White Sikhs

[shenoma]

White Sikhs
white sikhs - YouTube
http://www.sikhnet.com/news/white-sikhs-foreigners-who-found-faith-sikhism

http://www.sikhnet.com/thesikhs/images/Two%20Young%20Sikh%20Children.jpg

[shenoma]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://www.sikhnet.com/Sikhnet/art.nsf/Files/trozbra8178/$file/khalsas2.jpg

http://www.sikhnet.com/thesikhs/images/Sikh%20Child%20at%20the%20Golden%20Temple%20India. jpg

http://www.sikhnet.com/thesikhs/images/Sikh%20Woman%20Meditating%20at%20the%20Golden%20Te mple.jpg

[shenoma]

http://www.miripiriacademy.org/

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Px3H3Jr3s1Y/SRlKqgK6tXI/AAAAAAAAASs/1tT5uyet4aM/s640/DSC00935.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Px3H3Jr3s1Y/SRlJnf_s7BI/AAAAAAAAARM/42sQo3A_XVo/s640/DSC00871.JPG
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Px3H3Jr3s1Y/SRlKWw1msBI/AAAAAAAAASU/SGIojpCPH_c/s640/DSC00912.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Px3H3Jr3s1Y/SajjNTFV0qI/AAAAAAAAB6s/PzgeRj4Dxv4/s640/IMG_0772.JPG

[shenoma]

http://www.asht.info/homepage

[herushura]

You Point is.......

Sikhs comes from Hinduism, its a very peaceful religion.

Unlike religious crap like monotheism aka islam/judaism/christianity

[bendoon]

All Indians were white 3000 years ago.

[pinkfreud]

All Indians were white 3000 years ago.

what a load of crap and an equally ill informed statement to make.

[rewind_bo]

You Point is.......

Sikhs comes from Hinduism, its a very peaceful religion.

Unlike religious crap like monotheism aka islam/judaism/christianity

peaceful religion......maybe u need to read your history

[eternal_spirit]

peaceful religion......maybe u need to read your history
Isn't the Sikh religion amix of Hinduism, Judaism and Islam?

Where is synergy when you need him.

[element]

Isn't the Sikh religion amix of Hinduism, Judaism and Islam?

Where is synergy when you need him.
Islam plus Indian religion in one form or another. Can't really say Hinduism as it's just a collective name created by the British to label most Indian spirituality.

I doubt Indians were all white 3000 years ago, if this has anything to do with the Aryan myth, it could be said there's hardly any credible evidence to support that theory.

[herushura]

All Indians were white 3000 years ago.

That does not make sense, from an evolutionary point view if Indians Were White, then they would have come form the North were it is cold, or India was once a cold place.

Many suggest that Indians have Mesopotamian Roots, whom have African Root.

[shenoma]

Sikhism

Sikhism is also a very small minority religion in Japan. Sikhs came to Japan from India. Sikhs live mainly in Kobe and Tokyo.

Religion in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pinkfreud]

Isn't the Sikh religion amix of Hinduism, Judaism and Islam?

seriously, where do you get your shit from? from your so called family in india? ;)


Islam plus Indian religion in one form or another.

just the opposite in fact.

sikhism was regarded as the 'militant' force of hinduism that was started as a means of protest against islamic rule in india- more particularly, against the conversion of punjabi hindu families into islam.

i'm sure synergy has loads of info on this as he's a sikh himself.


Sikhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Growth_of_the_Sikh_community)

The Sikh rebellion against Islamic rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Sikhism#The_Sikh_rebellion_against_Islam ic_rule)

[eternal_spirit]

seriously, where do you get your shit from? from your so called family in india? ;)





Sikhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Growth_of_the_Sikh_community)

The Sikh rebellion against Islamic rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Sikhism#The_Sikh_rebellion_against_Islam ic_rule)
:D something I read on here ages ago. Cheers for the link.

[pinkfreud]

:D something I read on here ages ago. Cheers for the link.


anytime ;)

[shenoma]

http://www.sikhnet.com/thesikhs/images/Two%20Young%20Sikh%20Children.jpg

Look at those cute kids.

