Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Guru Gobind Singh’s stance towards Muslims

    by Jai
    28th November, 2009 at 10:43 pm    

    [Rumbold's note- this is from an earlier thread but I decided to reprint it in full in this post]

    I think a few more things need to be stated for the record in relation to Rajinder Singh [the Sikh who is supporting the BNP]. While his reaction is understandable from a “flawed human nature” perspective, considering the apparent loss of his father during Partition, it isn’t justifiable, either from a general moral perspective or indeed from a specifically Sikh perspective. Let me give an example of another Sikh who suffered immense personal tragedy at the hands of Muslims, in some cases explicitly claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

    Guru Gobind Singh, the last human spiritual leader of the Sikhs 300 years ago, lost his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, when he was only 9 years old. The Mughal administration at the time was attempting to force the Kashmiri Brahmin population to covert to Islam; the latter were on good terms with the Sikhs and therefore asked Guru Tegh Bahadur to help them. The Guru travelled to the Mughal capital of Delhi with a couple of companions in order to intervene on the Kashmiri Brahmins behalf. They were subsequently arrested by members of the Mughal administration; after some discussions with Emperor Aurangzeb, the latter ordered that the Guru should be forcibly converted to Islam. He was kept in a cage, tortured, and since he refused to convert, subsequently executed; he was beheaded in full view of the public in the Chandni Chowk area of what is now called Old Delhi. Due to threats of retribution from soldiers present, ordinary Sikhs who witnessed this couldn’t even openly reclaim the body; later on, a Sikh managed to recover the decapitated body and burned down his own house as a cover to cremate it, and another Sikh rescued the head and took it to Anandpur Sahib in Punjab, where it was formally cremated by the young Guru Gobind Singh (at the time called “Gobind Rai”).

    Years later, when the conflicts with the Mughal administration had escalated into all-out warfare, Guru Gobind Singh’s two older teenage sons died on the battlefield. His two younger sons, both less than 10 years old, were captured (along with Guru Gobind Singh’s mother) by Mughal officials in Sirhind, Punjab. The Governor of Sirhind tried to force the two boys to convert to Islam and, when he failed, subsequently had them executed, despite the forceful protests of one of the Muslim noblemen present who desperately tried to intervene on their behalf. Guru Gobind Singh’s mother died of shock soon afterwards. There was also a time when Guru Gobind Singh himself found himself completely cut off from his family and his remaining followers, hunted by the Mughal army, during what was one of the darkest periods of his life.

    And yet… Guru Gobind Singh never used any of this as an excuse to attack, demonise, caricature and stereotype Islam as a whole or Muslims en masse. He did not scream vengeance against the entire Muslim population of the Mughal Empire. He did not launch attacks against mosques or Sufi shrines. He did not ban Muslims from entering gurdwaras (Sikh temples). He did not initiate any kind of “voluntary repatriation with a firm incentive” of Muslims from territories governed or dominated by Sikhs. He did not order his followers to dig up and remove the foundation stone of what is now called the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which one of his predecessors had invited a Muslim saint called Mian Mir to lay (Mian Mir was the spiritual instructor of the liberal and cultured Prince Dara Shukoh, son of Emperor Shah Jahan of “Taj Mahal” fame, the latter’s chosen heir, and ultimately murdered by his brother Aurangzeb during the war of sucession). Guru Gobind Singh did not remove the verses originally written by Muslim saints such as Baba Farid which had been incorporated into the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhism and whose final version the Guru was responsible for compiling and editing; he did not remove any of the Islamic names for God which the scriptures contain; he did not add any material attacking ordinary Muslims en masse or denigrating Islam as a whole. He did not support or condone anyone else who was bigotted against Muslims either. He certainly did not promote hatred, prejudice, or the notion of “collective guilt”.

    In fact, Guru Gobind Singh actively promoted the notion of desiring the wellbeing and happiness of the entire human race without any kind of distinction or bias regarding people’s individual religious affiliations (or ethnic background, for that matter). He explicitly promoted the teaching that people should “view the whole of humanity as one race”. He was actively assisted by ordinary Muslims trying to save his life when he was completely isolated and being hunted by the Mughal army. He had Muslim officers in his own Khalsa army, including Mughal generals who had defected to his cause in the middle of battles. He explicitly ordered the soldiers in his army not to molest any Muslim women they came across after battles. His entire military and political strategy refrained from attacks on civilians. On the battlefield, he would even use arrows which were mounted with a small amount of gold in order to provide financial assistance to the families of those he killed or, alternatively, to enable the wounded soldier to buy medical assistance if he survived Guru Gobind Singh’s attack.

