Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
genie

Has any islamic organisation condemed the attack on Afghan Sikhs in afghanistan?

Recommended Posts

Had die hard suicide Sikh fighters entered a masjid and started shooting up the place killing men, women and children. Destroying their qurans and generally causing mayhem there would be no end of Sikhs and sikh organisations condeming such people and attacks.

So my question is has anyone found even 1 islamic religious or political organisation that has condemned the incident and issued a fatwa against such muslims and incidents to not to take place again?

I have read somewhere the pakistani government and turkish government condemned the attack however to my knowledge no Islamic body in where in the world has said anything or offered their support to afghan sikhs in their time of dire need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when have they ever condemn it?  how many muslims do you see out there protesting against terrorist attacks or muslim grooming gangs? none    yet when trump was to visit this country throngs of them were out there protesting.  deep down a lot of them dont think theres anything wrong with terrorist attacks.

when EDL came down to our town to march against a Islamic center being built here, guess who was at the front line protesting against the EDL?  yup    sikhs!     it was absolutely embarrassing! we were like what the f are they doing 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the notion of outside orgs/institutes being remotely concerned about a minority like Sikhs is really quite naive.  

I think we've really screwed up by looking at orgs like Unicef or foreign governments to help us in political conflicts. It simply doesn't work. If we had loads of oil or some really rare resources there then maybe it would be different (for selfish reasons on part of the so called 'helpers'). Look at how we were looking at the UK government to help during the 80s, only to subsequently find that  Thatcher was actually  sending military advisors to advise on the attack on Harmandir Sahib (decades afterwards). 

This political puerility is embarrasing and destructive.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to put it frankly, given the amount of murders/terrorist attacks over there, this would be seen as a blip by the locals. That's not to wash over the unfortunate and sad events, but they do have a context. The amount of time sullay over there have done this to other sullay probably couldn't be counted. To the indigenous of Afghanistan, this is probably nothing. It's normal life. We have to grasp that. 

Either you choose to live there and accept the risks - or move if you can. I'm no fan of India but it has to be said, the recent offer of refugee status for Sikhs should possibly be seriously considered if SIkhs are unhappy about life in Afghanistan.   

This type of stuff isn't about to stop anytime soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the debate that i've seen online where pakistani muslim's claiming it's indian r&aw who did it or hindustani's claiming its pakistani isi who funded and helped Islamic state-khorasan group to attack Sikhs. i think evidence and motive points firmly towards someone funding these sunni salafi islamo-nazis who hate sikhs, shia's and other non-muslims. Could be afghan intelligence agency or american CIA? Strange how everytime american CIA is involved innocent Sikhs seem to get murdered by Jihadi scumbags. Maybe they are trying to draw india into afghanistan? but we know india doesnt really care about Sikhs so for them its just collateral damage.

1) The same fringe terrorist mainly pasthun muslim group is well known for attacking the afghan taliban and shia minorities.

2) Sikhs have been targeted by them before last year. They have links with gandu haqqani network and dallah gulbaddin hekmartyr.

It would not be in the interests of R&AW to get involved in muslim sectarian warfare by aiding IS-K in killing weaponless sitting duck afghan shia's who are targeted by afghan taliban too. Rather its in interests of R&AW / indian establishment to setup shia milita groups and afghan sikh armed groups to act as proxies attack anti-india enemies to make space for indian troops to eventually come in to counter pakistani involvement in afghanistan. It is in the interests of india to keep strong presence of indians and afghan Sikhs within the gurdwara complex so that there's communication and intelligence sharing there.

So in conclusion this heinous attack is in the interests of dallay sunni salafi islamic nutjobs to ethnically cleanse /  genocide shia's, sikhs, hindus and others from afghanistan to have their evil totalitarian rule over the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think the notion of outside orgs/institutes being remotely concerned about a minority like Sikhs is really quite naive.  

