randip singh

I may disagree with your views but I would give my life for your right to disagree with me!! Sorry friend......I cannot take the back handedness of some of the mods here......they are motivated by fear.....thye have allowed abuse of me by others here......altering my footnotes (despiyte not cotrovening any rules here)......they have conspired with friends to derail topics......and quite franky I do not like getting angry......... ..I will stay at www.sikhphilosophy.net........it's a bit more mature there.....and most of the people here usually come out with bruised ego's from that forum because of the sheer logic and reason of people like Antonia, Gyani Jarnail and KDS...... see you around.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859 The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764 The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Let us accept a person IS Truthful and Fearless. Let me give you an example. You challenge someones ideas with facts and truth, and thats person lacks any way of challenging you with facts. That person is fearful of you and therefore seeks to gag you? Silence you? What kind of fear guides such misfortunates?

What causes some people to be so fearfull of others or their ideas? Low self esteem? A lack of knowledge? Inability to challenge others? What is it?

Naam is Truth....as someone has pointed rightly out it is not something someone whispers to you....it is self realisation....Naam is the way of becoming God realised or a Gurmukh........ Guru Nanak says "Higher than Truth is truthful living" In other waords Naam is not about reciting truth or the word of waheguru, but living it on a daily basis.....

Could you post a pic of a Khanda from Sri Hargobind Ji's time please?! Infact any Khanday from Guru Gobind Singh ji's time even. I'll have a loook and try and find one before I'm banned. In the meantime here is a link : http://www.sikhs.org/khanda.htm and on the Nishan Sahib>>>http://www.sikh-history.co.uk/nishan_sahib.htm and a nice essay: http://www.westernssa.com/resources/docs/NISHAN%20SAHIB.pdf

precisely my point...is that not more of a metaphorical refrence........like saying I have always belived in you even before I was born..? I am happy either way.

I have read Dasam Granth and the description of a previous life seems to be metaphorical. Imagine it like this......Guruji had just created the Khalsa, many still had Hinduways....he was trying to explain new concepts (i.e. Sikh Concepts) in a way they would understand. This being to use Hindu mythology and Hindu metaphors. An example would be a Japanese person who only understands Japanese culture grammar etc.....initially to teach them about English culture grammar etc you would have to use Japanese concepts. Well thats my understanding anyway.

Point is a Sikh ois meant to be a Sant Siphahi....if some one is a coward tghey have no business being a Sikh.

I maybe a Buddha but there is certainly truth to the point..... It wasn't that "In my day things were different...."....it's just that we had no choice.......today kids have a lot of choice and they choose not to stand up for truth and justice anymore but for idiotic issues....as I stated above....

So what you are saying is that it is conforming to what "Society" see's how we should see ourselves as the problem?

as you seen to highly emphasise the word MEN here can you please provide some edivdence to support the "men" aspect of the statement you made made above First you say hukam and then u question our Guru Jee? lol.......... ............are u amritdhari veer G? i find it quite sad but at the same time i attrubute it simple lack of knowledge about HUKAM.........a Gur Ka Sikh is liberated when told not to remove ANY FORM OF KESH be it man or WOMAN.........Guru Jee saying dont mould ur life of society but MOULD UR JEEVAN FOR WAHEGURU............ Yet its our own fellow brother and sometimes even sisters that try and force into the "acceptable" boundries for todays "modern" society........................thanks for my share but i turn my back fully on opressors...............

Interesting twist! But I would say that majority of womens facial hair compared to mens is so insignificant that does it need mentioning? And if you say Guru Ji should have mentioned it....then do you support men removing hair from their bodies? I don't know....just asking the question. For me the key is why Guruji asked his Sikhs to bear unshorn hair and beards......the answer to that lies in history.

leaflet designed by idiots for idiots..... good luck on your witch hunt and inposition of Sharia Law on Sikhism.....

My feeling is that my generation were pretty tough that greew up in the 80's......the Battle for GRavesend 70's....Newham 8....Southall Riots....Shere Punjab.........Holy Smoke and Toots before they went haywire......... all the new generation are good for is getting beaten up by Muslims and Kalay.......and stabbing each other in Birmingham at Basakhi Mela's...... ....attacking old men at social events in community centres in leamington....and arguing about tables and chairs......... PS and talking tough on websites....

LOL... I meant twist....though twit may apply ....

Ok let me play devils advocate: Guruji's hukam was that all MEN come with unshorn beards and unshorn hair on the scalp (Kesh). Where is the woman who removes hair from her face (not scalp) in all this?

