Article: Hindus, Sikhs should not be delusional about alliances with neo-Nazis

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In a desire to embrace the enemy of their enemy, some Hindus have been making some very foolish alliances. Earlier this year, one of the biggest Hindu groups in Britain invited one of the most prominent white racists to speak at their annual conference. Obviously, I made a big stink about it. Why legitimise someone like that in the eyes of the community? Some British Hindus also started asking similar questions. The organisers eventually cancelled the event after the uproar. They weren’t happy with me.
The invited speaker went by the alias of “Tommy Robinson” — founder of the English Defence League (EDL). The EDL wasn’t a debating society. They organised violent rallies, harassed non-white people and got drunk. Supporters made neo-Nazi signs, posted racist messages online and didn’t hide their hatred.

The National Council of Hindu Temples UK said they invited the EDL’s founder merely for a “respectful dialogue” with him but many, including me, suspected a different motive: They wanted him to talk about why UK Hindus should be afraid of Muslims.
In politics, people have always made odd alliances on the basis of mutual interest. But even by those standards something weird is happening. As neo-Nazi nationalist groups have grown in popularity across Europe and the United States, some Hindu groups have started to see them as allies against a common enemy: Muslims. Others think the election of nationalist leaders in the West, such as Donald Trump in the US, would be good for India.
Recently, Union home minister Rajnath Singh said Indians “should feel proud” of Trump because his victory mirrored that of Modi. The Hindu Sena, an extremist group from New Delhi, celebrated when he won, saying: “India will now have the support of the US in our efforts against terrorists.”

One was Trump’s biggest backers, donating tens of lakhs of dollars. On Twitter and Facebook there have been hundreds of jubilant Indians welcoming Trump for similar reasons.
In Britain, the EDL courted Hindus and Sikhs so its leader could pretend they weren’t racist. Though they largely failed, some were willing to ignore the EDL’s racism against a common enemy.
But allow me to be a bit blunt here: These people are out of their bloody minds.
Hindus and Sikhs who think an alliance with western white-nationalist groups will help us in any way are being delusional. It isn’t just wishful thinking, it is self-sabotage.
At a glance, the white neo-Nazi groups look like nationalists who take a strong stance against Islamic terrorists and too much immigration. I can see why some Indians would regard them as harmless.

But appearances can be deceptive. Over the last decade these neo-Nazis have worked hard to look more respectable, ditching the Hitler-salutes, shaved heads, pro-Nazi chants and violent marches. Now they wear sharp suits and choose their language very carefully. They’ve realised that nationalism sounds a lot more attractive than traditional neo-Nazism.
This “cleaning-up” act coincided with a western backlash against globalisation, immigration and liberal values after the financial crash of 2008. Most of their supporters are poorly educated, poorly paid and older voters who feel their country is changing too fast and they are losing out.
So here are three big reasons why any alliance with them will hurt Indians.

First, these nationalist groups are riding a wave of populist anger not just against Muslims but against all non-whites in the West. Scratch the surface and you can see the evidence. Last week Trump supporters at a conference in Washington DC were caught on video doing Hitler-salutes, saying he would make whites powerful again. There have been similar incidents in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Hungary and Romania too.
With every victory, from Brexit to Trump’s election, there have been big jumps in the number of racist attacks. If they become more powerful, Indians in the West will be among the first to suffer.
Second, most of these movements are against globalisation, immigration and trade. Trump blames Mexico and China for loss of jobs, but tomorrow it could be India. And if America pulls back from global trade as Trump has promised, India would also suffer from the subsequent global recession. If Britain becomes poorer after Brexit, as is predicted, Indian jobs will also be lost.

Third, the rise of white nationalist groups is a boon for extremist Muslims, not a threat. The extremists on both sides believe Muslims and non-Muslims cannot coexist , so any conflict will just reinforce their point. Trump is the best thing that happened to Islamic State and al-Qaeda recruiters in years. They too are celebrating his election.
Let me put it simply. White nationalists only care about white power. They hate what the modern world has become, and Indians are a big part of how the world has been shaped. We are their natural enemies, not their potential friends.

