Jump to content

Balkaar

Members
  • Posts

    949
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Balkaar

  1. Because of the sexism inherent in Punjabi culture, which has ba5tardized the proper practice of Sikhi by Sikhs for centuries. For most Punjabi parents, the idea of a son devoting his life to Gursikhi instead of making money and enhancing his family's prestige is bad enough. But for their daughters to do the same is unthinkable. Punjabism has always been opposed to the independence of women, and an unmarried woman of god, not tied down by her husband or a life of domestic servitude, is very independent - a repudiation of what it stands for. Hence they've never been allowed to become too numerous.
  2. Unless he's intent on living a stereotypically promiscuous gay lifestyle complete with cruising and go-go dancers, he definitely shouldn't cut it. The law of paramatmaan doesn't suddenly stop applying to him because he likes kissing boys, lol. 5% of the human race is gay, and I see no reason to doubt that this statistic applies to our community too. Like you said, they've always been there. As there are about 30 million Sikhs today, we can confidently assume that about 1.5 million of them are homosexual and suffering in silence because of it. That's a lot of souls, more than in all the other jathas, sampardas and sects combined. It isn't right that their issues should be ignored by the rest of us.
  3. Hey everyone I just saw the OP 'Joti Jot Rali' outside a popular BDSM club in Soho wearing leather shorts and nipple clamps. Of course I have no actual evidence for this but you'll just have to take me at my word and get super p1ssed off about it. Hopefully one of the more unhinged members of the Sangat will read this, get angry, and attack the pervert. ... The nonsense I've just written is no different from the first post on this thread. Leave the poor bloke alone. These allegations are baseless. And even if he was standing outside a gay club, so what? The OP is picking on a guy who probably has some real issues.
  4. I would be obliged if you could provide a link to this katha. I can't find any links dealing with the angs where Kirpal Das is mentioned in Sant Ji's Dasam Granth Viakhaya. Sant Ji may say something about where he acquired this belief.
  5. Let me say it again then. His body shape was only one small part of my quip about his looking like a dwarf. If he had a little curved nakh instead of his own, or a less flat face, but was nevertheless fat, he would still not look like a dwarf anymore and I wouldn't have had occasion to make the remark to which you've taken such disproportionate offense. The bit about being fat really was incidental. It's the uncanny conjunction of fat-short-bignosed-flatfaced possessed by Dhumma that I was pointing out. Did Mahant Ji possess all these features too? If not, then bringing him up isn't really relevant. 'Insults and lies'? I can't argue that I haven't been insulting, but I also haven't lied about anything here. Please provide an extract from a historical granth which authenticates your claim that Mahant Ji was as fat as Harnam Dhumma. Maharaj makes no such claim when he mentions the Udaasi in Sri Dasam Granth.
  6. What a total non-sequitur. I wasn't insulting all short overweight people, least of all Mahant Kirpal Das. I was insulting Dhumma. Not all short and overweight people look like fantasy dwarves. Harnam Dhumma does. A joke works better when you don't have to explain it. Oh please, I wasn't attacking Mahant Ji and you know it.
  7. Dhumma looks like a classic fantasy dwarf. Short, fat, big flat face, big puffy mushroom-like nose. He should be in Narnia, not the Damdami Taksaal.
  8. I used to eat a lot of junk food when I was struggling with kaam, I found it distracted me from my urges. I also understand that the same part of the brain is stimulated when eating pleasurable food as when engaging in any sort of sexual activity, which must be why gorging myself on gandhe khaane suppressed my libido. I think what's happening is that these saintly fatties are substituting one evil with another which they perceive as somehow secondary. But greed is also one of the panj chhor, and it doesn't limit itself to the human relationship with money.
  9. Better instead to leave them alone so that someone else can take advantage of them? Perhaps some Dawaah man? Getting to these people before they can be irreversibly brainwashed with a neurotic ideology like Islam is a mercy to them and the rest of the world. Only good can come of it. If somebody is going to take advantage of their ignorance, then at least let it be a Gursikh who opens their eyes to the truest faith, instead of some predatory muslim. When we are introducing more happy and well-adjusted Gursikhs into the Khalsa Panth, what does it matter how they were made, or whether genie and others feel a sense of poetic justice about the process? These women will be happier and freer than they have ever been permitted to be under Islam. Sikhs have been leaving people of other faiths to their beliefs for all the years of our existence, and what do we have to show for it today? We've been screwed over by everyone, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and we are powerless to do anything about it because they each outnumber us at least 50 times over.
