>Bikramjit Singh<

The reason they have no interest in 1984 victims is that there is just no publicity in it. If tomorrow they announce they are going to help the 1984 widows and orphans they will get their photos and their names mentioned in only the Punjabi papers. But by being in Israel.. btw no such place as Palestine at the moment, is that they will get their names in the Israeli and International papers. For publicity conscious organisations this is what is important.

SevaSimranSacrifice I don't know what the intention of your convert friend is but if she is a devout follower of Islam then she would know that a Muslim should only be friends with non-Muslims if the intention is to create doubts in that person about their religion and talk up Islam. Here is a answer given by a well known Islamic site about friendships between Muslims and non-Muslims ---------------------------------- Question --I had some non-muslim friends with me. I chatted with them regularly but a Muslim friend of mine told me it is not permitted in Islam so I stopped chatting with them but i m still confused. So tell me whether its a sin to have a chat with non-muslims or it is permissible in Islam. Answer -- One is allowed to mix with non-muslims and chat with them on permissible topics, however they should not be made close friends. This of course is for those of your on gender. Chatting with the opposite gender is prohibited. Your intention when dealing and chatting with them, should be to invite them towards Islam. and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best Ml. Husain Kadodia STUDENT: Darul Ifta CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai

LostSoul I was yawning due to the boredom of having to read your pointless and ignorant contribution. From now on I will do what most of the posters say they do which is just ignore your posts. Btw find out what nindya means before throwing that word around just to cover up your lack of knowledge on this subject.

Mr/Ms LostSoul *yawn* Read my post before getting on your high horse. It was in response to something written by Jagjit Waheguru. Have you done any research on what was written or do you just go around making ignorant statements when you read something you don't like. I only wrote the things that Muslims themselves write that Mohammed did. So lots of 50 years old were marrying 9 years olds in the 7th century. That's new on me.

Don't let the mainstream media like BBC and other left wing agencies put a spin on the riots. The BBC have been concentrating on the 400 odd neo-nazi types who highjacked the demo while ignoring over 4500 ordinary Australians who came onto the beach to show Muslims that they want to enjoy and live the beach lifestyle that is under threat from Muslims. For the last five years the beach has been a place where Lebanese Muslims have been going around in gangs and swearing at Australian women on the beach calling them sl*ts. They also go around in gangs picking fights with individuals trying to sunbathe and surf.

I also thought the same until I read about his life written by Muslims themselves. If you pick up a book on Mohammed written by a non-Muslim you will be surprised at how the author will gloss over some of the questionable things that Mohammed did and try and present him as some sort of saint but the reality is otherwise. The amusing thing is that some Muslims try and justify and explain away these things saying that it was due to the times he lived in and then they contradict this by saying that he was a perfect example for every Muslim to follow! Some of the questionable things he did are-; 1. Marry a 6 year old girl when he was in his fifties and consummate the marriage when she was 9 2. Break his promises to his wives, especially when he had so many and each had a night that was allocated to her and he was found in one wife's bed by the wife whose night it was! He then had a 'revelation' from Allah telling him it's ok for him to break his promises to is wives! 3. Allow his followers to rape women captured in war. 4. Had 800 Jewish men beheaded and sold their wives and children into slavery. He took one of the Jewish men's wife as his concubine 5. Brought and sold slaves. Sometimes slaves were brought and sold in the mosques 6. Took part in raids on caravans effecting the economy of Mecca and forcing the Meccans to attack him 7. Banned Christian and Jews or any non-Muslims from being able to follow their own religion in Arabia These are just a few of the questionable things he did. Along with the above Muslims believe that Mohammed was also bewitched by black magic. Comparing Mohammed's life with any Gursikh's life let alone the Gurus shows how badly affected by ego Mohammed was. This is why in Bachittar Natak Mohammed is described as setting up his own sect and getting his followers to repeat his name and not do Nam Jap.

Sardar D S Gill. Nice to see you on this forum. I appreciate the good works IHRO are doing for the Human rights of Sikhs in India. Coming to the Jinnah offer, I don't think that this offer was made in a very serious manner. I read that during a dinner party in which both the Maharaja of Patiala and Jinnah was present a similar offer was made but when pressed Jinnah did not offer any realistic answers to the questions regarding his offer. His answer was that his writ would be law in Pakistan and the Sikhs needed no written agreements. Such an evasive answer from a trained lawyer such as Jinnah was enough to ring warning bells amongst the Sikh leadership. The subsequent events after Jinnah's death show that his words were as hollow as M K Gandhi's. One only needs to look at what Pakistan is today as opposed to the dreams of Jinnah. Jinnah also never made a public offer, the only documented offers were off the cuff remarks which were more aimed at getting the Sikhs to stop their opposition to Pakistan and for the whole of Punjab to become a part of Pakistan. The offers made around April 1947 came just a month after thousands of Sikhs were massacred in Rawalpindi area by the Muslims. How serious such an offer without any writted agreements could be taken is a good point. The main problem that the Sikh leadership had was their lack of unity. Many Sikhs weren't even with the Akalis and were flirting with Communism and the Congress. This lack of unity was what let the Sikhs down. The Sikhs although in a minority position everywhere in Punjab yet still had a number of Sikh states in Punjab which could have been the used to form the backbone of a Khalistan. If the Sikh leadersip had been serious about Khalistan and made it's creation their only policy, then the British, Congress and Muslim league would have had to agree to it's creation. The British would have agreed as long as they could avoid any violence and cut and run, Jinnah would have agreed because he was dying and only being kept alive by medical treatment. The Sikhs would also have had a better claim on the west Punjab districts which were eventually lost to Pakistan. As a third successor state to India, the British would have had to ensure that it was viable and using the 'other factors' provision in the partition document have ensured that property ownership as well as Gurdwara estates had an added weightage.

