Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 07/14/2017 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Agreed mostly Kaurji, but I don't think they're actively supporting as Islamic takeover, I think their support for leftist causes comes from the deep insecurity these people have surrounding their own identities. Palestine etc. as issues, are very popular with 'progressive' white people, and therefore a convenient way for coconuts and wannabe-whites to ingratiate themselves within wider white society. They ignore Sikh/Hindu refugee causes because they are not fashionable at all, and have ZERO currency with the bourgeois white hipsters whose approval these self-loathing Punjabans so desperately crave. Plenty of Punjabi guys doing the same too, although not nearly as many. They don't concern themselves with Sikh issues because they simply hate being 'Sikh' (usually because they literally don't know anything about Sikhi, confusing it with their parent's jattwaad/backwardness) and want to distance themselves from this part of their identity as much as they possibly can. They haven't yet realized that you can't run away from the khoon flowing inside your own veins.
  2. 3 points
    Think these two points of yours are very important Singh, and closely linked. Most British 'goodwill' for the Sikh people rests on our forebear's contribution during the two world wars. However Sikhs in Britain have been riding off the back off this legacy for FAR longer than we have any right to, over 7 decades, purporting to be a 'martial race' when I personally don't have a single Valaiti rishtadhar who's served in any sort of military force. Scandinavians don't pretend they're warriors just because their ancestors were, neither does any other former 'martial race'. We're literally the only ones still carrying this sh1t on. To any thinking person, which most apnaay in this day and age unfortunately are not, this history is clearly well past it's sell by date. Liberal whites may not be the cleverest, but they are clever enough to know that this bit of historical trivia means very little on the ground in 2017. The only major group of whites with whom the Sikh legacy of service in the British Armed Forces really resonates is a certain section of the far-right working class, because these people are living in the same nostalgic 1940's la-la-land as we British Sikhs are . The Brits only appreciate Sikhs when we're dying for them in their wars. Currently we aren't (and I'm not proposing that we should), and yet we still strut and posture - so it's inevitable that we've come to be seen as a bit of a joke by their leaders, a group that cannot be taken seriously because it refuses to take itself seriously. If they don't take us seriously, they're not going to take our problems (like the troubles of Afghan Sikhs) seriously either. Say what you will about the warriors of Islam, but there is serious bite behind their bark. Cannot say the same about our 'warriors'.
  3. 3 points
    I think this thread does need to be closed admin. It just attracts all manner of undercover sullay trolls pretending to be Sikhs.
  4. 3 points
    I can't be 100% sure Singh, but I have my theories. Native religiosity has more or less collapsed in the West, but the people here still seem to be motivated by the very Christian sentiment of guilt. I've noticed that the third world crises and conflicts which antiwar/pro-refugee types tend to get most worked up about are those which their governments directly caused. This naturally includes almost all the Middle-East. When this is compared against the completely flaccid response from these people to things like the Rwandan Genocide, East Timor, Sikh genocide etc, catastrophes which the West didn't really have a hand in, I begin to feel increasingly certain of my view. Afghan Muslims were made 'refugees' directly because of the West, whereas Afghan Sikhs are made 'refugees' because of the centuries old prejudice against kafirs in this country which the West had no hand in creating. Whites therefore don't feel anywhere near as guilty about the latter as they do about the former, and this lack of guilt to motivate them to do something is why they take no action on behalf of Afghan Sikhs. Secondly, Middle-Eastern/pro-Muslim causes are very fashionable among certain segments of Westerners, in a way that the suffering of Sikhs is not. I'd like to hear your opinion and the opinions of the Sangat on this, but I believe certain Westerners (leftists etc) do not feel as sorry for Sikh refugees as they do for Muslim refugees, because the Sikhs with whom they are familiar are often quite wealthy (working as professionals, lawyers, engineers etc), whereas many of the Muslims with whom they are acquainted are quite poor (cab drivers, small restaurateurs). Sikhs in the UK are reportedly the second wealthiest religious community after the Jews, Muslims are at the very bottom of the list. It's hard to feel sympathetic for people who appear to be doing better than you. Obviously this is not the case - most Sikhs in the Punjab and Afghanistan are hardly wealthy, but their association with the rest of us appears to be working against them.