    And after a series of atrocities suffered by the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh wrote a lengthy and extremely forceful letter to Aurangzeb condemning him for his hypocrisy and bigotry, but which simultaneously included a list of what the Guru regarded as the emperor’s genuine positive qualities (albeit with the damning caveat “but true spiritual righteousness is very far from you”), and the promise that the Guru would be happy to meet the Emperor, reconcile with him and “speak some kind words” to him if he would sincerely reconsider his attitude and actions; as confirmed by the authenticated historical records of Aurangzeb’s memoirs and letters to his sons, the Emperor did subsequently experience something of an epiphany and immediately ceased all hostilities with the Sikhs (along with Hindus and other groups he’d been persecuting). Aurangzeb and Guru Gobind Singh were even in the process of formally arranging to meet each other but the aged emperor died before that could occur. And during the subsequent war of succession, Guru Gobind Singh subsequently gave military support to Bahadur Shah I, one of Aurangzeb’s sons and ultimately the next Emperor.

    The BNP’s cynical exploitation of Rajinder Singh is unfortunate but not unexpected. However, along with his fellow BNP supporter “Ammo Singh”, he is completely the wrong person to refer to if one wishes to find an example of the true teachings of Sikhism and the correct attitude Sikhs are supposed to have in this matter. If anyone is looking for the latter, they should go right to the source, because Guru Gobind Singh himself suffered far greater personal tragedy throughout his own life than Rajinder Singh did, and by his own example and teachings Guru Gobind Singh obviously embodied a very, very different message to the opportunistic, hate-filled, divisive, sectarian propaganda & agenda the BNP are now trying to promote.

                  Post to

    Filed in: History,Muslim,Religion,Sikh,The BNP

    57 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      Blog post:: Guru Gobind Singh's stance towards Muslims

    1. Laban — on 28th November, 2009 at 1:53 pm  

      A remarkable man. Fascinating bit of history and thanks for the post. Most informative.

    2. bharatsingh — on 28th November, 2009 at 2:11 pm  

      and just contrast his tolerance of islam to the way islam treated india - the mass destruction of ancient temples, the massacres, enslavement and conversion of populations, the near complete annihilation of buddhism in the land of its birth. for 800 years muslim rulers turned india into little more than a vast starving slave plantation.

      all of this is a matter of historical fact. simple google 'babar', 'aurangzeb' or 'temurlaine' to learn something of the more brutal islamic zealots who came proclaiming their religion of peace in india.

      india is still recovering from their legacy….

    3. zak — on 28th November, 2009 at 2:42 pm  

      aurangzeb was a particularly brual man, he killed his brothers imprisoned his father..targetted fellow muslims *Afghans” targetted the shia states in the south..his use of Islam was just a smokescreen for his brutality..Tamerlane, babar and the rest may have superficially used tamers case very very superfically..

    4. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 29th November, 2009 at 2:59 am  

      Thank you for the history … I wish more people would bring forward and find inspiration in leaders like this.
      I like also how the writing includes how he was supported and aided by muslims too …
      I get tired of seeing battles and warriors mixed with causes and power … I think its part of the problem, to glorify the romanceisized image of a “myrtar” and “savior” in that way alone ..hope I worded that right

      everyone sucks … groups of sikhs are resopnsible for the deaths of millions of muslims
      what good does it do to keep reminding each other the score?

    5. Sydney — on 29th November, 2009 at 5:05 am  

      If it had not been for Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of the Sikhs & his fight against the Jihad the West Faces today, India would have almost certainly have become an Islamic Theocracy. There was another warrior who took on the Moghuls in the South - Shivaji of Maratha - whos son was also executed by Aurugzeb, undoubtedly the most bloodthirsty emperor of them all.

    6. Leon — on 29th November, 2009 at 5:43 am  

      Excellent post Jai, truly excellent! Fascinating history and skillfully linked to the present. You should write more about Sikhism as an example of how differing faith can and have got on with each other.:)

    7. krazyjellybean — on 29th November, 2009 at 9:25 am  

      This is the best post I've read on here for a while. Thanks, Jai.

    8. Jai — on 29th November, 2009 at 10:23 am  

      “Thank you” to those who have responded with positive comments so far.

      Considering the SIOE's ongoing activities (eg. “there are no moderate Muslims”, “taqiyya/kitman” etc) and of course Stephen Gash's recent actions here on PP (see: ), I think that Guru Gobind Singh's stance towards Muslims is a lesson from history for the SIOE as well as the BNP.

    9. mangles — on 30th November, 2009 at 5:12 am  

      Jai excellent post on contemporary bigots with some quite remarkable lessons from Sikh history. Loved reading it.

