terrorists or defenders of faith???

[indy]

fateh all!!!!

kidhaa singhs an sighnia teek taak, had a little discussion wiv this one singh at the gurdwara and it got me into thinkin...........

As i have grown up i have bin taught to be tolerant of other peoples views and cultures and diffrent ways of life. If someone verbally puts you down, ignore them and be the "better man", if put dwn pysically or verbally turn ur cheek and forgive, this is the gurmat way-so i have bin told.

so when applied into real life situations some one makes a film which puts down singhs and it offends the sangat, whether it causes us offence we should let it be as gurmukhs. But when a singh lets off a bomb outside a cinema and kills innocent people just wanting to watch a film just as many singhs have viewed passion of christ.

Is this seen as right in the eyes of a gurmukh. Killing innocents to impose your views. Films which make fun of sikhs or offend sikhs wil not determine our paths to sachkandh so why feel a need to intrude.

im not sure whether singhs who have done such bombings should be seen as gabroos or defenders of the faith or terrorist such as the IRA.

hope i didnt offend anyone and hopefully someone can clarify to me if this is right or wrong.

gurbarakaaaaaaaaaaaaall!!

[Niranjana]

“Turning the other cheek†is a Christian concept and not Sikhi. “Dekh ke andit kita†is the truly Sikh concept as per our daily Ardas. Your question is nonetheless valid, are actions such as bombing planes, shooting unarmed females, blowing up cinemas, issuing death threats to women actions of warriors? Is it this the way of the warrior or the terrorist? Or indeed is one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter as many like to quote? Do these actions exemplify Bir Ras (Veer Rasna) in all its qualities (Daya, Dhan, Dharam and Yudh) or only the latter?

[artistformalyknownasodhi]

"bombing planes, shooting unarmed females, blowing up cinemas, issuing death threats to women actions of warriors"

well all this can be seen in different context can it not, now if u do such things to put ur piont accross are u not mearly the same as the taliban or al-queda, but then the question is really are ne of these things acceptable at all, this question truely is a inigma, i now want a answer for this can ne one enlighten me bout this.

personaly, i'd never hurt a lady unless she obviosly tried killing, me

see i dnt understand at all

[DSM]

I think it depends on the situation , can't remember the exact quote from siri Guru Gbind Singh Ji , goes something like this " if all other means fail when upholding justice fails , then it is just to draw the sword "

The above mentioned incidents , have we really exhauasted all peaceful means to get justice , in their wrong doings ? i don't think so .

I believe there is a minority of people who are fanatics and get worked up

for no reason and act in a manner that in thier eyes they are fighting for religion but in fact are doing more damage than good

I also believe that a true sikh , will not run away when fighting for righteousness i.e. like saheed udham singh , when he shot general dyer in the court room , he did not shoot him and run away

[BAZ]

I think anyone who intentionally targets civilians to get at their government is a terrorist whether this person is a Sikh or Muslim or whatever. It is the dark nature of man that comes up with excuses for targeting civilians and this dark nature of man is soaked in anger, hatred, pride and ignorence.

Many muslims make up excuses for suicide bombers and their targeting of civilian Israelis. They say that because every Israeli must serve one year in the military there are no real civilians and everyone becomes a legitimate target. So they use this to justify the blowing up of israelis riding the bus or standing in line at a pizza shop. Being a muslim myself I have heard many "uncles", born muslims and even a couple of convert muslims use this as an excuse to justify the methods of suicide bombers. What Israel is doing to Palestinians isnt right either but 2 wrongs never make a right.

With that being said I would say that the biggest terrorist act was done by America with the biggest weapon of mass destruction against Japan. A nuclear bomb is meant to target civilians and is the greatest terrorist weapon in the world.

A true freedom fighter should never be a terrorist. Terrorists will call themselves freedom fighters because they believe the end justifies the means. A true man or woman of religion who is in touch with his or her true spiritual core would never be a terrorist while being a freedom fighter.

Religious warriors need to be saints or be led by saints. If they are not there is a danger that they will be lead by the whisperings of the devil or by their own ego and lower self.

[Guest]

Great post baz..keep it coming

[artistformalyknownasodhi]

wikid post baz

But do Religious worriors need to be saints of jus have high morals, because is it not our morals which causes us to do certain acts,

[BAZ]

I honestly believe that religious warriors either need to be saints themselves or be guided by saints because in war it is too easy to give into ones anger and fear and hatred.

For me Hazrat Ali is a good example of a Warrior Saint.

Once Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, was fighting on the battlefield with one of the most powerful champions of the enemy. He finally managed to strike the warrior's sword from his hand. As he raised his sword to take the enemy's life, the man spat in his Ali's face. Ali stopped and sheathed his sword. His enemy said "I don't understand. You were about to kill me, and after I spit at you, you spare my life?

Ali replied: "I was going to take your life in battling for God's sake, but when you spat at me, it angered me. Had I killed you then, I would have been a murderer, for I would have struck in anger. I will fight for God, but I will not murder for my ego."

