tonyhp32

Islam was founded on a conspiracy theory, that Jews were given a scripture which they then corrupted and that Jesus was a 'prophet' of Allah and not the Son of God. Here's a collection of the better known Islamic conspiracy theories. Even the Shia seem to not be immune from conspiracy theories either-; http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Conspiracy_Theories

Conspiracy theories and Islam go hand and hand so there's no surprise that Pakistanis don't want to face the facts and hide behind conspiracy theories. One of the interesting things that are happening in Mumbai is that many people are taking the politicians to task. In my view this is solely because for the first time terrorists have hit foreigners and the middle classes rather than just solely hit the poor such as in the usual train or market bombings. These middle classes never batted an eyelid when the poor were bombed but now they have become targets then suddenly you see 'enough is enough' protests taking place. There is also a new hyper jingoism coming out of Mumbai and many people there are confusing the country they live in with the United States. They think that India can take out terrorist training camps similar to the way the USA responded to the Embassy bombings and 9/11!

It's a publicity stunt. Islamic clerics have no problem with burying suicide bombers who blow up women and children in Israel or even in the UK. It's not anything to do with Saudi money or no Saudi money, the Indian Muslims know that they have to behave for the next few months and not antagonise the Hindus otherwise they get a repeat of what happened in Gujarat after Godhra.

Nice to know that Murga still considers the Portuguese as 'his people', it's difficult to know who his people are because I assumed it depends on what Bhes is flavour of the month with him. Let's not even get into the topic of the Portuguese contribution in history..slave trade..forcible conversion of natives..genocide in their colonies..etc.

My people built Southall. So I didn't include them in the list of undesirables here. What positive contribution have the portuguese made here? Apart from having a portuguese tranny win Big Brother!

China had a Sikh community before 1948 when the Communists took over, most were there due to the British requiring soldiers and police in the areas under their control. There used to be a large Gurdwara in Shanghai. There were small trading communities of Sikhs and Hindus in Central Asia, they were mainly Aroras such as the ones you get in Afghanistan. I recall reading about them but owing to the upheaval of the Russian takeover of Central Asia in the 1840s they either moved back or assimilated into the local population. Interestingly enough the two main trading communities of Sikhs, Khatris and Aroras tended to move in different directions from Punjab. The Khatris moved into eastern and central India whilst the Aroras tended to move into Afghanistan and from thence into Central Asia.

Southall's gone downhill since the early 90s. Somalis, Pakistani and Eastern Europeans have moved into the area and created their own gehttos. eastern europeans for the most part tend to be hard working but Somalis and Pakistanis leech off the state and most of the council estates are full to the brim with them. Possibly the only group that has moved to Southall in the last decade and which makes a positive contribution is the Afghani Sikhs. The Ismailis have a large mosque just outside Southall in Northolt and for the most part they keep to themselves but are hated by the normal Sunni Pakistanis.

The term Hindustan used in Guru Nanak's bani does not refer to the Indian subcontinent as we know it or even the Indian state. Hindustan at that time meant the empire of the Lodhis which at that time consisted of the strip of land running across northern India from Bengal to Punjab. It probably consisted of at it's maximum extent about 15-20% of the present Indian subcontinent. Also the concept of the nation state was unknown so it is not wise to ascribe concepts such as these to that time. As for Khalistan, the present Indian state is a British creation and the name itself is taken by the British from the Greek Indica. Apart from a spell under when it formed parts of an Empire, India has never been united country.

Vaar 41 pauri 17 refers to the demise of Islam with the expressions-; Nawaj Darood Na Faita Na Lad Kataie We can guess what Lad Katna means!

Kamalroop, I don't think that you can use the Panth Pranvit Rehat Maryada in the case of Kesh as one of the 5 K's against the AKJ as Nihangs also go against the Rehat maryada when they use sukha as well as installing Dasam Granth alongside Guru Granth Sahib. All in all the blog seems to be inspired by an agenda against AKJ. The constant association of Teja Singh Bhasaur with AkJ is a favourite with UK nangs. They've been flogging that dead horse for ages.

It's easier to administer poison in small doses than it is all at once. If the website had used their oxymoronic hyphenation Hindu-Sikh at the beginning then there would have been very few takers for their drivel so they came up with a seemingly neutral term Sanatan and added Sikh to it and used it in their fairy tales of hidden knowledge, secret texts and that supreme catch all which can be used when no reference is available Baba blah blah of blah blah samparda says this! They are now confident that the ones they have hoodwinked into their cult are now so far removed from the Sikh mainstream that they will never be able to leave them and rejoin it. Their game with most Sikh youth is now up so there is no need for them to maintain any pretence in the hope of new recruits.

