Jump to content

ex sikhs are not sikhs


joker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, proactive said:

Ironically the liberals are the most intolerant of any opinion that goes against their own. 

Literallyyy. Will never question muslims because they know what will happen. The fact we sikhs have allowed such people to constantly undermine our religious practices shows how weak we have become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, proudkaur21 said:

if you confront him he will be writing long articles for the BBC about radical sikhs trying to harm him.

By confront I merely mean ask questions of him. But, yeah, I get your point. You could merely ask him to defend his hypocrisies, and he would claim in his Guardian article that Sikhs are "threatening" him.

And the London trendy whites would eat it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, proudkaur21 said:

Literallyyy. Will never question muslims because they know what will happen. The fact we sikhs have allowed such people to constantly undermine our religious practices shows how weak we have become.

I think it started with the kumbaya manipulation of Sikh culture during colonialism (i.e. the creation of 'Sikhism' that had their confused puppets (i.e. theologians) teaching the illiterate/semi-illiterate masses that all religions are paths to God, we are all one etc. etc. They cleverly did this whilst manipulating the social make up of Panjab along 'religious' lines.  

It seems like a planned 'successive approximation' to turn us into them. So now, we have hordes of Sikhs who actually truly believe we are this super left-wing, liberal people........the whole warrior, self-protective element of Sikhi as embodied in the Khalsa is completely eradicated in these people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BhForce said:

By confront I merely mean ask questions of him. But, yeah, I get your point. You could merely ask him to defend his hypocrisies, and he would claim in his Guardian article that Sikhs are "threatening" him.

And the London trendy whites would eat it up.

That's exactly what he would do. It's fashionable in his circles to play the beleaguered victim, crusader who is bravely confronting backwards, 'extremist' primitives. Certain newspapers will pay him for such articles. That's how he eats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some days I get really angry about the state of our panth but then I realize religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been around for way longer than us. Comparing ourselves to them right now is futile since they have been established for so long now especially at a time when people believed in anything. Let's see what the future holds for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

teaching the illiterate/semi-illiterate masses that all religions are paths to God, we are all one etc. etc.

Just to clarify, do you believe that non-Sikhs are going to Hell?

Doesn't ਏਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਏਕਸ ਕੇ ਹਮ ਬਾਰਿਕ mean we are all one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

That's exactly what he would do. It's fashionable in his circles to play the beleaguered victim, crusader who is bravely confronting backwards, 'extremist' primitives. Certain newspapers will pay him for such articles. That's how he eats. 

Majid Nawaaz is the Muslim equivalent of that, although he recently seems to have upgraded himself, and he's going after Big Pharma and the shadowy elites, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, proudkaur21 said:

Some days I get really angry about the state of our panth but then I realize religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been around for way longer than us. Comparing ourselves to them right now is futile since they have been established for so long now especially at a time when people believed in anything. Let's see what the future holds for us.

Well, shouldn't it be the reverse? I think you seem to be saying that religions get better with time, but aren't they usually the best right when they're founded, and then they decline?

We've only been around 300 years or so, and we're already a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BhForce said:

Just to clarify, do you believe that non-Sikhs are going to Hell?

Doesn't ਏਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਏਕਸ ਕੇ ਹਮ ਬਾਰਿਕ mean we are all one?

Look, we aren't abrahamic with a binary, we are going to heavan, they are all going to hell psychosis. But we still have a clear, unique identity and way of life/culture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MisterrSingh said:

Majid Nawaaz is the Muslim equivalent of that, although he recently seems to have upgraded himself, and he's going after Big Pharma and the shadowy elites, lol.

Well, to be fair, the jihadis he opposes actually do want to kill him and everybody else (including us). By contrast, Sunny whines about people merely using words against him.

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

    • Sri Kesgarh Sahib (and Akaal Takht) has always allowed eating meat for those who take Amrit there, as long as it's not ritually killed like halaal.  They've followed the official Sikh Rehat Maryada since it was made in the 30s, before that they were Nihang Maryada who also allow meat. So no Panj Pyaare have ever mandated being veg at Anandpur Sahib. You can read the full Sikh Rehat Maryada in English, it includes the Panj Pyaare are meant to say on the day (page 57 I believe). My cousin took Amrit at Anandpur Sahib and my other one in Darbar Sahib 8 years later. I recently showed them both this page and they said that's exactly what the Panj said to them word for word at their Sanchaars
    • Anandpur Sahib does and always has followed the Sikh Rehat Maryada, same as Darbar Sahib in Amritsar. They allow you to eat any eggs, fish or meat as long it is not Halal meat/killed Ritualistically. They say Kes is the Kakkar, not Keski. I believe only AKJ says that and nobody else. You can read the full Sikh Rehat Maryada, page 56-7 I believe is what the Panj Pyaare are meant to say on the day. My cousin took Amrit at Anandpur Sahib and the other in Darbar Sahib 8 years later. I showed them both this page and they said that is exactly what the Panj said to them word for word at their Sanchaar
    • All Sikhs must recite Rehras Sahib daily but Chaupai Sahib and the short Anand Sahib were only added to it by SGPC and other jathebandis in the 1900s. In Guru Granth Sahib Ji's saroop, "Sodar Rehras" appears from "So dar tera keha" to "Saran pare ki rakho sarma", which is basically the first half of "Rehras" in all standard Gutka Sahibaan. So why do we recite these? Obviously doing more Baani can never be bad, but most Amritdharis recite Benti Chaupai and Anand Sahib in their morning Nitnem so why should we recite these two Baania again instead of a new one? That time could be used to read Shastar Naam Mala, Shabad Hazaare etc. And why do these two Baanis get more importance than the others? Surely if we recite Chaupai Sahib and (part of) Anand Sahib twice in a day then we should also recite Japji Sahib, Jaap Sahib and Tav Prasad Savaiya twice as well? Note: Pls correct me if I'm wrong about SGPC. My theory is that they added these into Rehras Sahib cos they removed them from the morning Baania but still had to include them in the daily Nitnem somehow, but this doesn't explain why older Samparde like Budha Dal also have this version of Rehras Sahib in their Gutkeh - someone enlighten Daas pls Bhul Chuk Maaf
    • There's no debate that all Sikhs must recite Rehras Sahib daily but Chaupai Sahib and the short Anand Sahib were only added to "Rehras Sahib" by SGPC and other jathebandis in the 1900s. In Guru Granth Sahib Ji's saroop, "Sodar Rehras" appears from "So dar tera keha" to "Saran pare ki rakho sarma", which is basically the first half of "Rehras" in all standard Gutka Sahibaan. So why do we recite these? I agree doing more Baani can never be bad, but most Amritdharis recite Benti Chaupai and Anand Sahib in their morning Nitnem so why should we recite these two Baania again instead of a new one? That time could be used to read Shastar Naam Mala, Shabad Hazaare etc. And why do these two Baanis get more importance than the others? Surely if we recite Chaupai Sahib and (part of) Anand Sahib twice in a day then we should also recite Japji Sahib, Jaap Sahib and Tav Prasad Savaiya twice as well? Note: Pls correct me if I'm wrong about SGPC. My theory is that they added these into Rehras Sahib as they removed them from the morning Baania but still had to include them in the daily Nitnem somehow, but this doesn't explain why older Samparde like Budha Dal also have this version of Rehras Sahib in their Gutkeh - someone enlighten Daas pls Bhul Chuk Maaf
    • Uncle, realistically are you gonna challenge it in real life? I could fully jhatka and eat a steak wearing Bana bilkul tere samne but on God you could do nothing about that 😂
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use