      (I won't comment (oops too late lol) on the unnecessary use of the term 'book' for the universal truth of Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Mata Gujri Ji dying from shock etc - as clearly you have tried to stray away from the spiritual context of the episodes in Sikh history you have so eloquently covered.)

      Personally I think that Rajinder geezer is a loser with a simple liking for his name in the papers- I can't believe that the press and media take the stupid old fart (not in the ageist or DDA sense lol) so seriously- he's been around for years, and despite some of the very real cohesion issues which many Sikh and Muslim youngsters tug at in their daily lives, its quite apparent that there aren't any who would even consider supporting the ideologically-anti-Sikh hate rhetoric of the BNP.

      Rab Rakha veere!

    10. Jai — on 30th November, 2009 at 6:42 am  

      Thanks for your kind words, Mangles.

      I mentioned this on the “Swiss vote/minarets” thread, but another example from Sikh history which is very relevant to my article is the fact that Guru Hargobind (one of Guru Gobind Singh's predecessors, and the Sikh Guru responsible for beginning the formal militarisation of Sikhs at a time of increasing conflict with his era's Mughal administration) actually had a mosque built for the local Muslims, called “Guru Ki Maseet”, now located in the Gurdaspur district of Punjab, India.

      For readers who are unfamiliar with this matter, the following link contains extensive information about the mosque's history, the situation after the Partition of India in 1947, and much more recent events involving Sikhs and relevant Muslim authorities. It's very inspiring reading, and the mosque itself is recognised as a historic site by UNESCO.…

    11. Fojee Punjabi — on 30th November, 2009 at 6:55 am  

      Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj was the very definition of the word perfect.

      We can all take heed of his story but expect us humble lot to treat *some* Muslims as equals after what they've done in this country, India, New York, Bali, Madrid, Istanbul, Israel etc. etc. etc. and I think you'll find you're being fearful.

      After all, the Sikhs are meant to fight tyranny and radical Islam is the embodiment of tyranny in this day and age.

    12. Vikrant — on 30th November, 2009 at 8:24 pm  

      Emperor did subsequently experience something of an epiphany and immediately ceased all hostilities with the Sikhs (along with Hindus and other groups he’d been persecuting). Aurangzeb and Guru Gobind Singh were even in the process of formally arranging to meet each other but the aged emperor died before that could occur.


      I always thought that he died while fighting the 27 years war with the Maratha confederacy down in the Deccan!

    13. Jai — on 1st December, 2009 at 2:41 am  


      Yes Aurangzeb was still in the Deccan at the time but he had been involved in correspondence and negotiations with Guru Gobind Singh at the end of his life. However, as previously mentioned, the Emperor died before he could formally withdraw from the conflict against the Marathas and subequently travel back to Delhi in order to meet the Guru. Aurangzeb's letters to his sons at the time also provide an account of the collapse in his self-belief and his bitter regret for his actions in his life.

    14. Rumbold — on 1st December, 2009 at 2:49 am  


      Interesting. I did not realise that there waas an imminent end to the Maratha conflict, or that he had any intention of leaving. I thought that Guru Gobind Singh was travelling to see him.

    15. Jai — on 1st December, 2009 at 3:17 am  


      There appear to be some records of Aurangzeb ordering that the Guru be assisted with safe travel arrangements to Delhi, but yes you are correct in stating that Guru Gobind Singh himself was in the process of travelling to the Deccan to meet him. As a result, the deputy governor of Lahore was instructed by the Emperor to provide the necessary arrangements for the Guru's safe passage to the south.

    16. Dalbir — on 1st December, 2009 at 4:44 am  


      There are a translation of one of the extant orders sent to Mohhamad Mun'im Khan (deputy governor of Lahore) from Aurengzab's court in Persian Sources of Sikh History:

      In thes evictory laden times, the world ruling order has been issued that his Ministerial Highness be written to, to the effect that Gobind, the chief of Nank-Devotees, has, along with a vakil [representative], sent a petition to this sky glorious court expressing a desire to present himself at this court, and making a plea for the issuance of an order in his favour. [presumably this petition was what we now know as Zafarnama. According to Sikh tradition the 'vakil' who was dutied with delivering Zafarnama to Aurengzab's court was non other than Daya Singh, one of the original panj piaray].

      His majesty in his benevolence, elevated him with the grant of such an obediance requiring order, and a mace bearer and Shaikh Yar Mohammad, mansabdar, have been designated to carry the said order, with instructions to convey it to His Highness (Mun'im Khan). It is proper that his Highness summon him to his own presence, after giving him assurances. After the receipt of the imperial order, he should arrange that a trustworthy person, possessed of tact and vigilance, should bring the said person [Guru Gobind]. together with the mace bearer and the mansabar, to the Imperial Court. In this matter he is to recognise that strict obedience is being enjoined by the Imperial Court.

