why do punjabi muslims and sikhs have so much hate for each other

[pashtun2121]

why do Punjabi Muslims and Punjabi Sikhs hate each other so much

example partition of Punjab into india and Pakistan in 1947 led to over a million Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims killing each other

many Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims have same ancestors language culture yet insane amount of hate for each other

were did this hate come from and how did it start and spread?

was it created by the british?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcMPbHfxaA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSykLf_A0Uw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VWyCc8QKKU

[jankhan]

Random fights does not mean hatred between two brothers.

[Dhillon]

Well as you have said a lot of it would come from the riots of Partition in which entire villages were murdered, women raped etc etc. Also historically Punjabi Hindu (later of whom many would become Sikh viewed converting to Islam as becoming a traitor as Punjab was under different Islamic empires for quite some time where the rulers were often ruthless and barbaric e.g. Mughals like Aurangzeb.

Having said that a lot of Muslim and Sikh Panjabis to love each other especially within ones own biradri like Jatts and Rajputs. It was definitely some thing the British did engineer, in the Hindu majority provinces like UP, Muslims were far more educated and wealthy than their Hindu counterparts.

In Punjab Muslims were less educated as a result of them being a majority, Hindus were highly educated and Sikhs represented very much in the Army etc. This lead to communal tensions which later retarded Politicians cashed on upon. Also you are right many Muslims and Sikhs have the same ancestors and this can be shown by shared surnames.

[tripledouble]

Pakistan supported Sikhs in their struggle for khaalistan, so I wouldn't say there's hate.

Most punjabi Muslims that live abroad gel well with Sikhs, Punjabi's from India are a minority and only make up 3% of the population, so Punjabis from India are closer to Punjabi's from Pakistan, I've heard some Punjabi nationalists in Pakistan who want to create a greater Punjab but that is only a fringe idea.

[Friends of Baloch]

why do Punjabi Muslims and Punjabi Sikhs hate each other so much

example partition of Punjab into india and Pakistan in 1947 led to over a million Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims killing each other

many Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims have same ancestors language culture yet insane amount of hate for each other

were did this hate come from and how did it start and spread?

was it created by the british?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcMPbHfxaA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSykLf_A0Uw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VWyCc8QKKU

It all starts with self-hatred and inferiority complex of punjabis. punjabis are an invented people that were created by the British. Before the "Britishers" there were no "punjabis". The punjab is a name given to northwest India by Mughals but the people living there were not united by any shared sense of ethnicity or regionalism. Punjabis like all other Hindu people were caste based society and identify with their caste historically. This only changed during the "British Raj" when British education, legal system and concepts like "ethnicity" were introduced to these Hindu people, aka punjabis.

If you search any historical record and primary source you will not find any such thing as "punjabis" before the 19th century.

Even in the writings of Nanak the first Sikh leader there is no mention of the word "punjab" or "punjabis".

During the "British Raj" many thousands of low caste Hindus and Sikhs converted to Islam which you can see in the original census records and documents the British started in the 1880's until the "partition".

Before the early 20th century punjab was majority Hindu and Sikh. It is in the context that we can understand confused identites, caste system, British divide and rule, lack of education and deep rooted sense of inferiority and prejudices that these people committed mass murder and other crimes against each other in 1947.

[ghumbasa]

It all starts with self-hatred and inferiority complex of punjabis. punjabis are an invented people that were created by the British. Before the "Britishers" there were no "punjabis". The punjab is a name given to northwest India by Mughals but the people living there were not united by any shared sense of ethnicity or regionalism. Punjabis like all other Hindu people were caste based society and identify with their caste historically. This only changed during the "British Raj" when British education, legal system and concepts like "ethnicity" were introduced to these Hindu people, aka punjabis.

If you search any historical record and primary source you will not find any such thing as "punjabis" before the 19th century.

Even in the writings of Nanak the first Sikh leader there is no mention of the word "punjab" or "punjabis".

During the "British Raj" many thousands of low caste Hindus and Sikhs converted to Islam which you can see in the original census records and documents the British started in the 1880's until the "partition".