The article 'Hindu Sikh Warrior Women' shows the agenda of the writer who according to the website is Niddar Singh. The article constantly terms these women as Hindu Sikh Warrior women but the 'ancient' texts that he uses as reference refers to these women as 'Singhnia'. How's that for rewriting history! The word Hindu may at one stage been a word of abuse used by the Muslims for the idolators of India. Later most probably during the middle ages these idolators accepted that term and appropriated it. It could have been similar to how African Americans have appropriated the N word amongst themselves. So rather than just a term of abuse for idolaters, it became a term for those who were non-Muslim. With the rise of Sikhi the term again became restricted to both non-Muslims and non-Sikhs. Contrary to the pet theory of people like BA, Hindu has been a religious term rather than a geographic term at least in Northern India since the times of the Bhagats. Words can change meaning over time, our friend Jattboot who doesn't understand that his list for the Queen are all CURRENT terms and not terms which have lost their meaning over time. If to that list of the Queen he added Elizabeth of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg Then he will realise how ridiculous his list would seem to most people as this was the royal family's line before they changed it to Windsor and is never used.

The theory that the word Hindu means slave is not a www theory. It's at least 100 years old. Dayanand hated the use of the term hence his founding of the Arya Samaj and asking his followers to use that term and not Hindu as he viewed that as being a term of abuse. In the last 1900s the Arya Samaj leadership again reiterated that the term Hindu was a term of abuse and that Hindus should stop using that term. As for the website there is nothing wrong with a website updating information but on something as basic as the name of the 'ancient' martial art surely they could have got the name right the first time round. The same goes for the name for the Akharas. It doesn't do much for their credibility.

What a difference a year makes! Last year before Northern Rock people were saying that houses could only ever go up, Banks would never go under etc. Now everyone thinks that it's the end of the world as we know it.

I don't recall their Akharas being called 'Shiv' Akharas on the previous website. The title 'Sanatan Hindu Sikh Shastarvidya' seems to be new as well. I suppose that's one of the advantages of being a make-it-up-as-we-go-along Parampara!

I think you got it wrong. What BA was saying was that some Shia sects have an 'initiation' ceremony and so does the Khalsa, then it follows that Nihangs are similar to the Hashashin, Guru Nanak was a Shia and Iran is the centre of the universe! It's easy to see how he came to these conclusion, he being a great scholar and an 'alim' amongst the Sikhs! That's why one should never take at face value any claim made of forums and it should also be incumbent on the moderators to make someone who makes such controversial statements to give references that can be checked.

Shaheediyan, I think you need to wake up and understand that the world outside is not the utopia that you wish it to be. I find it astonishing that someone in this day and age can seriously be doubtful of the mischief that a Muslim population can cause in any democratic state. Thankfully the Sikhs of 1947 weren't caught up in the PC mess that you seem to be caught up in. You might wish to read up on what is happening in Holland at the moment, where a liberal democratic tradition that has helped all and sundry and been welcoming of all cultures finds itself under siege from the ever increasing demands of Muslims. Just a few days ago two Neo-Nazi parties became the largest bloc in the Austrian parliament. This is the shape of things to come in Europe. As for my views on Islam, I make no secret of them, if you find them not to your liking then that's your problem.

Chatanga1 A few years after partition the Muslims of West Pakistan started to attack Qadianis, so you are right, if you start off with the mentality that violence will get you what you want then you will take that lesson to all situations.

Shaheediyan, Islamophobe.. Nazi.. do you have any more insults for me? It's funny how most of the people who try to occupy the so-called moral high ground are the ones who trade the most insults! As Mithar veerji said, it wasn't purely a case of Muslims attacking in West Punjab and Sikhs attacking in East Punjab, the Muslims were aggressors even in areas of East Punjab. There are no cases of Sikhs actually attacking Muslim villages in West Punjab even though in many areas of West Punjab such as Nili bar, Lyallpur and Gujranwala the Sikhs had local majorities and could have easily created an East Punjab type situation for the Muslims in these areas as well. The Sikh reaction was a consequence of Muslim attacks in both West and East Punjab. In Amritsar the Muslims attacked the Sikh and Hindu areas of the city as well as waylaying Sikh villagers visiting the city. It's easy to understand why at partition this district was one of the worst affected by the violence when the Sikhs took revenge for the Muslim violence. In Ludhiana district the 'bet' area along the river Satluj was inhabited mostly by Muslims and here too Muslims from these villages attacked Sikhs going through this area. These Muslims when they were evacuated were attacked by Jathas along the GT road on the way to Ferozpur. In Haryana area, the Meo Muslims had attacked Hindu Jat villages around Delhi. Another factor that needs to be considered is that after the way the Muslims had massacred the Sikhs and Hindus around Rawalpindi, the Muslim leadership was ecstatic that the the Muslims had been able to kill Sikhs without any reaction from the Sikhs. The Muslim League propaganda was that the Sikhs had grown weak in the last 50 years due to the prosperity they had enjoyed in the Canal colonies. The Sikhs were being presented as a walk over and this is clear from the intelligence reports from the British. This is what made the Muslim League think that they could take through violence the whole of the Punjab rather than having to accept a partition through diplomacy. The Rawalpindi massacres were a continuation of the policy of 'direct action' that the Muslim League had started in Calcutta in 1946. The Sikh leadership were not just able to evacuate in an orderly manner most of of the Sikhs of West Punjab but were able through retaliatory violence clear areas of East Punjab so that these Sikh refugees were able to resettle. The Muslims were so taken aback by the Sikh violence that the Pakistan government even put out propaganda after Partition that the Sikhs had a plan which had been agreed by all Sikh leaders. For some time after Partition, the Muslims in the border areas of West Punjab feared that any minute the Sikh Jathas would invade Pakistan to take back the lands that the Sikhs had lost. It's easy to sit behind a computer and criticise the way the Sikhs reacted to the events unfolding in front of their eyes. It's much more difficult to read up and educate yourself about what the options were and how the Sikhs were faced with a do or die situation.

