Punjabi Musalman were tertiary class citizens under Ranjeet Singh

[Samandri]

Nice.
So where do the proper Yousafzais live?I mean, the non-Mandanrs?

Swat, Dir, Malakhand, Shangal, Torghar

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The strict principles they have include not eating Halal food and generally being adversarial to muslims. .

Even if that's the case, so what? Being Muslim isn't about rumbling in the mud with others, but taking the high road. That's what Nabi(saw) taught, he didb't fight people just because they were contrarian or to be contrarian. We don't exist on this Earth to win a popularity contest. We exist to strive for Allah(swt). Worry about that and God will take care of the rest.

[Karachi]

Don't know about the rest of Punjabis, but Arains hate Sikhs and Hindus.

Ranjeet and the rest of these Singhs are no heroes of ours.

You were the biggest slaves of Sikhs, Arian women were taken and pimped all over Punjab, no wonder you hate them lol

[Samandri]

This thread was not opened with intention of discussing todays Sikhs, what they do, how they behave etc.....its a history section, and its history thread.....basically i am challenging the claim that Ranjeet Sinkh and Sikhs before him were very tolerant , liberal and secular people......thats hogwash, they were highly driven by their religion and committed atrocities beyond imagination in the name of revenge for death of Gurus....Ranjeet Singh tamed his people but he himself was certainly not secular, his vanguard was "Akaali" a religious extremist/fanatic force of Sikhs, he hated ulemas and used to hang them on various pretexts, desecrated mosques, attacked villages who slaughtered cows and banned Azaan........

[Samandri]

You were the biggest slaves of Sikhs, Arian women were taken and pimped all over Punjab, no wonder you hate them lol

Famous Arian in the history , Adina Beg, used Sikhs as pawns in his game, and after using them so many times like tissue paper, he decided to kill each and every Sikh in Punjab. For that purpose he had collected a large force of Muslim tribes of Punjab but he suddenly died from some colic disease. Historians says that Adina was so efficient that he was capable of achieving that.....Sikhs were fortunate that Adina died.

[mungojerry]

Lol sounds like we should embrace this sikhi cr@p. We'll start standing around for donations then.

Jokes aside, what do you know about these people? You had a gym partner, so what? I know them much much better than you think. Probably better than anyone in these forums. The strict principles they have include not eating Halal food and generally being adversarial to muslims. They are an anti-islamic cult, which in and of itself isn't a big deal, but they have a specific hate for Pakhtuns because of our historical fights. The fact that most of them aren't religious (or they are merely peace lovers and have convinced themselves that's all their religion is about) is another story.

I know sikhs personally. I used to be friends with a number of them. Very close with a few. Not for a short time either... we're talking better part of a decade. I've interacted with them thoroughly, been to their events many times, visited their stupid temple to see them in action, seen their culture inside out. I know these people very very well. The ones who do not have a life crisis where they need to be saved by some religious thing are typically liars, backstabbers, and very easily roused by jealousy. Their toilets, oops, I mean gurdawaras go as far as making up fantasy stories. Ones i knew genuinely thought these stupid condom-heads got peshawar for 100 years and got kabul for 100 years and just outright stupid BS (FYI, their empire lasted 50 years in total). They're just stupid poo-njabi animals. Even their ranjeet cunt was known to have used a lot of internal deceit to get to power.

As for your friend, look, he had your back. That is great. But I doubt he was expecting to get stabbed. Was likely not expecting anything other than a pushing shoving contest. Maybe a punch back and forth. If someone told him those guys were armed, and while I can't read his mind, it would be reasonable to assume he would likely not tried to be a hero.

Also, I'm not denying everyone is different. There are good and bad people everywhere. But just like the people here talk about punjabis and indians etc... I must tell you the punjabis on the other side of the border are garabage, and certainly to be seen as enemies. Don't assume because in 1984 5-6 of them died at the hands of hindus, and they still cry about it today, that all of a sudden they're victims too. Most of them ****ed off to former English colonies, and are seriously milking liberal tears. During partition the sikhs were the absolute most savage people. They wiped out entire villages in india that had muslims.

