JagsawSingh

Its not like this road just popped up yesterday. Its been named aurangzeb road for G knows how long. And now we're demanding that its name be changed to that of our Guru?

Seems pretty lame.

Its a relatively newish road in a relatively new part of a new town...i.e the new part of Delhi. Thus, it was named 'Arungzeb' in the very lifetime of the people that made the decision to keep the name and, quite possibly, named by some of the very people that have decided to keep it.

When searching for 'lame', may I suggest you look in the direction of the people that sit around a table in a planning committee meeting and come to the conclusion that it would be wonderful to name a new road after a bigoted hate-mongering mass-murderer.

The Bangladeshi and guys arrived with their families during the eighties , the parents were quiet hard-working as were the older siblings

But is this actually true ?

I mean it is that older generation of Bangladeshis of the East End that has made a rod for its own back. The fact that, from day one (in the 1970's) they have been happy to sit idly in their council flats (90% of them live in public housing projects) and let the government take care of them and support them is the sole reason the current generation is what it is today. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Please advise where 'well educated muslim areas' are located.

And therein lies the paradox, especially regarding Bangladeshis. For example, there is an 'Indian' restuarant in every single village and small town throughout the country. Every one of these 'Indian' resturants are owned by Bangladeshis. So, up and down this country, there are many Bangladeshis that grow up in solely white areas speaking like white people and acting like white people. They are a huge success story in relation to jobs and prospects. Overall, they have quite easily outperformed all other 'asian' groups including Sikhs.

I grew up in Hackney East London and since 1975 it's true the whole atmosphere has changed, all the recent influx of people have been islamic and very aggressive towards to original or preceding immigrants

I suppose there are 2 ways of looking at that statement you just made. The first, is your way. The second, is to remember how, in the past, it was a dangerous area to be in if your skin was not white and then became ultra-dangerous as the murder capital of Europe with the massive Jamaican Yardie presence.....and now, perhaps, 'religious' youths have pushed away the crack dealers, prostitutes and muggers....so it can be safe for odinary families again ?

Not saying this is neccessarily so but just saying, there are alternative ways of looking at things.

The discussion (above) is all very well. I've read it, and I was about to give a reply to it. But then, once more I read the origin of this thread....i.e a spposedly 'Sikh' politician in Canada.

I'll plead ignorance here.....I've never heard of this 'Wally' fella. I mean, to most of us Sikhs (outside Canada) (which roughly translates as almost every single Sikh on the planet) the news article has come as a huge surprise....in the sense that a 'news' publication has 'published' something about 'someone' that virtualy no-one has ever heard of.

But, now that we've got this random man's picture in our conscience....Have you ever seen such a sorry excuse of a man ?

Its almost time for breakfast and I'm already being put off eating.

Surely his mum , dad or etended relatives would have told him how, if not kesh, a moustache and beard would have in part hidden his ugliness.

One does, at this point, recall the classic Punjabi song by Shaukat Ali in which he recalls how, when he left Punjab and came to England (in the 1970's), he shaved off his facial hair and made himself look like a 'potato', and aws too ashamed to tell his dad how he looked.

I think, if Shaukat Ali could rewind the clock and take a look at Wally Uppal, he would choose a different vegetable. I'm not sure, but perhaps a hideously deformed and mutant turnip might be apt ?

The question put in the thread - was gen zorawar singh sikh or hindoo, second question - was ladakh , gilgit and baltistan and part of china were conquered by Sikhs? Which of these questions are being answered by Jagsawsingh ? I cannot undestand

No. You're living in an upside down world jasvendrasingh ji. The FIRST question was about Ladakh and Gilgit and the second question (which was only valid as a follow on from the first question) was about the Generals.

Now. Here's the thing. Now that we've established you can't distinguish between first and last who's to say that Adam Sinclair from Cobham, Surrey, didn't win the 100 metres Gold at the Moscow Olympics ?

In this new mad alliance between JSinghnz and jasvendrasingh is discussion now 'non-discussion' and first now 'last' ? I only ask because I honestly feel that the world literary authorities should be made aware of this amazing new linguistic disoovery.

Jesus...that Wally Uppal geezer is one ugly fella. :wow:

With that face, surely he'd be more suited to a news story about Halloween ?

