Jump to content

Inter-Racial Marriage Between Sikh and Christian


Guest Guest Amrit
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/15/2019 at 5:26 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Fair point. 

But let's not idealise our own past like moronic englishmen who imagine some pure England that never really existed outside of the imagination of some literary types. Charitrio Pakyaan and the fact that Panjabis have a whole host of folk tales that point at illicit meetings up (hello - Heer Ranhja, Sohni-Mehiwal, Mirza-Sahibaan etc etc. anyone??), clearly point at these things going on in the past too. 

When we go into fudhoo mode and a start imagining some pure and pristine golden era that never existed - we just set ourselves up for perpetual disappointment. Our ancestors dealt with all this type of sleaze too. It's not a new thing.

The question people should be asking maybe, is: "Well, if there is strong evidence of these illicit relationships taking place in the past - how comes we seem so shocked and unprepared for them now?"

I think the answer is pretty straightforward: Colonialism. 

That period of being under goray boots made our lot imbibe that contemporary Victorian, prudish, sexually repressed conservative attitude to sexual matters that goray were (and are!) famous for in that period and that influence (which we haven't shaken off) has turned us into a bunch of clueless fudhoos on these matters. Look how pervasive that anglo influence was/is - we have people to this day that are unable to accept CP as created within the Sikh ethos as a consequence. 

????

are you even following the discussion.  nobody is talking about a pristine past.  you seem to be talking about lust and CP.

we are talking about intermarriages with other religions/ races.  not sex.

no offence, but you always try to hard to come across as some kind of intellectual in your posts, but they end up as messes.  

colonialism did not turn indians into prudes (not that this is even on topic?).  and colonialism ended 70 years ago.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2019 at 8:53 PM, Guest DhanDhan Mata Gujari said:

Those are lies that the Mughals and their paid Hindu writers have planted into Sikh minds.

The actual reality is that Mata Gujjar Kaur was of a Gujjar background.

And the Sodhi clan was never a Khatri clan so the same-caste theory was a lie planted to divide Sikhs

in what way do these 'lies' divide sikhs?  aren't Sodhis Khatris via Bachittar Natak?

Mata Gujjar did not have Kaur attached to her name.  And why would her name be her caste?  Can you imagine a Jat saint being called Mata Jat or a Brahmin Mata Brahmin?  seriously.  Gujjar was her name.  

why would mughals plant these lies?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2019 at 3:33 AM, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Err. Before giving it the big intellectual challenge maybe you should read up and learn about how logical thinking and critical thought works.. "There is scant evidence that sikhs are not meant to worship fairies." doesn't mean that we should start worshipping fairies. It just means that until you provide evidence that we shouldn't you can't say that we can't.. 

You need to learn about the laws of logic. Gurbani is based on logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

so theres no evidence you shouldn't smoke or drink alcohol in the Gurdwara.  Why don't you go try it on that basis?  See the degenerate nature of you line of 'reasoning'?  

Gurbani is not based on logic.  It is not written as a logical treatise.  It is based on revealation (Gur Prasad/ Dhur Ki Bani).

Logic (Nyaya) is one of the 'six schools (of philosophy)' which is referred to in Gurbani.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2019 at 2:54 AM, Sukhvirk1976 said:

No evidence to suggest otherwise 

in Dasam Granth, it says worst of Kaljug will be when castes intermarry and religions get mixed up.  see here for quotes:

Old Sikh rehits say not to marry a muslim, or to eat halal or engage in muslim culture.  they also say not to take up brahmin practices.  so do you not think marrying a non-sikhsm is by extension, a violation of the underlying principle here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Manas ki Jaath Sab1k
On 2/6/2019 at 10:40 AM, dallysingh101 said:

Well other religious communities have weathered this storm and are made up of a very ethnically diverse range of people. Are you saying that we can't handle this? What you are really talking about is our ability to assimilate people within our community - it could much better than it is right now in my opinion. 

And as for appearance. I don't get that argument. Having a wider gene pool can have positives as well as negatives. Again it's going to be our ability (or otherwise) to impart the values and moorings of our faith that clinches the matter.

Well said Dally. Don't always agree with you. But on this well done for being the only person to refute this nonsensical notion of the racial purity of the Panth!

On 2/8/2019 at 9:51 PM, Guest The Master Race said:

Word. Our race is being diluted and weakened with non-white blood and thats only gonna result in a loss of identity by appearance, a loss of culture by mixed-heritage and a loss of faith by mixed-beliefs.

That's exactly what the KKK shout about all the time.

On 2/15/2019 at 1:03 AM, Guest guest said:

Gurus married within their own dharams and castes.  

Look what has happened to the Parsis, who had lax attitudes to inter-marriages in India.  Their community has dwindled.

So Mata Sulakhani Ji was not a non-Sikh prior to her Anand Karaj? 

