Jump to content

proactive

Members
  • Posts

    2,688
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    66

Everything posted by proactive

  1. The guy is just a confused fool who wants to justify his kaam for people of the same gender. I've read a few of his discussions and it is amazing how often people like him who claim they want a discussion are so quick to shut down the discussion by claiming the other person is homophobic! You just hit the nail on the head, But fools like gaysikh will never understand this because it would mean that he can't impose his homosexual views onto Sikhs.
  2. This shows how superficial the faith really is in Muslims. If it was other religions, they would consider it as a challenge and a way for a person to be stronger in their faith. In Muslims the sight of non-Muslims eating while Muslims are fasting is seen as insulting! Sometimes I think Islam is a bit like 'the emperor's new clothes'. Everyone is saying the same thing because they hear others say the same.
  3. There is a story that Mohammed laid down in the grave of his aunt or some other women as well.
  4. First of all I don't the question by the OP. The only reason I can think of a Sikh undertaking the Ramadan fast and thereby going against the teachings of the Gurus is that he/she has brought into the propaganda of Muslims that is everywhere during Ramadan. There is going to be a programme on Channel 4 about how great Ramadan is. The usual propaganda, how it';s a spiritual MOT! How it makes them think about the starving blah blah blah, Most of it is BS. Muslims fast because they have to, otherwise they get shunned by other Muslims. I would be weary of all those reports that majority of Muslims fast, I am sure a lot of them have a sneaky snack out of sight from other Muslims. If you cut through the propaganda, you will realise that Ramadan is not really a fast at all. Most Muslims stuff their faces before sunrise and then again after sunset. It is more of a change of eating habits, changing from three small meals throughout the day to two big meals at the start and end of the day. In most Muslim countries the restaurants and food outlets have to close down during the daylight hours. Non-Muslims can be beaten up and arrested if they eat anything in public because this will offend Muslims!
  5. I don't think we can be very diplomatic when these Muslim paedophile gangs are being arrested every week. The Muslim community tried a publicity trick of getting 500 mosques to have their Imam do a talk on grooming last Friday. According to some websites a lot mosques just ignored the call. Their reason was that no devout Muslim would be involved in these gangs! When you have that level of denial then harsh words are indeed needed,
  6. This is what Islamic morals and ethics is all about, How can they be against grooming when the head honcho Mohammed groomed Aisha? I know our inbred buddy will find the above insulting so I will amend the above line to ' FINAL Head Honcho' to conform to his Islamic beliefs!
  7. I think I riled the dumb. musalmaan, The truth always has that effect. He probably doesn't know whether to call his mum his ammi or bhua! His kids will be even more confused, no wonder musalmaan are blowing themselves up everywhere. The media is it wrong, it's not radicalisation, it's not some mad mullah telling them they will get 72 virgins in heaven. It's someone telling them that their ammi is also their bhua!! His posts are based on hearsay and his views but the marrying of cousins is based on the quran. Mohammed wanted to marry his cousin after he took a sneaky look at her bathing so he made such incestuous marriages legal. So now 1400 years, the result of generations of inbreeding comes on this forum to write how great and superior his religion is. There have already been reports in the press about how cousin marriage increases the risk of genetic disorders. After reading my post, our musla friend should take a look down at his feet and I bet this is what he will see
  8. If that's the reason then why doesn't that Pakistani go one better and marry his own sister. That way the wife will treat her sass even better because her sass will also be her mother!
  9. Man, you are so dumb you don't even know when you are writing Islam supremacist bukwas. Although I should not be surprised, you probably come from a long line of inbred people who married their own cousin sisters! I dread to think what a mangled mess your family tree must be like. Imagine having to explain to your kids that Mommy is also your Bhua! You said Muslims will be 10% in 2030 and 15% in 2050. So what is that? A reference to the baby making ability of the average Muslim woman or a shout out to all the illegal immigrant Muslims getting their butts out of the Islamic paradises that are Pakistan and Somalia in order to recreate these same paradises in the UK and other parts of Europe. So reference to increasing numbers isn't supremacist, so as you referred to Copts, what if the Egyptian census found that Copts were 10% in 2001 and 15% in 2011, what do you think the Egyptian government or for that matter any Islamic government faced with non-Muslims increasing in number more than Muslims do about it?
  10. You obviously don't see your own hypocrisy, bragging about taking over the west but calling anyone who opposes this a racist! You're wet dream of Islamic domination will not come to fruition. The problem with Muslims including you is that they just cannot bide their time. They will always act prematurely. Rather than waiting until they are strong enough, they will act prematurely and the likelihood is they will bring a whole heap of trouble on themselves. Islamic supremacists like you will carry out terror attacks like the Woolwich murder and the west will finally have had enough. At the moment you have the support of left wing liberals but that will soon evapourate when the Muslims step up their attacks on homosexuals. Europe may seem a soft touch now but when push comes to shove the whole of Europe will be deal with the Muslim problem. It is only a few generations ago that millions were killed defeating another totalitarian ideology and I wouldn't bet against them doing the same against Islam.
