Liberation or Racism?
The French government is at it again. France’s lower house just passed a law that would m
ake it illegal for women to wear the full Islamic veil (burqa or niqab) in public. It would fine women 150 euros for not complying. Sundari posted on this issue back in February, and now this attack on religious freedom has come one step closer to being the law of the land as the bill passed 335 to 1 in the National Assembly this week. The bill would have to be ratified in September by the Senate to become law.
Proponents of the law say the National Assembly vote is a victory for democracy and French Values. Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie stated it was a victory for, “Values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals; values of equality between men and women, against those who push for inequality and injustice.”
What about the value to practice your religion freely and express your identity (religious or otherwise) through what you wear? Madeline Bunting, in a great column in the UK’s Guardian today, stated: “Women wearing the skimpiest of mini-skirts sit down on buses next to other women in saris, business suits, salwar kameez. None of these cultural codes expressed in dress are regarded as the business of the state. Nor should they be.”
Bunting continues, “French politicians insisted on Tuesday that women need to be liberated from the full veil. Forcing people to be free has a long and undistinguished history – well described by many, including George Orwell – yet too many times an age is blinded by its own prejudices and forgets that liberation can never be imposed.”
This isn’t about whether we think wearing burqas or niqabs is a good idea or not. The issue is whether a government should be able to impose its notion of national identity on its citizens (and non-citizens for that matter). Sikhs in France are all too familiar with the confines of French identity. This new law is a disturbing development that further pushes the French government’s racist, assimilationist assertion of a homogeneous French identity– all in the name of liberation.
412 Responses to “Liberation or Racism?”
i think this is out of order why should anyone be told how to live there life if muslim women want to cover there face it there choice if sikh women want to wear a turban its there choice if jewish women wera wigs its there choice why should any one be told how to act how to dress what to believe its freedom off choice i think this is very out of order i would never change my self or my beliefs because of the goverment think its anti social…!!!
muslim women should be allowed to cover their face, its their choice, and sikh women should be allowed to wear turbans, and jewish women can wear wigs, its their choice, if they're fine with dressing like that , thats all that matters, there shouldn't be any fines, this is all racism
i think this is out of order why should anyone be told how to live there life if muslim women want to cover there face it there choice if sikh women want to wear a turban its there choice if jewish women wera wigs its there choice why should any one be told how to act how to dress what to believe its freedom off choice i think this is very out of order i would never change my self or my beliefs because of the goverment think its anti social…!!!
muslim women should be allowed to cover their face, its their choice, and sikh women should be allowed to wear turbans, and jewish women can wear wigs, its their choice, if they're fine with dressing like that , thats all that matters, there shouldn't be any fines, this is all racism
"France does not recognise religious law, nor does it recognise religious beliefs or morality as a motivation for the enactment of prohibitions." – Wikipedia
"One reason is their century-old secular tradition, which fiercely defends the separation of faith and state, and makes most French people uneasy about conspicuous religion. Nativity plays or carol concerts in state primary schools are unthinkable, as would be the swearing-in of presidents over the Bible. When the Swiss voted recently to ban the construction of minarets on mosques, Mr Sarkozy urged believers of all faiths in France to “practise their religion with humble discretion”. Liberal outsiders see this as intolerance. But to the French, who fought hard-won battles against authoritarian clericalism, it stems from a secular wish to keep religion in the private sphere." – Economist
This is similar to what Guru Nanak suggested, if my memory has not failed me. Painful to see that such a forward looking philosophy as Sikhism is falling into the same trap as it was created to abhor. As a side note, people should do research on a nation's constitutional fundamentals before they decide to settle there.
"France does not recognise religious law, nor does it recognise religious beliefs or morality as a motivation for the enactment of prohibitions." – Wikipedia
"One reason is their century-old secular tradition, which fiercely defends the separation of faith and state, and makes most French people uneasy about conspicuous religion. Nativity plays or carol concerts in state primary schools are unthinkable, as would be the swearing-in of presidents over the Bible. When the Swiss voted recently to ban the construction of minarets on mosques, Mr Sarkozy urged believers of all faiths in France to “practise their religion with humble discretion”. Liberal outsiders see this as intolerance. But to the French, who fought hard-won battles against authoritarian clericalism, it stems from a secular wish to keep religion in the private sphere." – Economist
This is similar to what Guru Nanak suggested, if my memory has not failed me. Painful to see that such a forward looking philosophy as Sikhism is falling into the same trap as it was created to abhor. As a side note, people should do research on a nation's constitutional fundamentals before they decide to settle there.
Does a government have the right to ignore its citizen's requirements? Especially if those citizens such as Sikhs earned their right to live in France( by fighting in WWI and WWII) and French govenment let them, shouldn't the government be doing the research since its the one that decides if it should allow people to immigrate, settle and become citizens of France?? And how can immigrants do research when new laws and restrictions that weren't there when they applied for citizenship keep popping up. Its as if the French government will never think of its immigrants as citizens, it keeps putting restrictions and laws out there for them.
If Guru Nanak Dev Ji did go against outer show of religion (only because it was only outer show nothing inside) Did not Guru Gobind Singh Ji create Khalsa to look distinct, to stand out?? Which the French govt is so against….
Good argument. That raises another issue of historical religious/ cultural practices and their relevance in the evolving world. Questions like wearing helmets for Sikh men and women, kids carrying kirpans to school, use of chairs for langar, (and a recent one) healthy krrah parshaad etc.
P.S: I like your name 🙂
It pays to do a little bit of reading, instead of typing away in disgust on hearing about this ban. There is a world beyond one's narrow minded, myopic, religious perspective with all its dogmas. Turkey, a muslim country, has banned headscarves (forget veils) from public places for time immemorial. Syria, another fanatic muslim country, has just recently banned veils in universities …. and here we have people crying hoarse over a similar ban in a western country that is fanatically proud of its secularism. …. <sigh>
Does a government have the right to ignore its citizen's requirements? Especially if those citizens such as Sikhs earned their right to live in France( by fighting in WWI and WWII) and French govenment let them, shouldn't the government be doing the research since its the one that decides if it should allow people to immigrate, settle and become citizens of France?? And how can immigrants do research when new laws and restrictions that weren't there when they applied for citizenship keep popping up. Its as if the French government will never think of its immigrants as citizens, it keeps putting restrictions and laws out there for them.
If Guru Nanak Dev Ji did go against outer show of religion (only because it was only outer show nothing inside) Did not Guru Gobind Singh Ji create Khalsa to look distinct, to stand out?? Which the French govt is so against….
Good argument. That raises another issue of historical religious/ cultural practices and their relevance in the evolving world. Questions like wearing helmets for Sikh men and women, kids carrying kirpans to school, use of chairs for langar, (and a recent one) healthy krrah parshaad etc.
P.S: I like your name 🙂
It pays to do a little bit of reading, instead of typing away in disgust on hearing about this ban. There is a world beyond one's narrow minded, myopic, religious perspective with all its dogmas. Turkey, a muslim country, has banned headscarves (forget veils) from public places for time immemorial. Syria, another fanatic muslim country, has just recently banned veils in universities …. and here we have people crying hoarse over a similar ban in a western country that is fanatically proud of its secularism. …. <sigh>
Unfortunately Sikhs will always get dragged into matters that have no concern to us. Osama wears a turban which has not significance to the Arabs but because of this Sikhs become victims of mistaken identity. The French want to control the extremist Muslims in their country so they ban religious symbols in schools and so Sikh kids get thrown out of school. Instead of supporting women who basically want to withdraw from the world and wear the veil because they have been taught that men cannot control their base urges and so women should cover themselves, Sikhs if not directly supporting the ban should at least stay out of the debate. If the male posters on this site are ok with with being thought of as potential rapists by these veiled holier than thou daft bints then that is their choice. But what I ask is that don't be taken in by the bukwas that these veiled women feel 'liberated' by wearing the veil. We have suffered enough for the acts of Muslim terrorists and yet rather than taking the Muslim community to task for their silence in the face of acts of terrorism done by their co-religionists we start to poke our noses into issues that don't concern us. The sooner Europe bans the veil the better. If these women want to cut themselves off everyday social intercourse within the society then it's best they stay within the four walls of their homes which is exactly what Islam teaches.
Unfortunately Sikhs will always get dragged into matters that have no concern to us. Osama wears a turban which has not significance to the Arabs but because of this Sikhs become victims of mistaken identity. The French want to control the extremist Muslims in their country so they ban religious symbols in schools and so Sikh kids get thrown out of school. Instead of supporting women who basically want to withdraw from the world and wear the veil because they have been taught that men cannot control their base urges and so women should cover themselves, Sikhs if not directly supporting the ban should at least stay out of the debate. If the male posters on this site are ok with with being thought of as potential rapists by these veiled holier than thou daft bints then that is their choice. But what I ask is that don't be taken in by the bukwas that these veiled women feel 'liberated' by wearing the veil. We have suffered enough for the acts of Muslim terrorists and yet rather than taking the Muslim community to task for their silence in the face of acts of terrorism done by their co-religionists we start to poke our noses into issues that don't concern us. The sooner Europe bans the veil the better. If these women want to cut themselves off everyday social intercourse within the society then it's best they stay within the four walls of their homes which is exactly what Islam teaches.
Can Sikhs afford to stand by and not say anything? It's already affecting them too much like you pointed out. If we do stand by and watch then it will be like the Holocaust(WWII) Oh Hitler is only killing the Jews/Catholics/criminals/cripples thats not me, but then it was my turn to die in gas chambers and nobody cried out. If we let France win this religion and choice vs. secularism debate than who is to stop them from going further than the veil afterwards? What if this same religion phobia spreads to UK and USA after its success in France. Our religion requirements(turban and kirpan) can be viewed as "oppresive and against freedom and liberty too" . So we have every motive not to stand by but to oppose this law.
And doesn't Islam require the veil to be worn when going into public so how does wearing veil equal staying at home?
Can Sikhs afford to stand by and not say anything? It's already affecting them too much like you pointed out. If we do stand by and watch then it will be like the Holocaust(WWII) Oh Hitler is only killing the Jews/Catholics/criminals/cripples thats not me, but then it was my turn to die in gas chambers and nobody cried out. If we let France win this religion and choice vs. secularism debate than who is to stop them from going further than the veil afterwards? What if this same religion phobia spreads to UK and USA after its success in France. Our religion requirements(turban and kirpan) can be viewed as "oppresive and against freedom and liberty too" . So we have every motive not to stand by but to oppose this law.
And doesn't Islam require the veil to be worn when going into public so how does wearing veil equal staying at home?
It's affecting Sikhs because of fools who want to stand by the side of Muslims against the Europeans. In the UK we have had support for the Kirpan and Turban from both the Labour and Conservative parties. These parties might be against a burka ban now but wait until a few more 7/7 style attacks happen and these parties wont be able to withstand the clamour from the British people for a ban on the burka. Already a majority of the population want a ban. Please spare us your activism and if you want to stand on the side of one of the most intolerant religions in the world then do so as an individual and don't be waving a Sikh identity in peoples' faces and give them the idea that all Sikhs support Islam. Please do not compare the situation of Muslims in Europe today with the Jews of the 1930s. The Jews were well assimilated into society and were not going around blowing people up. The Muslim mentality is that they will always take from a society and never contribute. They want their mosques, their halal meat and their beliefs to be respected but they never recipriocate. They make demands and have hissy fits if they don't get their way. A Burka ban is coming to most of Europe and any liberal Sikh fool who want to stand on the side of the Muslims will only be damaging their own community in the eyes of the rest of the population. I suppose you will be waving a banner 'We are all daft veiled bints'!
It's affecting Sikhs because of fools who want to stand by the side of Muslims against the Europeans. In the UK we have had support for the Kirpan and Turban from both the Labour and Conservative parties. These parties might be against a burka ban now but wait until a few more 7/7 style attacks happen and these parties wont be able to withstand the clamour from the British people for a ban on the burka. Already a majority of the population want a ban. Please spare us your activism and if you want to stand on the side of one of the most intolerant religions in the world then do so as an individual and don't be waving a Sikh identity in peoples' faces and give them the idea that all Sikhs support Islam. Please do not compare the situation of Muslims in Europe today with the Jews of the 1930s. The Jews were well assimilated into society and were not going around blowing people up. The Muslim mentality is that they will always take from a society and never contribute. They want their mosques, their halal meat and their beliefs to be respected but they never recipriocate. They make demands and have hissy fits if they don't get their way. A Burka ban is coming to most of Europe and any liberal Sikh fool who want to stand on the side of the Muslims will only be damaging their own community in the eyes of the rest of the population. I suppose you will be waving a banner 'We are all daft veiled bints'!
Spot on Bik and congrats for correctly identifying the community which has vitiated political environment where ever they have germinated on our planet earth.
Just a reminder to these burqa-clad jathedars, while they are defending the indefensible Islamic tradition, Muslim zealots are busy beheading Sikhs in Pakistan. They are also extorting 'Jaziya' from non-Muslims in tribal bellt of pakistan.
For reasons best known to SGPC, mosques are being built/restored by sikh jathebandis in east Punjab these days.
Ever burgeoning number of advocates of Sikh-Muslim brotherhood would do a great favour if they can name just one instance where Muslims have returned the compliment or where a 'practicing' (as in maulvis, sufis, etc) muslim has offered prayers at a Sikh gurudwara.
Let me remind them there is no place for Muslim friendship with a kaafir in Quran. i can quote dozens of verses from quran where muslims have been urged to slaughter non-muslims (kaafirs) which they did for centuries leading to the initiation of Khalsa.
History stands witness, Muslims have ALWAYS persecuted Sikhs and Hindus.
Sher
At no point I am advocating 'revenge' against Muslims but just reminding that a distance need to be maintained
for Sunni wahabi species (and may be
@ Sher: Your puking mouth uttered this – "…Nimrata ji, go back to school and re-read history."
When I showed you your true face through the below reference, you got away like a dog:
QUOTE
"In his engaging essays from The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen lucidly explains the strategy behind the attempts of Hindutva supporters to re-invent India’s history,…"
UNQUOTE
However this is not your mistake because you DON'T THINK NOR YOU CARE TO SEE THE WORLD OUTSIDE HINDUTVA. YOU JUST ACT ON WHAT YOUR MASTERS AKA RSS [Radical, Satanic, Sangh] HAVE TAUGHT YOU – THE LESSONS THEY GIVE YOU ARE THE START AND ALSO END OF THE HISTORY CUM FACTS FOR YOU. YOU KNOW HINDUTVA AND NOTHING ELSE. PERIOD.
