Jump to content

Our love turned us into pariahs but we never backed down


MisterrSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

When Khurrum Rahman, a Muslim, and Rajinder, a Sikh, fell for each other at school, they became pariahs overnight. But the disapproval, threats and even violence only served to cement a bond that has lasted 24 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/dec/02/our-love-turned-us-into-pariahs-but-we-never-backed-down

Opinions? Read the article before commenting, please. Don't go off based on the headline. Thoughts on the reason for a British newspaper posting such an article (can we keep the half-cocked comments on the two people involved to a minimum). Can such relationships ever be innocuous and above board, or is the history between the two faiths reason enough to assume that no relationship between a Sikh and a Muslim - particularly when the dynamic of the coupling is Muslim male and Sikh female - is ever harmless despite the intentions of the parties involved. I'd like a thoughtful and considerate conversation if that's not too much to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/dec/02/our-love-turned-us-into-pariahs-but-we-never-backed-down

Opinions? Read the article before commenting, please. Don't go off based on the headline. Thoughts on the reason for a British newspaper posting such an article (can we keep the half-cocked comments on the two people involved to a minimum). Can such relationships ever be innocuous and above board, or is the history between the two faiths reason enough to assume that no relationship between a Sikh and a Muslim - particularly when the dynamic of the coupling is Muslim male and Sikh female - is ever harmless despite the intentions of the parties involved. I'd like a thoughtful and considerate conversation if that's not too much to ask.

It depends on the situation. 

The fact is this guy is from West London during the early 90's potentially has an impact because the likelihood this muslim guy would have a lot of Sikh friends.

A lone muslim guy in a sea of Sikhs can have a significant impact on the outlook of the muslim guy.

I think the Muslim male - non Muslim female has a significant impact because instinctively feel we know what this entails.

Generally speaking we as Sikhs have naturally male brotherly protective ness over our sisters.  This is a natural feeling that stems from thousands of years of culture.

I think from a humanistic perspective we understand that in the propagation of our lineage it is patrilineal /patriarchal and the female marries into the male .

When one of our females marries a male from another community we feel that we have lost a female. Because children are born from women,  we lose potential Sikhs. It's a survival instinct. 

The fact that muslim men can be predatory and lord it over non muslims makes it very difficult to believe that a muslim male /Non Muslim or Sikh female relationship can ever be harmless.

The reality what would happen if the relationship was in reverse: Sikh male -Muslim female. 

Compare the 2 dynamics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The reality what would happen if the relationship was in reverse: Sikh male -Muslim female. 

Compare the 2 dynamics. 

Generally, the Sikh male would be the first to accommodate the Muslim female. Any adherence to the male's faith and culture on the part of the Sikh male would be the first to take a hit. The dominant faith (in this case, Islam) would emerge with more micro victories in the win column than losses IMO. So, that's an indictment of our people regardless of gender. We are all too eager to accommodate, or relinquish and abandon that which should not be discarded in situations such as these. Once we identify the reasons for this trend, we can begin to craft solutions. If it's steeped in some type of altruistic, vaguely religious misconception (the "recognise the human race as one" argument), then we'll need to ask ourselves some serious questions regarding Sikh self-interest and preservation Vs following religious edicts to the letter that put us at a ground level disadvantage, whereby our integrity and our honesty is made to work against us. It should be easy in theory: nothing supplants hukam, but if hukam is being wielded by our opponents to our disadvantage, then where do we draw the line? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Generally, the Sikh male would be the first to accommodate the Muslim female. Any adherence to the male's faith and culture on the part of the Sikh male would be the first to take a hit. The dominant faith (in this case, Islam) would emerge with more micro victories in the win column than losses IMO. So, that's an indictment of our people regardless of gender. We are all too eager to accommodate, or relinquish and abandon that which should not be discarded in situations such as these. Once we identify the reasons for this trend, we can begin to craft solutions. If it's steeped in some type of altruistic, vaguely religious misconception (the "recognise the human race as one" argument), then we'll need to ask ourselves some serious questions regarding Sikh self-interest and preservation Vs following religious edicts to the letter that put us at a ground level disadvantage, whereby our integrity and our honesty is made to work against us. It should be easy in theory: nothing supplants hukam, but if hukam is being wielded by our opponents to our disadvantage, then where do we draw the line? 

Maybe we are not getting the full picture of the Hukam. 

Our acommodation and openness must be tempered with common sense.

I think Bani is very clear of human nature but we choose to ignore this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Maybe we are not getting the full picture of the Hukam. 

Our acommodation and openness must be tempered with common sense.

I think Bani is very clear of human nature but we choose to ignore this. 

That's the sticking point. The objections arise when we begin to infuse our own ideas into hukam. Then it ceases to be hukam, and it becomes us utilizing our "siaanapah" whereby we think we know better. How can one navigate such a situation successfully? Ultimately, does one consider nothing but finding favour in the kingdom of God, but simultaneously end up losing the battle on the material plane where one must coexist with many who don't play with honourable intent? If one contradicts the other, what should be prioritised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Premi5 said:

Why the need to make it public and what is the Guardian's agenda?  

Not so much the Guardian (they are but one constituent arm of the monster) but the string-pullers behind society wish to merge all singular Asian minorities into one homogeneous Asian race. Makes the children of these unions easier to rally and control if they have no specific and concrete roots in any race and religion. No unique identities and labels, no troubles. It's a disturbing, inverse, white-authored social experiment. What they've failed to take into account is the zeal of most Muslims. They won't be so easily fooled. Our lot are clueless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TejS said:

There’s definitely an issue in which way we’re raising our females. Because out of all the girls from the diaspora, it’s Sikh girls that marry out with Muslims the most. This trend is becoming far too noticeable to ignore. Why are our females in the West, especially in the UK, marrying Muslims? I mean if they’re bent on marrying out then why not white Christians, or Punjabi Hindus? Why is it mostly Muslims?

I can only attribute it to one thing and that is the parents. I personally think when our elders demonize Muslims, which by the way is rightly done - we have suffered too greatly at their hands, then the Muslim becomes a forbidden thing for the Sikh youth. When a parent tells their child that he/she cannot marry a Muslim at all, they realize that’s what they can’t have. And human psychology works in a way that you want to have what you can’t have, and so their ultimate act of rebellion becomes marrying a Muslim. And I think because of the frequent interactions Sikhs have with Muslims in the UK, and given that Muslims are found everywhere in the major cities of the UK, Sikh parents have to ingrain this rule of not marrying with Muslims sternly. Whereas in the US/Canada, we’re usually told it’s white people we can’t marry, and it’s not so surprising that when North American Sikhs do marry out, it’s usually with a white partner.

So what I’m trying to get at is that perhaps parents shouldn’t even bring up Muslims,  but that’s hard for us Sikhs, because so much of our latter history is intertwined with them. So how can we prevent ingraining our children that Muslims are not a forbidden fruit, that they have to have. I think it personally comes down to teaching them about the religion’s corrupted morality and the history of Muhammad.

 

 

By nature, women are generally more exogamic. 

Our women are no different in that regard.

What has happened is that men have become increasingly feminised in the west. Our males are not that different. 

Muslims generally in the UK have insularised themselves to this. 

A muslim of today would find it very difficult to try it on with non-muslim females in a pre-feminised society because the non-muslim menfolk would protect their women folk. 

For all the cries of feminism and equality, what a lot of women say and how they actually behave is very different. 

The reality is women find feminised wimpy men quite pathetic, no matter how they say they want a caring sensitive man.

Our males have become wimpy and pathetic and our women are turned off by it.

Women want masculine men and our Sikh men need to regain their masculinity. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use