Muslim historians write themselves that he had relationship with 9year old named ayeesha. All the bloggers have done is played on that, it is not disrespect but a statement based on muslim history. DISRESPECT IS WHEN DUMB PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON MUHHAMED SAY HE IS A PERVERT? give me one islamic historian who says muhhamed was a bad guy beside the part he married a 9yr old which during times everyone did even white people, the aryans in india and everyone else around the world....If you look back in indian history the people would sell their daughters for land in india under the gupta empire..... I think you are the one that needs to get some knowledge. Mohammed married a SIX year old when he was in his late 50s. He took her to his home at the age of 9 when she was still carrying her dolls! Since Muslims are taught by the QURAN the so-called word of Allah that Mohammed is an example for Muslims to follow then it makes sense that his morality should be pure and untainted by the times he lived in otherwise what the Quran says is false. Mohammed also allowed his followers to RAPE women who have been captured in battle as well as committing MASSACRES of Jewish tribes and then SELLING their women and children into SLAVERY. Hardly an example for any people to follow in this age and far from the MERCY TO MANKIND that the Muslims describe him as. All the above is from the writings of Muslims. Compare this with the way the Sikhs in the 18th century treated prisoners of war and women captured in battle. Muslims have much to be embarrassed about about the guy that founded their religion so let's not give them a free pass just because we have some dumb notion that Mohammed because he founded their religion shouldn't be criticised. If he wasn't to be criticised then you wouldn't have Bachittar Natak which states that he egotistical and founded his own sect based on his own ideas. Also you wouldn't have Uggardanti which states that in the end Islam will be destroyed. The same is the case with the 41st Vaar attached to the Vaars of Bhai Gurdas. What these guys are doing is telling the Muslims just what a great man their 'prophet' was so it's not just about fighting with your fists it also about not being taken in by the bukwas of Muslims about how great Mohammed was. There is nothing which peeves off a Muslim more than coming across a non-Muslim who can't be taken in by their usual lies and who knows about Islam and the Quran enough to show up his lies!

edited

I think the problem here is that many of the people on this website do not understand or have no experience of the Musalmaan mentality. More so the Pakistani Muslim mentality. Their mentality is that if another community shows that they will not defend themselves through violence then the Muslim thinks that this community is weak and as such they will start to mount more attacks. This is their mentality. What these guys are doing is showing the Muslim that even though we want peaceful relations yet we still have the balls to take on some pakistani gangsters and break a few Pakistani heads in the process. This is the only language the Pakistanis understand. Look anywhere in the world and where ever there are Pakistanis there are problems. In the northern cities these pakistanis emulate their 'prophet' by grooming underage white girls. Pakistanis have gangs attacking Swedes in Sweden. They have gangs in Holland as well. The whole Pakistani suicide bomb thing in the Uk is purely because after 9/11 and more so after 7/7 the British govt has been weak and have not the balls to confront them. The British ministers rushed to the places where the Pakistanis are in high numbers such as Bradford and Birmingham in order to hold meetings with Pakistani Musalmaan 'elders' and co-called community leaders. Added to this is the farce of millions of taxpayers money being given to Muslim organisations in order to stop 'radicalisation'! The British govt could have done this much more cheaply if they have closed all Pakistani mosques and stopped giving out any visas to Pakistanis to come to the UK. The Pakistanis think that this shows the weakness of the British government and that's why there have been numerous other attempts to bomb the UK by mainly Pakistani Muslims. The same is the case with how Muslims target Sikhs, if they see that Sikhs cannot fight back then they go all out to attack. This is why these Bros in the park have my full support. I wish we Sikhs had more guys like them!

