We left Islam

[A_Sikh_For_Life]

Who we are:

We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits.

What we believe:

Some of us have embraced other religions but most of us have simply left Islam without believing in any other religion. We believe in humanity. We believe that humans do not need to follow a religion to be good. All we need to follow is the Golden Rule. All we have to do is to treat others they way we expect to be treated. This is the essence of all the goodness. All good religious teachings stem from this eternal principle. This is the ultimate guidance humanity need. This is the Golden Rule.

Why Mohammed was not a prophet:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions†(Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.

FEATURED APOSTATES

Manikhan - Maldives- Maldives

Haji - Pakistan - Pakistan

Ben Rukhsana - UK - UK

Tuhan - Malaysia - Malaysia

Jefferson - - Morocco

Blue Mage - USA - USA

"Avatars on Islam"

Video: Cutting of Hands and Feet (punishment in Islam)

Book! Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out

Video of Stoning to Death

News: Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family

Arab American Psychologist Wafa Sultan on Islam (video) | Profile

An alternative to Islam:

ARTICLES

Mohammad The Pedophile - Parvin Darabi

Breaking the manacles of Islam - Abul Kasem

Yes, this is about Islam - Salman Rushdie

Why Quran is not from God:

Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a “Surah like it†or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

What is our goal?

We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind.

Mankind’s biggest challenge:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals must realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of Islamic world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the arrogant assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the most perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine — the most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes common knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose its fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat Islamic terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be eliminated unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated. This is what we intend to do.

* * *

[amardeep]

those freaks does not have the proper understandig of islam.. most of what they write on that page is a lie

[A_Sikh_For_Life]

I beg to differ.!

There is PLENTY of evidence in REAL life to show "doctrine of hate and terror."

From a popular muslim site!:

"Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who listened to the message and responded to it, and it spread by means of force and the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality.

Evidence of forced conversion is found in India as all Pakistani and indian muslims were once hindus.

[amardeep]

thats true..but islam does not teach you to spread your religion by force...

thats like saying "in sikhi it is allowed to drink alcohol because punjab is the state in india where people consume most alcohol" :..bla bla...

[A_Sikh_For_Life]

I dont get your argument!.

You have your prerogative on your perception of your Islamic religion.

But one cant deny the evidence of hate and terror since, well i could say, since the conception of Islam!.

One of the tactics of conversion is already here in this forum in the form of

(most probably your collegue) sikh2islam.

And I as a Sikh say 2 Islam, your methods are putting your religion to shame and not exactly protraying it to the WWW communitiy in the best light.

If this is the way you think you should propagate you religion (brainwashing tactics mostly filled with nonsence and hate) then I have everyright to say "Was Mohammad really a Prophet".?

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[amardeep]

the bhai gurdass vaara call Muhammad a beloved of God, and Bani of Guru Arjan Maharaj calls him rasool, meaning prophet..

he was a prophet indeed..

[kdsingh80]

the bhai gurdass vaara call Muhammad a beloved of God, and Bani of Guru Arjan Maharaj calls him rasool, meaning prophet..

he was a prophet indeed..

dear amardeep

its good that you respect islam and muslims but you always go overboard in protecting islam and muslims.i don't understand why?you always quote one single line of bhai gurdas now lets see what bhai gurdas has written in his vaar.

bahu vaatteen jaag chaleeaaan jab hee bheae mehanmadh yaaraa||

When varied sects got prevalent, then Muhammad, the beloved of God was born.

Line 1

kOm bh`qr sMg kr bhu ibiD bYr ibroD pswrw]

kaam behaathar sang kar bahu bidhh bair birodhh pasaaraa||

The nation got divided into seventy two divisions and many types of enmity and opposition erupted.

Line 2

roJy eId nmwJ kr krmI bMd kIAw sMswrw]

rojhae eedh namaajh kar karamee bandh keeaa sansaaraa||

The world was bound to roza, id, namaz, etc.

Line 3

pIr pkMbr AOlIAY ZOs kuqb bhu ByK svwrw]

peer pakanbar aaleeai ghaas kuthab bahu bhaekh savaaraa||

Pirs, paigambars aulias, gaus and qutabs came into being in many countries.

Line 4

Twkur duAwrY FwihkY iqh TAuVIN msIq auswrw]

thaakur dhuaarai dtaahikai thih thaaurreen maseeth ousaaraa||

The temples were replaced by mosques.

