Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Namaste,
They were targeted simply because they were "infidels"..."kafiroon". Nothing more. Nothing less.
M.V.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sikhism: Ask your questions
- Thread starter Breathe
- Start date
Namaste,
They were targeted simply because they were "infidels"..."kafiroon". Nothing more. Nothing less.
M.V.
Treks
Well-Known Member
The main change has been to take the foundation of spiritual devotion to the Ik Onkar (which can be realised no matter the religion) and build upon it the way of life we know as Sikhi, which includes the ideal of saint-soldier, being a good person standing up for rights and dignity of everyone, proactively.
Indira Ghandi authorised Operation Bluestar, which was an Indian military operation against so-called Sikh terrorists holed up in the Golden Temple with a stockpile of weapons (allegedly). She just happened to think it would be best to launch the attach on the memorial day for Guru Arjan, when the Golden Temple was full of hundreds of innocent Sikh pilgrims, mothers, fathers, children, and not care to differentiate. Who in their right mind would authorise wholesale slaughter of Sikhs and yet retain their Sikh bodyguards? D'uuuuh. You can read more about that here: Operation Blue Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now I understand why Sikhs are hating on Islam.. If it helps I find these acts repulsive and barbaric and wouldn't vote for the leaders if i had a choice
Why were the Sikhs singled out and targeted? Was it something political as well?
Sikhs are people too, with normal human responses. The ideal is to overcome the hatred and maintain awareness in a higher place. Bhai Kanhaiya was able to do that. He was a water carrier in Guru Gobind Singh Ji's army, but he was giving out water to Sikhs as well as fallen Moghul soldiers. When Guruji asked him why, Bhai ji said he couldn't tell the difference as all was God to him, and Guruji was pleased and gave him medical balm to apply as well. Bhai Kanhaiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sikhs were singled out not because they were Sikhs, but because they were standing up against oppressive and ruthless government/invaders. And they wouldn't be forcibly converted or allow others to be forcibly converted, either. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's sons are an example of two little brave khalsa who faced death rather than convert. http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Chotta_Sahibzade
Boley So Nihal, Sat Sri Akaal!
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Namaste,
Come on Sikhi-ji....don't fall for semantics. It is perfectly okay to state the truth: that Sikhs were singled out because they were Sikhs. This happened to the Hindus and the Buddhists as well.
The Buddhist monks at Nalanda (modern day Bihar) never did anything to the Muslims, and neither did the Hindus at Somnath and Makran....yet, they were butchered (just like the Sikhs) in the tens of thousands...where, over many, many years...the total reached into the millions.
Earlier, you said it yourself:
Last time I checked, Shrī Guru Arjāndev never did anything to the Muslims. He never made the first move. Yet, he was singled out and then brutally killed. There is no shame in accepting this event as fact. Misconstruing it will lead to the disintegration of the struggle for Sikhs to retain their Khalsic identity. No Sikh should ever forget the horrors committed upon them. What would Shrī Guru Gobinddev say if Sikhs started to forget the struggle he had fought for his Sikh brethren?
The Sikhs were targeted simply because they were Sikhs. The Sikhs never did anything wrong, they never made the first move...and yet, they were still persecuted.
The tale of Islamic persecution of the Indic religions and their adherents is a sad tale, one with a depressing history, of immense bloodshed and horror.
