ISDhillon

oooohhh somebodies having a bad hair day

I'm grateful you don't hold an important position in the world.

"no brave person would live under a tyrannical regime they would die fighting period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Then

"They all have brave people but evidently not enough."

Very consistent.

very pedantic, what position in the world do you hold other than being a admin cut on sikhawareness?

The sort that live in fear, try political pressure to change regimes, call for international help to change regimes, find solace in God and live peacefully, have responsibilities to their children, are made to believe that the injustice is part of their faith etc.. although these do not make someone a criminal, most of us fit into this category - otherwise we would be out there freedom fighting not spending time on this forum. Most countries today are tyrannical in one form or another.

Speaking about/and comparing other tyrannical countries has everything to do with the subject.

So by your logic... China, India, Burma, Iran and countless other countries do not have any brave people?

since you insist in diverting:

India needs to be federal

China can go the same way as russia

Iran needs a good bombing

They all have brave people but evidently not enough.

In fact I do have a genuine dislike for china, india and iran. Burma I dont know much about except this recent thingy on the TV

India and China have terrorised many of it's indigineous people and give complete support to Burma's oppressive and murerous regime, do you agree that these 2 countries should be "wiped off the map"?

please do not stray from the topic this is obviously an iranianawareness website so we should stick to iran and iranians.

You take a very uneducated and ignorent view with all due respect.

coming from the person who cant stick to the topic

Many Iranians have opposed the regime, many have died or been detained, many, many others have left Iran and come to the west to escape, many, many, many others are not able to do so due to economic reasons etc.

opposed is not good enough what sort of people allow their brothers and sisters to be hung from cranes, the sort that needs a good bombing thats for sure

This is no different to people in many countries all over the world inc India and china. We should seek to spport these brave people not "blame" them and see them as future collateral damage.

no brave person would live under a tyrannical regime they would die fighting period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IS Dhillon - you consider the entire population of Iran guilty of tyranny?

if they dont overthrow their regime then they will infringe on other countries so they are responsible.

"if USA bombs iran for regime change is that terrorism?"

Yes.

then terrorism is good thing

admin cut: edited due to insults on different dharam.

So you are now condoning terrorist type activity against an entire nation based on your assessment of their political regime being tyrannical, with no option considered for alternative methods let alone a thought spared for its innocent citizens.

Are you sure this is what you mean?

Just a suggestion, however would you not agree that there are many "tyrannical" regimes currently in force around the globe?

yes but surely this thread is solely about iran?

In event, let's concede for the timebeing, that you are correct in your assessment of Iran as a tyrannical regime, surely it would be the regime that you would want to see ended rather than the entire country?

thats another possibility, in any case it would be through bombs surely?

On another note, if you're feeling lethargic, I always find a quick walk outside or some yoga provides more energy, otherwise a simple cup of tea works fine.

1. What about the "regime" have you grown 'tiresome' about?

their tyrannical ways

2. If you "harbour no feelings towards them", why would need them 'destroyed'?

I have grown tiresome of these regimes and no longer harbour any feelings towards them, I prefer they did not exist.

there was no need to delete my post i sincerely without hate would like iran destroyed this does not go against the rules of this forum, the mods made me charming

shove youre warning up your arse!!!!

admin cut: This is your first offical warning not to incite world wars on this place, it will not be tolerated.

Dear Vijaydeep and Dynamic Banda ,

It disgusts me the way our youth are operating I have recently moved to california so I am not living in the UK anymore but when i read the various panthic magazines I can see we are headed for trouble unless these vigilantes are not captured. I hope they will see sense before that happens.

