HSD1

baba farid swore allegiance to the prophet? is that why he grew disenchanted with what islamic missionaries were doing in india? this whole baba farid was a muslim and he's also in the SGGS ji is getting a little old now. or are these lot repeating it over and over again to push their stupider points through with it as well? someone once said the best lie is one with some truth in it.

could someone please post the petition on sikhsangat.com as well? they banned me, so i cant.

america is full of annoying christian fundamentalist retards, who are almost a mirror image of the musis in europe. even if people dont agree with spreading sikhi to boost the size of our numbers, we should at least try to spread sikhi in order to neuter their retarded mumbo-jumbo beliefs.

lets all ghost dance as well!!!! it worked for the native americans didnt it...........?

"God is always on the side of the big battalions."

Voltaire

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do. It's not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own lights shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

Nelson Mandela

That employment thing is a strong point. I mean, you don't get Muslims working the tills in Asda refusing to handle the Walls Pork sausages when people buy them.

But when I was talking, I was talking about Sikhs who go out to buy an Off License, where the whole aim is to sell booze (and fags). It is not just a small part of what else goes on their but the main purpose.

well they are trying to achieve that status: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ry-alcohol.html

i might go and buy some sausages and see what muslim staff say at the checkout.

as for buying offlicences, well it is bad to buy one just to sell those 2, but so is setting up a gurudwara just to pocket the money, like people often do now.

blah blah

I would think he would not be so arrogant as not to show respect to Hindu Devtas.

oh you think so do you? well guess what, you can 'think' all you want, but it doesnt mean your anywhere near the truth. and what does this have to do with sharia? its about what gurbani says, not some mumbo jumbo biblical sand belief system came up with.

so what next then? we dont live in purely sikh countries. we can deter them, but if its what they want, what right do we have to force our beliefs on them? next we will have sikhs who work in tescos saying they cant touch meat packets or alcohol bottles or tobacco is not allowed within ten metres of every sikh. what is actually wrong with it? if it said in gurbani that we shouldnt supply, then fair enough, otherwise we have to be realistic.

what a whiny little girl. so what if she wants to be pimped by a vicar rather than an imman? its the same religion in the end. they all deserve a lot of suffering. also, if she loves jesus, why is she afraid of death? isnt going to heaven and banging jesus what they all want? talk about hypocrites.

From what I read a small contingent of Afghans came to help fight the British but left quickly after it got hot.. Where did you get this info on mutilations from?

after our defeat in the first anglo-sikh war, the sikh army commanders offered the afghans multan and peshawar if they sided with us and helped fight the british. at the news of this, most of the muslims in the punjabi army went to multan and were besieged with the instigator of the second war. the khalsa went to the part of the punjab referred to as 'sikh country'. the afghans sent virtually no help, and left as soon as multan fell to the british. as half of the khalsa was trapped in gujerat (the town), the british moved in with overwhelming numbers and slaughtered them. it was said that muslim women came rushing out after the battle, cheering as the british cavalry chased and killed the stragglers who were fleeing the defeat, and then began to loot the dead bodies and mutilated many of them for earings, rings, other jewellery or just to make sure they were dead. i read this a while ago, when i was a teenager and went through a phase where i read as much as i could find about the first khalsa raj and the sikh army. it was such a heart wrenching thing to read about that i doubt i'll ever forget about it. those hijabbed b*tches probably looked like jamdhoots to the poor wounded sikh kids lying there who were drafted in to fight in the second war. thinking about this is making me so mad now. f*ck the pakis and f*ck the british. i hope they all suffer for what they did to us. b@stards.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SikhRegiment/

a request to everyone to sign it.

arguing over this is stupid. people are already taking sides. what a shame.

when i started uni, i came across quite a few freshies. they told their sikh jokes, and i cussed them till they screwed up their faces like freshies do. but one point they used to go on about, and i cant forget about is related to sikh bravery. they always went on that we sikhs havent won anything by ourselves for over a century. and what they meant is that all our brave acts in WW1, WW2 and Kargil/Kashmir etc, we were provided with training by the british/hindustanis, they gave us the equipment, their politicians told us which theatre of war to go to etc. and this point struck me, as it is partially true, where as the rest of their points were just bigoted junk. even during the khalsa raj, we relied on the people of the punjab to supply us, and perform other non-soldiering jobs in our country. we need to think for ourselves and be self sufficient in all areas if we want to shield ourselves from the problems that are bubbling to the surface.

to dalsingh:

as for relations between sikhs and muslims in punjab, on a personal level i am sure many sikhs and muslims were friends. but on a community level, the majority of muslims supported the afghans everytime they invaded (even when the afghans treated them like shit) and mutilated khalsa soldiers left on battlefields during the anglo-sikh wars.

to MJ:

shut up for god's sake. why dont you preach at the whites, rather than trying to get us sikhs to do your dirty work.