      Interestingly a similar notice was sent to Wazir Khan ordering him to provide Guru Gobind with an escort through his environs (Sirhind), with additional instructions for him to provide expenses for the journey from the seized effects should this be required.

      I know records indicate that Aurengzab was overcome with despondency towards the end of his life (which is around this time period) but I think to concretely and solely attributing that to receiving Zafarnama is unsafe (although one cannot fully discount this either).

    17. Jai — on 1st December, 2009 at 9:00 am  

      Thanks, Dalbir. It is always fascinating to read translations of historical records of correspondence, reports, memoirs etc from those times.

    18. Shamit — on 1st December, 2009 at 9:22 am  

      One of the better posts I have read on PP -

      Jai you should write a history book.

    19. Rumbold — on 1st December, 2009 at 10:01 am  

      Thanks Dalbir. I really need to buy that book. I think Aurangzeb's feelings of depression where many due to the fact he ahd failed to defeat the Marathas for so long, and had not achieved his vision of an Islamic society.

    20. Jai — on 1st December, 2009 at 10:26 am  

      Thank you very much Shamit, it's really nice of you to say so.

    21. asifqkhan — on 2nd December, 2009 at 1:20 am  

      This is utterly fake, Gobind Singh was opposed to Islamic rule and set out to attack everything Islamic, he thought he was a fighter but was defeated in battle like his predesessors, ie the previous Gurus…

      Islam then as it is now was under attack by all sorts like the Sikh Gurus who while speaking with one voice were ready to draw the sword and attack Islam, Gobind Singh was the Guru most opposed to Islam since he forbade Halal meat and forbade all his Khalsa Paanth to have no relations with Muslims especially Muslim women. He was against the theachings of Prophet Mohammed and forbade cicumcision or cutting any part of the body including hair. He wrote the book, Sri Guru Dasam Granth Sahib which contains parables akin to Vedantic philosophy, something to plural for Abrahamic religion(s).

      The Islamic ruler, Aurangzeb may have been a dictator of the day but wanted India to be united under a single system which would avoid civil wars - in those days was Governments were theocratic, and still used in countries like Saudi Arabia and even Khalistanis like the idea of theocracy, so while Gobind Singh was anti Islamic, he failed and died under the sword of Aurangzeb's Islamic soldiers

    22. Fojee Punjabi — on 2nd December, 2009 at 2:53 am  


      You're so deluded you serve as a perfect example of the misguided young Muslim populace today.

      If you boys were so bloody hard and Allah was really on your side then why weren't you able to rid the world of us?

      We're only 20,000,000 strong today so back then we'd only have numbered in the few hundreds of thousands if a few million so if Allah was backing the Muslims then, er, why are we the ones with the premiership of the world's biggest democracy and you're being whooped into shape by the invading Americans in your own lands?

      Think about that before you get too proud, son ;)

    23. Jai — on 2nd December, 2009 at 2:58 am  

      he thought he was a fighter but was defeated in battle like his predesessors, ie the previous Gurus…

      Historically completely false. None of the 10 Sikh Gurus died in battle. And the militarisation of the Sikhs did not begin until the 6th Guru, Guru Hargobind.

      he failed and died under the sword of Aurangzeb's Islamic soldiers

      Historically completely false. Mughal historical records from the imperial administration confirm the ceasefire with the Khalsa and the initiation of positive diplomatic relations with Guru Gobind Singh, as ordered directly by Aurangzeb; after the Emperor's death of old age soon afterwards, Guru Gobind Singh was involved in providing military assistance to the ultimately-successful Bahadur Shah I during the war of succession; and Guru Gobind Singh was murdered by two assassins sent by the Governor of Sirhind, he did not die “under the sword of [the deceased] Aurangzeb's Islamic soldiers”.

    24. Dalbir — on 2nd December, 2009 at 3:56 am  


      For the record, the assassin died by Guru Gobind's sword before he could get very far. As for Auranga, today he remains nothing but a historical relic, whilst the Sikh Guru's have left a dynamic living community behind and we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

      Your assertion that Guru Gobind Singh was anti-Islamic is false and if you are from the region you should kiss white ass everyday because had they not turned up, you'd probably be paying you taxes to a Singh right now.