Sunny Hundal is a writer and lecturer on digital journalism based in London

http://www.hindustantimes.com/colum...nazi-groups/story-S1clDfnTbYVhbegp4NqxRJ.html

Interesting article, and I thought quite relevant as the support of some Indian PP members for Trump also seems to be reflected here. Inviting Tommy Robinson former EDL spokesman though? What were the Hindu council thinking of? Do they honestly think people like him won't have a deeper agenda when they come to speak at functions like this?

 

[Yossarian]

Most of their supporters are poorly educated, poorly paid and older voters who feel their country is changing too fast and they are losing out.

Whilst a white immigrant, be it from Poland, Romania or Mexico (Spanish ancestry?) walking down the street in the USA, UK, France or Germany will be indistinguishable from the local white population, the same will not be the case for Indian Sikhs/Hindus.

To all intents and purposes, the Indian Sikhs and Hindus will look as 'Muslim' as most Muslims are perceived as looking by the neoNazi types and their followers.

Since many of neoNazi groups half-brained followers (especially when drunk, and are being egged on by their mates) are ready to act on the basis of "Attack first, ask questions later", you can be sure that the Indian Hindus/Sikhs are just as likely to be their victims as any Muslims - in fact more so considering that:

a) Many Muslims, from outside the sub-continent, are 'almost white' in appearance (ie those from countries bordering the Mediterranean) and thus can easily be thought of as being Italians or other Mediterranean white Europeans.

b) Sikhs, with their beards and turbans, perfectly fit the perception of a typical 'Jihadist' due to the similarities with the public images of OBL.

 

[DW44]

People like that Sikh EDL member and Hindus for Trump(or whatever they're called) never fail to amuse. It's crystal clear that this support for these far right figures is borne out of anti-Muslim prejudice than from shared convictions and values with complete disregard for the fact that as far as the far right goes, a brown guy is a brown guy, period. Talk about amputating your own legs to spite someone.

 

[Bewal Express]

The Sikhs were targeted after 9/11 because they look muslim than most Muslims do.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It seems muslims have failed to win over those sikhs and hindus who are joining the anti muslim camp.

 

[Pakistanian]

Whilst a white immigrant, be it from Poland, Romania or Mexico (Spanish ancestry?) walking down the street in the USA, UK, France or Germany will be indistinguishable from the local white population, the same will not be the case for Indian Sikhs/Hindus.

To all intents and purposes, the Indian Sikhs and Hindus will look as 'Muslim' as most Muslims are perceived as looking by the neoNazi types and their followers.

Since many of neoNazi groups half-brained followers (especially when drunk, and are being egged on by their mates) are ready to act on the basis of "Attack first, ask questions later", you can be sure that the Indian Hindus/Sikhs are just as likely to be their victims as any Muslims - in fact more so considering that:

a) Many Muslims, from outside the sub-continent, are 'almost white' in appearance (ie those from countries bordering the Mediterranean) and thus can easily be thought of as being Italians or other Mediterranean white Europeans.

b) Sikhs, with their beards and turbans, perfectly fit the perception of a typical 'Jihadist' due to the similarities with the public images of OBL.

Most Mexicans here look different from white people and also face discrimination.

 

[Yossarian]

It seems muslims have failed to win over those sikhs and hindus who are joining the anti muslim camp.

It's not up to Muslims to 'win over' Sikhs and Hindus. It's up to Sikhs and Hindus whether or not they wish to support right-wing neoNazi racist groups whose supporters couldn't tell the difference between a Hindu, Sikh or Muslim even if it was tattooed it on their forehead.

 

[Yossarian]

Most Mexicans here look different from white people and also face discrimination.

Most, not all. Same goes for Cubans as well as Central & South Americans. And non-whites facing discrimination is central to this debate.
Point being that Hindus and Sikhs should understand that they too will be discriminated against because they also look different compared with the 'white population' and thus stand out.

And, as mentioned earlier, Sikhs and Hindus, on average, are more likely to stand out out due to their physical appearances (ie 'brown looking') as opposed to the average Muslim since many Muslims from Mediterranean facing Arab countries have similar appearances to Mediterranean Europeans, and therefore more likely to face random discrimination as compared with most Muslims..

 

[Saeed]

Well they will eventually get what they served to others.

