Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
guptsinghji

How To Wear Kirpan

Recommended Posts

So, if there are no restrictions for women to wear a dastar, why did the two girls at the catholic school make such a lot of fuss regarding their dastars? Why do sikhs send such confusing messages to everyone, I have no idea? If a dastar for an amritdhari is mandatory then surely it is also mandatory for both genders according to

http://www.sikhanswers.com/sikh-articles-of-faith-identity/sikh-women-turban-dastaar/

I was also reading this and was confused. What do you think?

88singh Ji and Singhnihk Ji I contacted basics of Sikhi regarding this and Sikh council uk. And Basics of Sikhi replied back, that it seems the paragraphs have been based from the Akaal Takhat Sikh Maryada.

Also you asked if a dastaar wearing woman would be covered by those paragraphs. From my understanding of reading the first paragraph, I would think yes, as it says Amritdhari Sikhs, therefore an Amritdhari woman would come into that description.

Hope that has helped your query.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

88singh Ji and Singhnihk Ji I contacted basics of Sikhi regarding this and Sikh council uk. And Basics of Sikhi replied back, that it seems the paragraphs have been based from the Akaal Takhat Sikh Maryada.

Also you asked if a dastaar wearing woman would be covered by those paragraphs. From my understanding of reading the first paragraph, I would think yes, as it says Amritdhari Sikhs, therefore an Amritdhari woman would come into that description.

Hope that has helped your query.

Do they have any idea how the courts interpret and apply legislation/statute to a case before them? They look at the wording of the statute when they interpret and apply it. I can't see any references made, directly or indirectly, to amritdhari women/females/girls/ladies etc in this piece of document in order to protect their right to wear a dastar! Does this piece of document contain any notes to tell us anything about the intentions of its author or authors? There is no mention of amritdhari women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they have any idea how the courts interpret and apply legislation/statute to a case before them? They look at the wording of the statute when they interpret and apply it. I can't see any references made, directly or indirectly, to amritdhari women/females/girls/ladies etc in this piece of document in order to protect their right to wear a dastar! Does this piece of document contain any notes to tell us anything about the intentions of its author or authors? There is no mention of amritdhari women.

I'm sorry spareribs Ji, neither am I a lawyer or do I know why.

You are welcome to ask these same questions to them, as they will be able to give you a better answer than me. With all due respect, It's no good asking me, I didn't compile it and I have no experience of this, so I wouldn't even know where to start on legislation.

You can see the guidance for yourself, I've put the link on.

I also agree it is confusing, If you feel there is something that is wrong with it, then you can contact the appropriate organisations. Sorryji I don't know what else advice to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry spareribs Ji, neither am I a lawyer or do I know why.

You are welcome to ask these same questions to them, as they will be able to give you a better answer than me. With all due respect, It's no good asking me, I didn't compile it and I have no experience of this, so I wouldn't even know where to start on legislation.

You can see the guidance for yourself, I've put the link on.

I also agree it is confusing, If you feel there is something that is wrong with it, then you can contact the appropriate organisations. Sorryji I don't know what else advice to give.

My question was actually directed at the Akal Takht Maryada (people), and not you, penji. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was just thinking when they instructed the people who composed this document, why did they fail to take amritdhari women into account? Surely, they should have taken them into account for future purposes, don't you think? I have amritdhari friends and they often get asked this question, why do they wear turbans, they are women? What will happen when they start going for job interviews? Surely, their future interviewers are going to wonder why are they wearing turbans, when this document says there are no restrictions as far as amritdhari women are concerned. The maryada people that helped to prepare this document should have used some foresight to accommodate women too for the future purposes, don't you agree?

If amritdhari women can wear a kirpan and is given protection under the law, then why have they left out the turban aspect of being an amritdhari women? I sometimes find we really need to do away with gender discrimination culturally, honestly.

I am truly sorry about the misunderstanding, I hope you are not cross with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was actually directed at the Akal Takht Maryada (people), and not you, penji. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was just thinking when they instructed the people who composed this document, why did they fail to take amritdhari women into account? Surely, they should have taken them into account for future purposes, don't you think? I have amritdhari friends and they often get asked this question, why do they wear turbans, they are women? What will happen when they start going for job interviews? Surely, their future interviewers are going to wonder why are they wearing turbans, when this document says there are no restrictions as far as amritdhari women are concerned. The maryada people that helped to prepare this document should have used some foresight to accommodate women too for the future purposes, don't you agree?

If amritdhari women can wear a kirpan and is given protection under the law, then why have they left out the turban aspect of being an amritdhari women? I sometimes find we really need to do away with gender discrimination culturally, honestly.

