BhForce

Members
  • Content count

    808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by BhForce

  1. You know, it has sometimes been considered a virtue that Sikh men didn't look at women. I'm sure you have heard the story, very often told to praise Sikhism, of an Englishwoman who travelled on a long railyway journey with Master Tara Singh also sitting in front of her. She was so praiseful of Master ji who, she said, did not look at her even once, not a glance, not a side-look, not once. But you say not looking at a woman is bad. You may also have heard of the story of Lakhsman, who when asked what Sita looked like, said he didn't know because he had never looked at her. Do you know what he was thinking? Anyway, news for you: (many) old people are ornery. Just happens with age (for some). Some people mellow out, other people get crusty. I'm sure Theresa May can get nasty at times. Even Saint Jeremy Corbyn, widely considered to be such a "nice guy", is also said to be nasty, like using mafia don tactics and sacking an underling while she was under treatment for breast cancer without giving her notice. Now you can say, no, he's not really nasty, he's misunderstood, he actually has a lot of nice qualities, but all of that also can apply to the nasty grampa you're talking about: You told us a few bad qualities, but you didn't tell us any of his good qualities. Did he actually say that? If you check our rehitnammas, it says not to mingle with sirgums (monas). While not denying the rehitnammas, I would like to say that social exclusion works when you have a thousand Sikhs, and one of them cuts their hair. Once you boycott them, then they come to their senses. But it's quite a different matter when you have a majority of sirgums! Who all can you boycott? But not being a jackass to monas when they come to sangat is not violative of any Sikh injunctions. So I'd like to encourage everybody to be nice to everybody.
  2. You've brought up an important issue. I will agree with some aspects of what you said, and disagree with others below. Don't confuse one for the other. You haven't given any examples of how they boasted. Could you do so? As for thinking that what you're doing is great, and encouraging other people to do it, everyone does that. Surfers encourage non-surfers to surf. Hikers encourage non-hikers to hike. Players of Dungeons & Dragons encourage non-players to play. Political activists encourage people to register to vote and donate to candidates. Drinkers encourage non-drinkers to drink. Non-drinkers encourage drinkers to stop drinking. Smokers encourage non-smokers to smoke. Non-smokers encourage smokers to stop. But the only thing that people should not encourage people to do is to take Amrit? In any case, the amritdhari lifestyle is a wondrous lifestyle. Sikhs believe: ਪੀਵਹੁ ਪਾਹੁਲ ਖੰਡੇਧਾਰ ਹੌਇ ਜਨਮੁ ਸੁਹੇਲਾ | (Bhai Gurdas II, Vaar 41, Pauri 1) Drink the pahul of the Khanda (amrit) so your life may become suhela. Now, what is suhela? Here's some quotes to get you started: ਸਭੇ ਕਾਜ ਸੁਹੇਲੜੇ ਥੀਏ ... ਸੁਹੇਲਾ ਕਹਿਨ ਕਹਾਵਨ ਤੇਰਾ ਬਿਖਮ ਭਾਵਨ ... ਤਿਚਰੁ ਵਸਹਿ ਸੁਹੇਲੜੀ ... ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਕਥਾ ਸੁਹੇਲੀ ... The dictionary defines suhela as "easy, comforting, soothing". Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha defines it as, among other things, as sukhi or suhkhdai. Sukh meaning "comfort, ease, feeling of relief or freedom from anxiety, happiness or contentment, felicity, tranquility". In other words, total awesomeness. That's what Sikhs (such as the beloved Sikh of Guru Gobind Singh ji, Bhai Gurdas II) believe Sikhism to be. And if you thought, as Sikhs do, that Sikhism is so awesome, why would you not tell everyone you know about it? 2. OK, now you may say, alright, fine, everyone on this earth encourages other people people to do what they're doing, but the one, solitary group of people prevented from doing so is because is Amritdhari Sikhs because ... Sikhs don't preach? Well, I'm sorry, but that is just made up, I don't know where people got that from other than from their nether regions. If you think that you're not supposed to tell others about Sikhism, Satguru doesn't agree with you: ਆਪਿ ਜਪਹੁ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵਹੁ ॥ Chant the Naam yourself, and cause others to chant it. ਗਉੜੀ ਸੁਖਮਨੀ (ਮ: ੫) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੨੯੦ Raag Gauri Sukhmanee Guru Arjan Dev As any speaker of Punjabi knows, you have verbs where you're doing something, like ਲਿਖਣਾ (to write) and then you have the causative construction like ਲਿਖਾਉਣਾ (to have someone write, to cause someone to write). Similarly, ਜਪਨਾ (recite) and ਜਪਾਉਨਾ (cause to recite). Now "cause to recite" doesn't mean at the edge of a sword, but still it means having other people recite (not keeping it just to yourself, like you started out your post with). Just in case you didn't get it the first time, Guru Sahib repeats the hukum: ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਧੂੜਿ ਮੰਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਆਪਿ ਜਪੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥੨॥ Servant Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself chants the Naam, and causes others to chant it. ||2|| Raag Gauri Guru Ram Das So not only does Guru Sahib want us to tell other people about Amrit, but Guru Sahib begs for the the feet of the Sikh who does so. A person who tells others about the awesomeness of Sikhi and Amrit is not "hankari" like you say, but rather apple of Guru Sahib's eye. More to come.
