MisterrSingh

Hmm... you've given me a fair bit of food for thought, bhenji. Time to chew on it.

I understand and I agree. I was angling more towards the whole "condemn vs forgive" scenario. Let me give you an example. It's true, so it's something I've not made up. When I was growing up we were close to another Sikh family. They had three kids; the eldest daughter, the middle son, and the youngest daughter. The dad of the family was a kharkoo, lol, proper old school Gursikh, no bull. But he wasn't a bully or anything like that. He just wasn't the kind of guy to be messed with. The eldest was 16 or so when she gets pregnant by a non-Sikh. This was the kind of thing you'd say would never happen to this family. It was like the most unimaginable thing ever. Completely shocking. The dad wanted to kill the daughter, but he was talked out of it. He then wanted to cut her off for life, no ifs or buts, because he said he had to send a message to his other kids that he would not tolerate this behaviour. Again, he just wasn't allowed to do what he felt was the right thing due to wailing women in his family. Eventually, the eldest was married off with no real consequences for her mistakes. Sadly, this failure to act gave the middle son and the daughter ideas when they saw how ineffectual their dad was. All fear of him disappeared. The son married an English girl he met at work, whilst the youngest daughter ran off with a black guy. To this day he says if he would've been allowed to cast out the eldest daughter when he wanted to, his family would not have been destroyed. His inaction basically meant him losing control of the other kids when they realised their father did nothing to punish the eldest daughter. That's what I mean by "condemn vs forgive." His forgiveness, albeit forced upon by his wife and others, cost him all his children and the perceived reputation and respect he'd built. Had he condemned the eldest and thrown her out as he wanted to, you might argue it would've kept the others in line.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with a cause where innocents will unwillingly die. A war scenario, army vs army, fair enough, but the kind of marauding, Islamic conquest-type scenario where civilian non-Sikhs will be put to the sword just doesn't sit right with me. If that's not what you were referring to, then I apologise for that suggestion. I don't think any situation where Sikhs are in a position to take huge swathes of Asia will ever occur bloodlessly. If there's a huge awakening and shift in consciousness, and people flock to Sikhi of their own accord, then that's brilliant. If not, and as hard as it may be to believe, others love their own religions as much as we love ours, therefore there will be resistance. How will history remember us in that particular situation? As Mughal-esque aggressors spreading Sikhi by the sword? I'm not sure that's the type of Sikhi our Guru Sahibs envisioned.

I can appreciate your perspective on this issue, and I agree with you on principle, I genuinely do. Yet there's something I'm struggling to understand when it comes to the issue you've highlighted above and other areas of life not related to this subject: Basically, how does someone decide, "Okay, leave this to God and let Him decide" and, "I must take action and not be a passive bystander in this situation, because if I don't it will set a precedent that will cause problems in the future."? In a perfect world we would leave everything to God and stand back and marvel at his all-encompassing justice and fairness, leaving us free not to make those tough decisions. But then that's not how these things work in life, do they? Not taking action at a particular moment could cause regrettable knock on affects years or decades in the future. So, as I said, when to act and when to leave it to God?

Bhenji, would you differentiate between a genuine victim who was caught unaware by the deviousness of these people, and on the other side possibly someone who encouraged the seduction (as part of a regular lifestyle involving dating, casual sex, etc) but soon found herself in over her head when things got "real"? Or doesn't it matter?

I foresee organisations like Al Qaeda foment unrest in places like Panjab once Muslim numbers will increase, if not in the immediate future then 50 or so years from now. Didn't Al Zawahiri open an Indian "chapter" of Al Qaeda a couple of years ago? If, hypothetically speaking, Sikhs did begin to resist such encroachments into their lands in the future, there will be enforcements coming from other places to embolden the usurpers. Where do you think they'll try to hit us in order to hurt us? The same place the Indian govt did: Harminder Sahib. I dont know how much of this is true, but a few spiritually inclined Sikhs have been seeing the destruction of Harminder Sahib for the past few years. At first they thought it was memories of the past (the 80's), but apparently it's of a time to come. It's not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine a suicide bomber wreaking havoc in the complex itself. In fact, sadly. I think it's inevitable. Whilst i dont think one village mosque will herald the destruction of Sikhs in Punjab, lol, history allows us to extrapolate the events we're observing now with all we know of Islamic behaviour throughout the centuries and reach a fairly accurate conclusion of what could occur if things resume as they are. If I was a suspicious guy - and I am - I'm guessing the Gurdaspur incident of a month ago was an event to test the waters. Lessons will have been learnt and tactics for future incursions will have been adjusted for future forays into Punjabi territory.

