HeatSikhingMissile

Ummm, how is exactly is it wrong to have Ik Onkar on a shirt?! That's ridiculous that this would be seen as some sort of 'beadbi', I swear our own community loves to just punish themselves and quarrel over these types of non-events.

While I agree that there is a huge violence issue in B.C. amongst Sikhs, it has a lot to do with drug trafficking, and I don't know what kind of household this Renu Bakshi woman grew up in, but WHO in a Punjabi family has witnessed the above type of nonsense?! This is typical of a few 'apni' journalists that instead of actually using JOURNALISM to report a story, they end up over-sensationalizing and taking out there own personal beefs in their op-ed piece. All it does is misdirect the crux of the issue, people remained misinformed and a community gets smeared in the mud.

Very well said West London Ji.

Seems like a silly rumor, never in any of their jokes is there reference to them being shaheeds.

Exactly who are you to be deciding on behalf of The Guru what is an acceptable gift or not? Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the one who encased Harmandar Sahib in gold, not exactly a gurmat move either, maybe Only Five should go personally tear it all down. Your ego is seriously out of control.

You really REALLY need to fully comprehend Dharam before you even think about picking up a shastar to defend it. There's a reason why it was the FINAL living Guru that gave the order and not the first.

You used excessive force, stomping someone's head on pavement could render them a vegetable for the rest of their life, if that's a punishment you think fits the crime of verbal taunting YOU ARE NOT A SIKH, Sikhs are SANT-Sipahi, if you don't get that concept, maybe it can be explained as Sikhs are supposed to be like 'Jedi' (if a modern cultural reference helps those young fools who are actually giving you shabash for your actions). Secondly, you say you also beat up a passer-by who might not have been aware of the situation AT ALL and only saw a roided thug beating on a helpless man's head, and you thrashed HIM too???? WHAT did he do other than want to break up violence? Was it your Sikhi that thrashed him as well? Wow, reading the posts that actually tell Sikhs to show restraint are getting negative reviews yet the so-called Sikhs who have some serious anger issues are yelling out how you did seva. This is pathetic, as a Singh, and one that obviously had more physical strength than your opponent, it was UP TO YOU to show MENTAL and SPIRITUAL strength as well. You could have simply subdued him, instead in your anger you stomped on him once he was already physically disengaged, this was wrong.

Fascinating read, was looking up the meaning of the peacock tattoo in Punjabi lore when this post from sikhsangat came up, these old pictures are amazing. Surprised there aren't many more online.

Sochay Soch Na Hova-ee Jai Sochee Lakh Vaar. You can think of something repeatedly, countless times, and nothing of it will come to fruition. Think of this line anytime you feel you're getting stuck in an OCD trap.

Don't you think the questions like "ideally where do you see yourself, your spouse and your family in the next 2, 5, 10 years etc." should have been asked BEFORE you went into marriage with this person? :huh2:

Possible but not probable, given how some people are approving of his behavior on this board, in all likelihood he was a Sikh who was armed with his Kirpan but not in control of his krodh, dangerous mix, and a reason why we're supposed to have such vices in control before entering Guru's fauj.

So we should attempt to kill anyone that we think has done baisti to our faith as opposed to using the Kirpan for it's purpose which was physical defense in the case of violent confrontation. Does Miri-Piri mean anything to you? The Talibinisation of our kaum continues, must be kuljug. Why bother taking account other religions, I hold Sikhs to a higher standard than blind rallying.

The real question here is, as a Sikh, is it okay to resort to armed violence and taking out the kirpan over verbal insult? Want to add an edit since my last couple submissions did not get posted, but I asked the question of whether it's okay to take out your Kirpan due to verbal insult, and someone hit the negative button. LOL! Really?? What a joke!