Unfortunately some of the admin here are modern day Hitlers who wish to stifle freedom of speech. They have edited my footnote.......censored websites....collude with people who abuse me and yet call themselves Sikhs!!! The site in question which I posted was the Sarbloh one.....for some unknown reason they get their kacharay in a twit on this site when you mention it.

It is a falic symbol? That is all it is. Very common in many cultures and is a historical fact. It is associated with fertility. If you wish to deny history then that is your choice, but you will be only denying yourself of knowledge. Mod note: Topic has been discussed at length and is closed before it goes further off topic.

lets just leave it at that then If you want to leave it then why add a sarcastic icon with rolling eyes?

Let me clarify. It really does not matter whether I think it is un-natural or not, but the perception of the person themselves. Women I know generally consider it unnatural to have hair on the face. It detracts from there sense of femininity i.e. makes them feel less of a woman, the equavalent is a man who cannot grow hair on his face (it makes him feel less of a man). Now if the man was to say opt for hormonal treatment to help hair grow on his face would a woman really have commited that much of a sin to stop hair growing on her face. That is my thinking anyway. End of the day this is not about beauty, as that is only skin deep. Even Guruji acknowledges that although men and women are equal we are different (hence giving Singh and Kaur), and it is this masculinity and femininity that makes us diferent. To try and blur that is playing God and hence un-natural.

Ironic attacks are being made on Hinduism, wehn many of the sects such as 3HO, AKJ, Gnssj etc all have their orogins in Hindu Vaishnavism. PS Maharaja Ranjit Singh on some of his Battle standards featured Shivalingum. PPS Bhindranwala was not actually against Hidu's but rather against the Congresswalay that used Hiduism as a political tool. I suggest the kids on this site grow up and act more maturely.

According to Sikhism and the Rehat Maryada a man and woman are not allowed to pluck any hair from their body. Now me personally, what is the problem with a woman not wanting hair on her face? It is unnatural for a woman to have hair on her face. Guruji asked for men to come with unshorn hair and untrimmed beards. Surely it is unnatural for a woman to have a beard? PS People should really watch thiers mouths and learn some Sikh History before criticising Nihangs. They are the pre - runner to the Khalsa and represent the finest martial traditions of Sikhism. Ok some may have lost their way (i.e. addiction to Bhang)......but losing their way could easily be applaid to AKJ, Gnssj, 3ho, mamdhari's and other Sikh sects.

The Khanda was slightly different shaped at the time of Sri Hargobind ji. Since Nihangs are probably the oldest embodiement of the Sikh warrior tradition they wear this modified version that reflect the Siphahi side, whereas the "modern" Khanda reflects the Sant and Siphahi side. For more info check out <admin cut>

You are missing the entire point. This topic has raised a far wider issue, and it is about the negative mindset of Sikh towards people of other caste, religion and race….and within this marriage becomes an emotive issue. It is not my place to encourage anyone do to anything….all I can do is relate my experience on this issue…….as someone who got married out of "caste" and broke one of the major Punjabi taboo's I feel I have some experience in this issue. All I can do is hope by people reading my experience that they will start to think about it. To think I can change people's mindsets would be pure egotism on my part….it is up to individuals to change their own mindsets. I am entitled to my own opinion as you are to your's. My view is that the same negativity portrayed by some on this forum is somehow condoned by so called other "pious" acts. Hypocrisy at it's best. Again I am in no position to change anyone's state of mind, but just state my own opinion. You are drawing your own conclusion from what I have stated. Sikhism is about being visible and not running away from one's duty. One of those duties is to openly declare to the entire community through the Anand Karaj that this is my Soul Mate. If the children have consented to marriage. The families have consented, then who is anyone else to judge them? In this case the person is of another faith who seems to have shown respect to Guruji. Anyone who shows respect to Guruji is Ok in my eyes. What "shamming" are you talking about? Please elaborate? My respects may count for nothing but to dismiss the world we are living in is the path of an Udasi. The spiritual and the temporal go hand in hand. This is known as Miri-Piri…..re-emphasise d by the Tenth Master through the doctrine of Shakti and Bhakti. In other words, what happens here will have a direct consequence to your spirituality. If you are brave and stand up and be counted your spirituality increase…..if you are a coward and run away your spirituality diminishes. You are missing the positives. From the start I have stated : Lets look at this way.....this Gujerati girl, despite her Hindu upbringing (Gjerati's tend to be strict Hindu's), their strong pro-caste views, strong belief in more than one God had enough respect for the Sikh guy she wanted to marry and for our Guru that she took Lava at the Gurudwara. I would say that was good news for Sikhs and Sikhism.......and kudo's to the young lady for showing respect for our Guru despite her belief's that contradict Sikhi! I would say that was positive? Would you not think that?