      People should note, Wallaby highlights a not uncommon attitude of Muslims from the Pakistani region towards Sikhs. I have heard the most ridiculous notions over the years from this quarter. Sikhs bathing in Muslims blood, Sikhs dipping their hair in Muslim blood, kirpans for adopted solely for killing Muslims. Face it, Sikhs were vastly outnumbered and still managed to kick ass all over the place in the face of the most zulmi oppression about . I say that as fact, not as an ego prop. You should learn that God isn't biased towards one people from this. He/It isn't blind to oppressors, whatever their background.

    25. persephone — on 2nd December, 2009 at 4:40 am  

      “Islam then as it is now was under attack by all sorts like the Sikh Gurus who while speaking with one voice were ready to draw the sword and attack Islam”

      In addition to the Sikh Gurus there is more recent experience of Sikhs helping muslims during partition. My family, at their personal risk, housed a Muslim family who could not leave the Punjab by the set deadline during partition. As did others in that area.

      Yes Sikhs did fight against tyranny but you are mistaken in viewing that as a crusade against another religion. You should question the source that has made you come to that erroneous conclusion.

    26. Refresh — on 2nd December, 2009 at 5:15 am  


      Thanks for relating your personal story. I know of many cases where both sides did what they could for their neighbours risking their own lives in the process.

      Whilst the Partition was an horrendous experience, it was also where the best of mankind was on display, in every village and every town.

      As for Ranjeet Singh, I think he needs to be reminded of all the horrors visited on each community by murderous mobs from the other. He needs to meet up with muslims who too lost their loved ones. I believe there are several projects trying to achieve this. Maybe enough time has passed for all affected to be able to look back and confront their demons.

      For me, I am of the view ALL those responsible should be named and shamed, if not put on trial. Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. Murder is murder, rape is rape.

      To let the BNP and other not-disinterested parties to build their vitriolic campaign against muslims on a false history is a travesty. Injustice is injustice, and this could yet lead us into the worst of all futures.

    27. persephone — on 2nd December, 2009 at 8:07 am  

      Agreed Refresh.

      Ranjeet Singh also needs to remember that it was not a muslim/sikh/hindu that caused the ill feeling but ultimately the nefarious policy of divide and rule.

      And for us to remember to never let any hatred based group such as the BNP to use it again to set up barriers between people of a different ethnicity or religion.

    28. Jai — on 2nd December, 2009 at 10:43 am  

      As for Ranjeet Singh,…..

      Ranjeet Singh also needs to remember

      Rajinder Singh.

      the nefarious policy of divide and rule…..And for us to remember to never let any hatred based group such as the BNP to use it again to set up barriers between people of a different ethnicity or religion.

      Eloquently said. And spot-on.

    29. Refresh — on 2nd December, 2009 at 11:14 am  

      That should be the cue for Reza, not that one is needed.

    30. Wallaby — on 2nd December, 2009 at 11:34 am  

      First of all, there are facts and there are re-made facts (fiction) like the story about a Sikh saint of guru who could fight while his head was chopped off (decapitated pulp fiction)

      Get your facts straight, your Guru was killed in battle, he did not fall off a cliff, he did not die of cancer, he did not die of a wound, he died by decapitation, ie sword to throat (Gardan) obvioisly by now Sikhs couldn't re-make the same old story about your Baba Deep Singh who continued to fight without a head, so instead history was re-written by sikh 'historians' to make the Guru look like a 'winner' when in fact he lost….and by the way 7/10 of Punjab is in Pakistan, 3/10 in India, as for paying Taxes to a 'Singh' I think a good way to avoid taxes is to adopt the Islamic dress code of beard and turban, and by the way the name 'Singh' wasn't someone else's too by any chance, didnt you people like your identity or something ?

      Think about it

    31. Rumbold — on 2nd December, 2009 at 12:00 pm  


      I don't now if assassination counts as dying in the battle, but leaving that aside for a moment, Aurangzeb had failed to crush the Sikhs (mainly because his attention was elsewhere), and so Guru Gobind Singh could said to achieved victory in that regard.

    32. Dalbir — on 2nd December, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

      What and Islam doesn't have its own fair share of 'miracles', no? How are you going to rewrite Islamic history to explain the route of numerically greater and experienced forces at the hands of common village folk? Trying to conflate Guru Gobind Singh with Baba Deep Singh is rubbish. They were two different people.

      Get your facts straight, your Guru was killed in battle, he did not fall off a cliff, he did not die of cancer, he did not die of a wound, he died by decapitation, ie sword to throat (Gardan)

      Is that what your mullah told you to make you feel better about history?

      The Sikh story is a beautiful one for all the world (including muslims). A real life truimph of the inspired against the so-called mighty in the face of the most appalling barbarism that didn't even spare peaceful men and children.

      Get it straight, Guru Gobind Singh passed away from a wound inflicted in a surprise attack on his person. He killed the assailant before he could run away and died some days later.