  3. Thanks. It's good to see that you are clued-in. As for Sikhs out there who might be wonder if the likes of you or me are falling into a pro-white, anti-Muslim, anti-nonwhite narrative, I'll say: If your parents wanted to live in Saudi Arabia, they would have immigrated there. They didn't. They came to a "white" country. They knew what the score was. The fact is, the whites of today are quite mellow. Not the same for the radicalized Islamic hordes coming through.
  4. Highly doubtful that samparda Singhs are using some dye to keep their beard black. If they are using oil to replenish minerals, etc., like mustard oil, or amla oil, that's a different matter. Anyway, in case you are wondering, the prohibition on coloring your beard (or hair) is not just another random rehit (people think, "Oh no, yet another rehit to fulfill, it never ends!") The reason is tied into hukum. Once you accept hukum (the will of God), then you accept the way God made you, and you accept your body. You also accept the finality and inevitability of death, and of the aging process. Not dyeing your hair is acceptance of God's will. And, on the other hand, trying to mess with your body is defiance of his will.
  5. 1. A waqf is basically a Muslim charity. I had a glancing understanding that the Punjab Waqf Board is constituted by the Punjab Government to administer waqf properties in Punjab. I had a look at its website http://www.pbwakf.org/ , but I didn't bother to read the PDFs of laws related to the Waqf Board. One of the things claimed on the site is that waqfs in India originate from Muslim rulers from up to 800 years ago reserving land for Islamic purposes: "The approximate number of registered Waqf properties in India is 3,00,000 and account for 4 lakh acres of land. According to the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Sh. Rahman Khan, this makes the Boards the third-largest landholder after the Railways and Defence. A surrender of properties to God, a Waqf deed is irrevocable and perpetual." This seems questionable to me, since the "Muslim rulers" were invaders who usurped the existing residents' lands. To now reclaim them for Muslims in perpetuity hardly seems equitable. 2. Regardless of all that, I was unable to find anything specifically regarding grooming and Alam. I have no doubt that he's the sort of guy would love to see Muslims grooming non-Muslims, but do you have any other info? Thanks.
  6. Would you care to elaborate?
  7. First of all, if you were alive at the time of the 10th Guru, and Guru Sahib told you (in words) to keep your hair (or to do anything else), would you do so? I.e., do you accept or deny the authority of Guru Sahib? If you don't accept the authority of Guru Ji, there's no point in further discussion. Secondly, in order to get a frame of reference, are you only doubting the turban? Or are you doubting the injunction to keep sabat surat (complete form, including hair)? Once we know the answers to these questions, we can move forward on a dialogue.
  8. You do know the Indian word is choli, right? There was an extremely popular (and controversial) song called "Choli ke peeche kya hai" https://www.google.com/search?q=choli+ke+peeche
  9. I see nothing wrong with Sikh institutions setting conditions for entry. In this case, girls have to not be wearing revealing clothes and have to be wearing a chunni to get a certificate for entry under the Sikh quota. They have to have Kaur in their name. They have to have long hair. Boys have to have untrimmed beards and turbans and Singh in the name. Everyone needs to have knowledge of Sikhism. I'm sure our self-hating Sikhs will start bleating about this, but if someone wants to live like a Hindu, or an atheist, they're free to do so, but the Sikh Sangat is not going subsidize them. I don't know who is behind this, but if it's Manjit Singh GK (President of the Delhi Gurdwara Committee), props to him for this.