ENOUGH OF YOUR FALTU AND JHOOTE RANTS, LET ME SHOW THE TRUE FACE OF THE HINDU AND HINDUTVA TO THE READERS THROUGH THESE ARTICLES.
"http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/opinion/30FRIE.html" —-> YEAH BABY, THIS IS NYTIMES.COM SHOWING THE REAL FACE OF HINDU PROPAGANDISTS
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/15/india.schoolsworldwide" —> AND THIS IS GUARDIAN.CO.UK SHOWING THE TRUE COLOURS OF HINDUS
"http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/AJ30Df02.html"
"http://india-facts.com/news/hindu-terror/20081225104/indias-hindu-groups-three-bodies-one-soul/"
"http://indianterrorism.bravepages.com/extremist%20funding.htm" —> HINDU EXTREMIST GROUPS RECEIVING FUNDS FROM HINDUS IN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA
"http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/14/stories/2007021415630400.htm" —-> SEE HOW HINDUS ARE PROMOTING HATRED AGAINST DALITS AND MINORITIES IN STATE FUNDED SCHOOLS
THERE ARE SO MANY NEWS ARTICLES AND OPINIONS ABOUT THE HINDUS AND HINDUTVA CHANGING HISTORY, OR SPREADING HATRED AGAINST MINORITIES, FURTHERING THEIR PROPAGANDA IN INDIA THROUGH GOVERNMENT MACHINERY….just read these below links which contain links to multiple such fact based opinions and articles.
"http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/index.html"
"http://indianterrorism.bravepages.com/hindufundamentalismindex.htm"
@ Sher: IF YOU HAVE SENSE OF MORALITY (WHICH I SUSPECT!) AND CIVILITY THEN YOU SHOULD NOW SHUT THE F*** UP. YOU GOT YOUR ANSWER ABOVE!!!!
…..just read this news online, another Hindu temple in Pakistan has been demolished in Rawalpindi this time.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/demolition-of-h…
Probably this was the temple which has been 'partially' razed:
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/Pakistan/Ea…
All we hear is criticism of Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu fanatics, there are hundreds of temples and (probably) gurudwaras which were destroyed before and after 1947 Partition. Nobody has even cared to list temples demolished after Babri in both Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The fate of a writer Taslima Nasreen who wrote book 'Lajja' (Shame) after post Babri atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh is well known to our secular opinion-makers, yet no protests as they are doing for Burqas all over the world.
Sher
Spot on Bik and congrats for correctly identifying the community which has vitiated political environment where ever they have germinated on our planet earth.
Just a reminder to these burqa-clad jathedars, while they are defending the indefensible Islamic tradition, Muslim zealots are busy beheading Sikhs in Pakistan. They are also extorting 'Jaziya' from non-Muslims in tribal bellt of pakistan.
For reasons best known to SGPC, mosques are being built/restored by sikh jathebandis in east Punjab these days.
Ever burgeoning number of advocates of Sikh-Muslim brotherhood would do a great favour if they can name just one instance where Muslims have returned the compliment or where a 'practicing' (as in maulvis, sufis, etc) muslim has offered prayers at a Sikh gurudwara.
Let me remind them there is no place for Muslim friendship with a kaafir in Quran. i can quote dozens of verses from quran where muslims have been urged to slaughter non-muslims (kaafirs) which they did for centuries leading to the initiation of Khalsa.
History stands witness, Muslims have ALWAYS persecuted Sikhs and Hindus.
Sher
At no point I am advocating 'revenge' against Muslims but just reminding that a distance need to be maintained
for Sunni wahabi species (and may be
@ Sher: Your puking mouth uttered this – "…Nimrata ji, go back to school and re-read history."
When I showed you your true face through the below reference, you got away like a dog:
QUOTE
"In his engaging essays from The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen lucidly explains the strategy behind the attempts of Hindutva supporters to re-invent India’s history,…"
UNQUOTE
However this is not your mistake because you DON'T THINK NOR YOU CARE TO SEE THE WORLD OUTSIDE HINDUTVA. YOU JUST ACT ON WHAT YOUR MASTERS AKA RSS [Radical, Satanic, Sangh] HAVE TAUGHT YOU – THE LESSONS THEY GIVE YOU ARE THE START AND ALSO END OF THE HISTORY CUM FACTS FOR YOU. YOU KNOW HINDUTVA AND NOTHING ELSE. PERIOD.
ENOUGH OF YOUR FALTU AND JHOOTE RANTS, LET ME SHOW THE TRUE FACE OF THE HINDU AND HINDUTVA TO THE READERS THROUGH THESE ARTICLES.
"http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/opinion/30FRIE.html" —-> YEAH BABY, THIS IS NYTIMES.COM SHOWING THE REAL FACE OF HINDU PROPAGANDISTS
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/15/india.schoolsworldwide" —> AND THIS IS GUARDIAN.CO.UK SHOWING THE TRUE COLOURS OF HINDUS
"http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/AJ30Df02.html"
"http://india-facts.com/news/hindu-terror/20081225104/indias-hindu-groups-three-bodies-one-soul/"
"http://indianterrorism.bravepages.com/extremist%20funding.htm" —> HINDU EXTREMIST GROUPS RECEIVING FUNDS FROM HINDUS IN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA
"http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/14/stories/2007021415630400.htm" —-> SEE HOW HINDUS ARE PROMOTING HATRED AGAINST DALITS AND MINORITIES IN STATE FUNDED SCHOOLS
THERE ARE SO MANY NEWS ARTICLES AND OPINIONS ABOUT THE HINDUS AND HINDUTVA CHANGING HISTORY, OR SPREADING HATRED AGAINST MINORITIES, FURTHERING THEIR PROPAGANDA IN INDIA THROUGH GOVERNMENT MACHINERY….just read these below links which contain links to multiple such fact based opinions and articles.
"http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/index.html"
"http://indianterrorism.bravepages.com/hindufundamentalismindex.htm"
@ Sher: IF YOU HAVE SENSE OF MORALITY (WHICH I SUSPECT!) AND CIVILITY THEN YOU SHOULD NOW SHUT THE F*** UP. YOU GOT YOUR ANSWER ABOVE!!!!
…..just read this news online, another Hindu temple in Pakistan has been demolished in Rawalpindi this time.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/demolition-of-h…
Probably this was the temple which has been 'partially' razed:
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/Pakistan/Ea…
All we hear is criticism of Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu fanatics, there are hundreds of temples and (probably) gurudwaras which were destroyed before and after 1947 Partition. Nobody has even cared to list temples demolished after Babri in both Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The fate of a writer Taslima Nasreen who wrote book 'Lajja' (Shame) after post Babri atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh is well known to our secular opinion-makers, yet no protests as they are doing for Burqas all over the world.
Sher
Thanks Sher. Nice to see that there are some sane people on this blog. The liberal Sikhs will always try and present these issues as one of white racism against a beleagured minority which is patently wrong. If anything the issue is one of a generally tolerant society having to take steps against an aggressive, litigious minority hell bent ion changing that very society into into an islamic one. While our 'progressive' friend brooklynwala is defending the veiling of women, Muslims on the comments pages of newspapers are trying to link the wearing if the veil with the wearing of a turban and the freedom to wear a Kirpan thereby linking the two issues in the minds of the general population. If the west ever decides to ban the Kirpan it will be down to people like Brooklywala and his Islamophilia and the attempts by Muslims to link the veil issue with the Kirpan.
I think I made a mistake here. Sher seems to the usual bigoted Hindu fascist which is the result of a weak nation that was forever subjected to being killed, looted and their women taken away as slaves by any non-Hindu suddenly being gifted the reins of powers by a departing colonial state. The invaders didn't name the Hindus (slaves) for no reason.
“…. a weak nation that was forever subjected to being killed, looted and their women taken away as slaves by any non-Hindu suddenly being gifted”
You are wrong here Bik. absolutely wrong.you are cutting off the nose to spite the face.
why?
simple reason, whether we the Punjabis accept it or not but it is a historical fact: of all the modern day Indian states, punjab has been under the foreign yoke for the longest. our forefathers after shahi Rajput dynasty (Jats never ruled the whole of Punjab) was the last to resist foreign invaders. after shahis Punjabis failed to stop single foreign invaders till a hindu dogra sage Banda bahadur avenged the Humiliation heaped on G Gobind singh and wasted sirhind and other Muslim citadels one by one.
the maratha forces under Raghunath Rao peshwa was the next to drive Muslim tyrants out of Punjab in April 1758.
http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/ahmadshah.html
i know very hard for sikh bigots amongst us to accept the above-given facts but thats the way history is.
Bik Guess which region would have its women kidnapped and/or raped the most? of course from the region which has been under the foregin yoke for the longest i.e. Punjab.
Sher
The usual Hindu bukwas. Banda Singh Bahadur was a Sikh not a Hindu Dogra! The Punjabi Hindus are so bereft of heroes and role models from the last 1000 years that they need to steal other people's heroes and claim them as their own. They even have to make people who die from the fright of being hit by a Police lathi into a Sher-i-Punjab! The Marathas were in Punjab for a very short time before Abdali massacred them at Panipat. From what I have read it was their idiotic Hindu superstitions that destroyed their army. They never ventured past Delhi again until Jaswant Rao Holkar came begging for help from Maharaja Ranjit Singh after getting beaten by the British. The slavery of Punjab and other parts of present day India was due to the fact that the Hindu has no ability to fight. Hinduism was the reason that there was no concerted effort to fight the invaders. You can make up fantasies about so and so Rajput putting up a struggle but the Hindus succumbed like the cowards they are. HInduism was the reason that the slave markets of the middle east were filled with Hindu slaves. Until the Khalsa no effort was ever made to attack and release these slaves. Be honest, if push comes to shove and the Jehadis joined by Pakistan army invade India all your Hindu gaurav will disappear and you will be begging Sikhs to come to your rescue..as always.
The usual Khalistani rant. of course, totally without any substance or any citation of authentic historical sources.
Banda was born a Hindu and was a sadhu. Like Guru Gobind Singh (i hope everyone notice my respect for Sikh gurus n icons), he never ABANDONED his SANATAN dharma. hate-mongers like you are yet to explain to me, if Sikhism was a separate dharma why GGS would go to a Hindu to seek his help to avenge Muslim atrocities on him, family and other followers of the PANTH (sect)?
One more explanation I would seek humbly from venom-spewing khali like you, what was the religion of your forefathers before the initiation of Khalsa (if we go by explanation of bigots like Bik that sikhism became a separate religion after 1699)?
Sher
Sikhism was a seperate religion from the time of Guru Nanak. Unfortunately knuckle head Hindus like you can never get that basic fact through their heads. You remind me on that Indian fool on Goodness Gracious Me who thinks everything and everyone is Indian. In your case you want to turn everyones' ancestors into Kuttay. Katooray like you have little understanding of history apart from the bukwas that the RSS and other Hindutva fools spoon feed you. You comments on Banda Singh Bahadur are a case in point, is your history so lacking that you need to take over other peopels' heroes? Btw when great Hindu sage will the Ram mandir be built in Ayodhya? A billion Hindus and they can't even build a mandir where the Muslims built a mosque 400 years ago. My forefathers religion was Jathera. You might want to look that up.
enough of your cheap jibes son. by denigrating Hinduism you are denigrating your Gurus (unless you are a Muslim).
next a**holic post you from you, i may not be able to restrain myself and show mirror to you …. the sikh past is a story of one humiliation after another, one defeat after another. too many instances where sikhs (inc Gurus) acted like pansies.
do not complain later you were not warned.
Sher
Thanks Sher. Nice to see that there are some sane people on this blog. The liberal Sikhs will always try and present these issues as one of white racism against a beleagured minority which is patently wrong. If anything the issue is one of a generally tolerant society having to take steps against an aggressive, litigious minority hell bent ion changing that very society into into an islamic one. While our 'progressive' friend brooklynwala is defending the veiling of women, Muslims on the comments pages of newspapers are trying to link the wearing if the veil with the wearing of a turban and the freedom to wear a Kirpan thereby linking the two issues in the minds of the general population. If the west ever decides to ban the Kirpan it will be down to people like Brooklywala and his Islamophilia and the attempts by Muslims to link the veil issue with the Kirpan.
I think I made a mistake here. Sher seems to the usual bigoted Hindu fascist which is the result of a weak nation that was forever subjected to being killed, looted and their women taken away as slaves by any non-Hindu suddenly being gifted the reins of powers by a departing colonial state. The invaders didn't name the Hindus (slaves) for no reason.
"…. a weak nation that was forever subjected to being killed, looted and their women taken away as slaves by any non-Hindu suddenly being gifted"
You are wrong here Bik. absolutely wrong.you are cutting off the nose to spite the face.
why?
simple reason, whether we the Punjabis accept it or not but it is a historical fact: of all the modern day Indian states, punjab has been under the foreign yoke for the longest. our forefathers after shahi Rajput dynasty (Jats never ruled the whole of Punjab) was the last to resist foreign invaders. after shahis Punjabis failed to stop single foreign invaders till a hindu dogra sage Banda bahadur avenged the Humiliation heaped on G Gobind singh and wasted sirhind and other Muslim citadels one by one.
the maratha forces under Raghunath Rao peshwa was the next to drive Muslim tyrants out of Punjab in April 1758.
http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/ahmadshah.h…
i know very hard for sikh bigots amongst us to accept the above-given facts but thats the way history is.
Bik Guess which region would have its women kidnapped and/or raped the most? of course from the region which has been under the foregin yoke for the longest i.e. Punjab.
Sher
The usual Hindu bukwas. Banda Singh Bahadur was a Sikh not a Hindu Dogra! The Punjabi Hindus are so bereft of heroes and role models from the last 1000 years that they need to steal other people's heroes and claim them as their own. They even have to make people who die from the fright of being hit by a Police lathi into a Sher-i-Punjab! The Marathas were in Punjab for a very short time before Abdali massacred them at Panipat. From what I have read it was their idiotic Hindu superstitions that destroyed their army. They never ventured past Delhi again until Jaswant Rao Holkar came begging for help from Maharaja Ranjit Singh after getting beaten by the British. The slavery of Punjab and other parts of present day India was due to the fact that the Hindu has no ability to fight. Hinduism was the reason that there was no concerted effort to fight the invaders. You can make up fantasies about so and so Rajput putting up a struggle but the Hindus succumbed like the cowards they are. HInduism was the reason that the slave markets of the middle east were filled with Hindu slaves. Until the Khalsa no effort was ever made to attack and release these slaves. Be honest, if push comes to shove and the Jehadis joined by Pakistan army invade India all your Hindu gaurav will disappear and you will be begging Sikhs to come to your rescue..as always.