This is lunacy, the vendor did not pose a physical threat to the man OR someone who needed help, Guru Ji gave us Sri Sahib to defend when all other means against physical harm were lost, NOT because someone was being a jack*** and takes tobacco out of their pocket. :angry2:

Please don't distort history and the motives of the Guru to suit your ego. This is a pathetic attempt to use as an "example" of Sikhs "defending" the downtrodden. Do you actually think that the REASON Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur ji sacrificed his life so that hindus could wear a janeau? Don't be that obtuse. Mughals were FORCEFULLY converting non-muslims and punishing them to extortion, torture and death if they did not, to simplify it as Guru Ji died so that they could wear a janeau is disrespectful and completely false. It was NOT the janeau, but the FREEDOM OF RELIGION which was the cause. Now you attempt to use that as a similar example for the niqab (nice attempt to bring hijab into the argument but it does not apply, so it's completely irrelevant that you bring it up). The muslims in Canada are currently seeking permission to allow women wearing a niqab to not remove it for their passport photo, driver's licence i.d., or for court testimony. Without getting into the foolishness, and security issue of covering ones face for an I.D. photo, the issue of niqab AS A TENANT of the muslim faith is completely debatable, and please go back and read the thread for the reasons WHY it does not suit a democratic society (or why it's against Sikh principles as well). If you've been to lazy to read the thread I'm not repeating it for you in this post. then why doesn't he instead focus his attention on the women that are being FORCED to wear it instead of propagating it? Sikhs saved countless hindu women from the clutches of radical Islam, why can't he do the same for muslim women? Who are you to tell me what I have and have not done? It requires a monstrous size ego to make such allegations, this is a pot calling a kettle black. I asked for where Guru Ji stated beyond the 5 kakkars exactly how Sikhs should dress, you and your friend who obviously called you in as back up, Only Five have yet to answer this, also he has yet to answer the question of Islam and female mutilation, will the two of you defend that as well? Instead of hurling childish insults and coming of as severely lacking in education or history, answer the questions and speak in a mature tone if that's at all possible from either of you. You wear the bana very proudly (with ego), yet your complete lack of maturity or civility is probably the WORST disrespect you can bring to said bana. Nope, please put your ego away, it's making you make false claims about someone whom you do not even know. You're actually reaching into thin air to grasp something which you can attack me on, when was Jazzy B ever even mentioned in this thread???? You're not making any sense, please read the thread before positing in it. He gave the order of what a TRUE Sikh is supposed to wear (and not wear *niqab* by the way), you want to add on additional attire that is up to you, but don't you dare attempt to say that's the order of the Guru, that's your PERSONAL order. I will follow the faith as per the instruction of my Guru, not you. anti-sikhi? That's a heavy accusation, please explain or stop posting nonsense. The challenge will be to put away your ego and do it in a mature manner without flailing false accusations, liable, and slander, however given how you're replying, I don't hold much faith. As a Sikh I won't ever "exchange views" that are in agreement of Sikhs advocating gender inequality and propagating radical Islam and keeping women hidden under giant black tarps, OR attempting to defend said 'tenants' of a faith that are arguably not even PART of the faith but the Islamic culture. What part of that do you not get? You're right, as a Sikh I refuse to "learn" that Sikhs should keep their foot on the neck women, as you and Only_Five believe. So you and Only_Five can hit the 'negative' button as much as you want on this, that's my way of knowing that I'm not approved of by radicals who believe in mughal culture, which is perfectly fine by me.

My 2 cents, nothing wrong with it, they look to have created the palki properly with the appropriate ramalay, chaur sahib, all are seated and seem entrenched in the kirtan, respect doesn't seem lost at all. Besides, does our Guru need us to 'protect' him from the outside world? It seems rather silly to think so, Guru Nanak traveled countless miles, Gurus fought numerous battles, now all of sudden we cower at the thought of our Guru on a beach? Remember, the Gurus themselves use to give sermons and kirtan outdoors, under trees, along riverbeds etc. Don't see anything wrong with Guru sahib present for kirtan in Waheguru's wondrous nature.

There was 100,000 people on the streets due to the city televising the event outdoors throughout. Given that there was 100,000, if even 1% of those there came to get drunk, cause trouble, and become violent, that's 1000 rioters, which is the estimated number of troublemakers. How that's a reflection on "how Canadians take defeat" is beyond me, however given the worldwide reputation of UK soccer hooligans, I don't think one should be eager to throw stones.