 

[Pure Evil]

In this thread and in all others we will never see introspection. Why is it the west which threw open its doors to people from different religions and ethnicities to build a multi-cultural and secular society becoming more right wing? Why the Hindus and Sikhs who moved to these lands with you moving away? Let's pin it down to Islamophobia. Why blame it on the increasing frequency of Islamic terrorism, the inability of Muslim moderates and intelligentsia to provide a credible counter beyond token statements, how there is still support and sympathy for the terrorists in a sizeable chunk of the Muslim population, how kids born and raised in the west move over to fight for the Islamic state?

 

[KingKhanWC]

In this thread and in all others we will never see introspection. Why is it the west which threw open its doors to people from different religions and ethnicities to build a multi-cultural and secular society becoming more right wing? Why the Hindus and Sikhs who moved to these lands with you moving away? Let's pin it down to Islamophobia. Why blame it on the increasing frequency of Islamic terrorism, the inability of Muslim moderates and intelligentsia to provide a credible counter beyond token statements, how there is still support and sympathy for the terrorists in a sizeable chunk of the Muslim population, how kids born and raised in the west move over to fight for the Islamic state?

Any real facts to back up this up?

You're denying the truth of this topic.

There are Hindu's and Sikhs who are still upset with history, being ruled by Muslims for many years. I'm not sure why they find it embarrassing, the Muslims turned India into a superpower.

 

[JaDed]

Any real facts to back up this up?

You're denying the truth of this topic.

There are Hindu's and Sikhs who are still upset with history, being ruled by Muslims for many years. I'm not sure why they find it embarrassing, the Muslims turned India into a superpower.

Yeah no,if you are talking about economies China and India were the biggest for a long time even before Muslim rulers came.

Second the most innovative/Scientific works of "Hindus" or whatever they were called before Muslim rulers conquering India was way better than after the Muslims rulers.

Also why would the Sikhs be unhappy ,they might have lost their 9th Guru to Aurangzeb ,but they managed to make Punjab kingdom peaceful and prosperous later on,ruling it as well not like some Pathans or someone were able to conquer them.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yeah no,if you are talking about economies China and India were the biggest for a long time even before Muslim rulers came.

Second the most innovative/Scientific works of "Hindus" or whatever they were called before Muslim rulers conquering India was way better than after the Muslims rulers.

Also why would the Sikhs be unhappy ,they might have lost their 9th Guru to Aurangzeb ,but they managed to make Punjab kingdom peaceful and prosperous later on,ruling it as well not like some Pathans or someone were able to conquer them.

I was referring to empire.

It's the right wing minority who align with other right wing minority groups having the same beliefs . For the Indian groups its their history which troubles them .

 

[JaDed]

I was referring to empire.

It's the right wing minority who align with other right wing minority groups having the same beliefs . For the Indian groups its their history which troubles them .

Yeah I guess that's fair enough w.r.t Hindu right wings can't say the same about Sikhs.

 

[Dman]

Any real facts to back up this up?

You're denying the truth of this topic.

There are Hindu's and Sikhs who are still upset with history, being ruled by Muslims for many years. I'm not sure why they find it embarrassing, the Muslims turned India into a superpower.

Sikhs were ruled by Muslims in the past? Or were the Muslims in United Punjab living under the Sikh Rule?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In this thread and in all others we will never see introspection. Why is it the west which threw open its doors to people from different religions and ethnicities to build a multi-cultural and secular society becoming more right wing? Why the Hindus and Sikhs who moved to these lands with you moving away? Let's pin it down to Islamophobia. Why blame it on the increasing frequency of Islamic terrorism, the inability of Muslim moderates and intelligentsia to provide a credible counter beyond token statements, how there is still support and sympathy for the terrorists in a sizeable chunk of the Muslim population, how kids born and raised in the west move over to fight for the Islamic state?

The article is written by a Hindu who lives in Britain so I don't know where you are getting this idea from that there is no introspection. But in any case, let's take your assertion that inviting a neo-Nazi spokesman as a guest spokesman to a Hindu event was down to fear of terrorism. You do realise that since the murder of MP Jo Cox there are neo Nazi groups in Britain like National Action and North West Infidels that are now in line to be banned for encouraging terrorism?

Is this your idea of 'integrating' with British society?