The usual Khalistani rant. of course, totally without any substance or any citation of authentic historical sources.
Banda was born a Hindu and was a sadhu. Like Guru Gobind Singh (i hope everyone notice my respect for Sikh gurus n icons), he never ABANDONED his SANATAN dharma. hate-mongers like you are yet to explain to me, if Sikhism was a separate dharma why GGS would go to a Hindu to seek his help to avenge Muslim atrocities on him, family and other followers of the PANTH (sect)?
One more explanation I would seek humbly from venom-spewing khali like you, what was the religion of your forefathers before the initiation of Khalsa (if we go by explanation of bigots like Bik that sikhism became a separate religion after 1699)?
Sher
Sikhism was a seperate religion from the time of Guru Nanak. Unfortunately knuckle head Hindus like you can never get that basic fact through their heads. You remind me on that Indian fool on Goodness Gracious Me who thinks everything and everyone is Indian. In your case you want to turn everyones' ancestors into Kuttay. Katooray like you have little understanding of history apart from the bukwas that the RSS and other Hindutva fools spoon feed you. You comments on Banda Singh Bahadur are a case in point, is your history so lacking that you need to take over other peopels' heroes? Btw when great Hindu sage will the Ram mandir be built in Ayodhya? A billion Hindus and they can't even build a mandir where the Muslims built a mosque 400 years ago. My forefathers religion was Jathera. You might want to look that up.
enough of your cheap jibes son. by denigrating Hinduism you are denigrating your Gurus (unless you are a Muslim).
next a**holic post you from you, i may not be able to restrain myself and show mirror to you …. the sikh past is a story of one humiliation after another, one defeat after another. too many instances where sikhs (inc Gurus) acted like pansies.
do not complain later you were not warned.
Sher
I think that the main idea of the french government is freedom at all levels and this has nothing to do with the sikh turban. There are many differences between the muslim veil and the sikh turban. Only women wear the veil or cover their whole body while men can war regular clothes. Sikhs have the freedom to wear turban both men and women and most sikhs do wear a turban. The purpose of the sikh turban is different from that of the muslim women's veil, and in many cases I think that muslim women would like to be freer but they just can't do anything about it because they are so much dominated and controlled. Unlike sikh men and women whose circumstances are so much different from those of the muslim people. Peace! Sat Nam!
I think that the main idea of the french government is freedom at all levels and this has nothing to do with the sikh turban. There are many differences between the muslim veil and the sikh turban. Only women wear the veil or cover their whole body while men can war regular clothes. Sikhs have the freedom to wear turban both men and women and most sikhs do wear a turban. The purpose of the sikh turban is different from that of the muslim women’s veil, and in many cases I think that muslim women would like to be freer but they just can’t do anything about it because they are so much dominated and controlled. Unlike sikh men and women whose circumstances are so much different from those of the muslim people. Peace! Sat Nam!
I can't belive governments still do this, deciding oh this religion is too weak, or too extremist it needs a ban. During Babar times when he forcibly took off the janeo (janeu?) it was expected because he was an invader. And Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji give his life for another religion. He did not consider all Hindus to be bad because Chandu tortured Guru Arjan Dev ji,
The fact that the Muslim women aren't staying "within the four walls of their homes" shows that they are moving towards equality and freedom. And so they wear the veil as a religious symbol not as an opression.
@ Nimarta: Thanks for your input and making bringing your children into Sikhi as I learned from your comment on previous post. I am saying this specially because I have seldom seen women interested in making their children even aware and informed about their Sikh religion and heritage, leave aside making them learn and inculcate Sikhi in them. Thanks, once again and I hope you will encourage your near and dear ones and inform them of our responsibilities. I apologize if you didn't find any of my statement appropriate.
I can't belive governments still do this, deciding oh this religion is too weak, or too extremist it needs a ban. During Babar times when he forcibly took off the janeo (janeu?) it was expected because he was an invader. And Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji give his life for another religion. He did not consider all Hindus to be bad because Chandu tortured Guru Arjan Dev ji,
The fact that the Muslim women aren't staying "within the four walls of their homes" shows that they are moving towards equality and freedom. And so they wear the veil as a religious symbol not as an opression.
@ Nimarta: Thanks for your input and making bringing your children into Sikhi as I learned from your comment on previous post. I am saying this specially because I have seldom seen women interested in making their children even aware and informed about their Sikh religion and heritage, leave aside making them learn and inculcate Sikhi in them. Thanks, once again and I hope you will encourage your near and dear ones and inform them of our responsibilities. I apologize if you didn't find any of my statement appropriate.
"Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji give his life for another religion. He did not consider all Hindus to be bad because Chandu tortured Guru Arjan Dev ji….."
so much distortion of history… amazing.
Nimarta (thats a 'bloody sanskrit' word!!!) ji,
when did GTB leave Hinduism? which Guru said "Here goes sangato, now you have a new religion" and started living their own lives very differently from Hindus?
Amazing because even English speaking (so assumed to be 'educated') Sikhs refuse to question what is preached to them by a grade 5 passed mad monks like Bhindranwala.
Nimrata ji, go back to school and re-read history.
]
Sher
Sher Mian, Provide evidence in support of your claim on that? And if you can provide reference from your Vedas,Smritis which define Hinduism that would be great. And please don;t come up with some bullshit philiosphy of yourself?
Giani Observerji, which claim we are talking about here?
Is it about my ‘claim’ that Sikh Gurus never left the sanatan dharam, the so-called Hinduism.
Pratham bhagauti simar ke….
The Sikh gurus lived their life like any other Hindu Khatri gentleman and were cremated like any other 'Hindu' Khatri. They married into their own caste and did all the other rituals inc visiting Hindu pilgrimage centres.
their names were like any other Hindu and they did worship hindu deities like any other Hindu.
All sikh Gurus were petty traders like their ‘hindu counterparts’. Incidently, Gurumukhi has evolved from Punjabi traders’ script ‘landey’ which was (or still could be) in use till late 70’s. I would need help of someone who has access to Ahritya (commission agents in mandis)bahis (traditional account books) to tell us if ‘landey’ is still being used or has become extinct.
So where was the difference between Hindus and Sikhs?
As Nimrata wants us to believe, GTB gave his life for a religion which was totally different from Sikhism. then why did G Gobind singh went to a sage of the "other" religion Madho Das in Nanded? And when did that sage said he was giving up Hinduism? when GTB was martyred there were two Brahmins Mati das and Sati Das who were martyred before him. what would you call their martyrdom at the hands of fanatic Muslims?
they sacrificed their lives for someone from "other" religion who was sacrificing life for "their" religion? Too confusing, where was the dividing line between Hindus and Sikhs and who draw that line and when?
You guys seem to be far removed from Punjab and fed too much of 'Sikhism is a vakhri qaum' in karaha prasad. you do not have any comprehension about the ground realities.
to name one such bloody obvious, even to this day, there is a roti-beti da rishta between most of the east Punjabi communities except jats (almost 100% Sikh in punjab). khatris, kamboj, sainis, ahluwalias, ravidassias, mazhabis, etc.
now lil bit of BS to amuse Giani Observer ji torontowale, For some strange logic known only to jats, they would accept (even though grudgingly) their daughter to be married into sehajdhari rajputs but cannot even think of marrying her into a so-called low caste gursikh family.
numerous instances where 'low-caste' sikh spouses of jat girls have been killed as an act of 'honour killing. Hindu rajputs, on the other hand, would also kill their daughter if she plans to marry into a jat sikh household.
Observerji, in this 21st century, jat Sikhs DO NOT SHARE their cremation grounds with ‘low caste sikhs’ in most of the Punjab village. Of course, they have no objection if someone from Hindu ‘upper caste’ want to use ‘their’ shamshans.
Evidence: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf
Scheduled Castes in Sikh Community
A Historical Perspective by Harish K Puri (page 8)
Most of the low-caste Sikhs have their own Gurudwaras or temples as Jats would not allow the so-called chamars to enter their gurudwaras.
Evidence: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf
There got to be something where Sikhs are different from hindus. Please list some of the differences.
If these two were two separate religions, no one could tell the difference till late 19th century when British decided to create v loyal community in north india. they chose khalsas and sow the seeds of division b/w Hindus and Sikhs through touts like Kahan singh and writer vir Singh.
of course, and this would serve as an answer to that bigot-in-long-kachera H S too, 'hinduism' finds no mention in Vedas and smritis.
Sher
A Hindu called Sher.. I suppose that's what's called an oxymoron.
Haha, that was a funny one liner. It reminded me of what was introduced to me as the world's shortest joke "dekho sardar chess khel raha hai"
This is good, friendly banter in between messages ensures that none of us take ourselves very seriously.
Bolo Ta Ra Ra
Jat shrimoni Bik jiyo,
You have every right to go on denigrating the religion of your forefathers after my assertion about Punjabi jats – in spite of such a large population, they never produce one king who controlled the whole of Punjab (forget any other part of the modern India).
I would repeat what i wrote somewhere else, there are more 'Singhs' among Hindus than Khalsas. do some research, the second name of 'Singh' was taken from Hindus.
and isnt it trivalising that debate a bit too much?
Sher
@ Sher: 'SINGH' is a Hindi word for Lion you a***. FIRST YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT 1) HINDUISM IS A RELIGION, THEN 2) HINDI IS HINDUS' PATENTED LANGUAGE.
DONT GIVE ME LAME BULLSHIT WE'VE ALL HEART ABOUT HINDUISM AS A RELIGION.
You know what, your approach and conclusion to EVERY POST AND COMMENT is just as this another RSS' and Arya Samaji trained guy: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20…
This is what he says – "All religions in the world are offshoots of Sanatan Dharma".
@EVERYBODY: THE ANSWER IS BEFORE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT HINDUS' ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE IS. PERIOD.
Sher, No substance in your post just plain rhetroic, bullshit and lame attempt to defend yourself.
All the gurus did , slowly and surely the gurus separated us from Hindus, Hindu thought, Hindu castes and priests. Why else did it take more than 200 years to establish Sikhism?
Guru Nanak Dev Ji: Refused Janue, marriage by fire, worshiping devi/devite, etc
Guru Angad Dev Ji: Spread the new Gurmukhi written language everywhere so Sikhs don't have to read Sanskrit and so Vedas etc
Guru Anardaas Ji: Was against Sati (Suti), Veil of Hindu Women etc
How many more examples do you need from history we haven't even covered what Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji did
Nimrata ji,
you sound very naive. Just simple assertions " gurus separated us from Hindus, Hindu thought, Hindu castes and priests…" are not enough. you seem to be living in a far off land in your khalsafied cocoon.
Give citations, references, etc to establish that there has been a separation. you would be amazed to notice that the 'separation which YOU WANT (not the Gurus) is very superficial.
I take up caste in this post and giving references of news articles, study papers, etc. i know these references would not have any impact on you as you seem to have closed your mind and have NO CAPACITY TO QUESTION WHAT IS…(to borrow one of the poster's expression) BEING SPOON FED TO YOU.
Open your eyes and mind. There is no place for bigots believing in exclusive version of Tat Khalsa as what Gurus wanted (you have to leave nine gurus out of this flawed model any way).
This link (and there are hundreds if not more) would help you come over your …err ignorance.
http://theprg.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/underst…
http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=5948&s…
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/upper-caste-sikhs-d…
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2612/stories/20…
Let me know if you still have any doubt over prevailing casteism in Sikhism and I would endeavour to find more information to clear your doubts.
BTW, there is not one single instance from Gurus' personal lives (marriage, death, etc) suggesting they moved out of the caste-fold at any stage.
Regards
Sher
"Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji give his life for another religion. He did not consider all Hindus to be bad because Chandu tortured Guru Arjan Dev ji….."
so much distortion of history… amazing.
Nimarta (thats a 'bloody sanskrit' word!!!) ji,
when did GTB leave Hinduism? which Guru said "Here goes sangato, now you have a new religion" and started living their own lives very differently from Hindus?
Amazing because even English speaking (so assumed to be 'educated') Sikhs refuse to question what is preached to them by a grade 5 passed mad monks like Bhindranwala.
Nimrata ji, go back to school and re-read history.
]
Sher
Sher Mian, Provide evidence in support of your claim on that? And if you can provide reference from your Vedas,Smritis which define Hinduism that would be great. And please don;t come up with some bullshit philiosphy of yourself?
Giani Observerji, which claim we are talking about here?
Is it about my ‘claim’ that Sikh Gurus never left the sanatan dharam, the so-called Hinduism.
Pratham bhagauti simar ke….
The Sikh gurus lived their life like any other Hindu Khatri gentleman and were cremated like any other 'Hindu' Khatri. They married into their own caste and did all the other rituals inc visiting Hindu pilgrimage centres.
their names were like any other Hindu and they did worship hindu deities like any other Hindu.
All sikh Gurus were petty traders like their ‘hindu counterparts’. Incidently, Gurumukhi has evolved from Punjabi traders’ script ‘landey’ which was (or still could be) in use till late 70’s. I would need help of someone who has access to Ahritya (commission agents in mandis)bahis (traditional account books) to tell us if ‘landey’ is still being used or has become extinct.
So where was the difference between Hindus and Sikhs?
As Nimrata wants us to believe, GTB gave his life for a religion which was totally different from Sikhism. then why did G Gobind singh went to a sage of the "other" religion Madho Das in Nanded? And when did that sage said he was giving up Hinduism? when GTB was martyred there were two Brahmins Mati das and Sati Das who were martyred before him. what would you call their martyrdom at the hands of fanatic Muslims?
they sacrificed their lives for someone from "other" religion who was sacrificing life for "their" religion? Too confusing, where was the dividing line between Hindus and Sikhs and who draw that line and when?
You guys seem to be far removed from Punjab and fed too much of 'Sikhism is a vakhri qaum' in karaha prasad. you do not have any comprehension about the ground realities.
to name one such bloody obvious, even to this day, there is a roti-beti da rishta between most of the east Punjabi communities except jats (almost 100% Sikh in punjab). khatris, kamboj, sainis, ahluwalias, ravidassias, mazhabis, etc.
now lil bit of BS to amuse Giani Observer ji torontowale, For some strange logic known only to jats, they would accept (even though grudgingly) their daughter to be married into sehajdhari rajputs but cannot even think of marrying her into a so-called low caste gursikh family.
numerous instances where 'low-caste' sikh spouses of jat girls have been killed as an act of 'honour killing. Hindu rajputs, on the other hand, would also kill their daughter if she plans to marry into a jat sikh household.