Indy

when will we rescue the guru from the beadbi of caste based gurdwaras? and where will we put the guru when rescued is their a non-caste gurdwara/safe-house?

i prefer the original doesanybody know where i can download the original i think it on the soundtrack to the film baghi soorma

I know their are a lot of internal and external threats to sikhism, but why is their a witchunt for beadbi going on?

wel well well looks like i win haha, but seriously i think we should give the ISC some time as they are making alot of progress in terms of education and we should let them continue,

lol you should do stand up comedy another post which is designed to make you look like you know what youre talking about shall i have a go, here goes btw i have just cut and pasted this from another person i was debating with who was consumed with the ego of intellectual superiority:

Initially I would like to say that all you have said about me is a lie again it would take real effort from someone who was really interested in the dynamics of your scheming clueless conundrum to research, Your last post was a great failure it’s a rehash of everything you have said in all your other posts and the reason why you continue to respond is not to correct me but because you know I have got you by the short and curlies. There are major flaws in youre debating failing to accept this you then siphon references in an attempt to rebuild youre demolished claims which are again levelled failing this you then start to come out with youre true feelings about this discussion and when it is pointed out those views are irrelevant you take me back to square one and . Maybe you should try your hand in plain and simple terms instead of the usual pseudo-scholorary sentences which are laced with false merriment and jovial lamentation. My words are easily understandable perhaps there is an element of denial in your framework of logic. Those who live their lives on false pre-suppositions not only repeat history in their thought ,conduct and society, but also are condemned to rebirth. This is becoming incredibly boring now and you have still not answered many of my questions perhaps because you know deep down inside your position is flawed but that is a relationship with you and your conscience. I think you have now become paranoid and it is quite scandalous of you to think I give a **** whether anybody cares what I think this is all my response to you as an individual so let me just make a statement to anyone who is reading this: LOOK AWAY!!!. I do keep trying to wade you out of the swamp of ignorance which has engulfed your every pore but you seem to chuck it back in my face accept a helping hand when it is given to you for it is given in love, the amount of corrections needed in your last post are too many but as all ways I have tried my best to guide you. I am amazed at how many times I have had to state this but that is never referred to because I have publicly proven you wrong but you remain steadfast to the “divine denial†that’s ok it is not a measure of my extant just yours I hope in you’re next post you may recuperate some of youre worth. You have continued your incessant whining and have even got to the point of being sarcastic about my ability to uphold my argument there is no answer to any of my questions but a continual attempt to personally undermine me you have not been able to sustain any of the many accusations you make against me instead you bring in sideliners which are an attempt to divert me away from the trite you are delivering you are barking up the wrong tree and will continue to receive a roasting and face defeat as you have on this forum you go further in a couple of paragraphs about me personally slowly creating a deceptive web that you have now been caught in and have no escape and you will not be able to continue your deceitful program. How embarrassing your conduct throughout this whole discussion and still you deny to accept all your argumentative failures to date and the dismissal of the many questions that have been put forward to yourself, a personal opinion is devoid of any qualification and must be treated a a non-entity. Tsingh Sahib Ji I will not be lost in the mish-mash of words that you have displayed on more than one occasion, I will hold true to ,my principles and will listen attentively to all that you have to say and if there is anything that enlightens me I will honour you for it but to all the rest I openly declare that a deaf ear will be turned forthwith. The age today is not for information we have passed the information age and today we are only interested in something that can inspire us but your words are a series of fantasy statements and I am sure they are a mesmerising read to all that can understand it. I would advise you that it is more proactive for a challenged individual such as yourself to remain silent and start over with the learning process you must severe the links to your dead and wasteful convictions as they will not and have not aided you in your progress as a faithful adherent to whatever belief you claim to profess, they have in fact highlighted that you do not have any roots in any system of religion but are likened to a nomad who has no home."

I have encountered plenty like you before the above this is what i feed to people when they have not been able to engage in effective dialogue, copy it down and take it away its yours.

Indster

But doesn't this betray the real point which is that within such a polemic they REALLY feel that science/rationality/modernity is the TOUCHSTONE by which they must validate (and invalidate others) on?

i have too much time on my hands, who is they?, i have never suffered from the need to validate my faith, reason is the impasse of western civilization sikhi is a postmodern faith.

Isn't this the very problem with the idea of certain types of reform? Reform on what terms according to whom?

which reforms do you suggest have been a reaction to modernity (point by point) in sikhi.

