Search the Community

Dear Fellow Members, I want to discuss the growing matter of casteism in Sikhism, As far as I am aware when our Guru ji created/started panth khalsa. He abolished all the evil roots of casteism in Sikh culture and he created a guideline that a sikh should be identified and known as a sikh . And there should be no place of caste system in SIkh culture. But look at us today, we are so lost in casteism itself that we are known as Jat sikhs or Khatri sikhs or ramgharia and so on (No offense to anyone) Even though we have dedicated gurudwaras to the different community here. I dont mean to harm anyone emotions here. Please pardon me if I have. But what do you all think as a sikh. Is it correct to give uprise to casteism itself in our culture which guru ji abolished. Please give me your views. And Another thing is that this issue is being promoted in regards to the marriages as well. I am a Sikh for all I know, But where ever I or my parents speak about the matrimony. The first question which is being asked is what caste do you belong to. I mean how does it matters ? If I am a jat or khatri or ramgharia, we all are sikhs and thats what should be imp. But for about 80% it matters a lot. I dont know what difference does it makes but Jatts only wanna marry in their same caste and so as ramgharias. How does it matters that if a person is a wierdo and do all sort of crazy stuff like drugs and do all kind of thngs but while marrying their daughter to him wont be an issue, only bcoz he is of their same caste. And on the other hand there is a guy like me who is educated, decent, religious person but nope, they wont marry their daughter with him only bcoz I do not belong to their caste. I have had enough of this caste system. And then there is another issue which is only because I wear a turban and don't trim my beard, most of the girls wont go for a guy like me bcoz of this reason. Its such a shamefull thing to say that people who are taking care of our Gurudwara have started registering for matrimonial alliance and they have put an option where a girl has to opt that does she needs a turbaned sikh or a clean shaven. If the gurudwara will support these actions then who is gonna stand with the gursikhs ? I mean this is the limits where these people can go. What kind of Sikh is a Clean shaven, A clean shaven person is not a sikh. He has lost the main identity of being a sikh. I have seen a lot of people who are going thru these difficulties and because of these things boys are cutting down there kesh and going out of sikhi. Please let me know your views on this. And again please if I have hurted any ones emotions, knowingly or unknowingly. Please accept my apologies.

Vaheguruji Very worrying news coming from Panjab, Bhai Amrik Singh Ji Ajnala (Mukh Sevadar Damdami Taksaal) has been shot and injured by the Panjab police. Over 20 other Gursikhs have been shot too, some are in critical condition. The news is skechy at the moment, a Jatha of Gusikhs went to help local sikhs in Taran Taran Sahib where a cult was threating the local villgers. Bhai Amrik Singh Ajnala has on countless times risked his life to stop beadbi of Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and to stood up to injustices against the local population. The Panjab police open fire on the Sikhs and were helping the cult follower in attacking the sikhs. As we have seen countless times the Sikhs are treated worse then animals. The rule of law is for others and not sikhs who stand up for justice. A benti to everyone is to read Sri Chaupai Sahib Paath and do Ardas for the Chardi Kala of the injured sikhs. The Singhs at the Gurdwara Sahib have done 5 Singh Ardaas and Degh for the Chardi Kala of the injured Gursikhs. May Guru Sahib keep Bhai Amrik Singh Ji in Chardi Kala and good health so he can continue to lead the Sikhs against the corrupt state.

This may seem silly but I have been recieving conflicting information. Does article 25 of indias constitution that states sikhs buddhists and other minorities are sects of Hinduism still in action or exist?

Please share some of your experiences in light of 9/11 and if possible please answer the following questions. *Was the targeting of a majority of non-Caucasians (specifically brown-skinned) individuals an exhibition of deep rooted colonial bias? *In retrospect, was 9/11 a somewhat positive step towards forcing Sikhs to utilize the media? *What factors lead to all 'turbans' being classified as Islamic and thus radical head gear? *How has the racism, exhibited 9/11, affected the diaspora's perception of Western nations? *What are the social lessons of 9/11?

do hindus in india discriminate against minorities in india if so why is Bollywood dominated by muslim actors salman khan saif ali khan Imran khan n list goes on what percentage of the hindu population in india hates Sikhs and what is their motive for hating Sikhs? science has shown that hate is learned an people have to have a motive to discriminate against someone