Observerji, in this 21st century, jat Sikhs DO NOT SHARE their cremation grounds with ‘low caste sikhs’ in most of the Punjab village. Of course, they have no objection if someone from Hindu ‘upper caste’ want to use ‘their’ shamshans.
Evidence: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf
Scheduled Castes in Sikh Community
A Historical Perspective by Harish K Puri (page 8)
Most of the low-caste Sikhs have their own Gurudwaras or temples as Jats would not allow the so-called chamars to enter their gurudwaras.
Evidence: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf
There got to be something where Sikhs are different from hindus. Please list some of the differences.
If these two were two separate religions, no one could tell the difference till late 19th century when British decided to create v loyal community in north india. they chose khalsas and sow the seeds of division b/w Hindus and Sikhs through touts like Kahan singh and writer vir Singh.
of course, and this would serve as an answer to that bigot-in-long-kachera H S too, 'hinduism' finds no mention in Vedas and smritis.
Sher
A Hindu called Sher.. I suppose that's what's called an oxymoron.
Haha, that was a funny one liner. It reminded me of what was introduced to me as the world's shortest joke "dekho sardar chess khel raha hai"
This is good, friendly banter in between messages ensures that none of us take ourselves very seriously.
Bolo Ta Ra Ra
Jat shrimoni Bik jiyo,
You have every right to go on denigrating the religion of your forefathers after my assertion about Punjabi jats – in spite of such a large population, they never produce one king who controlled the whole of Punjab (forget any other part of the modern India).
I would repeat what i wrote somewhere else, there are more 'Singhs' among Hindus than Khalsas. do some research, the second name of 'Singh' was taken from Hindus.
and isnt it trivalising that debate a bit too much?
Sher
@ Sher: 'SINGH' is a Hindi word for Lion you a***. FIRST YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT 1) HINDUISM IS A RELIGION, THEN 2) HINDI IS HINDUS' PATENTED LANGUAGE.
DONT GIVE ME LAME BULLSHIT WE'VE ALL HEART ABOUT HINDUISM AS A RELIGION.
You know what, your approach and conclusion to EVERY POST AND COMMENT is just as this another RSS' and Arya Samaji trained guy: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20…
This is what he says – "All religions in the world are offshoots of Sanatan Dharma".
@EVERYBODY: THE ANSWER IS BEFORE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT HINDUS' ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE IS. PERIOD.
Sher, No substance in your post just plain rhetroic, bullshit and lame attempt to defend yourself.
All the gurus did , slowly and surely the gurus separated us from Hindus, Hindu thought, Hindu castes and priests. Why else did it take more than 200 years to establish Sikhism?
Guru Nanak Dev Ji: Refused Janue, marriage by fire, worshiping devi/devite, etc
Guru Angad Dev Ji: Spread the new Gurmukhi written language everywhere so Sikhs don't have to read Sanskrit and so Vedas etc
Guru Anardaas Ji: Was against Sati (Suti), Veil of Hindu Women etc
How many more examples do you need from history we haven't even covered what Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji did
Nimrata ji,
you sound very naive. Just simple assertions " gurus separated us from Hindus, Hindu thought, Hindu castes and priests…" are not enough. you seem to be living in a far off land in your khalsafied cocoon.
Give citations, references, etc to establish that there has been a separation. you would be amazed to notice that the 'separation which YOU WANT (not the Gurus) is very superficial.
I take up caste in this post and giving references of news articles, study papers, etc. i know these references would not have any impact on you as you seem to have closed your mind and have NO CAPACITY TO QUESTION WHAT IS…(to borrow one of the poster's expression) BEING SPOON FED TO YOU.
Open your eyes and mind. There is no place for bigots believing in exclusive version of Tat Khalsa as what Gurus wanted (you have to leave nine gurus out of this flawed model any way).
This link (and there are hundreds if not more) would help you come over your …err ignorance.
http://theprg.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/underst…
http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=5948&s…
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/upper-caste-sikhs-d…
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2612/stories/20…
Let me know if you still have any doubt over prevailing casteism in Sikhism and I would endeavour to find more information to clear your doubts.
BTW, there is not one single instance from Gurus' personal lives (marriage, death, etc) suggesting they moved out of the caste-fold at any stage.
Regards
Sher
@ Sher: Its not we Sikhs here, who have read enough non-distorted history, who need to go to school, but definitely Indian Nationalists (general Indians too) like you who have never questioned whatever is taught in India as history – everytime any one of the two government comes at the center there are respective changes accordingly – either saffronization or gandhiazation!! Sikhs have so much much more valorous history other than just making Indians learn about Guru Nanak Dev, Guru Gobind Singh, and yes of course how can you forget to make Indians learn of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji to showcase that Sikhs are Hindus' personal bodyguards and angels.
This is how Indian history is distorted by your saffron parivar:
QUOTE
There is a concerted global effort by Hindutva groups to distort and whitewash Indian history to suit their false narrative which denies foreign origins of Aryans and evils of the caste system and misogyny that still characterize life in India.
Not only have the BJP led governments in India fundamentally altered India's history textbooks, the BJP allies around the world are attempting to the same in textbooks as far as California.
Here are some excerpt from "HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN INDIA: NARRATIVES OF RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM" by K.N.PANIKKAR:
"The introduction of new textbooks by the NCERT (under BJP) was inspired by the political purpose of seeking rationale from history for constructing India as a Hindu nation. The textbooks were, therefore, recast as narratives of Hindu religious nationalism. Claimed as an effort to retrieve the true nationalist history from the motivated distortions of colonial historiography they attribute to Indian nation an exclusively Hindu character."
"During this period the political climate in the country turned in favour of the Hindu fundamentalist forces, which enabled them in 1998 to lead a coalition government in which the Ministry of Human Resource Development which dealt with education was headed by a long standing cadre of the Hindu fundamentalist organization, Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh( RSS). Under his stewardship the government spared no effort to change the content and character of education, of which the introduction of new textbooks, was perhaps the most prominent and indeed controversial."
he fanatic Hindu nationalists tried to do in California what their Indian counterparts have already done in India. They attempted to pollute California history textbooks in 2006, when they argued unsuccessfully to include lies like the indigenous origins of Aryans and tried to deny the terrible impact on hundreds of millions of Indians of the caste system and misogyny prevalent in Hindu texts and Aryan culture.
Hundreds of history scholars from US and South Asia helped defeat this reprehensible attempt by Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and its allies in the United States.
While the biggest victims of Hindu fundamentalists are the women and the D alits of India, non-Hindu minorities and the neighboring states have not been spared either.
They are cowards and they prey upon unarmed Muslim, Christian and Sikh minorities in organized pogroms in what American scholar Paul Brass calls "production of violence" in India with many Indian intellectuals and some in Indian the press justifying the actions of the murderers.
The big brothers of these fanatic Hindutva terrorists occupy high positions in the Indian security establishment, according to former Maharashtra police chief SM Mushrif. These Hindutva allies in Indian government conduct covert warfare via terrorist actions in neighboring states including Pakistan through RAW.
All these people are a product of Indian education that teaches hatred against Muslims and Pakistanis, as evident by the following excerpts from Gujarat textbooks:
*Gujarat is a border state. Its land and sea boundaries touch the boundaries of Pakistan which is like a den of terrorism. Under such circumstances, it is absolutely necessary for us to understand the effects of terrorism and the role of citizens in the fight against it
*If every countryman becomes an ideal citizen and develops patriotism, the National Population Policy can definitely be achieved
*When people used to meet earlier, they wished each other saying Ram Ram and by shaking hands. Today, people enjoy their meeting by speaking Namaste. Is it not a change?
*Making full use of Muslim fanaticism, Osama Bin Laden organized die-hard Muslims and founded the International Jihad Organization in the name of the Jehedi movement*
[Excerpted from Social Science textbooks, standard nine (2005) and standard eight (2004)]
The Hindu fundamentalists are as serious a threat to peace in South Asia as their Muslim militant counterparts.
UNQUOTE
I don't have much time, but as to your comment to Nimarta, this eye-opener might put your ego and arrogant saffron blood to rest:
QUOTE
We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”
"The word 'hindu' is a non-Indian word, it's origin is Persian/Arabic. It's original meaning is 'dog,' 'low life' or 'slave'."
"The word 'Hindu' is not found in any Hindu religious text or any other ancient writing. People who lived on the western side of Hindu Kush (killers of Hindus) mountains gave this name to the natives of India. The word Hindu means black, slave, robber, thief and a waylayer."
UNQUOTE
Sher what I am doing now doesn't makes any sense of telling you the ACTUAL truth, however it'll be worth the effort if NUMEROUS UNINFORMED AND HINDU-INFLUENCED SIKHS try to see it through their own eyes and know for their own self what's the whole truth. That's it.
@ Sher: Its not we Sikhs here, who have read enough non-distorted history, who need to go to school, but definitely Indian Nationalists (general Indians too) like you who have never questioned whatever is taught in India as history – everytime any one of the two government comes at the center there are respective changes accordingly – either saffronization or gandhiazation!! Sikhs have so much much more valorous history other than just making Indians learn about Guru Nanak Dev, Guru Gobind Singh, and yes of course how can you forget to make Indians learn of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji to showcase that Sikhs are Hindus' personal bodyguards and angels.
This is how Indian history is distorted by your saffron parivar:
QUOTE
There is a concerted global effort by Hindutva groups to distort and whitewash Indian history to suit their false narrative which denies foreign origins of Aryans and evils of the caste system and misogyny that still characterize life in India.
Not only have the BJP led governments in India fundamentally altered India's history textbooks, the BJP allies around the world are attempting to the same in textbooks as far as California.
Here are some excerpt from "HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN INDIA: NARRATIVES OF RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM" by K.N.PANIKKAR:
"The introduction of new textbooks by the NCERT (under BJP) was inspired by the political purpose of seeking rationale from history for constructing India as a Hindu nation. The textbooks were, therefore, recast as narratives of Hindu religious nationalism. Claimed as an effort to retrieve the true nationalist history from the motivated distortions of colonial historiography they attribute to Indian nation an exclusively Hindu character."
"During this period the political climate in the country turned in favour of the Hindu fundamentalist forces, which enabled them in 1998 to lead a coalition government in which the Ministry of Human Resource Development which dealt with education was headed by a long standing cadre of the Hindu fundamentalist organization, Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh( RSS). Under his stewardship the government spared no effort to change the content and character of education, of which the introduction of new textbooks, was perhaps the most prominent and indeed controversial."
he fanatic Hindu nationalists tried to do in California what their Indian counterparts have already done in India. They attempted to pollute California history textbooks in 2006, when they argued unsuccessfully to include lies like the indigenous origins of Aryans and tried to deny the terrible impact on hundreds of millions of Indians of the caste system and misogyny prevalent in Hindu texts and Aryan culture.
Hundreds of history scholars from US and South Asia helped defeat this reprehensible attempt by Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and its allies in the United States.
While the biggest victims of Hindu fundamentalists are the women and the D alits of India, non-Hindu minorities and the neighboring states have not been spared either.
They are cowards and they prey upon unarmed Muslim, Christian and Sikh minorities in organized pogroms in what American scholar Paul Brass calls "production of violence" in India with many Indian intellectuals and some in Indian the press justifying the actions of the murderers.
The big brothers of these fanatic Hindutva terrorists occupy high positions in the Indian security establishment, according to former Maharashtra police chief SM Mushrif. These Hindutva allies in Indian government conduct covert warfare via terrorist actions in neighboring states including Pakistan through RAW.
All these people are a product of Indian education that teaches hatred against Muslims and Pakistanis, as evident by the following excerpts from Gujarat textbooks:
*Gujarat is a border state. Its land and sea boundaries touch the boundaries of Pakistan which is like a den of terrorism. Under such circumstances, it is absolutely necessary for us to understand the effects of terrorism and the role of citizens in the fight against it
*If every countryman becomes an ideal citizen and develops patriotism, the National Population Policy can definitely be achieved
*When people used to meet earlier, they wished each other saying Ram Ram and by shaking hands. Today, people enjoy their meeting by speaking Namaste. Is it not a change?
*Making full use of Muslim fanaticism, Osama Bin Laden organized die-hard Muslims and founded the International Jihad Organization in the name of the Jehedi movement*
[Excerpted from Social Science textbooks, standard nine (2005) and standard eight (2004)]
The Hindu fundamentalists are as serious a threat to peace in South Asia as their Muslim militant counterparts.
UNQUOTE
I don't have much time, but as to your comment to Nimarta, this eye-opener might put your ego and arrogant saffron blood to rest:
QUOTE
We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”
"The word 'hindu' is a non-Indian word, it's origin is Persian/Arabic. It's original meaning is 'dog,' 'low life' or 'slave'."
"The word 'Hindu' is not found in any Hindu religious text or any other ancient writing. People who lived on the western side of Hindu Kush (killers of Hindus) mountains gave this name to the natives of India. The word Hindu means black, slave, robber, thief and a waylayer."
UNQUOTE
Sher what I am doing now doesn't makes any sense of telling you the ACTUAL truth, however it'll be worth the effort if NUMEROUS UNINFORMED AND HINDU-INFLUENCED SIKHS try to see it through their own eyes and know for their own self what's the whole truth. That's it.
The day a white woman can wear a "BIKINI" in Mecca and Median that day France should allow veils in public life.
Life today is about give and take .
Thanks for your 'eyeopener' as I could not have done this tiny piece of research with my eyes (and mind) closed. You may not like the end result of my research but then you are a ….
forget it, just have a read ands top acting like a moron.
"The word Hindu is the mispronunciation of the Sanskrit word Sindhu by the Persians, the historic local appellation for the Indus River in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent.[3] and is first seen as a reference to the river Sindhu in the Rig Veda.[4]The word Hindu is found in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak. The usage of the word Hindu was further popularized by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus.[5] By the 13th century, Hindust?n emerged as a popular alternative name of India, meaning the "land of Hindus".[6]" UNQUOTE
(3) ^ "India", Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, 2100a.d. Oxford University Press.