That is debatable. Plus you've also pointed out the absurdity of British military superiority seeing as they have been conquered a few times. Maybe it is the surviving blood of these conquerors playing a apart in all of the recent history anyway? Did anything in these people's previous history ever give an impression that they would be capable of what they have done with imperialism? If anything, based on some of the surviving Roman accounts of Britain, this place was considered the epitome of savagery and backwardness. A Friday night closing time in many typically British towns would attest to this today even.

unfortunately, they refer to this as one of their 'underdog' periods. which brings me to another point - the english always claim they are the underdogs......but this is just the image they want to project of themselve. in reality, they are cunning, sly and very very thorough in planning and execution of what they do. which is a strategy that has worked well for them.

Don't forget how they were shafted by The Afghans. Sad thing is, that many view the "remoulded/recycled for British use" style Khalsa as some sort of grand achievement. The descendents of the Khalsa must learn to rule themselves justly but sadly many of the less sophisticated brothers fail to understand this.

and do you know the history of britain's first failure in afghanistan? i'll tell you. the british wanted us to invade afghanistan with them. they offered us all the resources they could muster, if we provided the troops. maharaja ranjit singh or one of the sikh army commandeers proposed another plan: the british army would be allowed across the punjab and given support by the khalsa, but would have to invade afghanistan by themselves..... and if they won, they would be allowed free passage across the punjab to their bases in afghanistan. the british jumped at the chance, as if they won, they would turn the khalsa raj into a subjugated state. blinded by their greed, they went straight in......... and the rest as they say is history. see? we sikhs can be as good at tricking others as they are at tricking us. unfortunately, this political victory was short lived as the khalsa was defeated and then used for an entire century to secure the north west frontier.

totally agree with the part about learning to rely on ourselves.

That is essentially the hub of the matter, quality strategic or top level planning filtering down to activism at the ground level. At the moment this doesn't exist in the panth. The fact that we essentially have greedy landowners for leaders with no patriotic streak is killling us. Any decision they make will be based on self serving land owning instincts, nothing for the greater good. Even if Mahrajah Ranjit SIngh was a bit randy and expansionist, he at least improved the lot of the common man judging by contemporary accounts. Whilst we burn away our energy on Kala Afghana, Dera Saucha Souda (?), Dasam Granth arguments and whoever will appear next for us to bicker over, the rest of the progressing world looks outwards towards real threats.

well then, we have to expose these people, and use the same devices and instruments that other nations use to inspire patriotism in their lot. badal has to go. and replaced by a real leader. how to accomplish this, i have no idea.

You see, I think people like McLeod's work is exactly in this mould. Intricate studies of us concentrating on our weaknesses. Look at us in comparison. Whiteman have produced hundreds (more likely thousands) of books on Sikhs and have had a big say in what Sikhs have been able to do for well over a century. In comparison, how many books have Sikhs written about Anglos? How much do they understand them, both now and in the past? Given that they simply don't, or decide to take the path of sycophancy, we will always be mugs in the games of people more forward thinking and manipulative than us.

it is hard to find out what sikhs back then thought of the english. some english accounts from travellers in the punjab say that most of the sikhs they met considered english women heavy drinkers, and thought that london was full of prostitutes. both of which were true, but not exactly deep insights which would have helped the khalsa in the upcoming wars.

What is sickening is that many Sikhs are blind to this. Especially Jat Sikhs many of whom would happily go along with their nonsense.

really? most of the pro-khalistanis are jatts. i've also had my fair share of problems with stupid khatris too, so its not just jatts.

That is it. Sikhs were essentially easily pliable canon fodder for these people during colonial times. The whole martial races thing was projected to ensure those that were unlikely to exert their own independence were encouraged to enlist. They twisted the Amrit ceremony according to Macauliffe to include a vow of loyalty to the British monarchy. We were had, hook, line and sinker. They also caused a Protestant streak in Sikhi, which I am not sure is a good or bad thing (only time will tell, but having a look at the breakdown in conservative values in Protestant society doesn't bode well).

exactly. the whole point of this discussion is to dig deeper and unearth what mcleod and others like him are like, and to help other sikhs who read this see it too. all those who defend him have hopefully seen the thinking behind our opinions and wont fall for it so easily next time.