UNLESS we take the discussion beyond the realm of mere 'Islam' as purely a religious doctrine and break it down into issues of specific national religious groups, their politics, their society, regional forms and their culture, its reaction to modernity.

because the current insurgency in iraq is from a group of muslims which belong to many cultures, in fact it is the doctrine of jihad itself which has been used to ferment and radicalise certain individuals from those countries, the problems in those countries are economic if it were a certain country then yes we would need to look at that country in detail but the fact is it is not.

Is this because they belong to a religion that is out of kilter with modern society?

no this is because of economic reasons, i never said islam was not a modern religion i said islam in its current form is not adaptable to all forms of life especially shariah - if you dont see that then i would seriously worry where youre conscience lies.

i think perhaps you have encountered people who throw around words like science, rationale and modernism to liberally well i am not that sort of person.

Indy

I would read J.S.Ahluwalia's book only I decided not to after he was forced to resign from Vice Chacellor of Punjabi university in Patiala having enticed young students to his residence to seduce or rape a few years back, and he also coincidentally then conspired to murder an acquaintence of mine who was trying to get the truth out. Interesting choice of text. I truly hope he isn't the greatest authority on Sikhism as you suggest as clearly his version of doctrine also negates morality.

there is really not much more in your last post to talk about however i wanted to quickly kill off this quote above, I actually have written about this claim did you know all the charges were never followed through with?, there is not a shred of proof that he ever committed such actions, and guess what? even if he seduces 50000 women i still would not say his work ws bad, when you read his literature his personal and private life is of no interest , its quite stunning how you argue against the supposed "moral" consequences of khalsa rehat but at the same time you are suffering from the same malaise, I will reiterate to all that the greatest literature by a sikh on sikhism is by Dr J S A hluwalia, and if he is a criminal it is OK BY ME!!!!!!!!! - his criminal activities are shrivel in the wake of his scholorary discourse. Call a spade a spade tsingh ji , i usually add a rejoinder to my statment about js ahluwalia work about the charges levelled against him so that people know the whole story and can therefore choose to be neutral or prudish i see you chose to be prudish. The simple fact is you are no different from all you criticise i suggest you reject hypocrisy and stop being melodramatic.

Indy

I repeat ISDhillon, that you are STILL mistaking my exemplification of the critique also applying to Sikhi WITH my own opinion! All these 'where did you learn your Sikhi' comments demonstrate that you didn't understand that point in the first post, and now the second. Third time lucky. Also, note that some questions are rhetorical, meaning they don't ask for an answer.

this is a pile of crap you meandre around these sentences yet they amount to nothing ask a question directly and it will be answered i have no need for rhetoric and your critique needs an argument yu have provided nothing but statements from your own personal opinion.

The POINT is that I do not necessarily believe what is written (although some of it I do), the point is that the same criticisms CAN be made coherently (no matter what you feel in response) to the Sikh tradition. They are valid criticisms. Deal with them as you will.

no they are not show me how? deal with them as you will? - then why bother entering a discussion when you have no intention of believing what the other person has to say.

I'll pick up for the sake of it some of the counter points you raised....

you need to do more than that the bankruptcy of your arguments is astonishing!

What exactly do you mean by Islam repeating its own history? As far as I can see the Islamist movement and its doctrine is in fact a modern response to colonialism and globalisation. Secondly I don't understand how 'repeating history' equates to not meeting the needs of modern society???? You say and imply Sikhi is better since it has not repeated history. Trust me, there is still time! Islam has a thousand years over Sikhi.

in history you have societies which configure and produce something unique ie the isc is a new tool for social order islam has no such quality its all about subjagation which they have done throughout history, what do they have to offer other than isalm itself? zero is the answer, they lossed their kingdms and due to ego they have fought and lossed every struggle throughout history unless they learn humility they will coninue to repeat these fatal errors. the thing about colonialism and globalisation is incorrect had this been the reason all the world would be in revolt yet only islam has the problem.

If you doubt these signals have any impact on women then you are ignoring the whole well researched and heavily supported sphere of social psychology, sociology and cultural theory - role modeling and social conformity make people do the most profound things.

sikhism has sent no signal to women other than equality this problem is inherent inyour discussions whatever you see in your crcleof life is not sikhism, it would be ok i you said that "their should be more of an active role of women in the sangat", but instead you are saying that such patriarchy is born through sikhism, this is the point from which your arguing, you then continue to waffle to me about the definition of patriarchy which trust me is not needed answer the points raised!!!!!

