Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences

[ronki23]

I wasn't comparing Hindu deities to the FSG. It was a stand alone example.



What do you base this statement on? Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was the only book given Gurgaddi by Guru Gobind Singh himself. So why should the DG with it's multitude of pr0n stories be held higher?

Unless of course you're just **** stirring.

I mean that apart from Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Dasam Granth is supposed to be given more importance than any other book be that Bible,Qu'ran or Geeta. Heck, as it's religion it should be held of more importance than science books.

And you still didn't address why 2 of the Gurus gave their sons to Baba Sri Chand.

Neither has anyone looked at the Rama or Krishna quotes. I guess one could say that the quotes of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are metaphors but one could interpret them as existing entities below Waheguru. But the quotes on Rama and Krishna weren't really addressed as I also provided the before/after verses

I would have agreed that Sikhism is completely independent of Hinduism if I looked at the beliefs, but when I see the history of the religion and how Udasis chose Hinduism or how 1 in 5 or even 1 in 3 visitors to a Gurudwara is Hindu, and how Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab intermarried (I say married as nowadays, as India is basically a Western nation in its core values I see Sikhs marrying whomever they want to),it makes you wonder.

By the way I couldn't find any quotes on Muhammad in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. I only found 1. But again, if Sikhism is a mixture of Hinduism and Islam (at face value of course) why do you not get Islamified Sikhism like you get Hinduised Sikhism.

I am assuming Treks, that as you are not Indian, you are not to fussed about the Khalistan movement? Because some quotes say Tara Singh wanted a Khalistan because he saw Jinnah's idea, while other quotes say he decided to stay with India after all. I see a lot of Sikhs criticizing him online. How did he know there'd be violence if Sikhs stayed in Pakistan? Simply by reading Sri Guru Granth Sahib and seeing how the ancestors of Pakistani Muslims and the ancestors of Sikhs went to war???

 

[Treks]

Sikhs DO NOT view Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the book above all books in the entire world. It is their one and only sacred scripture. It is for a spiritual purpose. Science books are for science. The two don't cross over and neither does one have "upmanship" over the other.

For a Sikh, the DG should be at the same level as any other book. There are some Sikhs who put it at par with Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It's unfortunate but it's their perogative.

I'm not concerned with the Guru's sons. I'm sure everyone had their reasons for doing what they did at the time (political or otherwise). But that doesn't impact on Sikhi today.

I would address your quotes, but I think you're unlikely to accept any of my explanations (as has been the case thus far). I think this is called 'cognitive bias'.

I would have agreed that Sikhism is completely independent of Hinduism if I looked at the beliefs...

Sikhi was not born in a vacuum, and Sikhs don't live their lives in a bubble. Of course they are going to interact with people of other religions. This does not say ANYTHING about what Sikhi is actually about. You actually have to study it to find that out.

What does Muhammad have to do with the difference between Sikhi and Hinduism?

What does Khalistan have to do with your thread? I've already given my thoughts around Khalistan.

 

[ronki23]

Sikhs DO NOT view Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the book above all books in the entire world. It is their one and only sacred scripture. It is for a spiritual purpose. Science books are for science. The two don't cross over and neither does one have "upmanship" over the other.

For a Sikh, the DG should be at the same level as any other book. There are some Sikhs who put it at par with Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It's unfortunate but it's their perogative.

I'm not concerned with the Guru's sons. I'm sure everyone had their reasons for doing what they did at the time (political or otherwise). But that doesn't impact on Sikhi today.

I would address your quotes, but I think you're unlikely to accept any of my explanations (as has been the case thus far). I think this is called 'cognitive bias'.



Sikhi was not born in a vacuum, and Sikhs don't live their lives in a bubble. Of course they are going to interact with people of other religions. This does not say ANYTHING about what Sikhi is actually about. You actually have to study it to find that out.

What does Muhammad have to do with the difference between Sikhi and Hinduism?

What does Khalistan have to do with your thread? I've already given my thoughts around Khalistan.

Ok, i'll give you a brief example here

I have a Sudanese Muslim friend. He won't eat anything with vinegar or wine in it as that was originally alcohol. Even though I told him that cooking denatures alcohol.

As well as this Sudanese friend, I have many Muslim friends who won't eat pork because their religion says so. Yet cooking pork destroys the bacteria in it.

or the many Dharmics who won't eat eggs even though eggs are unfertilized.

This is how people hold their religion above all else, even science.

Use extreme examples and you get people strapping bombs on their children or hijacking planes and believing they'll go to heaven if they kill innocent people to prove a point.

And I brought up Muhammad because Sri Guru Granth Sahib brings up Hinduism and Islam, and frequently mentions Rama, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Krishna, Ganesh,and Durga. But we have only one mention of Muhammad.
We get Udasis and in India you get Hindu Punjabis marrying Sikhs, and you get Hindus and Sikhs celebrating Diwali together and even Baisakhi (not a Hindu festival) and Rakhi and Lohri (which are not Sikh festivals).

Yet you do not get much information about Islam and Muhammad AT ALL. Even though it contributed to Sikhism. I found only these (two of which aren't even in Sri Guru Granth Sahib).


ਹੋਇ ਮੁਸਲਿਮੁ ਦੀਨ ਮੁਹਾਣੈ ਮਰਣ ਜੀਵਣ ਕਾ ਭਰਮੁ ਚੁਕਾਵੈ ॥
होइ मुसलिमु दीन मुहाणै मरण जीवण का भरमु चुकावै ॥
Ho▫e muslim ḏīn muhāṇai maraṇ jīvaṇ kā bẖaram cẖukẖāvai.
Becoming a true Muslim, a disciple of the faith of Mohammed, let him put aside the delusion of death and life.

ਮਹਾਦੀਨ ਕੇਤੇ ਪ੝ਰਿਥੀ ਮਾਂਝ ਹੂਝ ॥ ਸਮੈ ਆਪਨੀ ਆਪਨੀ ਅੰਤ ਮੂਝ ॥੨੭॥
Many Muhammads had been on the earth. They were born and then died in their own times

ਮਹਾਦੀਨ ਤਬ ਪ੝ਰਭ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਅਰਬ ਦੇਸ ਕੋ ਕੀਨੋ ਰਾਜਾ ॥੨੬॥
Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.