  5. 3 points
    I agree you have to follow the law of whatever country you reside in ... but, given the context of millions of "refugees" flooding into Europe, it's very, very difficult to understand what the big deal is about 69 Afghan Sikhs. Angela Merkel invited, stupidly, a million "refugees" into Germany alone. The reason I put "refugees" into quotes is because the overwhelming majority of them are not refugees, as that term was understood up until 5 minutes ago. They are not (mostly) from Syria. They are from stable, although poor nations, which do have jobs. They are coming to live off of welfare. NGOs are running ships to pick up refugees coming from North Africa (is Syria in North Africa?). It is alleged by Italian authorities that the NGO ships are colluding with human traffickers--the traffickers get out 12 miles off of Libya into international waters and call up the NGOs to pick them up, having pocketed $3000 per "refugee". Even the ones that are from Syria are not coming from a war situation. They are coming from safe camps in Turkey. International law says that the refugee is supposed to stay in the first safe country they come to (that would be Turkey for Muslims). Even parts of Syria that are under government control are safe, and people are living their normal lives (going to school, work, etc.). They don't go to those areas because they don't want to live under a non-Islamist government, they want to live under a jihadist government, which has been eviscerated by the Syrian army, which is why they are fleeing. Even in President Trump's original travel ban on travel from 7 war-torn or enemy nations, there was a provision for real refugees who were religious minorities. That's in line with international law and the definition of a refugee. That applies in spades to Sikhs in Afghanistan. It does not apply to a Muslim in Afghanistan because he has no reason to believe his life is in danger because of religion. I would just like to ask someone from the "Establishment" why it is that a Muslim from Afghanistan or Pakistan is a refugee, but a Sikh from Afghanistan is not! Oh, and by the way, regardless of what you think of Afghan Sikhs, they don't go around molesting young European women celebrating New Year's (Germany was covering that up, but the report was leaked) or attacking 10-year olds because of a "sexual emergency" (the Austrian Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the 20-year old "refugee" says he thought the 10-year old "consented"). In the wider context of letting in millions of so-called refugees, it is extremely difficult to condemn these 69 actual Sikh refugees.
  6. 2 points
    The Granth was published 100ish years after Guru Sahib left, bearing in mind Kavi Ji spent about 40 years gathering it all, considering all the references of Sikhs eating meat within it the chances of someone going through and altering everything is far too low. If it had been one instance then it would be another story entirely. Calling all meat eaters as scums and branding them with the same brush as Pedophiles is just as provocative, imo its more. Forget the statement about Guru Sahib eating meat but the fact that our ancestors did as well AND Nihang Singh also do right now, calling them all scum is outright disrespectful and pathetic. Those Singhs (our ancestors) fought wars and faced unimaginable horrors. Jagsaw's idea of horror is probably when Tescos runs out of bread.
  7. 2 points
    Penji, sorry for your loss. Firstly, do not blame yourself. Are you getting any support for it? There's a past thread on this, another penji had similar questions. It may help to answer some of your questions.
  8. 2 points
  9. 2 points
    Actually you should read up and understand that the first Guru rejected both Islamic & Vedic teachings. But first of all, you're an atheist on a Sikh forum?
  10. 2 points
    Who cares. Don't even know who they are. Nothing special. Nothing to hate or appreciate when don't even know them. End of. Just wasting on people that I've never heard of. But you need to be to educated on Sikhi and how to stop making out you're Sikh, which you kind of have by saying you're an atheist. So you need to stop hating Sikhs by pretending something that you're not. Once again, who even cares what they do. I don't. Can this thread be closed, as it's got nothing to do with Sikhi. And trolls like to cause a reaction.