 

[Pure Evil]

The article is written by a Hindu who lives in Britain so I don't know where you are getting this idea from that there is no introspection. But in any case, let's take your assertion that inviting a neo-Nazi spokesman as a guest spokesman to a Hindu event was down to fear of terrorism. You do realise that since the murder of MP Jo Cox there are neo Nazi groups in Britain like National Action and North West Infidels that are now in line to be banned for encouraging terrorism?

Is this your idea of 'integrating' with British society?

So is this about Jo Cox now? I thought it was about the peace loving, well integrated guys who leave UK for Islamic state? And am sure if I quote muslims like Tarek Fateh or Taslima Nasreen you won't agree

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So is this about Jo Cox now? I thought it was about the peace loving, well integrated guys who leave UK for Islamic state? And am sure if I quote muslims like Tarek Fateh or Taslima Nasreen you won't agree

No the article is not about the Islamic State you must have misread it. If you don't agree with the writer then feel free to put your reasoning. Perhaps you feel it is justified to make alliances with neo nazi groups and it will be beneficial for the Hindu/Sikh community to foster these relations. Feel free to put your view in a respectful manner, but please stick to the topic. You can quote Taslima Nasreen and Tarek Fateh if you feel it is relevant, perhaps they have appeared on the same stage as Tommy Robinson at some point.

 

[enkidu_]

Yeah no,if you are talking about economies China and India were the biggest for a long time even before Muslim rulers came.

India's was the biggest economy under Aurangzeb because he united the largest parts of the SC since the Mauryas. I doubt that isolated kingdoms had a "large economy". Also, you're talking as if it was totally independent of Mughals when, under the British, what we'd call GDP/capita didn't grow by a single percent in nearly 200 years (and I'm not exaggerating). If the Islamic rulers aimed for the annihilation of Hindus as it's parroted in some Hindutva circles they would have left the Indian GDP at the same rate British left it, and would build all their dozens of monuments like the Taj Mahal in Uzbekistan.

Second the most innovative/Scientific works of "Hindus" or whatever they were called before Muslim rulers conquering India was way better than after the Muslims rulers.

We still haven't catalogued, yet alone studied, the 100 000s of manuscripts left from that period, how could you be so categorical ? Yes, the "Golden Age" of Indic civilization dates from the Gupta empire (so it's "pre Islamic" as much as "post Vedic), but there are many works dating from the post Islamic era, where we see a lot of interactions between Arabo-Persic and Indic scientific worlds. Even the revolutionary Kerala school of mathematics/astronomy was discovered less than 50 years ago, and we didn't exhaust all of it - imagine to do it with Mughal India, with many times more manuscripts produced.

I was reading Kim Plofker's book on Indian mathematics some years ago and she said how 100 000s of manuscripts in that field alone are still findable in the region, and that how the fact that we retain some isolated "cliché" names (Aryabhata, etc) - as if they popped out of nowhere - is a proof that all these books still have to be analyzed, and history of Indian mathematics remain very rudimentary. You could say the same for post Islamic scientific work.

Also why would the Sikhs be unhappy ,they might have lost their 9th Guru to Aurangzeb ,but they managed to make Punjab kingdom peaceful and prosperous later on,ruling it as well not like some Pathans or someone were able to conquer them.

Also Sikhs have been immensely inspired by Islam (esp Sufism), and two Sufi bhaghats are included in the Guru Grant Sahib. Mian Mir, a friend of Guru Arjan and a Sufi from Lahore, laid down the building stone of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, and until after Akbar, the Gurus were actually "friends" with the Mughal emperors - in fact, even in times of "war" between Sikhs and Mughals, when Guru Gobind Singh wrote his famous Zafar-nama to Aurangzeb, in the letter, he didn't bash Islam but told the monarch to go back to its genuine values.

Sikhs and Hindus had totally different experience with Muslims, that's why with the former there's a possibility of reconciliation.

 

[JaDed]

India's was the biggest economy under Aurangzeb because he united the largest parts of the SC since the Mauryas. I doubt that isolated kingdoms had a "large economy". Also, you're talking as if it was totally independent of Mughals when, under the British, what we'd call GDP/capita didn't grow by a single percent in nearly 200 years (and I'm not exaggerating). If the Islamic rulers aimed for the annihilation of Hindus as it's parroted in some Hindutva circles they would have left the Indian GDP at the same rate British left it, and would build all their dozens of monuments like the Taj Mahal in Uzbekistan.

