ASKhalsa1

The comparison between today's immigrants and those from 50 years ago is naive. My grandparents came to this country because there was a shortage of labour and therefore a precedent for mass immigration. They worked hard and were law abiding citizens, as most of our people who came to Britain were. This can't be said for any of the more recent migrant communities, except perhaps for the Polish. By and large (and I know there are exceptions) the Somalis, Romany Gypsies and Pakistanis who have arrived on these shores over the past two decades account for a shockingly disproportionate level of crime in the United Kingdom. They consistently refuse to integrate into society at large. The areas to which they move acquire some of the character of the third world. Delusional lefties will insist its because these people are mired in poverty, and that crime is the consequence of this poverty. This is absolute nonsense, my grandparents were desperately poor when they came here, they and their three children all slept in one room. All through this they never resorted to illicit means of making money, very few of our people did. Not all immigrants are of the same character. They don't all come here to work hard. Too many of them come here with the intention of living off of the taxpayers' money.

I wish these news articles wouldn't always neglect to mention the symbolism of the kirpan, ie. an instrument for the protection of the repressed. Otherwise the readers just think "KNIFE!" and feel afraid and hostile. I've found that people's reactions to my kirpan undergo a complete 180 when I actually take the time to explain what it means to them.

A one policy party? One really ought to do their research before propounding the tired cliches peddled by the PC media. http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people Why abstain from voting when you quite clearly believe the conservatives have done the country a lot of good? Other than voting for that party of warmongers themselves there is no better way to ensure that Labour, whom you believe offers nothing, finds its way back into power.

It's unfortunate that the party attracts so many blatant lunatics and xenophobes, but Farage is the only major party leader who is willing to talk honestly about immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness. He is the only party leader we can be absolutely certain will attempt to do something in order to rectify the current state of affairs . I'm not voting UKIP with the intention that it acquires a majority in the commons, its already been ascertained by most media outlets that this contingency is very unlikely. A UKIP-Conservative coalition is what I'm hoping for. The conservative party has to be pushed further to the right of the political spectrum away from the bland centrist politics currently advocated by all the major parties. There is no left and right in mainstream politics anymore, only in fringe politics where the right has been hijacked by racists and morons, and the left by delusional yuppy rich kids and bourgeoisie. The coalition would be a step in the appropriate direction.

Lol, your first point is excellent. We can hardly expect these people to be particularly brainy after fifty generations of first cousin marriages.

I still go to pubs with friends even though I don't drink. The lotus makes its home in muddy water, yet remains clean and untouched by the filth all around.

That's a very interesting point about the knock on effect, I never even conceived of such an idea before and when you put it the way you have it sounds so very obvious.

Because they usually know nothing of the religion which they are leaving in order that they might become Muslim. I found this on an Islamic forum, the testimony of a girl who left Sikhi for Islam. See for yourself how compelling the reasons this mental invalid gave for her conversion are: http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?152942-Why-I-Left-Sikhism-to-Revert-to-Islam She says that Guru Nanak was a Muslim, that the Sikh Gurus were gods and that there exists at Harmandir Sahib an epidemic of frisky babas pinching ladies on the buttocks. From what she says, it is clear her parents told her nothing about Sikhi, or even worse, told her things which were manifestly and flagrantly untrue. To be fair, maybe these people just say they've converted to Islam then and there so those Dawah blokes shut the hell up and shove off.

I'm quite certain that being regretful is the same as being sorry. Other than that, I agree with you on all your points, except perhaps the one about Gypsies being a waste of skin and bones.

I agree Ranjeet Singh Ji, multiculturalism has been corrupted from its original purpose. The guilty party in this regard, these lefties of whom you speak, are also much more commonplace than one might expect, particularly amongst the young. Our elders foresaw this problem because they were forced to live with the asylum seekers and recent immigrants who have now come to dominate areas likes Southall and Hounslow where our parents and grandparents once predominated.The white populace is only now beginning to notice the problems because these groups have only just started to proliferate and make inroads into mainstream white areas. Compared to our own, the whites have also had much less exposure to Islam. Many of them appear to be under the misapprehension that Islamic radicalism is a recent phenomenon, whereas the Sikhs who have suffered at its hands for centuries know better.