Wjkk Wjkf I've been paath for a few weeks now, and today i prayed waheguru ji that I want to become jivan mukhti and attach to him for the rest of my life, and I felt really connected to waheguru ji whilst listening to the sukhmani sahib paath, but then all of a sudden around 7 pm ish I kept on getting doubts 'about existance of God' Why has waheguru ji put such thoughts in my mind , I want to become closer to him not further Is God testing me? What do I do? How do I dispel doubt? I am not a amritdhari as yet due to the environment I live(no religous familily), but I seek to become one in the near furture. I would like help from all guruSikhs and the Sat sangat - what do I do Thank you all Wjkk Wjkf

Waheguru ji ka khalsa Waheguru ji ke fateh! I've recently received poor grades for my a levels - and have been told to drop the subjects I enjoyed the most because I received poor grades © in them. I don't know what to do, like I said I do the sukhmani sahib paath (listen to it every day) but no Sukh in my life ever seems to come. Am I doing the sukhmani sahib correctly, because I think dookh should be dispelled if you listen to the path, but for me everyday goes by and I seem to become more depressed and dissatisfied out of life. I'm beg my Lord for his naam, virtue and happiness - but I don't seem to get anything what do you gurusikhs suggest? I cannot read or understand gurmukhi for me to enable to read sggs ji , however I do read the English translation whenever possible, is this ok? I'm going back to college next week, but I do not like the course that I will be forced study (ict and business) What do I do to relinquish these sorrows and misfortune, how do I love the Lord through my heart when nothing seems to go right? What do you Gurusikhs do when meditating, how do you love the Lord within? All answers will be very much appreciated.

I've heard that reading the guru Granth sahib ji should ideally be read in gurmukhi, as the English transaltion maybe slightly distorted in terms of its meaning , and may also be rather opionated by the author who imprints the translation, is this true? I'm unable to read or understand gurmukhi and my only option is to read translation in English Also I would like to ask how all you gurusikhs maintain constant love and devotion (what kind of thoughts do you have) when reading the gurubani, because I seem to lose interest if the paath is significantly long(eg sukhmani sahib paath) Lastly is it ok to just listen to the path, or must I physically recite it? May waheguru ji bless you all.

?

Is it right to Ban a movie http://seavent.blogspot.in/2014/08/ban-ne-dage.html BANNED MOVIE KAUM DE HEERE.......IS IT RIGHT TO BAN IT? Shame on the Leaders for being coward I agree that we cant glorify, But at least we, the citizens do have a right to know the truth.

Just saw this on my social media feed. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/11415007.TILBURY_DEATH_LATEST__Local_Sikhs_help_Afghani_victims/

I was thinking about the political and religious influences which have shaped the modern Sikh identity. I then researched what past Sikhs perceived themselves as, whether Hindu or Sikh. Here is my first chapter on the affair: http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/semantic-shifts-in-early-sikh-self-hood.html?view=magazine It is my request to the mods to keep this thread on this sub-forum as it will assist members in educating themselves on what Sikhism or Sikhi identity truly is and what it means for them as individuals.

