Pakistan and Sikhs ....

[Auzer]

Nah bro, most Pakistanis are mixed. You very rarely find a pure Jatt, Rajput, Gujjar, or anything like that. Rajputs gave their daughters to Mughals, and Mughals kept a lot of Hindu girls in their harems. Not to mention, Mughals, Persians and Afghans raped a bunch of Hindus as they invaded Punjab. You guys are their offspring. No offense, but this is the truth. For example, the name Khan isn't indigenous to Punjab.

Islam was spread in South Asia by the Mughals. They weren't Sufis and they spread it by forced conversions. Like in the case of the Kashmiri Pandits as I mentioned before.

LOL. What do you mean by "pure" Arain , Jatt , Rajput? Are there "impure" jatt , Arain , and Rajputs too?

And how do you that "we guys" are offsprings of people who were raped? It is entirely possible that "you guys" are the offsprings of ladies that were raped in ...uhhh...1300's or something? lol ... C'mon , you make yourself look dumb by posting such funny posts...

Name "Khan" is not a Punjabi name. It is a Pushtun Name. Have you ever heard a Punjabi naming his son as "Khan" ? (unless offcourse he is from Pathan background) ? So no "Punjabi" even name his son "khan" ..unless he is Pathan settled in Punjab... And Mongols left alot of their genes..haha...we all know that... But I think you are just throwing this to 'poke' me or something? Without googling , tell me "WHO" defeated Mongols atlast and saved the Islamic world and Europe from falling completely to Mongols? Do you remember anything regarding Battle of Ain Julat? I bet not! So you basically have no knowledge of this issue ..You are just throwing it in to score some point on me...Cool... Just because someone's name is "Khan" ...it doesn't mean there are not "pure" or are offspring of rape ....

And Islam was "spread" in South-Asia mainly by Sufis...not by "Mughals" ... Mughals did convert people...but 'mass conversions' happened only at the hands of Sufi Saints etc. This is history...you can keep believing your myth that majority of Muslims were converted by force...but history doesn't support your point of view.

And yes , Pakistan is a melting pot of different ancient cultures...it is located on probably one of THE MOST important strategic locations of the world...

Pakistan is an interjunction of Middle-East , Central Asia , China , and India ...All of these are very unique different ancient civilizations...This make Pakistan VERY IMPORTANT and on the global stage..and physically "Muslims" control it , and not the 'Westernern powers'...... but this is not a global geo-politics class so I'll won't educate you on that. Long story short : We Pakistanis are proud of our culture and 'mixing' that you are referring to...but it doesn't mean that Indian Jatts are "pure" while Pakistani Jatts are not ...lol...

Better take some classes in Cultural Anthropology? :cool2:

[Mehtab Singh]

I guess we've been reading a different set of history books. The ones you've read would obviously glorify Pakistan. I don't blame you for it, thats what happens when you need to "keep the face". We Sikhs are fortunate that our history was written not just by Sikhs but also by Europeans and even our enemies, such as the Afghan invaders, who called us "dogs" in their write ups, but concluded by saying that they are lions indeed.

I have heard accounts where the Indian troops marched right upto Lahore without firing a single shot in 1965. Now I am sure your history books wouldn't condone that as well, right? General Chaudhry of the Indian army wanted to back off, thus leaving Amritsar at the mercy of the Pak army. It was General Harbaksh Singh who refused and had the Sikh soldiers tie anti-tank mines on their chests and blow themselves up along with your tanks to change the course of the war. This might be another chapter deleted from your history books.

We can argue over this till the pigs start flying. You decide when you want to stop. For every book written in Pakistan, there are 20 written in India. For every act of bravery shown by you guys, there are 100 shown by Sikhs.

Now, if you have anything to ask about Sikhi, go ahead, otherwise I suggest your time is up on this forum. We don't want Islamic or history lessons from you, however, since you are here, feel free to question any aspect of Sikhism, and based on the knowledge of the members here, we can try to engage in discussion. You can then pick and choose to believe what suits you and compare it with your Islamic practices (but inside your head please).

[chatanga]

Name "Khan" is not a Punjabi name. It is a Pushtun Name. Have you ever heard a Punjabi naming his son as "Khan" ? (unless offcourse he is from Pathan background) ? So no "Punjabi" even name his son "khan" ..unless he is Pathan settled in Punjab...

what about nusrat fateh ali khan, his family were from jalandhar as well, were they pathans?

ex governor of panjab, nawaz sharif khan is also arain. can they be of pathan background as well?

[Jonny101]

what about nusrat fateh ali khan, his family were from jalandhar as well, were they pathans?

ex governor of panjab, nawaz sharif khan is also arain. can they be of pathan background as well?

