fauji07

i completely agree with the sentiments of most of the people in this thread. in a world where democracy is king the ones with the most people will prevail and prosper. it is true that quality is much better than quantity but for every group of sikhs a portion will be good amritdari some will be sahejdari, some will be bad and some will leave and some will return to the panth. the larger the population of sikhs the larger the population of good practicing ones will be. the more people we have that support sikhs whether they be practicing or not will allow the devout sikhs to focus in issue that effect our community, and will previde votes for legislation changes that will not impede on our religious rights. it will also spread the word of sikhi to more people, the more people around the world who hear the word of sikhi i think more people will become sikhs most people in the west don't know anything about sikhs, and if they do they just know us as the guy with a turban who works a 7-11 if our population was bigger they would have a better chance to learn about it, and the community would have higher chances of producing high profile people, sports stars politicians scientists etc i fully support the idea of having more children if you can support them. whats more important, a buying a BMW, extravagant house, having lavish weddings,buying lots of jewelry etc....or raising a young singh or kaur who may be a future leader in the panth?! im gonna get started as soon as i find a willing singhni raj keraga khalsa

wow whata horrible artical we should stone him because his views are slightly different! are you guys serious what was so bad about the article all it said is that we should question why we do some of the things we do, and not just do them because we were told to but because we want the benefits they bestow on us. the minute doing prekash of guru ji becomes retine it is pointless, the moment you now longer remember the name and you do not controll your actions your kara becomes useless, the moment you bow infront of guru ji with out full love for guru ji then the action of bowing is useless. prehaps this sunny hundal has written other things that are against sikhi and that is why you guys have a problem with him but from just that article a saw nothing wrong. he didnt say that our practices are useless and he didnt say to stop wearing kakkars.

if sarbloh is a metiphore for the strength of god i think you would want a kirpan made out of the best material available to you, so that it would better represent and remind you of god, pure iron is not the best material for making weapons. even if you use so called pure iron it would become "contaminated" with carbon if you used fire to forge your weapon. carbon is essiential if you want a kirpan that is of any use. if you look at guru gobind singhs weapons they are made out of many different materials and definatly have carbon in them, if he were around to day i am sure he would aquiree the latesst weapons. this is not to say they iron( Fe) is not important but i dont think people should absess over the purity of there sarbloh kirpan but instead worry about form and function and get a kirpan that can best serve the purpose it is meant for which is a weapon to diffend those who can't defend them selves. does any body know if back in the day the word for iron(Fe) actually refered to iron or just metal in general. was the a seperate word for aluminiam, chromiam, sodium etc

the best way to hurt a cause is by spreading false information about it. no matter how good or bad something sounds the truth should be told, if one piece of information is proven false then people tend to not believe the rest. sikhi doesnt need to be quoted or even recognised by so called intellectuals, it can stand on its own.

