Domestic and sexual abuse of silenced Sikh women revealed

[Ranjeet01]

23 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Nothing to dispute or counter here (it's all good), so I'll ask you a question that I'm not sure I know the answer to:

Taking all of the above into account, what causes a Muslim (generally speaking) to retain the desire to tow the Islamic line and retain that in-group intensity for his own kind even through the intense flattery and "chaa'ploosi" that's being showered upon him (or her), whereas the same tactics on a Sikh cause him (or her) to have their head turned making them abandon their own side for comparative scraps? What is it specifically that causes this to happen?

1. Darul Harb vs Darul Salam. They have an us and them mentality. You maintain loyalty by having a constant enemy

2.The chaaploosi that counts for the Pakistani muslim and other subcontinental muslim is reserved for the muslim master races: Arabs, Turks and Persians.

A Pakistani are known as beggars and the Arabs cannot stand them for good reason in the Gulf.

[MisterrSingh]

9 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

1. Darul Harb vs Darul Salam. They have an us and them mentality. You maintain loyalty by having a constant enemy

2.The chaaploosi that counts for the Pakistani muslim and other subcontinental muslim is reserved for the muslim master races: Arabs, Turks and Persians.

A Pakistani are known as beggars and the Arabs cannot stand them for good reason in the Gulf.

So it can be traced to the specific religion in question. Islam is based; it inspires fierce loyalty and an element of fear of the consequences (for not remaining loyal) whereas Sikhi has next to nothing of that, or at least that aspect of Sikhi has been watered-down to render it non-existent.

[Ranjeet01]

6 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

So it can be traced to the specific religion in question. Islam is based; it inspires fierce loyalty and an element of fear of the consequences (for not remaining loyal) whereas Sikhi has next to nothing of that, or at least that aspect of Sikhi has been watered-down to render it non-existent.

Islam is based on Arab tribalism, it is based on having an enemy. You create and alliances amongst groups by having an enemy. This is where the loyalty comes from. When there are no external enemies they turn on each other. 

Muslims will always back another muslim  (even though they may know they are wrong ) because of the tribal loyalty.

Sikh on the other hand will go against another Sikh for a non-Sikh because we do not have an us v them mentality. Our priority is based on going by what is true (or what they would think is truth ). Our scriptures are very different from the Quranic scripture because we have bhagats of different backgrounds in our Guru Granth Sahib that are in line with Sikhi. 

What this means is that if Bhagat or Pir also have elements of truth and this transfers into our dealings with people of other faiths.

[Jacfsing2]

46 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

So it can be traced to the specific religion in question. Islam is based; it inspires fierce loyalty and an element of fear of the consequences (for not remaining loyal) whereas Sikhi has next to nothing of that, or at least that aspect of Sikhi has been watered-down to render it non-existent.

Non-Sikhs as a whole have never been considered an enemy for the majority of our people. I think the biggest difference is the concept of Dharam within Sikhi, compared to Islam; where even though we have the idea of the Sangat; a Sikh would stay to what they value morality even when they are the only individual; while for the Muslim, they would only use their strength when they have certain numbers to force their will on people.

[MisterrSingh]

24 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Islam is based on Arab tribalism, it is based on having an enemy. You create and alliances amongst groups by having an enemy. This is where the loyalty comes from. When there are no external enemies they turn on each other. 

Muslims will always back another muslim  (even though they may know they are wrong ) because of the tribal loyalty.

Sikh on the other hand will go against another Sikh for a non-Sikh because we do not have an us v them mentality. Our priority is based on going by what is true (or what they would think is truth ). Our scriptures are very different from the Quranic scripture because we have bhagats of different backgrounds in our Guru Granth Sahib that are in line with Sikhi. 

What this means is that if Bhagat or Pir also have elements of truth and this transfers into our dealings with people of other faiths.

 

Spirituality (as prescribed in the dharmic traditions at least) while a lofty pursuit and something to aspire to for those that way inclined, can genuinely disadvantage and in some cases seriously damage a person's well-being in the arena of day-to-day life where sentimentality and "goodness" is a hindrance in a society or a world that doesn't abide by higher ideals.