Not saying all Muslims rulers wanted the annihilation of Hindus or Sikhs but the ones who came early on were anything but kind,also during Aurangzeb's time the other world economies weren't ahead a reason why Mughal India would had larger GDP so as to say non-Industrialized part of the world.His killing of the 9th Guru is anything but kind ,the guru which actually died so Kashmiri Hindus don't have to convert to Islam

We still haven't catalogued, yet alone studied, the 100 000s of manuscripts left from that period, how could you be so categorical ? Yes, the "Golden Age" of Indic civilization dates from the Gupta empire (so it's "pre Islamic" as much as "post Vedic), but there are many works dating from the post Islamic era, where we see a lot of interactions between Arabo-Persic and Indic scientific worlds. Even the revolutionary Kerala school of mathematics/astronomy was discovered less than 50 years ago, and we didn't exhaust all of it - imagine to do it with Mughal India, with many times more manuscripts produced.

I was reading Kim Plofker's book on Indian mathematics some years ago and she said how 100 000s of manuscripts in that field alone are still findable in the region, and that how the fact that we retain some isolated "cliché" names (Aryabhata, etc) - as if they popped out of nowhere - is a proof that all these books still have to be analyzed, and history of Indian mathematics remain very rudimentary. You could say the same for post Islamic scientific work.

This point was made w.r.t Muslims turning India into superpower which is only as good a claim as Ashoka turned with his Buddhism ,India into a super power.Also its not only Aryabhatta but Sushruta again also 5 century BC physician .

Hindus(without conversion) had to live at the best as second grade citizens paying additional tax,I get that even Rajputs had to pay Marathas the same during their time.


Also Sikhs have been immensely inspired by Islam (esp Sufism), and two Sufi bhaghats are included in the Guru Grant Sahib. Mian Mir, a friend of Guru Arjan and a Sufi from Lahore, laid down the building stone of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, and until after Akbar, the Gurus were actually "friends" with the Mughal emperors - in fact, even in times of "war" between Sikhs and Mughals, when Guru Gobind Singh wrote his famous Zafar-nama to Aurangzeb, in the letter, he didn't bash Islam but told the monarch to go back to its genuine values.

Sikhs and Hindus had totally different experience with Muslims, that's why with the former there's a possibility of reconciliation.

Reconciliation has nothing to do with religion per say,I get along well with Indian Muslims from South but i might not from say a Hindu from Kashmir,religion has no point whatsoever in my liking for a person.

 

[Salman]

You will find majority of the 1st generation Hindu and Sikh immigrants that are leaning towards an alliance with the right wing share a typical subservient attitude towards trying to fit in with "their master race".

I am proud to say Muslims that settled in the UK have never been seen sucking up to anyone, it's almost comical what the fantasy of an alliance is trying to achieve. summed up so well by this goodness gracious sketch.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2h-t8vVi0zc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[street cricketer]

Any real facts to back up this up?

You're denying the truth of this topic.

There are Hindu's and Sikhs who are still upset with history, being ruled by Muslims for many years. I'm not sure why they find it embarrassing, the Muslims turned India into a superpower.

I'm indeed grateful towards the mughals for their introduction of biriyani in India. But to say that they turned India into a "superpower" is a stretch. Superpowers don't crumble like cookies at the first intrusion of a foreign power. India was picked off like taking candy from a baby as soon as the colonials landed on the Indian shores. Heck the mughals lost to the Marathas before the British landed iirc.

Bottomline is whether India was under muslim or sikh or hindu rule, none were good enough to keep up with the global standards prevailing then. So to say that they transformed united India as a superpower when our brave warriors came to the battles brandishing their fancy swords sitting atop their high horses as opposed to the European colonials equipped with their guns and all its ammunition by virtue of the industrial revolution, is a bit silly.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You will find majority of the 1st generation Hindu and Sikh immigrants that are leaning towards an alliance with the right wing share a typical subservient attitude towards trying to fit in with "their master race".

I am proud to say Muslims that settled in the UK have never been seen sucking up to anyone, it's almost comical what the fantasy of an alliance is trying to achieve. summed up so well by this goodness gracious sketch.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2h-t8vVi0zc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't see any problem with fitting in with the "master race" but you could do that by joining a political group that has some credibility like the Conservatives or UKIP if you are desperate. Joining hands with neo-Nazi groups says as much about you as it does them.