Are you telling me Punjabi society isn't patriarchal? If women are vauled equally to men, why is there such a distorted birth ratio of boys to girls? Your question then should be WHY? It used to be the same in other countries, that society IN PRINCIPLE was equal but in reality social conditionning meant that it wasn't.

punjabi society is not sikhism if you wanted a cultural discussion then go to jattworld.com. Personally speaking all reasons for male-domination is economic not because women are inferior and certainly not sikhsm.

You attempt at countering the criticism with what you claim is the same logic that 'Sikhs are persecuted historically therefore everywhere persecuted'. This is flawed as it does not mimic the logic of my own argument. In your response you have mistaken in your argument the historical for the ideological. Sikhs WERE historically persecuted by human beings with weapons. Those persecutors have gone (admittedly, there are some sikhs I have met who are paranoid enough to think they are persecuted to this day, but thats usually a consequence of too much time reading propoganda with their friends). With the issue of women's status, they are oppressed by an IDEOLOGICAL bias that is reinforced in every contact they have with formal Sikh religious practice (Gurdwara, Sant Babay, literature, etc).

its not flawed at all for you to state an ideological bias in sikhism would mean that you would have started the argument with a patriarchial doctrine in sikhism, the fact is you did not, infact you went on about tradition which is a historical fact is it not? please answer the question and dont dodge the issue?

Next, I have absolutely no idea what your response to the kirpan issue means. ISC I can only imagine stands for something like International Sikh Council, which considering that I haven't heard of anything they've done clearly doesn't impinge on my life in the UK under the Race Relations Act in which the panj kakars came under 'racial' legislation (a rather dubious move in my opinion considering the implications this has on Sikhi as a wholly religious-political tradition). If the ISC hasn't impinged on my life, how much does it impinge on other Sikhs in the UK? Who does then? ISYF/SF, various Sant Babay, Akali parties to a lesser degree and independent committees seem to be the most of it. From what I know, until recently ISYF held a huge sway over most of the UKs predominantly Jat Gurdwaras, therefore also Taksal.

i knew it you dont know much of what is going on outside of your own little world - INTERNATIONAL SIKH CONFEDERATION - google it you maybe surprised!

But have you a response to the argument about the fact that in reality Sikhs already have adapted the kirpan to modern society by making it redundant of its original purpose? Wasn't it the aim of those who did this (mainly the Singh Sabha) to also bring Sikhi more in tune with modern British ruled society, to remove Sikhi of its superstitions, of its supposed corruptions? Why do you think Bhai Sahib Veer Singh went through editing out the bits he found offensive in Rattan Singh Bhangu's 'Prachin Panth Prakash'? WHAT SPECIFICALLY informed his SENSE of what was and was not 'morally offensive' if not what he had taken from the British? Why was the Bidhi Chand episode of stealing a horse seen to be 'ímmoral' and removed? Why create a presiding committee and Gurdwara Act if this wasn't seen as a more relevant and modern model of how to preside over Gurdwaras? Where did this model of managing institutions come from? Thus the process of trying to reform Sikh religious practice in line with the norms and vaules of what is percieved to be of the 'modern' world has already been going on for a hundred years

wow alot of questions all of which have nothing to do with sikh doctrine i suggest you read and learn sikh doctrine before worrying about all the conspiracy theories, its weird how such things never bother me, I ask you from your quote above when in sikhism has anyone ever meddled with sikh doctrine, you will find it has never been meddled with "sovereignity is a vehicle for self-realisation" - this is the key my freind all else is vain prattle, institutions such as panthic bodies have the right to adapt to all walks of life they also have a responsibility to change life - "continuity and change go and in hand cos reality is not static" - in this sense islam fails to adapt - "gur mann binse bandhee kalaas" - the guru has cut the fetters around my mind.