[wh.gov] || Stop Obama From Hosting Modi At White House || 100,000 Signatures Needed By August 20. In 2002, Indian PM Modi organized massacre of Muslims in Gujarat. "Mobs of Hindus rampage, rape, loot and kill in a spasm of violence that rages for more than two months. Mothers are skewered, children set afire and fathers hacked to pieces. About 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, are killed. Some 20,000 Muslim homes and businesses and 360 places of worship are destroyed, and roughly 150,000 people are displaced". (New York Times Report of April 16, 2014) In June 1984, BJP instigated military attack on the Golden Temple resulting in the massacre of thousands of Sikh pilgrims. In 2008, BJP orchestrated violence against Christians in Orissa. Instead of hosting Modi at White House, President Obama should condemn Modi and ban BJP for perpetrating violence against Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. While Obama administration and PM office is preparing to forge a new era of Indo-US economic ties, Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) has initiated a social media campaign in support of its petition to cancel Modi's invitation to the White House. US President Obama has invited PM Modi for a meeting at the White House on September 30. A Facebook advertisement "Sign Petition Stop Obama from hosting Modi {Netanyahu of India}. Don't fund another Israel" sponsored by SFJ has gone viral getting scores of hits every hour. On July 21, SFJ initiated an online petition to the Obama Administration urging to cancel the invitation to PM Modi for his role in 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujarat. “In June 1984, the BJP instigated the military attack on the Golden Temple, resulting in the massacre of thousands of Sikh pilgrims. In 2008, the BJP orchestrated violence against Christians in Orissa,” the petition alleges. The Facebook ad by rights group targeting Muslims, Sikhs and human rights organizations in the United States urges them to "Sign Petition, Stop Obama". “The fact that world's largest democracy has elected a Prime Minister whose party is known for committing crimes against religious minorities should be a matter of grave concern for the western world”, stated attorney Gurpatwant Singh Pannun legal advisor to SFJ, “United States which has acknowledged the role of Modi in massacre of Muslims should not host him at the White House”, added Pannun. Terming Modi as Netanyahu of India, attorney Pannun further stated that online petition will be an eye opener for Obama Administration which is ignoring the track record of Modi and his party BJP with regard to treatment of minorities for vested US economic interests. "Instead of hosting Modi at White House, President Obama should condemn Modi and ban BJP for perpetrating violence against Muslims, Sikhs and Christirans" says the White House Petition. So far the online petition urging Obama administration to cancel Modi's invitation has received more than 1200 signatures. The petition requires 100,000 signatures by August 20 to qualify for a response by the White House. Newspapers Coverage: [www.firstpost.com] [www.deccanchronicle.com] [zeenews.india.com] [indianexpress.com] [www.ndtv.com] [www.in.com] [bharatpress.com] [daily.bhaskar.com] [news.oneindia.in] [www.hindustantimes.com] [www.thecitizen.in] [www.greaterjammu.com] [kashmirreader.com] [www.punjabnewstime.com] [www.nation.com.pk]) [www.abplive.in] [www.eni.network24.co] [www.outlookindia.com] [www.indiatvnews.com] Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 T: 201.601.2707 F: 201.601.2610 E: support@sikhsforjustice.org

Can anyone, with a blog/website/both related to Khalistan, explain something to me? A few years ago I heard about the case of a man whose family was detained at the Indian airport because he was involved in some pro-Khalistan group overseas. To my brothers who are involved in such groups what happens when you go to India or need police clearance from there? Do they detain you on the basis of the organisations you support, webpages you make and comments you put on fb? Is it entirely random or they do it to people who illustrate an intent? Can we say there is a degree of discrimination involved or is it the effects of an inept bureaucracy?

Beautiful. Dhan Sikhi. We definitely need more Parchaar all over the world as seen in our past history.

Is their a big difference between Sikhs or Asians as a whole in the North of England and the South? Having been to various cities across the UK. I Find that the Asians in the North are a lot more traditional with keeping with their culture and religion. especially in places like Birmingham. But in London and the South they are more westernized. I find places like Manchester, where there are hardly any Sikhs and the Muslims down there don't even resemble 'Asian' but look more Arabic/Moroccan descent.

The army which attacked in 1984 had Sikhs in it who killed innocent women and children Sikhs. Some were given medals, etc. They are now mostly retired on Government. What is their status in the Panth? Shouldn't they be ex-communicated by Akaal Takht? What are your thoughts? Any info