edited

edited

There is nothing wrong with organisations that may disagree on many issues to at least show support on issues where they agree. Mumbai has over the years become a virtual extension of the Hindi belt with millions of migrants from Bihar and UP making their homes there. Where Mumbai is today, Ludhiana will be in the next decade. Already in many areas of Ludhiana it is like you are in some UP or Bihari slum than in the premier industrial city of Punjab. As in Mumbai politicians of national parties like the Congress and using the migrants to further their political goals and creating vote banks for their parties. Regional parties are the ones who suffer because of the number of migrants and their voting en masse for the national parties. Akali Dal (Badal) leadership is so stupid that they do not realise that within a few years they will never again be able to form a government because of the unrestricted migration into Punjab. Dal Khalsa at least has the foresight to see that in any struggle against the migrants they need to ally themselves with like minded regional parties such as Raj Thackery's as well as take lessons from the experiences of other non-Hindi states such as Assam which have also suffered from unrestricted migrations.

edited

I wouldn't worry about these 'mahapurshes' and their doting 'chelay'. These kinds of people are ten to a penny in most pinds! Religion has become a pyramid scheme in some areas. The so-called mahapurush starts off the scheme by selecting a few trusted chelas who then fan out in the villages and outrageous claims about how the 'mahapurush' is such a great guy and how everything he says comes true. The chelas then select people under them who then get more and more people to follow the 'mahapurush'. They even arrange weekly trips from villages around the area to visit the 'mahapurush'. Just one thing that's always bothered me. Why is it that real Mahapurushs never seem to recognise the cheats who claim also to be mahapurushs? I suppose someone will accuse me of sant ki nindya now! You are quite right about the misuse of the word nindya.

edited

edited

edited

The biggest joke is that Democrats keep on going about Sarah Palin's lack of experience and yet they have a guy who was a community organiser running for President and who doesn't even know how many states there are in the USA! If there's no problem with someone like Obama running for president than there should be no problem for Sarah Palin running for VP.

Jassa, Try and keep you're argument consistent! First you said 8 lakh Budha Dal identity cards have been issued and then you said these people are just 'associated' with Budha Dal! Identity cards are issued by organisations to show MEMBERSHIP and not ASSOCIATION. Looks like Budha Dal is so keen to big up their numbers that they will issue an identity to anyone who might have bumped into a Nihang once at the Maghi mela.

That Zardari guy looks like he's going to get assassinated just like his wife! He doesn't mind getting billions of dollars in aid from America which is keeping his country afloat but is refusing to allow American forces in Afghanistan pursuit rights into Pakistan. His intransigence is what's contributing to the upsurge in the Taliban because they know they can escape into Pakistan after committing terrorist acts in Afghanistan. Now it looks like the Taliban wants to show him that they can strike in the Pakistani capital at will.

Sikhism isn't against fasting, it is against fasting when it is done for religious reasons. There's nothing wrong in fasting for a medical reason such as before an operation or before having a blood test. Fasting in Ramadan is done entirely for religious reasons. The Quran and Hadiths all explain that fasting is a way to get to heaven. There is nothing about 'understanding the suffering of others' and this is entirely something thought up by Muslims in the west in order to turn Ramadan into a public relations exercise. No western person would think much of a fast which is done for the entirely selfish reason of getting into heaven. Can you imagine if someone in the office asked "hey, Abdul why do you fast?". "I'm fasting because Allah has said that it will get me into heaven" replies Abdul. Obviously Abdul to his workmates will appear more of a fool in the month of Ramadan then he does during the other eleven months of the year! Hence the 'understanding the suffering of others' excuse. Muslims in Muslim countries don't use this excuse because they have no need to justify their fast as everyone else is fasting purely because they have been told that fasting is the fastest way into heaven (no pun intended). As a matter of fact Islamic fasting is anything but fasting. As with most things Islamic it again reeks of hypocrisy. What Muslims do is nothing more than change the times at which they take their meals. Breakfast and Lunch are combined into a big meal just before sunrise and then supper is eaten after sunset. In fact one Saudi Arabian study into Ramadan found that there was a weight gain amongst those fasting! In TV programmes made specially for Ramadan in the UK, most Muslims will come on and say how great they feel that they are fasting and how it makes them sympathise with people around the world who are starving, but privately most will whine about having to fast and there is nothing that peeves off a Muslim more than some kuffar enjoying some food while he/she is fasting for Allah. In Muslim countries it is illegal for restaurants to open during the daytime and eating in public can get you arrested!

edited

edited

edited