ASKhalsa1

I wasn't even aware of this development. I didn't even know that Baba Surjit Singh Ji passed away in September last year. Surprisingly little publicity for the death of the rightful head of Panth Khalsa I should think.

Romanians in the scrap business? Are you're sure you're not confusing them with the Irish travelers brother? I thought the Irish 'gypsies', who by the way are of comparatively better character than the Romanys with whom they are unfortunately grouped, dominated the scrap market.

Lol, you couldn't even comprehend how right you are. She calls me downstairs and out of a kitchen drawer she extracts my dirty little secret and holds it up in front of her, saying nothing for the best part of 10 seconds. I may have cried.

I don't believe that good deeds are literally given to us. God has equipped us with the knowledge of what is good, without which we would not know it and therefore would not be able to do it. Without it we would be indistinguishable from all the other animals in God's creation. He has provided us the tools for the performance of good deeds, whether we put to them to good use is entirely up to us.

Agents of the enemies? After Muhammad repelled the Meccans, the battle was thought to be over. There was no fighting between the Muslims and Banu Quraiza until Muhammad declared that the Angel Gabriel instructed him to take up arms against them. The Quraiza never said that they would fight alongside Muhammad, only that they would offer assistance, which they did. The rumours of the Quraiza's betrayal only began to spread because the Muslims were convinced that their refusal to fight was a sign of defection. There is no comparison between the Zakat and Jizya. The Zakat is given in order that a Muslim might feel spiritually uplifted. The Jizya is given so that the non-Muslim will feel 'subdued', to use the words of Muhammad/Allah. In order that they know they are second class citizens. Lol, and your quotation of Surah Al Maidah 5:32 is entirely out of context. Here is what is written immediately after it in Surah Al Maidah 5:33 - Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, Whenever Muslims quote 'peaceful' verses from the Quran, they always leave off the next bit where something horrible happens.

That is a fair point. And if Sikhs are willing to join in order that they might better the lot of their people and forward our political motives, then I should be proud of them. But I am highly skeptical that the young Sikhs who will flock to this regiment, if it is indeed established, will do so for the more nuanced reasons you have given. Considering the youth of today, comprised of individuals who like to play dress up with the Nihang Bana, play gatka and twirl around swords in the belief that they are accomplished fighters, I think they will buy into the British propaganda and join the regiment out of some misplaced sense of patriotism, cockiness in their self-professed martial abilities and hunger for glory. I do not want our people to die for that.

Jagsaw, For all this talk of playing into Hindu and Indian hands, you don't appear to have considered the possibility that you are playing into the white man's hands. The judges, politicians and historians, largely elderly old-fashioned conservative men, are keen for the establishment of a Sikh regiment because it is the stuff of their toffish upper-middle class wet dreams. Historians are especially susceptible to this imperialist nostalgia. If judges and politicians really esteemed the Sikhs so highly, they would have done more to assist us in bringing justice to the perpetrators of 1984 and the holocaust of our people. And didn't the British army recently cull several regiments and make a large proportion of the UK servicemen redundant? Why are they now thinking of introducing a Sikh regiment? It seems to me to be a reversion to the days when the brown man did the white man's fighting for him. Why should young Sikh men have to die as cannon fodder in Britain's illegal wars? As for the comparison of Sikhs to Gurkhas, the British have treated them like garbage over the years. Why would they treat the Punjabi Sikhs whom you propose to invite into these regiments any differently?

Islam simply doesn't protect minorities, one need only observe the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim regimes in the modern world and throughout history to see this. As per the Quran, non-Muslims living in a Muslim state are made to choose between conversion or payment of the Jaziya: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9: 29)" Occasionally, a third choice was presented. Death. ISIS is doing exactly what the Koran bids. They are following the example set by Muhammad, the "Al Insaan Al Kamil" or "perfect man", who himself ordered the beheading of hundreds Jews of the Ban-u-qurayza tribe. Except of course for the women and children, whom he sold into slavery.

Are the Nihangs that comprise Sant Samaj members of Balbir Singh's group, or Baba Surjit Singh Ji and Baba Joginder Singh Ji's Budha Dal? Or are they members from one of the Tarna Dal Battalions? The only information I can find is extremely vague.

"No-one was injured in the blaze although firefighters had to prevent people going back into the temple to retrieve the Guru Granth Sahib - the holy book of Sikhs."

Brother, the entire basis for this proposed Sikh regiment is that 'the Sikhs served the Empire loyally in the two world wars and fought with skill". The only trouble is we didn't do that. We didn't fight in those two wars with skill and bravery. We have never fought a war in our lives. Our forefathers did, and we Sikhs are still mooching off their legacy, strutting about in the warrior's bana pretending we're still a martial people. That reason aside, what other need is there for a regiment composed entirely of Sikhs? Does anyone seriously think that we would be better fighters now than most other people simply on account of our ancestry? This is the martial race theory at work all over again. It makes very little sense. People are only talking about it because of some misplaced sense of nostalgia. That sycophant Prince Charles only wanted a Sikh Regiment because its the stuff of his toffish aristocratic fantasies, exotic Sikh warriors dying for king and country.