I used to have a similar problem myself, just before I really got into Sikhi. My Daadiji was actually the one who resolved it for me. She discovered certain explicit material underneath my bed, and in an attempt to counter it, she covered the walls of my bedroom with pictures of the Guru Sahibaan and portraits of my dead great grandmother (the latter is really cringe worthy and slightly deranged, I know). Nothing is a bigger turn off for lustful urges than images of a deceased old woman staring down at you from every direction, you see. However, it worked. I'd advise you do something along these lines and decorate your room with pictures of the Guru Sahibaan or passages of Bani. You'll find that lustful impulses don't possess as much power in an environment which is conducive to Bhagti and Naam Simran.

Any dish which contains only vegetables? Your question answers itself brother.

Guru Sahib doesn't enjoin us to keep our Kes because they think think it looks better or is more aesthetically pleasing. We are instructed to keep our hair because this is the natural form which Waheguru intended for us. If Waheguru wills it that your Kes is not as long as everyone else's, then the Sikh thing to do is accept it Bhai Sahib. Sikhi doesn't mandate long hair, it mandates uncut hair.

As vegetarians, there can be no doubt that we have far fewer viable sources of protein than the average person, as much as we might try to deny it. In order to compensate for this apparent deficiency in our diet we must eat vegetable foods and dairy products that are high in protein. A lot of cheese and milk is a must. I personally made it a matter of course to eat paneer or something daily. Milk is also a very good source of protein, drink several glasses of it a day. Wheat is also high in protein - one of the most important reasons why the Sikh people are among the tallest in the Indian subcontinent. This covers rotis and other wheat products, as hsingh ji has pointed out. And if you're ever feeling peckish, opt for nuts as a snack in place of crisps or chocolates. If you're a bodybuilder or a weightlifter then you should eat a lot of these.

The two go hand in hand. There can't be any procreation without any sexual attraction, and if procreation is a good thing, as many Sikhs believe, then why should the sexual attraction which allows it be a bad thing, as again many Sikhs believe? But I still see your point, and come to think of it I have probably misrepresented the question a little bit.

- UKIP supports the right of Sikhs to maintain the articles of their faith. You are conflating culture with religion. The two are entirely different. Multiculturalism, though it may have started with the intention of bringing about pluralism, has simply become an excuse for offense-taking and political correctness. A tragic irony we have had to watch unfold across the years is how the plural has become more and more singular. Schools are criticised in ofsted reports for having no ethnic minority students, even when the people who constitute the catchment area are overwhelmingly white British: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11240700/School-marked-down-by-Ofsted-for-being-too-white.html. Diversity quotas are set in the workplace where the only criterion that should differentiate prospective applicants is their ability. Multiculturalism and obeisance to it is what leaves certain individuals unopposed to the practices of certain cultures such as female genital mutilation and forced marriage. I am in favour of freedom of belief, and freedom of religious practice. The mandate to wear kirpans is a religious one, not a cultural one. But I also believe, quite strongly, that any aspect of any culture which is hostile to secular British values should not be tolerated in Britain.

I'll probably vote UKIP in the coming general election. It is the only party which I think will really stop paying obeisance to the failed experiment of multiculturalism, and unlike the rest of those appeasers and sycophants Nigel Farage is the only leader who really understands the threat that Islam poses to Western Civilization. UKIP wishes to model the UK along similar lines to the USA in that individual freedoms for citizens will also be wider. I understand the conservatives expressed a dissatisfaction with multiculturalism as well, so I may also vote for them. I would vote for them if I were sure that they would go through with their promises, which I hate to say, I am not. Labour voters astound me. That someone can continue to support the party which first began the privatization of the NHS, serves as host to sympathizers of paedophiles (Harriet Harman), had a hand in starting two illegal wars which have had earth-shattering consequences and caused the proliferation of terrorism worldwide, and dragged the country through the worst recession since the Second World War, beggars bloody belief. Ed Miliband inspires no confidence.

Ok, say humankind managed to achieve this hypothetical milestone of perfection. Every person that existed scraped their souls clean of all traces of sexual desire. The species homo sapiens would cease to be, because no man could get his junk to do its job. What would happen to the Guru Ghars, our Guru Maharaj and the Bani kept therein once the last asexual human nods off forever? Many of our own Guru Sahibaan had children. Their offspring didn't just materialize from the ether.