Mata Gujjari Ji were from the Gujjar tribe and this is well documented.

The Parsi community actually try hard to marry within their own (but fail).

On 2/15/2019 at 5:26 PM, dallysingh101 said:

CP as created within the Sikh ethos as a consequence. 

But in a previous convo we had Dally you accepted that CP were ancient Hindu stories.

On 2/15/2019 at 8:53 PM, Guest DhanDhan Mata Gujari said:

Those are lies that the Mughals and their paid Hindu writers have planted into Sikh minds.

The actual reality is that Mata Gujjar Kaur was of a Gujjar background.

And the Sodhi clan was never a Khatri clan so the same-caste theory was a lie planted to divide Sikhs

Exactly - only a non-Sikh would try to imply that our Guru's were casteists! 

On 2/16/2019 at 11:41 AM, dallysingh101 said:

I can't see how race comes into that. If we are so preoccupied with preserving race, we'd have no problem with interbreeding with those people across the border from us back home. 

I'm just confused about what people are trying to preserve? Surely Sikhs aren't a race, even if some political mechanisms have made them out to be in the UK. 

Well said Dally 100% agree and kudos for being the lone voice opposing the lies

On 2/18/2019 at 12:45 AM, Guest guest said:

in what way do these 'lies' divide sikhs?  aren't Sodhis Khatris via Bachittar Natak?

Mata Gujjar did not have Kaur attached to her name.  And why would her name be her caste?  Can you imagine a Jat saint being called Mata Jat or a Brahmin Mata Brahmin?  seriously.  Gujjar was her name.  

why would mughals plant these lies?

Do you also believe that the Sodhi's were Hindu Kings in their previous lives as stated in BN and that caste is immutable from one previous life to the next? You might believe that but history, common sense and the majority of the human population (and indeed most Sikhs) do not.

Just like Mata Gujjar Kaur were from the Gujjar tribe, Bhagat Dhanna Jat Ji actually happened to be from the Jat tribe. Bhagat Ji were not Khatri. Similarly Dhan Dhan Baba Ravidas Ji Maharaj were not Khatri. There are many Sodhi's in Punjab who are Tharkhan, Jat, Chamar etc so the claim that Sodhi is a Khatri surname simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

As to why the Mughals would ask their paid scribes to insert this false claim of our Guru's (who advocated the obliteration of the caste system) supposedly marrying within their own so-called castes ... the answer is pretty obvious in that they did that to denigrate everything the Khalsa Panth and Sikhi stands for in terms of Unity and brotherhood and equality. The Muslims and their Hindu sycophants were terrified of the damage that a united and casteless community could do to their tyrannical rule. Especially in the context of four of the five Panj Piare being non-Punjabi and 80% being from so-called "lower castes" in the eyes of the Muslims and Hindu's.

On 2/18/2019 at 1:51 AM, Guest guest said:

in DG it says worst of Kaljug will be when castes intermarry

The Sikh Panth will only advance and prosper when we do just that and obliterate the notion of caste from Sikh minds and ensuring that every pind in Punjab only has one united Gurdwara and the same for every town in the West.

United we can stand again but divided we will continue to fall (if we continue maintaining separate Gurdwara's and matrimonial circles and spousal choices).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2019 at 12:57 AM, Guest guest said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

so theres no evidence you shouldn't smoke or drink alcohol in the Gurdwara.  Why don't you go try it on that basis?  See the degenerate nature of you line of 'reasoning'?  

Gurbani is not based on logic.  It is not written as a logical treatise.  It is based on revealation (Gur Prasad/ Dhur Ki Bani).

Logic (Nyaya) is one of the 'six schools (of philosophy)' which is referred to in Gurbani.

 

Gurbani is not logical.. 

Please let me refer you to mul mantar.. 

It is logical in every way possible.. 

Also if it not logical then are you suggesting it is illogical..? 

Nyaya maybe one of the six schools.. But have you considered that bani is unique because it encompasses and transcends any one truth.. It demonstrates the limitations of any one school and goes to the essence.. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2019 at 7:00 AM, Guest Manas ki Jaath Sab1k said:

So Mata Sulakhani Ji was not a non-Sikh prior to her Anand Karaj? 

Mata Gujjari Ji were from the Gujjar tribe and this is well documented.

The Parsi community actually try hard to marry within their own (but fail).

Do you also believe that the Sodhi's were Hindu Kings in their previous lives as stated in BN and that caste is immutable from one previous life to the next? You might believe that but history, common sense and the majority of the human population (and indeed most Sikhs) do not.