I think it is because such people live in a very structured, formal way with lots of formalities and graces they must adhere to. This is in stark contrast the the average rural Panjabi lifestyle which is often brusque, forward, forceful and direct. The two ways of life are essentially the antithesis of the other.

Errr, not really - its not that. Find some posh twats and see what happens.

A Sikh warrior gorilla.

Damn. As soon as i read that an image of a gorilla on a motorbike, with a RPG, chasing an indian army jeep came into my mind.

As for Niddar Singh, i think we should all go to his lessons at least once to see what its all about and see what he has to say, rather than just gossiping on the net. who has the dates of his lessons?

Forgive her, and keep an eye on her and her associates from now on.

but there are even accusations of homosexual rape as well. did mohammed swing that way as well then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8192660.stm

this story is all over the net from multiple sources. its a little hypocritical isnt it? but now you know why those little pathetic european men convert to islam and then hop over to live in the Shiah Islamic Republic.....

please discuss.

"Allahu Akbar! Hadooken!"

are the musis now using moves from Street Fighter?!? cant they think of anything original........

my opinion is that this was quite amusing. it would be even more funnier if i knew we sikhs would stay out of it and bide our time. but we wont. we'll jump right in. some on the side of the goreh, others for the musis. and either way we're screwed. since the Khalsa's defeat in Gujerat, we sikhs have fought many battles for loads of different peoples. and each time, we end up worse off in the end than either of the 2 sides involved in the conflict. its a shame that other sikhs dont see this, and will end up fighting for others. both sides will try to court the panth and get some assurances of us helping them, or at least not fighting them. we should just say yes to both and then stay clear and let them do each other in.

I think being an island helped big time in this. Launching a fullscale invasion over here was frought with perils.....as the Armada would testify. National development too is aided by relative peace and stabilty and although they have constantly been at war, they have never had to regularly contend with hordes like Abdali's or Nadir Shah's for example. Plus there wasn't much to take from here in terms of booty. I guess the island theory also helps partially explain their past naval supremacy. No boats = stuck on the island.

in a way yes. but the romans, vikings, angles, saxons and normans all proved its possible. and having to contend with imperial france and other european alliances is what set england off on her expansionist craze. if we sikhs did not have the afghans/other sulleh and the maharattas/chinese to fight with, our first khalsa raj legionnaires would not have been as formidable as they were on the fields of Mudki and Chillianwallah. my point is that in front of whitey, we should not acknowledge any superior beliefs they have, as they individually are not responsible for their ancestors deeds or britains stature in the world today. but we have to face that they did end up 'uber alles', where as the khalsa was crushed and then moulded to fit the needs of others. once we understand history, once we see the 'peaks and troughs' we can actually begin to shape our future, a future where the Khalsa marches on waheguru's hukam, not from orders issued in London, Delhi or Islamabad.

Regarding your last point (in bold above). We have yet to see what the future holds. Will they still be able to keep their global position over the next century? Who knows? It already feels like their once unchallenged position is waning globally. Other than being an appendage of America, what does the future hold for Britain? Many resent affiliation with Europe here. There is no denying that Britain seriously benefitted from the gains from their empire days and I guess some people here have trouble moving on from that. A large part of that experience for them involved creating and fostering a world view that saw the races they were to attack and conquer as inferior. It had a great effect on their so called academic studies and worldview that some would say lingers on today, albeit in a less in your face way. To be fair, the point that we (Sikhs) have a problem moving on from our own people's 1700s history can also be broached. But I don't think our own history has ever been used as some justification for riding roughshod over people. Personally I think going down a peg or two will do the folks here a world of good. Let them do what they want but they shouldn't really be interfering around the globe, especially when they usually makes things worse in the regions where they meddle in the long run.

yes, no one knows the future. but it can be predicted, prepared for and events manipulated to come to an outcome that suits those who pursue it thoroughly enough. i am relatively young, and i can easily say that the english are a ruthless, machiavellian lot when it comes down to it, and are a far cry from the gentleman image they try to portray. they are already preparing for war with russia and china (recent mod papers have pretty much said that is who britain will face next). they are encouraging america to surround those two, and help the americans by restarting what the goreh refer to as the 'Anglosphere'. my point is that whatever happens, these people come out with something to deal with it, often completely out of the blue unless you see the signs before hand. us sikhs on the other hand, walk into every trap our enemies can lay. the whites are ruthless and cunning. they spent 40 years on the borders of the punjab watching us. many sikh historians say they were scared etc etc and thats why they didnt attack. but they were just waiting and learning. apart from their afghanistan-adventure (which was a result of their greed), they were able to wait until the time was right and all their plots came together. the khalsa on the fields of Mudki had no idea what they would face. we had no real intelligence on our enemy - they could have come running with spears and shields or Challenger tanks, we wouldnt have known. this attitude has to change, especially if we want to stop being the pawns in the games of others.