Instead of just ranting why don't you try and understand the situation that you are trying to comment on. Is exterminating and ethnically cleansing an entire population from your midst solely because they are of a different religion and they own all the best lands and the industrial complexes the same as doing the same to another group so that you can provide space from those fleeing the first ethnic cleansing? Is there any difference between the ones who started the massacres and the ones who responded as a means of self preservation? Going by your logic the Sikhs are guilty because they should have just stayed non-violent and today we would have around 20-25 % Muslim population in our Punjab. Of course these Muslims would have been model citizens just as their co-religionists in Thailand, Phillipines, Chechnya and the like. No one said that innocent people deserves what they gets, but historically if you don't see anything morally wrong in killing and driving out others then the likelihood is that it will get ingrained in your culture, if it was not there already. If you don't have many non-Muslims to kill then you look for differences in other Muslims so that you can get an outlet for your murderous traits.

Quite right and most of the blood that was shed in that country in 1947 was Sikh! Interestingly the nuclear facilities which the internationally community is so worried about are based around the town of Kahuta where the whole population of Sikhs and Hindus were wiped out by the Muslims.

This is some Shia Imam who gave a prayer reading at the democratic party national committee. Hannity had him on Fox news to explain what he had said at the end of the prayer reading. Here he is on fox news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrP1Ta1a43A...feature=related I particularly like the Imam's impression of Robert De Niro 'you taking to me?' And a day later on radio

Shaheediyan, You stated yourself that he believes that Guru Nanak was a Muslim. Now how is this any different from what our mutual friend bahadur has had to say on the subject. No where in Gurbani or in Sikh Ithehaas does Guru Nanak say that he was a Muslim. I know it's quite fashionable nowadays to not take a tough line on anything for fear of being labeled a fanaticl or some peoples' favourite insult on here, taleban. Maybe the Sufis define a Muslim differently but all Muslims agree that to be a Muslim you must accept Mohammed as the final prophet. Since nowhere in Sikh history or Gurbani do the Gurus accept such a claim then this Pir chappy is clearly telling lies. Whether they are lies which have been told for many years within his tradition or new ones he dreamed up is immaterial. A lie is a lie. Maybe some here can rationalise the lies of the Pir and give them a meaning other than the commonly accepted meaning but in my eyes he's a blatant liar. As for my hatred of Muslims, can you point to where i have said I hated Muslims? Just pointing out someones bad point whether it be an individual or even a whole religion does not amount to hatred of that individual or religion.

Unfortunately it has become trendy nowadays to travel many miles just to have a so-called darshan of some descendant of Bhai Mardana or some spiritual descendant of Mian Mir. What we forget is that Sikhi gives no special status to any of these descendants and most of the visits of these descendants are just money making schemes. Sikhs will willingly hand over hundreds of pounds to these kinds of people but will be stingy when it comes to making any donations to worthwhile Sikh causes.

First of all it surprises me that any decent Sikh would want to live in a shythole like Iran. Mind you these Sikhs went in the 1920s, so they had no idea of what a shythole Iran was to become a half century later, so they can be forgiven for settling in a dump like that. I read a few years ago that many Sikhs had left because the mickey mouse money they use in Iran is worth slightly more than monopoly money! If the Iranians are so fanatical that they don't want to recogise a religion because it came after their own desert faith then that is their problem and not the Sikhs. Stealing and looting is against the core beliefs of the Islamic republic! That has to be the biggest joke ever! What a hypocrite, his final prophet raided caravans, evicted peaceful Jews and confiscated their properties and allowed his followers to rape captured women prisoners and he lectures others on ethics!