I am truly sorry about the misunderstanding, I hope you are not cross with me.

spareribs ji, no why would I be cross with you? You know more about this than me. I thought the same thing as you too, and I'm not in any position to advise on it, but if you want my opinion as you asked, I feel it could have been worded differently, to rule out the confusion.

I think it's not a clear cut definition, but they have Amritdhari Sikhs written , I'm assuming both men and women would come under that description.

The next paragraph starting, " It is more common for a man to wear a turban, and there is no restriction for women to cover their hair. "

it specifically says it's more common for a man to wear a turban, which I feel should include women too. The rest from my understanding is explaining, women that do not wear turban/dastaar cover their hair in other ways, so they are not discriminated against from covering their hair.

What would you like to do? I've already messaged Basics of Sikhi and put my reply on, but if others apart from me make them aware of it, then they may see it as a cause for concern. Also I really don't know how to and if I should be intervening in The Akaal Takhat Maryada as I do not know what my rights are concerning this, I wouldn't even know how to word my case to them. I'm worried I may say the wrong thing, thus the reason, I've not pursued it further. Sorry ji, maf kardo I'm not a Sikh scholar, just a normal anonymous poster on this forum that does not have any status to make any decision. I have pointed it out to a Sikh organisation, and left it with them to deal with how they wish. That's the best I can do Ji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spareribs ji, no why would I be cross with you? You know more about this than me. I thought the same thing as you too, and I'm not in any position to advise on it, but if you want my opinion as you asked, I feel it could have been worded differently, to rule out the confusion.

I think it's not a clear cut definition, but they have Amritdhari Sikhs written , I'm assuming both men and women would come under that description.

The next paragraph starting, " It is more common for a man to wear a turban, and there is no restriction for women to cover their hair. "

it specifically says it's more common for a man to wear a turban, which I feel should include women too. The rest from my understanding is explaining, women that do not wear turban/dastaar cover their hair in other ways, so they are not discriminated against from covering their hair.

What would you like to do? I've already messaged Basics of Sikhi and put my reply on, but if others apart from me make them aware of it, then they may see it as a cause for concern. Also I really don't know how to and if I should be intervening in The Akaal Takhat Maryada as I do not know what my rights are concerning this, I wouldn't even know how to word my case to them. I'm worried I may say the wrong thing, thus the reason, I've not pursued it further. Sorry ji, maf kardo.

I am pleased you are not cross with me penji. :biggrin2:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeah Sunny would LURVE for sikhi to become sikhISM  another abombination of the neoliberal mould
    • If you are sitting in the centre of hell , everywhere else looks like heaven . The as the examples biggest failure of those who achieved rights in the developed world they stopped at their countries borders and failed to address oppression of women across the globe for being who they are and their natural processes.   the point is just as men had to call out their own sex for oppressing females the opposite has to happen now females in privileged countries have to stop the oppression of men by vicious neoliberal banshees . Freedom for both is the responsibility of both - no one side can slack on the monitoring and curbing of excesses and liberty taking  .  Yes I've seen really ridiculous guys taking up both sides of their seat on the tube and it IS a nonsense to claim THAT is necessary but I also have my lads worried that even holding their legs loosely parallel would be considering spreading  and THAT is the other side of the nonsense coin . Be comfortable fine but don't inconvenience others unnecessarily  like the first guy .  Yes I don't think I should be paid more than my male colleagues unless I actually AM doing more quality work than them in the same time scale, but I would feel the same about my female colleagues, if they are lazy and don't produce why should I be lumped with them when pay raises are being discussed and denied ? it is all grey areas .  
    • Okay. I didn't read the whole thread. In the words of the black comedian Eddie Griffin (paraphrase). With black churches the priests will <banned word filter activated> your wife, with white ones, they'll <banned word filter activated> your kids.
    • Late for us because our lifespans are limited, and every passing day brings us closer to the end of our lives. But there's still time. Not much but we have our fate in our hands. Whether we squander those opportunities is yet to be seen. Console yourself with the idea that those who are blessed, regardless of their current external saroop, will find the path and adjust their own frame of mind, understanding, and beliefs to faithfully accommodate the knowledge they've been seeking. Alternatively, those with no interest in transforming their being, and are instead looking for someone to endorse, justify, and perpetuate their current lifestyles will waste this precious lifetime on such silliness. It may seem like a soul lost to deception, but the soul itself must desire change. 
    • Where have I vilified black people on this topic? Your buddy GurjantGnostic took offence that black churches have pastors.  He found it racist that I pointed it out. And that the black community have a problem with dodgy pastors. It isn't even a critique, it is just a statement of fact. If it is pointed that cousin marriages are common with Muslims ,does that make one Islamiphobic? Is that vilification?  Besides, what the heck has street crime got to do with pastors? They are completely different.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use