[separ]

sikhism was regarded as the 'militant' force of hinduism that was started as a means of protest against islamic rule in india- more particularly, against the conversion of punjabi hindu families into islam.

Sikhism didn't start as a protest movement at all, but a syncretistic assembly of Hindu and Muslim people who wanted to practise the ecstatic worship of God / refinement of the self together, under the direction of a spiritually advanced master (Nanak).

[bendoon]

what a load of crap and an equally ill informed statement to make.

3000 years ago white people occupied China, India, North Africa, the ME and Europe, thats just the truth, sorry if it does not comply with your programming.

URUMQI, China - After years of controversy and political intrigue, archaeologists using genetic testing have proven that Caucasians roamed China’s Tarim Basin 1,000 years before East Asian people arrived.
.........................



http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2005/April/todaysfeatures_April37.xml&section=todaysfeatures

That does not make sense, from an evolutionary point view if Indians Were White, .

That of course depends on wether evolution is theory or fact.

[herushura]

That of course depends on wether evolution is theory or fact.

then that would contradict the statement that Indians were once whites.

[pinkfreud]

Sikhism didn't start as a protest movement at all, but a syncretistic assembly of Hindu and Muslim people who wanted to practise the ecstatic worship of God / refinement of the self together, under the direction of a spiritually advanced master (Nanak).

it was started by the gurus as an independant faith to deviate from the then existing casteist system of hinduism and the some repressive practices of islam.

the maximum conversions to sikhism took place then punjabi hindus were forced to convert to islam.



3000 years ago white people occupied China, India, North Africa, the ME and Europe, thats just the truth, sorry if it does not comply with your programming.

yeah dude, we know them as aryans.

they occupied/invaded the northern parts of india millenia after the indus valley civilization and other dravidic communities in southern india were already existing (some theories suggest the early indians came from east africa; to this day, they exist as tribal groups in the andaman and nicobar islands).

but to say indians were 'white' 3000 years go is not only foolish, but reflective of your already existing white supremacist beliefs. it wasn't 'white'; it was very much ethnic and a land full of dark skinned people before the aryan race took over the northern part of the land.


oh well, back to sikhism.

[separ]

it was started by the gurus as an independant faith to deviate from the then existing casteist system of hinduism and the some repressive practices of islam.

the maximum conversions to sikhism took place then punjabi hindus were forced to convert to islam.

The Sikh religion seems to have undergone some radical changes by successive (increasingly political) gurus who altered the doctrines to make them less accessible to Muslims, presumably under the influence of Jatts - a north Indian caste group - who joined up/identified themselves as Sikhs in large numbers in their latter days. The caste system exists today, and traditional Sikhs are both casteist and pro-Hindustan.

Punjabi Hindus were never forced to convert to Islam. This is more or less a modern propaganda peddled by Jatt interests, who became interested in water rights and land in the 20th century. Granted, Aurangzeb was severe towards non-Muslims, but the stories spread by Jatts of Islam spreading by the sword in north India are nothing but pure fantasy designed to further their land and water interests in the Punjab state. Islam actually spread in India through the influence of Sufi masters, not the Mughal lords. Originally the Sikhs targeted the Muslims as competitors for these resources of water and land - demonising them with ridiculous stories and banning Muslim habits such as halal meat and shisha - now they target the Hindu Brahmins.

[bendoon]

then that would contradict the statement that Indians were once whites.

Why ?

So you think everywhere in the world is inhabited by the same people who lived there 3000 years ago ?

[bendoon]

but to say indians were 'white' 3000 years go is not only foolish, but reflective of your already existing white supremacist beliefs. it wasn't 'white'; it was very much ethnic and a land full of dark skinned people before the aryan race took over the northern part of the land.


oh well, back to sikhism.

The first inhabitants of India were white, calling me childish names does not change the truth, rather a pathetic form of debate if I don't mind saying so.

[seanx]

Bendoon wrote:
The first inhabitants of India were white, calling me childish names does not change the truth, rather a pathetic form of debate if I don't mind saying so.

