MisterrSingh

First of all, not following rehat doesn't make a non-Sikh evil or a sinner. Sikhs from other jathas could argue you're a sinner because you don't follow THEIR rehat. As for non-Sikhs you xould say they are uninformed or unaware, yes I suppose, but not a bad person. Secondly, there was hardly a mention of the word forgiveness in your original post. If that's what you meant then you're right in that particular context, brother. I'm still not certain I'm on-board with exemptions to sin and stuff. Maybe it's my understanding? If so I apologise.

Bro, nobody should have the right to be evil or commit sin as you put it, even if we're not taking rehat into account. Homosexuality aside, you're entering dangerous territory, because your reasoning suggests there's one Creator (and Judge, etc) for Sikhs, and another for non-Sikhs. That suggests duality, and as Sikhs, you know very well yourself, duality is a no-no. Fundamentally, there is good and evil (albeit with various shades of gray) and we should all be held accountable for our actions dependent on where our deeds fall on this so-called scale. Extenuating circumstances or the like based on religion is strange. Someone could argue one day, "My religion says I can kill, so that's why I killed Jacfsing2. Therefore I'm exempt from divine retribution or judgement or whatever." Imagine if there were no spiritual ramifications for such an act! That would suggest God is unjust and partisan when we know he clearly isn't.

The gentleman doth protest too much. Just kidding.

I see. When you put it like that it makes sense. Thanks for that, bro.

Don't know how these things work, but what will money do in situations like these? Who does it go to and for what purpose?

Stop putting women on a pedestal. That's more than half the battle won right out the blocks. They won't solve your emotional problems or magically transform your life into a Nirvana-like experience. They're people, just like you and I, as tough as that maybe to believe, lol. And they are very, very good at sniffing out weak men who they consider as nothing more than friends or, in the worst case scenario, honourary females! :o If you struggle to get women on-side in a romantic context, it's probably because of the vibes you're putting out there. Even I felt like depressed reading your post; blaming your Sikh saroop and whatnot for lack of female attention is not the problem. That's just not on, my friend. There's that old saying, "Treat 'Em mean, keep 'Em keen." Wise words. Don't make your thirst obvious. It's very off-putting to most women. They have some kind of ESP when it comes to this kind of stuff, no joke. Edit: Fundamentally, the above is true IMO, but I may have presented it in less than flattering terms. I was in chardhi-kala mode earlier, lol. In essence, be the best version of yourself. Work on yourself, have a fulfilling life and develop an engaging personality. Weakness is not an attractive quality, and men AND women don't respect you if you wreak of meekness. Eventually the right person will gravitate towards you because of who you are; kesh, dastaar, etc, isn't a hindrance. It takes time to overhaul one's personality and unlearn all those weird tics and habits we put out even without knowing. Like a poster above said, read about Sikh history and the strong, fearless men who didn't let anything hold them back. Gurbani is the key to your troubles, but not many want to hear that because it seems like someone is trying to ram God down your throat when you're looking for something practical. Gurbani is practical.

No, they want to grind our bones to dust and hear our mothers' anguished lamentations.

I can see the logic in your definition. I'd just be careful in blurring the lines between lust and something like ambition and drive. Lust, by mere definition, has negative connotations in my mind at least. You could talk yourself out of pursuing a noble hobby, achieving a career, or anything else which requires single-minded concentration and desire to succeed, particularly if lust encompasses obsession in the way you describe. As always it's about balance.

My personal definition of kaam (within the context of attraction between people) stretches to admiring an attractive member of the opposite sex. You could argue that in itself isnt inherently wrong (considering that particular instinct is required to propagate the species), but if all a person does when they go out is stare at women or try to get their attention or generally be a nuisance, then I'd say that kind of kaam is just as undesirable than always wanting to partake in physical sexual acts. Just because it isn't a physical manifestation of lust, that doesn't mean it's exempt from being termed as such IMO.

Like I said, I'm no scientist or psychologist, so I don't know how the brain of a homosexual is wired. I do believe though that a gay person, on the whole, knows very early on that he or she is gay. I don't think it's a conscious decision to become gay, as much as I can't switch from being hetero to homo.Edit: We are born with kaam (amongst the other vices too) are we not? Admittedly it doesn't manifest itself until puberty in most cases, but kaam isn't something we learn is it? It comes from within, like pride, ego, attachment? Your definition of kaam is a lot more narrow than mine; I don't limit kaam to merely physical sexual acts.

Leading on from Balkaar's above post, modern feminism has done nothing - or very little - for oppressed women from minorities around the world. Neither does modern feminism have the courage to speak up against the likes of extreme Islam which truly does treat females as second-class beings. Modern feminism is for a small subset of mostly white, middle-class, western women. Hardly an ideology for the entire female gender, no matter how much they try and market it as such.

This topic is possibly the only one that has me stumped in terms of what type of reaction and reasoning I should adopt. On one hand I find homosexual behaviour alien (as much as they find hetero norms strange I guess) YET on the other hand I do think they are born that way, and as such they can't be blamed for behaviour that is out of their control; surely it's a psychlogical phenomena and not learned behaviour? As such, telling a gay to stop being gay would be like telling me to stop being straight. Anyway, I bear them no malice, I don't consider them lesser forms of life, etc, deserving of destruction, lol. I'm not going to "catch the gay" by walking past one or anything like that, lol. But a gay Anand Karaj? Nah, can't agree with that at all. But if I'm wrong, I hope God will guide me towards the Truth, whatever it may be.