Just like Mata Gujjar Kaur were from the Gujjar tribe, Bhagat Dhanna Jat Ji actually happened to be from the Jat tribe. Bhagat Ji were not Khatri. Similarly Dhan Dhan Baba Ravidas Ji Maharaj were not Khatri. There are many Sodhi's in Punjab who are Tharkhan, Jat, Chamar etc so the claim that Sodhi is a Khatri surname simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

As to why the Mughals would ask their paid scribes to insert this false claim of our Guru's (who advocated the obliteration of the caste system) supposedly marrying within their own so-called castes ... the answer is pretty obvious in that they did that to denigrate everything the Khalsa Panth and Sikhi stands for in terms of Unity and brotherhood and equality. The Muslims and their Hindu sycophants were terrified of the damage that a united and casteless community could do to their tyrannical rule. Especially in the context of four of the five Panj Piare being non-Punjabi and 80% being from so-called "lower castes" in the eyes of the Muslims and Hindu's.

The Sikh Panth will only advance and prosper when we do just that and obliterate the notion of caste from Sikh minds and ensuring that every pind in Punjab only has one united Gurdwara and the same for every town in the West.

United we can stand again but divided we will continue to fall (if we continue maintaining separate Gurdwara's and matrimonial circles and spousal choices).

Mata Sulakhni, just like Guru Nanak, Bibi Nanaki and Guru Nanak's earthly parents were all same caste and religious background (Hindu Khatris).  What exactly are you trying to prove with your statement?  Who told you they had an Anand Karaj?

Where is Mata Gujri's caste "well documented"?  And who documented it?  "Mughal scribes"???

Why did the Parsi population decline?  Because they could not (according to you) marry in their community.  You are admitting as much.

Bhagat Dhanna is not called Bhagat Dhanna Jatt.  No one calls Bhagat Dhanna- Bhagat Jat or Jat ji.  No one is claiming that any of the Bhagats are Khatri.  You seem to hate khatris for some reason.  So what caste was Guru Arjan Dev ji from, according to your understanding?  Your example of castes using other caste surnames does not prove anything (not that I have heard any other castes using the name Sodhi).  Even when different castes use another castes surname, they still marry within their own caste.

So you think some 'mughal scribes' snuck into every sikh library and altered the texts (with tipex?) to include castes?  how do you even know the castes of Punj Piare if they weren't written somewhere?  and who wrote them?  mughal scribes?  Sorry, but muslims would also say that Islam means unity, brotherhood etc.   also, unity does not mean negation.  e.g. a french christian and a chinese christian can pray together, does not mean they have to denounce their backgrounds  to do so.

You denounce BN, but your username is a quote from Dasam Granth!

So your basis for what constitutes belief is not scripture and tradition, but "history, common sense and the majority of the human population".  in other words, you think religion should conform to outer, mass society's beliefs?  and you call yourself a devotee?  why do you even bother to be sikh?  why don't you just call yourself a socialist or whatever, if thats what you believe in?

i think you are from a low caste background, and resent other castes (or not being from them) hence what they all negated (even from history).  that is kind of petty,  sorry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Gurbani is not logical.. 

Please let me refer you to mul mantar.. 

It is logical in every way possible.. 

Also if it not logical then are you suggesting it is illogical..? 

Nyaya maybe one of the six schools.. But have you considered that bani is unique because it encompasses and transcends any one truth.. It demonstrates the limitations of any one school and goes to the essence.. 

 

i suggest you look up the word 'logical'.  i don't think you understand its correct meaning.

Mool Mantar is not a 'logical statement'.  Logical means building up one statement on another.  For example:   

Mool Mantra is not a set of prepositions that lead to some kind of inference.  And the last line of Mool Mantra is 'Gur Prasadi'!

I am not saying Gurbani is 'illogical'.  

Your last statement is really beautiful, but you are the one who claimed logic.  Now you are saying it transcends logic.  So you are just changing your position in order to justify your own views.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guest guest said:

i suggest you look up the word 'logical'.  i don't think you understand its correct meaning.

Mool Mantar is not a 'logical statement'.  Logical means building up one statement on another.  For example:   

Mool Mantra is not a set of prepositions that lead to some kind of inference.  And the last line of Mool Mantra is 'Gur Prasadi'!

I am not saying Gurbani is 'illogical'.  

Your last statement is really beautiful, but you are the one who claimed logic.  Now you are saying it transcends logic.  So you are just changing your position in order to justify your own views.

 

Your views are twisted crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guest guest said:

i suggest you look up the word 'logical'.  i don't think you understand its correct meaning.

Mool Mantar is not a 'logical statement'.  Logical means building up one statement on another.  For example:   

Mool Mantra is not a set of prepositions that lead to some kind of inference.  And the last line of Mool Mantra is 'Gur Prasadi'!

I am not saying Gurbani is 'illogical'.  

Your last statement is really beautiful, but you are the one who claimed logic.  Now you are saying it transcends logic.  So you are just changing your position in order to justify your own views.

 

I think you should expand your horizons.

Are you suggesting Mool mantar is not logical? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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