Jump to content

Balkaar

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    949

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    39

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Balkaar

  1. Balkaar
    It is completely possible to get a high top-knot without the support of a nihang-style bunga. Many Jatt women also wore their hair in this fashion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people#/media/File:JatGirlAllyghur1868.jpg Mai Bhago was said to have adopted 'the dress of a man' during the Battle of Muktsar and worn it thereafter when she became one of Guru Gobind Singh's personal bodyguards. If it was commonplace for Sikh women to wear dastaars as well, this remark would not have been made. Nor would later European commentators have drawn attention to the fact that female Nihangs distinguished themselves from the majority of Sikh womanhood by wearing turbans.
  2. Balkaar
    Those are precisely the sorts of images I am talking about. Those aren't keskis, they are very large topknots towards the back of the head. When Sardar Baghel Singh marched into Delhi, the Mughal Shah Alam II came out to welcome him with his begams. A group of ten Singhniaan were invited to the begam's quarters, where these Sikh women fascinated the Shah's wives and courtesans with their talk of warfare, plunder and how to shoot missile weapons. Five of them were dressed like Nihang Singhs, the others wore dresses, heavy ornaments, heavy lower garments and top knots a hand-span-and-a-half in height. This description exactly fits those images you have provided. I find it strange that Bhai Manvir Singh resorts to those images in order to further his mistaken beliefs, especially since the woman on the left is clearly shown to be wearing many sets of golden bangles (Bhai Manvir Singh and most AKJ oppose the wearing of jewellry).
  3. Balkaar
    Nobody is casting aspersions on the sincerity of these Bibiaans' faith. But there is no historical basis for your claim that the keski/dastaar was enjoined upon all Sikh women in the old days.The situation today is how it has always been - some women choose to wear a dastaar, but most don't. Do you have any sources corroborating your other claim about Gurmukh Singh Musafir? None of the portrayals and accounts of the Sikhs before the 1920s represent Sikh women as mostly wearing turbans, the notable exceptions being female members of the Nihang order (and Mai Bhago, who was conspicuous by her manner of dress). The most common way in which bibiaan wore their kes was in a high top-knot towards the back of their heads, beneath a chunni. These gorified folks you allude to are also precisely the people (Lahore Singh Sabha) whose movement helped give rise to groups like Bhai Randhir Singh's.
  4. Balkaar
    Nothing official, although some individuals may choose to shun this person thereafter. If this person was an Amritdhari before they defected from the faith, they would now be a patit. The Rehat Maryada advises us to stay away from them.
  5. Balkaar
    I was joking.
  6. Balkaar
    Come on now. I'd eat a samurai sword before I'd believe that there is anything stupider than my Canadian rishtaydhaaray.
  7. Balkaar
    There are several historical accounts in existence, penned by the white troops of the East India Company, which inform us that British soldiers had a twisted fondness for scalping dead Sikhs in order to make black helmet plumes out of their sacred kes. That's not respect Quantavius. It was nothing less than the ultimate expression of contempt for our people and our faith by British Imperialists. They wore Sikh remains as f4ck1ng trophies for God's sake. And I bet, should you choose to reply to this, that you'll mount an impassioned defence of this humiliating subjugation of our forefathers! I've never encountered such an angrezi chamcha in all my life, LOL
  8. Balkaar
    Where is this supposed beadbi? I don't see it.
  9. Balkaar
    I'm not sure how you concluded that. Guru Angad Dev formulated the Gurmukhi script in order to make it clearer to Hindus and Muslims that the Sikh faith was niyaara.
  10. Balkaar

    3ho?

    Balkaar replied to a topic in WHAT'S HAPPENING?

