Pakistan: Taliban behead 3 Sikhs for refusing to convert to Islam

From Jihad Watch (in case you missed it in the Indian newspapers)

"A sizeable number of Sikhs lived in the tribal belt, particularly Aurakzai Agency, till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009," in accordance with Qur'an 9:29. "Three Sikhs beheaded by Taliban in Pak," from the Economic Times, February 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

NEW DELHI: In what threatens to cast a shadow on the upcoming Indo-Pakistan talks scheduled for February 25, three Sikh youths were beheaded by the Taliban in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) region after they allegedly refused to convert to Islam. Their severed heads were dumped at a gurudwara in Peshawar.

The Sikh youths -- identified as Jaspal Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Baronat Singh -- had gone to realise the money owed to them by some people in the FATA region adjoining Afghanistan, when they were abducted by the Taliban militia. They were allegedly told by the Taliban to embrace Islam or face death. When the Sikh youth refused, their heads were chopped and sent to the Bhai Joga Singh Gurudwara in Peshawar.

A sizeable number of Sikhs lived in the tribal belt, particularly Aurakzai Agency, till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009. Most members of the community, faced with increasing pressure from the Taliban to convert to Islam, have since fled to cities across Pakistan.

Posted by Marisol on February 21, 2010 8:00 PM 127 Comments (three are reprinted below).


by Hugh (Fitzgerald) February 21, 2010 8:29 PM Reply

We are all waiting expectantly, waiting for the anguished outcry, and fierce denunciation of this, from Pakistan, from CAIR, from the O.I.C.

And how curious it is to note how the report in the Indian paper matter-of-factly mentions the Jizyah: "till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009." Yet, it appears not to make much of a difference in the behavior of the Indian government, surprisingly supine at times about the menace that Islam so clearly poses to all non-Muslims -- Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, and even the handful of Jews -- in India, as it does everywhere else.

Still, it's better than no mention of the Jizyah, which is what you get in the American and other Western coverage of how the Taliban treated Hindus and Sikhs. Mention was made, fleeting mention, of Hindus being required to wear yellow identifying dress, but I do not recall ever seeing anything in the mainstream press about the imposition of the Jizyah.

In fact, I don't recall seeing the word "Jizyah" ever in any of the thousands of stories about Muslim-non-Muslim conflict, not once, in the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or any British publications. Why not? Why is it so impossible to inform non-Muslim readers about the legal status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule? Antoine Fattal, a Lebanese Christian, wrote a whole book about it. The American government has yet to see fit to have that book translated from the French. Why? What is it spending its hundreds of billions in that "war on terror" on? More cash for Muslims, so as to keeep them happy so they won't join the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, or a thousand other groups? Nothing left over to pay for a translation or two?


AJ February 21, 2010 9:15 PM Reply

Hugh says

"And how curious it is to note how the report in the Indian paper matter-of-factly mentions the Jizyah: "till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009." Yet, it appears not to make much of a difference in the behavior of the Indian government, surprisingly supine at times about the menace that Islam so clearly poses to all non-Muslims"

Many in India are aware of jizya, and also the treatment meted out to hindus/sikhs under Islamic rule. These things were part of our high school history, so it is common knowledge.

Despite this awareness, most hindus attribute these things to some kind of radical Islam or fanaticism. The devout, religious Islamic rulers who imposed Jizya, in accordance with Islamic laws, are deviled as fanatics and misunderstanders of Islam. Whereas one tolerant 'muslim' ruler, Akbar, who ignored Islamic rules and was almost an apostate, is revered as an example of 'true muslim'.

This is the manner in which history is presented, and was written by our colonial era leaders, to foster an artificial sense of Hindu-Muslim unity.


sean February 22, 2010 12:47 AM Reply

Sikhs have suffered and continue to suffer from Muslim persecution, not only in South Asia, but also where they have settled in Europe. If the 'European' Muslims can't find any Jews to attack, they'll have a go at the local Sikhs: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslim-attacks-on-sikhs-islamic-jihad.html
___________________________________________
For more Comments click "127 Comments"