On the issue of practical morality, again you demonstrate a misunderstanding. What you call 'rules' to abide by are in fact moral values (I repeat, moral meaning what is seen as wrong or right in a given situation) because of the prevalent belief that the Guru loves those who abide by their rehit. Again you give an 'ought' counter argument and in doing so fail to respond to the issue. Please try to recall the original point, that on issues of morality for the Khalsa, Sikhs site rehitnamas. My point was that your criticism of Islam CAN be made of these documents also.

no they are no moral values your argument is denial of everything i wrote if you have the proof that rehat is a moral issue then bring it my guru gives salvation to the immoral and the evil cos they both have god in them so why would he change it?, he would make a path which is easier through a physical discipline, what is the moral of not taking tabacco? its about preparing yourself for spiritual progress and avoiding things which impinge on this, its not about prohibition in the name of evil etc. You have a lot to learn my freind i could suggest some good books - read the sovereignity of the sikh doctrine by dr jasbir singh ahluwalia it is the most authoritative scholar on sikh doctrine hailed by the un for his immaculate work on sikhism.

So then answer ONE simple question. What would happen if a future Jathedar was caught smoking a hukkah pipe while tucking into a tasty sheekh kebab, with a muslim lady on his knee after having trimmed his mouchi (no matter what he 'ought' to be doing)?

tankhaa system exists for such activities.

Yes, he would be made tankhayya, in other words excommunicated.

no tankhaa is punishment, excommunicaion happens when you do not appear for discussion of such claims made against you also if you do not submit to tankhaa then excommunication is granted, it appears your only understanding of sikhism is the dribs and drabs you read on tribune newspaper.

BUT ON WHAT GROUNDS, purely on the MORAL (what is right or wrong) stipulations of the rehitnamas...what I mean by moral is the sangat would say 'what he did was WRONG', a paap. Why is it a paap? Because it is given that the Khalsa must not do such things (a rule). Why must they not do such things? Because the Guru told us not to (a rule). Why must you abide by your Guru's instructions, because if we don't we will not attain the virtues to perform bhagti, one of which is complete faith in the Guru, and will lead to further rebirth/naarak (moral). Therefore, if you push it beyond the cattle mentality of 'because he told us to do it' you can see the deeper moral reasoning behind it. I concur with you that outside of certain forms of practical morality, a Sikh is generally to abide by Gurbani's moral stipulations.

not when opts for gurus roop then devalues that roop they have to be recognised for their underacheivement, they have comitted an act which will require re-baptism, what is the moral of cutting your beard - there is none its just an act in isolation their is no wrong, however when the guru lived an exemplary life and we were offered the gift to ruin that gift is indeed worthy of some sort of recognition, tankhaa gives this recognition in an acceptable format for the whole sangat - transparency.

On your rebuttal that Sikhi is not a 'moral path leading to salvation'. I disagree. This is certainly not all of it, and definately not in a semitic sense, but it is very important part. Guru Nanak states in Japuji Sahib 'Vin gun kithae bhagat n hoe'. These virtues or gunas to be acquired before effective bhagti can begin are positive moral attributes based on conduct like sat santokh dheeraj dyaal etc. The aim is to meet with God/brahmgyan/sachkhand/mukti thus liberation.

what is the moral of seva - selfless service, if it was truly selfless the act word not need to be good?, is war not seva in some eyes thats good in some eyes its bad, is seva then really good or bad or is it a virtuous action? as people enter the gurus path they and they alone will start to live life consciously rather than morally and truthfully, conscious living is about being responsible for your actions and those actions may be deemed moral or immoral, conscious living is only greater when you spiritually progress - people stop eating meat but not cosits immoral, people stop drinking beer but not cos its immoral cos they have something greater to satiate their first. Amrit is the perfect intrument to binding a sikh to that conscious living.

On your response to the turban, perhaps I should have made it clear, a turban for the Khalsa. Thus wearing a cap for the Khalsa. Thus a rehitnama given to the khalsa stating one should not wear a cap. Admittedly this point is a little wild, but it again was designed to show that in reality some Sikhs are faced with a dilemma in changing social contexts about the need for the turban.

in khalsa you chose not to wear a cap when you chose amrit in the modern world you have more choice than ever so your argument is quite right void, a khala sikh in the modern world is a blessing to exist if any their will be no compulsion for them to adapt they made the choice themselves.