Furthermore, the only thing good about Indira was that she helped win the 1971 Bangladeshi War, nothing more. And, where has that led us? Have the Bangladeshi Muslims even thanked us for such an act of compassion? Do you even know how they have been repaying us back? Well, they have been repaying us back by killing hundreds of thousands of Hindus in Bangladesh, causing a fiery exodus of Bangladeshi Hindus into West Bengal. Have the Bangladeshi Muslims forgotten that it was the Hindus and Sikhs of the Indian Army that stopped the Pakistani Muslims from further raping their women? The Pakistani Muslims were extremely brutal in Bangladesh in 1971. This brutality was similar to the Mughal, Afghani, and Turko-Persian (Khilji) brutality of Hindus and Sikhs. Why did they target such innocent civilians? Because they were simply non-Muslim. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Coming back to the point:
Indira's responsibility in 1984 is very evident. She was highly responsible. But, who did the killings? It was the Indian National Congress! Who made up or composed the Indian National Congress? Was it the Buddhists? Was it the Hindus? Was it the Sikhs? No. No. And, no. The INC (Indian National Congress) was (and still is) made up of secularists (atheists and agnostics - and they aren't your tolerable Western atheists or agnostics either). These INC "secularists" are anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, and definitely anti-Sikh - all to the third degree. "Secular" Punjabis in Delhi attacked their Punjabi Sikh brethren relentlessly and without morality. These scum are still at large. But, do you know what happened when the Hindus (Bharatiya Janta Party) demanded that these scum be prosecuted and/or hanged? The INC (the perpetrators of 1984) slurred and falsely charged Hindus as rioters and heretics. And, in response, they have spread a false lie through their "secularist" media (by the way, have you ever figured out who owns the media in India? These "secularists" do..):
Do you know what that false lie is? This is the false lie:
That Hindus were responsible for 1984! Now, I ask you this, Sister Sikhi-ji: were the Hindus of Gujarat responsible for 1984 in the ruthless killing of 3000 Sikhs in Haryana and Delhi? were the Hindus of Madhya Pradesh responsible? were the Hindus of Orissa responsible? were the Hindus of Rajasthan responsible? were the Hindus of Kerala responsible? were the Hindus of Tamil Nadu responsible? were the Hindus of Andhra Pradesh responsible? were the Hindus of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh responsible? Were they? No. But, do you know what? The INC thinks otherwise. And, because of them and their lie, a lot of people (without researching) think that Hindus were responsible. But, Sister Sikhi-ji, we both know that the INC and its members were responsible, and these guys were secularists who had an anti-Sikh and anti-Hindu agenda.
Do you know what happened in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh when two Sikh bodyguards killed that traitor known as Indira? Nothing happened. If you ever get the time to visit Amdavad in Gujarat, I will be more than happy to show you many Gurudwaras. I get my Kadā-s from these Gurudwaras all the time. Were these Gurudwaras attacked by Hindus or Jains in Gujarat? No. Then, why does the INC keep spreading lies that only Hindus were responsible for 1984? Because, they are afraid that if everybody found out the truth that it was the Indian secularists that were responsible, they would be routed out from politics and loose a lot of money over this controversial matter. Where has this INC party led us to? It has led India to another Western colonization. Sonia isn't Indian. She is Italian. She has a very pro-Christian agenda. Along with this pro-Christian agenda, she also curries in votes by propagandizing fallacies to the Muslim groups in India, showing to them a masked pro-Muslim approach. But, their anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh attitudes are extremely vibrant and out in the open for all to see. It seems to be very hypocritical if you ask me; and very two-faced as well.
I know this wasn't what the conversation was supposed to be. But, I felt that I had to clarify the intricate and evil nature of 1984.
Coming back to the earlier point:
The Sikhs were targeted simply because they were Sikhs; simply because they were non-Muslim. They only stood up against this injustice after they persistent persecution they faced, and they had enough of it. Then, they started to fight the Muslims. Therefore, I repeat the question by Monotheist 101 again: "why were the Sikhs singled out?"
They were singled out because they were non-Muslim. This is a fact that is true as 1+1=2.
Regards,
M.V.
ਜੋ ਬੋਲੇ ਸੋ ਨਿਹਾਲ ਸਤ੍ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਕਾਲ
Punjabi Song - Jo Bole So Nihal - YouTube
Last edited:
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3414863 said:
Bhai Kanhaiyas story has a lesson to be learnt..Stop holding on to the grudge or ill feelings..hatred only breeds more hatred..All he could see was God..and I believe people like him are rewarded regardless of religious allegiance...
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Namaste,
This isn't about holding onto grudges and breeding hate. The point of that post was to show that the hate was received, never given...and, I am sure I have already proven from who that hate was received. And, this isn't in the past. The tensions are still visible today. Have you ever been to North India? Do you know what happened in 1947? The ripples of that year still affect people today. Families torn apart. Women kidnapped and raped. Men and children butchered. Folks burned alive on the streets in the alleys at night.