  10. I do know that rehitvan Singhs don't eat before doing their morning Nitnem, and there is also a rehitnama to this effect. But I don't know of any such injunction for the nighttime. That's probably because normally you do Kirtan Sohila right before you go to bed. Can't you do your extra paath before Kirtan Sohila? Do paath, eat, then do Kirtan Sohila on your bed.
  11. Yeah, maybe we agree. I think that we should not march to antagonize the Muslims just for the sake of it, i.e., for nothing at all other than saying we're not Muslims. There's no reason to become the specific, number 1 targets of jihadi Muslims. Marching as part of an anti-terror march would be a different matter, because the focus is not on us specifically, and we also show that we have empathy with the victims, so we avoid the negative, and gain a bit of positive, as opposed to the scenario above, which is all negative, and little positive.
  12. Excellent! Very succint rebuttal of the Islamophile position. You did in one sentence what I took multiple paragraphs to do.
  13. Woah -- that escalated quickly. Marching in the UK doesn't entail the police spraying Sikhs down with bullets!
  14. Your heart's in the right place, but I think this would be mistaken. 1. First of all, we didn't do the terror attack, so why should we march? 2. The mere fact of our marching will lead some viewers to think that our people were in some way responsible, and we're apologizing for it (to say "not all Muslims" agree with terrorism). 3. The news media has shown again and again that it will flat out lie and project Sikhs as Muslims. They are always looking for a "moderate Muslims marching" story, even going to the extent of stage-managing a protest for viewer consumption: 4. So the only reason for marching would appear to be to say "We hate the Muslims", which doesn't seem to be a great idea. 5. I do admit that it might be a good idea to march as part of another, general march. Just hold a banner that says "Sikhs are against terror attacks" or whatever.
  15. Assuming that a given missionary is not an amritdhari in the true sense, does that excuse violence against him? If he's talking nonsense, either report it to the Gurdwara committee, and have him removed non-violently, or if the committee doesn't listen, just do the hard work of liasing with sangat members one at a time, until such time as we can form a majority for the next election.
  16. Thanks for promoting the unity of our people. Not. FYI, I have been in the forefront of denouncing violence against missionaries, but I did not see the need to denigrate any portion of our Panth based on birthplace, as ordained by Guru Gobind Singh Ji ("you are henceforth residents of Anandpur Sahib"). Perhaps you think you know better than the Tenth Guru. Were you under the mistaken impression that they have blood in their veins, and you have milk? ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ ਹਮ ਕਤ ਸੂਦ ॥ How is it that you are a Brahmin, and I am of a low social status? ਹਮ ਕਤ ਲੋਹੂ ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਦੂਧ ॥੩॥ How is it that I am formed of blood, and you are made of milk? ||3|| ਗਉੜੀ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੩੨੪ Raag Gauri Bhagat Kabir Also FYI, Sikhs born in the West have also made some calls for violence against heretics.
  17. I read the translation, but can't really understand exactly what the kirpan will be like. Folding up? In any case, I suppose this is the best that Italian Sikhs can hope for given that they can't wear real kirpans for the foreseeable future. I suppose this is better than wearing half-inch "kirpans" attached to kanghas.
  18. Thanks for highlighting this. Wow, that really happened? What tack did BoS take? And do you have a link to it? One thing that concerns me is whether our preachers in the future will just be reading English translations with stuff mixed in from the mind of the translator (not there in the text), and they'll be taking theological positions based on those English translations! I understand that the BoS can't quote Gurmukhi to non-Punjabis, but there's no reason that they have to quote Sant Singh Khalsa's translations. They can understand the Punjabi commentaries (teekas), and then prepare their own English versions before talking with the Muslims.
  19. How can you be barechested if you're also wearing a blouse? Also, do you have any references that say that people were barechested back then?