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
    I'm not racist, as I didn't post on this thread or pass any judgement, if you had bothered to read it properly, you won't find that I commented anything on it. So, there goes your racist theory by being ignorant in classing everybody with that word. I pointed out where you were making out you're a Sikh, and then you go on to say you're an atheist, and saying people can't judge anybody, so I just said what makes you so special that you can class every Sikh as racist? And kept saying "your" religion. But it's clear that you've come on here to belittle Sikhs. Then you wonder why so many have spotted the red flags.
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    I'm normally not a violent person but if you was infont of me I'd love to kick your butt. Using sant bhindranwales's pic and saying all those anti-sikh things and advocating non-sikh practices and then to top it off saying your an atheist you weird retard.... how dare you come on a Sikh forum and attack Sikhs and sikhi like this. Now sling your hook, you've been caught out!
  15. 2 points
    Hi there, Rita's sister/cousin/friend. I agree there was no need to post this thread in the first place on a Sikh forum. Clearly, Rita is not a Sikh at heart, so it does not matter who she marries, and we should not be concerned. Admin, please close this thread
  16. 2 points
    How does Kesh & Dastar protect from a food allergy?
  17. 2 points
    There is no self-respecting Sikh who would say that. You're either confused as hell or a moslem in disguise.
  18. 2 points
    What are welfare cheques? I'm self employed. You should try and finish school and get some life experience before you open your mouth maybe?
  19. 2 points
    I think that post is very insightful. I'd go even further and say that Sikhs (well certain SIkh men) are even considered to be a potentially dangerous nuisance by many liberal whites in the UK. Especially because of the way some of us have tried to resist the wholesale sexual abuse of Sikh girls in the UK. We all know establishment and liberal goray would have rather we ignored it than called it out. So I think they think that we have a potential to rock the apple cart that they must be careful about. I think that also plays a part in the way Sikhs are almost off the radar in this country's media, other than the usual pro-imperialist propaganda. I'd even argue that there is a covert antipathy towards Sikhs from many quarters in the UK. Historically, from the moment they encountered us, they saw we were a belligerent, confident people and everything they have done since annexation has been designed to tame and control (and use). They are infinitely more fearful of sullay than us now though. And they are also economically dependent on them (through oil and big arab spending power). I think it is this fear and financial dependence that drives them to go overboard with accommodating them. Whereas we are disposable and something that needs to be contained in their wider scheme of things. But your point about their guilt for lands they've completely uprooted is very valid. And to iterate, they aren't fools, they know sullay (because of numbers and a reckless disregard for their own safety) can cause them serious grief, as we've seen in London and Manchester recently.
  20. 2 points
    Good on them, looking out for our people first above all. Couldn't care less about these goraay or coconut Sikhs whining about 'illegals'. Can't speak for the motives of the 'gang', but every Sikh family extracted from that hellhole is a victory in my opinion.
  21. 2 points
    you seen how hairy arab and turkish guys are? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bodyhair_map_according_to_American_Journal_of_Physical_Anthropology_and_other_sources.jpg your lot.
  22. 2 points
    Not really, I didnt get angry. I am just telling you and it doesn't matter because pakistanis are still muslim, like yourself lol Why dont we talk about Turkish/Tunisian/Morrocan girls and their lust for black men?
  23. 1 point
    Type what numbers you want in the pad and then hit the return button. It converts them. Look at the attached image. If you click on (1) look at big red arrows. You get the keyboard up. You can see that the ik oankaar symbol is already there too (look at arrow 2).
  24. 1 point
    Appreciate that, is there a way to use numbers on this system? (My Gurmukhi level is pretty basic, so if anyone could explain where on the website it is in Punjabi, that would be great). Trying to write this on the system : "ੴ", *(from Gurbani site) Thanks for that.