Me thinks the news source mistakingly chose the wrong pagan festival.

Read the OP's question again and ask yourself where did he ask about the SIKH EMPIRE? Or are you finding it difficult to understand simple English.

OK. So lets all take your advice and become 2 dimensional robots without personality :

The OP asks is such and such 'true' and the answer to that one question he puts is 'YES'.

End of discussion. The question has been anwsered. Close the thread down. In fact, lets go through every single thread that has ever appeared on this 'discussion' forum and delete every single post that came after the very first reply. Of course, we will also have to contact the Oxford and Websters dictionary specialists and ask them to officialy redefine the meaning of the word 'discussion' so it can fit into the wonderful JSinghnz' first class take on the matter.

Jagsawsingh ,why donot yoy think that Patialas were not sikh? All thr rajas of malwa were sikhs , only that they were not agreeble to dictatorial unification of territories under misles and giving away the federal structure developed under misles

This thread has nothing to do with 'who is Sikh' and who is not. Its about the Sikh EMPIRE. Thats why I pointed out that Malwa was NOT part of the Sikh empire. Ludhiana, Patiala etc were sezerainties, allowed to exist, as long as they remained quiet and compliant, by powerfull 'powers' that existed to the north, south and south west of them, but part of none. So remind me again, how is this fact not relevant to a discussion about the Sikh EMPIRE ?

WJKK WJKF

Great to hear you all had so much fun, however you might want to watch eating in excess for the benefit of your taste buds, it's a good lesson for kids too.

Anyway, back to where we left off......

I didn't know we 'left off' anyhwere. I thought it was done and dusted that I was right and you were wrong? End of.

I think the important bit to note is that the whole of what know today as the 'malwa' part of Punjab....i.e Ludhiana, Moga, Patiala etc, was not part of the Sikh Kingdom. That fact is more interesting than gilgit and ladakh. (sounds like a firm of Bombay lawyers)

WJKK WJKF

Veer Jagsaw Singh ji, I know your probably all partied out with all your christmas celebrations, but as ever, awaiting for your reply, again.

Well I certainly overdid it with the Pepsi and Guava juice. Not to mention too many crisps. But, other than that, none of us in the house eat the flesh of animals so my wife made a lovely paneer di sabji. I overdid that too, in terms of eating because it really was delicious. Then, we all, as a family unit, played together with the games my boys received for xmas. We probably enjoyed that a bit too much too.

My god :wow: we really are unreligious heathens now arn't we.

You're right....this xmas tree monkey business is the first step to immorality and gluttony.

:blink2:

...and xmas trees.

Again, gurbani does not state anywhere that they do not exist,

Does this not count as Gurbani ?

"How can we accept God coming into this world in human form?The Siddhas (people who try to attain spiritual powers by living in jungles) are tired by sitting with their eyes closed to find and see God but are been unable to" (Shabad Hazaray, Guru Gobind Singh Ji)

70% ? of sikh girls = no good

0% ? of Muslim girls doing bad things = good.

umm.....

Well, a percentage is just a number and torture numbers long enough and they'll confess to anything.

So, when you peel away the rubbish from the 'percentages' you're left with perception. And when it comes to perception we human beings see what we want to see.

And, if you're a Muslim girl, you will only show those 'percentage gatherers' what they want to see.

And so they (the % gatherers) don't have eyes that can see what we can see. They're so busy gathering percentages they can't see what their percentage subjects are hiding from them.

They are so busy gathering percentages they can't see how the percentage subjects are willing to say the right thing for the percentage survey lest they lose a head by way of death at worst or at the very least life made a misery.

And so, we bypassed percentages, reached perceptions and now we're down to the bitter truth. The bitter truth is that the Muslim female is a female. She is no better or worse than any other human being and no better or worse than any other female. But.....there are things she will do, and behaviours she will display in front of us...........and different things she will do, and different behaviours she will display in front of her 'muslim' brothers.

So......is the OP a muslim prenting to be a Sikh ?

I don't know. On calculating perception v percentage on my on screen calculator my screen is flashing a warning at the oment !!

You limit Akal Parukh waheguru in thinking that waheguru has not took human form, yet all living matter is of wahegurus form and creation, how is this against the thesis of sikhi?