Line 5

mwrn ga grIb DrqI aupr pwp ibQwrw]

maaran gou gareeb dhharathee oupar paap bithhaaraa||

Less powerful were killed and thus the earth became replete with sin.

Line 6

kwPr mulhd iermnI rUMmI jMgI duSmn dwrw]

kaafar mulehadh eiramanee roonmee jangee dhushaman dhaaraa||

Armenians and Rumis were declared apostates (Kafirs) and they were decimated in the Battle fields.

Line 7

pwpy dw vriqAw vrqwrw ]òú]

paapae dhaa varathiaa varathaaraa ||aa||

The sin became ubiquitious all around.

so bhai gurdas ji actually criticised islam for its barbarity

now take a look what bhai mati das said before his shaheedi

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/gurus/nanak9.html

First of all Bhai Mati das was asked to become a Muslaman. He replied that Sikhism was true and Islam was false. If God had favoured Islam, he would have created all men circumised.

please remember one thing our guru's rejected both hinduism and islam

quran is not the word of god.had quran been word of god then our guru's would had embraced islam.

[amardeep]

the way i see it, Bhai Gurdass is narrating the history of the muslims....all of the events that he tells took place after Muhammad had died..

it is common sence among scholars that what muslims did after the dead of the prophet had NOTHING to do with Muhammads teachings..

i am not familiar with the sayings of Bhai Mati Dass, but it sounds interesting.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Das seconds Bhai Amardeep Singh JI,

Wrong pseudo Muslims should be send to hell and let Sikhs rule the True Islamic World as we are the true Inheter of True Islam.

[A_Sikh_For_Life]

the bhai gurdass vaara call Muhammad a beloved of God, and Bani of Guru Arjan Maharaj calls him rasool, meaning prophet..

he was a prophet indeed..

We can spot you as a Muslim a mile away. Well you have your opinions.

All the best to all who have left Isam(APOSTATES). At the least they still have a few grey cells left in their head to do the right think in the nick of time.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Bhai Amardeep Singh Ji like Bhai Bundha ,Bhai TSingh and das all are Muslims.Allah Ho Akbar.We want all Muslims to be Muslims like us and even if they do not yet they are our brothers of differnt sects.

[amardeep]

lol...so because i dont hate islam im a muslim? i dont hate girls either, does that make me a woman? hahahaha stupid....try to follow the footsteps of our beloved Gurus who did not discreminate against the slaves of God..

[bimel]

so much hatred...?...against islam...?...against prophet Muhammad...?

God is one, a little known fact. We all pray to him... how we do it is depending on our religion. Bottom line, we all bow our head to one God.

Tearing one religion down would be the same as tearing down your own religion.

I was once told by a very learned Gyani ji who explained that when ever evil percedes- man taken over by the 5 deadly evil, God reincarnates.

Not understanding what he meant by reincarnates, he further explained reincarnates here means he sends his messenger to us, sublty guiding us back to him.

His messengers come in many way, some area hard knock on our heads, our gut feeling, and even to the extent of sending us prophets and gurus.

I happily walked away thinking i had my answer. A few days later i came across my house mates Bhagavad Geeta. Curiousity got the better of me and i starting skimming through the pages and came across this Line

"With every birth of evil Vishnu reincarnates"...

The next day i was doing my japji sahib the line:

ekka mai jugat veayee, teen chelay pervan,

ik sansari, ik bandhari, ik laay dibaan.

confimed the answer:- the line was refering to vishnu, brahma, shiva. the three gods in hindu.

God is one, and he sends many mesengers to us.

I am sure there will be many other examples from SGGS ji refering to God as one and his vast messengers.

All religions are rivers from the same sea. Tearing one down, is the same tearing every other one.

[ISDhillon]

Islam has a problem in that it does not account for the reality of the times it is not adaptable to all walks of life and also their is something in islam that fails to deal with atrocities by its own subject against non-muslims.

[bimel]

i dont think its a problem of the religion.I think it is the problem of a handful of islam followers that mis-interpret the religion. And usually these people hold a very influential seat in the world making every Tom, Dick and Harry to follow.Not because Tom, Dick and Harry are fools but because they don't know any better, so they take in what ever that is told to them without making the effort of finding things out.

[amardeep]

Woow.im impressed Bimel..thats the spirit of a true Sikh...