Before the early 20th century punjab was majority Hindu and Sikh. It is in the context that we can understand confused identites, caste system, British divide and rule, lack of education and deep rooted sense of inferiority and prejudices that these people committed mass murder and other crimes against each other in 1947.

There is nothing today that binds sikhs or muslims punjabis togather cept certain cultural aspects and language.Today the muslims punjabis are muslims..Everything happens for a reason....whether the event of 1947 happened or not...they werent destined togather further.Faith overwrites any othrr loyality.
If people go by your logic...every other nation wil start searching for their lost counterpartswhile in reality looking for resources or somehow diverting islam out of their lives.It doesnt work like this...

[ghumbasa]

Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?

By Dr. Habib Siddiqui


Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted t6hat by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition ofthe jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.

http://www.albalagh....eral/0093.shtml*

Well as you have said a lot of it would come from the riots of Partition in which entire villages were murdered, women raped etc etc. Also historically Punjabi Hindu (later of whom many would become Sikh viewed converting to Islam as becoming a traitor as Punjab was under different Islamic empires for quite some time where the rulers were often ruthless and barbaric e.g. Mughals like Aurangzeb.

Having said that a lot of Muslim and Sikh Panjabis to love each other especially within ones own biradri like Jatts and Rajputs. It was definitely some thing the British did engineer, in the Hindu majority provinces like UP, Muslims were far more educated and wealthy than their Hindu counterparts.

In Punjab Muslims were less educated as a result of them being a majority, Hindus were highly educated and Sikhs represented very much in the Army etc. This lead to communal tensions which later retarded Politicians cashed on upon. Also you are right many Muslims and Sikhs have the same ancestors and this can be shown by shared surnames.

p

[Badlun]

This is a very good topic to discuss and see the impact when we mix religion with culture.

Sufi Islam lived side by side with Hindus and Sikhs for centuries but when Aurangzeb ,Sheikh Sirhindi(Mujadad Alaf Sani) and others like Syed Ahmad(Shaheed, the first ever terrorist in India) mixed politics with religion, the result we see in the form of Punjabis Muslims and Sikhs.

Both speak one language and have similar cultural identities like dress, music, dance, art, life style, food etc but the wrong application of religion made them enemies. Religion is for your personal or maximum family life not for culture or society or politics.

[Dhillon]

Just because Aurangzeb had Hindus in high positions doesn't mean he respected non-muslims. If he had have been really tolerant he would not have had Guru Tegh Bahadur executed for speaking against forced conversions.

[Badlun]

Just because Aurangzeb had Hindus in high positions doesn't mean he respected non-muslims. If he had have been really tolerant he would not have had Guru Tegh Bahadur executed for speaking against forced conversions.

Aurangzeb was a bigot fundamentalist extremist Muslim who first killed his brothers for power and then wanted to Islamize the whole India. He was the cause of the downfall of the Mughal Empire. Akbar the Great was the real intelligent and far sighted ruler while Aurangzeb was a Mullah , not a ruler.

In the form of Aurangzeb, we have another proof that religion and politics cannot be mixed, otherwise the results are disastrous. Aurangzeb was that time's Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden.

[jankhan]

Badlun, Akbar was doing shirk, in islam shirk the biggest sin. Isn't it ?

[Badlun]

Badlun, Akbar was doing shirk, in islam shirk the biggest sin. Isn't it ?

If Akbar was doing any shirk then it was his personal act and God will ask him for his this sin but what matters is Akbar as a ruler not as a good Muslim or bad Muslim. As a ruler he was the Great. Aurangzeb might be good Muslim personally but he was the destroyer of the Mughal empire while Akbar was the builder.

I hate this obsession of Wahabis and Salafis with shirk. If you create a new God/Allah then it may be a shirk but just going to tombs, praying in holy shrines of saints, seeking help of living or dead saints, sculpture for beauty or making symbols of statues for adoration or devotion is not at all shirk.

Because of this obsession of Muslims with shirk/polytheism, Islam is devoid of any art , sculpture, music, dance and architecture(except 4 walls of simple mosques with calligraphy).