  25. 1 point
    I don't really know in all honesty. If its in a Granth and they're denying it then they'll deny History. Bear in mind eating meat isn't spiritually beneficial however Guru Sahib taught us Spiritual and Temporal arts.
  26. 1 point
    Again we were discussing the semantics of the "well said" here, now you've dragged Gurbani into it in an attempt to distract from the obvious. That was a completely seperate issue, OP responded in English not Gurmukhi so please cut the nonsense. You tried to argue "Well said" wasn't acceptance and failed, then you tried to throw Gurbani into the mix, OP responds in English in that situation so please.
  27. 1 point
    I do feel sorry for you, but it's not your fault, (it's not the baby's fault either), but in the grand scheme if things your child was only meant to live in that life for a small amount of time.
  28. 1 point
    this people follow sant babas or bhai sahibs that hardly practise shastar rehit of khalsa.
  29. 1 point
    dastar is only for covering kes? Why don't you ask those who wear dumallas loaded with shastar, or read the history of the maharajas who wore their pagris? Have you ever heard the saying? :Piyo deh pagh pehra wich roldei Dastaar is totally a thing of izzat and self respect in our culture. YEs there are bad people who wear turbans. But seriously I am much more intimidating since I had a beard. The Khalsa Singhs wore the bana and carried shastar, but the look was not complete without the high turbans and intimidating beards. With a scary look, half the fight is won!
  30. 1 point
    This is the best one I've found: http://g2s.learnpunjabi.org/unipad.aspx Use the ਫੋਨੈਟਿਕ mode.
  31. 1 point
    I also understand the concept of deploying a myriad of techniques to convey various points and characteristics, and also using various phrases to express certain things in various ways . For example the use of feminine terminology to eulogise God in Chandi Charitar. Using various poetic forms in Gurbani is also constantly done. Nice try though but we're discussing English here, not Gurmukhi. OP agreed with the statement, you tried to say he didn't but the very definition of his words show he did. You failed miserably so move on now.
  32. 1 point
    I think you need to learn to read the whole thread (or even the first page) before throwing that accusation around. on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes clearing referring to performing idol worship. He then further reiterates this. I don't think I'm being obtuse, I'm outright sure that you just jumped in here and started virtue signalling because you couldn't be bothered reading the entire thread properly. If you had you would have realised OP said nothing wrong. Further more, in this context the proper use of grammar indicates the deployment of You're not Your.
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    As usual rather than address the fundamental contradiction the poster made and how the position is antithetical to sikhi in the most obvious ways you would rather just attack me.
  35. 1 point
    Well why don't you f**k off to an atheist site then? You've been busted you lying dog. Now scuttle off and try your (wannabe) devious crap on some other folk. You're an atheist but you have Sant ji's pic in your avtaar................makes real sense. You are a fraud, liar and deceptive (although poor at it) person. Shame on you for trying to come here and lecture Sikhs. Sort your own pathological lying out before you try and tell anyone else anything mate. This is an old sullah trick by the way folks, pretending not to be religious. I remember at uni, certain Chalvey sullay would pretend they weren't religious when they'd try and snare Sikh girls but then you'd see some of them on Fridays (when you were out visiting friends in west London) in their shalwaar kammeezes and skull caps, coming from or going to the masjid.
  36. 1 point
    Well that says it all then. Then what on earth are you doing on a Sikh forum, telling people what they should and shouldn't be doing, when you're not even practising or respect any religion? Bit ironic that, isn't it? You have no right to do that either, so on your bike.
