Jump to content

Namaaz not allowed in Gurdwara


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, proactive said:

I am writing about Ravi Singh of Khalsa Aid, He has given a call on twitter for more Gurdwaras to offer themselves for holding Namaz. The other Ravi Ranjan Singh appears to either a Hindu convert to Sikhi or someone who comes from a mixed Hindu Sikh family. I think he is  a Bihari and was a litigant in the Ram Mandir case. He is also leading an organisation called the Jhatka committee aimed at fighting the dominance of Halal meat in India and promoting Jhatka in its place. So he is pretty shady in some aspects but positive in others. 

Now compare the two Ravis, someone born a Sikh and who gives out many statements about the way Sikhs have been treated by India and who is being projected as the greatest Sikh of the 21st century and who should be awarded the Nobel prize and the other is someone possibly born a Hindu, associated with the Hindu Mahasabha and thus probably someone who believes that Sikhs are Hindus. 

image.jpeg.62aa34d875a40855055ca1248953ba0e.jpeg   image.jpeg.7ec804098e02e25632f49cfa58386711.jpeg

 

Now which one would you think would be someone who would be defending the Rehat Maryada? Ravi Singh of Khalsa Aid or Ravi Ranjan Singh of Hindu Mahasabha?

The guess on face value and the true answer shows just what is wrong in our people at the moment. Ravi Singh of Khalsa Aid is quite happy to go against the Rehat Maryada and allow Namaz in our Gurdwaras, rather than just keep quiet when the Gurdwara Pardhan faced flak for his initial announcement offering the Gurdwara for Namaz, Ravi Singh KA is actually encouraging Gurdwaras to go against the Rehat Maryada! He may have a Khula Dharha but I doubt he has even read the Rehat Maryana or even has much knowledge of Gurbani, his charity is just a business he has set up to advance his liberal agenda. 

So they are both bad in your opinion?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't see the point of usIng the gurdwara for prayers  Muslims can lay down their mats and pray anywhere: on the street, in the park, in a lounge. But to do this, is like capitulating  

This is the undoing of over 500 years of history, we had always kept up our guard against these people and even though we might not have known on what basis their enmity towards us lay, we knew that b

No, I would say that Ravi Singh KA is a hundred times worse than the Hindu Mahasabha guy because the biggest danger is always from traitor within. The one who has been gradually wearing away the shiel

Posted Images

It's with a growing..frequency ..I find myself asking...just how involved is the uk with global terrorism, pakistan, taliban, and attacks on Sikhi in india and abroad to this day?

Definitely some infiltration, subversion vibes going on. Definitely some wasp cult vibes..sniff sniff fan...a soupcon of underaged sex traficking. Tsk tsk. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I don't see the point of usIng the gurdwara for prayers 

Muslims can lay down their mats and pray anywhere: on the street, in the park, in a lounge.

But to do this, is like capitulating  

Muslims are probably thinking , " What a bunch of mugs, we do not need to conquer them, they are letting us do this! Alhamidullah! "

They are blocking public parks and roads during Friday prayers hence why they are requesting the use of private places. 

I don't believe there is any necessity to pray in large groups. Hence they can pray at home and should do. Moreover these gatherings are generally politically where they are told what to do to further their jihad. Hence against the public interest. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I just wonder if Ravi's subversion is intentional or does he just sleepwalk.

Has he got complete cognitive dissonance?

 He is very supportive of the Yazidi but yet at the same time he inadvertently supports an ideology that trying to support them. Can he really be that blind?

It is like talking about the dangers of type 2 diabetes whilst at the same stuffing your face with a box of Ladoos. 

You see the same mentality with people who are pro-LGBT and who support Sharia Law for muslims, not realising the latter will annilihate the former. 

 

*destroy them not support them

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I just wonder if Ravi's subversion is intentional or does he just sleepwalk.

Has he got complete cognitive dissonance?

 He is very supportive of the Yazidi but yet at the same time he inadvertently supports an ideology that trying to support them. Can he really be that blind?

It is like talking about the dangers of type 2 diabetes whilst at the same stuffing your face with a box of Ladoos. 

You see the same mentality with people who are pro-LGBT and who support Sharia Law for muslims, not realising the latter will annilihate the former. 

 

The Yizidis were enslaved by the Jihadis from India during their various sieges.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad that it had to be RW Hindus taking the lead to awaken Sikhs to come out and challenge these worthless committees which have no regard for the Rehat Maryada. 

This just shows how deep we have fallen into the pit of liberalism. Just a decade ago it would be Sikhs who would be at the forefront of stopping the dominance of Islam and the Hindus were the liberals who would bend over backwards to appease the Muslims. Now it is the reverse. It is now likely to a Hindu would oppose the idiocy of Namaz in a Gurdwara and Sikhs would be all for it. 

I remember reading a book many years ago and there was a story there that during the Quetta earthquake in 1935 a Hindu widow and her children were forcibly converted to Islam. The Hindu societies in the area knew that the family could not return to Hinduism and live in Quetta. So they looked for a place where they knew that the Muslims of that place would never seek to bring the family back to Islam or attack them. They chose AMRITSAR, not because the Hindus were dominant there, they chose AMRITSAR because although the Sikhs in the city at the time were on 15% of the population, they knew that the Sikhs would never allow the Muslims to have their way with the family. This was the image of the Sikh was to these Hindus then. Would this be the case today? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
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...

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use