Of course they were WHITE!!

How dare anybody suggest that they were not white.

The truth is: They were as WHITE AS SNOW.

I should know, I am Bendoon the BNP's ( Britain's only all-white poltical
party) spokeman on the dave icle forum!!

BTW, Mr. Bendoon, you have never explained to us the great
irony that here you are as a great WHITE man making sure
that Britain is kept white and pure - while at the same time you are championing a
great coloured man from the Middle- East called Jesus whom you wouldn't let into Britain.

You regard him as 'Saviour' yet he is not good enough to live in Britain!!

it's a great question - but one you will NEVER answer.


I wonder why, mr. Bendoon?????

[bendoon]

Stop trolling seanx, the thread was about white Sikhs have you nothing constructive to say on the topic ? rather than your usual personal attacks.

[seanx]

Bendoon wrote:
Stop trolling seanx, the thread was about white Sikhs have you nothing constructive to say on the topic ? rather than your usual personal attacks.

ANSWER the question and stop TROLLING this forum with your sick
BNP matrix christainty BS!

oR CAN you not answer the question????

Of course you cannot answer the question as you posting BS as usual?

Why wouldn't let Jesus live in Britain????

[bendoon]

Bendoon wrote:


ANSWER the question and stop TROLLING this forum with your sick
BNP matrix christainty BS!

oR CAN you not answer the question????

Of course you cannot answer the question as you posting BS as qsual.

Ask a question related to the topic of the thread or stop trolling.

[freedomfactor]

Sikhism is all about equality. No one is higher or lower, kings are the same as peasants or so to speak, and humans are equal to animals etc. If you read more into Sikhism to be a good sikh it's a lot about removing ego from the self, and teaches you not to be like the rest of the world which follows greed, self interest, egoism etc. It can be said that sikhism is a cross between hinduism and islam. But they do not believe in simple pilgrames and rituals making a soul clean, or in idol worship such as the hindus do. They believe in a single god which is omnipresent and is eternal.

Instead Skhism preaches about the power of oneness, selflessness. I think that the holy book the "guru granth sahib" has a lot of correlation to what some speakers and scientists say today. I shall do more research! Also a famous quote from Guru Nanak in regards to this forum is sorta like this "You shall know when it is Kalyug (dark ages) when evil tyrants are ruling and are accepted by the world" e.g. this can be seen today such as bush, obama etc.

[freedomfactor]

The Sikh religion seems to have undergone some radical changes by successive (increasingly political) gurus who altered the doctrines to make them less accessible to Muslims, presumably under the influence of Jatts - a north Indian caste group - who joined up/identified themselves as Sikhs in large numbers in their latter days. The caste system exists today, and traditional Sikhs are both casteist and pro-Hindustan.

Punjabi Hindus were never forced to convert to Islam. This is more or less a modern propaganda peddled by Jatt interests, who became interested in water rights and land in the 20th century. Granted, Aurangzeb was severe towards non-Muslims, but the stories spread by Jatts of Islam spreading by the sword in north India are nothing but pure fantasy designed to further their land and water interests in the Punjab state. Islam actually spread in India through the influence of Sufi masters, not the Mughal lords. Originally the Sikhs targeted the Muslims as competitors for these resources of water and land - demonising them with ridiculous stories and banning Muslim habits such as halal meat and shisha - now they target the Hindu Brahmins.


LOL okay okay Aurangzeb followed a certain type of islam and yes they did forcibly convert non-believers if they did not comply. Guru tegh bahudur was tortured to convert to islam, but he did not and thus died a martyr. Other such martyrs are Guru Gobhinds sons who were bricked alive for not accepting Islam either, further evidence is of punjabi babies being impaled on spears and mothers forced to wear their dead babies around their necks if they didn't convert. But they kept their faith in sikhi.

[seanx]

Bendoon wrote
Ask a question related to the topic of the thread or stop trolling.

