Preet Gill / Chopra as MP for Birmingham Edgbaston

[Guest Husband=Sikh]

38 minutes ago, InderjitS said:

Considering her father's standing in society and previous active role in Smethwick, I'd be disappointed if she married a Hindu. 

Her husband's name is Sunny Singh Chopra and he is a Sikh who attends Smethwick Gurdwara.

Yes 90% of Khatri's are mostly Muslims and Hindu's but 10% of Khatri's are actually Sikh.

Yes 80% of Jats are mostly Muslims and some Hindu's but that doesn't mean some cannot be Sikh.

We all know this thread was started by a non-Sikh troll but to assume that Khatri means Hindu is stupid.

Just because Nawaz Sharif former Prime Minister of Pakistan is from the Brahmin (Butt) caste like most of the Kashmiri terrorists and the London Brahmin Muslim terrorist (Khurram Butt) does it mean there cannot be any Brahmins who follow Hinduism?

If you are going to spout things which don't add up at least have the decency not to associate Sant Ji with your lies.

[Guest Inder Indira]

1 hour ago, InderjitS said:

Sikhi is a niara panth we accept quality over quantity everytime. 

Well done for just spouting the Hindutva line of we need fewer and fewer Sikhs 

The Khalsa Panth is where it is important that we accept quality over quantity.

In the 1947 Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs had Sikh and Muslim numbers been equal then Sri Nankana Sahib would not be under Pakistani control today. Had there been more Sikhs (only 14% of all Punjabi's were Sikh in 1947) then 20% of the Sikh population would not have been murdered by the Muslims in the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs.

In the 1984 Congress (Indira) Genocide of Sikhs had there been more than just a hundred Singhs with Sant Ji do you think Congress would have won? Had sehajdhari Sikhs been a majority in Delhi do you think there would have been state genocide against a majority population? How will Khalistan ever happen when Sikhs become a minority in Punjab the next few years thanks to people like you doing their level best to alienate people from the Sikh Panth rather than to grow the Panth in size?

Your own ancestors came into Sikhi from either a Hindu or Muslim background via marriage at a Gurdwara.

Sikhi is not the fastest growing religion but it is the fastest reducing religion in Punjab having gone from 63% of the population to around 55% today (whilst Radha Soami's, Nirankari's and all dera's are counted among Sikh numbers).

Between 2021 to 2031 Sikhs will be a minority in Punjab but people like you still find time to bash Preet Kaur Gill.

When it comes to your own son or grandson marrying a gori and you telling them they cannot marry in a Gurdwara then I hope that day you feel proud that you have alienated him, his wife and future generations away from Sikhi. Because at the rate people like you want to alienate young Sikhs like Preet Kaur Gill MP and her children away from Sikhi then there won't be many of us left in the UK by then given that we are only 0.7% of the population in the UK now!

[BhForce]

On 3/22/2018 at 12:52 PM, InderjitS said:

Is it ok for us to accept interfaith marriage, if it took place at the GuruGhar, providing the person in question then works for Sikh rights?

Well, no, I don't think we would accept the interfaith marriage (as a principle). 

The fact that someone may be married to a non-Sikh is simply reality. But we don't accept it as Sikh doctrine.

On the other hand, I've said many times on this board that we shouldn't bother with Sikh (or non-Sikh) politicians' personal lives. We should merely be concerned with their stance on Sikh issues.

Consider: Did Guru Gobind Singh ji bother with Bahadur Shah's personal morality with respect to women, or the fact that he was a Gursikh or not when Guru Sahib decided to support him to ascend to the Mughal throne?

[InderjitS]

7 hours ago, Guest Husband=Sikh said:

Her husband's name is Sunny Singh Chopra and he is a Sikh who attends Smethwick Gurdwara.

Thanks for the clarification. 

Now back to IF marriages in general can someone find me a rehatnama or for that matter one of our reference teekai used by Kathakaars that a Sikh can marry a non Sikh. 

5 hours ago, Guest Inder Indira said:

Well done for just spouting the Hindutva line of we need fewer and fewer Sikhs 

Oh the irony. Stop hiding behind your narakdhari idol's ID and reveal who you really are, je jurat hai and I might respond to your claptrap.

[Guest Indirajit]

People who don't keep rehit are not Sikhs. Patits do not count as Sikhs

Regardless of if her husband is a Sikh now she had an interfaith marriage before so she is NOT a Sikh 

[S4NGH]

12 hours ago, InderjitS said:

We don't, hence why I used 'if' and my response was more to you stating 'what does it matter'. Considering her father's standing in society and previous active role in Smethwick, I'd be disappointed if she married a Hindu. Without knowing the full facts, I'll leave it at that.

Teek ah Singh. I respect your views. 

[InderjitS]

11 hours ago, BhForce said:

We should merely be concerned with their stance on Sikh issues.

Singh,

I don't understand why you're singling out politicians for special treatment. The same rules apply to anyone claiming to be a Sikh. 

Hypothetically speaking and yes this an extreme example; if in the loosest sense of the word a "Sikh" is raising their voice the loudest for Khalistan, rehai for imprisoned Singh's, justice for genocide, Punjab rights as per Anandpur resolution etc, but is clandestinely visiting brothel's, doing drugs or other illegitimate base activities going against grain of Sikh teachings, would you be happy to be represented by them? I certainly wouldn't.