All I can find is one measly wikipedia section which is on the page about Master Tara Singh. And it's poorly worded. It's not the best site to use

Tara Singh appealed to all Sikhs to stop and prevent all violence, and focus on helping the refugees arriving from Pakistan. The only Muslim district that was spared in East Punjab was Malerkotla thanks to Guru Gobind Singh Ji (the ruler of Malerkotla was the only one to speak out against the torture of his two youngest sons in Sirhind) no Muslims were killed there. Malerkotla was the only safe haven for Muslims. The Muslims who were living in villages close by Malerkotla were not spared and were hacked to pieces to scare the Malerkotla residents to leave the village and fall in their trap. There were two Sikh warriors from the village of Malerkotla who protected the Muslims and warned other angry Sikhs to not even look at Malerkotla with a dirty look. 4,000 Muslims were saved and lived happliy in Malerkolta. There has not been one wrong incident until this day in Malerkotla. The Muslim residents respect and honour Guru Gobind Singh Ji and on 13 April the birth of Sikhism, Muslims pray and celebrate along with Sikhs.

In the 1940s, a prolonged negotiation transpired between the British and the three Indian groups seeking political power, namely, the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs. During this period Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi stated that a resolution was adopted by the Congress to satisfy the Sikh community.[22] Jawaharlal Nehru reiterated Gandhi's assurance to the Sikhs at the All India Congress Committee meeting in Calcutta in 1946.[23] Nehru assured the Sikhs that they would be allowed to function as a semi-autonomous unit so that they may have a sense of freedom.[24] A resolution passed by the Indian Constituent Assembly on 9 December 1946 envisaged the Union of India as an "independent sovereign republic, comprising autonomous units with residuary powers".[25] During a press conference on 10 July 1946 in Bombay, Nehru made a controversial statement to the effect that the Congress may "change or modify" the federal arrangement agreed upon for independent India for the betterment towards a united India; this claim outraged many. Some separatist Sikhs felt that they had been "tricked" into joining the Indian union. On 21 November 1949, during the review of the draft of the Indian Constitution, Hukam Singh, a Sikh representative, declared to the Constituent Assembly:[26]
"

Naturally, under these circumstances, as I have stated, the Sikhs feel utterly disappointed and frustrated. They feel that they have been discriminated against. Let it not be misunderstood that the Sikh community has agreed to this [Indian] Constitution. I wish to record an emphatic protest here. My community cannot subscribe its assent to this historic document.
​

 

[ronki23]

Old Post

Firstly I am hesitant to post on this because the more new posts there are, the more my older posts are forgotten- particularly I wanted to know what happened to Khalistan in 1947 because I read that upon seeing Pakistan being created, Tara Singh also wanted an independent Sikh state and many Sikhs agreed; then Master Singh changed his mind and/or Nehru said 'no'. How did Master Singh know that the Sikhs would be unable to live under Muslim rule and how did he know that there would be violence upon partition? Remember that Sikhs had their own independent country before this.

And how do you view the Khalistan movement? There's a spectrum one can view it:

-Bhindranwale wanted Sikhs to avoid the vices of life like tobacco,alcohol,pr0n and gambling and the Khalistan movement (wrongfully attributed to Bhindranwale) was because the Sikhs did not like being under Hindu rule. Bhindranwale wanted a Punjab that was religious/that preserved Sikhism and the passing of Anandpur Sahib.

-Nelson Mandela fought against apartheid and like Bhindranwale was imprisoned.

-Yasser Arafat was originally an extremist but won the Nobel Peace Prize for the Oslo accords. He negotiated boundaries with Israel

-Ayatollah Khomeini led the Iranian Revolution because he did not like seeing a secular Persia that also had links with Israel. No vices and religion and state were one

-Osama bin Laden also wanted Muslims to rise up against corruption and fight. The Taliban was a fascist dictatorship. Again, no alcohol,drugs or public displays of fornication

and finally there is not that much mention of Islam in the stories of Sikhism except about Guru Nanak visiting Makkah and the Ka'ba moving at his feet. And how Bhai Mardana and Guru Nanak's wife were Muslim. But both converted didn't they? And if this is true, why can't Sikhs visit Makkah if Guru Nanak wen there (this is a naive question). And why is there no Muslim equivalent to Udaism (Hindu-Sikh mixture)? There's hardly any information on Muhammad and whether Sikhs think he was good/bad (afaik he recaptured Makkah from the pagans and unified the local tribes under Islam. He did not fight against the Makkans and he fled to Medina as he was in danger of getting killed).

New Post

I was searching through Sri Guru Granth Sahib the other day and I found this very strange:

[SIZE=+1]ਸੀਸੁ ਧਰਨਿ ਸਹਸ ਭਗ ਗਾਂਮੀ ॥੪॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]सीसु धरनि सहस भग गांमी ॥४॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Sīs ḏẖaran sahas bẖag gāʼnmī. ||4||[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Shiva cut off Brahma's head, Brahma's head got stuck to Shiva's hand, and Indra came to bear the marks of a thousand female organs. ||4||[/SIZE]

 

[Treks]

This is how people hold their religion above all else, even science.

Give me an example from Sikhi. Some people will hold their religion above all else. Sikhi is a pragmatic way of life that embraces science in all it's glory and in it's rightful place. I'm not understanding the relevance of this to the thread, though.

But we have only one mention of Muhammad.

Try searching for "Allah". There are some beauties in there for you. But again, it doesn't matter, the poetry is not actually talking about these characters as real beings.

Example:

ਭੈਰਉ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
Bẖairo mėhlā 5.
Bhairo 5th Guru.

ਵਰਤ ਨ ਰਹਉ ਨ ਮਹ ਰਮਦਾਨਾ ॥
varaṯ na raha▫o na mah ramḏānā.
I practise not fasting, not observe I the month of Ramzan.

ਤਿਸੁ ਸੇਵੀ ਜੋ ਰਖੈ ਨਿਦਾਨਾ ॥੧॥
Ŧis sevī jo rakẖai niḏānā. ||1||
I serve Him alone, who will save me in the end.

