Jump to content
AjeetSinghPunjabi

Why don't sikhs increase their numbers , like muslims do ? Why are we so complacent ?

Recommended Posts

I must say one impressive thing about  muslims is their numbers, atleast here in india ! the way they multiply sends shivers down these right-wingers lol

Why are sikhs so shy ? Why don't we have many kids . Most governments today are democratic which means numbers is power.

No politician cares for sikhs because we don't have numbers 

But at the same time if you look at jews, they have lesser numbers but still power.

Muslims, christians and hindus have quantity, Jews and parsis have quality. What about sikhs?

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJKK WJKF,

because maharaj ji has said that these religions will see a growth which would be very short term when compared to KHALSA RAJ.

But nothing bad with preaching sikhi to others,

so become a preacher and a preacher shall have the following characteristics:

1. Amritdhari

2. Keeps as much maryada as possible

3. Knowledgeable 

4. Does what he preaches

5. Nitnemi/abhyasi 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
2 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I must say one impressive thing about  muslims is their numbers, atleast here in india ! the way they multiply sends shivers down these right-wingers lol

Why are sikhs so shy ? Why don't we have many kids . Most governments today are democratic which means numbers is power.

No politician cares for sikhs because we don't have numbers 

But at the same time if you look at jews, they have lesser numbers but still power.

Muslims, christians and hindus have quantity, Jews and parsis have quality. What about sikhs?

For starters, they prefer to not educate their women.

It is always said that to reduce your population, you need to educate women.

At least that is the theory.

Sikhs have always focused on quality over quantity.

It is far preferable for Sikhs to have 2-3 well fed Sikhs with good quality of life than 8-9 under nourished kids.

In the animal kingdom, there are r-selected species and k-selected species.

I think Sikhs are a k-selected in their mindset and Muslims tend to be the other type.

However, I think there are large reductions in the birth rates in muslim countries but not at the levels of non-Muslims. 

In terms of "progressiveness " we Sikhs are perhaps several decades ahead of Muslims. 

Muslims are more of a cleric-driven community. They tend to listen to their mullahs whose control would be severely threatened if muslims started to look out for their own welfare. We Sikhs tend to be more independent in that regard.

Sikhs have a far more pragmatic approach to life which is due to our work ethic.

The Sikh pillars of " Kirat Karna" and "Vand Shakna" means that to have a sustainable, balanced lifestyle you cannot afford to be over-breeding and strip out all your resources like a Locust does.

The Muslim does not think that way, they think "Allah will provide".

Some of these are generalisations but not all muslims will think in the mullah driven way either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,844

Those religions are completely based on number, Sikhi is based on devotion. What we should note about the Jews like you mentioned is the huge different advantage they have that Sikhs do not have politically. That is that the leader of the strongest religion politically was born into the house of Jews and lived his entire life with Judaism in his heart, that and the Bible has brainwashed Christians into thinking that Jews are God's chosen. Israel is protected by most strongest nation on Earth, if it wasn't for these reasons Israel would be taken over by the Middle Eastern neighbors like before Christianity existed. Also simply having numbers mean nothing if everyone is terrified to save their life. (In Gujrat Muslims were massacared and did nothing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterrSingh    2,802

I generally agree with the opinions expressed in this thread, but i think there's only so long we can repeat the "quality over quantity" mantra until someone asks where this quality is hiding itself. Such quality would, eventually, manifest itself in some measurable or discernible form beyond the scope of appearances. Yet in my opinion we're actually regressing in many respects.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
2 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Those religions are completely based on number, Sikhi is based on devotion. What we should note about the Jews like you mentioned is the huge different advantage they have that Sikhs do not have politically. That is that the leader of the strongest religion politically was born into the house of Jews and lived his entire life with Judaism in his heart, that and the Bible has brainwashed Christians into thinking that Jews are God's chosen. Israel is protected by most strongest nation on Earth, if it wasn't for these reasons Israel would be taken over by the Middle Eastern neighbors like before Christianity existed. Also simply having numbers mean nothing if everyone is terrified to save their life. (In Gujrat Muslims were massacared and did nothing).

It is a numbers game for the two branches for the Abrahamics but for what purpose?

The Jews use their small numbers to keep themselves cohesive. For them, it's suits to be small in number because they see themselves as "the chosen people". They see themselves as an elite people and the rest as "goy".