May Akaal Purakh bless you

[tSingh]

Gurfateh,

IS DHillon, the same argument could be used against Sikhi word for word, that the Khalsa as such was a historical necessity but is now redundant in the light of nuclear war and modern warfare, that the rehitnamay that supposedly underpin practical morality are also contextualised in history, that these are drawn on on issues of the status of women within the representative bodies of the panth, further in fact you could argue that the turban itself is only of relevance within the culture in which it functions as a symbol of social status..and as for the denial of acts of violence against non-Sikhs, take a long hard look at the endless polemical defence of the crimes of some Khalistanis, the mythologising of Banda Bahadur's massacres of muslims, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but the point is that if you hold to that criticism, you must put your own house in order first.

[ISDhillon]

IS DHillon, the same argument could be used against Sikhi word for word, that the Khalsa as such was a historical necessity but is now redundant in the light of nuclear war and modern warfare,

how? when someone makes a stand for their principles against injustice the society evolves with time, it does not make sense that the khalsa is a supreme power, it is about virtuos people who stand up for righteousness, the united states has many weapons but from their wars vietnam is still communist, north korea has nuke, and iraq is a mess, what is the the value of nuclear weapons?

that the rehitnamay that supposedly underpin practical morality are also contextualised in history, that these are drawn on on issues of the status of women within the representative bodies of the panth,

rehatnama is not about practical morality at all morality has always been an individual effort in sikhism, rehat is about the most effective form of self-discipline to aid your self-realisation. Staus of women etc is a panthic issue if patriarchy sneeks in then we need to counter this again through gurupanth ie, the ISC.

further in fact you could argue that the turban itself is only of relevance within the culture in which it functions as a symbol of social status..

or possibly to hold your hair, these issues you have raised are irrelevant to this discussion because its all your personal opinion you have a strange definition of relevance.

and as for the denial of acts of violence against non-Sikhs, take a long hard look at the endless polemical defence of the crimes of some Khalistanis, the mythologising of Banda Bahadur's massacres of muslims, et

c.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but the point is that if you hold to that criticism, you must put your own house in order first.

[tSingh]

'Islam has a problem in that it does not account for the reality of the times it is not adaptable to all walks of life '

Then perhaps I jumped the gun. My first question should be for you to explain how?

Now the point at the end you missed, which is that I am simply creating a similar critique of Sikhi. It is a set of opinions by which we can debate, and I can only imagine many Muslims creating a similar defence to your critique.

On the issue of women, lets face facts my friend. When non-Sikh people talk in schools, courts, inter-faith meetings, blah blah blah of Sikhs overseas they are talking largely about men ('Sikhs wear turbans', 'Sikh men carry a 'sacred knfe'), when we talk about panthic sources of authority, scholars, saints, shaheeds, etc for all of its history we are talking about 99.99999 % men, when we talk about kirtani, paathi, gyani, pracharak (in other words the mediators between the Guru and the sangat in a Gurdwara) we are talking about men, when we talk about literature it is written by men, when we look at the very structure of the darbar of a gurdwara, it is men talking to and facing men. Sri Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings of great men quite often to a male formless deity (Hari, Ram, Akal Purakh). This is hardly a minor issue! This is endemic to the very structure of Sikhi. Although there is more to it than this, I think it is fair to say that as a tradition it is patriarchal and that it is equally plausable for non Sikhs to argue that Sikhi is potentially at odds with the concept of social, political equality (modern society) not in a formal sense but in an ACTUAL sense.

On the issue of weapons and warfare, such a point is valid. It could well be if I chose to argue it as this; if a kirpan REALLY is symbollic Sikhs should just carry a 5cm blunt symbol (NO!), if it is a real weapon then Sikhs should be honest about it, sharpen it and learn to use it BUT the reality is they would be made illegal immediately in most 'modern' countries as it no longer functions simply a 'sacred symbol'. Surely that is a perfectly arguable point that the kirpan is at odds with societies (whether you like it or not) wherein carrying a weapon is seen as a provocative act threatening the norms and values of that society. Such societies are usually the ones punjabis from doaba are keen to migrate to. So then a possible counter defence that a kirpan (which I agree when used correctly) is still a good means of defence is out of kilter with the norms of liberal democratic societies. So then your argument becomes 'the Khalsa should still push for righteousness' but without weapons....in actual fact, that REALLY IS the reality. Has a Sikh overseas ever used a kirpan to save lives? Most kirpans could barely cut an apple without half an hour and a lot of elbow grease. So if it is redundant as a weapon (which it was originally designed to be used as) why not wear a pretend plastic one on a neck chain? That is the argument.