Please elaborate what was his stance on women, with examples. 

[BhForce]

5 hours ago, InderjitS said:

I don't understand why you're singling out politicians for special treatment. The same rules apply to anyone claiming to be a Sikh. 

Well, to my mind, I'm actually treating politicians the same. E.g., if a Sikh is loose in rehit, the people around him should gently persuade him to be stricter. Same for politicians.

And, for example, shopkeepers, do you care if a shopkeeper gets up at 1am in the morning to do simran and nitnem? As a customer, you care only if the product is good, and the price is right. Same for politicians.

5 hours ago, InderjitS said:

Please elaborate what was his stance on women, with examples. 

Are you talking about Bahadur Shah? I'm just talking about the general provisions for women in Islam. And then the general stance toward women by rajas, which is basically use and abuse.

But Guru Sahib knew that going in. Does anybody argue that Bahadur Shah was a Gurmukh?

5 hours ago, InderjitS said:

Hypothetically speaking and yes this an extreme example; if in the loosest sense of the word a "Sikh" is raising their voice the loudest for Khalistan, rehai for imprisoned Singh's, justice for genocide, Punjab rights as per Anandpur resolution etc, but is clandestinely visiting brothel's, doing drugs or other illegitimate base activities going against grain of Sikh teachings, would you be happy to be represented by them? I certainly wouldn't.

OK, bro. But let me offer you a hypothetical: You have a leader who is a bajjer kurehiti, apostate. He doesn't follow strictures of religion, but he's a bigshot leader, and he offers us the ability to get our own country. Do you take your country, or do you refuse the country because you wouldn't want it handed to you with a guy loose in rehit?

OK, I lied, it wasn't a hypothetical. I'm talking about the father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. As you know, he was basically apostate from Islam, being a lover of pork and wine and all. If the Pakistanis went by the picky standards of some of us, they'd not have a country, but hey, they'd at least not have suffered the ignominy of being led by an apostate.

(By the way, I'm one of the most conservative posters on this board regarding rehit and maryada. But that's for Sikhs as Sikhs, not for politicians as politicians.)

Also, in your hypothetical, what if it's a Hindu Punjabi or other non-Sikh who's doing all that stuff? Then do you care about his personal life?

[Guest Indirajit]

2 hours ago, BhForce said:

Well, to my mind, I'm actually treating politicians the same. E.g., if a Sikh is loose in rehit, the people around him should gently persuade him to be stricter. Same for politicians.

And, for example, shopkeepers, do you care if a shopkeeper gets up at 1am in the morning to do simran and nitnem? As a customer, you care only if the product is good, and the price is right. Same for politicians.

Are you talking about Bahadur Shah? I'm just talking about the general provisions for women in Islam. And then the general stance toward women by rajas, which is basically use and abuse.

But Guru Sahib knew that going in. Does anybody argue that Bahadur Shah was a Gurmukh?

OK, bro. But let me offer you a hypothetical: You have a leader who is a bajjer kurehiti, apostate. He doesn't follow strictures of religion, but he's a bigshot leader, and he offers us the ability to get our own country. Do you take your country, or do you refuse the country because you wouldn't want it handed to you with a guy loose in rehit?

OK, I lied, it wasn't a hypothetical. I'm talking about the father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. As you know, he was basically apostate from Islam, being a lover of pork and wine and all. If the Pakistanis went by the picky standards of some of us, they'd not have a country, but hey, they'd at least not have suffered the ignominy of being led by an apostate.

(By the way, I'm one of the most conservative posters on this board regarding rehit and maryada. But that's for Sikhs as Sikhs, not for politicians as politicians.)

Also, in your hypothetical, what if it's a Hindu Punjabi or other non-Sikh who's doing all that stuff? Then do you care about his personal life?

No BhForce I would much rather prefer to see the Genocide of Sikhs as a numerically weak and politically powerless community so that I can churn out the old RSS-inspired chestnut of "quality over quantity" as me and the RSS know full well that in a democracy small minorities will have no power or political say as a consequence.

My stance then at least allows me to view Sant Ji's shaheed body online and to think that at least the 100 or so Singhs with Sant Ji proved that quality defeats quantity each and every time. I'd rather see Sikhs as a smaller minority!

I look back at 1984 and see it as the greatest victory and I see the last 34 years of glorious Sikh victory thereafter. 

At least I can raise a toast to Pakistan having 200 million people having ethnically cleansed and eradicated their country of Sikhs as I can then point out to the Pakistani's and say that na na "quality is more important than quantity".

Why should Sikhi be spread? Let's restrict it to a tiny minority and then complain of injustice and genocide.

At least I can look backk at KPS Gill and General Brar and think that quality over quantity argument worked.

Best of all I'm happy for the RSS to define anyone with a pulse as Hindu whilst we Sikhs must reduce our numbers.

To be honest I'd much rather see a female Pakistani MP than a Hindu like Preet Gill representing Sikh interests

[Guest solihull]

Don't follow or have faith in these political figures or leaders. Empower yourselves and stop following these puppets.