Supporting non-sikhs isn’t our main priority?

[Sikhi4Ever]

Does sangat here agree that Sikhs should support/help in progressing of another Sikh before helping non-Sikhs? 

 

[dallysingh101]

Not always. We have some proper rotters amongst us too. People who will readily accept help and then turn around and 5hite on a next brother/sister without a second thought once their pehr get pukkay. 

Overall though, we should all be aiming at the growth and progress of the panth. But in the words of Public Enemy

"Every brother ain't a brother because a black hand squeezed on Malcolm X the man."

[puzzled]

In terms of charity then I think sikhs should give charity to poor sikhs first and then help others. Millions of sikhs in India living in poverty, If sikhs aren't gonna help them then who is

In terms of general help and support then it don't really matter, should help anyone in that case 

[jkvlondon]

2 hours ago, puzzled said:

In terms of charity then I think sikhs should give charity to poor sikhs first and then help others. Millions of sikhs in India living in poverty, If sikhs aren't gonna help them then who is

In terms of general help and support then it don't really matter, should help anyone in that case 

if you can give business to a sikh tradesman  what's the harm  , we  would progress further in the country as musley give business to their own , same hindus to their own in preference over others . If we help a kiriti singh/kaur  his/her  family benefit, thus we all benefit  as it increases confidence in sikhi values, which rubs off on the kids .

[Ranjeet01]

6 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

if you can give business to a sikh tradesman  what's the harm  , we  would progress further in the country as musley give business to their own , same hindus to their own in preference over others . If we help a kiriti singh/kaur  his/her  family benefit, thus we all benefit  as it increases confidence in sikhi values, which rubs off on the kids .

From a Sikh quam perspective, we don't have an in group preference  like other communities do.

 

[jkvlondon]

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

From a Sikh quam perspective, we don't have an in group preference  like other communities do.

 

maybe you need to read more hukams as there is a duty to ensure we help poor sikhs and its stated explicitly e.g. marrying a poor family's daughter without demands , if we see a sikh brither/sister struggling to go to their aid, logically speaking when we act cohesively we can protect the group/kaum better. It's very much the rule in nature . If we are only as strong as our weakest links then we need to bring everybody upwards spiritually , and worldly , otherwise we will be ignoring Guru ji's hukam to treat everyone as brothers and sisters and failing to remove caste prejudices and monetary/career barriers to ensure those from the 'lowest' jaat are truly respected as much as those from advantaged start points e.g. the situations in Shillong and in MP with the sikhligars would never have occurred in the time of the Gurus because the sikhs had each others' backs

[Ranjeet01]

40 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

maybe you need to read more hukams as there is a duty to ensure we help poor sikhs and its stated explicitly e.g. marrying a poor family's daughter without demands , if we see a sikh brither/sister struggling to go to their aid, logically speaking when we act cohesively we can protect the group/kaum better. It's very much the rule in nature . If we are only as strong as our weakest links then we need to bring everybody upwards spiritually , and worldly , otherwise we will be ignoring Guru ji's hukam to treat everyone as brothers and sisters and failing to remove caste prejudices and monetary/career barriers to ensure those from the 'lowest' jaat are truly respected as much as those from advantaged start points e.g. the situations in Shillong and in MP with the sikhligars would never have occurred in the time of the Gurus because the sikhs had each others' backs

I understand what you are saying.

The problem with the Sangat is in our interpretation of this. Most of our quam think that we are not being equal by putting ourselves before we help others.

How we can we help others if we cannot put ourselves first?

[jkvlondon]

4 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I understand what you are saying.

The problem with the Sangat is in our interpretation of this. Most of our quam think that we are not being equal by putting ourselves before we help others.

How we can we help others if we cannot put ourselves first?

it's the old airmask analogy , put your one on first then you are in a position to help others ... but the current interpretation is foisted on us by people who would rather see us exhaust our resources , energy, focus, and lifetimes on other causes first , BTW not saying we can't help others but we should help our own because NO ONE  has their back , thus when we ignore them the vultures circle and pick them off by enticing them to other faiths on promise of resources/healthcare. If we cannot rely on our own kaum to help us , what good is all the rest of the show ?

[Ranjeet01]

15 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

it's the old airmask analogy , put your one on first then you are in a position to help others ... but the current interpretation is foisted on us by people who would rather see us exhaust our resources , energy, focus, and lifetimes on other causes first , BTW not saying we can't help others but we should help our own because NO ONE  has their back , thus when we ignore them the vultures circle and pick them off by enticing them to other faiths on promise of resources/healthcare. If we cannot rely on our own kaum to help us , what good is all the rest of the show ?

This is one of things that people critique about Ravi Singh of Khalsa Aid.

[Amit12]

20 hours ago, Sikhi4Ever said:

Does sangat here agree that Sikhs should support/help in progressing of another Sikh before helping non-Sikhs? 

 

I think if someone in front of me needs help, i wont think about their religion first.... i'll just help. i think thats what gurus would do.