Then you raise an interesting point, 'its the Guru's roop that must be maintained'. Did the Guru wear a cap? Is the Guru's roop to be maintained or are Sikhs meant to move with the changing styles of dress. Do you feel ALL Sikhs wore turbans before the Khalsa? Surely you can recognise that with the maintenance of kesh comes the maintenance of the turban? So then you must recognise that we are maintaining the Khalsa's roop. So for Sikhs at least the turban is contingent on the Khalsa. If the Khalsa did not exist would those panthic bodies be so keen for Sikhs to maintain the kesh and thus the turban? This is an issue of religious identity and the turban exists as a symbol, although it has obviously become a cultural practice as well. So the issue stands. Sikhs are in a sense duty bound to maintain the turban out of an abiding respect for the Guru. This ARGUABLY puts it at odds with the modes of dress and social norms of some societies, hence France where it was banned in schools precisely BECAUSE it was designated a religious rather than cultural symbol. This is an argument I have little sympathy for, but it IS and HAS BEEN an argument not only spoken in supposedly 'modern' societies but made legislation in France, that a turban hinders social integration by challenging French values of secularism and therefore should not be worn in schools.

this makes me laugh, you start of by asking me many question then you answer them for me and go onto a whole new issue, the argument stands!!!!!!!!! - the gurus roop is the beat thats why we want it, is their a khalsa sikh you know who feels that he wants to wear a cap?, or is this all about keshdharis? - please you need to liberate sikhism from the sikhs and then renew the discussion, your argument about modern world integration is sooooooo old it is widely accepted that the turban does not hinder integration, it is widely accepted that sikhs are not only a well assimilated group in the modern world but also the increase prosperity wherever they go, one needs to ask the question of france as to why the turban infringes on their secular lifetsyle when it doesnt in the uk or us or anywhere else, your views are incredibly myopic. i belive you need a cybertankhaa :-)

I agree, that my views on the Khalistani issue are precisely that. But I think you ignore the real purport of what I meant. Jihadis also claim to have been equally successful. 9/11 and its aftermath has also produced a 'reawakening' in their minds. The 7/7 bombings in London a perfect example of this. Their stratergy is winning that increasing alienation and hostility towards muslims in western countries is playing into their skewed view of history as a clash of civilisations. The Islamist model of Islam I can only imagine has gained many many recruits. All muslims have had to ask themselves difficult questions about their own identity and their status within the society they live in. For the likes of Taksal the kharkoo years did the same, lots of people took amrit and got political. If that is your marker of achievement, it is quite plausable to argue that Islamists have gained a similar victory through their own actions.

great post tsingh, defaniately an eye opener.

Coming at Issue of amrit- when someone ask modern day groups about bhai ghaniya ji or bhai nand lal ji and other 52 poets in maharaj darbar and their status in sikhi? they are pretty quick to claim oh these guys were full fledged 5 kakari amrit dhari bibeki singhs despite of singh last name absent in their names, they are pretty quick to claim that they took khanda amrit when introduced because their charana amrit or naam amrit were no longer "valid".

I usually laugh at that classic response, they obviously havent got the whole essence of amrit that guru ji talked about in his gurbani at the first place.

it makes no difference, your own guru took amrit, will that make it more relavant for you?, i doubt it.

Then perhaps I jumped the gun. My first question should be for you to explain how?

when you repeat history your not learning something islam is responsible for this misunderstanding and for the continues repetition i dont believe we as sikhs have ever repeated history.

Now the point at the end you missed, which is that I am simply creating a similar critique of Sikhi. It is a set of opinions by which we can debate, and I can only imagine many Muslims creating a similar defence to your critique.

how is that a point i missed if you have a criticism parallel to islam for sikhi i vow i can break it, bring it on.