In Gujrat, the muslims were massacred because of the massacred Hindus in Godhra. The problem with the numbers game that Muslims play is that if there are people willing to fight back, they will cower. A smaller number of cohesive groups who are willing to fight to the death will always beat a large unorganised rabble.

However, with "democracy", vote banks are critical so therefore increasing population numbers suits the muslim purpose as a way of taking over. Islam is a political ideology before being a religion.

I sometimes go on a few Hindu/Indian websites to get an idea of the mindset. There was a Gujerati contributer who mentioned that getting the Hindu fertility rate at a particular level in Gujerat was critical in subduing the Muslim population there. He was shouted down by other hindus.

You can see the same tactic with the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. These areas are favourable with ultra-orthodox types and they breed at higher rates than the Palestinians. The aim is to encroach this land, block off land for Palestinians, breed and settle in new areas. The game is to eventually push out the Palestinians. It's a very similar game Muslims play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
24 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I generally agree with the opinions expressed in this thread, but i think there's only so long we can repeat the "quality over quantity" mantra until someone asks where this quality is hiding itself. Such quality would, eventually, manifest itself in some measurable or discernible form beyond the scope of appearances. Yet in my opinion we're actually regressing in many respects.

I think quality mentioned by Sikhs here is predominantly from a standard of living point of view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterrSingh    2,802
7 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I think quality mentioned by Sikhs here is predominantly from a standard of living point of view. 

I see. In that case i suppose things are easier when there's less mouths to feed. It's just that most Muslims in their working class strongholds, even in places like England, don't see it that way. They continue to breed beyond their means. Although the professional middle-class types don't follow that pattern. So i guess it's less about religion and more to do with education.

Edited by MisterrSingh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
9 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I see. In that case i suppose things are easier when there's less mouths to feed. It's just that most Muslims in their working class strongholds, even in places like England, don't see it that way. They continue to breed beyond their means. Although the professional middle-class types don't follow that pattern. So i guess it's less about religion and more to do with education.

My observations is that there are changes in the Muslim population in the UK. 

Their reproductive rates are going down. My own personal anecdotal experience is that muslim families who had 6 kids 30 years ago have gone down to 3-4 kids. It is down but still higher than average rate.

Whereas with Sikhs, the average birth rates have remained 2-3 kids for the past several decades.

There are far more Muslim women working. You see far more hijab working women as well. With changes in welfare system and muslim women desperate to be more integrated into mainstream society particularly as a lot of them have been raised in the west. This has impacted them to a degree in terms of reducing their family size.

However, the increase in middle class muslims also means that they will do stealth jihad. You have to be more wary of these types.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterrSingh    2,802
7 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

My observations is that there are changes in the Muslim population in the UK. 

Their reproductive rates are going down. My own personal anecdotal experience is that muslim families who had 6 kids 30 years ago have gone down to 3-4 kids. It is down but still higher than average rate.

Whereas with Sikhs, the average birth rates have remained 2-3 kids for the past several decades.

There are far more Muslim women working. You see far more hijab working women as well. With changes in welfare system and muslim women desperate to be more integrated into mainstream society particularly as a lot of them have been raised in the west. This has impacted them to a degree in terms of reducing their family size.

However, the increase in middle class muslims also means that they will do stealth jihad. You have to be more wary of these types.

Even the ones going into medicine, law, etc? Do they genuinely go in for that kind of thing? Genuine question, I wouldn't ask otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
16 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Even the ones going into medicine, law, etc? Do they genuinely go in for that kind of thing? Genuine question, I wouldn't ask otherwise.

I think sometimes that they try to change the system from within.

They want to join the mainstream but they want it on their own terms.

For example, in hospitals and companies they will introduce their own prayer rooms. However, it won't be called muslim prayer rooms they will be called contemplation rooms, or multi faith rooms but all you will see are muslim prayer mats.

Then they start to implement halal food in the cafeterias, to the point where all the meat is halal and any pork based products get reduced.

My local Morrisons superstore had a lot of pork based products reduced. It was noticed by a lot of the English customers and they put complaints and it was only discovered that some muslims lobbied to get rid of the pork based products.

They seem to have a "give an inch take a mile" attitude.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterrSingh    2,802
11 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I think sometimes that they try to change the system from within.

They want to join the mainstream but they want it on their own terms.

For example, in hospitals and companies they will introduce their own prayer rooms. However, it won't be called muslim prayer rooms they will be called contemplation rooms, or multi faith rooms but all you will see are muslim prayer mats.