  11. Canada's a shythole. My friend and his family migrated from UK there in 1987 and they were back in six months. Apnay in Canada are a queer bunch. You see them in Punjab with their maple leaf flags on their cars. You don't get apnay from UK or even USA do that. The accent is also a piece of crud as well
  12. I can see your point, but what we need to also consider is that at some stage to be considered Sikhs, the father or grandfather of these mona Jat Sikhs from 1881-1901 would have had to have undergone a formal conversion to Sikhism..ie the Pahul. It is unlikely that an Amritdhari parent would then not make their sons and grandsons Amritdhari in turn. Although quite common now with the lack of parchar but it would have been very unusual and certainly something that the census would have mentioned in those days. Although I think the Punjab Administration report for a few years after annexation does mention that sons of Sikh fathers are less likely to come to Amritsar and take Amrit, but this seems to have been in small instances but for it to have been so bad as to have turned over half the Sikh Jats into Hindus, it would have meant that 50% of Sikh fathers were not taking their sons to take Amrit. This is highly unlikely. I do remember reading many years ago that Sikh Jats would marry their sons off to the daughters of Hindu Jats but would only give daughters in marriage provided the bridegroom became a Sikh..ie became a Keshadhari. If this happened to a large scale then it would take only a few generations for the Hindu Jats to disappear. I think it does depend to a large degree which area your parents and grandparents are from. As I wrote in one of the earlier posts, the 50% Hindu Jats were not uniformly distributed. My parents told me that in our area, the Jagraon Tehsil of Ludhiana district the only Hindus they ever came across were shopkeepers who were of the Khatri caste. The only Khatri Sikhs at that time were from Lahore and the Rawalpindi area. They also said that after partition when a large number of Khatri Sikhs moved into the smaller towns of East Punjab, the East Punjab Sikh Jats were quite surprised to realise that Khatris could also be Sikhs! So your parents could also be from an area where the Sikh Jats were predominate. In Ludhiana District, it was the Samrala tehsil that Hindu Jats were enumerated in large numbers.
  13. There was an attempt made for an unofficial commission by the Institute of Sikh Studies in SAS Nagar in the late 1990s. This was to a commission with no official powers to hear both the stories of those who suffered and those who took part in the oppression. The people in power who were scared of what would come out got a court order making the holding of the commission contempt of court and the IOSS backed out due to this.
  14. There has never been a serious study done to determine how many Muslims had converted to Sikhism. After the victory of Banda Singh Bahadur many Muslims cast their lot in with the Sikhs seeing this as their only means of survival or wanting to become one with the new power that was replacing the Mughals. It is tempting to wonder what the Punjab would have been like today had Banda Singh Bahadur succeeded in replacing the Mughal rule permanently. The Muslim Jat tribes beyond Lahore had only been forcibly converted during the time of Aurangzeb a few decades before, so they might have made common cause with the Sikhs in Western Punjab. The Sikh rule might have taken the form of a Reconquista like the Christians did in Spain. The only work I have come across that tried to enumerate how many Sikhs were from a Muslim background was a survey carried out by a British official in Lahore in 1846-47. From memory he listed Hindu Sikhs and Muslim Sikhs ie Sikhs from a Hindu background and Sikhs from a Muslim background. I think the figures were 10 % for Muslim Sikhs and 90% for Hindu Sikhs. I will try and see if I can get hold of the exact figures and post them here.
  15. Dhariwal are called Dhaliwal in Jalandhar. They are the same tribe and referred to as Dhariwal almost every place in Punjab other than in Jalandhar, The census considered them to be the same tribe and hence to stop confusion referred to them as Dhariwal. The census tables were collated to give an overall picture of the strength of each got and not to go into the nuances of each got which was left for the gazetteer publications and for the census report The migration of many Jat tribes from Majha to Malwa, Doaba and Gujranwala occurred much earlier than the Misl period. Although the Misldars from Majha would still have contacts with their tribe that had migrated to outside of Majha previously and use the contacts to get men and supplies to supplement their forces in any attack in areas outside of Majha. In many cases the Misldars especially in places like Gujranwala would invade from Majha in order to specifically assist their own gots in their struggle with the Muslim tribes of the region. I still see that you do not address the points raised before. Prior to 1911 was no way that a Jat of Sikh appearance even if he gave his religion as Hindu would be listed as a Hindu. he would be listed as a Sikh. There was a suggestion that the Hindu Jats may have been monas. There was prior to 1947 really no such thing as a mona Sikh Jat. In the Sikh Jat villages the kids might have had cut hair but as they got older they would become Keshdhari,The few adult mona Jat Sikhs were people such as returnees from Canada or people in government service like Mahinder S Randhawa who was a District Commissioner of Delhi in 1947 and later did sterling work rehabilitating the Sikh refugees in Punjab after 1947. In Malwa the only mona Jats were the udasis sadhs in their deras.