On the issue of women, lets face facts my friend. When non-Sikh people talk in schools, courts, inter-faith meetings, blah blah blah of Sikhs overseas they are talking largely about men ('Sikhs wear turbans', 'Sikh men carry a 'sacred knfe'), when we talk about panthic sources of authority, scholars, saints, shaheeds, etc for all of its history we are talking about 99.99999 % men, when we talk about kirtani, paathi, gyani, pracharak (in other words the mediators between the Guru and the sangat in a Gurdwara) we are talking about men, when we talk about literature it is written by men, when we look at the very structure of the darbar of a gurdwara, it is men talking to and facing men. Sri Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings of great men quite often to a male formless deity (Hari, Ram, Akal Purakh). This is hardly a minor issue! This is endemic to the very structure of Sikhi. Although there is more to it than this, I think it is fair to say that as a tradition it is patriarchal and that it is equally plausable for non Sikhs to argue that Sikhi is potentially at odds with the concept of social, political equality (modern society) not in a formal sense but in an ACTUAL sense.

this is quite disturbing i dont know why i never had such thoughts?, what has caused you to believe that we have patriarchy by tradition?, i see patriarchy for the first time when taksal states women could not be panj piare, when jathedar states women cannot do kirtan in harimandar, i never seen it before then. Tradition is not exclusive, I will admit we sometimes live in theory which is not practiced to its true fullness again this is a panthic issue it is not "a part"of sikhism. Because by tradition sikhs are persucted people so we should in a traditional sense be persected all over the world all the time this is according to the logic drawn by the conclusion you have drawn.

On the issue of weapons and warfare, such a point is valid. It could well be if I chose to argue it as this; if a kirpan REALLY is symbollic Sikhs should just carry a 5cm blunt symbol (NO!), if it is a real weapon then Sikhs should be honest about it, sharpen it and learn to use it BUT the reality is they would be made illegal immediately in most 'modern' countries as it no longer functions simply a 'sacred symbol'. Surely that is a perfectly arguable point that the kirpan is at odds with societies (whether you like it or not) wherein carrying a weapon is seen as a provocative act threatening the norms and values of that society. Such societies are usually the ones punjabis from doaba are keen to migrate to. So then a possible counter defence that a kirpan (which I agree when used correctly) is still a good means of defence is out of kilter with the norms of liberal democratic societies. So then your argument becomes 'the Khalsa should still push for righteousness' but without weapons....in actual fact, that REALLY IS the reality. Has a Sikh overseas ever used a kirpan to save lives? Most kirpans could barely cut an apple without half an hour and a lot of elbow grease. So if it is redundant as a weapon (which it was originally designed to be used as) why not wear a pretend plastic one on a neck chain? That is the argument.

wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww this is riduculous it really is i dont even know where these ideas come from, are you for real?, panthic issue!!!!!! we have had a period of time where the existential concerns of sikhs have outweighed the existential concerns of sikhism, well we have a body now to conduct global affairs ie the ISC do you what the ISC is?

You reject rehitnamay as examples of 'practical morality'. I'll spell it out, by practical morality it means 'what do I believe is right or wrong practically'? Are not issues of the use of intoxicants, relationships, dietary habits, social relationships practical moral issues? OF COURSE they are!

where in sikhi does it say that these things are immoral? i think you will find that sikhi is not about living the moral path for salvation but about discipline, i suggest you reread about sikhism these views are so off tangent with sikh doctrine.

In other words, your decision on whether to smoke a big cigar is motivated not by health, social or political values, but a moral one. 'If I smoke it I will not be following rehit; the Guru's beloved follow rehit; if I'm not Guru's beloved I'm not following Sikhi; if I'm not following Sikhi then I'm a manmukh and going to hell/suffer rebirth'. That is an example of standard moral reasoning in a religious tradition (so much ridiculed by Kant and Neitzsche as inherently flawed since it is not really moral at all and in fact quite selfish, but anyway).

again this is ridiculous what sort of sikhism have you been brought up in, i am serious where did you learn about sikhism from? when you choose to take amrit then you choose to live by these rules if you want to smoke a fat cigar then dont take amrit theuior is no compulsion but if you choose to do something then dishonour the discipline then you too will be dishonoured its simple. you put the noose around your own neck! any noone is going to hell and to hell with what nitzch thinks.