You reject rehitnamay as examples of 'practical morality'. I'll spell it out, by practical morality it means 'what do I believe is right or wrong practically'? Are not issues of the use of intoxicants, relationships, dietary habits, social relationships practical moral issues? OF COURSE they are! In other words, your decision on whether to smoke a big cigar is motivated not by health, social or political values, but a moral one. 'If I smoke it I will not be following rehit; the Guru's beloved follow rehit; if I'm not Guru's beloved I'm not following Sikhi; if I'm not following Sikhi then I'm a manmukh and going to hell/suffer rebirth'. That is an example of standard moral reasoning in a religious tradition (so much ridiculed by Kant and Neitzsche as inherently flawed since it is not really moral at all and in fact quite selfish, but anyway).

Next, the turban. If you believe a turban is quite practicaly for holding our kesh, why not a cap or hat? Why does it state in Bhai Nand Lal's (is it?) rehitnama that the Singh who wears a topi goes to hell for seven lifetimes? Thats not a response. The turban was a status symbol, check out paintings of princes and maharajas, even early british raaj types back when. But you question the relevance of it. By your own defence of the turban as a 'holder of kesh' you demonstrate the issue. Why a turban, why not a cap? Clearly the turban has symbollic relevance and more importantly HAD great relevance when Sikhi, which was effectively a shudra panth, adopted the markers of regality to uplift the mindsets of those indivduals to empowered warriors. Yet, and I repeat, if you argue and I paraphrase, that Islam is not meeting the reality of these times, a person could also choose to argue that the turban is a culturally and historically specific status symbol. Outside of that historical cultural epoch it is not a status symbol and loses meaning and relevance. If it is not relevant then it is clearly not functioning within the modern social context. The principle on which it was founded must be modified with the changing times, and it is therefore no longer relevant to these times. Of course this is a weak argument, but it is certainly a plausable argument which I have heard in the past.

On your last point, tell me one positive thing that came from the Khalistani movement?! In my opinion the very terms on which it was created were communal rather than a more unified approach to greater federalism in India. After it I saw no radical reforms within government, no change in quotas of recruitment, no change in governmental policy to states who push for greater autonomy - the same tactics used in Punjab are being used in Kashmir and Manipur as we speak! All I could conclude was that politicans and pseudo politicians on one side pitched against the state and army on the other, and both unleashed a whole load of shit on innocent punjabis both Hindu and Sikh who took all the pain, torture and death. This sowed revenge recruitment which continued until the army swamped it committing horrific human rights abuses until the early 90s. If there had been a unity about the cause even among the Sikh intellegensia and various groups, more may well have been achieved...,but as we both know this is a very long well trodden debate that leads nowhere beyond claims of being covert RSS agents, who I hate just a little more than those Sikh facistic extremists like the ones who shot innocent girls in the legs for wearing jeans.

On the issue you mention of Islam not applying to 'all walks of life'. Here's a further issue. What exactly is the official status of someone who loves gurbani but for whatever reason does not want to commit to amrit? Or who can't because her husband won't allow it, or perhaps is gay and is told must marry, or is a fashion model with a really really great haircut, or even is of a different faith or whatever? Well, certainly according to Taksal, they're incapable of reaching any spiritual status as such without amrit (the irony being Sant Sundar Singh's teachers being Udasis who were brahmgyanis without amrit, but I digress). What rights do they have to representation among the SGPC? None, so they are second class Sikhs, not really taken seriously at a representative level...but even worse, officially they are wasting their time, if the fundamental AIM of Sikhi is to reach brahmgyan/mukti, they CANNOT get there! Is that being adaptive to 'all walks of life'? Again, it is arguable that it most certainly is not!

hope that clears up the points. So as I'm showing you, your own criticism of Islam turns into an equally relevant (since most points make up much of the youth discussions/inter-faith discussion I've come across) critique of Sikhi.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Das is just putting one personal opinion over here.

Das has brotherly relations with Indy Bhai and TSingh Ji both.so das will tell only a few things about brothert Indy which will clear mnay doubts.

Indy Bhai may not like many things from AKJ or Missioanries realted to Kala Afghana and he is rather follower of Baba Vadbhag Singh Ji.