The real danger is when you allay your instincts by following an ethos such as: "I'll plough on with this noble approach to life even if it causes me to suffer in the physical realm because God will reward me with His eternal favour in the divine realm."  I've known many Sikhs, particularly younger ones who've been cajoled into his mindset, who've had their lives negatively impacted (to put it mildly) because they were lead to believe that even self-preservation expressed through the slightest move towards self-interest is an affront to God.

 

[Ranjeet01]

22 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

 

Spirituality (as prescribed in the dharmic traditions at least) while a lofty pursuit and something to aspire to for those that way inclined, can genuinely disadvantage and in some cases seriously damage a person's well-being in the arena of day-to-day life where sentimentality and "goodness" is a hindrance in a society or a world that doesn't abide by higher ideals.

The real danger is when you allay your instincts by following an ethos such as: "I'll plough on with this noble approach to life even if it causes me to suffer in the physical realm because God will reward me with His eternal favour in the divine realm."  I've known many Sikhs, particularly younger ones who've been cajoled into his mindset, who've had their lives negatively impacted (to put it mildly) because they were lead to believe that even self-preservation expressed through the slightest move towards self-interest is an affront to God.

 

The concept of seva can be taken to it's extreme means taking selflessness in every aspect of your life. Putting your self last is seen as a noble act.

However, extreme selflessness can be one of the worst form selfishness because you are doing selflessness for a reward and it is not really for altruistic reasons.

If your satisfy your needs first and you are santokhi then any form of seva you are doing you are not expecting anything back in return. The altruism will be more genuine.

How can you help others when you cannot even help yourself first?

[GurjantGnostic]

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

So it can be traced to the specific religion in question. Islam is based; it inspires fierce loyalty and an element of fear of the consequences (for not remaining loyal) whereas Sikhi has next to nothing of that, or at least that aspect of Sikhi has been watered-down to render it non-existent.

Sikhi inspires fierce loyalty without fear of any consequence except from the world istelf. 

The Chali Mukte became Shaheed after the great majority were allowed to simply walk away, having the necessary signatures disvowing the Guru Sahiban. 

During the midst of battles, most other forces abuse, or kill deserters, dissenters etc. Nobody at normandy was allowed to leave. And most of them had not decided to go. 

We may encourage, and socially influence people to stay good Sikhs, and a lot of that is the love all families have that want to see their kin do well.  Screening for grooming and coercion by outside elements requires the rest of the diligence for those on their way out. 

Our loyalty to the death was always to death by outside forces, not our supposed own. 

[GurjantGnostic]

16 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The concept of seva can be taken to it's extreme means taking selflessness in every aspect of your life. Putting your self last is seen as a noble act.

However, extreme selflessness can be one of the worst form selfishness because you are doing selflessness for a reward and it is not really for altruistic reasons.

If your satisfy your needs first and you are santokhi then any form of seva you are doing you are not expecting anything back in return. The altruism will be more genuine.

How can you help others when you cannot even help yourself first?

All about balance. All about doing both. But you can only give everything once and that's reserved for Sikhi. 

[GurjantGnostic]

I've been driving door dash a bit lately. It's interesting poor people, when they order food include a tip, because in their mind if they have enough to splurge and get something delivered this once they can afford to tip. And all the people from them up to the truly very wealthy don't seem to feel rich enough to tip yet. They're too busy forever chasing it. I guess the poor person is in many ways more wealthy, even in their mind. 

Sometimes those poorer orders are really small dude. Like they could have doubled their food if they didn't tip. 

I'll drop off an entire car load of groceries to a huge house and not get a dime dude. 

Be careful you remember you always have enough, always have enough to share. 

The translation of the Gurbani is the "Guru's Sikh always has enough, always enough to share" I can't find it right this second. 

[dallysingh101]

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Nothing to dispute or counter here (it's all good), so I'll ask you a question that I'm not sure I know the answer to:

Taking all of the above into account, what causes a Muslim (generally speaking) to retain the desire to tow the Islamic line and retain that in-group intensity for his own kind even through the intense flattery and "chaa'ploosi" that's being showered upon him (or her), whereas the same tactics on a Sikh cause him (or her) to have their head turned making them abandon their own side for comparative scraps? What is it specifically that causes this to happen?

That's a big question. It's late, so I won't even bother trying to answer now. But will try tomorrow. I'm not sure if we can ever get a clear answer btw, but we should be able to get into the ball park.