Next, the turban. If you believe a turban is quite practicaly for holding our kesh, why not a cap or hat? Why does it state in Bhai Nand Lal's (is it?) rehitnama that the Singh who wears a topi goes to hell for seven lifetimes?

bhai nand lal is not the guru nor was he rehatdhari himself, a poet makes his sentences rhyme it is also used to emphasize a point of importance, i wouldnt take it in the literal sense. its almost as if you take little parts of history and go to town with them be real and try to focus on the issue. The turban has always been worn in india and his in a sense a tradition but also our gurus wore them those who want the gurus roop will dress as their guru does i therefore cannot imagine a giani wearing a cap. Do i think its sacrilegious for a sikh to wear a cap no i dont at all, because i dont believe in sacrilege for me to believe in sacrilege would also mean i believe in morality which i dont my conscience exists for a reason my conscience tells me that a turban is correct.

.

Outside of that historical cultural epoch it is not a status symbol and loses meaning and relevance. If it is not relevant then it is clearly not functioning within the modern social context. The principle on which it was founded must be modified with the changing times, and it is therefore no longer relevant to these times. Of course this is a weak argument, but it is certainly a plausable argument which I have heard in the past.

no sir youre derailing the debate, gurus roop had nothing to do with privaleged status the gurus roop is best thats why we want it all else is vain prattle, i seriously worry wear your line of questioning comes from .

On your last point, tell me one positive thing that came from the Khalistani movement?! In my opinion the very terms on which it was created were communal rather than a more unified approach to greater federalism in India. After it I saw no radical reforms within government, no change in quotas of recruitment, no change in governmental policy to states who push for greater autonomy - the same tactics used in Punjab are being used in Kashmir and Manipur as we speak! All I could conclude was that politicans and pseudo politicians on one side pitched against the state and army on the other, and both unleashed a whole load of (admin-cut) on innocent punjabis both Hindu and Sikh who took all the pain, torture and death. This sowed revenge recruitment which continued until the army swamped it committing horrific human rights abuses until the early 90s. If there had been a unity about the cause even among the Sikh intellegensia and various groups, more may well have been achieved...,but as we both know this is a very long well trodden debate that leads nowhere beyond claims of being covert RSS agents, who I hate just a little more than those Sikh facistic extremists like the ones who shot innocent girls in the legs for wearing jeans.

waffle!, alot of good has come out of this since the movement we have had a sikh rennaissance the whole communty has been awoken, we have made a stand, tell me when in the wars with mughals did atrocities not occur this situation is no different its just people have less faith in their iown lives and believe the mainstream view to be the same but the reality is it isnt, your whole response to me has been what you perceive but the reality is that alot of good has come from all struggles even this one the reason why i say and write it simply as i have is because you too are not really arguing from any clear defined point i answered all your objection in my previous post, you have not addressed those points just reasserted your own in lenghth and this is wholly unacceptable in effective dialogue.

What exactly is the official status of someone who loves gurbani but for whatever reason does not want to commit to amrit?

now your asking the questions, the answer to your question is just as you have said they are a person who loves gurbani and has not taken amrit, did you expect me to label them heretics?

Or who can't because her husband won't allow it, or perhaps is gay and is told must marry, or is a fashion model with a really really great haircut, or even is of a different faith or whatever?

can i really answer these questions? i have to admit i cant, i dont believe amrit is possible for everyone, but i believe spirituality is taksal have the right to an opnion only if they enforce an opion then they are no longer sikhs.

What rights do they have to representation among the SGPC? None, so they are second class Sikhs, not really taken seriously at a representative level...but even worse, officially they are wasting their time, if the fundamental AIM of Sikhi is to reach brahmgyan/mukti, they CANNOT get there! Is that being adaptive to 'all walks of life'? Again, it is arguable that it most certainly is not!

they have no representation in the agpc that is not discrimantion a body setr up for guru panth cannot be made of members who are not apart of guru panth, a forum should exist for airing of views but no way do non-amritdharis have the right to control panthic affairs PERIOD!!!!!

hope that clears up the points. So as I'm showing you, your own criticism of Islam turns into an equally relevant (since most points make up much of the youth discussions/inter-faith discussion I've come across) critique of Sikhi.