Brother let me be clear from the onset, on this matter you know I am now treading on territory that hitherto I have failed to tread. You know me well by now and you know I usually limit myself to discussions of mundane worldly things, such as social history etc. So, bearing that in mind, I'm continuing this discussion with you for 2 reasons. Firstly, because I have a desire to learn from you and secondly, because your nature thus far has suggested that you deserve the common decency of a meaningful and thoughtful discussion.

Now this is where I am coming from : My understanding and appreciation of Gurbani manifests itself by looking at it with my historian eyes. Given that historical context I have, for example, understood why many of the great Bhagats, included in SGGS ji, have often used various Hindu dieties in their verses. See this is where it gets not only complicated but also dangerous when one remembers the naivity and general un-education of the Punjabi masses.

They used the names of Hindu dieties for a purpose, and that purpose was that it would get the attention of and thus resonate with the intended receivers of the message....i.e the Punjabi masses. The trouble is now, many centuries later, many Sikhs see the numerous references to Krishna, ram etc and conclude that it must mean how Gurus believed in them (as Gods) too.

I have a habit, Sikhseeker, I have learn't, of leaving you unfulfilled. This time, I shall take my leave by fullfilling my end of the bargain and directly answering your question of when and where it says Sikhs do not belive in Avatars...i,e God in human form...i.e when you ask : "Please upload quotes of gurbani or sikhi ithias/sakhia where sikhi rejects the existence of the devte/devia" :

Incarnated beings do not know His limit. The Transcendent Lord, the Supreme Lord God, is infinite. - (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 894)

In each and every age, He creates the kings, who are sung of as His Incarnations. Even they have not found His limits; what can I speak of and contemplate? - (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 422

Millions of incarnations of Vishnu and Shiva, with matted hair yearn for You, O Merciful Lord; their minds and bodies are filled with infinite longing. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 455)

There were ten regal incarnations[2] of Vishnu; and then there was Shiva, the renunciate. He did not find Your limits either, although he grew weary of smearing his body with ashes. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 747)

How can we accept God coming into this world in human form?The Siddhas (people who try to attain spiritual powers by living in jungles) are tired by sitting with their eyes closed to find and see God but are been unable to. (Shabad Hazaray, Guru Gobind Singh Ji)

there probably are Iranian Sikhs, but they've been refugees and left their motherland.

I'm confused as to what you're getting at. Yes of course there are many many Iranian Sikhs (the thriving Gurdwaras in Terhan and Zahedan are testament to that), and they are 'Iranian Sikhs' because their families have been born and bred in Iran for several generations now but when you say "there probably are Iranian Sikhs" are you talking about Persian ethnicity or Punjabis with Iranian nationality ?

WJKK WJKF

wow, it's amazing how different climate conditions in different countries change the appearance of its people so much...especially looking at the pics of the Iranian Sikhs.

Well it would be "amazing" if that picture were actually of Iranian Sikhs. I've seen that photo before, I know for certain it is from one of the Sikh schools in India where alot of Americans send their kids. Probably the Miri Piri Academy but I can't be sure.

Exactly 0% of Iranian Sikhs are ethnic Persian. What I woud really like to do, some time in the future, is some research on the Sikh community of the infamous wild west frontier town of Zahedan in Iran. If there are any among you who can translate from Farsi, I would love to know the findings of this research paper :

http://www.ensani.ir/storage/Files/20120327185613-3079-14.pdf

Also, the Shiri Guru Granth Sahib ji mahraj does not state that the devte/devia never existed. It is not a metaphor, it simply means that Akal purakh waheguru is in all creation, even the devte/devia.

Educate me please. I'm finding it difficult to understand how SGGS ji could say, or even insinuate, that god has taken human form among us (avatar). Your second sentence (above) is what Sikhi teaches us...i.e that Waheguru is in us all, but to say waheguru took on a specific human body and form seems to be the anithesis of Sikhi.

Again, what you got planned for Easter?

Chocolate eggs for the kids and hot cross buns for me.......because, of course, nothing says 'jesus' more than a chocolate bunny egg and a bun. Thanks for asking.

Which Hindus you mean?

Most of the Jatts I know are not even Sikh today, they marry and have secret relationships with their cousins, have secret relationships with them, and run away with their cousins and hide their faces after cutting their beard and disguise in different characters.