(4) ^ <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=EWlHPAkjBKUC&pg=PA782&lpg=PA782&dq=rig+veda+sindhu+hindu&source=bl&ots=BEN5WftdIe&sig=3Vn5iQSXAQ2OhxEE6cTeAzgYSow&hl=en&ei=dd4jTKjYI4H7lwf8tc2FAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=rig%20veda%20sindhu%20hindu&f=false" rel="nofollow"> <a href="http://;http://books.google.ca/books?id=EWlHPAkjBKUC&…” target=”_blank”>;http://books.google.ca/books?id=EWlHPAkjBKUC&…
(5)^ Thapar, R. 1993. Interpreting Early India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 77
(6) ^ Thompson Platts, John. A dictionary of Urdu , classical Hind?, and English. W.H. Allen & Co., Oxford University 1884.
The day a white woman can wear a “BIKINI” in Mecca and Median that day France should allow veils in public life.
Life today is about give and take .
Eyes still wide open
The names Hindu Kush (Persian: ????????), Hindu K?h (????????) and K?h-e Hind (???? ????) are usually applied to the entire range separating the basins of the Kabul and Helmand rivers from that of the Amu River (ancient Oxus) or more specifically to that part of the range that is northwest of Kabul.
James Rennell, writing in 1793, referred to the range as the "Hindoo-Kho or Hindoo-Kush"[3] "The same hindu- 'mountain' (in Scythian or Saka languages) is in the name Hind?-kuš, where the kuš means 'side, region' connected with Chr. Sogd. qwšy 'side' with -ti- Armenian Parthian k'oušt 'side, region' …. Old Indian has both ko?a- and ko?a- ….", neither of which mean "mountain".
As a corruption of Hindu K?h, meaning "Hindu Mountains" or "Indian Mountains", from the (modern) Persian word K?h (???), meaning mountain. The Persian word with Perso-Arabic alphabet or New Persian "K?h" (???) exist at least since the ninth century. Ferdousi writes in its book Shahnameh K?h-e Hind (??? ???, "Indian Mountain").[4] it seems to be hind- o- kash the line which divide to territorial limits. in local language kash mean wool. similarly kash mir or kash nmir mean eastern kash and kash ghar mean westren kash. if you see kash mir and kash ghar on the maps it is exactly eash and west
UNQUOTE
Closing eyes now my bigoted friend HS ….time to sleep 🙂
hahaha…this is another distortion of word 'Hindu' by your so called Dharm Rakshaks in addition to whole lot of distortion of history related to everything Indian. Here are other stories about word 'Hindu' which you intentionally left over:
QUOTE
"Only 180 years ago Raja Ram Mohan Roy coined the word 'Hindu' to describe the huge variety of faiths and sects with similar but not identical philosophies, myths and rituals."
"The word Hinduism is an English word of more recent origin. Hinduism entered the English language in the early 19th century to describe the beliefs and practices of those residents of India who had not converted to Islam or Christianity and did not practice Judaism or Zoroastrianism."
"As a follower of the religion of santan dharma, I find it offensive that we use the word 'Hinduism'. This term is an illegitimate term that was used to label us by foreign occupiers and aggressors."
"'Hindu' means a person believing in, following or respecting the eternal values of life, ethical and spiritual, which have sprung up in Bharatkhand [India] and includes any person calling himself a Hindu."
AND MANY MORE
UNQUOTE
Thanks for your 'eyeopener' as I could not have done this tiny piece of research with my eyes (and mind) closed. You may not like the end result of my research but then you are a ….
forget it, just have a read ands top acting like a moron.
"The word Hindu is the mispronunciation of the Sanskrit word Sindhu by the Persians, the historic local appellation for the Indus River in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent.[3] and is first seen as a reference to the river Sindhu in the Rig Veda.[4]The word Hindu is found in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak. The usage of the word Hindu was further popularized by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus.[5] By the 13th century, Hindust?n emerged as a popular alternative name of India, meaning the "land of Hindus".[6]" UNQUOTE
(3) ^ "India", Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, 2100a.d. Oxford University Press.
(4) ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=EWlHPAkjBKUC&…
(5)^ Thapar, R. 1993. Interpreting Early India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 77
(6) ^ Thompson Platts, John. A dictionary of Urdu , classical Hind?, and English. W.H. Allen & Co., Oxford University 1884.
Eyes still wide open
The names Hindu Kush (Persian: ????????), Hindu K?h (????????) and K?h-e Hind (???? ????) are usually applied to the entire range separating the basins of the Kabul and Helmand rivers from that of the Amu River (ancient Oxus) or more specifically to that part of the range that is northwest of Kabul.
James Rennell, writing in 1793, referred to the range as the "Hindoo-Kho or Hindoo-Kush"[3] "The same hindu- 'mountain' (in Scythian or Saka languages) is in the name Hind?-kuš, where the kuš means 'side, region' connected with Chr. Sogd. qwšy 'side' with -ti- Armenian Parthian k'oušt 'side, region' …. Old Indian has both ko?a- and ko?a- ….", neither of which mean "mountain".
As a corruption of Hindu K?h, meaning "Hindu Mountains" or "Indian Mountains", from the (modern) Persian word K?h (???), meaning mountain. The Persian word with Perso-Arabic alphabet or New Persian "K?h" (???) exist at least since the ninth century. Ferdousi writes in its book Shahnameh K?h-e Hind (??? ???, "Indian Mountain").[4] it seems to be hind- o- kash the line which divide to territorial limits. in local language kash mean wool. similarly kash mir or kash nmir mean eastern kash and kash ghar mean westren kash. if you see kash mir and kash ghar on the maps it is exactly eash and west
UNQUOTE
Closing eyes now my bigoted friend HS ….time to sleep 🙂
hahaha…this is another distortion of word 'Hindu' by your so called Dharm Rakshaks in addition to whole lot of distortion of history related to everything Indian. Here are other stories about word 'Hindu' which you intentionally left over:
QUOTE
"Only 180 years ago Raja Ram Mohan Roy coined the word 'Hindu' to describe the huge variety of faiths and sects with similar but not identical philosophies, myths and rituals."
"The word Hinduism is an English word of more recent origin. Hinduism entered the English language in the early 19th century to describe the beliefs and practices of those residents of India who had not converted to Islam or Christianity and did not practice Judaism or Zoroastrianism."
"As a follower of the religion of santan dharma, I find it offensive that we use the word 'Hinduism'. This term is an illegitimate term that was used to label us by foreign occupiers and aggressors."
"'Hindu' means a person believing in, following or respecting the eternal values of life, ethical and spiritual, which have sprung up in Bharatkhand [India] and includes any person calling himself a Hindu."
AND MANY MORE
UNQUOTE
You're wrong here. So the word Kush is a corruption of the word Kuh. Even though both words are still in use in Afghanistan and amongst the Pathans in NWF. Usually corrupted words get shorter not LONGER. Hindu Kuh becomes Hindu Kush lol. Btw the Arya Samaj in the 1920s tried to ban the use of the word Hindu as they stated it was a derogatory word coined by invaders for the Indians. HIndu means black, dog, ursuers.. so say with pride with the rest of your Hindu brothers.. Gaurav Se Kahin Hum Kuttay Hain!!
So one of you claims that the term hindu was coined by Raja Rammohan Roy in the 19th century while the other mentions that it was how the invaders referred to south asian dogs/slaves. which one is true or even remotely close to the truth ?
"..HIndu means black, dog, ursuers… "
Haha, this was supposed to be vitriolic, but it was so out there that its funny. Hindu means black ? So according to you, hindus are the south asians negroes ? That is such an intellectual observation / comment.
Black dog is a great Lez Zep song btw, your statement just reminded me of it…. so it wasn't a complete waste 🙂
H S aka Harpreet aka harpreet Singh aka ….whatever,
Gaurav Se Kahin Hum Kuttay Hain!!
Thats the typical piece of a 'khali' mind. as they are intellectually-challenged they resort to denigration of other faiths ( various 'Hindu' sampardaya, panths, akharas, darshans, deras, etc) and abuses flow incessantly. Thats Khaistani-bani so i am not surprised. it would come so early in the debate shows H S just could not control his intellectual diarrhea.
Hindus are kuttey… theek hai gyaniji.
You are abusing your own forefathers unless you are a haram di aulad of some Muslim invader.
as far as kuttey are concerned, hey they are at least loyal to their 'master' so …. koi chinta nahin.
reminds me of Bullleh shah di kaafi
Raatein Jaagi Te Shika Sada Wayn
Per Raat Nu Jagan Kutte Tein Tii Uthe
Raatein Bhonko Buss Na Karday
Fayr Ja Larran Vich Sutay Te Tii Uthe
Yaar Da Buuha Mool Na Chadd De
Pawein Maro So So Jutay Te Tii Uthe
Bulleh Shah Uth Yaar Mana Le
Nai Te Baazi Le Gaye Kutte Tein Ti Uthe
UNQUOTE
Uth Harpreeta thodi sharam kar ley nahin tey baazi ley gaye kuttey…
🙂
Sher
It was actually me that posted Gaurav Se Kahin Hum Kuttay Hain!! Maybe you were so frothing at the mouth at the comment you failed to read who posted the comment and accused Harpreet Singh of the posting. Hindu is a derogatory term coined by invaders for the inhabitants of India. All the other religions of India use their own nomenclature such as Sikh, Jaini, Bodhi etc only the Hindus have held on to the insulting name given to them by their oppressors. I think this speaks volumes of the Hindu mentality which is schizophrenic in it's nature. It is a slavish mentality on the one side and an authoritarian and fascistic one on the other.
On the subject of the Hindu mentality, it is also the mentality of a bully. The RSS and BJP Hindutva friends of Sher are good at attacking minorities in India but when it come to taking on even basketcase nations like Bangladesh they soil their dhotis. I remember a few years ago the Bangladeshis lynched 16 BSF soldiers and all the Indians could do is talk about harmonious relations with Bangladesh.
Bik read my post again…ten times as you would not understand first nine times. i wrote aka… WHATEVER You that bloody WHATEVER!!!!!! "Hindu is a derogatory word…" ask you a question dick…ooops Bik WHERE WERE YOUR FOREFATHERS WHEN INVADERS WERE CALLING HINDUS, (as per your post) BLACK OR WHATEVER? i have given you numerous citations to establish that the word 'Hindu' comes from 'sindhu' yet you insist on denigrating YOUR FOREFATHERS' FAITH. Your call loser. slavish…authoritarian…fascist 🙂
AMUSING, i would repeat what your GP must have been telling your parents for decades "YOU …BIK NEEDS TO BE INSTITUTIONALISED".
Sher
Sher Mian, how hard you try yet you fail to come up with good explanation. Here are some excerpts from Indian writers
1. R. N. Suryanarayan, in Universal Religion, pages 1-2, (published from Mysore in 1952) commented:
The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this [brahminland], a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.”
This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky and Saturn.”
In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.
2. Lala Lajpat Rai, Ed., in his introduction of Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, Lahore, 1898, said:
Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.
3. Further, in addition to “black” and “slave”, Persian and Urdu dictionaries describe other demeaning or contemptuous meaning of “Hindu”:
Persian Dictionary – Lughet-e-Kishwari, Lucknow, 1964: chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave).
Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat, part 1, p. 615: Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter); Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).
why is the word “Hindu” missing in the religious texts ? On the other hand Persians continued to refer to the Indus valley as “Waihind”, habitat of Hindus or “Hind Baar”, land of Hindus. Moreover, during that time the word “Hindu” was a reference to the skin color of the Indus Valley people, not in any demeaning sense. The word “Hindu” acquired contemptuous meaning after the conquest of India by Muslims. Muslims used the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner after establishing their rule over Hindus. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Hindu intellectuals, product of British education, invented neo-Hinduism and fabricated history to support the mythical glorious ancient Hindu civilization. The convoluted interpretation of the word “Hindu” by modern Hindus is nothing more than a “fabrication of history.”
@ Sher: How can you call Bik's forefathers to be Hindus, when its a well established fact that there is no religion called Hinduism which existed, until unless sometime back your forefathers decided to consolidate all sects worshiping 33 crore gods and call that consolidated group of sects as HINDUS. I will not be surprised even if you come up with some isolated explanation from internet which contradicts this fact. You have done this before for the definition of HINDU as well, and its your propensity to continue argue facts with whatever isolated explanation you get on internet with only one purpose – TO PROVE EVERY AUTHENTIC HISTORY WRONG!
And it is not just you in this world who would argue that everything originated from Hindus, but there many many others alike. See for example the answer of your RSS comrade: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20…
To support my statement that Hinduism is more of a collection of sects than a religion, here are two (not exhausted) links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_denominations (you've cited wiki too as a source if you have problem with it!) http://www.myhindupage.org/index.php/hindu-belief…
QUOTE
The swami then answered, “There is no Supreme God in Hinduism, because Hinduism is a label given to us by foreigners." It dawned on me how true swami's answer was. Hinduism is actually a collection of different religions (that are classed as Hindu sects in modern understanding of Hinduism) that share a common belief structure and originated from the ancient Indian subcontinent. Therefore no one can actually name the Supreme God of Hinduism.
UNQUOTE
Who says my forefathers were kuttay? Yours might have been ( in fact you are proud they were!) My forefathers came from the farming community and their religion before Sikhism was jathera- ancestor worship. Just because you are following your former masters, the British definition of classifying everything in India that was not Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or Jain into Hindu does not make my forefathers into Hindus. History is a lot more complicated than the RSS bukwas you read.
Imagine having to argue that the name of your religion is not a derogatory word of foreigners and is named after some river! I feel sorry for you.. you are one sick puppy!
Wasn't Nanak Chand also born into a Hindu family ?
@ MastRam: You are quite interested in recalling jokes and sarcasms as I read your other comments. To your comment I am reminded of one Indian saying – " You read the whole mythology (so I believe!) and then you ask who was the princess!?"
I'd say you and your partner Sher have no point and authentic facts other than banking on stereotypical image and concocted Indian history by your forefathers aka RSS and scores of other Arya Samaji organizations. Brother read the comments and the citations given with them as a proof. You've made enough fool of the World as well as the minorities in India. THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING. DON'T HARP ON YOUR OWN CONCOCTED HISTORY.
"THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING. "
So when Guru Nanak was preaching something on the lines of '… am neither a Hindu or Muslim,….' he was talking about hinduism, but according to you that was something that never existed then ?
what authentic facts you are talking about H S?
Youtube videos, thats your source of "authentic" history? most amusing. I have condemned ALL of the communal, bigoted organisations for the hatred they spread and the list includes RSS. But ppl like you are much worse as you are not trying to re-write your own religious scriptures but also the whole history of the region. Get out of your well H S and get some help for your intelectual diarrhea.
I have my doubts that you are a sikh in the first place. As the real crims in the whole scenario (the tyrant Muslims) find no mention in your posts.