    3HO at a glance.
  11. Balkaar
    I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that these Persian words scattered throughout the Punjabi vocabulary are the leftovers of successive Muslim campaigns of atrocity against the inhabitants of Northern India. And this blood-spattered legacy of interfaith conflict is here touted as a point in favor of interfaith harmony? It's nonsense. No point trying to convince this forum's delusional faction of Islamic apologists of the truth behind Islam MisterrSingh. Try as you may, no amount of irrefutable evidence will ever be enough to make them leave their fantasy world where Islam is a religion of peace and all Muslims sh1t rainbows.
  12. Balkaar
    Of course it has relevance to the topic, the subject of which should really be obvious. The link leads to a sentimental picture capturing an uncommon moment of interfaith harmony. All that bathroom business is a appendage to this. This photo is only held to be so remarkable because it is the exception that proves the rule - that Sikh-Muslim relations are actually quite bad. If I were still a gambler I'd bet all the money in my wallet that the response of most Muslims to this picture would involve a lot of vomit.
  13. Balkaar
    The existence of ISIS is expediting Western designs on the Middle East, yes, and its existence is also convenient to the Turks and the Arabs. But neither of those things prove that any of these powers had a hand in setting up ISIS. I think ISIS haven't attacked Israel yet because they're all talk. That's all any of these Islamic groups are, and all they ever will be, because their worldview is too backward to give rise to the kind of civilization that would be scientifically/technologically/militarily advanced enough to go toe-to-toe with the West or Israel. Contrary to all the media hype, the military threat posed by these terrorists is negligible.
  14. Balkaar
    Good article - We should never withhold our respect from individual Muslims. Just the slimy religion which most of them, it has to be said, know nothing about. If they did, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many so-called "Muslims" as there are. I'm certain of it. A fundamentalist Islamic state named after a pagan Egyptain Goddess, or by the Kuffar state which they have pledged to scrape off the face of the Earth? Come on man.
  15. Balkaar
    If they had to contend with all the people whose lives they destroyed instead of foisting them upon us, the Americans would be in the same position as Europe, I assure you. It's all very well for them to "stand up and fight" when we in Europe are the ones who invariably deal with the consequences of their endless fighting, and not them. The Americans are selfish. They don't care that Europe is inundated with refugees because of its proximity to the countries which they destabilized. All they care about is stopping Hispanics from crossing the border into land which was stolen from Hispanics in the 1840s. The same goes for the British - leaving the Hungarians and Germans to deal with all those Syrian refugees whose circumstances the UK government conspired to create.
  16. Balkaar
    Our species of right wing politics is a little different from yours, particularly as it doesn't come with all that Christian baggage. Bush's brand of flag-waving, teary-eyed, lump-in-the-throat politics would never fly in the UK - these days the average Briton is much too cynical to fall for that sort of demagoguery, and not nearly as patriotic or gullible as the average American. It's important to remember that most people in the United Kingdom were implacably opposed to the war in Iraq, unlike the Americans who charged in all puffed up and determined to carpet bomb those Iraqis into 'freedom'.
  17. Balkaar
    Oh please, this is basic bloody common sense. Sexism is bad. Sexual deviancy is bad. Genital mutilation is bad. Religious bigotry is bad. Homophobia is bad. Backwardness is bad. Superstition is bad. Islam stands for all of this, and more. Why should we feel bad about hating such a poisonous ideology, or feeling angry about it?
  18. Balkaar
    Does this girl feel the same way about you?
  19. Balkaar
    The same goes for drinking and the use of drugs (except tobacco), as almost all the accounts of Sikhs at the time will testify. The dissolution permeated every rung of society, not just the nobility.
  20. Balkaar
    Gurbani doesn't say this world isn't real. It says this world is an illusion, not in the literal sense of the word, but because it is transitory. All the pleasures and attachments we may derive from it are fleeting and most of our efforts are ultimately for nothing, since we will die eventually. It would be more worthwhile, Guru Sahib says, to focus on extricating ourselves from the cycle of rebirth. Of course what people do matters - Sometimes. For instance, if Aurangzeb hadn't beheaded Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib, would the Tenth Patshaah have felt the need to introduce the Khalsa brotherhood of saint-soldiers? That event resonates to this day, and the Khalsa is the central institution of the Sikh world. Clearly Aurangzeb's actions mattered, they left a lasting impression on the world and our faith. On the other hand, if somebody acquires a nice job or a snazzy car, the implications of this on the world are pretty minimal - they don't really matter at all. Sometimes we matter. Sometimes we don't. Why fret about it? Stay in Chardi Kala.
  21. Balkaar
    The fundamentalist interpretation is the only right one Singh Ji. Think about it. Muhammad directed his preaching at the small folk of Arabia, who were mostly illiterate and uneducated. Camel herders, shepherds and slaves. They'd hardly have been capable of discerning some deep allegorical meaning in the things that they were told, and Muhammad would have known this. He would therefore have taken care to express himself as simply and as honestly possible. Why can't all these stupid moderate Muslims and Islamic apologists, scratching their heads, see that "kill all the infidels wherever you find them" means EXACTLY THAT?
  22. Balkaar
    History would prove you right. That's exactly what happened after the monarchies of France and Russia were overthrown and dismantled. It also happened in the case of the Sikhs. When our ancestors finally succeeded in wresting control of Punjab from the Afghans, they very suddenly possessed a personal freedom unlike anything they had ever known. No rulers, no overlords, no opposition and no laws, for the first time. What did they choose to do with this new-found freedom? They went mental, indulging in all manner of debaucheries now that they could. The Khalsa spirit for whose survival they fought was immediately forgotten in the mad rush to grab land and fill the power vacuum. Extreme ideologies and radical change, are both very dangerous.
  23. Balkaar
    No, it's completely different. The reasons Muslims target apneean for conversion are as follows: 1 - To diminish the following of our 'kuffar' Sikh faith, which they see as competing with their own. 2 - To discredit the Sikh religion online by waving these clueless former "Sikh" girls in our faces, and posting their testimonies online to be used as propaganda. 3- To increase their own numbers and move a step closer to their stated objective of a worldwide Islamic hegemony. 4 - To fulfill the deviant sexual appetites they are bound to have acquired as people who idolize and insist on following the example of the paedophile and sex-fiend Muhammad. This desire expressed in this thread is rooted in Sarbat Da Bhala, and in the certainty that the best thing for the people of the world, including the daughters of Muslims, is to accept Sikhi. We shouldn't feel any guilt about liberating people from violent and backward religions.
  24. Balkaar
    You're right. We need a balance between the left's emphasis on individual liberties, and the right's stress on tradition, societal coherence and order. Allow either to be taken to their ideological extremes and what remains is a weak society (in the case of the left) where everybody is so wrapped up in their personal freedoms that their country barely manages to function, or a tyrannical one (in the case of the right) where the people's inherent privileges are all sacrificed for the good of the nation. Sikhi balances liberty with order very well I think.
  25. Balkaar
    Just forwarded this link to United Sikhs. This mystery fuddu lives in the States, this is clear from the way he is talking about his first amendment rights. But a hate crime, like urinating upon a sacred symbol of a world religion, does not fall within the purview of an amendment which is only concerned with freedom of speech. He's crossed a line. This haramjada needs to be identified and punished for this behzti.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

  I accept