One point over here is that Brother Indy does not like Islams saying that thier is the only way which is correct.

Das justs is trying to remove misunderstanding if it may arise that he is from AKJ or Missionary side.Das could be nearer to both gruops then Indy Bhai.

Anyway as we have our Brother TSinghJi here.Das requests him to let Indy Bhai be thought something about true Islam as das is aware that Brother are aware of correct prespective of Islam like Javanmard.

Due to fake Muslims our tendcy towards Islam becomes biased and we have aioment called Islamophobia.But in case of some Sikhs,they also act like bigot Muslims and our own impression also becomes Bad to non Sikh.Das is sure that Bhai Indy are not like that after reading his posts on Muslim forums.

Das can only request him to read jaffernammah as it is in tranlitration of farsi to Gurmukhi both at www.gobindsadan.org and www.sridasam.org and we get correct picture of Islam as per our Guru.Guru was against fundmentalists Muslims and not all Muslims.

Das is gaining a lot from healthy dialogue bet ween two Great Sikhs das is honoured to know.and das was just trying to remove if at all there is any misunderstanding.Das is aware that Bhai TSingh are intellectual gem and we should try to to take more knwoledge from him and this can imporve our life.

Das can request same to Bhai Indy Singh Ji to try to learn more and more from Bhai T Singh Ji and that will further arm him aganst fake or psuode Muslims,who spread lies about Gurmat and against fake Sikhs also who act in same manner as fake Muslims do for thier faith.And das is aware that both das and bhai Indy Ji have had disccused about such Sikhs on some other forum.

But for Das fake Sikh is still a Sikh and psedo Muslim still has term Muslim in that.We have to refrom them.

Das repeats this thing about Bhai Indy Singh Ji that he is himslef not as hysterically pro Amrit as we could think.He is libral and himself anti to Fanatics so more like das.There was some sort of misquting in interpetaion or explation by him.Rest Sangat has to decide.

[SAadmin]

great post tsingh, defaniately an eye opener.

Coming at Issue of amrit- when someone ask modern day groups about bhai ghaniya ji or bhai nand lal ji and other 52 poets in maharaj darbar and their status in sikhi? they are pretty quick to claim oh these guys were full fledged 5 kakari amrit dhari bibeki singhs despite of singh last name absent in their names, they are pretty quick to claim that they took khanda amrit when introduced because their charana amrit or naam amrit were no longer "valid".

I usually laugh at that classic response, they obviously havent got the whole essence of amrit that guru ji talked about in his gurbani at the first place.

[amardeep]

how come Bhai Nand Lala did not take amrit, if he was so fascinated at the Gurus teaching and went to stay with him in Anandpur, and was so close to Maharaj at all times?

[SAadmin]

amardeep,

who said he didnt at all?

Charan Amrit, Khanda batta da amrit are both sanskar amrit (outer layer of amrit ) , inside and very important layer of amrit- naam amrit- where either gurdev give you shabad (if its charan amrit) or panj pyares give you shabad(if its khanda batta da amrit) to awaken that amrit which is inside all of us.

In sukhmani sahib, sri guru arjan dev ji says:

Nuo Nidh Amrit prab ka naam dehi mein eska bisraam ||

[tSingh]

Gurfateh Bhai Sahib Vijaydeep Singh ji

Of course, and I meant absolutely no disrespect to Bhai Sahib ISDhillon. I was just working through the argument given against Islam (which I hear a lot from many sources both religious and unreligious). The argument usually gets mentioned just after the 'Sikhi is very scientific' crap people spout! The irony is that there is a lot of equally ludicrous Ãslam is very scientific' stuff around too. Any belief in a deity with a will that is not merely an intellectual concept is at odds with modern analytical 'science' as such, no matter how much quantum physics people start wavnig in the air (unless of course its the German use of the word science which is broader and more akin to 'knowledge', hence Marxism and Psychoanalysis being 'sciences'). What in fact people really mean is that they feel their religious beliefs are rational, and thats a whole other terrifying can of worms. Another time.

[ISDhillon]

Then perhaps I jumped the gun. My first question should be for you to explain how?

when you repeat history your not learning something islam is responsible for this misunderstanding and for the continues repetition i dont believe we as sikhs have ever repeated history.