  16. It's actually the other way round. In the censuses before the 1911 census, if a person with Kesh and a Sikh appearance presented themselves to the enumerator as a Hindu, his religion would be recorded as Hindu but he would be included in the Sikh figure, hence the large number of Hindu Sikhs in 1881. Only in 1911 were the enumerators instructed to record the religion as whatever the person said it was. So if a person of Sikh appearance called himself a Hindu, he would be placed in the Hindu total. The only censuses of the late 1800s were the 1881 and 1891 census. Your contention still fails because the 1901 census still showed a significant number of Hindu Jats. Well in 1901 after the flawed censuses of 1881 and 1891, in Jalandhar the Dhariwal Got had 1,164 Hindus and 1,518 Sikhs.
  17. Each community has it's traitors. Criminals who cannot make it in normal society so they willingly become the tools of others to oppress their own people. No doubt had Hitler successfully invaded England, he could have relied on thousands of English men and women to act as collaborators and to oppress their own people. All the occupied countries had this situation, so you can understand the mentality of such people if you consider Punjab to be an occupied land. What needs to happen if we really want to being greater understanding of what the Sikhs suffered to the wider western audience is to start to take affidavits from the people who lost sons to fake encounters. There must be hundreds of such people in Canada, USA and UK. Then use the laws already available in the free west to track down the lower rung killers. Those haram.zadas like that police officer who killed hundreds and then afterwards married their sons and daughters in USA and Canada and then joined them by being sponsored into that country. These haram.zadas are now living in retirement enjoying the fruits of a free society whilst they killed hundreds who also wanted freedom. If organisations like Sikhs for Justice can get a few convictions in the West, the floodgates will open and these haram.zadas will be singing like canaries implicating murderers like Gill and Saini.
  18. Legal Singh, The reason why the debate is going in different directions is because points of view counter to your own are being presented and as yet you have not been able to give an answer to these. You said 1881 census was flawed but then what about the 1891 or 1901? Your point would have value if in 1881 Hindu and Sikh Jats were equal in number and in 1891 and in every census afterwards Sikh Jats jumped to 80% and Hindus fell to 20% of the non-Muslim Jat popilation. But this is not the case. You state that no Sikh Jat has discovered that he had Hindu ancestors. If you go back long enough you will get Hindu names. Have you asked every Jat and have they given you the same answer? You might just know Jats from your area and your area as you state was an area settled by Sikh Jats. You presented your point that the Sikh Jats, if they really received so many Hindu Jat converts then they would have increased as a percentage of the total Sikh population but I showed you with statistics that this was not the case because the non-Jat converts during the same period were so much higher. Unless you answer the above points then this debate will not be going anywhere.
  19. isingh1699 has hit the nail on the head. Voluntary migration out of India was something peculiar to Punjabi Sikhs and to a lesser extent Punjabi Muslims. Of course the vast majority of indentured labourers to places like Fiji and Guyana were Hindus but these were lower caste impoverished Hindus from UP and Bihar. The only voluntary migration from higher caste Hindus was for educational purposes and this was to the UK and not to California or Canada. Legal Singh, So let's take the 1881 census to be deeply flawed and reject it outright. So is the 1891 census more accurate? It actually shows a DECREASE in Sikh Jats and an INCREASE in the number of Hindu Jats!! Even the 1901 census shows 1,539,574 Hindu Jats against 1,388,877 Sikh Jats. It is actually only in 1911 that the Sikh Jats go to 1,617,532 and the Hindu Jats decrease to 1,000,085. So were 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses flawed and 1911 the first 'correct' census? With regard to Muslim Jats, beyond the Chenab river anyone who was not a Pathan or a Rajput and who farmed land was considered a Jat. The term Jat did not have the same meaning as it did in the rest of the Punjab. That is why there are so many smaller gots which are not found in the core Jat areas of Central and East Punjab. So in these areas castes which were not Jat were enumerated as such and continued to be enumerated as such throughout the census period. In the Central and East Punjab it would be impossible for a non-Jat to claim to be Jat. The increased in the number of Sikh between 1881 and 1931 was not solely among the lower castes. Rajputs increased by 289% Sainis by 573% Aroras by 300% Khatris by 49% Kambohs by 215% Gujjars by 203%
  20. The Sikh Jats actually went from 66% of the Sikh population to 53% between 1881 and 1931. This was because they increased by 90% over this period whereas the non-Jat Sikhs increased by 310% over the same period. The migrants to Canada and California were mainly former soldiers of the British Indian army. For Hindu Jats there was not specific regiment to join which was not the same in the case of Sikh Jats. The Jat regiments were for Hindu Jats from the Haryana region. A Hindu Jat from Punjab would need to become a Sikh to join the army.