Then they start to implement halal food in the cafeterias, to the point where all the meat is halal and any pork based products get reduced.

My local Morrisons superstore had a lot of pork based products reduced. It was noticed by a lot of the English customers and they put complaints and it was only discovered that some muslims lobbied to get rid of the pork based products.

They seem to have a "give an inch take a mile" attitude.

 

Ah, so under the guise of their amiable and educated demeanours, their ultimate aim is to arrive at the same destination as their less subtle Islamic stablemates?

God, i really do try to give these jokers the benefit of the doubt time and time again, but they just don't make it possible to trust them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny101    4,072

Before 1947 Sikhs had a very positive fertility rate. But something seems to have happened after 1947 that Sikh fertility rate dropped drastically. At least during olden times Sikhs were religious and had conservative values but now we have lost our religion and have become westernized/bollywoodized. We have neither the quality nor the quantity left both of which are important during a war like situation.

 

Muslims of South Asia(india, pak, Bangla) now have the demographic power to beat the Hindus if things descend into utter chaos.  But are we ready if 1984 like genocidal situation happens again to us? I dont think. This time we will get beaten and humiliated  even worse. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
18 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Ah, so under the guise of their amiable and educated demeanours, their ultimate aim is to arrive at the same destination as their less subtle Islamic stablemates?

God, i really do try to give these jokers the benefit of the doubt time and time again, but they just don't make it possible to trust them. 

Muslims are very adept in playing the system, looking for loop-holes etc.

Islamic interpretation and jurisprudence is based on doing this, so it makes sense they will do the same in western societies. 

Like I said before Islam is a political ideology, they think like lawyers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
3 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

Before 1947 Sikhs had a very positive fertility rate. But something seems to have happened after 1947 that Sikh fertility rate dropped drastically. At least during olden times Sikhs were religious and had conservative values but now we have lost our religion and have become westernized/bollywoodized. We have neither the quality nor the quantity left both of which are important during a war like situation.

 

Muslims of South Asia(india, pak, Bangla) now have the demographic power to beat the Hindus if things descend into utter chaos.  But are we ready if 1984 like genocidal situation happens again to us? I dont think. This time we will get beaten and humiliated  even worse. 

Sikhs have followed the same patterns of other populations, post WW2.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Very nice post. 
    • Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah?     
    • The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs.  I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom would never have become as powerful as it did if not for non-Sikhs. The Sikh Empire was so successful while Ranjit Singh was alive precisely because he managed to integrate and secure the loyalty of the Punjabi musalman who constituted most of his subjects - and thereby ensured economic productivity and public order. The Khalsa army of the Lahore durbar was also not just made up of Sikhs - all cavalry were Sikh, but virtually the whole of the artillery was Muslim, as was a significant portion of the infantry of the regular army (included Pathans, Punjabi Muslims and Gurkhas). Secondly if not for the induction of non-Sikh European officers into the Sikh army, it would never have relinquished its fixation with irregular cavalry or its revulsion at the idea of infantry. Without the innovations of these non-Sikhs, therefore, the Fauj would never have advanced to first rank among the armies of Asia. An army composed entirely of cavalry is fine when you're fighting a guerilla war, not so much when you're building and defending an empire against men with guns and artillery.  Furthermore not all non-Sikhs in the kingdom were disloyal to the durbar, and not all Sikhs were loyal. The Muslims of Punjab routinely resisted the calls of the Afghans (and later, the mutineers of 1857) to join them in jihad against the infidel Sikhs. The Fakir brothers (Muslims) were loyal to Ranjit Singh's memory to the last, as were several of the other Hindu Dogra generals of the Khalsa army (Dogras are a race, not a family. It was one family of Dogras in particular which caused most of the trouble). And while there were good, loyal Sikh nobles such as the Attariwalas and the Nakkais, there were many more who were fickle and treacherous.  Rani Jindaan was notoriously corrupt , as were the Sandhawalias, who murdered Sher Singh, the only successor of Ranjit Singh with even a shred of competence, by blowing him to pieces with a shotgun. I think your stance is way too absolute bro.   An empire is by definition multicultural and cosmopolitan. The Vatican is not the most apt comparison here (It is a country in name only).   
    • The passage reads: Vol I, Life of Guru Nanak, p51
    •   This is indeed a good post.     
×