An article posted/discussed in an American military forum filled with retired American military service personel.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global War on Terror and West's relation to Islam in context of Islam's standing as an ideological force in 21st century... Well, Islam is probably the strongest ideological force humankind has ever seen. Islam is not like any other religion. Islam is a VERY , VERY strong and complete ideological framework that has religious , political , social , economic , spiritual , military ,and legalistic aspects to it. History of mankind has NEVER seen such a solid and consistent ideology. Whereever Islam went , it ingrained itself in the soil of that land (the only exception is Spain where Muslims ruled 800 years but then driven back. Balkans were just under Turkish rule but never had any significant Muslim presence or cultural influence). Graham E. Fuller in his book , "A world without Islam" , writes that Islam has got great vitality and it is culturally, economically and socially very strong. People used to "mentally-m*sterbate" that Islam thrives in poorer countries etc but in the last century , this myth has been practically debunked now. Countries like Turkey , Malaysia , Indonesia , Saudi Arabia , Qatar , Kuwait etc etc are very rich and prosperous (and Western in case of Turkey) but yet , Islam not only survive but it THRIVES in these lands. Unlike Christianity , which is a dead religion now in the West, Islam is a very influential religion. Wherever it exists , its followers practice it. Even the Muslim communities in the Western world take Islam seriously and practice and live by their faith. Islam "self-grow" itself by Islamic finance. Islamic banking is now over a trillion dollar industry and growing. Islamic halal industry is worth $2.5 trillion and growing. Islam practically holds a HUGE chunk of geographic area (~ 30,000,000 sq. kilometers) and has significant presence in Western China , India , Russia , Europe etc .Islam is literally present in EVERY SINGLE NATION ON EARTH!. Now Islam is moving to the "New World" for the first time. Islam also has one of the largest, most comprehensive law-code in the history of mankind. ~ 1.8-2.2 billion people all around the world get influenced by Islamic Shari'ah (directly or indirectly) in one way or the other. Islam presents itself as a "total" ideology covering all aspects of life, it gives it's followers a sense of a shared culture and brotherhood, and a sense of emptiness to those who begin to doubt it.Islam legislates almost EVERYTHING of a human being. It controls them completely. From food to sex ...from marriage to divorce..from personal cleanness to manners of using toilet etc. Islam plays role in everything and this make its followers to start recognizing with Islam. Islam just ingrains itself in the mind of follower and even if a follower leave Islam , he/she won't come out of it for ever! (I know many such people who still wear Hijabs , don't eat pork or drink etc just because they WERE Muslims. Now it has become a part of them). Also , Islam has a VERY strong culture. Muslim girls would not date a "non-Muslim" guy and their first preference will always be to look for a "Muslim" boy (experience from high school/college lol). Even if Muslim girls have sex , kissing , dating etc with "non-Muslim" guys , they will very rarely marry them. They always marry within their community and produce their offsprings under the strong Islamic umbrella. (Why is he talking about this? ) All these facts make Islam , I think , THE STRONGEST religion/ideology on the planet. It just doesn't go down. French ripped their ****s off to convert Algerians but after hundred years of colonialism , 99.3% of Algerians were still Muslims. . All this show that , as Karen Armstrong put it , Islam just went stronger , stronger , stronger and stronger from the day Muhammad started it. Also , about 60% -70% of Muslims worldwide are people who are "young" and hence they'll be getting into their "productive age" and will be reproducing in coming years. Which means ...surprise...Islam will grow even larger! Above that , Islam is a self-perpetuating ideology that starts growing when it goes to a new place. Islam conquered many nations , and instead of despising it , those nations started spreading Islam even further!!!! Today, Islam is only expanding ...politically (Arab Spring) , culturally , economically , religiously , legally, militarily etc etc and it looks unstoppable ...just like it has been over the centuries!!!! Now many people (both in the West and Muslim world) see the ongoing Global War on Terror as a conflict between "West vs Islam". I think that in order to win this war, West must dispel this message. Radical Islam (Terrorist Muslims in other words) make up just about 0.00093% of total Islam. So, we must make that distinction first. Many Muslims are conservative, anti-West , and what not--but they are "good people" in a sense that they would NEVER kill any Westerner or would harm any Western interests. The "radicals" who actively fight Westerners etc are less than 1% of total Muslim population.So the message from our leaders must be clear. We are not here to take on Islam. We are here to take on radicals that harm Muslims more than anybody else. United States must actively work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is the biggest 'issue' between West and Muslim world. We can not neglect this. We must not neglect this. Islam is a global phenomenon--Even if 3% of Islam gets radical or become 'out of control' , this world would slip into utter chaos and global economy would fell like a pack of cards. How you do think we can win war on terror? Remember, it can't be won by using conventional force alone. Radical Islam employs advance Asymmetric Warfare Mode. Force alone will actually accelerate our defeat in this war. If 0.00093% radical Islam can cause THIS much trouble, I can't imagine what it would be if, God forbid, even 3% of Islam becomes "actively radical against West" ...This would lead a major global war. This war might end in American military victory but will harm our interests. Muslims have nothing to lose here, but we have everything to lose. So how should we deal with the situation? I think we must support moderate forces in Islamic World. We must heavily support science and technology in the Muslim world. Education, economic build-up , and political stability are other factors too. We must also dispel this perception that we interfere in Islamic Countries and we oppress the Muslims. We must promote democracy in the Muslim world, even if it brings Muslim Brotherhood in the power (Which aren't radical terrorists as some fox news pundits might want us to believe). Over-all, United States is here to stay..Islamic World is here to stay...We must learn to live together with mutual respect and co-operation. ---------------------------------------------- This article makes sense over-all, keeping in mind that it is coming from "Americans"..Atleast this dude does a bit better job than Faux News 'experts' of "Islam"... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/235538-2013-west-islam-global-war-terror.html#ixzz2X7eJ8r63 ================================================================================================================== I got this article from the above source. This piece was originally posted in an American military forum from where someone posted it in above forum. All the color schemes, highlighting are same (with one change) as it was in the source where I copied it from. I thought that it would be interesting to get the opinion of members here on this piece. Do you agree with the article? Disagree? Agree with some points while disagree with others? What you found interesting? Give your open opinion of the article..specially I would like members like Mehtab ji and Johny101 veer to comment here..... So what do you think? Does his description of Islam close to what you think? How is he wrong/right? ...

