Leaderboard

-

- Say what you will about the warriors of Islam, but there is serious bite behind their bark. Cannot say the same about our 'warriors'.

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.

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.

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.

How does Kesh & Dastar protect from a food allergy?

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?

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.

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.

The best way to teach your kids is first to be a very good example. Practice what you preach first before you actually preach it. Kids copy more by observing you. Read sakhis and share little tuks of Gurbani and their meanings with them. It takes just seconds to plant great thinking into young minds. It takes less than 5 seconds to tell a youngster about the meaning of a word of gurbani. Be ready for all questions and answer them as truthfully as possible. You dont want them to find answers elsewhere and then they will doubt you. Guide them and tell them the meanings of sakhis or shabads which you heard at your Guradwara trip. Get them religious books and better still read them together. Work towards increasing your knowledge of sikhi as well so that you have new things to share with them and keep them interested. Always encourage them to talk out their doubts and do not put them down ... like how could your mind think that.... you need to pray more often etc. Let them know you are proud of them as they respect their religion. Remind them Guru Ji is happy with them too as they are walking on the path of sikhi. Remind them of the blessings they receive. Perform ardaas together and listen to path as a family where possible. Read sikh history and try to learn as much possible and share... with others as well... your friends, relatives etc so you have a good network around for your kids too.

You can't even read Gurmukhi, how on earth would anything posting a translation even provide anything, you'll whine, try to argue with it but you'll not sit down and provide your own translation or anything along that line. The sheer hilarity of the situation that one of the 5 most basic banis of Sikhism is alien to you is something to be noted. I've given you some banis, go and learn them and then come to the table. There's a myriad of weird translations out there, you'll cry I'm "misdirecting" people without having analysed it yourself, you take translations as gospel so please keep going down that line. I would love to see how far you go. This is the second time you asked me to translate something for you, I did it once. I don't really see the point in doing it again now that I know you can't even read Gurmukhi. All it shows is your laziness Funnily enough yes I do go to the source but I never claimed to be all knowing. Common sense dictates I learn from the source not from myself. According to you, you spent 30 years studying Sikh philosophy. The fact that in that time you've not even mastered some of the more basic banis and their meanings is funny to say the least, An equally comical thing would be a Christian Scholar who hasn't heard of or even know about the 10 commandments. That entire line from Gurbani is simple enough to translate. Get to work Mr- Scholar. God knows why I'm wasting my time with you. You'll never bother learning, you'll keep coming here and acting like you "know" Sikhi without having picked up a single one of the Granths. Oh dear this is amusing. I'm actually done God what next, you'll have a fully translated scripture (devoid of the Gurmukhi script) of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and start venerating that. Clearly your Guru is whoever does the translations rather than Guru Sahib. Enjoy your ignorance Mr Scholar.

Once again at it with the rage, you seem to enjoy getting off on imagining me sitting there having a spastic attack over what I read, sorry to break it to you but I generally remain calm. I answered all your points, yet you're either far too dim to see that or you simply try to use a smoke screen. Honestly if you feel you need everything spoon fed to you then I worry about your supposed intellect. You attacked OP over him saying Sikhs shouldn't be allowed to go to Mandirs periods, I showed you you were wrong. You tried to be Pedantic, that backfired. You accused him of taking Gurbani out of context (don't deny it) and failed there. I don't even know why you keep saying I didn't answer your points, I actually did. Once again you need to learn to read. Ironic coming from someone who in his time spent "learning" about Sikh Philosophy hasn't even bothered to study Gurmukhi at its core. I've already expressed my views, they were outlined in Gurbani. I even gave you a bani to refer to. You simply choose to ignore it. Sorry to disappoint you but my opinions/ideology has changed constantly since I've come to this forum, you're free to scan around if you want. Yet you sit here as a middle aged man who hasn't lifted a finger to follow the very things you preach on here. I think the only person here who's afraid to learn from the very core is you because you fear you'll find out you were wrong or worse come across something you can't handle. In all honesty spend less time coming on here and expressing ill found theories and more on actually learning. I have nothing more to say to you, You've been outed as someone hasn't bothered learning actual Sikhi but are content learning from second hand and mundane sources. I have nothing more to say to you. Thus far in this thread you've tried to have the moral high ground. Please continue preaching down from your perch. You demand evidence on threads yet you'll never present it, You're clearly an extremely lazy man. Enjoy living in your ignorance, perhaps one day you'll learn Gurmukhi and stop reading translations. 30 years you had and 30 years you decided not to. Case and point because you want academic reasoning but you've never bothered doing it yourself. Anyways feel free to continue acting like you possess the moral high ground. Kira out.

.

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.

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.

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.

Again your failure to recall forgets that you were the one to make Gurmukhi a issue. Not me

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.

How do you explain it? It looks like covert, snide, subtle (and consistent) attacks on Sikhs by anglos. Who then claim we are best buddies. What the hell can we make of this?

So whilst sikhi welcomes all, our gurdwaras have char dwaar, welcoming everyone. Are We to believe we should not visit any other spiritual places? yet accept that our places, will be truly welcoming to all people, having some kind of superiority complex? does God not rest everywhere. Did not guru nanak dev ji visit all places of knowledge which often meant religious centres. He was respectful yet was able to tare through the through shallowness and hypocrisy of some people, the so called guardians of faiths, he challenged challenged the way these people who with a veneer of respectability to manipulate and propagate hate, create walls not just with other people. But with the truth itself. But worse than them are the sheep, who through sheer idiocy and ignorance will contort a message of beauty and truth. They reflect their own short comings. What is really disgusting is people who do nindya by quoting verse in the laziest out of context imaginable. Anyway I digress talking about such nindaks. It's worth considering another spiritual principle laid out in stone, in the very architecture of our pre-eminent gurdwara, harmindir Sahib, yes (har mandir), to which you step down into the parikarma in a demonstration of Humility.. BTW , ironically, to yourself to have fundamentally misunderstood sikhi! If you believe Akal is ceo and their are lesser gods or as you put it then you do not understand. 1 ek One

Dont bring family into this you stinking pile of dirt.

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.

Your mistaken.. At independence there were Princely states that were essentially satraps of the British.. However all of these states were almost immediately assimilated into the Republic of India.. Either by force or through consent.. Though the process of accession and integration took a number of years, essentially the Republic took full centralised control.. They were as a part of their accession required to implement democratisation of their states.. Enfranchisement of each and every person was a key ideal of the Indian state.. A number of rajpramukhs/rajas enjoyed nominal control but in reality were neutered. The Maharajas enjoyed for a number of years official titles and pensions and were figure heads there was never really any devolved power structure between these states and the government of India Incidentally the Princes were stripped of their official titles and the process of integration pretty much completed in the 50s

Wow, where is this school with a 50% Sikh student population?

That forum will never be a place for meaningful discussions (as far as Sikh issues are concerned, meaningful usually coincides with 'controversial', hence the censorship) if they're not willing to extend almost total openness to their forum users. Ofc this'll mean some 'indecent behaviour' every now and then, but if someone wants to dig for gold they're always going to have to dig through mitee too.

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.

WJKK WJKF, if it is making you that uneasy, go do some chaupai Sahib/japji sahib deh jaap and do ardas benti. Read some chandi di vaar to gain the power to accept and fight when needed. the best way to tackle the current situation is seriously just to do naam-jaap and know of shastar vidya.