      I think a good way to avoid taxes is to adopt the Islamic dress code of beard and turban, and by the way the name 'Singh' wasn't someone else's too by any chance, didnt you people like your identity or something ?

      Are you serious! After copying circumcisms and your own version of kosher meat from the Jews (plus those small topis) you have the front to say that? What's the matter, couldn't your people think of their own ideas and have to copy the Yids? See where I am going with this?

      Anyway. Use your brain Wallaby. We know how all of this Internet chat is going to end up. Just quit it now. I hope you are intelligent enough to know that Sikhs in general are as unlikely to accept the Muslim version of events as Muslims are theirs. We can get into a childish 'slagging off' match about it, but I doubt it will do anyone much good.

      Balls in your court. I

    33. Wallaby — on 3rd December, 2009 at 4:09 am  

      I've hard the stories about 25 sikhs taking on a million Muslim soldiers, I mean c'mon, thats almost as funny as the guy fighting without his head, and the story about the jumping Kabba is not just an insult to Islam but also an inult to the word 'history'

      FP, with your analogy would suggest that Sikhs would be ruling the entire Galaxy today if we were to go by your figures, the truth is that 7/10 of Punjab is owned by Pakistan and I admit kashmir is still in dispute.

      I'm not advocating mutually assured destruction since both Sikhs and Musalman have nukes, I would appreciate a better reflection of Sikh history since it seems to have changed more time than your own Rehit Maryada (cammandments) but then thats changed beyond recogniton too!

    34. mangles — on 3rd December, 2009 at 4:51 am  

      Wallaby why dont you go and reflect on the children you want to molest when you get to heaven rather than talking about the Sikh Gurus or Sikh Maryada LOL. While you're reflecting on your dream holiday make sure you've been on that excursion to the middle east and kissed a rock, cos if not you wont get entry to your heavenly abode. Did you know that that really what some (MANY) people believe in or have I misunderstood the facts??

      I always try to remember that there is a spiritual side to all religions based on a belief system, which may sound absurd when it is iterated out of context, but if such actions and testimony are denied realistion and reflection on The Creator, then that action is simply a charade or ritual, and in the mortal sense seems illogical.

      You seem hell bent on attacking Sikhism without wanting to understand the facts, nor spiritual lesson, nor the spiritual accomplishment of those that you slander. I pray that God, Allah, Rahim, Waheguru (take your pick cos He is the same) showers mercy on your consciousness and grants you the wisdom to understand His game of love.

      Rab rakha!

    35. Dalbir — on 3rd December, 2009 at 6:02 am  

      I've hard the stories about 25 Sikhs taking on a million Muslim soldiers

      That seems exaggerated but maybe you are talking about this? This account was written by Qazi Nur Mohammad who accompanied Abdali Shah's invading party from Afghanistan (1764-1765). It is called Jang-nama. Note the translation from the Persian diary is by a Muslim (Iqtidar Alam Khan):

      “When the shah (Abdali) arrived at the Chak [modern day Amritsar] he did not find any of the infidels there. But a few men had stayed back within the internal enclosure so they may spill there own blood and sacrifice their lives for the Guru. As they saw the Shah and the entire army of Islam (*the size of this army is indicated in the later quote given below), all of them came out of the enclosure. Those Sikhs were not 30 in number: they did not at all show any fear of being killed or dread of death. As they engaged the holy warriors (ghazis) and as the spilt their blood all the Sikhs were killed.”

      Not a million but heavy odds still…no?

      “If you do not believe in what I say, you may enquire from brave swordsmen who would tell you more than this and would express appreciation of their [Singhs] manner of combat. This statement is confirmed by the fact that thirty of them engaged thirty thousand troops during the battle.”

      See, those kind of stories are provided by Muslims themselves. The things your imam tells you, is only to make you feel good about Islam, not based on any truth. Whilst we are on that subject matter, if I wanted to be arsey with you could I not easily start to talk about Mohammad's EXTREMELY young wife?

      Face it, many Pakistanis harbour deep hatred for Sikhs for the stubborn resistance they gave in the face of numerous attempts at religious and political domination. Generally Sikhs have given as good as they have got. And I pray they always will, when forced to.

      Waheguru Jee Ka Khalsa
      Waheguru Jee Kee Fateh

    36. Fojee_Punjabi — on 3rd December, 2009 at 8:50 am  

      You're a liar.

      My family trace our heritage back to Wazir Khan and I can confirm that Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj was murdered by assassins.