I've dealt with these people longer than you think, and I don't like them bro. They're getting a free lunch wherever they've ****ed off to and they have it out for us without telling us. They also have gained from the recent islamophobia. Search facebook you'll find groups like "sikhs in support of britain first".

They're not a real people. It was some hindu experiment to create cannon fodder to protect themselves, and it got out of hand. ASD made a mistake. He had 2 opportunities to wipe them out completely, at their infancy. Instead he just slaughtered a lot of them (1/4 - 1/3 1st time and 1/3 - 1/2 2nd time) and went away thinking he's sent them a message and now they'll behave themselves. He should've just removed them from history completely. We're still reeling from the effects of that mistake. The sikhs were completely ineffective against the british.

I'm not saying don't be friends with your gym buddy. I'm saying just beware. A bad example: A girl on a date should know that rape is a possibility. She shouldn't assume it's not. Doesn't mean it will happen. It probably won't happen. But be aware of the possibility.

haha. you are not a pashtune or elite Pakhtun or even a dumb Pakhtun. i know some sikhs. i go with them to their temple gurdawara some times. they are nothing like you writes.

[Friends of Baloch]

[Forreigner]

Lol...did not know horses existed in pakistan..

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I'm not saying don't be friends with your gym buddy. I'm saying just beware. A bad example: A girl on a date should know that rape is a possibility. She shouldn't assume it's not. Doesn't mean it will happen. It probably won't happen. But be aware of the possibility.

You can say this about practically anyone......

[Elite Pakhtun]

You can say this about practically anyone......

Technically yes... but sikhs by default programming have hate for us. That's all I'm saying.

Look at this: "Britain First" cozies up to Sikhs - Stormfront

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Technically yes... but sikhs by default programming have hate for us. That's all I'm saying.

Look at this: "Britain First" cozies up to Sikhs - Stormfront

Enemies enemy is my friend, I'm not saying that Sikhs don't have a historical bone to pick with Muslims; I'm saying this proves very little. South Asians in general have a grudge against Afghans, Afghans have a grudge against Persians, Persians have a grudge against Arabs, Arabs have a grudge against Jews. yadda yadda. Instead of making yourself out as the victim, look deep to understand why. Don't you find it strange that Greeks, Armenians, Sikhs have some narrative of grudge against Muslims .....why do you think that is? We were just minding our own business this whole time and they were jealous that we had the Haq?

[Elite Pakhtun]

Enemies enemy is my friend, I'm not saying that Sikhs don't have a historical bone to pick with Muslims; I'm saying this proves very little. South Asians in general have a grudge against Afghans, Afghans have a grudge against Persians, Persians have a grudge against Arabs, Arabs have a grudge against Jews. yadda yadda. Instead of making yourself out as the victim, look deep to understand why. Don't you find it strange that Greeks, Armenians, Sikhs have some narrative of grudge against Muslims .....why do you think that is? We were just minding our own business this whole time and they were jealous that we had the Haq?

The message is not lost on me. I'm not saying they're all bad. There are good ones and bad ones. It's a mixed bag, you'll find both. My personal hostility is due to what I've learned from personal experience (much of which I haven't disclosed because it's hard to prove some of the stuff online) and some personal enemies... That's all.

I do want to make sure it's known that Sikh religion was invented purely for hindu cannon-fodder. If there were no invading Muslims (Mughals and Pakhtuns, depending on what time period), it's almost certain sikhi would not be around.

[Samandri]

Adina Beg Arian, who was in service of Mughals and had back of martial Muslim tribes of Punjab, had planned extermination of Sikhs in last year of his life but he could not accomplish the task as he suddenly died from a disease

[Samandri]

The message is not lost on me. I'm not saying they're all bad. There are good ones and bad ones. It's a mixed bag, you'll find both. My personal hostility is due to what I've learned from personal experience (much of which I haven't disclosed because it's hard to prove some of the stuff online) and some personal enemies... That's all.

I do want to make sure it's known that Sikh religion was invented purely for hindu cannon-fodder. If there were no invading Muslims (Mughals and Pakhtuns, depending on what time period), it's almost certain sikhi would not be around.