Can you imagine the furore if a Jewish council invited such a group as an honoured speaker?

 

[Thomaskutty]

I am proud to say Muslims that settled in the UK have never been seen sucking up to anyone, it's almost comical what the fantasy of an alliance is trying to achieve. summed up so well by this goodness gracious sketch.

What about that Raheem Kassam chap who tried to take over UKIP .. what was his motivation ?

 

[enkidu_]

Not saying all Muslims rulers wanted the annihilation of Hindus or Sikhs but the ones who came early on were anything but kind,also during Aurangzeb's time the other world economies weren't ahead a reason why Mughal India would had larger GDP so as to say non-Industrialized part of the world.His killing of the 9th Guru is anything but kind ,the guru which actually died so Kashmiri Hindus don't have to convert to Islam

The ones who came early had nothing to do with Mughals. In fact Mughals fought the Lodhis to establish themselves as emperors.

Your "industrialization" thing has been debunked again again again. Belgium was one of the leading early industrialized nation (in fact, the first in continental Europe), without being a scientific power ; on the other hand, Aurangzeb's India had 20% of world's GDP and you think Indians couldn't "adapt" to an industrial economy ? Why ? Because the British DE-industrialized India - there's so much academic references on this that I won't bother Googling.

But my main point wasn't even that : it was that India had a large GDP because it was (rouglhly) united, and it was united because of the Mughals - before them, only Mauryas did it. Otherwise, I doubt the local GDP of Punjab, Rajasthan, ... would have been that way.

You really can't make the difference between an empire which put India at world's 20% GDP and an empire which made sure that in nearly 200 years its GDP/capita didn't grow from a single point ?

This point was made w.r.t Muslims turning India into superpower which is only as good a claim as Ashoka turned with his Buddhism ,India into a super power.Also its not only Aryabhatta but Sushruta again also 5 century BC physician .

Well, those are facts ? You can't defy history : it was the fact that India was united that made it strong, we're getting back to square one, a Bihar alone is not an economic or cultural force.

Hindus(without conversion) had to live at the best as second grade citizens paying additional tax,I get that even Rajputs had to pay Marathas the same during their time.

Again the same old mantra. Go look the amount of the jizya as compared to the zakat for a Muslim (or taxes nowadays), and keep in mind that in Indo-Islam in particular there has always been a racial difference between Ashraf (foreign nobility) and Ajlaf ("native" converts), and how a Rajput Hindu had it better than 90% of "native converts". But of course Islam oppresses the minorities, that's why they all survived centuries. Perhaps the caste system is better.

Reconciliation has nothing to do with religion per say,I get along well with Indian Muslims from South but i might not from say a Hindu from Kashmir,religion has no point whatsoever in my liking for a person.[/QUOTE]

Hinduism and Islam are irreconcilable, but Sikhism is reconcilable with both.

 

[Salman]

What about that Raheem Kassam chap who tried to take over UKIP .. what was his motivation ?

The motivation is the same, Let's hate Muslims together! Raheem Kassam, a predominantly unknown individual within the UK's muslim community who apparently likes eating bacon sandwiches for breakfast and considers himself Ex Muslim in the press. I'm sure an organisation like the The National Council of Hindu Temples UK would love to have him speak at their events too, considering they both share a common hatred towards the growth of Islam.

 

[PakLFC]

I don't have a problem with ex Muslim's or anyone disagreeing with Islam that is an opinion. I have a massive problem with those who physically assault Muslim people or provoke them by insulting the Holy Qur'an. They should know that their religious scripture and practises can also be targeted as well. If insulting Islam is a human right then it has to be extended to all religions. Sikh's and Hindu's can join whoever they want but if the reason is to insult Islam together then many people like me will defend the Deen.

 

[s28]

This is funny. Some Sikh guy speaking at a White racists event scared because they might get attacked by 'their comrades' due to their appearance.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SycoZmlWo9k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[PakLFC]

Sikhs and Hindus can join whoever they want. By trying to talk them out of joining Muslim hate or racist groups I would never want them to think that we are scared or need their support. Just don't expect Muslim support when they are attacked. Allah is enough for the believers.