  10. Why are people responding to this as if genie has suggested luring them into cages with skittles? There is no coercion here, and there is nothing bad about bringing people out from the darkness into the light of Sikhi. I would say the best way to accomplish this would simply be to market Sikhi more actively, as it clearly has several advantages over other faiths - equality of men and women, no casteism, no superstition. However nowadays this isn't enough, because Muslim women are convinced they are equal to their menfolk, and Hindus are adamant that the caste system is not part of their faith. As well as educating these people about Sikhi, it seems we will have to educate them about their own religions too. These Muslimahs, if they are anything like most Muslims, probably don't know the first thing about Islam. All you have to do is lay bare Islam's hatred and backwardness, and maybe draw attention to Muhammad's impressive list of violent and sexually-deviant hijinks, and if they aren't completely immoral or brainwashed they couldn't fail to be repulsed. For anyone inclined to draw comparisons between this and the Muslims' conversion of our own women, these girls don't leave Sikhi because they fundamentally disagree with its philosophy [they hardly know enough about it to do that]. They become Muslims because they have fetishes for Pakis or want to rebel against their overbearing Punjabi parents. Hindus will be much trickier. Hinduism is inherently more duplicitous. It's followers show as many faces as those gods of theirs, which is why you have so many Hindu Punjabis who are convinced that they can worship Guru Nanak Dev whilst still observing their anti-Sikh idol-worship and superstition. Years of miscegenation between HPs and very lax Sikhs have ensured that this mindset is well-entrenched. Arguing with them is much more difficult. The Muslims at least have a clearly defined set of principles to attack, these people don't. Any argument with them quickly devolves into an exhausting mental gymnastics.
  11. Quantavius if you had as many brain cells as you have 'LOL!'s you could honestly call yourself a half-wit.
  12. You're right. They clearly resent the possibility of losing their loyal dogs, which the Sikhs have been for some time now. Hindus will always reserve their primary loyalty for their precious Bharat Mata even if they live elsewhere, and most Muslims despise Britain for constantly shoving itself into Muslim affairs, I think the establishment is aware of these truths. But we Sikhs, having no country of our own, could always be counted upon to wave the union jack like good little ghulaams because there is nowhere else for us to direct our national loyalty. There hasn't been since the Sikh Raaj was dismantled and our people displaced. This, and the knowledge that they can always use Sikhs as pawns in the event that there is some trouble with Muslims, is what Jagraj is threatening with his common sense.
  13. Your title captures the spirit of Islam towards non-believers perfectly. Is it any wonder this stuff happens when these people are in awe of a medieval sex-fiend?
  14. Guru Sahib needn't prove anything to us, least of all that. If he wanted to demonstrate anything at that gathering I believe it was the strength and resourcefulness of ordinary folk, which would help to remold his feeble Sikhs into Singhs and Singhniaan. I think he knew that an exhibition of his power would have undermined this goal. Where do you believe the blood on the tulwaar came from Singhji? I can't be certain that there were goats there either, but it must have come from somewhere and a bakraa seems very reasonable to me. That lids been off since Baba Banda Bahadur's day. Still, it can never hurt to have more information with which to humiliate those naastiks and put them in their place.
  15. I haven't heard of this Granth before, but I ought to read it before I pass judgement. Do you know where I can find a full copy?
  16. Guru Ji is certainly capable of miraculous feats, but is also wise enough to use such powers sparingly. Guru Sahib's task in 1699 was to turn a community of sparrows into hawks, so I'm not surprised that he moderated his use of miracles and relied on his human abilities in order to show the new Khalsa Sikhs that even mortal bodies were capable of great things. Guru Sahib could have called forth divine powers to destroy the enemies assaulting him and his Sikhs, but he did not, because what example would this set to his people? Guru Ji was a role model to his Sikhs, they aspired to imitate his behavior in all things. They could hardly emulate him if he attempted this. How could they become the lions they needed to be if his divine protection was always a given? No, I think he realized that the Vaisakhi of 1699 had to be an example of human potential, not a demonstration of non-human powers, if it was to achieve the goal of transforming sparrows into hawks, and that he would have to embody it. I don't imagine many of the Sikhs at the gathering were battle-hardened veterans. The end of Guru Hargobind Sahib's reign, and the entirety of the seventh and eighth patshaah's reigns had been largely peaceful. The only Sikh soldiers before this time would have been the men of the Akaal Sena, by no means a very large force, and certainly not constituting the majority of Sikhs. Little wonder then that so many fled in terror. That's fine, and I would never try to take that faith from you. But it happens that I have a slightly different view of the events of 1699 than you do, and accusing me of defaming my Guru as a liar because of this difference of opinion is a bit below the belt, as well as a distortion of what I said.