I ask you this simple QUESTION in every thread that you troll with your
bnp matrix christainity BS - BUT IT IS A a simple question that for some reason
you WILL never answer.

I wonder WHY??

Here it is again:

Mr. Bendoon, please explain to us the great irony that here you are
as a great WHITE man making sure that Britain is kept white and pure -
while at the same time you are championing a great coloured man
from the Middle- East called Jesus whom you wouldn't let into Britain.



Good news to all other posters; Mr. Bendoon will now disapear -only
to reappear in another week with more of his BNP indoctrination.

Cheerio !

[bendoon]

Bendoon wrote


I ask you this simple QUESTION in every thread that you troll with your
bnp matrix christainity BS - BUT IT IS A a simple question that for some reason
you WILL never answer.

I wonder WHY??

Here it is again:

Mr. Bendoon, please explain to us the great irony that here you are
as a great WHITE man making sure that Britain is kept white and pure -
while at the same time you are championing a great coloured man
from the Middle- East called Jesus whom you wouldn't let into Britain.



Good news to all other posters; Mr. Bendoon will now disapear -only
to reappear in another week with more of his BNP indoctrination.

Cheerio !

Please explain the relevance of your post to this thread

Thread title; White Sikhs

You can't just go derailing every thread on the forum with personal attacks on your crusade against Christianity.

[seanx]

Bendoon wrote:

Please explain the relevance of your post to this thread

Thread title; White Sikhs

You can't just go derailing every thread on the forum with personal attacks on your crusade against Christianity.

You use the SAME excuse on every thread ?

Why are you so shy to answer such a simple question????

let's try again:

Mr. Bendoon, please explain to us the great irony that here you are
as a great WHITE man making sure that Britain is kept white and pure -
while at the same time you are championing a great coloured man
from the Middle- East called Jesus whom you wouldn't let into Britain.

HAVE YOU NO ANSWER???

Is that why you won't answer on ANY thread?

[bendoon]

Bendoon wrote:



You use the SAME excuse on every thread ?

Why are you so shy to answer such a simple question????

let's try again:

Mr. Bendoon, please explain to us the great irony that here you are
as a great WHITE man making sure that Britain is kept white and pure -
while at the same time you are championing a great coloured man
from the Middle- East called Jesus whom you wouldn't let into Britain.

HAVE YOU NO ANSWER???

Is that why you won't answer on ANY thread?

Thats the fifth time you have derailed the thread with a completely off topic post. If you want to know the answer to that question start another thread.

[seanx]

Bendoon wrote:
Thats the fifth time you have derailed the thread with a completely off topic post. If you want to know the answer to that question start another thread.

STILL no answer.



Such an easy question and you've having such terrible trouble with it ??

Why is that?

Why do you uuse the same cowardly EXCUSE on every thread ?

Have you something to hide, mR Bendoon?

[tannah]

Bendoon wrote:


Of course they were WHITE!!

How dare anybody suggest that they were not white.

The truth is: They were as WHITE AS SNOW.

I should know, I am Bendoon the BNP's ( Britain's only all-white poltical
party) spokeman on the dave icle forum!!

BTW, Mr. Bendoon, you have never explained to us the great
irony that here you are as a great WHITE man making sure
that Britain is kept white and pure - while at the same time you are championing a
great coloured man from the Middle- East called Jesus whom you wouldn't let into Britain.

You regard him as 'Saviour' yet he is not good enough to live in Britain!!

it's a great question - but one you will NEVER answer.


I wonder why, mr. Bendoon?????


Well maybe Bendoon only worships Jesus when he's on holiday in Israel?

[shenoma]

Since the only reason I have bothering to start this thread was to show off the beauty of these children wearing their cute outfits. All of the fighting needs to stop, now.:mad:

http://www.sikhnet.com/Sikhnet/art.nsf/Files/trozbra8178/$file/khalsas2.jpg

[brio313]

it was started by the gurus as an independant faith to deviate from the then existing casteist system of hinduism and the some repressive practices of islam.

the maximum conversions to sikhism took place then punjabi hindus were forced to convert to islam.





yeah dude, we know them as aryans.

they occupied/invaded the northern parts of india millenia after the indus valley civilization and other dravidic communities in southern india were already existing (some theories suggest the early indians came from east africa; to this day, they exist as tribal groups in the andaman and nicobar islands).

but to say indians were 'white' 3000 years go is not only foolish, but reflective of your already existing white supremacist beliefs. it wasn't 'white'; it was very much ethnic and a land full of dark skinned people before the aryan race took over the northern part of the land.


oh well, back to sikhism.