First of all let me express my agreement with all those who are likely to tell me so, that 'Kaam', or lust, is a bad thing. Where my own thoughts probably diverge from many other brothers and sisters in this matter is in my understanding of what 'Kaam' is. I consider a lustful person to be one whose thoughts are overwhelmingly predicated on sex, who struggles to control his (or her) desires which then go on to exert a detrimental influence on his (or her, though much more rarely it would seem) well being . A lot of other Sikhs conflate any and all varieties of sexual attraction, irrespective of their magnitude, with lust, and consequently consider it something that is dirty and should be guarded against. How can something which is necessary for the continuation of the species possibly be sinful? Everyone who is on this forum right now was conceived in a moment of sexual attraction. How could a bloke get an erection without feeling attracted to the woman with whom he is having intercourse? I do not believe 'lust' equals sexual attraction. I do not believe the attraction between a man and wife is sinful or something they should feel guilty about. I'd be interested to hear the views of the Sangat on this matter, and would welcome the advice of those better versed in Gurbani than I am.

Quite right. The Romans understood this when they attempted to convert conquered peoples to the worship of the Greco-Roman Pantheon, that by laying common ground and pointing out similarities between the two faiths people might be more easily coaxed into a conversion. I'm sorry to say that, as you pointed out, our more hard-line brothers are probably not the best people to impart the message, whereas institutions such as the Damdami Taksaal and the Nirmalas which have a grounding in Hindu texts and Ancient Indian literature as well as an understanding of the subtleties of argument and critical thinking, may be better equipped to reach out to Hindus. I don't see that there are many other alternative solutions to the issue, other than resorting to the bullying tactics or bribery perpetrated by Christian and Muslim proselytes, which I'm sure none of us want.

Yes, I made that very same point in the original post of this thread, only not so succinctly as you have done. This can't be accomplished quickly. A Sikh homeland would be a step in that direction.

Exactly. The proposed area for Khalistan includes not just Punjab, but Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and parts of Rajasthan. We cannot seriously lay claim to lands where our people have a negligible presence. And none of us would want a repetition of the chaos of 1947 where people of a certain religion are compelled to leave their lands. Let these people be led into Sikhi.

I always find myself cringing slightly when elements from the leftist hyper-multicultural PC Brigade assert that the radical Muslim's views on the Koran are their misguided 'interpretations' of it. 'Interpretation', literally speaking, is the action of discerning a meaning in something. But that isn't what the fundamentalist Muslims are doing. They're taking what they read at face value. The only ones doing any 'interpreting' are the so called moderate Muslims, who read a passage which instructs them to 'kill the unbelievers wherever your may find them' and then sit around like ingrates scratching their heads and asking themselves "hmmmn well, what could that possibly mean?" What is so difficult to understand about destroy or kill or maim? As for which reading of the Koran is the authentic one, the literal one of ISIS/terrorists, or the metaphorical one of the moderates, it could only ever be the former. Most of the people to whom Muhammad preached his new religion were illiterate goatherders and camelherders, people far too stupid and uneducated to discern any allegory or deep meaning in any of the things they were told. Knowing this, that everything he said would be taken literally by these people, Muhammad could only have said what he actually meant. Therefore, when Muhammad enjoins his Muslims to "kill all unbelievers", what he really means to say by that is "kill all those goddamn unbelievers". In making slaves of the infidels, ISIS is simply fulfilling the edicts of the Prophet. Moderate Muslims are delusional, and by their silence and inertia they make themselves enablers, complicit in the work of terrorists, warmongers and paedophiles. If they truly felt revolted by what ISIS were doing, they would have mobilised and made their contempt known by organising mass protests as they have time and time again over far more trivial things than this, for instance, the drawing of some cartoons. They even came out to protest when the Mcdonald's in Southall stopped its Halal trial run for God's sake. Hamburgers mean more to these people than the murder and rape of innocents or non-Muslims. The guilt belongs to all of them.

Segregation doesn't create harmony, it fosters misunderstanding and suspicion. One simply needs to observe the history of the peoples forced to live in ghettoes (Jews and Blacks in particular) to know that their isolation made them subjects of mistrust and ignorant stereotypes. All the ethnic and religious communities in the UK seems perfectly happy living with one another. Except one, whom I don't even need to mention. This is their problem, not ours. They are the only ones calling for society at large to change in order to suit their whims and certain horrible tenets of their archaic desert religion (i.e. the ritualized torture of poor animals, which goes for the Jews too, and the forcible mutilation of the genitals of children).

I feel my loyalties should be directed towards the nation where I was born, which has educated me, given me a home, and indeed everything I have. Hence, whenever England participates in a sporting event, I invariably support them. As for India and Pakistan, neither of them has every done anything for me. I couldn't care less who wins. Really, I find its a win-win situation. I'd love to see the Pakistani underdogs wipe the smirks off of the faces of those smug Indians, and I'm always delighted when Pakistan has its pretensions to grandeur repudiated and is put back in its place.