MisterrSingh

I'm trying to genuinely get my head around this concept from a Sikh pov, particularly as the kind of world and society we currently occupy seems to bringing these type of issues into sharp focus. In an ideal world - without wishing to sound like a wet blanket, lol - i would love everyone and treat them with such kindness and goodwill as i believe God wishes humanity should behave towards each other, but from my own life experiences i just know that isn't possible in any way imaginable. On one hand i admire those who strive to see good in all, but equally I feel most of those people who behave like this - whose goodness is not rooted in a form of true religious altruism but a false sense of attention seeking pride that isn't genuine - are rather naive.

One would hope that someone of Bhai Ranjit Singh's status would be immune to such influence. The above in bold is the advice young Sikhs are given to ensure they remain on the straight and narrow. You don't expect one of the panth's most visible and vocal personalities to succumb to those type of tactics. Shocking. I guess it's only a matter of time until he "comes out" as it were, and when that happens will his followers also disavow Dasam Bani out of loyalty to their leader? If so, that's a considerable following he's built up for a fairly substantial amount of time now that will turn their back on Dasam Bani. Sounds like a plan that was orchestrated for that very purpose. Still, i hope we might be wrong. It could be just crossed wires all round.

Brother, when did this change in Bhai Ranjit Singh occur, and more importantly why?

I came across a couple of unfortunate incidents in the news recently that served to get me thinking about issues that i suppose go to the heart of Sikh philosophy. We are instructed not to veer towards extremes; that the correct path is the balanced, considered middle way. Sikhi is as much a faith about standing up for oneself and battling for those who cannot defend themselves, as it is a faith that believes that love and kindness are essential traits if we are to live fruitful lives, and eventually merge with God. How does one decide which situation merits a particular approach? Some Sikhs would have us believe that the default position must always be the one of tolerance and kindness even in the face of the overwhelming likelihood of serious harm befalling the individual who refuses to be mindful of their own welfare, instead choosing to believe in the goodness of others even when the evidence points to the contrary. Is it the right option to "be good" but then suffer terribly as a consequence, or should we be selective with our charitable nature, and only be forthcoming dependent on the situation before us? Which way would bring us closer to God's graces? Here's two recent instances that got me thinking. All opinions welcome. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/mother-son-die-triple-stabbing-home/ http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/white_social_justice_warrior_dies_at_hands_of_black_killer_.html First: A wealthy family begin providing the local homeless with a roof over their heads by taking them into their own considerably plush home. Yesterday, allegedly, the latest homeless man who was lodging with them went on a rampage, and killed the mother and son of the family. The father was found stabbed and bleeding in the driveway. Second: A white social activist heavily involved in the liberal scene of upper middle class activism was robbed, stabbed, tortured, and murdered by a black man. She spent most of her days espousing on social media about the evils of whiteness, and that black society was a perpetual victim of the insidiousness of white America. She refused to accept that there could ever be bad apples in the black community. She met her end alone and in an utterly tragic manner. Edit: In the case of the American woman, i was initially reluctant to use a right-wing website as the source, but all other sites and reports neglected to mention her political views and opinions that she shared on social media. For some reason they only seemed to highlight her work as an artist but not her beliefs. A lot was glossed over or completely ignored in the case of the lady in question.

I kind of agree with the sentiment, but if he expressed it in a disparaging way he's an 1di0t. I know a couple of people who rent out properties, and they're dead set against people with cats and dogs due to the smell and the hair. There's even one guy who, lmao, tells the estate agent not to rent to Pakistani families, because apparently they turn the place it a 5hithole after a few weeks. If you've spent cash repairing and furnishing a home for it to be trashed in weeks, then it's obviously going to hurt. But with the curry smell, even i cant stand it. Love the food; i eat nothing but daala and sabjiya, but i ensure the smell does not waft through my home, get into my clothes, etc. That stuff is extracted out, lol! I just think because this is coming from a wealthy gora, people are getting upset. All of us Punjabis born and bred in the West think the exact same thing behind closed doors. We don't wallow in the pungent aroma of tadkha and pretend it's awesome. At least i don't. This is another example of liberal, right-on goreh getting offended on our behalf, and blowing the issue out of all proportion.

I doubt we'll be afforded the same benefit of the doubt as Jews are in this particular instance. Although i believe this situation might be resolved in our favour, it won't happen without a few figurative body blows to Sikh beliefs being highlighted in the mainstream. Leading on to my second point: be prepared to explain the intricacies of maryada in relation to this issue, because it's obvious any Muslim opposition - and their supporters in the media - to this issue will be framed around Sikh Islamophobia. So basically we'll be seeing another example of Sikhs and their beliefs being thrown under the bus of popular opinion because of... well, you know, a self-inflicted problem that was entirely preventable, in this case an inability to put a leash on tastebuds.