Sadly when it comes to female infanticide, Punjab is a leading state :umm:

I don't need to be a muslim scholar to know that it is forbidden for Sikhs to wear such attire, since our Gurus deemed it suppressive. http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gurbani_and_women#Purdah_.28veil.29 Purdah (veil) Purdah150 was strictly enforced among women. The Muslims supported it because it is sanctioned by their religion but the Hindus adopted it to hide their daughters, mothers, and wives from the piercing eyes of the foreign invaders. The purdah proved ineffective in arresting the lustful glances of men but it certainly made women cowards and they came to be known as Abala (Powerless). Guru Amar Das regarded it an instrument of the suppression of modesty and condemned it. He did not allow the queen of Haripur to come to Sangat (religious assembly) unless she removed her veil. He said, “Away, Away, ladies who crouch in veil”. 151 All those women who followed the Guru’s advice became free and were described as follows; “False modesty that suppressed is ended Now with veil cast off I have started on the way of devotion”. (SGGS P. 931)152 The Sikh Rehat Maryada says, “It is not proper for a Sikh woman to wear a veil or keep her face hidden by veil or cover” (Article XIX F) Your comments are very childish and lack the respect for another religion and lack the respect for the religion which you claim to be a part of (Sikhi). The niqab to YOU might be a symbol of suppression, but not to men and woman who are Muslims, from other religions, and even atheist. It's time for you to step outside your mind and view a religion as to what it is and not to what your mind can accept. Take a wild guess which religion also justifies female circumcision (mutilation) as part of their code of conduct? By your logic you are willing to support that as well. I guess we should forgoe what Muslim scholars debate as part of the religion or not since you obviously have the answers (as informed or misinformed as they are). Again your viewing both religions, Sikhi and Islam from your mind (what your envirnoment made you) and not to what they are. You accept the dastar so you find your own logical ways to justify it, but you don't accept Bana so you find ways to disapprove it. You're contradicting yourself, you're putting dastar and bana in the same category, they're not, and never were. Dastar was not worn "by all", it was worn by nobility at the time, and thus one of the reasons why Sikhs were dictated that it must be worn. Guru gave us the gift as he wanted to HEIGHTEN Sikhi and our spirit, not to hide them and cover us up like slaves. The Amritdhari lawyers did not go to stick up for men that force women to wear the niqab, but for the niqab itself, which is apart of the Muslim religion. Once again you fail to recognize that the niqab MAYBE a part of the religion or not depending on an extremist viewpoint, one that also justifies female mutilation, exactly who are you, OR the WSO to be telling anyone what is and is not part of the muslim religion, and defending said controversial points? ESPECIALLY a part of their religion that OUR religion strictly forbids in rehat?! This is mindbogglingly shortsighted and ignorant. If you want to talk about woman being forced to wear something they don't want too. Then walk into a restaurant that has women showing their cleavage and wearing high skirts. Since when is waitressing a religion? Sorry but I don't walk into a restaurant seeing hundreds of women "forced" to show anything, you're very twisted in your logic, comparing that to niqab. The France government banned the Dastar in government buildings, like schools. They could use the same logic as you and say the Dastar is an extremist way to express culture Once again you're attempting to compare the dastar to a niqab. This is NOT a valid argument, are Sikh women forcing Sikh men to wear one? Does it cover our entire face and are we demanding that our driver's licence and passport photos be taken without uncovering our face? Please try to use valid argument. The ban on dastars in France was a DIRECT link to France's main motive of banning the niqab. They couldn't a'la'carte decide religious bans because it would have looked like Islam was targetted, thus comprimising France's security, so everything had to go. The Amritdhari lawyers went to Quebec to show that they cannot impose on the Muslim religion by saying the niqab is not acceptable. Covering someone's face like this For passport and driver's licence ID photos, IS extremist. Sorry you don't feel that way, or the WSO, I'll stick with what's in rehat as to my viewpoints on the niqab. IF anything you are being the Muslim scholar by saying the niqab is not apart of the Muslim religion and is apart of an extremist, sexist culture. To your narrow mind the niqab might be sexist, but to others it's not and it's a practice that Muslim woman want to take part in. If the Quebec government has no problem with women walking around half naked, then they should have no problem with a woman dressed fully, where only her eyes are showing. The quebec government is hung up on promoting their French culture on others and wish to suppress other cultures and religions. In any democratic society, such as the one YOU enjoy and take advantage of, there is this little thing called EQUALITY for ALL that is at it's core. The niqab is inherently contradicting to this basic tenant, AS WELL as a basic tenant of Sikhism, how you can call yourself Sikh and yet blindly defend its practice makes me wonder whether you're actually not a muslim yourself posing as someone you're not on a Sikh board. The niqab is apart of the Muslim religion and there needs to be freedom to wear it. Once again you're playing Muslim scholar telling me what is and is not a part of Islamic RELIGION and not Islamic culture. By the way, have you read the book I recommended to you yet? Women have been forced and are being forced in movies, on television shows, in restuarants, in bars, in other establishments to dress in very revealing clothing to attract more viewers and/or more customers (men). Please stop using the word "forced", whose forcing them? I don't know what kind of restaurants are in your neighborhood but I hardly see walking into a restaurant as going into some 'red light' district here. And no, they're not 'forced', and if anything there are sexual harassment laws in place as well as the woman having the freedom to quit any job (and file a lawsuit) if her workplace demands her to do anything she feels comprises her integrity, to compare a waitress with a woman wearing a niqab or someone stripping their clothes is completely ridiculous. There is a huge human trafficking problem in the western world because of establishments like strip clubs. I agree, there is, and it's against the law, and the perpetrators are punished by the law, do you think human trafficking will cease if we cover up ALL women on the planet with a niqab? How is the niqab even relevant to you pointing out this crime? Stop your nonsense and disrespect toward Guru Sahib uniform (Bana with 5 Kakkar). Satguru never wore a Bana because thats what rest of the eastern world was wearing. Satguru wore a Bana because it is the Khalsa form (uniform). Our uniform is the kakkars, nowhere is it enforced or dictated that Sikhs must wear bana, you're skewed, your mentality is better served with radical Islam than with Sikhi. As for Satguru's reasons for wearing bana or not, please don't just spout off your opinion as fact, please cite where Satguru instructed Sikhs EXACTLY what to wear outside of the 5 kakkars. You didn't even compar the two correctly. The topless african woman you say is doing it by choice and when it comes to the niqab you automatically assume that it is being forced. So now you're going to tell me that topless african women in Africa are forced to be topless? Didn't know you were a Muslim scholar AND an African historian. The topless woman is being rejected by society because she is without clothing...no shirt no services....its very simple. The niqab is being rejected because her face is covered, no face recognition no government ID issued, it's very simple. Please don't select what you think is acceptable in society and leave out the parts you don't, equality isn't a buffet where YOU decide who is equal who is not. I have never equated the dhumala to the niqab. I'm saying there both different religious practices from different religions and they both don't hinder society in anyway, so both must be allowed. If you don't think niqab hinders society in ANY WAY, given the condition of many Islamic countries, that enforce it, and given Sikhism's stance on it, then at your core your argument is completely flawed logic, again, read and educate yourself before you make such silly statements. As for your 'slandering' comments, I have no idea what you're talking about, taking personal shots is childish and immature, once again (like in my previous posts), I request you stop behaving in such a manner.

