Mithar

That's pretty good Ragmaala Jee.

Looks good.

Panth seems more like a faith based group. While Quam seems more like an ethnic group. But traditionally Indians were never divided based on ethnicity. Ethnic nationalism was unknown before the Brits arrived. Before that the Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs called their religion as their Quam like say Sikh Quam, Mussalmaan Quam, Hindu Quam even though they may have all belonged to the same ethnicity and castes. Punjab is a perfect example of this where Punjab is divided based on religion and not any sort of ethnic divisions.

Bahadur, thanks for clearing some things up. But you can't deny the similarities do exist between the two groups who are awaiting the coming or return of a divine entity to create their divinely ruled nation. While I feel for the Palestinians, but at the same time the Jews also have an argument for their nation to be created. It's all the fault of the European allies who won WW2. They could have created a Jewish state in Europe probably on German land instead of giving half of Germany (Prussian area) to Poland.

The middle east is like dynamite which could accidently explode any moment. The Jews, Sunnis, Shia, Christians all live there in close proximity to one another and are hostile to one another. It's similar to Punjab where Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus all lived amongst each other yet they were also very hostile to another.

But now that Israel is created, I only hope that one day the Jews, Sunnis, Shias, Christians of the middle east find a peaceful solution and don't end up like Punjab in 1947. But I see Iraq going down that same road.

Good topic Amardeep Jee. A Singh once told me that, Islam was a divinely inspired faith but was corrupted. Sikhi is the how Islam should have been from the start. Even though the two faiths are different, but you can clearly see many similarities between the two.

Bahadur, the Shia clerics that opposed Khomieni's theocratic state are very similar to these Jews who oppose the Zionists.

Think about it for a minute.

These Jews (who although are against the Zionists) are not against the concept of an Israeli nation for the Jews. They just beleive that the Jewish nation will have to be established by the future Jewish Massiah who will also build they 3rd temple of Jerusalam and the state will be run according to the Jewish Law and traditions. They are opposed to these moderate clean shaven type Jewish zionists which is why you can see him repeatedly telling the zionist in that video of why he doesn't have his head covered, as a practicing Jew should.

Similarly the Mullahs who opposed Khomeini were not against a Shia theocratic nation. They just beleived that Imam Mahdi will come and establish it and rule it according to the "divine" Islamic Sharia law. While Khomeini and his supporters like the Zionists oppose their co religionists who do not support their man made states.

Tony they are Anti-Zionists Jews.

Heres a video but the video contains bad language from the public. Sorry in advance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY

That was an interesting video. It seems that the hardcore religious Jews are against the Jewish state while the clean shaven moderate type Jews are the pro Israeli supporters.

This seems similar to how many hardcore religious Shai Mullahs opposed the Mullah ruled Iran after the fall of Shah while the more moderate Mullahs lead by Ayatollah Khomeini supported a theocratic Shia state.

Sau Sakhi 64

“Stand in a line, if you are to bare weapons and wish to up hold the duty of a warrior, then hunt keeping the warrior duty in mind and eat meat. If you wish to follow the vegetarian way, or the way of Saints, then meat eating is forbidden. He who contemplates God’s name and is of the of Sato Gun character, he should not eat meat, for meat eating promotes Tams Gun. He, who wishes to fight for righteousness and protect the weak in battle, has to spill many people’s blood and should be ready to sacrifice himself. He should hunt, eat meat, and should have no fear because he is but doing his warrior duty. But, remember this, eating meat for just pleasure of tongue or vice is a sin --’”.’

(‘Sau Sakhi Steek’, by Partap Singh Mehta, Vol.2, Pa. 136-137)

I think that 99% of Sikh meat eaters probably eat because of pleasure of tongue, thus according to Sau Sakhi, they are commiting sin.

I know of any Sikh other than Nihang Singhs who do Chatka themselves the the Bakra they eat. For that Nihangs have my respect, even though I'm not a meat eater and am against eating meat.

Childles debate. Mind you....Nazis used to discuss the kosher at length in their propaganda movies to show Jews as barbaric people. Jsingh69 seems to want to represent Muslims as barbaric vs the pure Aryan Sikhs...

Then again when one can't tell teh difference between an Indonesian non Muslim sacrifice and halal slaughter...LMAO ROFL

The Muslims as Jews and Sikhs as Nazis? WOW, you really know how to put a sensationalist twist to an arguement.

I think that alot of things within Islam and other Abrahamic faiths reflect the geographical location and other circumstances of where those faiths started. The Abrahamics bury their dead is probably because there wasn't enough wood available in the desert environment of the middle east, so to bury the dead was the logical step to take. Muslims marry their cousins because in the Arabian desert the Beduin Arab tribes lived miles apart from each other, so they had to marry within the tribe which was usually just the family of uncles and aunts.