  37. 1 point
    so true lol, its so obvious they are non-sikh and usually muslim trolls with the way they start being apologists for muslim groomers and islam and then on top of that advocating anti-sikh practices. Pure madness lmao
  38. 1 point
    aye abu abeeda kanjara get da f**k outta here your not wanted! you filthy evil vile devious dog
  39. 1 point
    Look how far these dogs go. This 'satty' fudhu has even stuck a picture of sant ji as his/her avataar, and used some ubiquitous Panjabi nickname in his/her con. Like anyone who believed in sant ji would actually justify what he/she is justifying, and claim that Sikhi is some derivative of islam. This person is so dense that they aren't even doing a half decent job in their attempt to conceal themselves. lol
  40. 1 point
    You make me laugh. Sikhs have a TOP reputation - at least in the U.K. No paedo problem that effects other communities, no Sikh terrorists running around killing school girls/Joe Public, no draining the economy with hordes of lazy gits who drain the social security system always looking for handouts and free-housing. No mass inbreeding that creates genetically ill children that are a burden on the state. You actually think we have a bad name! lol!!!
  41. 1 point
    Yeah, a lot of them do seem to be stereotypical in this fashion.
  42. 1 point
    Not true that with a dastar, anakh will come. Also you can have anakh without dastar too. Anakh is not uncommon in north indian men, vast majority of whom don't wear turban. Dastar is only for covering kes. Thats it. Imho. If turban brought anakh, we wudnt hv gaddars and puppets like manmohan singh, former pm of india
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Did you read the above where the problem is highlighted that Sikhs are are thinking that if all meat is bad, then they might as well eat halal? Your saying that "all meat is scum" halal or non-halal is exactly what is leading Sikhs to eat halal meat. There are two modes of thinking on the issue of meat in Sikhism: One is don't eat meat, and the other is if, for whatever reason, you do eat meat, never, ever eat halal. By preaching #1, and never mentioning #2, the likes of you are virtually pushing Sikhs into kebab shops. I'm not pushing a chicken wing into your mouth, all I'm asking for is a little moderation, and giving a little bit of guidance for Sikhs who, again for whatever reason, currently don't desist from meat. Oh, and by the way, halal, non-halal, it's not "all the same". Halal is the thin edge of wedge used by radical Muslims to Islamize a society, India then, and European countries now. The injunction to never eat halal is similar to the orders to always wear a turban, or to wave a whisk over Guru Granth Sahib: It is pushback against radical jihadi Islam, and to prevent becoming a dhimmi (non-Muslim second-class citizen). Also, I thought you were supposed to be limited to your own thread.
  45. 1 point
    I don't think it is "okay" if we go by scripture. Yet I can certainly understand the desire to exact revenge. Just don't assume it'll be signed off and embraced by the faith. If revenge is a path to be embarked upon, do it of your own volition. Regardless of the reasons for undertaking it, the consequences will need to be faced no matter how strongly you feel your justification is for taking matters into your own hands. Justice is a whole different kettle of fish. Revenge I feel stems from anger and rage, and might be classed as excessive or without restraint, whereas justice might be the calm and rational path taken after consideration. If, God forbid, someone dear to me was murdered, I would want to enact revenge, but I know that when I do cross that line in retaliation, I don't expect to be forgiven for fighting fire with fire. I fully expect to pay for my own crime no matter how strongly I feel I was justified in my rage. True justice can only ever be delivered by a higher power.
  46. 1 point
    yes but Bro you are talking like you know better ...All the faiths exist with Akal Purakh's Hukham , but all the faiths also say don't marry out ,so why the unilateral requirement for SIkhs to disregard their Guru ji ? Sikhs don't have a judgement day or heaven to worry about , they just have bhagti to do and instructions to follow that's it and NO manmade agenda is going to change that.
  47. 1 point
    Only our pendu people would think something like this is 'special'. Behold!! White people doing what our people do all the time......wah ve wah!!
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    The Badal's have turned Sri Darbar Sahib into a tourist attraction. Doing seva in Sri Darbar Sahib is being promoted as a tourist activity. That is why you will see tourists from India and all over the world coming there. The result of all this tourist promotion is that now there is too much rush at Sri Darbar Sahib for those who come for devotional reasons vs those who come for the reason of tourism. It now takes extra extra long to Matha Tek and even for Langar. This tourism promotion has also resulted in rehit becoming lax over the years.
  50. 1 point