You might want to contact Rabinder Singh QC who works in Human Rights law. I think he works for the same chambers as Cherie Blair (tony's wife). rabindersingh@matrixlaw.co.uk http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/WhoWeAre_Member...derSinghQC.aspx Try as many options as possible. You might also want to contact United Sikhs. One of their members in the UK is Mejinderpal Kaur who is also a lawyer. She has been very active in fighting the Turban Ban in France. Now that the wheels are in motion you should seek outside legal advice because the army does have a tendency to try and sweep things under the carpet. The contact details for United Sikhs in UK is Address: PO BOX 43799, London, W14 8SS, United Kingdom Tel: (0044) (0) 870 1993328 Fax: (0044) (0) 871433 5655 E-mail: unitedsikhs-eu@unitedsikhs.org

Namstang wrote Namstang, you really have no sense of history and are unable to be objective in any discussion regarding the SGPC. I have written a number of times for people such as you not to assume that just because the SGPC is corrupt at present it means that it was always so. SGPC when it was created was the most representative body of the Sikhs. It's birth was the direct consequence of the Sikhs wanting to take back control of the Gurdwaras from Mahants who were more Hindu than Sikh and who treated the Gurdwara lands as their personal possession. I would urge you to read history and maybe then you wouldn't be making such factually incorrect statements as british intelligence helping SGPC to 'get akali nihangs off their backs' It was the british govt urging the mahants to use all their means to deny the Sikhs control of their own Gurdwaras. The British were never afraid of the Nihangs, they feared the common Sikh peasants as well as the Sikhs in the army.

duplicate post

I think you should blame Bhai Gurdas for this because for some reason he 'erased' this great Gursikh Bhai Bala from history. Bhai Gurdas mentions even minor followers of Guru Nanak but not Bhai Bala. Could it be because there was no such person? This is strange because according to the Bhai Bala Janamsakhi, Bhai Bala plays a prominant role in Guru Nanak's life. 138031[/snapback] No thanks, i'll continue blaming likes of you. Do you have any idea how this particular argument can be used to argue ridiculous points... 'becasue it's not written here, it wasn't so'.... Bhai Gurdass Ji's prime objective was not that of a historian, neither is SGGS, nor is Dasam Granth. All three works don't focus on history per say. 138148[/snapback] You can believe what you want it makes no difference to me what you believe. I just posted some of the research that has been done on Bhai Bala and the majority of its points to there being no such person.

I think you should blame Bhai Gurdas for this because for some reason he 'erased' this great Gursikh Bhai Bala from history. Bhai Gurdas mentions even minor followers of Guru Nanak but not Bhai Bala. Could it be because there was no such person? This is strange because according to the Bhai Bala Janamsakhi, Bhai Bala plays a prominant role in Guru Nanak's life.

Bhai Bala is only mentioned in one Janamsakhi whereas Bhai Mardana is mentioned in all the Janamsakhis as well as in the Vars of Bhai Gurdas. The Bhai Bala janamsakhi was written by a sect called the Niranjanias. Bhai Handal was born in 1573 in Jandiala village. Bhai Handal was a disciple of Guru Amardas. Bhai He used to be a great sewak in the Guru's Langar and it is said that the Guru was impressed when he saw that Bhai Handal was sieving flour deep into the night for the langar. Guru Amardas appointed Bhai Handal to be his masand at the village of Jandiala. After Bhai Handal who devotedly served the Sikh cause his son called Bidhi Chand became his successor but he became infatuated with a muslim women, said to be of dubious character and much against the advice of local GurSikhs he married her. As this caused a great deal of consternation amongst the Sikhs instead of allowing himself to submit to the commands of the GurSikhs he became more egotistical and wrote a janamsakhi in which he belittled Guru Nanak by making Bhagat Kabir his Guru Nanak's Guru ( many encyclopedias in the west still sprout this nonsense which was taken by Trumpp a german missionary from the Bhai Bala janamsakhi ) and making his father Bhai Handal ever greater than Guru Nanak. In fact he went a step further by stating that Guru Nanak had married a muslim woman. This Bidhi Chand did in order to explain his own marriage to a muslim woman. Bidhi Chand wanted to increase his following even further so he set out to show in the janamsakhi that the Guruship which at this time was with Guru Ramdas had in fact decended from Bhagat Kabir to Guru Nanak and then to Bhai Handal and finally to him. In order to show this, the janamsakhi has a sakhi ( story ) where it is shown that in a previous life, Guru Nanak had been a oil seller in the court of Raja Janak and Bhai Handal had been a noble or royal personage. There is also a sakhi which relates to the birth of a Jat in the pargana of Batala who would be greater than Bhagat Kabir. Bidhi Chand clearly wrote this episode in order to show that Guru Nanak was prophesying the birth of his father Bhai Handal. It would not surprise me if Kavi Santokh Singh wrote about Bhai Bala, this is because Kaviji pretty much wrote whatever anyone told him as fact and did not use any form of analysis or critical evaluation of any story with regard to whether it was in line with Gurbani or not. Sardar Karam Singh's book 'Katik ki vaisakh' contains a very good analysis of whether Bhai Bala existed or not. He concludes he did not exist.

Sinister wrote Read the vaar below and then see how is looking ridiculous here