The Aryan race invasion theory is western propaganda fabricated by Max Muller to serve him and his masters "christian" doctrines and views. The truth didn't serve their agenda. The Aryans never invaded India because they had already been there since dawn of time.

Bhakti yoga and true christendom, Jesus style, is more or less the same science of awakening true God consciousness. Christendom has roots which goes back to aryan vedic India. I find the semblance stunning.

[pinkfreud]

The Aryan race invasion theory is western propaganda fabricated by Max Muller to serve him and his masters "christian" doctrines and views. The truth didn't serve their agenda. The Aryans never invaded India because they had already been there since dawn of time.


the aryan invasion theory is bollocks simply because they talk about these invaders being 'fair skinned', and max mueller implied that this race arrived from the caucasus mountains. this theory does not in any way take into regard the mention of this race which dates back as far as 5 millenia- around the time the upanishads were probably written. in other words, max mueller has taken full credit for 'stumbling upon' this fact and never made any reference whatsoever to its mention in ancient spiritual texts that were already revered by the general population of hindus.

the ancient upanishads (which precede the vedas) speak of 'fair skinned demi gods' arriving in pushpa-viman from the 'high skies' and giving their blessings or providing 'amrit' (divine nectar) to the earthly mortals (aka the indians who lived on the land prior to the 'demi gods' arrival). this race of fair skinned 'gods' were tall, well built, and had 'godly features'; this race is also thought to have written the vedas, but i cannot be sure. ever wonder how or why the upanishads are almost or never mentioned with the frequency the vedas are mentioned? it gives me something to think about.

from what i have read of icke's work, there is a mention of this race of 'gods' in almost every native civilization. india is no exception, and if you purchase or download the upanishad volumes, perhaps you will know who these 'fair skinned gods' really are, and how they have incredible similarities to the 'annunaki' race of yore.

i know the history of my land well enough to sniff bullshitters like max mueller and enthusiasts of the same theory like the one whose post i am about to address.



The first inhabitants of India were white, calling me childish names does not change the truth, rather a pathetic form of debate if I don't mind saying so.

spot the childish name in my post, mister.

a 'pathetic debate' is one which is never grounded on fact, but rather on twisted figments of one's imagination- such as yours.

you were the one who trolled this topic and made it into something ugly (i'm equally guilty for wasting time on this, but anyway...), and though i will hate myself for wasting my energy on this post, you will not catch me making nonsensical posts on the history of england... yeah, that doesn't happen, because i simply don't venture into a territory when i'm not armed with the necessary arsenal :)

read the upanishads, read the vedas, read indian history that is not penned by western authors and so called historians, and then have the gall to make statements like that.




i will leave the white/non-white and aryan/non aryan debate right about... here >.< sorry shenoma, for indulging in this stuff in a thread as nice as this...



The Sikh religion seems to have undergone some radical changes by successive (increasingly political) gurus who altered the doctrines to make them less accessible to Muslims, presumably under the influence of Jatts - a north Indian caste group - who joined up/identified themselves as Sikhs in large numbers in their latter days. The caste system exists today, and traditional Sikhs are both casteist and pro-Hindustan.