In regards to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, his grand father or maybe great grand father is from Afghanistan and were ethnic Hazaras. His people were persecuted in Afghanistan because of which a great many of them had settled in India at the time. Nusrat's family had settled in Jalandhar. That's why Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan sort of had that chinese look to his eyes.

[Singh559]

Vah speaking of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan:

[proactive]

^ Thank you for the post proactive ji.

This is the type of responses I was waiting for...but alas , Panther [MOD CUT - NO PERSONAL ATTACKS] used this 'Sikh forum' to take out his personal frustration with Islam and Prophet! I don't know why don't MODS put him on "moderation" and only approve his posts that are on topic...

Anyways , I won't challenge your claim that Muslim started the violence first. Lets be it.

But what are your of Pakistan NOW? Have you ever been to Pakistan? Been to Lahore? One thing I must ask from a sensible man like you....Why do Sikh general public blame Pakistanis for the atrocities that your Gurus face? Isn't it the time that Sikh leaders tell Sikhs that Pakistanis did NOT kill Sikh gurus....It were Mughals and outside invaders! ...What are your view about it?

Anyone claiming that the Sikhs started the partition violence and the Muslims were just on the receiving end is either grossly ignorant or someone with an agenda. You said that you will not challenge my assertion so I urge you to read the latest book by Istiaq Ahmed, Punjab bloodied and partitioned and his presentation at Lund university. The link is here-;

http://www.sasnet.lu...leansing-punjab

No Sikhs have ever claimed that their leaders or many Sikhs in general acted like Angels during partition, but the Sikh violence was the violence of a minority which had lost its political objective and was fighting to ensure the resettlement of half of their population who were refugees from West Punjab. The violence of the Muslims was the violence of those who had achieved their political objective and yet still wanted to wipe out a minority from their midst. I don't know whether you can appreciate the difference but it is there.

As Chatanga wrote, we lost our best lands and all our historic Gurdwaras. In the central districts of Punjab, every nook and corner has some association with Sikh history. These districts were the ones that our Gurus nurtured Sikhi in and the ones which formed the backbone of the Sikh empire. No doubt on your side attempts are being made to not publicise the Sikh association but it is there for anyone who is keen to find the truth to see. Even many Pakistani scholars are unaware of what an attachment that land has for Sikhs and deeply we felt it's loss. The only way that I can give you an example is how you would feel if Mecca and Medina were under the control of the Christian or the Jews? Obviously Sikhs hope for good relations between India and Pakistan and in future between Khalistan and Pakistan. Only a few fools who are under the control of Indian government want the relations to be worst. It was the Sikhs through the Nankana Sahib Foundation in 1978 and 1979 that did the leg work to ensure that Sikh pilgrims could go on yatras to Pakistan. If you ever see any footage of the ridiculous tamasha that takes place every evening the border is closed at wagha-Attari you will note that very few Sikhs will be seen jingoisticly shouting slogans such as Hindustan Zindabad. It is mostly the urban Hindus and Indian tourists who make a point of showing their nationalistic zeal on these occasions. Yet, if there was a war there, these fools would be the first to flee across the Jamna!

As for how and when your family might converted to Islam, no one apart from your elders or if you have them their Mirasis would be able to give you the right answer. I have noted that 100% of Pakistani will always note that their ancestors were converted by the Sufis. It's almost as if there was no Islamic invasions and the Turk and Afghan invaders never existed. You should read some of the writings of the Muslims from that time about how the survivors of the battles between the Muslims and Hindus were given the choice of Islam or death. Many chose Islam.

As for the Sufi contribution, no doubt they propogated Islam and some Hindus especially the lower castes would have gone over to Islam, but the vast majority were forcibly converted. If you look at the Sufis, there were probably more Sufis in East Punjab than in West Punjab yet the Hindus in West Punjab were the ones that converted to Islam whilst the ones in East Punjab either remained Hindus, became Sultanis or converted to Sikhism. If anything the wholescale conversion to Islam that you claim for the Sufis should have occurred in East Punjab rather than West Punjab. The influence of the Sufis in East Punjab was limited to having Hindu followers who became known as Sultanis which was a half way house between Hinduism and Islam. How is it that the Sufis were able to convert en masse in West Punjab whilst they could only make little headway in East Punjab and even that was negated when these Sultanis became Sikhs during the times of the Gurus and after.