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥
Ėk gusā▫ī alhu merā.
The One Lord of the world is my God.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Hinḏū ṯurak ḏuhāʼn neberā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
He ministers justice to both the Hindus and Muslims. Pause.

ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥
Haj kābai jā▫o na ṯirath pūjā.
I go not on pilgrimage to Mecca, nor worship I at the holies.

ਏਕੋ ਸੇਵੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ॥੨॥
Ėko sevī avar na ḏūjā. ||2||
I serve only the one Lord and not any other.

ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਉ ਨ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਉ ॥
Pūjā kara▫o na nivāj gujāra▫o.
I perform not Hindu worship, nor offer I Muslim prayer.

ਏਕ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਉ ॥੩॥
Ėk nirankār le riḏai namaskāra▫o. ||3||
Taking the One Formless Lord into my mind, I make obeisance unto Him there.

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥
Nā ham hinḏū na musalmān.
I am neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim.

ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥
Alah rām ke pind parān. ||4||
My body and soul belong to Him, who is called God of Muslims and the Lord of Hindus.

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹੁ ਕੀਆ ਵਖਾਨਾ ॥
Kaho Kabīr ih kī▫ā vakẖānā.
Says Kabir, this wise utter I the truth,

ਗੁਰ ਪੀਰ ਮਿਲਿ ਖੁਦਿ ਖਸਮੁ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥੫॥੩॥
Gur pīr mil kẖuḏ kẖasam pacẖẖānā. ||5||3||
that meeting with the Guru the Prophet, I have realised my Lord.

Here's the full panna: Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib

Yet you do not get much information about Islam and Muhammad AT ALL. Even though it contributed to Sikhism.

What exactly do you mean by 'contributed'?

It might help you to think about the Gurus' times and as them being people set apart from the religious status-quo of the time (be it local Hindus or invading/ruling Muslims), but talking to those people and trying to use their language and symbols to teach them something else.

I was searching through Sri Guru Granth Sahib the other day and I found this very strange:

[SIZE=+1]ਸੀਸੁ ਧਰਨਿ ਸਹਸ ਭਗ ਗਾਂਮੀ ॥੪॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]सीसु धरनि सहस भग गांमी ॥४॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Sīs ḏẖaran sahas bẖag gāʼnmī. ||4||[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Shiva cut off Brahma's head, Brahma's head got stuck to Shiva's hand, and Indra came to bear the marks of a thousand female organs. ||4||[/SIZE]

This is from a shabad about lust. Why did you post it? If you want to understand why Bhagat Ravi Das listed it, look up the corresponding Hindu stories. And here is the full shabad Sri Granth: Shabad/Paurhi/Salok SGGS Page 710

Actually I found something on this for you:

“Gotam naar umaapat savaamee. sees Dharan sahas bhag gaaNmee.” Then Bhagatji gives some examples from Indian methology about being fallen from grace. Bhagatji says, “Gotam naar.” There was a saint called Gautam and his wife’s name was Ahalia, naar means the wife of. The wife of Gautam, Ahalia, had fallen prey to desire with the king of the God’s, of the Devtay Indar’s in Indian methology. What Bhagatji is saying is, “Gotam naar; the wife of such a saint was prey to Kaam, to lust, umaapat savaamee.” Umaa is talking about Parvati, who was the wife of Shiva, pat means husband, savaame means Lord. Even Shiva was enticed away from his meditation through lust. According to Indian mythology when the world was churned up all the universes were churned up there was an incarnation of Vishnu called Mohni who was so beautiful that she enticed Shivaji away from his meditation. “Sees Dharan sahas bhag gaaNmee.” Brahma who is known as the creative being in the Indian methology, also fell prey to lust over his own daughter, according to the mythology. Sees Dharan means he created five heads for himself out of that lust to look at his daughter, according to the methology. “Sahas bhag gaaNmee.” Bhag is the female genital organ. What is said is that when the king of the Gods, Indra, had sexual relationships with the wife of Gautam he was cursed by Gautam to have all his body covered in the female organs. Now what Bhagatji is saying in all of this by giving these examples is that, “All these beings have fallen prey to these desires. Look how they have fallen down.” Bhagatji is saying. This is not a worship of those beings. Do not get confused. Bhagatji is showing their weaknesses and saying, “These weaknesses are in us as well.” That’s why Bhagatji has mentioned this. "

I don't understand your quotes about Sikhs not liking Hindus.

 

[ronki23]

Give me an example from Sikhi. Some people will hold their religion above all else. Sikhi is a pragmatic way of life that embraces science in all it's glory and in it's rightful place. I'm not understanding the relevance of this to the thread, though.



Try searching for "Allah". There are some beauties in there for you. But again, it doesn't matter, the poetry is not actually talking about these characters as real beings.

Example:


Here's the full panna: Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib



What exactly do you mean by 'contributed'?

It might help you to think about the Gurus' times and as them being people set apart from the religious status-quo of the time (be it local Hindus or invading/ruling Muslims), but talking to those people and trying to use their language and symbols to teach them something else.



This is from a shabad about lust. Why did you post it? If you want to understand why Bhagat Ravi Das listed it, look up the corresponding Hindu stories. And here is the full shabad Sri Granth: Shabad/Paurhi/Salok SGGS Page 710

Actually I found something on this for you:



I don't understand your quotes about Sikhs not liking Hindus.

Regarding the way yu treat things in Sikhism; you say a book is the final Guru, you must wash yourself and cover your head in the presence of it, you clean the room with milk, you put it to sleep and wake it up, you fan it like a King, and you cremate it when it can not be used. Of course I refer to Sri Guru Granth Sahib and not Dasam Granth Sahib but you should also hold it in high regard. Of course this is not a living person so this is where religion pervades science (nothing wrong with this). It is also akin to idol worship as Hindus say God resides in murtis but scientifically this is not true; we use it to represent God in our prayers and show our beliefs. During Bhij women cover their head in front of the deities and will give them 'bindi'. We know God's not really there. Same goes for Islam where they ensure the Qu'ran is held above all other books and kept pristine.

And what I mean is that the information I provided criticising Rama and Krishna shows that online Sikhs don't like Hindus. More aimed toward our resident Hindus who know about Rama and Krishna

What was the problem with Banda Singh Bahadr? Was there not a split akin to Sunnis and Shias in Sikhism regarding whether he was/was not a Guru?