I think we've really screwed up by looking at orgs like Unicef or foreign governments to help us in political conflicts. It simply doesn't work. If we had loads of oil or some really rare resources there then maybe it would be different (for selfish reasons on part of the so called 'helpers'). Look at how we were looking at the UK government to help during the 80s, only to subsequently find that  Thatcher was actually  sending military advisors to advise on the attack on Harmandir Sahib (decades afterwards). 

This political puerility is embarrasing and destructive.  

yup very embarrassing we have low IQ well meaning Sikhs licking the backsides of islamics to make sure their feelings are not hurt even when its the very sunni islamics that been harming and killing sikh kids and grooming sikh women for conversion to islam. Its shameful and disgusting we have our own Sikhs not able to stand up to islam and muslims and tell them whats what. Such coward rats they have become. It's only us who call a spade a spade and tell the sullah terrorist whats what.... giving islamic antics and teachings a good bash and exposure as and when its deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think the notion of outside orgs/institutes being remotely concerned about a minority like Sikhs is really quite naive.  

I think we've really screwed up by looking at orgs like Unicef or foreign governments to help us in political conflicts. It simply doesn't work. If we had loads of oil or some really rare resources there then maybe it would be different (for selfish reasons on part of the so called 'helpers'). Look at how we were looking at the UK government to help during the 80s, only to subsequently find that  Thatcher was actually  sending military advisors to advise on the attack on Harmandir Sahib (decades afterwards). 

This political puerility is embarrasing and destructive.  

If a list was to be prepared about people who have fallen from glory to being perpetually enslaved , and having the most naive people , 

then it would be the sikhs at the top i guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

If a list was to be prepared about people who have fallen from glory to being perpetually enslaved , and having the most naive people , 

then it would be the sikhs at the top i guess.

 

Sikhs are not naive.  Had this been true, then we would not have successful Sikhs in various businesses.   Sikhs collectively treat humans as humans regardless of faith in moments of crisis. 

Muslims organizations will not put out statements condemning the attack.  But that will not change our Sikh values and practices.  Whether cut in half, blown to pieces, or cut limb from limb, Sikhs upheld their values in every moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

Sikhs are not naive.  Had this been true, then we would not have successful Sikhs in various businesses.   Sikhs collectively treat humans as humans regardless of faith in moments of crisis. 

Muslims organizations will not put out statements condemning the attack.  But that will not change our Sikh values and practices.  Whether cut in half, blown to pieces, or cut limb from limb, Sikhs upheld their values in every moment.

There's treating people as human being and there's doling out scarce resources to those who are not only ungrateful but also whose ideology is a clear and present danger. Those moorkh Sikhs protesting against the CAA where actually protesting against a favourable treatment that would have been given to fellow Sikhs who died in Kabul. In essence they have blood on their hands as to them their commitment to being 'woke' was more important than the safety of Sikhs in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of those moorakhs rather than looking at what their actions had done are even now so stubborn that they are doubling down and calling those who have called out their dhimmi actions as spreading 'hatred'! 

The most ironic was that mahan moorkh Amarinder Singh calling on the Afghan president to help the Sikhs massacred in Kabul! He the useful id.iot of the Congress party was the first CM to say that he would not allow the CAA to function in Punjab.. ie he would not allow Afghan Sikhs to have speedy access to asylum and citizenship. Is that your so-called Sikh 'values and practices' in action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, genie said:

So my question is has anyone found even 1 islamic religious or political organisation that has condemned the incident and issued a fatwa against such muslims and incidents to not to take place again?