Are you a Muslim scholar? A niqab is a symbol of suppression, walking around with a black mask on, how is that conducive to a democratic society?? As Sikhs, Guru gave us the gift of the dastar so that we NEVER hide from society, in fact he made it so we're distinct and VISIBLE to all. As for your argument of choice. Fine in western society a woman may CHOOSE to wear a niqab or not (how she actually feels about it could be another story, I know of plenty muslim girls wearing a hijab who would immediately take it off once at school/work when parents/spouse were out of view). But what about the women in Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan who DO NOT have a choice? Whatabout the women who are flogged with sticks and rocks for exposing so much as an ankle? Do they have a choice? As Sikhs should we condone and approve of their beatings as well? As for Sikhs rights in Canada, yes it has been a generational battle to gain the kakkars into the "traditional" Canadian diaspora, we now have dastars as permitted uniforms in police, and this HAS been a blow to the progress Sikhs have made. Simply replying "no it hasn't" isn't really a valid argument. No they haven't, once again you are playing muslim scholar, has the government banned the practice of being muslim? No, not at all. Is the niqab a part of the religion, or part of an extremist, sexist culture? What if it was someone's 'religion' to beat their wife, would you approve of the W.S.O defending that person as well in the name of religion? In most cases it's not a choice, or the choice is wear it, or be beaten/kicked out of your house, some choice. Read the book 'Infidel' by Ayaan Irsi Ali if you want to actually learn and educate yourself about this practice instead of simply going by personal opinion of a topic. I have yet to see Canadian Task Forces roaming the streets and beating women with batons who are not exposing enough flesh. This comparison is ludicrous. As for the television and movie industry, that's what it is, and INDUSTRY, not a religion or country, or set of laws. If a woman CHOOSES to enter such an industry, she can or cannot, who are you to decide the moral standards of that woman? It's up to her, at least she has the freedom of choice to do what's right/moral or wrong/immoral, she's not being forced to strip off her clothes by men. If that is the case, it's against THE LAW and the man responsible is charged. Resorting to slander about me really doesn't help your argument, please refrain from personal attacks or somehow inferring you know the habits of other posters on this board, it's immature and uncalled for. Nope, again wrong, I'm not against wearing such bana, however in a professional setting such as a parliament or court, walking in as if you're walking into a religious institution such as a Gurdwara really doesn't make sense. Guru instructed us to wear a dastar, the kakkars, please show me where the guru stated that all Sikhs must wear a chola. If that was the case it would have been dictated. lol! The guru wore the same bana as what the people wore at the time. Do you think that people were walking around in pant/shirt as the norm? EVERYONE wore such attire back then, Guru didn't say 'lock yourself into this time-frame and don't budge', nor did he say 'don't wear pant/shirt'. I think Guru had more to do than to instruct us on fashion trends. Absolutely, however there are African nations were the woman is completely topless, what if she wanted to wear that? Is that conducive to society? In the same way the niqab is the opposite, it's a symbol of oppression and once again, NOT conducive to democratic society AND Sikh principle of equality of man and woman. Yes they are, however you're equating dhumala and bana with niqab, that really doesn't make any sense. I agree about spoiled kids spending parents money, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that their are so-called Sikhs that are just as egotistical about their 'image' the ego is actually very similar.