Sikh sect became essentially ant-Muslim when Mughal emperors executed their Gurus.....the founder of the sect, Guru Nanak was from the period of Sikander Lodi and Ibrahim Lodi, and Afghans were not disturbing the man. The first Gurus were jogi type harmless people with few followers but some one gave false reports about their activities to jehangir (who himself was drunken man) and the latter executed their Guru.....then in Aurangzeb time, it was reported to him that Sikhs have established fiefdom in Punjab so he also acted against them....Then their last Guru Gobind invented martial code of Khalsa , turning his followers into militants. Guru Gobind's two very young sons were executed by a Muslim officer of Aurangzeb......which did it, they turned total anti-Muslim. The next leader Banda Singh was purely anti-Muslim, who either killed Muslims or left them alive after humiliation.....Sikhs turned to plundering and looting as they could not do farming in their confrontation with Mughals .....so in entire 18th century, their bands were plundering and pillaging from U.P to Sutlej and would attack muslim village or mosque whenever they were in the mood of doing that. Ranjeet Singh actually 'calmed' them down and disciplined them. If they became little bit tolerant towards Muslims , it was because of Ranjeet Singh who had empire to run, not a plundering band.

In Guru Nanak times, it was amalgamation of Hindiusm and Islam, but his successor Gurus removed most of the Islam bits due to anger against Mughals and included even more Hindu bits.....thats why British used to consider them a sect of Hinduism rather than a separate religion.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Sikh sect became essentially ant-Muslim when Mughal emperors executed their Gurus.....the founder of the sect, Guru Nanak was from the period of Sikander Lodi and Ibrahim Lodi, and Afghans were not disturbing the man. The first Gurus were jogi type harmless people with few followers but some one gave false reports about their activities to jehangir (who himself was drunken man) and the latter executed their Guru.....then in Aurangzeb time, it was reported to him that Sikhs have established fiefdom in Punjab so he also acted against them....Then their last Guru Gobind invented martial code of Khalsa , turning his followers into militants. Guru Gobind's two very young sons were executed by a Muslim officer of Aurangzeb......which did it, they turned total anti-Muslim. The next leader Banda Singh was purely anti-Muslim, who either killed Muslims or left them alive after humiliation.....Sikhs turned to plundering and looting as they could not do farming in their confrontation with Mughals .....so in entire 18th century, their bands were plundering and pillaging from U.P to Sutlej and would attack muslim village or mosque whenever they were in the mood of doing that. Ranjeet Singh actually 'calmed' them down and disciplined them. If they became little bit tolerant towards Muslims , it was because of Ranjeet Singh who had empire to run, not a plundering band.

In Guru Nanak times, it was amalgamation of Hindiusm and Islam, but his successor Gurus removed most of the Islam bits due to anger against Mughals and included even more Hindu bits.....thats why British used to consider them a sect of Hinduism rather than a separate religion.

Yup. But do you not think realistically that at the time, a competing religion was almost certain to get persecuted? While it didn't happen until the 5th guru (probably because it didn't take off until later), any new religion when 1 religion is trying to take over, will likely be met with hostility.

I'm sure Nanak thought he was divinely inspired, but if we take this idea and hand it to any random person in the region at that time period they probably could've predicted conflict. Persecution of people of various religions was happening for a long time, albeit not always systemic, and with notable exceptions and tolerant rulers like Akbar. This was just business as usual when it comes to empire building. Times have changed, I know... but we have to take things in their historical context.

So in a time when there was persecution of other religions, someone thinks he can invent a religion that amalgamates both portions and call it a new religion all while being immune from what everyone else was subject to? Also keep in mind how "flexible" hinduism is i.e. they can to a certain extent pick and choose various parts and call themselves hindus... it's easy to see how sikhism is really just hinduism with a slight islamic spin to try and gain followers.

I think regardless of how it started, and even if the so called gurus didn't predict persecution, it should be fairly obvious that it was going to happen at the time. This is my opinion, but I have a hard time thinking how it could be inaccurate. Because of this, I'm fairly confident that it was meant as a project to minimize Muslim progression, which I'm sure a child could've predicted was going to be in the form of fighting (i.e. cannon-fodder) at some point.

If the tables were turned, and say the Hindus were invading a land that had predominantly Muslims, would the outcome have been different? Absolutely not.