Never eaten meat, never will, but if Sikhs are apparently permitted to eat meat, then why would they object to a meat shop near a Gurdwara? Be prepared to answer these questions and others if this becomes a bigger problem. Flimsy reasons citing feelings, smell, and whatnot will not wash. Perhaps as situations like these increase with an ever-burgeoning Islamic population flexing it's muscles in places like the UK, confident in the knowledge that its Muslim representatives in local government will smooth over any opposition to their plans, this is a prime example of why picking and choosing what we believe and follow will lead to trouble for us. Things will only get further complicated. Buckle up.

They should do the decent thing and convert to Islam. They're more than halfway there.

Yes, and i hope he'd be rewarded with such a partner unless there was something in his karams that he needs to work through. If not, then seeking a high avastha Gursikh to - on some level - absolve a female of the mistakes of her youth is quite a selfish thing to hope for. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, whether the Gursikh with the avastha was female or male. What is she doing to ensure she's worthy of such a man? Because from what I've seen, there's this mistaken belief amongst some young Amritdharis that in situations such as these it's the responsibility of the more spiritual partner to drag the other less spiritual constituent in the relationship up to their level. So he or she is a glorified relationship / spiritual counsellor? And usually, from what I've observed, the one who needs to get up to speed eventually settles into a comfortable rut once the initial gloss of a new marriage begins to fade, and all desire for improvement falls by the wayside as the drudgery of daily domesticity takes its inevitable toll on both sides, and the partner who needs to improve decides it's easier to drag their spiritual better to their own lower status, because it's easier than putting the work in. No, I would pray Waheguru does not curse one of his true devotees with such a partner. Noble intentions and declarations are rarely, if ever, carried through until the very end.

Remain as we are, but have contingencies in place to prevent something like this from happening. Shutting up shop is not the answer, and neither is hoping others don't misbehave. Proactive not reactive.

They were symbolic, hollow positions without any genuine influence. What I'm talking about is cabinet positions, or senior posts at the heart of government in the daily hubbub of Westminster, which is where Muslims are starting to infiltrate (without wishing to make it sound like a conspiracy, lol). Satpal Sandhu or whoever, sitting on the local council in Bedford has little to no bearing on nationally implemented legislation that will affect daily Sikh life in Britain, whereas Sadiq Khan, Naz Shah, etc, are actually getting on with it where it matters. A compliant, virtue signalling indigenous population is also a big help in these things, but that's another subject.

That's exactly the correct spirit in which such discussions should be had. We should absolutely analyse and discuss these issues and personalities, because there's so many things we can learn, good and not so good.

The concept of not airing one's dirty laundry in public is alien to these people. These are meant to be our spiritual betters! And it's being played out online for that sweet YouTube money. ? How much more do they need?

What's worrying as a Sikh is how woefully under-represented we are in Parliament, whereas Muslims are starting to make serious inroads into British politics at every level. It seems the only councillors we have are the ex-Communist, pro-India types - or their second generation offspring - who are as much unrepresentative of Sikh British interests and causes than any non-Sikh candidate. Heck, there's even white politicians who understand certain issues to do with us better than our own lot. Whether we need such representation or not is secondary, but we can't be crowded out of legislation formation by Muslims. It's social suicide.

I completely understand where you're coming from, bro. I'm not hating or anything like that. I guess there's a distinction to be made between reciting those lines from Gurbani in that considered and contemplative way those ideas are expressed, and talking loosely in a disparaging manner during the course of a conversation. It's a fine line but i feel it's there. I'm not here to police anyone.

That's my thoughts on the situation. I listen to what Guru Sahib says about these religious figures, and i understand that him criticising them, calling them out, is vastly different to someone like me doing the same thing. It's a lesson i learnt rather harshly when i was a young teen. Safe to say it's stayed with me ever since.

One thing I've come to admire about Muslims in the West during the past decade or so is their resilience when it comes to defending their faith and doctrines in the face of incredible hostility - overt or otherwise - and attempts by whites for them to either disavow certain sections of their teachings, or even undergo a reformation of sorts. I have a broad sense of mistrust about all things Islam, and don't think much of their religious teachings, but fair's fair, i wish there was a similar strength of mind and loyalty for his or her faith amongst the average Western Sikh, who i feel would be all too willing to appease any potential non-Sikh dissenters by changing and distorting certain Sikh ways. For some of us, Sikhi is an adornment; an afterthought to be considered mood permitting, whereas i feel with Muslims Islam is THE priority, and everything else falls into place behind it. Muslims don't, by and large, bend to the prevailing moods and opinions of the time, instead they try their best to shape their surroundings to their will, and that's a quality that should be respected - regardless of whether one agrees with their ways or not - if you've decided to follow a faith in its entirety. They're loathed to allow any outsiders to dictate how they need to conduct their religious business. We, on the other hand, are too malleable and agreeable, and those who have no business speaking for Sikhs seem to be sought time and time again for comment on issues they've no business discussing. I'm not a supporter of blind zealotry or religious violence, however being resolute and uncompromising and unapologetic for one's ways in order to placate a fickle, lost, and weak majority society simply is bad form in my opinion.