You wanna change your group of friends. The people 'you know' are clearly not of the quaility that the rest of us 'know'.

Have you tried hanging about in respectable places where you stand a better chance of meeting respectable people ?

Most of the Jatts and Ramgharias I know have married their own cousins and their children are disabled as well.

Why are unsavoury types attracted to you so much ?

I get the impression nearly everyone you know in your life is some type of retrobate.

Do you know anyone good ?

Jagsaw Singh - All Gurus were from Khatri clans, and the sixth and tenth Guru from Khatri clan started the martial race .

Jagjit Singh Arora in Indian Army was the one got Pakistani Army surrendered.

We all know how many Jatts today practise Sikhism and are in Sikhi swaroop.

Anyways, watch the below video ...

I didn't say anything about them as people. I personally know many of them and think they're lovely people (my next door neighbours are afghan sikh). I merely told you, and evidenced you with, 4 facts: they marry their cousins, are short and were never deemed suitable for military combat and freely inter-marry with Hindus. So what did I say that was wrong ? :wow:

That is not true lot of Afghani Sikhs are Afridi (it is a pashtun tribe). I know for sure lot of Sikhs around Bhai Joga Singh gurdwara in Peshawar and dera area are Afridi which is the same race as Afridi muslims. I know technically this area is in Pakistan, but pashtun don't recognize the border between Pashtun areas. Interestingly, all these Afridi Sikhs carry Ak-47, and I am not exaggerating, all of them do (or at least a few years ago they did)

However, I have never met any sikh afgan refugee, so they could be aroras.

Now I am confused, why most afghan Sikhs will be Aroras and not Afridi.

You're confusing 'some' Pakistani Sikhs with Afghan Sikhs. Whilst all of Afghanistan's Sikhs are Aroras (with a sprinkling of Khatris), and most of Pakistan's Sikhs also Arora, there are some Sikhs that live in the remote valleys, especially the Tirah valley, of the North West Frontier of Pakistan that are ethnic pathan. Historically, the ones found in Peshawar old town etc were all aroras but lately, as the Punjabi Taliban have made life hard for the remote valley Sikhs, many of those ethnic pathan Sikhs have migrated into Peshawar and the towns.

A little background here, although aroras are technically Khatris, Punjab in terms of business and trade was divided up between those 2 groups. Khatris had what we know as Punjab proper, i.e Lahore, Rawalpindi, Amritsat etc whilst the whole of south west Punjab and the north west frontier was the preserve of the Aroras. So the Aroras had Multan, the mountains, Peshawar etc, and from there they expanded westwards into Afghanistan and Zahedan in Iran (and as far north as Turkmenistan).

The Arora Afghans tend to be quite short from my observations.

Aroras generally have a body build very different to other Sikhs, abd for that reason they were strictly banned from joining the army as they were seen as extremely poor soldiers.

As for their habit of first cousin marriage, a recent in-depth study of the arora and khatri sikhs in pakistan found that 26% of them marry their first cousins, another 29% married their second cousins.

http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-10-0-000-000-2005-Web/JSS-10-3-153-238-2005-Abst-PDF/JSS-10-3-153-157-2005-179-%20Wahab-A/JSS-10-3-153-157-2005-179-Wahab-A.pdf

However, all historical accounts of Khatris and Aroras generally, in Punjab and India, have made clear that first cousin marriage is the norm with them, and as 80% of their group are Hindus, inter-faith marriage between them and Hindus is the norm. In fact, going back to the earlier point, Major Barstow, in his Handbook for military recruitment specifically mentioned how both khatri and Arora Sikhs should never be recruited because they "marrry freely with Hindus" so make very poor fighting men, as they 'half-sikh-half-hindu'.

https://archive.org/stream/AHistoryOfTheSikhs-Volume21839-2004/AHistoryOfTheSikhsSecondEditionVolume2--kushwant-singh-english_djvu.txt

Within this sub-stadard thread there is a serious point, although I'm not 100% sure we, as a community, are mature enough to 'discuss' it.