There is no source for it because it is untrue. Sikhs are required to tie their beards or make them presentable, not trim them. I'm no fan of the failed Indian experiment, but the baseless demonisation of India by some of our brothers and sisters is quite tiresome. Their record is bad enough, we needn't embellish it with lies.

I wish we Sikhs would stop hanging onto the coat tails of our forebears, and treating their achievements as if they are our own. We Sikhs living today are not a warrior people. Our grandparents may have been, but we aren't. Most of us have become too affluent, we are more eager to become doctors and engineers and make money than to become soldiers. Given this state of affairs, why on Earth would we need a Sikh regiment? If we were still a martial people there might be a precedent for it, but we aren't. Our ancestors lived and breathed war, it was all they knew. That's why they became soldiers. But exactly how many British Sikhs are currently serving in the army? Not a very high proportion I'd expect. I find it laughable when some self-proclaimed kharku Singh insists he will run down to India with an AK47 at the next sign of trouble, when all the while his belly is hanging over his kamarkassa and he loses breath going up a flight of stairs. We're turning into a joke. Then again, maybe the creation of a regiment will give Sikhs the motivation to become worthy of their martial heritage, and who knows, perhaps create one which our descendants will look back on with pride. I'm still not sure what to make of this.

Plenty of whites in Southall. If you head to the Three Horseshoes Pub on the Broadway, the Red Lion near the police station, the Plough Pub on North Road, or the Plough Inn in Norwood Green, you'll see throngs of them. Actually if you go to any pub in Southall you'll find the whites whom you don't normally find walking the streets. They appear to gravitate towards them.

Yes Jio, Pir Budan Shah had discourse with the first and the sixth Patshaahs, Pir Buddhu Shah with the tenth. The two are different people. Pir Budan Shah died in the 1640s, Pir Buddhu Shah was born in the 1640s.

I wasn't making a comparison between my insignificance and the Guru Sahibaan's significance, I was establishing a similarity. I have a beard. The Guru Sahibaan also had beards. In saying this, I am not saying my beard is better than or as good as their beards, only that they and Das all have beards. Incidentally, the Guru Sahibaan had caste/ethnic ancestries, and so do I. I am well aware I am a worm by way of comparison to the Guru Sahibaan. I also know that Guru Gobind Singh Ji abolished the caste system. You are telling me nothing I don't already know. Guru Sahib did this because caste gave one a misplaced sense of pride. I take no pride in being of a Jatt ancestry (besides which I've already said twice that Jatt isn't even a caste), I do not consider myself better than say a Tarkhan because of it, I have no objection to intercaste marriages. So please enlighten me as to how I am ensnared by the shackles of the Hindu caste system?

This is the Sakhi of Pir Buddhu Shah's meeting with Guru Gobind Singh Ji, as told by Sant Baba Waryam Singh Ji Ratwara Sahib Wale. It had a profound effect on me when I first read it and I think it will be of some benefit to the Sangat: A rich landlord and Sufi saint, Pir Buddhu Shah, lived in Sadhaura. He was both householder and saint, a perfect man of the world and of religion. He possessed many occult powers, including the faculty of knowing other peoples' thoughts and to grant the wishes of his followers. He had everything, except full inner realization. He heard the Hindu scriptures recited as well and was unprejudiced in religious maters, He served fried vegetarian food to the Hindus and different food to the Muslims. He rendered voluntary service and organized religious congregations, at which saints and sages delivered discourse on both the Vedas and the Koran. But despite this, inner spiritual awakening had not come and there was darkness within. He heard of the miracles of the Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, how he had brought the sage Kalsi and blessed him with divine knowledge. So Pir Buddhu Shah was filled with a keen desire to meet him. Seeing Guru Sahib's demeanour he thought that it was that of kings and warriors, while on the other hand, Guru Sahib was perfect in the realm of spirituality. He became convinced in his mind that although Guru Sahib was younger than he in age - hardly 20 or 22 years - he was perfect. He set out to see Guru Sahib. He was accompanied by a large number of followers. Reaching there, he was highly impressed by the Guru's grand court, his sense of devotion was heightened further still. Seeing the Guru, he felt drawn to him, he felt like falling at his feet and holding on to them. But as he advanced further towards the Guru, he was filled with ego. He thought that he was a 'Pir' with many followers, and that if he fell at the Guru's feet, his followers would criticize him for submitting to another, a non-Muslim. He thought that his actions would give him a bad name. Guru Sahib also saw that the Pir, though he had arrived in the spirit of devotion, now had his ego, his 'I-ness' awakened within him. The Pir greeted the Guru and extended his hands towards him. Guru Sahib shook hands with him and bade him sit down, inquiring after his health: "Pir Ji, what has brought you here?" "Maharaj, how can I unite with Allah? I have a very keen desire to meet God. Maharaj, there is darkness within my mind because I hear two ideas expressed - one is that Waheguru is someone else and we are different from him. Secondly, we also hear saints and sages say that God manifests himself everywhere and in everyone. Maharaj, I am confused and cannot understand the truth. Unite me with God. Please tell me how to seek union with the Lord" And Maharaj replied, "As day and night unite". The Pir was silent. He did not understand. After a pause, and some moments of intense thought, he replied, "True Sovereign, I do not understand. When the day dawns, night ceases to be." To which Guru Sahib replied, "Yes! It is as you have said! Buddhu Shah, so long as 'I' or 'ego' is there, it is night. When the day dawns, God comes to abide in man and at that very instant 'I' disappears. Then God alone remains. This is the meeting with Him." "Then Maharaj, are we not souls?" "We are souls, but your conception of the soul is false, you are clinging to the false one and the true on you cannot recognize. God abides within you. The false soul which has become yours, this false 'I' is the creation of your ego and it does not exist." "Maharaj, I still cannot understand. How shall I destroy the ego?" "Buddhu Shah, you have observed 'chilas' (40 day period of solitary prayer); you have performed charitable deeds; you have run free kitchens and studied the scriptures of the Muslim and the Hindu. But this has all been in vain. This has not rid of you of ego, rather another sense of pride has come into you that you are well-versed in the Koran and the Vedas, and devout. All these things only add to impurities within you rather than purify you. After having done everything, a man should say he has done nothing. Some say this superficially, others from the core of their being. It is that man who should say "True Sovereign, you have been very kind to bestow upon me the service of the langar and of Kirtan and of reading Gurbani. None in the world can rid themselves of their ego alone, rather, only through the grace of the Guru. Only when you realize this truth will you succeed in your aim of uniting with Allah." On hearing Guru Sahib's words, Pir Buddhu Shah was rid of the filth of egoism. Buddhua Shah was thus purified, he was enlightened and all darkness was ended. He said, "Maharaj, Buddhu Shah is dead. Pride is dead". The painting had been scrubbed blank, leaving only the canvas. Guru Sahib remarked, "You have become God. When the ego dies, all that is left is God". At this moment, Buddhu Shah began to dance in a state of spiritual ecstasy. He came near Guru Sahib, who held him by the hand looked into his eyes and broke all shackles. He saw one and only one God. The veil of untruth had been torn asunder.