And last but not least, why did THREE gurus' sons choose Hinduism? Two of which were provided by their fathers to Baba Sri Chand. As Udaism is a Hinduised form of Sikhi, is there no Islamic 'version'? I assume Bhai Mardana and Guru Nanak's wife converted from Islam to Sikhism. I was looking up Muhammad as 'Allah' is only the Arabic word for God so I wanted to read what Sikhs thought of Muhammad and the Prophets of Islam. I do not fully know of Muhammad except that he fought pagans and Jews from other tribes to preach the right religion and to reclaim Makah from the non Muslims (which was done peacefully).

@Aupmanyav @Breathe @Poeticus @GURSIKH @Jaskaran @Treks @Sb1995 @Satnaam - also look at below

 

[ronki23]

More on Sikh criticisms on Rama and Krsna

More on Krishna and Rama criticisms- Refuting Rashtriya Sikh Sangat (RSS) | Search Sikhism Home Page

In Bhagvat Purana chapter 10, section 22 says that once Krishna saw women taking bath in the river. So he went there and stole their clothes and made them come outside naked to get their clothes. When they did he forced them to mate with him. What kind of God would do that? Is this the kind of love God gives to his children? In the same chapter section 60 says that Krishna had 16,108 wives and Radha was not one of them. Each wife gave birth to 10 sons and one daughter means that Krishna had 161,080 sons and 16,108 daughters. So all together he had 177188 children. This shows how lustful Krishna was and RSS is trying to compare him with the greatest of all, Guru Gobind Singh Ji?
God is not lustful at all. Guru Ji has taught us to overcome the five thieves including Lust, Anger, Greed, Emotional Attachment and Pride (Egotism). If Guru Ji were incarnation of Krishna, Guru Ji would have never taught us this concept. If we learn the message of the Gurus then we can understand that the Guru Ji were never incarnation of anyone. Guru Ji was one with God and showed us the same path He followed. Look at some of the following quotes regarding Krishna:

ਕਹਾ ਭਯੋ ਜੋ ਆਨ ਜਗਤ ਮੈ ਦਸਕ ਅਸੁਰ ਹਰਿ ਘਾਏ ॥ ਅਧਿਕ ਪ੍ਰਪੰਚ ਦਿਖਾਇ ਸਭਨ ਕੱਹ ਆਪਹਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਹਾਏ॥੧॥
ਭੰਜਨ ਗੜ੍ਹਨ ਸਮਰਥ ਸਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੋ ਕਿਮ ਜਾਤਿ ਗਿਨਾਯੋ ॥ ਤਾਂ ਤੇ ਸਰਬ ਕਾਲ ਕੇ ਅਸਿ ਕੋ ਘਾਇ ਬਚਾਇ ਨ ਆਯੋ॥੨॥
ਕੈਸੇ ਤੋਹਿ ਤਾਰਿਹੈ ਸੁਨਿ ਜੜ ਆਪ ਡੁਬਿਯੋ ਭਵ ਸਾਗਰ ॥ ਛੁਟਿਹੋ ਕਾਲ ਫਾਸ ਤੇ ਤਬ ਹੀ ਗਹੋ ਸਰਨਿ ਜਗਤਾਗਰ॥੩॥੫॥
​

So what if Krishna/Vishnu came here and killed about ten bad people? Showing many hypocrisies and fooling everyone, he called himself God. The one who kills and creates, how can He be described by counting? If he (Krishna) was God then how come he couldn’t save himself from death? Hey idiot, listen, how can that idiot get you across this world ocean (get you liberated) when he himself fell into the world ocean (died). You can only be saved when you go to Waheguru (God). (Shabad Hazaray, Guru Gobind Singh Ji)
​

ਕਾਨ੝ਹ ਕਹੀ ਹਸ ਬਾਤ ਤਿਨੈ ਕਹਿ ਹੈ ਹਮ ਜੋ ਤ੝ਮ ਸੋ ਮਨ ਹੋ ॥ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਮ੝ਖਿ ਚੂਮਨ ਦੇਹ੝ ਕਹਯੋ ਚ੝ਮ ਹੈ ਹਮ ਹੂੰ ਤ੝ਮਹੂੰ ਗਨਿਹੋ ॥
Krishna said, "See, whatever I shall say now, all of you will have to accept that; let me kiss the faces of all; I shall kiss and you count, all of you; ਅਰ੝ ਤੋਰਨ ਦੋਹ੝ ਕਹਯੋ ਸਭਹੀ ਕ੝ਚ ਨਾ ਤਰ ਹਉ ਤ੝ਮ ਕੌ ਹਨਿਹੋ ॥ ਤਬਹੀ ਪਟ ਦੇਉ ਸਭੈ ਤ੝ਮਰੇ ਇਹ ਝੂਠ ਨਹੀ ਸਤ ਕੈ ਜਨਿਹੋ ॥੨੬੬॥
Let me touch the nipple of your breasts, otherwise I shall behave more badly with you; I am speaking truth that I shall give you the clothes only after doing all this."266. This is not an attribute of God, this is life of some Lusty man now predict whom Guru Gobind SIngh was saying Madhusudhan and whom Guru Granth Sahib was saying Chakardhar.