I agree with the article and the authors viewpoint. Those of you who don't know, this Gurpreet character single-handedly RUINED the efforts of generations of Canadian Sikhs fighting for equal rights by sticking his nose in the business of niqab wearing women in Canada. Last time I checked Sikhism preached equality for men and women, and this yahoo representing the 'World Sikh Organization' went to defend a muslim man's right to keep women covered in a black tent as to not tempt other men. He couldn't plead his case AND the case and media spotlight instead started focusing on the Kirpan in government buildings. Nowhere in Sikhi does it state you have to wear a giant ghol pagh and blue kurta to a government hearing, and if he wants to fine, however he does NOT represent the vast majority of Sikhs in this country. Most amritdharis I know don't have to wear clothes that scream "HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M DRESSED LIKE A NIHANG, I'M AMRITDHARI, LOOK!". In fact unless you saw the white gathra from under their shirt you wouldn't even notice because their Sikhi, like a TRUE Sikh, does not have to be advertised.

Please don't be foolish enough to think it's womans fault that a man has thoughts of kaam. Guru Ji shunned this ridiculous notion assumed by muslims and stated men and women equal. In principle, this defacing of a poster is wrong, regardless of what was on the poster, a tyrannical act done by the taliban mentality of misguided muslims.

Do you think Guru Ji would rather have all of you, his "Sikhs" argue over some furnishings (probably for the elderly who don't have the same mobility as young people), or do you think instead of arguing over tables and chairs he would rather you expend that energy out on the streets, feeding the poor and helping those in need which is the point of langar in the first place? So sad the priorities of our kaum.

yes, we should send a taliban-like jathaa to beat him up. Are you joking? He's smoking, it's wrong in Sikhi but so are a LOT of things Sikhs w/ dastaar do. Our community has bigger issues then hunting down one Singh because he's doing something anti-sikhi.

Short answer? No. Khalistan isn't just a land mass that has borders, there is no borders for Khalistan. Here in kaljug should Sikhs have equal rights and freedoms? Of course, a unified independent republic of a unified Punjab would be nice, but that's not realistic at this point. We simply must continue to bring about awareness and equal rights in what is SUPPOSED to be a democratic India.