      Get your facts straight before you bark, sunshine, because you don't know who you're talking to over t'internet, acha puttar? ;)

    37. Fojee_Punjabi — on 3rd December, 2009 at 8:52 am  

      ^ He ain't lyin'! :D

      Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
      Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

    38. Dalbir — on 3rd December, 2009 at 9:39 am  

      Get your facts straight before you bark, sunshine, because you don't know who you're talking to over t'internet, acha puttar? ;)

      Fojee stop making a phudu of yourself with badhoo/faaltoo comments.

    39. Fojee_Punjabi — on 4th December, 2009 at 10:27 am  

      I will when you stop displaying such obvious signs of jealousy.

      What's the matter, Old Boy?

      Can't hack it that new blood is around and is even more on point than you?

      Move on- you're over the hill.

    40. bharatsingh — on 4th December, 2009 at 3:29 pm  

      The truth is Sikhs are cool. We love life and we love to party. As a result, most people love us. We're one of the most respected communities in every country we exist in.

      Islam, however, is BORING. Nothing but a blueprint for an utterly dreary cheerless life. The closest thing they have to a festival is to go hungry for a month.

      Why oh why would anyone want to live in such tedium?

    41. Dalbir — on 5th December, 2009 at 4:54 am  


      What are we supposed to do with practicing Sikhs then? The true SIkh way of life involves walking up predawn, everyday for over an hours worth of prayers and then two further prayers at sunset and bedtime. Physical training as well if we are real.

      No alcohol and (usually) no drugs as well as curtailed dietry habits (if not vege then jhatka).

      I don't agree with your point above because it emphasises the Panjabi more than the Sikh. Whilst I might fall heavily into the former category it would be foolish of me to mistake this for a reflection of the traditional SIkh way of life, which is much more committed to hard disclipline and spiritual practices such as naam simran than partying.

      What I am trying to say is, if Muslims are to be castigated for anything, from a Sikh perspective, it shouldn't be the kind of things you mentioned in your post. Going by your logic, if the majority of Sikhs actually started committing themselves to the prescribed practices of their dharam instead of jamboreeing (which admittedly Panjabis do very well), we would quickly 'lose' the 'love' from the other people you mentioned.

      You can't have 'others' put conditions on accepting us like that. Make sense?

    42. Fojee_Punjabi — on 6th December, 2009 at 9:30 am  

      Dude, think about this rather sobering thought: you think of where the Sikh diaspora reside (think Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, Germany etc.) and what you'll find is that, when broken down by religious affiliation, we actually are the most prosperous ethno-religious group in the world.

      You can have Punjab- it's just land.

      Sure it's where our religion started but Sikhs don't ascribe any meaning to nonsensical material items like land. Sure, we love to farm and make a fair and honest wage from working the land across the world, but it's not ours… it's God's.

      And the funny thing is, you go on about our Rehat Maryada changing… well, no offence to Muslims, but you guys in-fight constantly and sectarian Muslim divides kill more Muslims than non-Muslims do, so… ready for your humble pie yet, son?

    43. Wallaby — on 7th December, 2009 at 11:10 am  

      Bharat Singh, don't be a knob head, lots of people party, all you have to do is go out on a Friday night and see the chavistan thats become of UK, but then Southall being the quintessential ghetto that it is, is the blueprint for the low society where men come home drunk/drugged sleep around and preach religion…we call it hypocracy.

      Dalbir/Foji, I don't know who your directing your comments at, but I suspect its probably about the financial control of Smethwick Gurdwara

      Keep blowing your own trumpet, cos preaching to the converted has always been what your good at

    44. Wallaby — on 7th December, 2009 at 11:20 am  

      Dalbir, your describing the excepion to the rule, ie the 3HO not the typical Sikh at the Handsworth local;

      Fojee, as for most prosperous, did you do a survey? I think the Jews have out prospered you by a thousand fold with or without the likes of Maidoff plus the Chinese and the Arabs….seriously need I say more ?

    45. Fojee_Punjabi — on 7th December, 2009 at 12:38 pm  

      I didn't, no. It was, in fact, the National Census that recorded that Sikhs were the most likely to own their own homes- a very good gauge of economic success.

      Aside from that, about 40% of Indian households rely on social wefare benefits whereas the percentages are in the nineties for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities.

      Oh and what about educational achievements and the stark contrasts that exist between the Indians and the Pakistanis and Bengalis.

      How about the crime rates in areas where the largest minority groups are Muslims like Bradford, east London, Luton and Birmingham?

      I could bring out a whole slew of statistics to show you just how economically underdeveloped the Muslim communities are in this country and around the world generally but I won't because I don't actually care.