A Warrior?
When Rama was exiled, he shot a king named Bali from behind and killed him. What a coward? What kind of bravery is that? Why would God attack someone from behind? This was a complete betrayal by Rama in the battle field. When Rama started fighting with Ravana to get his wife back his brother Lacchman passed out. He started crying and told Hanuman (a monkey God) that if his brother dies he will die with him by committing suicide. The truth is NO brave man ever cries in the battle field. This shows that Rama lost himself in the battle field which shows weakness of mind and heart. According to Hindu historians, Rama was helped by all the gods and goddesses in the battlefield. What kind of a God needs help in the battlefield? Skipping ahead, Rama wins the battle, gets his wife back and returns to his kingdom. Someone who attacks from behind, cries in the battle field, tries to commit suicide can never be called a brave warrior. Only weak minded cowards have these characteristics.
A Great King?
In the kingdom of Rama practice of Sati, burning of the widow with her dead husband was widely accepted. Sacrifice of horse, cow and even human being was considered a religious ritual. Lower caste people and women were looked upon as inferior. A Shudra named Shambhook (a lower caste) was killed by Rama just because he started worshipping God through meditation. This proves that Rama failed to be a true king because he had no understanding of fair justice.
A Good Husband?
According to Balmick Ramayana, One day Rama listened to a washer man saying that Rama’s wife was kidnapped and stayed with a kidnapper for a year and therefore she became impure. On hearing this Rama quickly went back to his palace and kicked his wife Sita out of his kingdom while she was pregnant with his baby. Now let me ask you, is this what God does?? The answer is NO. This clearly proves that he was not a God rather just a simple human being. He fought for his wife for a year and then suddenly listening to some washer man he kicked her out when she was pregnant. He didn’t even trust his wife. Sita had to stay in jungles and live a poor life while her husband stayed in palaces enjoying his life.
Even Ravana was better than Rama. When Ravana kidnapped Sita, he kept her in a separate palace. There exists no account of Ravana trying to disrespect Sita in any way. He always persuaded her to marry him but other than that she was not tortured or raped. On the other hand, Rama and his brother Lachman not only lied to Ravana’s sister Sroopnekha but also disrespected her by cutting off her nose.
A coward, liar and a deceitful person like Rama who was not even a good king, a brave warrior and a good husband cannot be given the status of an Avatar. Someone like him does not even deserve to be praised by a regular human being and RSS is trying to mislead Sikhs into thinking that he is praised by our Guru Sahibans in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Rama preached no new or unique message to humanity and wrote no religious book. Instead he followed Brahmins in jungles begging from house to house and followed everything that was being practiced back then. His contribution to humanity and society is of no value. It is clear from this discussion that God’s name ‘Raam’ is very different from hindu lord Rama.
Many hindus compare Guru Gobind Singh Ji with Rama but it is only foolish to do such thing. Guru Gobind Singh Ji was a great warrior who always faced the enemy and never attacked from behind. His message inspired thousands of weak and defenseless people to become fearless warriors. He started the freedom movement that ended tyrant rules of Mughals, Pathans and British. He gave equal rights to women and embraced everyone regardless of caste. He renounced all of the old rituals and gave new way of life to people. He started a new nation that would uphold the Dharma, and fight for truth and justice. Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought for humanity and truth. He sacrificed His father, mother and four sons but never shed a single drop of tear. Instead, He celebrated their martyrdom. Hindu lord Rama is no where near the greatest of all Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Rama failed to be a loyal and a faithful husband, a wise king who would treat everyone equally, and a true warrior. He possessed no quality that can be compared to Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Guru Ji embraced everyone whereas Rama abandoned his own wife then how do people expect that he will embrace them? Only Guru Gobind Singh Ji is the greatest. Rama, Krishna and all others seek dust of feet of Guru Ji.

I'd prefer a Hindu explanation for this and i'd also like to know if this is what Sikhs REALLY think of Krishna and Rama.

Treks thank you for that passage on lust; I would appreciate if you looked at my above post #566. However, out of curiosity, are you a PIO? Or are you a 'Caucasian' Australian who discovered Sikhism and if so, how? Because in the Punjab and obviously in Punjabi expat communities, around 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 visitors to Gurudwara are Hindu. And in the days before it was 'ok' to marry outside your caste, Hindu Punjabis and Sikhs used to marry with the first born son being a Sikh. Is this down to Sikhism's message of tolerance and their historical links with Hindus? Wasn't Banda Singh Bahadur a Rajput? What is the reason Udasis believe in 'both' religions? Of course if you're not genetically Indian then what attracted you to Sikhi? The Hindu Punjabi and Sikh marriages and sharing of Baisakhi (Sikh festival shared by Hindus),Rakhi and Lohri (Hindu festivals shared by Sikhs although i'd like to learn about Lohri) lead me to believe the links between both religions was/is strong. Heck, Hola is a day after Holi and they sound the same. And of course the obvious one

and a fusion of beliefs?

This still brings it back to Islam- Bhai Mardana and Guru Nanak's wife's family were once Muslim. And historical Punjab (before Haryana and Ludhiana separated from it) is majority Muslim ; but even if you add the demographics of Indian and Pakistani Punjab alone Islam is still majority. If you add the other states, Sikhi becomes a minority. So why no Islamified Sikhi or Sikh-Muslim marriages?

 

[Chakra]

That website makes some of the most asinine responses I have ever seen by anti-Hindus. I will try my best to answer the objections, as you requested.

In Bhagvat Purana chapter 10, section 22 says that once Krishna saw women taking bath in the river. So he went there and stole their clothes and made them come outside naked to get their clothes. When they did he forced them to mate with him. What kind of God would do that? Is this the kind of love God gives to his children? In the same chapter section 60 says that Krishna had 16,108 wives and Radha was not one of them. Each wife gave birth to 10 sons and one daughter means that Krishna had 161,080 sons and 16,108 daughters. So all together he had 177188 children. This shows how lustful Krishna was and RSS is trying to compare him with the greatest of all, Guru Gobind Singh Ji?

Lord Krishna simply married those women because they had no one else as their family. He wasn't technically interested in marrying them, but married them to preserve their honor. Guru Gobind Singh is not even comparable with Lord Krishna, who is Brahman himself.

When Rama was exiled, he shot a king named Bali from behind and killed him. What a coward? What kind of bravery is that? Why would God attack someone from behind? This was a complete betrayal by Rama in the battle field.

This was no betrayal. Lord Rama could have taken 1000000 Bali-s at once. I think that Lord Rama simply killed him from behind to help Sugreeva regain some of his confidence and strength.

When Rama started fighting with Ravana to get his wife back his brother Lacchman passed out. He started crying and told Hanuman (a monkey God) that if his brother dies he will die with him by committing suicide. The truth is NO brave man ever cries in the battle field. This shows that Rama lost himself in the battle field which shows weakness of mind and heart. According to Hindu historians, Rama was helped by all the gods and goddesses in the battlefield. What kind of a God needs help in the battlefield?