Dear Members This topic is regarding the Sikh Awareness Society. I would like to know if there are ways of helping the organisation in any way? Such as guiding the youth doing speeches or anything like that. Im quite good at talking to people and think this is one way I might be able to help. My Background I have been working in IT for the last 3 years so I could help in this area also,. I've also posted some videos on you tube about grooming. i do not want to come across as someone that would be an ideal role model for Sikhs as I am a Mona but someone that could talk to them to try and get them on the right path. Ie away from drugs, drink ect... And into their religion. here is a link of my videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAGbwk2p5-0 I'm getting quite a lot of negative comments from my videos but these comments just back up my video.

I am a Sikh born and raised in Canada. A lot of my good friends are Muslim, and I've never had a problem with any of them. So it was really surprising for me to hear that the Sikh and Muslim communities in the UK do not get on well at all. Why is this? In Canada, we hang out together, listen to Punjabi music together and respect one another. Instead of being divided among religious lines, we are united by our common "desiness" i.e. our cultures are really similar/the same, eat the same food, same language (or very similar), same music etc... And I have heard people say that it is because Muslims vastly outnumber Sikhs in the UK and so have now turned on them, but the truth is that in Canada, Sikhs are 1.4% of the population, Muslims are 3.2%. They'res 2.5 times more Muslims in Canada than Sikhs. So what could it be?

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times Jammu, May 24, 2013 First Published: 18:38 IST(24/5/2013) Last Updated: 18:39 IST(24/5/2013) The Jammu Province Peoples forum (JPPF), an amalgam of more than 50 organisations of Jammu province, has urged the state government to provide full protection to the Sikh minority in the Valley facing threat perception and conversion. JPPF president Pavitar Singh warned the fundamentalists to resist from creating disturbance and law and order problem. He said the Jammu province, irrespective of cast and creed, was standing behind in support of the Sikh community in Kashmir and these anti-national elements will never be allowed to succeed in their antinational activities. JPPF has decided to send a fact-finding mission to visit the affected families in the Valley to find out the actual factual position on ground.