There's been some statements of condemnation by some organisations and some Afghan citizens both in Kabul and abroad. But given that Muslims can lie in order to gain advantage then I do not put much store by it. In order to understand what the local Afghans think of the Sikhs we need to look at how they were being treated at other times and not just when there is a massacre like this. From what I have read these Sikhs were pretty much besieged in this compound, their children not being able to attend school as they get bullied by the Aghan kids. The elder also suffered daily insults when ever they venture out of their compounds. A lot were being told to go back to their country, India and it was clear that they are not wanted in Afghanistan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, proactive said:

Amarinder Singh calling on the Afghan president to help the Sikhs massacred in Kabul

Hes a nob I cant stand that man, perhaps he has forgotten that it was his own ancestor ala singh who helped Abduli invade pubjab,  his family have been traitors from the beginning including him  

2 hours ago, proactive said:

In order to understand what the local Afghans think of the Sikhs we need to look at how they were being treated at other times and not just when there is a massacre like this.

They trow stones at them and spit at them when they walk outside  and call them kafirs and hindus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shastarSingh said:

They need the support of dhimmi Sikhs to fight their battle against the CAA hence the statement. Most if not all of these teachers are probably celebrating behind closed doors that 25 odd kafirs are dead. 

 

Qur'an Sanctifies Lying: "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them."

 
The Qur'an says Muslims must not be friends with non-Muslims, except as a pretense, to guard against the unbelievers. The title of this post quotes Muhammad's companion and pupil Abu Ad-Darda, as cited and explained by Ibn Kathir, the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an expositor.

To begin to understand this, consider Qur'an 3:28:
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
The Muslim world's most respected Quran expositor, Ibn Kathir, has this to say in explanation:
The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said,
(And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way)[part of Qur'an 3:28]
meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah [the Qur'an] said,
(O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them),
until,
(And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.) [Qur'an 60:1].
Allah said,
(O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves) [Qur'an 4:144],
and,
(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.)[Qur'an 5:51].
Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin [those who moved with Muhammad to Medina], Ansar [people from Medina who helped Muhammad] and Bedouins,
(And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.) [Qur'an 8:73].
Allah said next [in Qur'an 3:28, which many Islamic scholars say was produced after the above verse, 8:73]
(unless you indeed fear a danger from them)
meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari [compiler of the most canonical hadith collection] recorded that Abu Ad-Darda [a companion and pupil of Muhammad] said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah [or taqqiyah, deception on behalf of Islam] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''
"We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." A deception "allowed until the Day of Resurrection." Thus you have a mainstream pious Islamic idea of "friendship" with non-believers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, proactive said:

They need the support of dhimmi Sikhs to fight their battle against the CAA hence the statement. Most if not all of these teachers are probably celebrating behind closed doors that 25 odd kafirs are dead. 

 

Qur'an Sanctifies Lying: "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them."

 
The Qur'an says Muslims must not be friends with non-Muslims, except as a pretense, to guard against the unbelievers. The title of this post quotes Muhammad's companion and pupil Abu Ad-Darda, as cited and explained by Ibn Kathir, the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an expositor.

To begin to understand this, consider Qur'an 3:28:
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
The Muslim world's most respected Quran expositor, Ibn Kathir, has this to say in explanation:
The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said,
(And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way)[part of Qur'an 3:28]
meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah [the Qur'an] said,
(O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them),
until,
(And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.) [Qur'an 60:1].
Allah said,
(O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves) [Qur'an 4:144],
and,
(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.)[Qur'an 5:51].
Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin [those who moved with Muhammad to Medina], Ansar [people from Medina who helped Muhammad] and Bedouins,
(And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.) [Qur'an 8:73].
Allah said next [in Qur'an 3:28, which many Islamic scholars say was produced after the above verse, 8:73]
(unless you indeed fear a danger from them)
meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari [compiler of the most canonical hadith collection] recorded that Abu Ad-Darda [a companion and pupil of Muhammad] said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah [or taqqiyah, deception on behalf of Islam] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''
"We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." A deception "allowed until the Day of Resurrection." Thus you have a mainstream pious Islamic idea of "friendship" with non-believers.

 

wow! great information! thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, genie said:

yup very embarrassing we have low IQ well meaning Sikhs licking the backsides of islamics 

They aren't limited to whose ar5e they lick bro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use