Now the point at the end you missed, which is that I am simply creating a similar critique of Sikhi. It is a set of opinions by which we can debate, and I can only imagine many Muslims creating a similar defence to your critique.

how is that a point i missed if you have a criticism parallel to islam for sikhi i vow i can break it, bring it on.

On the issue of women, lets face facts my friend. When non-Sikh people talk in schools, courts, inter-faith meetings, blah blah blah of Sikhs overseas they are talking largely about men ('Sikhs wear turbans', 'Sikh men carry a 'sacred knfe'), when we talk about panthic sources of authority, scholars, saints, shaheeds, etc for all of its history we are talking about 99.99999 % men, when we talk about kirtani, paathi, gyani, pracharak (in other words the mediators between the Guru and the sangat in a Gurdwara) we are talking about men, when we talk about literature it is written by men, when we look at the very structure of the darbar of a gurdwara, it is men talking to and facing men. Sri Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings of great men quite often to a male formless deity (Hari, Ram, Akal Purakh). This is hardly a minor issue! This is endemic to the very structure of Sikhi. Although there is more to it than this, I think it is fair to say that as a tradition it is patriarchal and that it is equally plausable for non Sikhs to argue that Sikhi is potentially at odds with the concept of social, political equality (modern society) not in a formal sense but in an ACTUAL sense.

this is quite disturbing i dont know why i never had such thoughts?, what has caused you to believe that we have patriarchy by tradition?, i see patriarchy for the first time when taksal states women could not be panj piare, when jathedar states women cannot do kirtan in harimandar, i never seen it before then. Tradition is not exclusive, I will admit we sometimes live in theory which is not practiced to its true fullness again this is a panthic issue it is not "a part"of sikhism. Because by tradition sikhs are persucted people so we should in a traditional sense be persected all over the world all the time this is according to the logic drawn by the conclusion you have drawn.

On the issue of weapons and warfare, such a point is valid. It could well be if I chose to argue it as this; if a kirpan REALLY is symbollic Sikhs should just carry a 5cm blunt symbol (NO!), if it is a real weapon then Sikhs should be honest about it, sharpen it and learn to use it BUT the reality is they would be made illegal immediately in most 'modern' countries as it no longer functions simply a 'sacred symbol'. Surely that is a perfectly arguable point that the kirpan is at odds with societies (whether you like it or not) wherein carrying a weapon is seen as a provocative act threatening the norms and values of that society. Such societies are usually the ones punjabis from doaba are keen to migrate to. So then a possible counter defence that a kirpan (which I agree when used correctly) is still a good means of defence is out of kilter with the norms of liberal democratic societies. So then your argument becomes 'the Khalsa should still push for righteousness' but without weapons....in actual fact, that REALLY IS the reality. Has a Sikh overseas ever used a kirpan to save lives? Most kirpans could barely cut an apple without half an hour and a lot of elbow grease. So if it is redundant as a weapon (which it was originally designed to be used as) why not wear a pretend plastic one on a neck chain? That is the argument.

wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww this is riduculous it really is i dont even know where these ideas come from, are you for real?, panthic issue!!!!!! we have had a period of time where the existential concerns of sikhs have outweighed the existential concerns of sikhism, well we have a body now to conduct global affairs ie the ISC do you what the ISC is?

You reject rehitnamay as examples of 'practical morality'. I'll spell it out, by practical morality it means 'what do I believe is right or wrong practically'? Are not issues of the use of intoxicants, relationships, dietary habits, social relationships practical moral issues? OF COURSE they are!

where in sikhi does it say that these things are immoral? i think you will find that sikhi is not about living the moral path for salvation but about discipline, i suggest you reread about sikhism these views are so off tangent with sikh doctrine.

In other words, your decision on whether to smoke a big cigar is motivated not by health, social or political values, but a moral one. 'If I smoke it I will not be following rehit; the Guru's beloved follow rehit; if I'm not Guru's beloved I'm not following Sikhi; if I'm not following Sikhi then I'm a manmukh and going to hell/suffer rebirth'. That is an example of standard moral reasoning in a religious tradition (so much ridiculed by Kant and Neitzsche as inherently flawed since it is not really moral at all and in fact quite selfish, but anyway).

again this is ridiculous what sort of sikhism have you been brought up in, i am serious where did you learn about sikhism from? when you choose to take amrit then you choose to live by these rules if you want to smoke a fat cigar then dont take amrit theuior is no compulsion but if you choose to do something then dishonour the discipline then you too will be dishonoured its simple. you put the noose around your own neck! any noone is going to hell and to hell with what nitzch thinks.