[jankhan]

If Akbar was doing any shirk then it was his personal act and God will ask him for his this sin but what matters is Akbar as a ruler not as a good Muslim or bad Muslim. As a ruler he was the Great. Aurangzeb might be good Muslim personally but he was the destroyer of the Mughal empire while Akbar was the builder.

I hate this obsession of Wahabis and Salafis with shirk. If you create a new God/Allah then it may be a shirk but just going to tombs, praying in holy shrines of saints, seeking help of living or dead saints, sculpture for beauty or making symbols of statues for adoration or devotion is not at all shirk.

Because of this obsession of Muslims with shirk/polytheism, Islam is devoid of any art , sculpture, music, dance and architecture(except 4 walls of simple mosques with calligraphy).

He was a ruler, it was not his personal act, he was imposing it on others. Its not a matter of salafis or wahabis lol, its very simple that in islam shirk is the biggest sin, if we all Muslims start doing shirk and preaching shirk then what is the difference between us and the Christians and Hindus. The difference is shirk and not their names or colors or geography.
Please don't mix Akbar's shirk with shrines and saints and devotion and adoration and music and art loool. He had created a new deen, names ''deen e elahi''.

hahaha Badlun, if you have interests in arts, sculpture making or music or dance, you do it but in a separate place, Mosque is not for these activities.
Imagine some beautiful young girls dancing in a mosque and people have gathered to see these young girls for fun and at the other hand a few guys are praying. Does it make any sense ?

[Badlun]

He was a ruler, it was not his personal act, he was imposing it on others. Its not a matter of salafis or wahabis lol, its very simple that in islam shirk is the biggest sin, if we all Muslims start doing shirk and preaching shirk then what is the difference between us and the Christians and Hindus. The difference is shirk and not their names or colors or geography.
Please don't mix Akbar's shirk with shrines and saints and devotion and adoration and music and art loool. He had created a new deen, names ''deen e elahi''.

hahaha Badlun, if you have interests in arts, sculpture making or music or dance, you do it but in a separate place, Mosque is not for these activities.
Imagine some beautiful young girls dancing in a mosque and people have gathered to see these young girls for fun and at the other hand a few guys are praying. Does it make any sense ?

Yes good observation but you did not understand me or I could not explain.
Art can be anywhere whether inside mosque or outside.

Personally I follow the dynamic meditation practices of Osho, so music with dance in my own mosque may not be a problem for me but on general level, I will recommend a little more music in mosques and singing like a Church to make the worship more attractive. Quran is music so a little more music may not create big problem.

Akbar Deen e Ilahi suited a Hindu majority India with Muslim power. Muslims should be creative and intelligent like Akbar to adjust to the reality of the environment. Not like these extremists who implement Sharia even in Germany or UK.

Shirk is creating a another God. By music or saints or statues, another God is not created so it is not shirk. I do not know why Muhamamd destroyed the beautiful statues in Kaaba, as these were just symbols and people of Mecca did believe in God and were not calling those statues as God because no one can be this much stupid to declare a stone as God.

[Manzareh]

I will recommend a little more music in mosques and singing like a Church to make the worship more attractive. Quran is music so a little more music may not create big problem.

I seriously laughed out loud at this post. Haha thanks for your recommendation imaam osho. Tell me, what's more important to you, this life or the afterlife? It seems like the latter doesn't matter to you since you feel the need to prioritise it in order to be more appealing for the temporary life we have now. You are confused friend here's some advice; if you are a Muslim as you claim you are then try not to be too arrogant because your arrogance is similar to the arrogance of satan when Allah commanded him something (bow to his creation) he tried putting himself on a platform so high as an individual actually challenging a direct command from God because he thought himself more wiser and fooled himself thinking his opinion of himself being greater (fire should never bow to clay) more fit. What a mistake he made, if your not careful the way you are going you'll be sharing a cell with iblees himself one day. Just some humble advice, no offence but I'm 100% certain as even a basic Muslim with limited knowledge that you are completely off the track in regards to the fundamentals in what makes a person Muslim.