It is called Leela. God simply acts like an ordinary mortal for his enjoyment. Is their anything wrong with God having a compassionate heart?

I don't know about Lord Rama being helped by other Gods and Goddesses. All I know is that Indra gave the Lord his chariot. It is possible that there are more Devas who helped out, but they did so because they wanted to serve Lord Rama. Lord Rama, who graciously accepts the service of his devotees, accepted their gifts. The Ramayana makes it pretty clear that Lord Rama is the supreme.

Skipping ahead, Rama wins the battle, gets his wife back and returns to his kingdom. Someone who attacks from behind, cries in the battle field, tries to commit suicide can never be called a brave warrior. Only weak minded cowards have these characteristics.

This only proves that the creators of that article have never read Ramayana.

A Good Husband?
According to Balmick Ramayana, One day Rama listened to a washer man saying that Rama’s wife was kidnapped and stayed with a kidnapper for a year and therefore she became impure. On hearing this Rama quickly went back to his palace and kicked his wife Sita out of his kingdom while she was pregnant with his baby. Now let me ask you, is this what God does?? The answer is NO. This clearly proves that he was not a God rather just a simple human being. He fought for his wife for a year and then suddenly listening to some washer man he kicked her out when she was pregnant. He didn’t even trust his wife. Sita had to stay in jungles and live a poor life while her husband stayed in palaces enjoying his life.

Absolutely ridiculous. Lord Rama didn't "kick Sita out of the palace". I seems that the creators of the article forget that it was Lord Rama who arranged Sita Maa to live in Sage Valmikis heritage. Lord Rama and Sita never fought.

Even Ravana was better than Rama. When Ravana kidnapped Sita, he kept her in a separate palace. There exists no account of Ravana trying to disrespect Sita in any way. He always persuaded her to marry him but other than that she was not tortured or raped. On the other hand, Rama and his brother Lachman not only lied to Ravana’s sister Sroopnekha but also disrespected her by cutting off her nose.

Apparently, self-defence is not allowed by our friends (creators of the article). If abducting Sita and taking her away from her own will is better that the "bad" things Lord Rama did, then these authors are simply on crack.

The rest of the comments are simply attacking Lord Rama and trying to say that Guru ji is greater than Lord Rama and Lord Krishna (lol).


Regards

 

[Treks]

Regarding the way yu treat things in Sikhism; you say a book is the final Guru, you must wash yourself and cover your head in the presence of it, you clean the room with milk, you put it to sleep and wake it up, you fan it like a King, and you cremate it when it can not be used.

The milk washing is done at Harmandir Sahib only, and it's silly and needs to change. It has no historical basis and no logical reason for it to occur. Just like how women very rarely get to do kirtan seva at Harmandir Sahib. Discrimination like that isn't meant to happen either, but it does, sadly.

Of course I refer to Sri Guru Granth Sahib and not Dasam Granth Sahib but you should also hold it in high regard.

Why?

I give DG no more respect than I do any other collection of cultural stories.

Of course this is not a living person so this is where religion pervades science (nothing wrong with this). It is also akin to idol worship as Hindus say God resides in murtis but scientifically this is not true;

I still don't see how science factors into anything you've said. You're talking about customs.

Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not to be worshipped as an idol. It's sad when Sikhs get confused and start doing just that. It must be difficult not to give in to the tendency when a very large portion of the population does use idols in their worship, and you/your close ancestors/current relatives still do that. All the concerned Sikhs can do is stand up to Gurdwara committees who let excessive ritualism and idolization creep in, like when air conditioners are installed for the purpose of keeping Guru Granth Sahib 'comfortable' through temperature extremes. I saw this with my own eyes at the Gurdwara I attend. When the Gurbani teacher stood up and argued 'the wisdom contained in the book is our Guru, not the book itself, and the wisdom isn't affected by the heat!' people started asking more questions about Sikhi.. people who had been going to Gurdwara forever were asking the simplest of questions! These poeple were clearly "cultural" Sikhs; Sikhs because they were born into it, and it's what their people do, but with no real knoweldge of what Sikhi teaches. The blind leading the blind.

I think a lot of the confusion you're picking up on might be in part because of Sikh history, when the Udasis were running the Gurdwaras while Sikhs hid from Mughals. When the Sikhs came back, it was to a Sikhi couched in a nest of Sanatan Dharma.

What was the problem with Banda Singh Bahadr? Was there not a split akin to Sunnis and Shias in Sikhism regarding whether he was/was not a Guru?

From what I can tell, Banda Singh Bahadur became over-zealous towards the end. That is the part some people have issues with. I don't know anything about there being a split around whether he was/not a Guru. In any case, it is crystal clear; Guru Gobind Singh gave Guru Granth Sahib Gurgaddi, end of story.

And last but not least, why did THREE gurus' sons choose Hinduism? Two of which were provided by their fathers to Baba Sri Chand. As Udaism is a Hinduised form of Sikhi, is there no Islamic 'version'?

Buy a time machine and go back and ask them. WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH SIKHI TODAY? Let it go, man.

If you look at Sikhi's history it is no surprise to see that Sikhs have closer relations to Hindus than to Muslims; invading forces were Muslim! They were persecuting Sikhs and Hindus. Sikhs were at war with people whose religion was Islam!! And Sikhi rejects many elements of Islam, just as it rejects many elements of Hinduism. The things Sikhi holds on to in Guru Granth Sahib from those religions are what Sikhi considers to be true (from a spiritual POV).

Ronki I'm a caucasian Australian who first learned about Sikhi in primary school and then studied it intently (with a couple of breaks) from 2002 to 2013. This gives me an outsiders view on the topic. I was attracted to Sikhi because of the simplicity of its message, its pragmatism, its theoretical (but largely practical) eglatarianism, and the beauty of the poetry. I like that it doesn't contradict science, doesn't require one to believe in a humanised god-character, and is against superstitious and pointless rituals. It really tries to be logical, as far as a religion can. I like that.

And in the days before it was 'ok' to marry outside your caste, Hindu Punjabis and Sikhs used to marry with the first born son being a Sikh. Is this down to Sikhism's message of tolerance and their historical links with Hindus?