The reason for believing that conversion was forcible is because as someone pointed out about 70% of the Rajputs of Punjab were Muslims. Their conversion was almost universal from Rawalpindi to Jalandhar. How is it that a caste such as that which had a high position in the Hindu caste system become Muslim when there was really nothing to be gained from becoming Muslim. The case is made stronger given that many of the Rajputs of Hoshiarpur who lived on the plain became Muslims but the ones in the Hills and Himachal were strongly Hindu. They were so strongly Hindu that they fought against Guru Gobind Singh and the Khalsa because of the Khalsa's anti-caste character. How is it that the same caste in Himachal are fanatic Hindus and the ones on the plains left their high caste origin behind and joined a casteless Islam from which they had nothing to gain? The only reason was that Muslim political influence was never strong in the hills and any concerted campaign to forcibly convert requires the use of superior power in the first instance to convert by force and then a strong presence for many years to stop those forcibly converted from going back to their old religion. The Rajputs were the soldier class in Punjab at the time of the Muslims invasions so they were the ones who would have been defeated and then offered Islam or death.

[chatanga]

No Sikhs have ever claimed that their leaders or many Sikhs in general acted like Angels during partition, but the Sikh violence was the violence of a minority which had lost its political objective and was fighting to ensure the resettlement of half of their population who were refugees from West Punjab. The violence of the Muslims was the violence of those who had achieved their political objective and yet still wanted to wipe out a minority from their midst. I don't know whether you can appreciate the difference but it is there.

That is a great post and one that ALL Sikhs should take to their hearts, if we are ever asked about the Sikh role partition violence.

One thing that i wish to add to this for Auzer Bhaji, is that a lot of Sikhs who took up arms, especially in Patiala state, were refugees from the earlier violence against the Sikhs in Rawalpindi division. Kafir Sikhs who had lost their daughters and wives, and sons and shops and lands to the brave momins, crusading in the name of their all-merciful God.

While these brave momins were crusading against a hapless, minority and taking anything their rights hands possessed, the Islamic brotherhood and leadership stayed quiet, but when the Kafir Sikhs gained the upper hand in eastern Panjab, and the brave mujahids of Allah felt their wrath, the Islamic leadership were soon crying at what the Kafir Sikhs had done, and were beggin the indian state and the british dignataries to protect the "poor innocent muslims..."

Everything the muslims recieved was what they deserved, for they were quick enough to send it out, and you know whta goes around, comes around.

[acsap]

Great post Proactive!

[Auzer]

I guess we've been reading a different set of history books. The ones you've read would obviously glorify Pakistan. I don't blame you for it, thats what happens when you need to "keep the face". We Sikhs are fortunate that our history was written not just by Sikhs but also by Europeans and even our enemies, such as the Afghan invaders, who called us "dogs" in their write ups, but concluded by saying that they are lions indeed.

Why are you acting like teenagers? (or are you one?) ... I never challeneged the well-known bravery of Sikhs....I never "glorified" Pakistan...I only replied to the assertion that "mix" Pakistanis are not "pure" jatts etc..but result of rapes of persians , Afghans etc.... An assertion...which is absolutely rubbish!

So kindly...pin point where I am saying anything wrong? or glorifying Pak or Islam as a religion ? etc ..My posts are just replies for heaven sake..

I have heard accounts where the Indian troops marched right upto Lahore without firing a single shot in 1965. Now I am sure your history books wouldn't condone that as well, right? General Chaudhry of the Indian army wanted to back off, thus leaving Amritsar at the mercy of the Pak army. It was General Harbaksh Singh who refused and had the Sikh soldiers tie anti-tank mines on their chests and blow themselves up along with your tanks to change the course of the war. This might be another chapter deleted from your history books.

There are no "your history" books buddy. I have read ALL accounts...I have read war history of 65' from even Indian accounts....Have you read what Sameer Chopra and Jagan Mohan wrote about 65' war in their books?

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen. "

So don't say that "my books" distorted history..... Indian books did the same as well...and even outsiders realized that...

But again....leave this topic now!

I don't know why are you bringing up this issue again and again? I never questioned Sikh bravery ever....

BTW : Pakistani soldiers at some sectors also conducted "suicide" missions to stop Indian advance. They tied anti-tank mines and laid down in the path of Indian armor....

So Muslim-Punjabis are as brave as Indian one's , if not more.

We can argue over this till the pigs start flying. You decide when you want to stop.

It is you who needs to stop sir.... I am not bringing up this issue again and again....you are.

[Mehtab Singh]

Like I said in another thread, if we start believing your version of history, we're gonna have to disown whatever was said by those who we hold in the highest esteem, and mind you these were no bookworms, these were enlightened souls. The books you wrote may or may not have been written by individuals who were paid or could have been scared. The Gurmukhs I mentioned (Bhai Gurdas ji, Kavi Santokh Singh ji, Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale, Sant Baba Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale) in another thread wrote/spoke the truth at the cost of their lives. Did your authors do the same?

As my last post in this thread which is entitled "Pakistan and Sikhs", there are several things which are better in Pakistan for Sikhs as compared to India. However, that will never make Pakistan a better place for Sikhs as compared to India. If you agree to this, our discussion ends here. If not,