Next, the turban. If you believe a turban is quite practicaly for holding our kesh, why not a cap or hat? Why does it state in Bhai Nand Lal's (is it?) rehitnama that the Singh who wears a topi goes to hell for seven lifetimes?

bhai nand lal is not the guru nor was he rehatdhari himself, a poet makes his sentences rhyme it is also used to emphasize a point of importance, i wouldnt take it in the literal sense. its almost as if you take little parts of history and go to town with them be real and try to focus on the issue. The turban has always been worn in india and his in a sense a tradition but also our gurus wore them those who want the gurus roop will dress as their guru does i therefore cannot imagine a giani wearing a cap. Do i think its sacrilegious for a sikh to wear a cap no i dont at all, because i dont believe in sacrilege for me to believe in sacrilege would also mean i believe in morality which i dont my conscience exists for a reason my conscience tells me that a turban is correct.

.

Outside of that historical cultural epoch it is not a status symbol and loses meaning and relevance. If it is not relevant then it is clearly not functioning within the modern social context. The principle on which it was founded must be modified with the changing times, and it is therefore no longer relevant to these times. Of course this is a weak argument, but it is certainly a plausable argument which I have heard in the past.

no sir youre derailing the debate, gurus roop had nothing to do with privaleged status the gurus roop is best thats why we want it all else is vain prattle, i seriously worry wear your line of questioning comes from .

On your last point, tell me one positive thing that came from the Khalistani movement?! In my opinion the very terms on which it was created were communal rather than a more unified approach to greater federalism in India. After it I saw no radical reforms within government, no change in quotas of recruitment, no change in governmental policy to states who push for greater autonomy - the same tactics used in Punjab are being used in Kashmir and Manipur as we speak! All I could conclude was that politicans and pseudo politicians on one side pitched against the state and army on the other, and both unleashed a whole load of (admin-cut) on innocent punjabis both Hindu and Sikh who took all the pain, torture and death. This sowed revenge recruitment which continued until the army swamped it committing horrific human rights abuses until the early 90s. If there had been a unity about the cause even among the Sikh intellegensia and various groups, more may well have been achieved...,but as we both know this is a very long well trodden debate that leads nowhere beyond claims of being covert RSS agents, who I hate just a little more than those Sikh facistic extremists like the ones who shot innocent girls in the legs for wearing jeans.

waffle!, alot of good has come out of this since the movement we have had a sikh rennaissance the whole communty has been awoken, we have made a stand, tell me when in the wars with mughals did atrocities not occur this situation is no different its just people have less faith in their iown lives and believe the mainstream view to be the same but the reality is it isnt, your whole response to me has been what you perceive but the reality is that alot of good has come from all struggles even this one the reason why i say and write it simply as i have is because you too are not really arguing from any clear defined point i answered all your objection in my previous post, you have not addressed those points just reasserted your own in lenghth and this is wholly unacceptable in effective dialogue.

What exactly is the official status of someone who loves gurbani but for whatever reason does not want to commit to amrit?

now your asking the questions, the answer to your question is just as you have said they are a person who loves gurbani and has not taken amrit, did you expect me to label them heretics?

Or who can't because her husband won't allow it, or perhaps is gay and is told must marry, or is a fashion model with a really really great haircut, or even is of a different faith or whatever?

can i really answer these questions? i have to admit i cant, i dont believe amrit is possible for everyone, but i believe spirituality is taksal have the right to an opnion only if they enforce an opion then they are no longer sikhs.

What rights do they have to representation among the SGPC? None, so they are second class Sikhs, not really taken seriously at a representative level...but even worse, officially they are wasting their time, if the fundamental AIM of Sikhi is to reach brahmgyan/mukti, they CANNOT get there! Is that being adaptive to 'all walks of life'? Again, it is arguable that it most certainly is not!

they have no representation in the agpc that is not discrimantion a body setr up for guru panth cannot be made of members who are not apart of guru panth, a forum should exist for airing of views but no way do non-amritdharis have the right to control panthic affairs PERIOD!!!!!

hope that clears up the points. So as I'm showing you, your own criticism of Islam turns into an equally relevant (since most points make up much of the youth discussions/inter-faith discussion I've come across) critique of Sikhi.