i know you guys don't want to hear this but the simple truth is that the tibetians have more of a right to there own country then the sikhs have to any part of the indian subcontinent. tibet was a very isolated country consisting of an overwhelming majority of ethinic tibetians. it remained that way for hundreds of years until the chinese only recently invaded. although others did conquar tibet before the demographics remained the same until the chinese took over and started encouraging people of chinese ethinicity to move there. in contrast punjab is home to many different religious groups and the ethincity is relitivly the same as the rest of the subcontinent. punjab is in no way isolated so over the centuries there has been a constant flow of peoples in and out of punjab. the sikhs only controlled punjab for a very short time and even then they did not have a majority. the sikhs only controlled punjab from around 1716 until 1849 that is 133 years which is not very long in the large picture and the sikhs were only totally in control for less then 50 years. during the times that the sikhs did rule there were many other people besides sikhs who lived in punjab so they have just as much right to the land as we do. when the british took over they won fair and square, we lost in a war that we had started, we were not able to defend what was ours and thus lost it. it would have been great to get a home land like the pakistani's (pakistan was probably one of the worst ideas in history) but things didnt work out that way because we did not have a majority in any region we occupied and when it comes down to dividing land up it goes to the ones with the majority. for khalistan to now happen thousands of hindus and muslims would have to leave places they have lived at for hundreds of years ( even before the sikhs were ever around) and know body wants to repeat partition. either that or they would have to except theocratic rule by a religious group with only a very slim majority. where in the case of tibat many han chinese would have to move but most of them havent lived there for more then 50 years so it would not be so bad. as far as all the support tibet gets it is because people actually know what a buddhist is, and probably know what a tibetian budhist is. most people in the west have no idea what a sikh is. there is no western conspiracy to keep the sikhs down, most of the west has no idea who we are. our land is not indistinguisable from the rest of india as tibat is from the rest of china. and the western government for the most part don't care about the tibetians or the sikhs most just want to trade with china and india and couldnt care less about their minorities the only real support tibet does get is from individual citizens in the west and from the tibetian diaspora and sometimes polititians give it lip service. in summary, to the west, tibet was a peacefull nation living for hundreds of years with a unique culture and religion which was suddenly taken over by oppressive communists. to the west the sikhs are a small minority among hundreds of minorities who are trying to break apart the 'benevalent democracy started by gandhi a champion of non violence and a hero to many in the west'. the sikhs are just an after thought and people know as much about them as they do the marathas, gujarti's, kashmiris and all the other ethinic minority groups in the subcontinent. there arnt enough of us, we arnt known enough, and we don't have a majority ( and i don't consider a very slim margin a majority) and we never have, in the lands we claim to be ours. that is why we don't see white people waving khalistan flags and putting khalistan stickers on there bumpers many of you might say im hindu rss etc but really im a realist and the only way we can ever hope to achieve khalistan is if we can see our selves through the eyes of others and not through blind emotion sparked by the longing for a home land.

Its interesting that you felt the need to differentiate between African Americans and Americans, as if they are 2 seperate things. Is an African American, not an American? i think he was simply pointing out that people of all races can be equally as ignorant. it seems that people usually think that it is just white people who are ignorant and racist and that people who arnt white are exempt from being considered racists or biggoted, when in fact people of all races have the same tendency to be racists and biggots its not just people of european decent who are. but in america it is considered ok if non whites are racist biggots

^^well said both of you

correct me if im wrong but arnt we supposed to worship the one and only god, whos name is truth, who is with out death and who was never born, arnt we supposed to worship the same god that are gurus worshipped, as opposed to worshipping our guru's.

that is retarded advice plane and simple anti gurmat and if you trim then it will be stubly if you let it grow out then it will be soft

GRU NANAK DEV JI, RAM JI, JESUS CHRIST, KRISHNA non of these are god, or are even comparable to god! god is ik ong kar

i dont believe it and the handgun part is definatly made up

everyone seems to be upset that he turned his back on the guru by cutting his hair. well apparently he wasnt living as a sikh so id rather have him cut his hair then misrepresent sikhi by keeping it. it was painful to watch. and he looked pretty bad with cut hair. his loss. hopefully the experience will cause him to look into him self and return to sikhi ps there is a difference between people who are in 3ho for yoga etc and people whohave been inspired to become sikhs from sikhs involved in 3ho. 3ho oh is not a sikh organization how ever there are alot of white sikhs who are involved in it and the actions of one individual is not reflective of all the gora sikhs who are true, just as the actions of one punjabi are not reflective of the entire panth

wasnt armour on the way out by the time the sikhs came around? and werent most of their battles fought with fire arms btw great pics. thanks for posting them

mccain is deffinatly not a red neck. he is highly educated and was the son of a navy admiral so he is very elite deffianatly not a red neck. as far as race it really doesnt matter what color a person is because the only way any one gets electwed is by getting support from the ones with money. if a black man in the office is really going to make a difference why then did condi and colin not make a difference? in response to proactive im sure the congress party supporters said similer things about bhindranwale in the 80s as the right wingers say about obamas preacher. blacks in america do feel like theve been disciminated against and that they have to take drastics measures just as sikhs feel like theve been discriminated against in india.