  21. What magazine is the story from? I think the best way to help would be to get SOPW or Khalsa Aid involved. The sad fact is that it is the in-laws who have sold her property.
  22. I know the difference between Chuhras and Chamars, thank you very much. You are probably not aware that about Chuhras about 24,000 out of 40,000 claimed Ad Dharmi as their religion, that's 60% of Chuhras in Jalandhar. Your claim that Ad Dharam was a Chamar faith is clearly wrong. The chief movers were Chamars but the Chuhras of Jalandhar also responded to it in a big way, as did those in Lyallpur district who gone over as the laagis of the Jat colonists from Doaba. There were large numbers of Chuhras in Doaba as well and it wasn't as simple as you seem to believe that lower castes were Chamars in Doaba and Chuhras in Malwa. This is however the case with regard to Doaba and Majha. Majha had very few Chamars but large numbers of Chuhras. You are right that Chuhras for the most part when they became Sikhs, they were ardent Sikhs. The simple fact is that in Malwa for whatever reason, the Chamars and Chuhras were much more likely to be Sikhs than Hindus or Ad Dharmis. This was the case whether it was in the British districts like Ludhiana or in Patiala, Nabha or Faridkot states. The information I have given is from the Census reports of 1931.
  23. The reason why Jalandhar is a Sikh minority district has to do with many factors. If you compare Jalandhar with Ludhiana by taking away the entire population of Muslims, then the Sikhs Jats become 36.68 % of the remaining population of Jalandhar and 40.38% of the remaining population of Ludhiana. So the percentage of Sikh Jats in both districts were very similar. If you then take the population of so-called lower castes like Chamar it is clear that there Chamars were about 20% of the population of Jalandhar while they were only about 10% of the population of Ludhiana. This still would not have had a great effect on why Jalandhar became a Sikh minority district. The true reason was that whereas Sikh Chamars were only 5% of the Chamar population of Jalandhar, Sikh Chamars in Ludhiana were 63% of the Chamar population. Interestingly enough Jalandhar became a Sikh majority district ( 56.4%) by the time of the 1951 census due to the resettlement of Sikh refugees in the district after partition. However, due to the migration of Sikhs to the west and also into Terai region of UP and because a large number of so-called lower castes declared themselves to be Hindus in order to avail themselves of reservation, which until 1956 was only available to Hindu lower castes, the Sikhs became a minority of 44.8% in 1961.
  24. I did not write anything about Lahore district or even Amritsar for that matter. One being the religious capital and the other being the political capital of the Sikh state, then the Jats would obviously have been more inclined to be Sikh than Hindu. Also given that a majority of the Misldars also came from these districts, this would have given another impetus to the Jats becoming Sikh. The census of 1881 states that there were 23,373 Hindu Jats compared to 16,849 Sikh Jats in Gujranwala district. By 1931 this had changed to 35,339 Sikh Jats and 2,299 Hindu Jats. Between 1881 and 1931 a part of the Gujranwala district was split into Sheikhupura district where Sikh Jats were 41,181 and Hindu Jats 857 in 1931. The case of Gujranwala is interesting because the likelihood of who was a Sikh or Hindu Jat prior to the Singh Sabha depended mostly on which got that person belonged to. The Virks, Manns, Sidhu and Sandhu were more likely to be Sikh and the Varaich, Cheema and Chatha were more likely to be Hindu than Sikh. The Virks and Manns had had Misldars who were from their got and who retained some of their estates after the annexation.
  25. In 1881, in Jalandhar the Sikhs Jats were 56,407 compared to 87,262 Hindu Jats. Even in Kapurthala State which I am sure you will agree does not have the same physiology as Hoshiarpur and was a protected state within the Lahore state, had 12,020 Sikh Jats compared to 16,245 Hindu Jats. Due to the parchar work of the Singh Sabha, in Jalandhar there were only 12,754 Hindu Jats compared to 160,286 Sikh Jats in 1931. The figures for Kapurthala state were 35,757 Sikh Jats and 1,148 Hindu Jats in 1931. The only reason I can deduce is that the Jats who were more adventurous and who were ambitious to stake a claim to the land were more likely to become Sikhs and join the Misl bands and the ones that did not have this mentality remained Hindus until the Singh Sabha came along.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use