Bahadur, what happens to Muslims whose bodies get burned to ashes in a war situation or any other situation? How will their bodies get raised from the dead?

amardeep, all Sikh gianis have translated Mahadeen as Mohammad Sahib. It is only Bahadur who insisted it was not Mohammad.

The issue is that Bachitar Natak tells lies about the Prophet (pbuh). That is the issue.

According to you yes, Not according to us. For us it is the truth.

Just as Muslims interpret the lives of the earlier prophets according to how Mohammad Sahib had told of them even if they are not in agreement with Old and New testament, we also have our own interpretations which may not be in agreement with the Islamic interpretation. It's simple as that. If you are going with "older is better" arguement, then the same applies to Islam with respect to the previous Abrahamic traditions.

Before Mohammad Sahib was born, it was the era of Jahilliyaa according to the Muslims.

keher!!!

shaheediyan wrote:

"What about the growing fanatical/terrorist elements of the Irani and Iraqi community?"

Please care to name them.

Are you talking about the Mujahideen e Khalq who have assassinated elected ministers, presidents and countless civilians in Iran after 1979 and who are now residing under American protection?

Or are you talking about the Balochi Jundullah in Balochistan financed by Saudi Arabia and trained by the CIA?

One man's terrorist is another man's hero, we all have heard that one. For the Shia, the Hezbollah and Mahdi army are heroes, but for the Sunnis, Americans, Zionists they are terrorists. Similarly, many groups that the Shai consider to be terrorists are in fact considered good by the Sunnis. It all comes down to which perspective you look at it, and that goes for all ethnic and sectarian groups around the world. Iran is considered a terrorist country by the Americans and Israelis, but many Muslims would consider American and Israel to be the terrorist states.

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.

Check this video out.

This guy is Zaid Hamid, he is very popular amongst the Pakistanis. He claims that the men who were the terrorists who attacked the hotels were Sikhs and Hindus pretending to be Muslims. LOL

Pakistan does not equal Islam. If it's true that certain Muslims have a tendency to indulge in conspiracy theories so do many Sikhs as well...

Wow, you always have to bring it back on the Sikhs.

If you care the least bit about Sikhi, then please do not buy the pirated copy. We need to support the people making these by buying them so they can have the funds to create more movies.

Shaheediyan, we all agree that Madho Das was a fanatical vegatarian. Then that begs the question of why would Madho Das have Bakre in his Dera? What purpose could Bakre serve in Madho Das's dera? could it be that the whole "Bakras being Chakta'ed at Madho Das's dera" is simply made up story by our historians long ago?

jsingh does make sense. Some parts of Ramayan seem to be a little too fairytale'ish. Maybe some parts may have been added after Valmiki wrote Ramayan originally. An army of monkeys and bears defeating Ravan's army does seem a little too credible to beleive.

The term "Bharat" applies to all the lands from Gandhara(eastern Afghanistan) to Assam and from the Himalaya to Sri Lanka. These are the lands according to Mahabharat ancient India.

During the Muslim era, the Term Hindustan was all the lands within South Asia where roughly the IndoAryan languages were spoken. The present day Pakistan, Rajasthan, Punjab, UP, Bihar, Bengal, MadhyaPradash composed of Hindustan. UP/Bihar being the heartlands of Hindustan.

India itself has never been a centralised nation state like China was. It was always localised powers from the village up that ruled. Until the British came to India, there was also never any concept of ethnic nationalism amongst the people of India. Since 1947, for the first time in history of India, India has been a centralised nation state where the individual states have very little power left. It is also the first time in India’s history that India is now a land without a class of nobility/royalty/monarchs ruling petty kingdoms. Ideally right after 1947, India should have been a confederation of states like the EU.

Was Bhai Baj Singh Jee related to one of the Guru's family in some way?

The Muslim council acted very wisely. As Tony said, it was probably done to prevent a Hindu backlash but none the less the Muslims of Bombay are a moderate type of people. They just want to work and earn a living for themselves. Why should they have to suffer because of Pakistanis causing trouble in India?

Although in Pakistan they are coming up with counter argument saying that the whole operation was done by RAW and not Pakistanis.

Ganika was given the Ram naam by the Sadhus who had visited her house. At first they she did not want to do Simran as the Sadhus had asked her, but after the Sadhus had instructed her to teach the parrot to say Ram, she began doing Simran as she taught the bird to pronounce Ram. Ram Nam has Paaras Kalaa to it. The more you do simran of it the more you like it.

Bhagat Kabir Jee also took Naam from Bhagat Ramanand jee. Otherwise what was the need for Bhagat kabir jee to lie down on the ground waiting for Bhagat Ramanand jee to cross his path? Obviously to get naam from him.

Of course doing Simran without the Guru giving naam to you also has positive effects because doing Simran of Ram Naam can never go to waste, it is always positive, but it's effects are more powerful if you get Naam from the Guru.