  17. Nobody is saying that. Please don't twist my words. Guru Ji asked that five Sikhs give him their heads, the Panj did, and so has every other person who has ever received his Amrit. To become Amritdhari is to make an offering of your head to your Guru, to sacrifice everything that makes you you so that you can become an instrument for his will. Jau tau prem khelan ka chaao Sir dhar tali gali meri aao It maarag pehr dhareejai Sir deejai kaan na keejai Just because the sword didn't cut their necks doesn't mean the Panj didn't give their heads. Our Guru is no liar, but he isn't a bland literalist either. Sometimes ingenious tactics are necessary to help people understand the truth. When Guru Nanak Dev told the Hindus at Haridvar that he was watering his fields when he threw water towards the West, was he lying then? He was not, he was making a slightly sarcastic joke in order that they might realize their folly.
  18. Bhai Sahib, this account seems very suspect. That it doesn't occur in a single one of the books dealing with early Sikh history, and also the very convenient fact that it is only ever mentioned in a supposedly unpublished text, The History of Ramgharias, and is therefore immune to any actual scrutiny because of inaccessibility should immediately raise several red flags in the head of a student of history. Which writing of Bhai Vir Singh is this account said to be mentioned in? Attaching Bhai Sahib's name to this story seems to be an effort to lend it credibility more than anything - the only place I've ever seen this source is making rounds on the internet. It's authorship was probably conferred upon a Muslim spy because it was believed this would make it seem more reliable, seeming to originate from the outside. But the account definitely gives the impression of being written by a Sikh, much later than 1699. A few sporadic insertions of 'Guru of the infidels' is a lazy attempt to cover this up, especially since Guru Sahib is spoken of in the most complementary terms throughout the rest of it. Suraj Prakash Granth is one of the most reliable sources on Sikh history that exists. Bhai Santokh Singh Ji was a true scholar, not concerned with altering Sikh history in order to bring it into conformity with his own interpretation of Sikhi. He only sought to record Sikh history exactly as it was revealed to him in itihaasic accounts and through the oral traditions of Sikhs who can trace their history back to the times of our Gurus. Veerji, have you not defended the oral history of Dal Panth on many other threads? The Nihang Dals are some of the most vocal defenders of the idea that Guru Sahib performed jhatka upon chatangas in 1699.
  19. All three of those are naturally occurring. The only thing that created them was God
  20. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, There are over 8000 fried chicken shops in London alone, and a substantial majority of these are Halal. Taken alongside the countless other Pakistani/Middle Eastern restaurants and grubby little kebab houses, this comfortably places the number of Halal eateries in the capital at over 10,000. Each of these traffics in the meat of hundreds of animals daily, amounting to millions of creatures killed every day. Which is why the logistics of the Halal industry make such little sense to me. Dhabihah slaughter is a demanding and time consuming process. There is no way in hell that every single one of the millions of animals slaughtered in Halal abattoirs each day are killed in accordance with Islamic Law. They don't have enough manpower and the day doesn't have enough hours in it. I'd be surprised if one in ten animals were killed in this way. This idea seems so simple and obvious that I can't understand how it never seems to have occurred to any of this country's 3 million Muslims. Is this an instance of selective intelligence? Do they not know, or do they suspect something is amiss but not care? None of this is to say that Sikhs should start eating it - even if it isn't Halal, this sort of mass-produced factory slaughtered meat, khulla maas, is not even close to being jhatka (the only meat permitted to Sikhs by Akaal Takhat).
  21. I'm surprised that you're surprised Singh Ji. The newspapers and media outlets only really cover stories which help to project the private political views of their multi-millionaire owners into British political life, or stories which distract the public from how badly they're being screwed by the upper 1% [stories about celebrities, sports, fashion etc, all a smokescreen] The BBC and their ilk won't touch this though. The difficulties faced by Sikhs are not politically expeditious enough for them or interesting enough to their readers to be worthy of mentioning. Don't be fooled, the British media doesn't exist to keep us informed or represented.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use