Sanatanis

[Jonny101]

The term khaliban perfectly describes the notion I wished to articulate.. How is it outrageous

But please explain in your words what Khaliban means?

[Jonny101]

Khaliban = a description of those who proscibe a reductionist view of the sikh faith, ones who promote and disregard the inherent pluralism of the 'sikh' way and wish to like the taliban of Afghanistan implement some idealistic / imagined 'sikh' way of life

But Mr Virk, Sikhs on Sikh Sangat are not blowing themselves up or beheading anyone like the Taliban. So on what basis are you saying Sikhs are trying to implement like the Taliban of Afghanistan?

It seems to me that you call anyone a Taliban who has an opinion that is not in agreement with your idealistic view of Sikhi. By that standard that makes you into a Taliban as well.

[Jonny101]

I think you should read what I said again

I did and I again ask on what basis are you saying Sikhs ara trying to implement like the Taliban of Afghanistan? I don'see Sikhs beheading anyone or blowing themselves up like the Taliban do in Afghanistan.

[Jonny101]

For a start the term is a hybrid secondly I articulated where I saw the similarities. One similarity I didn't mention was suicide bombing but one similarity you have mentioned is the desire by some khaliban of a sikh theocracy ie. Khalistan

No you said you are calling Sikhs Khaliban because they implement their view of Sikhi as the TAliban do in Afghanistan. We all know that the Afghan Taliban implement by beheadings and suicide bombings. That is what they are known for while Sikhs are not known for doing this.

So now two things come to mind: by your own definition Sikhs cannot be called Taliban OR you do not know who or what the Afghan Taliban are and just used this term for Sikhs who do not agree with your notions of Sikhi.

[Jonny101]

You're just being obtuse, the ideology of the taliban goes beyond suicide bombings and beheading people. it is driven by and justified as a means to return to some puritanical idealised 'pure' Islamic state

Before it (in there minds at least) corrupted. Similar goals to those people who I would say are 'khaliban',reductivist in nature wishing to implement some kind of sikh theocracy

Although I wouldn't be surprised if in the future some nut job did blow themselves up in the pursuit of ideal and everyone readily called them a 'shaheed' definitely not outside the realms of possibility especially with the kind of rhetoric we hear these days And yes your right by my definition some Sikhs cannot be called taliban because I didn't call them taliban I said khaliban

First your definition was something else and now since I challenged you on that showing how ridiculous it sounds you have now changed your definition targeted those Sikhs wanting Khalistan. Wanting regional autonomy does not make someone into the Taliban by any stretch of the imagination.

It's obvious you do not understand who or what the Afghan Taliban are. But now its clear you don't understand what the Khalistan movement is about either. The fact that many Sikh Shaheeds were monas shatters your whole notion of wanting to portray Khalistan is as religious fanatics in your constantly changing definition of that ridiculous term "Khaliban".

You view Sikhi as something negative as Islam. That is why you see Khalsa Raaj which every Sikh invokes and prays for during Ardas(Raaj Karega Khalsa Akee Rahe Na Koe) in every Gurdwara around the world and compare it to something so evil as the Sharia Islamic State.

[Jonny101]

I don't know what you're reading its not what I'm writing look at the very first definition of the term I gave you... No difference... I don't see the invocation of raj karega khalsa the and the establishment of khalistan as one and the same

Lets see. This topic was started by someone who did not agree with Sanatanists. So it had absolutely nothing to do with Khalistan. Then you come using the term Khaliban which can only mean you were using it for those Sikhs who did not agree with Sanatanists. When I asked what it means you replied you are using it for those Sikhs who are implementing Sikhi like the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan which as we all know is beheadings and suicide bombings. When I challenged you on that because it did not make any sense you again changed the definition to mean Khalistanis which again doesn't make sense.

You cannot call Sikhs as Taliban whose only crime is wanting a Sikh state. Khalsa Raaj is something Sikhs have been praying and struggling for centuries to establish starting with our first Sikh state under Baba Banda Singh Bahadur. Temporarily it was suppressed. Then during the misl period when Sikh misls had again established Khalsa Raaj from the Indus to Yamuna river. After that the Khalsa established the Sikh state under Maharaja Ranjit Singh which lasted till the British conquered it. The Khalistan movement is a continuation of that centuries long struggle. So our struggle to establish Khalsa Raaj is nothing new. Every Sikh knowingly and unknowingly prays for it when they sing the Dohra I mentioned(Raaj Karega Khalsa Akee rehe Na Koe)

[Jonny101]

It's a bit of leap to make such tall claims

What claims? Be more specific

[DSGkeepingitreal]

Johnny Jee,

This whole mess is created thanks to a very large role played by Mr. Neo. He is the one who coined the term 'Khaliban' and then spread it worldwide through an online forum such as SikhSangat for example. Mr. Neo was the one who kept bringing the words 'militancy' and 'militants' into many different topics for absolutely no reason, the same way Mr. Sukhvirk76 has done here. Also, Mr. Neo said he was doing an undercover investigation, compiling data and creating a huge report to give to the BBC in order to 'expose' and consequently stain and mailign the worldwide view and reputation of Sikhs. Not much different than what Mr. Sukhvirk76 is doing. These types of people are anti-Sikh and enemies of Sikh Panth. On the outside they pretend to be with Sikh Panth, and inside they have a hidden agenda to carry out.

[DSGkeepingitreal]

Khaliban = a description of those who proscibe a reductionist view of the sikh faith, ones who promote and disregard the inherent pluralism of the 'sikh' way and wish to like the taliban of Afghanistan implement some idealistic / imagined 'sikh' way of life

There is no inherent pluralism of the word 'Sikh'.

The definition of Sikh and Sikh way of life is very clearly mentioned throughout Gurbani, Hukamnamey, Rehatnamey, historical literature, observation of GurSikhs' Jeevans, etc.

Don't try and slip in these tricky types of comments.

[InderjitS]

Moorkhe naal na lujiye

kion matha mardhe hai, pataa nahi Hundal hi aigiaa budhoo banan!