now i'm not saying white people are better than us. hell no. a sikh raised in the same country/institutions/class background, will do just as well as any gora. but on a community level and then a national level, they will beat us hands down each time. we cant ignore that, we should face it and we should do something about it. many sikhs use the glory of our history as a shield from the real world - they refuse to acknowledge that we are being out maneuvered by our enemies and being set up for a fall. i seriously doubt our ancestors would be happy if they saw us hiding behind their deeds and using them as excuses for apathy, ignorance and a lack of engagement with the world.

"they shouldn't really be interfering around the globe, especially when they usually makes things worse in the regions where they meddle in the long run"

i find your above comment very interesting. what makes you think they actually have the interest of others at heart? they trot that line out again and again, but its a lie. during the empire, they went on about the 'white mans burden' etc and now have other excuses for what they get up to. its all part of their gentleman facade. why is their so much corruption in the 3rd world, especially when western powers could do so much to force them to change? well put it like this: when a nigerian/venezuelan/etc official becomes a minister/president/etc, they have access to riduculous amounts of wealth. and guess what, they dip their hands right in. but what do they do with all their countries' wealth?!? can they invest it in their countries institutions/banks? no, not if they want to see it again. so, they go to a country which will look after all that money.........you guessed it!! its the usa or britain. and then they leg it over here and enjoy their ill-gotten gains, which are looked after by the great banking institutions of this country. they dont do anything to help others unless it really helps them a lot more. they will keep on sticking their noses and hands in other people affairs until someone cuts them off.

This thing you wrote is at the heart of the matter. Making English 'the' International language and then 'owning' various subjects [including other people's history], puts one in an incredible position of power (over them). Sikhs should resist this strongly. Our own fault lies in our conservatism towards our history. Funny thing is that if a Sikh writer had wrote the very same things as McLeod about Sikh history, that guy would have been in the same boat as Kala Afghana. If a Sikh man had simply said (for instance), that Guru Nanak never started a new faith but essentially reworked the standard sant tradition of North India, they would probably end up with getting their pagh knocked off at some stage. Sometimes I wonder about the lingering effects of colonialism on us...some of the older people (and some younger) for example seem to have serious sycophantic tendencies towards our former masters and what they say.

i think its a mixed bag. some sikhs are suck ups to goreh/hindustanis/musis (delete as applicable), and others hate goreh/hindustanis/musis (delete as applicable) to the core. my grandad told me when he was in the punjab (before and after partition) that they were all told how britain had streets paved with gold and other nonsense. he believed it as the british were practically stealing anything valuable in the punjab. when he got here, it was all terraced houses and dirty grimy industrial towns. obviously my grandad did not keep any beliefs in their crap.

I'd be interested in what similarities you see between the Jewish diaspora and us? Is it having no independent homeland? With India, I think we have to "suck it up" right now. Speaking in terms of global politics and comparitive numbers, the concept of a Sikh homeland seems less popular than neo-nazism at the moment! lol All the talk is of the emerging superpower, India! No one really takes the views of a portion of a 1 to 2 percent minority group with any weight in all of this. Plus, you know us, we will be our own enemies anyway. You know, there was a time as a kid, pre1984, when you would feel proud of being Indian.....since then.....

That being said you do meet Sikhs who are proud to be Indian. That is difficult for me, but I can imagine a generation or two down the line, it may be different for Sikhs. Unless another 1984 happens......(God forbid).