"…forefathers aka RSS and scores of other Arya Samaji organizations"
RSS is not a Arya Samaji organisation.
"THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING" thats really amusing line and shows how ill-informed you are.
Sher
"THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING"
I must warn the bigoted, constipated Khalistani hyenas that the following lines would hurt your gospel. The AUTHENTIC source of this extract is Tujke-Jahangiri. I have quoted a 'Sikh website' so that the likes of HS and Bik could not whinge about RSS propaganda. Now go and file a suit to correct this historical fact – G Arjan dev called a 'Hindu' who was used to apply Tilak (!!!!) even to his non-Hindu guests.
enjoy.
Sher
http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/main/guru-arjan-dev-…
This is what Emperor Jahangir wrote in his diary called the "Tuzuk-i-Jahagiri", which translates to "Memoirs of Jahangir"
"In Govindwal, which is on the river Biyãh (Beas), there was a Hindu named Arjun,’ in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness. They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.
At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Indians (Hinduwän) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death."
Also, where is Chandu in this clear death penalty imposed on G Arjun dev for helping (or paying homage to) rebellous Khusrau? A fanatic Muslim ordering death of a "Hindu" sage…. confiscate children (!!)…
And the 'Hindu" sage did not protest " I am a Sikh not Hindu. at least kill me as a Sikh"
I am pretty sure Hindu nationalists were to be blamed for this atrocity too.
Sher
Sher, This is what they have been saying all along "he word “Hindu” acquired contemptuous meaning after the conquest of India by Muslims. Muslims used the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner after establishing their rule over Hindus". Hindu term was used as a derogatory term for the native of this land. Nowhere it refers to as religion.
Sher, and this is what Guru Arjan said , the fifth Guru of sikhs "naa ham hi(n)dhoo na musalamaan". Now whom would you beleive the first party or the third party Jahangir. Open your eyes Sher, don't ruin the beautiful relationship between Sikhs and Hindus by your bigoted and ill conceived history of the hindutva brigade. Respect each other individuality , that's the only way forward , I also know that's very hard for people like you.
I am ruining Hindu-Sikh relationship!!!!???
what non-sense that is Observer. i am trying the bridge the growing chasm and swimming against the anti-Hindu tide sweeping sikhism today.
You have done us great favour by quoting Guru Arjan Dev but it would have been better if you quoted the completed doha with meaning. anyway, you cannot make one four-worded line as complete ideology of Sikhism.
Also, very importantly, I AM NOT CLAIMING SIKHISM IS NOT A SEPARATE RELIGION TODAY. My argument is: Gurus did not wish it this way – separation of Sikhism as a separate DHARAM from sanatan dharma.
Anyway, go through this well-researched article and give counter argument:
http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/The-Unbr…
There is no harm in having a robust (but civil) debate about the Sikh philosophy.
Sher
Extremely sorry to state this but Observer the line quoted by you belongs to kabir and not G Arjan Dev.
NÄ ham hiná¸Å« na musalmÄn.
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.
ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡ੠ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥
अलह राम के पिंडॠपरान ॥४॥
Alah rÄm ke pind parÄn. ||4||
My body and breath of life belong to Allah – to Raam – the God of both. ||4||
ਕਹ੠ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹ੠ਕੀਆ ਵਖਾਨਾ ॥
कहॠकबीर इहॠकीआ वखाना ॥
Kaho KabÄ«r ih kÄ«â–«Ä vakẖÄnÄ.
Says Kabeer, this is what I say:
Kabir too is saying his
"My body and breath of life belong to Allah – to Raam – the God of both."
Every where in GGS the Gurus have mentioned 'Hindus and Muslims (Turks)' no where third religion 'sikhs' or the sikh community is mentioned.
Now who needs to open eyes Observer?
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/ch8.htm#3
Do you have any answers to these points raised by Koenraad Elst?
Regards
Sher
Sher, As expected and I have already said earlier it will be very hard for you to respect each other individuality. You have proven it. Sher mian aadha adhoora gyan bahut haanikarak hota hai aur aap yeh baat saabit kartey ho. Get a better reference for your research not the sanghis type of adh kachra research.
Observer now you are cornered.
You quoted first line of a doha to prove 'na hum na mussalman' and attributed it to Guru Arjan Dev. i completed the doha to prove that it was written in fact by Bhagat Kabir and not by GAD.
You have ignored that part of the post all together…very convenient, isnt i9t Mr Oberver. Who gave 'adha adhoora" and made it "ekdum poora"?
Show some integrity Observer and accept that you are human being too and what i am saying is correct – Kabir wrote "Na hum Hindu na hum mussalman".
Sher
Sher Mian, It is written in Rag Bhairo by Guru Arjun Dev Ji on Ang 1136. Go and read it .
I Know you would have got confused by the name Kabeer in the stanzas. It is written under the Mahalla 5 on Ang 1136 in Rag Bhairo. In GGS the bani is written under Mahalla and Bhagat Bani with names starting at the top. If it was Bani of Bhagat kabeer then it would have started as Bani Bhagat Kabeer Ji Ki not as Bhairoo mahalla 5.
Why a poet would use another poet's name for his work?
Can you give some other example? even in this doha the poet is saying:
'My body and breath of life belong to Allah – to Raam – the God of both.'
And no where, i repeat no where in GGS Sikhi has been projected as THIRD religion. It does not say 'Na hum Hindu na hum Musalman hum hai Sikh" or words to this effect.
Right or wrong?
Sher
@ Sher: YOU PROPAGANDIST OF BIG TIME, TELL ME WHERE HINDU IS MENTIONED IN YOUR VEDAS OR ANY OF YOUR MYTHOLOGICAL EPICS? SEEING YOUR NARROW AND RIGID APPROACH TO DISCUSSIONS, AS YOU HAVE SHOWN BY YOUR IGNORING FACTS, SELECTIVELY PICKING LINES AND IGNORING THOSE LINES WHICH GIVE YOU A TIGHT SLAP TO EVERY ARGUMENT YOU STARTED. YOU ARE A BIG TIME RANTER AND A GOOD TRAINED, RSS OR OTHER NATIONALIST-CUM-TERRORIST ORGANIZATION'S, WORKER.
I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT PUNJAB AND J&K TO GET THEIR INDEPENDENCE OR AUTONOMOUS RULE THEY WERE PROMISED IN 1947. ALL YOU DO BY YOUR PROPAGANDIST LIES IS TO INCREASE DISTRUST, ANIMOSITY AND MAKE ME MORE ASSERTIVE ABOUT IT FOR BIGOTED HINDUTVA – n|m for HINDU AND INDIAN NATIONALISTS!
HS Stop this screaming …as i said before get some help for your chronic constipation.
….and stay out of this debate unless you can quote "THOSE LINES WHICH GIVE YOU A TIGHT SLAP TO EVERY ARGUMENT YOU STARTED" written by Gurus.
I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT….
who cares what a constipated ISI dalla wants.
get lost now, ja Namaaz da time ho gaya and stop spitting in front of Ahmediya mosques.
Sher
Sher you really are the dumbest Hindu I have come across and believe me I have come across many dumb Hindus over the years. You claim to have Observer cornered when it is you have shown your gross ignorance of Gurbani.
QUOTE
@ Sher: 'SINGH' is a Hindi word for Lion you a***. FIRST YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT 1) HINDUISM IS A RELIGION, THEN 2) HINDI IS HINDUS' PATENTED LANGUAGE.
DONT GIVE ME LAME BULLSHIT WE'VE ALL HEART ABOUT HINDUISM AS A RELIGION.
You know what, your approach and conclusion to EVERY POST AND COMMENT is just as this another RSS' and Arya Samaji trained guy: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20….
This is what he says – "All religions in the world are offshoots of Sanatan Dharma".
@EVERYBODY: THE ANSWER IS BEFORE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT HINDUS' ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE IS. PERIOD.
UNQUOTE
@Sher: You didn't reply to this above quoted post, just as you ignored scores of other questions and facts I put up. Did you understand now why I call you rhetoric and hollow? I hope your Sangh teaching, other than making you brain washed unilaterally spitting animal, teaches you how to deal rationally, subjectively and face other challengers maturely. However all I have till now seen from you is the former – A STAUNCHLY BIGOTED UNILATERALLY SPITTING ANIMAL.
Sher Mian, Bhagat Kabeer Ji didn't wrote GGS, GGS was authored by Guru Arjun Dev Ji he included only those dohas of variours sants and pirs which had the view of gurmat. The statement "N? ham hin?? na musalm?n" is in GGS it simply means that Guru Arjun Dev Ji fully endorsed this view.
Sher Mian, another hypocrisy of yours , just read your comments against Muslims above and yet you have taken verse of Muslim sufi saint Baba Bulley Shah. Yaar kabhi toh koi apni original cheez lekar aayo.
…against Muslims? if i call spade a spade, would that be against the spade? what did i write in that which has been construed by you as "comments against Muslims"?
Sher
You're wrong here. So the word Kush is a corruption of the word Kuh. Even though both words are still in use in Afghanistan and amongst the Pathans in NWF. Usually corrupted words get shorter not LONGER. Hindu Kuh becomes Hindu Kush lol. Btw the Arya Samaj in the 1920s tried to ban the use of the word Hindu as they stated it was a derogatory word coined by invaders for the Indians. HIndu means black, dog, ursuers.. so say with pride with the rest of your Hindu brothers.. Gaurav Se Kahin Hum Kuttay Hain!!
"..HIndu means black, dog, ursuers… "
Haha, this was supposed to be vitriolic, but it was so out there that its funny. Hindu means black ? So according to you, hindus are the south asians negroes ? That is such an intellectual observation / comment.
Black dog is a great Lez Zep song btw, your statement just reminded me of it…. so it wasn't a complete waste 🙂
So one of you claims that the term hindu was coined by Raja Rammohan Roy in the 19th century while the other mentions that it was how the invaders referred to south asian dogs/slaves. which one is true or even remotely close to the truth ?
H S aka Harpreet aka harpreet Singh aka ….whatever,
Gaurav Se Kahin Hum Kuttay Hain!!
Thats the typical piece of a 'khali' mind. as they are intellectually-challenged they resort to denigration of other faiths ( various 'Hindu' sampardaya, panths, akharas, darshans, deras, etc) and abuses flow incessantly. Thats Khaistani-bani so i am not surprised. it would come so early in the debate shows H S just could not control his intellectual diarrhea.
Hindus are kuttey… theek hai gyaniji.
You are abusing your own forefathers unless you are a haram di aulad of some Muslim invader.
as far as kuttey are concerned, hey they are at least loyal to their 'master' so …. koi chinta nahin.
reminds me of Bullleh shah di kaafi
Raatein Jaagi Te Shika Sada Wayn
Per Raat Nu Jagan Kutte Tein Tii Uthe
Raatein Bhonko Buss Na Karday
Fayr Ja Larran Vich Sutay Te Tii Uthe
Yaar Da Buuha Mool Na Chadd De
Pawein Maro So So Jutay Te Tii Uthe
Bulleh Shah Uth Yaar Mana Le
Nai Te Baazi Le Gaye Kutte Tein Ti Uthe
UNQUOTE
Uth Harpreeta thodi sharam kar ley nahin tey baazi ley gaye kuttey…
🙂
Sher
It was actually me that posted Gaurav Se Kahin Hum Kuttay Hain!! Maybe you were so frothing at the mouth at the comment you failed to read who posted the comment and accused Harpreet Singh of the posting. Hindu is a derogatory term coined by invaders for the inhabitants of India. All the other religions of India use their own nomenclature such as Sikh, Jaini, Bodhi etc only the Hindus have held on to the insulting name given to them by their oppressors. I think this speaks volumes of the Hindu mentality which is schizophrenic in it's nature. It is a slavish mentality on the one side and an authoritarian and fascistic one on the other.
On the subject of the Hindu mentality, it is also the mentality of a bully. The RSS and BJP Hindutva friends of Sher are good at attacking minorities in India but when it come to taking on even basketcase nations like Bangladesh they soil their dhotis. I remember a few years ago the Bangladeshis lynched 16 BSF soldiers and all the Indians could do is talk about harmonious relations with Bangladesh.
Bik read my post again…ten times as you would not understand first nine times. i wrote aka… WHATEVER You that bloody WHATEVER!!!!!! "Hindu is a derogatory word…" ask you a question dick…ooops Bik WHERE WERE YOUR FOREFATHERS WHEN INVADERS WERE CALLING HINDUS, (as per your post) BLACK OR WHATEVER? i have given you numerous citations to establish that the word 'Hindu' comes from 'sindhu' yet you insist on denigrating YOUR FOREFATHERS' FAITH. Your call loser. slavish…authoritarian…fascist 🙂
AMUSING, i would repeat what your GP must have been telling your parents for decades "YOU …BIK NEEDS TO BE INSTITUTIONALISED".
Sher
Sher Mian, how hard you try yet you fail to come up with good explanation. Here are some excerpts from Indian writers
1. R. N. Suryanarayan, in Universal Religion, pages 1-2, (published from Mysore in 1952) commented:
The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this [brahminland], a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.”
This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky and Saturn.”
In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.
2. Lala Lajpat Rai, Ed., in his introduction of Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, Lahore, 1898, said:
Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.
3. Further, in addition to “black” and “slave”, Persian and Urdu dictionaries describe other demeaning or contemptuous meaning of “Hindu”:
Persian Dictionary – Lughet-e-Kishwari, Lucknow, 1964: chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave).
Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat, part 1, p. 615: Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter); Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).
why is the word “Hindu” missing in the religious texts ? On the other hand Persians continued to refer to the Indus valley as “Waihind”, habitat of Hindus or “Hind Baar”, land of Hindus. Moreover, during that time the word “Hindu” was a reference to the skin color of the Indus Valley people, not in any demeaning sense. The word “Hindu” acquired contemptuous meaning after the conquest of India by Muslims. Muslims used the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner after establishing their rule over Hindus. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Hindu intellectuals, product of British education, invented neo-Hinduism and fabricated history to support the mythical glorious ancient Hindu civilization. The convoluted interpretation of the word “Hindu” by modern Hindus is nothing more than a “fabrication of history.”
@ Sher: How can you call Bik's forefathers to be Hindus, when its a well established fact that there is no religion called Hinduism which existed, until unless sometime back your forefathers decided to consolidate all sects worshiping 33 crore gods and call that consolidated group of sects as HINDUS. I will not be surprised even if you come up with some isolated explanation from internet which contradicts this fact. You have done this before for the definition of HINDU as well, and its your propensity to continue argue facts with whatever isolated explanation you get on internet with only one purpose – TO PROVE EVERY AUTHENTIC HISTORY WRONG!