      The only one who seems to have a chip on his shoulder about religion is you… are you sure you really believe in Islam because you sound like you need to convince yourself you haven't been sold a lie… *ahem*

    46. Dalbir — on 8th December, 2009 at 5:21 am  


      Are you serious? Where I live there are droves of Muslim boys, who haven't a clue about their religion either.

      You know the type I'm sure? Jeans hanging two foot off the arse, a big fat silver H. Samuels necklace and bracelet worth a grand total off £14.99. At least two tubs of gel in their hair. Bizarrely, all of their sentences seem to end in either “innit” or “yeh blud” or “you get me”. They talk black, but curiously often hate blacks?

      They spend their times frequenting dinghy pool halls, sheesha bars and normal bars where they stand around but may or may not drink, on the pull. If lucky they drive around in souped up cars ala Ali G style. They can't seem to grasp the English language let alone the Arabic required to understand the Koran. If they ever went mosque it was because their family forced them to. But now they grown up, they are more likely to be spend Fridays somewhere smoking spliffs than going Jummah.

      That is an average British Muslim yoof round many 'endz'. Have you met any? I'm sure you have, you can't miss them. By now you should be beginning to understand that every religion has its lax section. In fact I would venture a guess and say all faiths are made up of a spectrum of people with the completely fastidious on one end of the scale and the completely unconcerned/unaware on the other. Between these we will have a multitude of people who live in the grey areas. You can clearly see this in the Muslim community, so you highlighting some lax Sikhs isn't any sort of strike for your cause, in case you see it like that.

    47. Dalbir — on 8th December, 2009 at 6:03 am  

      Wallaby just in case you think Islam is somehow immune to religious slackness:…

    48. Injun — on 27th December, 2009 at 8:44 am  

      Guru Gobind Singh Ji was stabbed in his sleep and it was in fact a British Army doctor that initially treated Guru Ji. I suppose Wallaby will probably say that this is made up as well.

    49. Dr Adford — on 2nd April, 2010 at 4:21 pm  

      So the author of this article thinks it’s perfectly okay for every white country on Earth to be invaded by millions of unwelcome foreigners, so that England will no longer be England, but just a dumping ground for all the dregs of humanity?

      Sikhism only exists because Sikhs finally started fighting back against the evil that is Islam.

      The ‘prophet’ of Islam was a mass murderer, multiple rapist, and a paedophile.

      What do you have to say about that?

      Why aren’t white people allowed to have their own countries any more?

    50. Dr Adford — on 2nd April, 2010 at 4:25 pm  

      Why is it that members of other religions who believe in heaven, believe that they will meet their family again when they go there, their children, their spouses, their parents, their LOVED ones, yet muslims dream of a heaven in which they get to RAPE 72 ‘virgins’ (i.e. they are paedophiles), with no mention whatsoever of their friends and family?

      Because Islam is ‘religion’ for criminals, that’s why. Their ‘prophet’ was one of the most evil men who ever lived, and every muslim knows this, yet they call him ‘the perfect man’. No wonder they are all bloody insane. You can’t have a rational conversation with these nutters.

      Muslims brutally tortured to death many of the sikh gurus, yet the sikhs didn’t do the same to the muslim scum.

    51. Ravi Naik — on 2nd April, 2010 at 4:26 pm  

      Why aren’t white people allowed to have their own countries any more?

      Voting BNP or FN is not enough for you?

    52. Dalbir — on 2nd April, 2010 at 4:53 pm  

      Why aren’t white people allowed to have their own countries any more?

      Good, that should teach them not to faff about in nonwhite countries like they have for so long (and continue to do so).

      Poetic justice if you ask me.

    53. Gurpreet — on 2nd April, 2010 at 5:19 pm  

      “yet muslims dream of a heaven in which they get to RAPE 72 ‘virgins’ (i.e. they are paedophiles)”

      err are all virgins under 16?? Maybe there are 72, 40 year old virgins waiting in ”heaven” to get laid who knows eh

    54. chairwoman — on 2nd April, 2010 at 5:45 pm  


      “err are all virgins under 16?? Maybe there are 72, 40 year old virgins waiting in ”heaven” to get laid who knows eh”


      And I thought the I/P threads got heated!

    55. Gurpreet — on 2nd April, 2010 at 8:00 pm  

      haha :D

    56. Dr Adford — on 8th May, 2010 at 1:42 am  

      So you’re saying that you think it’s acceptable to FORCE yourself onto a nation of people who don’t want you?
      Did WE force ourselves onto you? (I am talking about the people alive TODAY, not people hundreds of years ago.)

      Why are you here? What’s wrong with your own country? Do you hate your ancestors’ country?

      The idea that muslims don’t want to kill us all is laughable - you as sikhs must know that. Look at what their ‘prophet’ did during his lifetime.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.