My thoughts on this topic: An amazing article from the perspective of an Atheist Muslim. Respect to this guy for speaking out, even sharing such a piece like this on a public domain people are reluctant because of the backlash. Dharam isn't meant to oppress ideas and thought, it's meant to free people's minds and make future generations blossom with Love for Vaheguru and for science, arts, philosophy and other education to flourish that will come back to help all of humanity. This piece is absolutely essential for ALL Sikhs to read so we can become more well versed in Guru Granth Sahib and teachings of Sikhi for the betterment of humanity without asking for anything in return. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/an-atheist-muslims-perspective-on-the-root-causes-of-islamist-jihadism-and-the-politics-of-islamophobia_b_3159286.html?utm_hp_ref=tw Posted: 05/03/2013 10:09 pm Follow Atheism , Islam , Terrorism , Asra Nomani , Barbary Pirates , Boston Marathon Bombing ,Boston Marathon Bombing , Thomas Jefferson , Bigotry , Boston Marathon Bombing ,Islamism , Islamist Jihad , Islamist Jihadism , Islamophobia , Jihad , RELIGIÓN , Toronto Terror , World News The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They arethe words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago. That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy. At the time, thousands of American and European trade ships entering the Mediterranean had been targeted by pirates from the Muslim Barbary states (modern-day North Africa). More than a million Westerners had been kidnapped, imprisoned and enslaved. Tripoli was the nexus for these operations. Jefferson's attempts to negotiate resulted in deadlock, and he was told simply that the kidnapping and enslavement of the infidels would continue, tersely articulated by Adja in the exchange paraphrased above. Adja's position wasn't a random one-off. This conflict continued for years, seminally resulting in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams in 1797. Article 11 of the document, a direct product of the United States' first-ever overseas conflict, contained these famous words, cementing America's fundamental commitment to secularism: Yes, the establishment of secularism in America back in the 18th century was largely related to a conflict with Islamist jihadism.As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. So where did Abdul Rahman Adja's bin Laden-esque words come from? They couldn't have been a response to American imperialism (the start of the conflict precedes the presidency of George Washington), U.S. foreign policy, globalization, AIPAC or Islamophobia. Yet his words are virtually identical to those spouted ad nauseum by jihadists today who justify their bellicosity as a reaction to these U.S.-centric factors, which were nonexistent in Adja's time. How do we make sense of this? Well, the common denominator here just happens to be the elephant in the room. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and the foiled al Qaeda-backed plot in Toronto, the "anything but jihad" brigade is out in full force again. If the perpetrators of such attacks say they were influenced by politics, nationalism, money, video games or hip-hop, we take their answers at face value. But when they repeatedly and consistently cite their religious beliefs as theircentral motivation, we back off, stroke our chins and suspect that there has to be something deeper at play, a "root cause." The taboo against criticizing religion is still so astonishingly pervasive that centuries of hard lessons haven't yet opened our eyes to what has been apparent all along: It is often religion itself, not the "distortion," "hijacking," "misrepresentation" or "politicization" of religion, that is the root cause. The recent attack on "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens by Nathan Lean and Murtaza Hussain have been endorsed by renowned liberal writers like Glenn Greenwald, who has also recently joined a chorus of denialists convinced that jihad and religious fervor had nothing to do with the Tsarnaev brothers' motive, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. (HuffPost Live recently had a great segment holding Murtaza Hussain accountable for his claims.) In a way, these attacks on Dawkins et al. are a good thing. Typically, resorting to ad hominemattacks and/or labeling the opposing side "bigoted" is a last resort, when the opponent is unable to generate a substantive counterargument. This phenomenon can be wholly represented by loaded terms like "Islamophobia." As an atheist Muslim (I'm not a believer, but I love Eid, the feasts of Ramadan and my Muslim family and friends), I could be jailed or executed in my country of birth, the country I grew up in and a host ofother Muslim countries around the world for writing this very piece. Obviously, this is an unsettling, scary feeling for me. You may describe that fear as a very literal form of "Islamophobia." But is that the same thing as anti-Muslim bigotry? No. Semantics matter here. As much as I have differences with the contents of Islam's canonical texts, I know that most Muslims are good, peaceful people who have barely read the Quran and seldom follow it except for the occasional cherry-picking and hearsay, much like the adherents of any other religion. Most of the 1 billion Muslims in the world (with the largest populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) don't even understand Arabic. I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism." When you think of a left-wing extremist, do you think of a greedy capitalist? Would you imagine a right-wing extremist to be dedicated to government-funded social welfare programs? The "extremists" and strict followers of the Jain faith, which values the life of every being, including insects, don't killmore than their average co-religionists. Instead, they avoid eating foods stored overnight so as not to kill even the microorganisms that may have collected in the meantime. In a true religion of peace, the "extremists" would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme (and perhaps annoying) degree, not the opposite. Too often in the aftermath of these tragedies, whether they occur in Boston or Karachi, I notice people rushing to defend the faith from judgment instead of acknowledging the victims. If a link is considered or even discovered, everyone from the Western media to Hollywood deems that person "Islamophobic" for linking Islam to terrorism. But the number-one reason that terrorism is linked with Islam