She said they weren't targeted because they were Sikhs. And, that is incorrect. They were targeted because they were Sikhs.
M.V.
Last edited:
Treks
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the insight, as I'm at the limit of my small knowledge. From my point of view I interpret the Moghul invasion and conquest of India to be just that, an invasion and conquest by a particularly nasty group of people. I tend to think it was all more about domination and empire building and less about religion. It just happens that religion is a great social glue and works magic to rally people for the cause (Sikhs), and can absolve nasty people of their sins if they commit them in the name of their religion (Moghuls).
I want to rule over these Indian people, therefore convert to my religion so I can rule over you or DIE.
Hmm, less about religion, more about conquest. We can cite heaps of examples where people have been persecuted by the government, and it hasn't been because of their religion per say but the fact that they are resisting the tyrants.
But that's just me.
I want to rule over these Indian people, therefore convert to my religion so I can rule over you or DIE.
Hmm, less about religion, more about conquest. We can cite heaps of examples where people have been persecuted by the government, and it hasn't been because of their religion per say but the fact that they are resisting the tyrants.
But that's just me.
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Namaste,
My point was not to go on a religious tangent.
The fact was that Sikhs were targeted simply because they were Sikh. No more. No less.
Please read the "-Namas". Religion played a huge role. Anyways, I will desist and put this matter to rest. I didn't mean to upset anybody. Forgive me if I did.
M.V.
My point was not to go on a religious tangent.
The fact was that Sikhs were targeted simply because they were Sikh. No more. No less.
Please read the "-Namas". Religion played a huge role. Anyways, I will desist and put this matter to rest. I didn't mean to upset anybody. Forgive me if I did.
M.V.
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3414878 said:
Lol I was just trying to diffuse the tension and restate a lesson we could collectively learn from one of the Sikh role models..
As for 1947...I have read about the partition of India and Pakistan..how did the Muslims manage to do all the raping and killing when they were a 20% minority without any significant political power over present day india..I have heard quite the opposite from the Pakistani and Bengalis..this is not the place to discuss that..neither am I interested in holding on to differences of the past.. IMO the partition should never have happend..that region is stronger as a collective whole..the Sikhs would be happy that they get to visit their holy places and Muslims and Hindus could visit their families..or not be separated in the first place..my 2 cents not that my opinion holds any weight..being 50-50 turk/persian
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Namaste Monotheist-ji,
Not all of present day India was affected. Only the North and Northwest were affected the most, that is where the theatre of violence was the most rampant. And, in this theatre, the Muslims were in the majority.
Either way: I guess you're right. We have to look forward to a prosperous future. That is what matters the most for all humankind.
Regards,
M.V.
Not all of present day India was affected. Only the North and Northwest were affected the most, that is where the theatre of violence was the most rampant. And, in this theatre, the Muslims were in the majority.
Either way: I guess you're right. We have to look forward to a prosperous future. That is what matters the most for all humankind.
Regards,
M.V.
Last edited:
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3414898 said:
I would address you by your name but I dont know how to read that..
I think your missing the point behind my posts..Im all for peace and love and letting bygones be bygones...I know it may be hard for the families who were directly affected by the wars/partition..but it is the only way forward according to all 3 religions in conflict..
I have..my ancestors from both sides were settled in Basra..present day Iraq..before the fall of the Ottomon empire..
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
मैत्रावरुणिः;3414898 said:
Namaste,
Maitra-Varuni, but M.V. is more than fine, brother.
Regards
ps - You mean Sassanian, not Osmanli, right?
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
I would like to say again that this isnt the place for this discussion.
What part does Bihar and UP fall under? Most of my Pakistani friends' families are from that part..they reside in present day Karachi..
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3414903 said:Namaste,
Maitra-Varuni, but M.V. is more than fine, brother.
Regards
ps - You mean Sassanian, not Osmanli, right?