I think there is a reason why the starter of this thread remarks that the Afghan Sikh girls "look good". Many of you, who are not from the west lonon area, may not see and know them to the extent that we do so may not understand certain things about them. You see, if you approach it from a purely western ideal of sensuality / sexuality than from that point of view the Afghan Sikh girls do "look good". To understand this you have to factor in 2 things:

• You have to understand the culture they have come from
• You have to understand that, from the Arora Sikh point of view, Sikhism does not exist for females. It is a religion only for men.

Now, with the Muslim world that they come from we have to understand that the females, although covered up, have a religious duty to seriously 'tart' themselves up like hookers under the veil for the benefit of their husbands. So, for females from that culture, they have a religious duty (under Islam) to put serious amounts of make-up on, style their hair etc....generally beautify themselves. The difference between the Muslim and Siikh women from Afghanistan is, of course, the fact that the Sikh women are not covered so the extensive beauty treatment is more noticeable and for the average male, like this thread starter, that usually translates as 'looking good' from a western ideal of sexuality.

The second point I mentioned relates directly to the first point. Within the Arora Sikh community generally, and especialy with the massive Afghan Sikh community in the UK, 100% of the males wear the Sikh symbols whilst 0% of the females do. For them, Sikhism is purely for the males. As long as the male has a dastar, it is, for them, perfectly normal and OK for his wife, i.e. the mother of his children, to be suited and booted as if going for a night out at the disco.

There is a 3rd point here that the starter of this thread needs to be aware of: He asks if those Afghan Sikh females marry people like him. Well, he needs to be aware of the fact that it is customary among all Arora Sikhs, regardless of whether they're from Afghanistan or not, to marry their first cousins. They generally keep it within the family which would most likely rule you out.

There definantly seems to be racism towards asians contestants,

When 'Asians' stand statistically more chance of getting on the programme compared to whites, per population, you can't possibly, unless you're mentally imbalanced, come to the conclusion that it is 'racist' against Asians.

When the programme's history has clearly demonstrated that the average 'Asian' candidate will always go further on the programme without being fired compared to the averae white candidate, even if that 'Asian' candidate is clearly quite rubbush at everything, you cannot, uness you are mentally unbalanced, come to the conclusion that is racist.

It is the opposite of 'racist'. I mentioned the word in my previous message, the word is : Positive Discrimination. If anything, The Apprentice is clearly guilty of positive discrimination towards asians.

What you said will hurt a lot of hindu peoples sentiments

Well boo hoo. Thats so sad.

but holi is mostly about just being festive spending time with your family and throwing colors at eachother

No. Holi is mostly about getting drugged up, having a green light to molest females and general ribaldy. If thats your idea of 'family' fun, then I can only conclude you're either a member of the Adamms or Manson family.

what's wrong with celebrating holi then?

Because our tenth master, knowing far more than you about the disgusting nature of holi, specifically mentioned 'Holi' as something we should not partake in.

Any more silly questions ?

Krishna was an Avtar sent by Vaheguru and made many mistakes, but not the one your hinduphobia mind constructed to dishonor an Avtar sent by Vaheguru and then the event was celebrated as Holi.

Oh you silly little man. Sikhs do not believe in "avatars" as god coming down in human form. So when Sikhi mentions the word 'krishna' it does so as a metaphor, for example from SGGS ji:

"The Beloved Himself is the milk-maid and Krishna; He Himself herds the cows in the woods".

The message being twofold, to the masses at that time who believed in a krishna as an avatar...i.e god in human form, that Waheguru is as much the cows in the woods as he is krishna and what you call god is immaterial...be it Allah, Krishna, God etc..

yet you will not give a link to the stats of your "99.99%" of people not celebrating Christmas in a religious way?

:omg: Is THAT what you've been asking for sikhseeker ? Stats for 99% ?

Surely you knew I was waxing lyrical when I picked the highest percentage figure I could, didn't you ?

Surey you understand how, given that most people (in the UK) don't do anything 'Jesusy' on xmas it was fair to say 99% ?

If anything, the show's probably been guilty of too much positive-discrimination as far as 'Asians' are concerned. Looking back over the years, with people like Saira Khan, Tre etc....Asians have done remarkebly well on the show and seem to be given a much better chance of progressing than white people especially when some of them are quite sub-standard.

On the whole though, the thing I've noticed over the years, and its something that should give us pause for thought, is the fact that Pakistanis seem to be more confident and self assured than us.