There's a certain realpolitik that has to take place in matters of statehood. Is it unsavoury and underhand? No doubt. If the next man has no compunction in playing the game and winning, then it would be incredibly naive and damaging to cling to notions of honour and integrity whilst everyone else is doing the opposite. Leading by example and hoping your opponent does the same is fantasy. Unfortunately, there's no place for noble and holy intentions in these things. I wish it wasn't so. The way human life and all it entails is reduced to something so inconsequential is a huge tragedy. Only a complete and drastic shift in human consciousness would allow for the things you're advocating. I'm looking at things from a wider perspective with no fear or favour, for or against a particular race or region. Acknowledging the reality of these things doesn't mean i agree with their practice.

As I've said before, you bibiya with your heads screwed on straight need to step up and put the record straight. Don't throw Singhs under the bus because you struggle to find your voice. Each time a male speaks up in these kind of instances, he's going to be rounded upon immediately.

1. Don't get drawn into debates. They're on the "right side of history" if you know what that means. Anyone who provides any resistance is a mysoginist, racist, xenophobe, anti-Guru, anti-Gurmat, etc, etc. They'll distort Gurbani and history to win the argument. In these situations it's less about what you say but how you say it. 2. Take gentle jabs from the sidelines with humour. These people are so far gone they won't know how to respond. They're perpetually triggered, which means they have no perspective, balance, or desire to compromise. Those types aren't looking to reach a consensus, but to play the victim for personal gain. Don't give them that opportunity. 3. Be beyond reproach. No point in trying to fight for truth, integrity, and Sikhi if you struggle to meet even the most basic standards. Nobody is saying you've got to become a mahapurash immediately, but at least acquit yourself in a manner befitting someone for whom the Sikh faith is dearer to them than their own life. If you go in heavy handed like a kharkoo, you'll turn away moderates hovering between both sides, who are unsure who to support, and would otherwise be receptive to your arguments, and you'll end up presenting yourself as a religious nutter. No point in preaching to the choir.

It's happening. It's really happening. Wow. Fitteh mooh.

Don't you dare impose your patriarchal edicts on her, you mysoginist! She was a strong, independent young woman who could step out of any man-made circle that she desired!!!

Ultimately I see it this way: you (as in western powers) cannot hope to enact expansionist policies for economic gain under the pretence of benevolent motives of freedom, democracy, etc., whilst simultaneously enacting political policies at home that essentially disadvantage those in your home country who are already on the bottom rung of society. THEN if you continue to invite a particular group of people into Western countries as immigrants, who have directly been affected by the aforementioned expansionism in their home countries, and then hope some of these immigrants don't seek some sort of retribution which is tacitly endorsed by their religious beliefs (either directly through violence, or a gradual, indirect process of subversion through democratic means), then I'd say you're either mentally retarded, naive, or a traitor to your own kind. Throw a particularly virulent political and social climate into the mix, and trouble is inevitable. So either stop messing around in other countries, or prevent those from the affected places entering your country, whilst cracking down on those already here from those locations if there's sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. If not, then you deserve everything you get. Edit: I'm aware most terrorist attacks in Europe are perpetrated by home grown or converted individuals, so curbing immigration isn't going to prevent them from doing what they do. The perception is that immigration is fuel for these attacks, so either tackle that misconception, or reduce immigration from certain countries.

Observe these chalakhiyan: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/25/westminster-attack-khalid-masoon-acted-alone https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/26/intelligence-services-access-whatsapp-amber-rudd-westminster-attack-encrypted-messaging So, first we're told he acted alone; a lone wolf without any direct guidance from an overseeing hand, and that's the narrative they're pushing, in terms of mentally unstable social outcasts acting out of a sense of misplaced grievance against society. Nothing to do with Islam, apparently. Then we have the home secretary telling us WhatsApp will need to be accessible to intelligence services. Why? If the perpetrators of these attacks are mentally disturbed social pariahs whose problems are solely internalised, without any third party influencing their decisions and actions, then why do the security services need access to encrypted messages? Are these guys sending WhatsApp messages to themselves in the lead up to these attacks?

It's a mild form of incitement. Like dropping a lit match into a room full of gas, lol. You can easily tell the ones who want to discuss things and improve their understanding of certain issues. Then there's the other kind who want to stir the pot.