Punjabi Hindus were never forced to convert to Islam. This is more or less a modern propaganda peddled by Jatt interests, who became interested in water rights and land in the 20th century. Granted, Aurangzeb was severe towards non-Muslims, but the stories spread by Jatts of Islam spreading by the sword in north India are nothing but pure fantasy designed to further their land and water interests in the Punjab state. Islam actually spread in India through the influence of Sufi masters, not the Mughal lords. Originally the Sikhs targeted the Muslims as competitors for these resources of water and land - demonising them with ridiculous stories and banning Muslim habits such as halal meat and shisha - now they target the Hindu Brahmins.


no. 'traditional' sikhs are pro-khalistan.

like i did say earlier, this guy http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=2507 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=2507)is a sikh and knows much more about the religion than i do, and probably anyone else who does not follow the faith... and he will engage you on this topic i guess.



Since the only reason I have bothering to start this thread was to show off the beauty of these children wearing their cute outfits. All of the fighting needs to stop, now.:mad:

http://www.sikhnet.com/Sikhnet/art.nsf/Files/trozbra8178/$file/khalsas2.jpg



yeah, i'm very very sorry for that again.

sikh kids are incredibly cute.

[converger]

interesting but this is manifest aberration...
sikhism has done nothing for indians it gave them penury and mesiry it gave them longevity no more .

[separ]

no. 'traditional' sikhs are pro-khalistan.


Sorry but you are under a misapprehension on this issue. 'Khalistan' is a modernist Sikh movement with roots in 20th century India. Bhindranwale was a head of 'Damdami Taksal', an organisation that is not traditional but 20th century reformist. Ideologically, the roots of these people go back to 1925 and the Singh Sabha.

The traditional Sikhs, as another poster mentioned on the other Sikhs thread, are Akali Nihangs, Udasis, Nirmalas and Sevapanthis. These are all orders that were founded by the Sikh gurus and are pretty much unchanged and in their natural state. During the most intense time of the 1984 Sikh uprising and its immediate aftermath, the Akali Nihangs under their chief Baba Santa Singh supported the Indian government. The traditional Sikhs have a vested interest in keeping open and free access to the gurdwaras and most importantly the 'takhts' in India and Pakistan, and mainly for this reason they openly refer to the Sikhs as being an integral part of the nation of 'Hindustan'. There are always some modern Sikhs who say they don't want to be a part of India, but they are not traditional Sikhs i.e. Udasis, Akali Nihangs, Sevapanthis or Nirmalas.

[pinkfreud]

yay.

cool.


perhaps i should start doing some intensive online research myself.

like this...


The goal of the Khalistan movement is to create a Sikh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia homeland, often called Khālistān (Punjabi language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ "The Land of the Khalsa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), in the Punjab region - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Harking back to the 18th century Sikh Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the envisioned Sikhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia state would include all Punjabi language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia-speaking areas, viz. Punjab, India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haryana, Himachal Pradesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and some other Punjabi speaking parts of states like Gujarat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



Khalistan movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



hmm...

[separ]

Wikipedia's no good. Anyone can write anything there. Plus saying that there was an 18th century 'Sikh' kingdom (which wasn't called Khalistan and which wasn't based on Sikhism by the way) doesn't make the 20th century 'Khalistan' movement 'traditional'.

Try this (official Akali Nihang) site:

http://www.sarbloh.info/

[pinkfreud]

Try this (official Akali Nihang) site:

http://www.sarbloh.info/


thank you separ... i came across another sikh thread here http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43860&highlight=sikh and i'm gonna read it because it seems very interesting.


sorry for my tone earlier... i've been in a nasty mood ever since i saw some of the posts on this thread... no harm meant.

[separ]

No worries mate. You're in the right to ask for proofs.

[nirvana00]

Aurengzeb is the reason the Mughal empire collapsed, the wars he waged in the deccan drained the treasury and caused general discontent. Islam was not spread by the sword in India, Islamic rule was indeed spread by the sword.

Islam came to being in India:

- Through the settlement of Arabs, Turks, Pashtuns, Persians.
- Conversion of low caste Hindus to whom the equality of man was a great allure. I mean if I was a low caste living in 13th century, I would do anything to escape the brutal and sick caste system which is a very much a part of hinduism despite all the claims by neo hindus.
- The work of Sufis who went from village to village prosleytizing.
- And there were a small number of courtiers who thought becoming Muslim would be "good for their careers".