And it is not just you in this world who would argue that everything originated from Hindus, but there many many others alike. See for example the answer of your RSS comrade: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20…
To support my statement that Hinduism is more of a collection of sects than a religion, here are two (not exhausted) links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_denominations (you've cited wiki too as a source if you have problem with it!) http://www.myhindupage.org/index.php/hindu-belief…
QUOTE
The swami then answered, “There is no Supreme God in Hinduism, because Hinduism is a label given to us by foreigners." It dawned on me how true swami's answer was. Hinduism is actually a collection of different religions (that are classed as Hindu sects in modern understanding of Hinduism) that share a common belief structure and originated from the ancient Indian subcontinent. Therefore no one can actually name the Supreme God of Hinduism.
UNQUOTE
Who says my forefathers were kuttay? Yours might have been ( in fact you are proud they were!) My forefathers came from the farming community and their religion before Sikhism was jathera- ancestor worship. Just because you are following your former masters, the British definition of classifying everything in India that was not Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or Jain into Hindu does not make my forefathers into Hindus. History is a lot more complicated than the RSS bukwas you read.
Imagine having to argue that the name of your religion is not a derogatory word of foreigners and is named after some river! I feel sorry for you.. you are one sick puppy!
Wasn't Nanak Chand also born into a Hindu family ?
@ MastRam: You are quite interested in recalling jokes and sarcasms as I read your other comments. To your comment I am reminded of one Indian saying – " You read the whole mythology (so I believe!) and then you ask who was the princess!?"
I'd say you and your partner Sher have no point and authentic facts other than banking on stereotypical image and concocted Indian history by your forefathers aka RSS and scores of other Arya Samaji organizations. Brother read the comments and the citations given with them as a proof. You've made enough fool of the World as well as the minorities in India. THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING. DON'T HARP ON YOUR OWN CONCOCTED HISTORY.
"THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING. "
So when Guru Nanak was preaching something on the lines of '… am neither a Hindu or Muslim,….' he was talking about hinduism, but according to you that was something that never existed then ?
what authentic facts you are talking about H S?
Youtube videos, thats your source of "authentic" history? most amusing. I have condemned ALL of the communal, bigoted organisations for the hatred they spread and the list includes RSS. But ppl like you are much worse as you are not trying to re-write your own religious scriptures but also the whole history of the region. Get out of your well H S and get some help for your intelectual diarrhea.
I have my doubts that you are a sikh in the first place. As the real crims in the whole scenario (the tyrant Muslims) find no mention in your posts.
"…forefathers aka RSS and scores of other Arya Samaji organizations"
RSS is not a Arya Samaji organisation.
"THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING" thats really amusing line and shows how ill-informed you are.
Sher
"THERE WAS NOTHING CALLED HINDU RELIGION AT THE TIME YOU ARE POINTING"
I must warn the bigoted, constipated Khalistani hyenas that the following lines would hurt your gospel. The AUTHENTIC source of this extract is Tujke-Jahangiri. I have quoted a 'Sikh website' so that the likes of HS and Bik could not whinge about RSS propaganda. Now go and file a suit to correct this historical fact – G Arjan dev called a 'Hindu' who was used to apply Tilak (!!!!) even to his non-Hindu guests.
enjoy.
Sher
http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/main/guru-arjan-dev-…
This is what Emperor Jahangir wrote in his diary called the "Tuzuk-i-Jahagiri", which translates to "Memoirs of Jahangir"
"In Govindwal, which is on the river Biyãh (Beas), there was a Hindu named Arjun,’ in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness. They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.
At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Indians (Hinduwän) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death."
Also, where is Chandu in this clear death penalty imposed on G Arjun dev for helping (or paying homage to) rebellous Khusrau? A fanatic Muslim ordering death of a "Hindu" sage…. confiscate children (!!)…
And the 'Hindu" sage did not protest " I am a Sikh not Hindu. at least kill me as a Sikh"
I am pretty sure Hindu nationalists were to be blamed for this atrocity too.
Sher
Sher, This is what they have been saying all along "he word “Hindu” acquired contemptuous meaning after the conquest of India by Muslims. Muslims used the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner after establishing their rule over Hindus". Hindu term was used as a derogatory term for the native of this land. Nowhere it refers to as religion.
Sher, and this is what Guru Arjan said , the fifth Guru of sikhs "naa ham hi(n)dhoo na musalamaan". Now whom would you beleive the first party or the third party Jahangir. Open your eyes Sher, don't ruin the beautiful relationship between Sikhs and Hindus by your bigoted and ill conceived history of the hindutva brigade. Respect each other individuality , that's the only way forward , I also know that's very hard for people like you.
I am ruining Hindu-Sikh relationship!!!!???
what non-sense that is Observer. i am trying the bridge the growing chasm and swimming against the anti-Hindu tide sweeping sikhism today.
You have done us great favour by quoting Guru Arjan Dev but it would have been better if you quoted the completed doha with meaning. anyway, you cannot make one four-worded line as complete ideology of Sikhism.
Also, very importantly, I AM NOT CLAIMING SIKHISM IS NOT A SEPARATE RELIGION TODAY. My argument is: Gurus did not wish it this way – separation of Sikhism as a separate DHARAM from sanatan dharma.
Anyway, go through this well-researched article and give counter argument:
http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/The-Unbr…
There is no harm in having a robust (but civil) debate about the Sikh philosophy.
Sher
Extremely sorry to state this but Observer the line quoted by you belongs to kabir and not G Arjan Dev.
N? ham hin?? na musalm?n.
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.
??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???
??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???
Alah r?m ke pind par?n. ||4||
My body and breath of life belong to Allah – to Raam – the God of both. ||4||
??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?
??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?
Kaho Kab?r ih k??? vak??n?.
Says Kabeer, this is what I say:
Kabir too is saying his
"My body and breath of life belong to Allah – to Raam – the God of both."
Every where in GGS the Gurus have mentioned 'Hindus and Muslims (Turks)' no where third religion 'sikhs' or the sikh community is mentioned.
Now who needs to open eyes Observer?
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/ch8.htm#3
Do you have any answers to these points raised by Koenraad Elst?
Regards
Sher
Sher, As expected and I have already said earlier it will be very hard for you to respect each other individuality. You have proven it. Sher mian aadha adhoora gyan bahut haanikarak hota hai aur aap yeh baat saabit kartey ho. Get a better reference for your research not the sanghis type of adh kachra research.
Observer now you are cornered.
You quoted first line of a doha to prove 'na hum na mussalman' and attributed it to Guru Arjan Dev. i completed the doha to prove that it was written in fact by Bhagat Kabir and not by GAD.
You have ignored that part of the post all together…very convenient, isnt i9t Mr Oberver. Who gave 'adha adhoora" and made it "ekdum poora"?
Show some integrity Observer and accept that you are human being too and what i am saying is correct – Kabir wrote "Na hum Hindu na hum mussalman".
Sher
Sher Mian, It is written in Rag Bhairo by Guru Arjun Dev Ji on Ang 1136. Go and read it .
I Know you would have got confused by the name Kabeer in the stanzas. It is written under the Mahalla 5 on Ang 1136 in Rag Bhairo. In GGS the bani is written under Mahalla and Bhagat Bani with names starting at the top. If it was Bani of Bhagat kabeer then it would have started as Bani Bhagat Kabeer Ji Ki not as Bhairoo mahalla 5.
Why a poet would use another poet's name for his work?
Can you give some other example? even in this doha the poet is saying:
'My body and breath of life belong to Allah – to Raam – the God of both.'
And no where, i repeat no where in GGS Sikhi has been projected as THIRD religion. It does not say 'Na hum Hindu na hum Musalman hum hai Sikh" or words to this effect.
Right or wrong?
Sher
@ Sher: YOU PROPAGANDIST OF BIG TIME, TELL ME WHERE HINDU IS MENTIONED IN YOUR VEDAS OR ANY OF YOUR MYTHOLOGICAL EPICS? SEEING YOUR NARROW AND RIGID APPROACH TO DISCUSSIONS, AS YOU HAVE SHOWN BY YOUR IGNORING FACTS, SELECTIVELY PICKING LINES AND IGNORING THOSE LINES WHICH GIVE YOU A TIGHT SLAP TO EVERY ARGUMENT YOU STARTED. YOU ARE A BIG TIME RANTER AND A GOOD TRAINED, RSS OR OTHER NATIONALIST-CUM-TERRORIST ORGANIZATION'S, WORKER.
I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT PUNJAB AND J&K TO GET THEIR INDEPENDENCE OR AUTONOMOUS RULE THEY WERE PROMISED IN 1947. ALL YOU DO BY YOUR PROPAGANDIST LIES IS TO INCREASE DISTRUST, ANIMOSITY AND MAKE ME MORE ASSERTIVE ABOUT IT FOR BIGOTED HINDUTVA – n|m for HINDU AND INDIAN NATIONALISTS!
HS Stop this screaming …as i said before get some help for your chronic constipation.
….and stay out of this debate unless you can quote "THOSE LINES WHICH GIVE YOU A TIGHT SLAP TO EVERY ARGUMENT YOU STARTED" written by Gurus.
I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT….
who cares what a constipated ISI dalla wants.
get lost now, ja Namaaz da time ho gaya and stop spitting in front of Ahmediya mosques.
Sher
Sher you really are the dumbest Hindu I have come across and believe me I have come across many dumb Hindus over the years. You claim to have Observer cornered when it is you have shown your gross ignorance of Gurbani.
QUOTE
@ Sher: 'SINGH' is a Hindi word for Lion you a***. FIRST YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT 1) HINDUISM IS A RELIGION, THEN 2) HINDI IS HINDUS' PATENTED LANGUAGE.
DONT GIVE ME LAME BULLSHIT WE'VE ALL HEART ABOUT HINDUISM AS A RELIGION.
You know what, your approach and conclusion to EVERY POST AND COMMENT is just as this another RSS' and Arya Samaji trained guy: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20….
This is what he says – "All religions in the world are offshoots of Sanatan Dharma".
@EVERYBODY: THE ANSWER IS BEFORE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT HINDUS' ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE IS. PERIOD.
UNQUOTE
@Sher: You didn't reply to this above quoted post, just as you ignored scores of other questions and facts I put up. Did you understand now why I call you rhetoric and hollow? I hope your Sangh teaching, other than making you brain washed unilaterally spitting animal, teaches you how to deal rationally, subjectively and face other challengers maturely. However all I have till now seen from you is the former – A STAUNCHLY BIGOTED UNILATERALLY SPITTING ANIMAL.
Sher Mian, Bhagat Kabeer Ji didn't wrote GGS, GGS was authored by Guru Arjun Dev Ji he included only those dohas of variours sants and pirs which had the view of gurmat. The statement "N? ham hin?? na musalm?n" is in GGS it simply means that Guru Arjun Dev Ji fully endorsed this view.
Sher Mian, another hypocrisy of yours , just read your comments against Muslims above and yet you have taken verse of Muslim sufi saint Baba Bulley Shah. Yaar kabhi toh koi apni original cheez lekar aayo.
…against Muslims? if i call spade a spade, would that be against the spade? what did i write in that which has been construed by you as "comments against Muslims"?
Sher
First, glad to note that people are using references to support their Point of view. I am pleased and enjoying the discussion.
Second,
@Sher, can you stop turning discussion of every entry into a Hindu-Sikh issue or a diatribe against The Big B. As you've claimed that you're Hindu, your passion for Sikh history and contemporary cultural practices is noteworthy but does not give you license to hijack the thread. Makes sense??
http://w w w.friendsofsouthasia.o r g/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
iSingh,
I do not owe you an explanation but would would still let you know i am trying to correct massive distortion of Indian history by 'Sikh' historians. I have NOT claimed that i am a Hindu (as in 'practicing') but yes, I am a Hindu-born and would defend the community against such mind-numbing onslaught by khalistanis and other misguided Tat khalsa element.
How about lecturing your lapdog (no, i am not calling Harpreet a kutta) to refrain from denigrating other faiths without verifiable citations? where is sikhi in your and H S posts…?
Do not try to muzzle free speech iSingh.. thats not Sikhi.
Sher
"How about lecturing your lapdog (no, i am not calling Harpreet a kutta) to refrain from denigrating other faiths without verifiable citations?"
Wow, you are indeed making excellent use (or misuse) of your right to free speech, congratulations for not understanding the responsibilities that come with exercising free speech….
You may not owe anybody an explanation for your crusade against non-Hindu religions, but remember this; in the final analysis, you cannot hide from yourself, and as surely as day turns night, you will discover that yoy owe yourself an explanation for the sermons that that you continue to deliver.
Regards
congratulations for not understanding the responsibilities…"
Billi, why do i think that you sound utterly confused?
You have chosen me (and I am not flattered at all to notice that) for moralizing. you seem to be blind to comments other posters are writing and using totally unacceptable language and references. but you are not too happy with this ;Sher; as he has admitted so many times that he comes from the 'other' faith.
you did not notice so many other posters (except maybe one or two) attacking me like a pack of hyenas and trying to muzzle my 'civilized' opinion.
show me one instance where i have denigrated sikhism or used invectives against anyone? i get called 'kutta' and maybe u blame me for being one.
show some intellectual maturity Billi. stop claiming immunity just because you come from a certain faith which is beyond criticism.
and yes, your line: "you cannot hide from yourself" is spooky.
Regards too nevertheless
sher
“understanding the responsibilities that come with exercising free speech”
What is it in this statement that Sher does not comprehend, that he finds confusing? Does Sher condone free speech that includes lies, swearing, slander, etc? Or does he accept that with free speech come certain responsibilities?
“…attacking me like a pack of hyenas and trying to muzzle my 'civilized' opinion”
Rather, the lone ‘sher’ is trying to muzzle the opinion of others (the hyenas), thus denying them their freedom of speech. In my view sher’s opinion, far from being ‘civilised’, is generally a confused diatribe. Reading Sher’s copious contributions on this site it is easy to spot the unmistakable underlying theme that runs through all that he write.s
“…and yes, your line: ‘you cannot hide from yourself’ is spooky”
Not spooky, but a truism, one that will catch up with all of us in the end. Perhaps the spooky part is that this realisation sends a chill down Sher’s spine. Truth will prevail.
Regards
First, glad to note that people are using references to support their Point of view. I am pleased and enjoying the discussion.