well its more the history of the jewish diaspora, as their religion changed so much. as a minority wherever we go, we will always take in their cultural and possibly religous habits. sikhs in hindustan avoid beef, but in canada and argentina they do eat beef (well not all of them, but you know what i mean). in britain, loads of sikhs go down the pub. and before anyone says they arent sikhs, well none of us are sikhs then. this spartan-esque attitude of kicking people out of sikhism is another thing we need to get over. anyway, like i was saying, the jews went through a massive change in their religion after spending 2000 years in the wilderness of not having a country. if jesus and the rest of his terrorists/freedom fighter friends came back and wandered around israel, they would probably cry as they would look at the jews and see that they were like the jews that King Herod was trying to encourage in his kingdom. its a hard point to make, i hope you understand. let me give you another one: imagine we go to khalistan in the future and find its filled with 'sikhs' who believe in a warped sense of sikhi, misinterpret the SGGS ji and have stripped out major parts of our heritage and replaced it with stuff from other religions/cultures? badal is like a modern day king herod, and we will face great turmoil if we dont heed the warnings of history. as for just sitting it out, that will be like signing our own death warrants. if we sikhs dont win something by the time our grandchildren's generation is middle aged, we are will be on the slippery path to having our religion changed beyond recognition over time. so that means more hindusikhs in india, and more sikhs in the diaspora who are going to adopt what they see around them.

The "some" you talk of above are a minority from my experiences. Top down attempts to demonise or belittle races/people

doesn't fool everyone. What I was talking about earlier was the whole "mechanics" of the society not individuals. Thankfully some people are able to see through the fog and lies. Sadly not enough. Some people simply don't care about what is happening as long they are not effected. This apathetic group (the majority) essentially turns a blind eye to it all. In effect though, they are complicit through inaction. Going back to the thread. I think people like McLeod, fit squarely in the bracket of those who wish to preserve the old status quo. The old ways of thinking are still engrained in his work. That is why so many Sikhs are offended by his work. Other than that he plays the old flattery game with Jatts. Which he would know (from Imperial history) is how to gain their compliance.

like i said before, they learn before they leap and knew us inside out. i remember someone i know who is in the army and collects random shit from the colonial periods. one thing he had was a badly tattered handbook given to british officers about what to do when in control of a sikh unit, and it was quite funny as it described our turbulent, lazy attitude and our sudden ability to jump into action, as well as other stuff, and how to get the best of sikhs. most of it was unreadable though, which was a shame. we sikhs dont bother using our brains, and we make the fatal assumption that everyone else is as apathetic or careless as we are. they're not. they just want you to think they are.

I don't think it is biological either by the way...more social conditioning, that not everyone falls for. The most interesting questions relates to who historically initiated these ideas, what techniques did they use to gain the support of so many people and what was the journey of those original ideas becoming widepread/ingrained into the fabric of society.

true. i know that many whites tried to mix hinduism and christianity in india and others got circumcised and other stuff at the beginning of the raj. but that attitude changed. i think it mainly came with the ease at which they were able to use their navy to blunt their enemies, and how the east india company crushed native indian nations. lets face it, if the khalsa had beaten the english and made it to the shores of this country, they would have felt like they were born to rule. or if a modern day indian company took over all of europe, which is what the english did to the subcontinent, most indians would think that there was somthing inferior about europeans.

and how can those views be changed? the only way i can think of is if they got a good kicking in a war. but that would cause major trouble all over the country, and would end up with a lot of people dead. i cant think of another way.

I've never seen Sikhs and the upper classes together myself. Do you mean the middle classes? Who do you mean when you say upperclasses, exactly?

no i was on about real posh people. in my experience, i cant explain it, but they just annoy me. other sikhs have said the same thing. i can get on with other goreh. i was just asking as it is a contrast with your comments about sikhs sucking up to colonial masters. is it resentment or some ancestoral anger at them? i dont know. time for me to go and have a think. and the end of my unclear rant.

you sound a little upset weedol! i'm sure all those camps you have in albania/north africa/pakistan are just as good..........or are they? lol.

i (personally) think that its bad for those who are buying rather than the ones selling, as long as they arent being forced or encouraged to buy things like that. banning these things will just encourage more bad actions as people expect others to stop them rather than developing the self-will to not do these things.

dear god. its like a shining light in a sea of darkness. in england, white kids from middle-class/upper-class backgrounds go to 3rd world countries to build orphanages and run camps for the kids there. our lot mope around in 'sikhi' camps during the summer, wishing they were somewhere else. its time to mobilise and actually do more than simple charity. but to do that we would need a lot of money to run it. why dont gurudwaras do things about situations like this?

also, either asking for what they need or sending them luxuries will help us do something in the short term. if you get any feedback from them, please post it up on here.

read Xylitol's comment in the middle of page 3. some people actually believe it. its a shame that so many sikhs fall for that kind of research to back up their own personal (not religous!) beliefs, without realising people like him deliberately take skewed, extreme and one-sided views as they know it will get them more interest from the media and public.