  20. The annual Bilderberg meeting is going on at Chantilly, Virginia, under heavy police protection. It's a secretive meeting (the public not allowed) of about 150 elite leaders from Europe and America. The point is to promote cross-Atlantic friendship (if you're sympathetic to them) or to plan global governmental structures (if you're skeptical of them). The top takeaway from The Guardian's article is this: Some people think that elites are actually promoting disorder in order to profit. Also: More info here: https://www.google.com/search?q=bilderberg&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=bilderberg
  21. You're right about that, but that's partially because the CIA made up the term "conspiracy theory" and actively discredited it: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-cia-invented-and-promoted-conspiracy-theories-discredit-controversial-views Well, they are and they aren't. First, the Guardian is considered a "mainstream" source. Second, some of the attendees were in the open, like Michael O'Leary (RyanAir boss). But others went to ridiculous extremes to avoid being seen: Also, this isn't like TED talks. The meetings are totally closed, and they don't put them up on Youtube afterwards.
  22. ਸਚ ਫ਼ਤੇ ਬੁਲਾਈ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੀ ਜੀਤਿਓ ਰਣ ਭਾਰਾ| By saying the true Fateh of the Guru, they won the huge war. (Vaar 41, Bhai Gurdas II)
  23. Brother, either you're amazingly naive or amazingly clever. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. When you ask if this is what we've come down to, you seem to imply that there was some golden age when Sikhs happily married people who wanted to destroy the Sikh community (and every other community). Is that what you believe? (Not a rhetorical question, please respond.) Clue: From the blessed mouth of Guru Gobind Singh ji in their final words: Marry your children to a house where there is "Akal Purkh di Sikhi". I wouldn't promote the use of vulgar names, but ridicule is absolutely something that the Khalsa used to express their disapproval of a number of things. This is shown in the Khalsa Bola (Khalsa code-language) which used words like "Budh-avtar" for a disabled person to express their belief against pacifism. What's wrong with ridicule? It's not like we're killing (or even beating) anybody. Ridicule is a non-violent method of expressing disapproval. A recap: Are you against socialization? (Please respond.) If so, that would be unbelievable. You are actually against any socialization whatsoever? If not, are you only against socialization when done by Sikhs? Here's the reason for the ridicule, by the way (excuse the small grammatical error): Do you agree or disagree that Sikhs should take steps to stop the decimation of their community? Finally, do you agree with the mission of Guru Nanak Dev ji, and do you want to preserve the Sikh community or not?
  24. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, put forward a 4-point program: 1) Counter extremist ideology. This sounds good, but it will only work if she works to shut down the UK's friends' Saudi Wahhabist funding. 2) Regulate extremism online 3) Military action against ISIS, and preventing segregated communities in the UK 4) New penalties for extremism short of violence. Some of this sounds good, but I think that #2 will possibly mean that if you post on Facebook against Islamic terrorism, or the roots of Islamic terrorism, you will be called an extremist, and your Facebook account will be invalidated, and possibly our online access to the Internet will be curtailed.
  25. Well, if you mean that this forum is donating to political parties, and keeping tallies of their subsequent votes, then no. But that's that's not the point of this forum. With all due respect, it's not just pointless ranting. A lot of people come to this forum, the vast majority just read the headline posts and never sign up for an account or post. The kind of stuff that @genie posts performs the function of socialization, the process of learning how to behave acceptably in society. In this case Sikh society, and one unacceptable behavior is going off and marrying non-Sikhs. Instead of sitting under a banyan tree in the village, we've electronicized the conversation, and are expressing what's unacceptable behavior in that way. As for Sukhwinder, yeah, you're right, it's pointless to think we'll bring her back. We won't. But the point is by expressing disapproval of Sukhwinder, we'll helping to stop the next Sukhwinder, either someone who's reading this forum, or a friend of someone reading this forum. It's accepted that there are always outlier cases, such as Ram Rai (renegade son of Guru Har Rai Ji). What we're trying to prevent is the wholesale destruction of our faith community by intermarriage with Muslims (or Hindus or others). Sure, some attention should be paid to mental issues. But I don't think that 99% of Sikh girls marrying Muslims are because they have some mental disorder. Rather, I think 99% of them are in full command of their mental faculties, they simply choose to show their backs to their community because that's how they've been socialized.