is not the media or "Islamophobes." It is that jihadi terrorists link themselves with Islam. Timothy McVeigh (also a terrorist by any definition of the word) didn't yell "Jesus is great!" before carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing. His brand of terrorism wasn't linked to Christianity, because it wasn't carried out in the name of it. (In contrast, the bombing of abortion clinics is terrorism universally acknowledged as being linked with Christian religious extremism.) This is not to say that anti-Muslim bigotry doesn't exist. As a Pakistani-born man raised in Libya and Saudi Arabia, I'll be the first to acknowledge that it does. Yes, racists and bigots do pop up, not just attacking peaceful Muslims but pushing Hindus into subways or murdering Sikhs because they wear turbans or have beards like some Muslims. Ignorance can have immensely tragic consequences. However, denialism does not adequately counter it. As Asra Nomani has bravely and effectively argued in her article praising the attitude of the Tsarnaevs' uncle, the onus is on the Muslim community, not just here but the world over, to start dealing honestly with the parts of their religion that undeniably promote armed jihad. This does not lose an individual any Muslim cred. Jews frequently profess their faith without justifying or defending passages in the Old Testament calling for the stoning to death of homosexuals, non-virginal brides or blasphemers. In fact, most of them condemn these ideas. Religious Catholics still identify with their faith in large numbers without agreeing with the pope on birth control, abortion or premarital sex. Like them, almost all Muslims cherry-pick the contents of their faith as well. Why not be honest about the parts you don't like? If you're being discriminated against, why not protect your people first instead of jumping to protect your beliefs, books or religion every time someone driven by them commits mass murder? This is a key difference for "new atheists." To us, the fight against religious ideology isn't a struggleagainst human rights but a struggle for them. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Books and beliefs don't and aren't. Instead of judging these religions by the actions of a few, we judge them more objectively: by the contents of their sacred texts (revered by fundamentalists and moderates alike). To us, a simple reading of the Abrahamic holy books reveals endorsements of virtually all the oppressive and discriminatory systems that civil and human rights movements have tried to dismantle over time: patriarchy, misogyny, slavery, tribalism, xenophobia, totalitarianism and homophobia, all rolled into one. Our critical words aren't an attack on people. They are a challenge to what we consider bad ideasthat drive bad behavior. Saying "smoking is bad" does not translate to "all smokers are bad people." It is also important to understand why criticism, satire or mockery of any ideology isn't bigoted or racist. Criticizing capitalism does not make you an anti-capitalist "bigot." Criticizing religious ideology is no different. No one is born pre-circumcised or pre-baptized with a hijab or a yarmulke sewn to their heads. It is clear now, as it always has been, that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, educational status, financial status, citizenship status, marital status and family background have little to do with Islamist terrorism. Before the Russian Tsarnaevs from North Caucasus, we've had Richard Reid, the Hispanic Jose Padilla, the Nigerian underwear bomber, California's Adam Gadahn and others. The only common denominator among them is Islamic belief and religious fervor, which is not a race or ethnicity. For the longest time, Arabs and Muslims have rightly complained that labeling them anti-Semitic for legitimate criticism of Israeli policy was the Israeli government's ploy to shield itself from accountability. Today, Muslims (along with liberal apologist allies like Greenwald) are doing the same thing with their generously broad use of the "Islamophobia" label against the likes of Dawkins and Harris, both of whom have spoken against all religions equally, even if they contend (rightly so) that Islam poses a unique threat at this time because of its greatly increased influence on (and integration into) world politics, as Christianity had for centuries in Europe. The most revolutionary human rights struggles in history have faced violent opposition, ostracization, alienation, insult and often injury and death for those engaged. The fight for women's rights took much more courage for women in the 1800s than for those born in the 21st century. Civil rights activists who spoke out at a time when lynchings were accepted and commonplace took on a much more dangerous task than those born in the America of Barack Obama. Countless LGBT activists have faced discrimination and cruelty throughout history (and continue to today) for openly advocating what 70 percent of America's youth now believe to be the right thing, no matter what it says in Leviticus 20:13. Overall, "new atheists" think of religion the same way. It is considered sacred and untouchable now like white supremacy and patriarchy were less than a century ago. The consequences for speaking out against it are often as dire as they were for those who spoke out against white or male authority back then. But the secularist struggle is bearing fruit, here and elsewhere, particularly amongAmerica's youth. To us, the "root causes" of jihadist terrorism are the same today as they were when Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja said those historic words to Thomas Jefferson. We want to be honest about it so that we can actually do something about it. For the fast-growing secularist/humanist movement, criticism of religion isn't a demonstration of bigotry but a struggle against it. To us, bigotry against bigotry isn't bigotry, and intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance.

Here is an early account of the Sikhs from 1788 in a book titled "India Tracts: containing a description of the Jungle Terry Districts, their revenues, trade, and government: with a plan for the improvement of them. Also An History Of The Origin And Progress of the Sicks by Major Browne Check page 134 Book

Admin, New topic was started yesterday by me it was deleted, Just want to know was this the reason. After that the same article was posted in topic "In gareeb Sikhan ko deu patshiaan -part2" the post is also not showing there. It was not a link but a report with picture of the article.