Maitra-Varuni-ji
No brother it was all Ottomon..Sassanian empire collapsed in 651 CE..
Im sure because my Great Grand dad was an Ottomon official stationed in Basra..who responded to the call of Ataturk after the end of the WW1
ratikala
Istha gosthi
मैत्रावरुणिः;3414878 said:
namaskaram :namaste
thank you brother for your very informative post , everyone should read the above post more carefully , it is easy to mistake telling the truth for holding grudges .
our guru is from the punjab , when he comes here to visit and you speak with him outside of temple services you might come away with the impression that he is eternaly angry at the political goings on in india and the punjab , one could mistake this for holding grudges and breading hatred , ...but intruth he is warning us of the dangers of falling into godless adharmic behavior , ... he is 'guru' he hates no one , but that dosent mean that he just sits there singing the praises of god and shuting out the world , no he is telling the truth he is spreading awareness .
he also wants us to stand up to adharma , to know it when we see it and never to perpetuate it .
it is too easy for us in the west to look on many things we see hapening as religious wars , wars between one religion and another , and to form the opinion that religion is at fault this is what the secular world wants . it is the secular world that throws the blame where ever and when ever it wishes to discredit anyone and usualy does this with the intention to gain its own power by discrediting true religion .
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Maitra-Varuni-ji
No brother it was all Ottomon..Sassanian empire collapsed in 651 CE..
Im sure because my Great Grand dad was an Ottomon official stationed in Basra..who responded to the call of Ataturk after the end of the WW1
Namaste,
You have me confused, brother. I meant the Sack of Ctesiphon by the Arabs around the latter years of the 600s.
No biggie. And, yes, you are right, Bihar and UP are North (Eastern-ish) India. My point was: that the bloodiest part of the partition was in the Punjab.
Anyways, as long as the two countries (India and Pakistan) don't get into anymore shenanigans (especially Pakistan; example: the November Taj Hotel massacre)...all is good. Both countries have poor people to feed and house; roads to build and urbanization to conduct; both need to work on their economies since the attention in the world economy is going from the West and into South Asia and East Asia (China).
M.V.
Last edited:
ratikala
Istha gosthi
मैत्रावरुणिः;3414913 said:
this is very much the impresion I have understood , this was our gurus home and it hurt him so deeply seeing one people set against each other , to understand it you have to put yourself in that position you are being uprooted from your home and moved to a place where you do not want to go and as you are being moved you come in contact with those coming to take your place , they too are angry and sad and at having to leave their homes , please ,please we must bury the blame , the true blame lay with the whole ill thought out idea of partition , what people might do when wound up into a state of confusion and hatred is not what they would do when they are of sane mind .
such prrfect words , it is time that we bury the hatchets and do not allow ourselves to be manipulated by politics or politicians , whether we are muslim sikh or hindu we all have lives to live and families to feed , we need to build a love and trust between all concerned we need to learn more about eachother so that fear is destroyed and that we can live in peace rejoicing in our differences .
each one of us needs to be reminded that our religions are supposed to increase our awareness of god in ourselves , in our lives and in our dealings with others .
we are going way off topic here allthough it is a worthwhile discussion .
but it is important that we considder the historical frictions between hindus and muslims , if we do this we will understand the position of the sikhs . to me the sikh embodys the most perfect dharmic responce to living with religious adharma .
sat sri akaal :namaste
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Namaste Bhaginī-ji,
I couldn't have said it any better. You concluded your thoughts perfectly!
M.V.
ps - When you get the time, please check out the response I made in the Vedic polytheist thread...
Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
Honestly based on looks you guys dont look that different..No offense but I couldn't pick you guys out from a crowd..Sikhs maybe because of the beard and turbans..but heard of Muslims who grow beards and wear green turbans too from that region..
IMO religion is personal and everyone should be given the right to practice whatever they believe with freedom..Life isnt just religion..theres more to life..than killing eachother..
IMO religion is personal and everyone should be given the right to practice whatever they believe with freedom..Life isnt just religion..theres more to life..than killing eachother..