I'd say they made their first born son Sikh because they needed men for the army. And because of the passages in Guru Granth Sahib that say if you become jivan mukhi then you save your family as well. Ha. Not quite like magic but I can see how people would get that idea if they're not understanding the spiritual meaning.

Your comparing of 'om' to 'ik onkar' is odd. Similar language family - of course they're going to look similar!! And you have missed my point about Sikhi not being born in a vacuum.

 

[ronki23]

The milk washing is done at Harmandir Sahib only, and it's silly and needs to change. It has no historical basis and no logical reason for it to occur. Just like how women very rarely get to do kirtan seva at Harmandir Sahib. Discrimination like that isn't meant to happen either, but it does, sadly.



Why?

I give DG no more respect than I do any other collection of cultural stories.



I still don't see how science factors into anything you've said. You're talking about customs.

Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not to be worshipped as an idol. It's sad when Sikhs get confused and start doing just that. It must be difficult not to give in to the tendency when a very large portion of the population does use idols in their worship, and you/your close ancestors/current relatives still do that. All the concerned Sikhs can do is stand up to Gurdwara committees who let excessive ritualism and idolization creep in, like when air conditioners are installed for the purpose of keeping Guru Granth Sahib 'comfortable' through temperature extremes. I saw this with my own eyes at the Gurdwara I attend. When the Gurbani teacher stood up and argued 'the wisdom contained in the book is our Guru, not the book itself, and the wisdom isn't affected by the heat!' people started asking more questions about Sikhi.. people who had been going to Gurdwara forever were asking the simplest of questions! These poeple were clearly "cultural" Sikhs; Sikhs because they were born into it, and it's what their people do, but with no real knoweldge of what Sikhi teaches. The blind leading the blind.

I think a lot of the confusion you're picking up on might be in part because of Sikh history, when the Udasis were running the Gurdwaras while Sikhs hid from Mughals. When the Sikhs came back, it was to a Sikhi couched in a nest of Sanatan Dharma.



From what I can tell, Banda Singh Bahadur became over-zealous towards the end. That is the part some people have issues with. I don't know anything about there being a split around whether he was/not a Guru. In any case, it is crystal clear; Guru Gobind Singh gave Guru Granth Sahib Gurgaddi, end of story.



Buy a time machine and go back and ask them. WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH SIKHI TODAY? Let it go, man.

If you look at Sikhi's history it is no surprise to see that Sikhs have closer relations to Hindus than to Muslims; invading forces were Muslim! They were persecuting Sikhs and Hindus. Sikhs were at war with people whose religion was Islam!! And Sikhi rejects many elements of Islam, just as it rejects many elements of Hinduism. The things Sikhi holds on to in Guru Granth Sahib from those religions are what Sikhi considers to be true (from a spiritual POV).

Ronki I'm a caucasian Australian who first learned about Sikhi in primary school and then studied it intently (with a couple of breaks) from 2002 to 2013. This gives me an outsiders view on the topic. I was attracted to Sikhi because of the simplicity of its message, its pragmatism, its theoretical (but largely practical) eglatarianism, and the beauty of the poetry. I like that it doesn't contradict science, doesn't require one to believe in a humanised god-character, and is against superstitious and pointless rituals. It really tries to be logical, as far as a religion can. I like that.



I'd say they made their first born son Sikh because they needed men for the army. And because of the passages in Guru Granth Sahib that say if you become jivan mukhi then you save your family as well. Ha. Not quite like magic but I can see how people would get that idea if they're not understanding the spiritual meaning.

Your comparing of 'om' to 'ik onkar' is odd. Similar language family - of course they're going to look similar!! And you have missed my point about Sikhi not being born in a vacuum.

Interesting BUT you still didn't address the part of how Sri Guru Granth Sahib is put to bed, woken up, requires head covering and is cremated. And your flagpoles are washed with milk too. Hindu idol worship is very similar in that we wake up our murtis for Pooja, wash them (sometimes in milk) and during Bhij women cover their heads. And the pictures-Pooja in Sikhism. It's obvious Sikhs also make pilgrimage to Amritsar and Lahore. So aarti and pilgrimage are still done even though Sihs aren't meant to.

And Sikhi and Islam both have 'pillars' and Sikhi has truths as well. Don't understand difference between truths and pillars of Sikhism. Plus in Islam the Qu'ran is elevated and left on a stand like SGGS

I asked about you because many Hindu Punjabi and Sikhs marry and the first born son becomes Sikh. And Hindus hold Amritsar in high regard; of course this may be a Punjabi thing only BUT didn't the Hindu soldiers help the Sikh army? The Rajputs? Why would the son convert to be in Sikhism if there were already Hindu regiments. Of course in the British Raj they did this as Sikhs were a minority and minorities' received benefits. So logically there must be a 'close enough' belief for marriages too.If Sikhs don't believe in Hindu deities does that mean the spouse is expected to drop his/her beliefs? I don't think so- there's mutual worship (but only to immediate family as the Hindu Punjabi families I know only go to Gurudwara with their friends/ when they go see Sikh extended family so it's not often).
Plus mutual participation in Rakhi and LOHRI????? Don't actually know what Latter is about.

Udaism is the most important question as it's the link between Hinduism and Sikhism and explains whether Sikhi is/not an offshoot. This is where the questionmark occurs; the passages in Sri Guru Granth Sahib were somewhat answered, and the festivals celebrated by Sikhs are for different reasons to the Hindu ones, but the Udasism is what makes me wonder about whether Sikhi is an offshoot.

By the way, I'm Gujarati Hindu but always had a fascination with Sikhism for many years. It wasn't until 2013 when I got frustrated and depressed (mainly from the Hindu Indian students and the English ones) I ended up going to Gurudwara

P.S. Hill people were Hindus and Sikhs aided Muslims against them

And was India influenced by Persian script? Or was Khomeini an Indophile? See this:

 

[ronki23]

and why is it that my Khalistan questions were ignored? Particularly if the country was originally 'okayed' and INC changed their minds and for some reason the same Sikhs (Tara Singh and SGPC) who proposed Khalistan were ok with this?
And why the constant dodging of comparing this to the South African apartheid, Palestine movement,Taliban or Islamic Republic of Iran? Bhindranwale's message seems similar to bin Laden and Khomeini but he didn't kill anyone (fine, not officially and even if he did it was only in self defense during the attack on Harmandir Sahib;the Indian Express states his men took revenge on people who killed their comrades)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Master Tara Singh was satisfied with the assurances of Hindu leaders and was sure that Muslims will go on a killing and looting spree after independence. Sikhs suffered more than Hindus during partition. He knew Muslim psyche better than today's separatist Sikh leaders. Bhindranwale was first made use of by Indira Gandhi (and Gyani Zail Singh) and later by Sikh separatists. IMHO, he was a prisoner of time.