Second,
@Sher, can you stop turning discussion of every entry into a Hindu-Sikh issue or a diatribe against The Big B. As you’ve claimed that you’re Hindu, your passion for Sikh history and contemporary cultural practices is noteworthy but does not give you license to hijack the thread. Makes sense??
http://w w w.friendsofsouthasia.o r g/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
iSingh,
I do not owe you an explanation but would would still let you know i am trying to correct massive distortion of Indian history by 'Sikh' historians. I have NOT claimed that i am a Hindu (as in 'practicing') but yes, I am a Hindu-born and would defend the community against such mind-numbing onslaught by khalistanis and other misguided Tat khalsa element.
How about lecturing your lapdog (no, i am not calling Harpreet a kutta) to refrain from denigrating other faiths without verifiable citations? where is sikhi in your and H S posts…?
Do not try to muzzle free speech iSingh.. thats not Sikhi.
Sher
"How about lecturing your lapdog (no, i am not calling Harpreet a kutta) to refrain from denigrating other faiths without verifiable citations?"
Wow, you are indeed making excellent use (or misuse) of your right to free speech, congratulations for not understanding the responsibilities that come with exercising free speech….
You may not owe anybody an explanation for your crusade against non-Hindu religions, but remember this; in the final analysis, you cannot hide from yourself, and as surely as day turns night, you will discover that yoy owe yourself an explanation for the sermons that that you continue to deliver.
Regards
congratulations for not understanding the responsibilities…"
Billi, why do i think that you sound utterly confused?
You have chosen me (and I am not flattered at all to notice that) for moralizing. you seem to be blind to comments other posters are writing and using totally unacceptable language and references. but you are not too happy with this ;Sher; as he has admitted so many times that he comes from the 'other' faith.
you did not notice so many other posters (except maybe one or two) attacking me like a pack of hyenas and trying to muzzle my 'civilized' opinion.
show me one instance where i have denigrated sikhism or used invectives against anyone? i get called 'kutta' and maybe u blame me for being one.
show some intellectual maturity Billi. stop claiming immunity just because you come from a certain faith which is beyond criticism.
and yes, your line: "you cannot hide from yourself" is spooky.
Regards too nevertheless
sher
“understanding the responsibilities that come with exercising free speech”
What is it in this statement that Sher does not comprehend, that he finds confusing? Does Sher condone free speech that includes lies, swearing, slander, etc? Or does he accept that with free speech come certain responsibilities?
“…attacking me like a pack of hyenas and trying to muzzle my 'civilized' opinion”
Rather, the lone ‘sher’ is trying to muzzle the opinion of others (the hyenas), thus denying them their freedom of speech. In my view sher’s opinion, far from being ‘civilised’, is generally a confused diatribe. Reading Sher’s copious contributions on this site it is easy to spot the unmistakable underlying theme that runs through all that he write.s
“…and yes, your line: ‘you cannot hide from yourself’ is spooky”
Not spooky, but a truism, one that will catch up with all of us in the end. Perhaps the spooky part is that this realisation sends a chill down Sher’s spine. Truth will prevail.
Regards
I want everyone (especially uninformed and liberal Sikhs, who have a tendency to assume justice seeking and truth speaking Sikhs are angry for no reason) to read atleast the excerpts of this essay by Dr. Amartya Sen (Nobel Laureate) on distortion of south asian history by Hindutva brigade in the given link. Just to let you know what it is about, if you chose not to read it, this is what the starting paragraph says:
QUOTE
In his engaging essays from The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen lucidly explains the strategy behind the attempts of Hindutva supporters to re-invent India’s history, an effort that has now unfortunately reached the shores of California via organizations such the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation.
UNQUOTE
"In his engaging essays from The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen lucidly explains the strategy behind the attempts of Hindutva supporters to re-invent India’s history, an effort that has now unfortunately reached the shores of California via organizations such the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation."
Everyone: Read – The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen
I want everyone (especially uninformed and liberal Sikhs, who have a tendency to assume justice seeking and truth speaking Sikhs are angry for no reason) to read atleast the excerpts of this essay by Dr. Amartya Sen (Nobel Laureate) on distortion of south asian history by Hindutva brigade in the given link. Just to let you know what it is about, if you chose not to read it, this is what the starting paragraph says:
QUOTE
In his engaging essays from The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen lucidly explains the strategy behind the attempts of Hindutva supporters to re-invent India’s history, an effort that has now unfortunately reached the shores of California via organizations such the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation.
UNQUOTE
"In his engaging essays from The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen lucidly explains the strategy behind the attempts of Hindutva supporters to re-invent India’s history, an effort that has now unfortunately reached the shores of California via organizations such the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation."
Everyone: Read – The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005), Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen
Everyone should condemn any effort to distort history. This group may be Hindu, christian, sikhs, etc.
"Christian, Jewish, Islamic and the two Hindu groups submitted their edits in autumn 2005. After intensive scholarly discussions, over 500 changes proposed by Jewish and Christian groups and c. 100 changes proposed by Muslims were accepted by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the State Board of Education (SBE); these scholarly discussions extended to Jan. 6, 2006. Some 170 edits proposed by two Hindu foundations were initially accepted, supported by the reviewer, appointed by the California's Board of Education, S. Bajpai. However, 58 of them met with opposition, including major points such as the alleged equal position of women (who merely had 'other rights than men'), the denial of the religious origin and backing of the class (caste) system ever since the earliest Indian text (Rigveda 10.90), alleged monotheism ('God -his name is Bhagwan'), and the denial of the so-called 'Aryan Invasion'.[2][3]"
500 changes suggested accepted without whimper. Wholesale rewriting the history by Chritistians and Jews is acceptable. 'good' distortions vs 'bad' distortions. There are GOOD talibans and then there are BAD taibans.No sir, a terrorist is a terrorist and a distortion is a distortion.
If Hindu groups were after some distortion in Indian history, they should be CONDEMNED. But if they could not get their changes through because of weak lobbying power, thats a bad commentary on the democracy in the US.
Sikhs have never lobbied for changes in California, no never. HS would deny that too.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=264541
Sher
Moron you champion yourself in anti-distortion campaign yet you are the one who have distorted a lot.
Observer you are crossing the line here. i have expressed respect for you in every post but does not mean that i cannot call you a 'dickhead' or a 'loser' or 'a.h.' …or what you really are – a 'retard'.
now point out the 'distortions'.
Sher
Sach hamesha kadva hota hai. Suna tha , aaj tere reply ko dekh kar yakeen ho gaya
observer, what is this? i do not see any sach in that line just kadvaness. i asked you to point out 'distortions' and this is the reply i get.
ki ho gaya oss Observer nu jehda HS nu condemn kar reha si
come back Observer you have much more to offer in this civilised debate. do not succumb to the temptation of scoring cheap brownie points.
sher
'
@ Sher: I showed you the proof and link from Nobel Laureate, Indian and Hindu too, who very lucidly highlights how BJP AND RSS HAVE DISTORTED INDIAN HISTORY. SEEMS LIKE YOU IGNORE THE REAL FACTS WHICH IS AN INDICATION THAT YOU ARE HERE TO INFLUENCE AND SHOOT YOUR PROPAGANDA THAN GENUINE DISCUSSION. HERE'S YOUR ANOTHER CHANCE TO READ THIS FACT THAT INDIAN HISTORY IS HIGHLY DISTORTED. PERIOD.
http://w w w.friendsofsouthasia.o r g/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
Everyone should condemn any effort to distort history. This group may be Hindu, christian, sikhs, etc.
"Christian, Jewish, Islamic and the two Hindu groups submitted their edits in autumn 2005. After intensive scholarly discussions, over 500 changes proposed by Jewish and Christian groups and c. 100 changes proposed by Muslims were accepted by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the State Board of Education (SBE); these scholarly discussions extended to Jan. 6, 2006. Some 170 edits proposed by two Hindu foundations were initially accepted, supported by the reviewer, appointed by the California's Board of Education, S. Bajpai. However, 58 of them met with opposition, including major points such as the alleged equal position of women (who merely had 'other rights than men'), the denial of the religious origin and backing of the class (caste) system ever since the earliest Indian text (Rigveda 10.90), alleged monotheism ('God -his name is Bhagwan'), and the denial of the so-called 'Aryan Invasion'.[2][3]"
500 changes suggested accepted without whimper. Wholesale rewriting the history by Chritistians and Jews is acceptable. 'good' distortions vs 'bad' distortions. There are GOOD talibans and then there are BAD taibans.No sir, a terrorist is a terrorist and a distortion is a distortion.
If Hindu groups were after some distortion in Indian history, they should be CONDEMNED. But if they could not get their changes through because of weak lobbying power, thats a bad commentary on the democracy in the US.
Sikhs have never lobbied for changes in California, no never. HS would deny that too.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=264541
Sher
Moron you champion yourself in anti-distortion campaign yet you are the one who have distorted a lot.
Observer you are crossing the line here. i have expressed respect for you in every post but does not mean that i cannot call you a 'dickhead' or a 'loser' or 'a.h.' …or what you really are – a 'retard'.
now point out the 'distortions'.
Sher
Sach hamesha kadva hota hai. Suna tha , aaj tere reply ko dekh kar yakeen ho gaya
observer, what is this? i do not see any sach in that line just kadvaness. i asked you to point out 'distortions' and this is the reply i get.
ki ho gaya oss Observer nu jehda HS nu condemn kar reha si
come back Observer you have much more to offer in this civilised debate. do not succumb to the temptation of scoring cheap brownie points.
sher
'
@ Sher: I showed you the proof and link from Nobel Laureate, Indian and Hindu too, who very lucidly highlights how BJP AND RSS HAVE DISTORTED INDIAN HISTORY. SEEMS LIKE YOU IGNORE THE REAL FACTS WHICH IS AN INDICATION THAT YOU ARE HERE TO INFLUENCE AND SHOOT YOUR PROPAGANDA THAN GENUINE DISCUSSION. HERE'S YOUR ANOTHER CHANCE TO READ THIS FACT THAT INDIAN HISTORY IS HIGHLY DISTORTED. PERIOD.
http://w w w.friendsofsouthasia.o r g/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
"Please do not compare the situation of Muslims in Europe today with the Jews of the 1930s. The Jews were well assimilated into society and were not going around blowing people up"
—————-^
My grandad, in the 1930's, move into what was then the heart of the UK's Sikh community ; The East End of London. That same East End was at that time a Jewish ghetto that housed even more Jews than New York's lower east side. Those same Jews, lived and wanted to live seperate from the mainstream……they wanted their children to receive a Jewish education away from non-jews so established Jewish schools…….their children were known as street savvy so were famous for being boxers and criminals……and as they moved slightly north to the neighbouring London borough they eastablished an understanding with the local police, local authorities and courts to establish a form of their own Jewish Law to settle disputes within the community. A practice still in place in that Stamford Hill area.
***I wish I knew how some people manage to post such long messages here. I'm constantly told to split my messages in two. Which obviously leaves both messages making not much sense and disjointed. Anyway……heres the bit that was supposed to fit at the end of the message above***
So you see…….if we learn one thing from history it is the fact that we learn nothing from history. History is repeating itself. Right under our very eyes we are sitting idly by whilst a minority community is vilified and discriminated against. (the muslims). If we let it happen, we are fools if we think we won't be next.
Why has this forum in the last few weeks become a Sikh Vs Hindu Ranh?
SIkhism relates to Punjab…and there is no tradtion in old punjab for muslim women to wear the extreme forms of the burqa..the less extreme forms were worn by Sikh and Hindu women even as recently as the sixties ( I have seen pictures)..the hijab is a wahabi arab outfit, and it is sad the post 9/11 generation have run towards it…as far as France goes…there is a danger they will ban the Dastaar next
"Please do not compare the situation of Muslims in Europe today with the Jews of the 1930s. The Jews were well assimilated into society and were not going around blowing people up"
—————-^
My grandad, in the 1930's, move into what was then the heart of the UK's Sikh community ; The East End of London. That same East End was at that time a Jewish ghetto that housed even more Jews than New York's lower east side. Those same Jews, lived and wanted to live seperate from the mainstream……they wanted their children to receive a Jewish education away from non-jews so established Jewish schools…….their children were known as street savvy so were famous for being boxers and criminals……and as they moved slightly north to the neighbouring London borough they eastablished an understanding with the local police, local authorities and courts to establish a form of their own Jewish Law to settle disputes within the community. A practice still in place in that Stamford Hill area.
***I wish I knew how some people manage to post such long messages here. I'm constantly told to split my messages in two. Which obviously leaves both messages making not much sense and disjointed. Anyway……heres the bit that was supposed to fit at the end of the message above***
So you see…….if we learn one thing from history it is the fact that we learn nothing from history. History is repeating itself. Right under our very eyes we are sitting idly by whilst a minority community is vilified and discriminated against. (the muslims). If we let it happen, we are fools if we think we won't be next.
Why has this forum in the last few weeks become a Sikh Vs Hindu Ranh?
SIkhism relates to Punjab…and there is no tradtion in old punjab for muslim women to wear the extreme forms of the burqa..the less extreme forms were worn by Sikh and Hindu women even as recently as the sixties ( I have seen pictures)..the hijab is a wahabi arab outfit, and it is sad the post 9/11 generation have run towards it…as far as France goes…there is a danger they will ban the Dastaar next
@ Sher: I showed you the proof and link from Nobel Laureate, Indian and Hindu too, who very lucidly highlights how BJP AND RSS HAVE DISTORTED INDIAN HISTORY. SEEMS LIKE YOU IGNORE THE REAL FACTS WHICH IS AN INDICATION THAT YOU ARE HERE TO INFLUENCE AND SHOOT YOUR PROPAGANDA THAN GENUINE DISCUSSION. HERE'S YOUR ANOTHER CHANCE TO READ THIS FACT THAT INDIAN HISTORY IS HIGHLY DISTORTED. PERIOD.
http://w w w.friendsofsouthasia.o r g/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
@ Sher: I showed you the proof and link from Nobel Laureate, Indian and Hindu too, who very lucidly highlights how BJP AND RSS HAVE DISTORTED INDIAN HISTORY. SEEMS LIKE YOU IGNORE THE REAL FACTS WHICH IS AN INDICATION THAT YOU ARE HERE TO INFLUENCE AND SHOOT YOUR PROPAGANDA THAN GENUINE DISCUSSION. HERE'S YOUR ANOTHER CHANCE TO READ THIS FACT THAT INDIAN HISTORY IS HIGHLY DISTORTED. PERIOD.
http://w w w.friendsofsouthasia.o r g/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html