[artistformalyknownasodhi]

thats wikid baz makes sense, yes, but i mean bk in the past people were so spiritualy strong then unlike now days, now for me i am willing to fight for ne just cause not jus my religion, is that sort of the same thing,

baz u got bair info help this fool out.

by the way nice kitty

[Pheena]

I honestly believe that religious warriors either need to be saints themselves or be guided by saints because in war it is too easy to give into ones anger and fear and hatred.

For me Hazrat Ali is a good example of a Warrior Saint.

Once Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, was fighting on the battlefield with one of the most powerful champions of the enemy. He finally managed to strike the warrior's sword from his hand. As he raised his sword to take the enemy's life, the man spat in his Ali's face. Ali stopped and sheathed his sword. His enemy said "I don't understand. You were about to kill me, and after I spit at you, you spare my life?

Ali replied: "I was going to take your life in battling for God's sake, but when you spat at me, it angered me. Had I killed you then, I would have been a murderer, for I would have struck in anger. I will fight for God, but I will not murder for my ego."

That is an Awesome story...glad you are here to share you thoughts with us. 8)

[Guest Javanmard]

I believe in the religion of Love, whatever direction its caravans may take, for Love is my religion and my faith - Ibn 'Arabi

[Freed]

Dear Shaka Nyorai Bhai Sahib,

With respect, isn't the reference to Narimar - that is the 'R' being 'rhaarhaa' - the 35th letter, not 'raaraa' the 32nd letter of the 'penti'

- A reference to 'hookah' smokers not female infanticide ?

However I am not a philologist !! - apologies if this sounds a bit like I'm trying to 'score' points - I am not - just a genuine interest in language.

[challenge_everything]

it is 'rhaarhaa' - the 35th letter... i think according to budha dal rehat maryada sahib

[artistformalyknownasodhi]

i agree with shaka fully on this one, how can some kill innocecent people &/or women/children be classed as a sikh, but then the question arises, if the woman has done something bad to you what does this mean u can not retaliate n u have to stand their while she keeps killing people that u may know &/or being clearly racist, or is this rule subsided when the question of protectings one's faith(dharam) n honour (izat)

[CK]

Salaam Alaikam BAZ ji,

Those are awesome words.

I'm really glad you are here to share your input with us...I have really enjoyed reading your posts. I'm kind of a moorakh with Sikhi, but I'm a double moorak with Isalm. Looking forward to reading more.

That's one heck of a kitten you have...

[x_suman_x]

indi,

hawara did not bomb cinema

there are witnesses to prove that hawara was arrested in patiala not in delhi as the police say

whilst i am sure that it was most probably a sikh i am certain that it was not hawara. he is a freedom fighter and would not kill innocents.

yes he killed beant singh but that was the only way to stop beant singh from taking more innocent lives. sometimes we need to take up arms to get rid of tyrants. hitler would still be here otherwise. our gurus also had to do this

[x_suman_x]

:!:

[ComeGetSome]

Indy, it was the Indian Goverment who did the cinema blasts in Dehli not Gursikhs, think about it logically.

[indy]

thanx 4 the response, i must hav gt my wires crossed about the cinema bombings event

akaaaaaal

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Das wants to know

Was it Indian So Called Hindu Government which made Bad film like Boly So Nihal to allgedly defame Sikhs which lead to large scale protests and in those protrests even Hindus of Punjab came out openly to support Sikhs.

So if Indian Govt. made such film then why should it bomb the cinema showing the same to discourage viwrs to see it and hall owners to stop its screning.

In fact Mr Ponty Chadhdha who is distrributer of the film has strong ties with govt/politicians.

Panth must not copy Al Qaeda of Pakistani who commit wrong and then blame the same to the sufferer.

It was a combined Sikh and Hindu attemt suported by Babbers to do blast in hall. Had they not did it when people were in or done it at a place hwere there would hvae been no civilian casua;lities like in arking lot etc. then lss of life may not have occured.

In mvements collatral damges can n ot be ruled but but we must not suport kiling of innocents.

Say we kill 10 hindus they will kill 20 of our innocents and this will goes on.

To act sensibly we ned to take coopration of all clases of peple like Sikhs at misl perid did against the crupt government so insite of being a minority Sikhs were able to make Sikh Kingdom in area inhabited by Majority of Muslims.

Das just wants to request to be careful in near future when we have similar situation.

[ComeGetSome]

Babbars do not support killing innocents, and it wasnt sikhs who did the blasts, the indian government is to blame and its so obvious.

[x_suman_x]

who brainwashed you vijaydeep Singh?

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

No one brainwashed Das.

Das knows that Govt of India at present may not indulge in terrorsit acts.That also at own civilians.

[x_suman_x]

they are defenders of faith!!!!!!!

[x_suman_x]

the people who bombed cinema are terrorists. but im sure that it was not hawara. he stayed with my uncle in india while being on the run and they know him well and told me that he would never take an innocents life.

he has openly admitted killing the murderer beant singh and was proud of it even though he knew he could get death sentence so if he did bomb cinema why isnt he admitting!!!