Well said Jio, but I feel I should point out that the atheists by and large incline towards the political left.

I find it horribly ironic that you are accusing your Sikh brothers of being fascists, in defense of Islam, an ideology which embodies so many of the principles of fascism, namely: The suppression of free speech and thought. Radical authoritarianism. Totalitarianism (other creeds not tolerated) Violent imperialism and expansionism (the caliphate) The reduction of women to broodmares of the state. Hatred for homosexuals. Hatred for outsiders. Among other things. Sikhi teaches us to stand against tyrants. Islam is the very highest form of tyranny that I know of.

I agree entirely. I take no pride in or place any stock in my being a Jatt, I just acknowledged that I am of Jatt ancestry, as the Guru Sahibaan were of Khatri ancestry. This is not an opinion, just a fact. I couldn't change it even if I wanted to. But I'll be damned if anyone tells me I should stop calling myself a Khalsa, as a brother above did. It is my right.

That table of yours only accounts for foreign citizens. It barely accounts for 1/6 of the 1.2 million strong Pakistani community in the UK, most of whom it seems have acquired citizenship. There simply aren't 424 Pakistani criminals in the whole of UK, there are almost that many people involved in the Pakistani paedophile rings alone (whom we have caught, to say nothing of the hundreds still at large). Pakistani youths, most of whom were born here, do account for a very high level of crime. Romanians and the Romany gypsies are not the same thing. The Romanians, typical of Eastern Europeans, despise the gypsies who are overwhelmingly involved in criminal pursuits. Disproportionate does not equal scale - for such a small community, the level of crime perpetrated by the gypsies is something to behold. Segregation isn't the same as integration. More Sikhs may live within largely Sikh areas, but we conform to the wider British culture far better than the Muslims, who insist on concessions and changes to the areas in which they live. There are many more Muslims than there are Sikhs, and they have spread themselves much further around as a consequence.

I just demonstrated to you that 'Jatt' is not a caste. It is an ethnic group. And even if it was a caste, the Guru Sahibaan, who abhorred the caste system, still said they were Khatris and described themselves as Khatris. Are you going to accuse your own Gurus of following double standards too?

I am a Sidhu jatt sir.

Yes OP, just follow this sound advice. Marry a Jatt in order to appease your casteist anti-Sikh relatives, shun the man you love because he is a Ramgharia, and spend the rest of your natural life screaming on the inside. A recipe for true happiness.

'Jatt' and 'Ramgharia' are not castes. The term Jatt simply describes the amalgamation of rural peoples who existed outside the caste system of the Hindus and were animated by some sort of tribal nationalism rather than caste loyalties. It is an ethnic group. Likewise, a Ramgharia is a descendant of a member of the Ramgharia misl. Most Ramgharias happen to be Tarkhans, but they don't have to be. Perhaps a more learned member of the Sangat could clarify why exactly these two groups appear to have become known as castes when in fact they aren't? My digression aside, a Jatt Sikh should still be allowed to marry a Ramgharia Sikh.