I see this particular argument quite often, but I really do think it does huge swathes of the male population a disservice. Men are the most loyal of the sexes, there is no doubt about that. Fundamentally, for a certain type of man for whom promiscuity is the norm, even he will - once the headiness and foolishness of youth has worn off - gravitate towards a woman for companionship and love. A man has no ulterior motives when he finds the woman - he assumes - to be the one he wishes to spend his life with. Whereas a woman has a laundry list of needs she wants fulfilled long before love and companionship are even considered, mostly centred around status and wealth, i.e. an increase in both factors for her benefit dependent on the man in question. In fact you could argue that men are incredibly naive when it comes to these type of issues. The modern woman definitely does not seek emotional attachment to just one person. When she thinks she has the opportunity to "trade up" (even if later she comes to realise she made a mistake) all notions of love and loyalty are discarded in an instant. Due to these and other related issues, I've come to realise that the way the old-timers did things in our community - on balance - when it came to marriage, etc, truly was the best way to approach matters. In light of modern existence such ways are being viewed as cold and calculated, but those ways were based on a practical and unemotional view on the best criteria for finding a partner and raising a family. Nowadays, people throw the word love around like a toy, when in fact they know nothing about true love at all; what they think is love is actually lust. And people fall out of lust as easily as they fall into lust. But I understand that mentality is increasingly considered as antiquated even amongst Sikhs today. But we'll reap the affects of our hubris and our attachment to so-called "enlightened sophistication" in the coming decades, mark my words. But regarding modern feminism (which I believe is a distortion of what it started out as), as one of my favourite film characters said (to paraphrase), "They were so preoccupied with whether they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Oh for f... a bit early for this kind of topic isn't it? ?

On this occasion I am... deadly serious.Edit: Jokes aside, see if you can put her in touch with a few decent Gursikh bibis. Don't pressure her or force her to talk to them, but she might want to hang out with them and observe them. Sometimes changing one's sangat works wonders, or even just getting away from entrenched routines and the same people helps too. Just don't go "correcting" her; that was a joke, lol.

She seems like a very wilful girl. A rather naughty girl if I may be so bold. Perhaps she needs a good talking to, if you don't mind me saying so. Perhaps a bit more. Someone I knew a very long time ago wanted to do the same as this girl. But I "corrected" her. And when someone else tried to prevent me from doing my duty, I "corrected" them too.

If some of you pappus stopped listening to George Michael, Queen, Abba, and Elton John, and instead listened to dhadhi and kavishri jathas, you'd know what the score was!

There's something mildly threatening about the "Please do not ignore this message" line in the OP. Makes me want to ignore it though, reverse psychology, lol!

Yes, the article does make a clear case for hazoori (and wearing a hazooria). So where's tabiya come from?

I always took hazoori to mean sitting before Guru Granth Sahib Ji, in terms of the role a Granthi undertakes, if you get what I mean. But now you mention it, is there a distinction between hazoori and tabiya?

I thought it was an open secret that Badal sold out Sant Jarnail Singh Ji? Unless I'm adding 2 plus 2 to equal 5?

Edit -

One thing's for certain, those apes who went on the rampage when this issue originally arose have made darn sure no rehat-adhering Sikh will question Baba Ji and take them to task for making an erroneous statement - if it is against Gurmat - because nobody in their right mind will want to side with the missionary position on this issue.

Hmm... where is this sakhi from? Is it from a Granth or the works of a scholar?I guess the pertinent question is who else amongst the Holy men and learned of Sikhi concur with this katha? Is it accurate according to Gurmat, whether we like it or not? I begin to worry when I hear someone of that position and status in a religion say, "If you question me or the reasoning I've just presented, you're going against the tenets of your faith." I expect that from some other faiths, but not Sikhi.

I was thinking something along the lines of this topic, albeit in a much generalised way. Modern life and, as a result, modern warfare has made it nigh on impossible for an individual to gather a few men, form an army, and challenge and fight the tyranny of those in power. Those who would once, long ago in history, have garnered enough support to challenge the status-quo are now rendered impotent and helpless. The "machine" is simply too huge to challenge. Instead, we're encouraged to protest and appeal and plead, all the while those whom we appeal to are probably cackling in glee at the uselessness of it all. Wars are fought with rockets and missiles; long-range weapons that requite strategic and tactical knowledge, yes, but are no more than the press of a button. So, it seems as long as one has the finance to purchase and employ such weapons, that side could feasibly be the "bad guys" but because of the sheer power of their weaponry they can never be defeated. Where's the justice in that? Where's the morality? Then there's the non-combat "warfare" of the modern age: the media. Anyone who differs from the norm and has designs of challenging the established order, if he's considered a genuine threat, then that particular character is destroyed before he even sets a foot outside his home. Newspapers, news channels, etc., swing into over-drive, pumping out propaganda to turn the people against such individuals. They smear them with accusations - implied or otherwise - and malign them, totally destroying any chance of such an individual being listened to and taken seriously by the people. Such a person is ridiculed, isolated, slandered, all because he or she poses a threat to this artificial order that's been constructed. Usually that's enough to quell any delusions of grandeur anyone may have had about making their mark and challenging the corrupt and the depraved. Yet people, being the sheep that they are, buy into this nonsense every single time. In effect we, in this modern age, can never ever challenge those at the very top even if they wish our destruction. It's one big cosy stitch-up, and it lays bare how little control we truly have over our lives and our destinies.