<banned word filter activated> is this?

It's almost... as if he's... trying to win an election.

You've obviously never seen The Notebook, lol. The uptight, middle-class, studious good girl craving for a bit of rough; some blue-collar danger in her strictly white-collar existence? Some Sikh girls may not fall for it, but many girls - Sikh or non-Sikhs - do.

Street smarts is probably more accurate.

Yep, and Simon Danczuk was another one who revealed the government child abuse cover ups, and the media and establishment's complicity in keeping it under wraps. Recently, Danczuk's wife left him for her personal trainer, and Murdoch's newspapers revelled in his misfortune on their front pages. Something tells me a few individuals were relishing the opportunity to stick the knife into the fella. Watson is a marked man IMO. He's made an enemy of News Corp. Aside from that it seems he's the man Labour are using to get the ethnics on side. He was pictured at a Muslim-only gathering with other Labour Party big wigs before the election, schmoozing and massaging their egos in, I suppose, a way of ensuring their votes for Labour were in the bag. Politics being the cynical game it is I wouldn't be too eager to champion him as an inside man for Sikhs. There's ALWAYS an angle when it comes to these big-boy games. A few sweet words and sentiments of encouragement are, sadly, enough to get our lot into a tizzy at times. Actions speak louder than words. Now he has a bit of power as Labour deputy, it'll be interesting to see if he makes any motions to push the Sikh agenda.

The poor fella (Corbyn) will be undermined and stabbed in the back by Blairites. Mandelson & Co will be pulling the strings in the shadows to ensure he won't last. Even the Guardian were constantly trying to talk him down when the original surge of support for him became clear. If a newspaper such as the Guardian is closer in politics to the Conservatives than someone who they should ideologically identify with much more strongly, that's all we need to know about the sordid little incestuous pit of scum and villainy that is the modern media. Go to their site now and they're obediently attempting to tow the line in light of his victory, albeit through clenched teeth. Good luck to him, he speaks sense on a lot of things (I don't agree with all of it, but the basics are a refreshing change), and I hope he does get a fair crack of the whip. I just don't think the electorate are ready for someone like Corbyn, or at least enough of the electorate that could get him into office.

Acting with a cool head without being influenced by alcohol, as well as being aware of the people and the environment around you isn't solely Muslim traits, surely? I've always been like that, but not because I'm looking to ensnare a ladki, lol.

Objectively speaking, it's the best way to conduct yourself (minus the grooming and deviancy of course).

I see. This is as much an education for me as anyone else, as I've never been in that type of drinking environment or had those kind of friends. So Muslims play it cool and detached, whilst keeping their eye on the prize? That's an admirable way of conducting themselves tbf.

Someone mentioned a few pages back how girls like that alpha, boorish type behaviour that's fuelled by the drinking culture, whether they're Muslims, Sikhs, etc. But then why do some Sikh girls turn their nose up at Sikh guys who exhibit those traits, yet find the exact same habits in non-Sikhs so appealing? If it is true Sikh girls find the drinking and the "balle balle" mentality unattractive and off-putting, then they'd all be making eyes at Gursikhs, lol

Satkaar (in the religious sense of the word) for Guru Sahib only. The rest are guilty until proven innocent. You'll save yourself many crises of faith and pangs of existential angst.

Well yes I believe rebellion is perhaps over-played and accepted as an inevitable rite of passage for teens, and they do possibly think, "Well if it's expected of me, then why not oblige?" A bit like a self fulfilling prophecy in a way. I never felt the urge to rebel as a teen. I wasn't afraid to, nobody could've stopped me if I did, but I just never felt the urge to act like a bandhar and play up.

O_o I wasn't referring to rape. The conversation at the time of my quote was around teenage rebellion, secret relationships, deserting one's family for the opposite sex, and disobeying parents. Apologies if it appeared any other way.

BTW, I'm no evolutionary biologist or anything of the sort, but I think the reason we don't have a tail (but still have a tail bone) is because we evolved beyond its purpose for us. Although I wonder why dogs and cats still have theirs. Maybe to show they're happy, lol?

This is a very astute question and one that goes to the heart of what it is to be a Sikh and a person of God. I obviously don't have an answer, but I enjoyed listening to those who have their opinions on these subjects.