 

[ronki23]

Master Tara Singh was satisfied with the assurances of Hindu leaders and was sure that Muslims will go on a killing and looting spree after independence. Sikhs suffered more than Hindus during partition. He knew Muslim psyche better than today's separatist Sikh leaders. Bhindranwale was first made use of by Indira Gandhi (and Gyani Zail Singh) and later by Sikh separatists. IMHO, he was a prisoner of time.

But I'm sure there was more than just Master Tara Singh who made the decisions? Why did those others also change thir minds r.e Khalistan?

By the way, wasn't Tara Singh a Hindu who converted to Sikhism? Lots of Sikhs online criticise him as he was co-founder of VHP and (I don't know the difference here) say Sikhism is disappearing under Hindu influence thanks to RSS and VHP

And how did he know that Sikhs would be unsafe in Pakistan/ that there would be a killing spree with Muslims?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is there to criticize if a Hindu chooses Sikhism? Master Tara Singh's companions also were satisfied that this was the best option for them, otherwise they would not have accepted it. See what is happening in Iraq. Muslims cannot even live in peace even among themselves. What to talk of living in peace with people of other religions!

 

[ronki23]

What is there to criticize if a Hindu chooses Sikhism? Master Tara Singh's companions also were satisfied that this was the best option for them, otherwise they would not have accepted it. See what is happening in Iraq. Muslims cannot even live in peace even among themselves. What to talk of living in peace with people of other religions!

Iraq is recent my friend-historically you have to see Muslims living in peace with non Muslims:

Iraq pre WWII- Baghdad was 40% Jewish
Yemen-Jews and Muslims
Jordan-Christans and Muslims
Palestine pre 1920- Arabic Jews (Levantine) and Palestinian Muslims & Christians. Arafat and Bhindranwale could be painted in the same light. Yet fellow Muslims hate Arafat

Lebanon & Syria-Christians and Muslims
Iran pre 1979- Zoroastrians and Muslims (Ayatollah Khomeini and Bhinranwale could be painted in the same light). Iranians expats hated Khomeini, heck even many in Iran are scared but haven't the money to leave

Egypt-Coptic Christians and Muslims

So where did SGPC and Master Tara Singh come to the conclusion that partition would take so many lives? Are they saying this because the ancestors of Sikhs and Muslims fought one another during the Mughal Empire?

When/how did they decide Khalistan wouldn't work and India would be better?

Remember, in ye olde days there used to be an independent Sikh nation when India was made up of free states.

By the way-that documentary on partition may interest you

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. you have to see Muslims living in peace with non Muslims:

What would happen after independence was clear before August 1947 in Punjab and Bangladesh for anyone to see.

"Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. However, on the morning of the 16th armed Muslim gangs gathered at the Ochterlony Monument in Calcutta to hear Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the League's Chief Minister of Bengal, .. That very evening, in Calcutta, Hindus were attacked by returning Muslim celebrants, who carried pamphlets distributed earlier showing a clear connection between violence and the demand for Pakistan, and implicating the celebration of Direct Action day directly with the outbreak of the cycle of violence that would be later called the "Great Calcutta Killing of August 1946". The next day, Hindus struck back and the violence continued for three days in which approximately 4,000 people died .. The communal violence spread to Bihar (where Muslims were attacked by Hindus), to Noakhali in Bengal (where Hindus were targeted by Muslims), in Garhmukteshwar in the United Provinces (where Muslims were attacked by Hindus), and on to Rawalpindi in March 1947 in which Hindus were attacked or driven out by Muslims."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

But why do you want to remember all that. It has been 67 years since then. Are not Muslims satisfied with their situation in Pakistan? Muslims live in peace only when they are a minority.

 

[ronki23]

What would happen after independence was clear before August 1947 in Punjab and Bangladesh for anyone to see.

"Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. However, on the morning of the 16th armed Muslim gangs gathered at the Ochterlony Monument in Calcutta to hear Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the League's Chief Minister of Bengal, .. That very evening, in Calcutta, Hindus were attacked by returning Muslim celebrants, who carried pamphlets distributed earlier showing a clear connection between violence and the demand for Pakistan, and implicating the celebration of Direct Action day directly with the outbreak of the cycle of violence that would be later called the "Great Calcutta Killing of August 1946". The next day, Hindus struck back and the violence continued for three days in which approximately 4,000 people died .. The communal violence spread to Bihar (where Muslims were attacked by Hindus), to Noakhali in Bengal (where Hindus were targeted by Muslims), in Garhmukteshwar in the United Provinces (where Muslims were attacked by Hindus), and on to Rawalpindi in March 1947 in which Hindus were attacked or driven out by Muslims."
Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But why do you want to remember all that. It has been 67 years since then. Are not Muslims satisfied with their situation in Pakistan? Muslims live in peace only when they are a minority.

Dr Zawahiri launched the Indian branch of Al Qaeda today. What is Islamic extremism like in India as it's the country with third largest Muslim population in the World? Can't blame Pakistan or Bangladesh for Indian extremism.

Was Indian Punjab partitioned to preserve Sikh culture as Ludhiana and Haryana used to be part of it didn't they?

 

[Poeticus]

Can't blame Pakistan or Bangladesh for Indian extremism.

 

[ronki23]

Khalistan, Tamil Nadu, Manipur, Nagaland, Bodo, Assam, the quick answer without looking into grievances:

[youtube]mQBzssLnldI[/youtube]

 

[Poeticus]

Khalistan, Tamil Nadu, Manipur, Nagaland, Bodo, Assam, the quick answer without looking into grievances:

[youtube]mQBzssLnldI[/youtube]

I facepalmed because you wrote "Indian extremism".