HSD1

Oh dear, some people just cant help themselves can they?

Now listen here, for every part of Gurbani that is misquoted by meatheads, there are just as many twisted by vegefascists. Only five, you are guilty of this. You are acting like a mirror image of the Randip Singh.

As for Ang 1289 and 1290, it is clear that it is telling people not to preach on one subject when they neglect to be perfect with regards to other things. If you go on about how bad meat eaters are, you have be a pretty good Gursikh yourself. You can lie, and we wont be able to see your faults over the internet, but Waheguru has made it clear what lies in wait for the vegefascists. Proceed at your own peril.

If the entire panth became vegetarians over night, what would it acheive? Would 84 be avenged? Would we get sovereignty over our own nation? Would the shaheeds come back? If the shaheeds did come back, what would they think of this nonsense arguing over meat? Lets face it, if we were all to become strict vegetarians, the vegefascists and meatheads would just move to something else to argue over. Such is the poison of fundamentalism. I encourage young sikhs to watch these arguments but not waste their time taking part. None of us are perfect, we shouldnt judge our brothers or sisters, instead we should try to do parchaar a little closer to home.

Another point is this: gluttony. Ok, only five, lets say meat eating is bad etc etc, but what about those singhs in langar who shove their face? I remember seeing the same faces keep coming back for more, sometimes 3 seperate helpings, which leaves me in disbelief. Langar is to feed everyone, I know that, which includes those who are rich or poor. It is not a buffet. I look at some of these tubby grubby sweaty singhs and think to myself 'where were you in 84?'. Probably in langar chewing with their mouths open. So isnt gluttony and lack of restraint just as bad nowadays in this world as eating meat?

You cannot decide what is on topic and what is off topic. You say science is of no use, but then how do you know that plants feel pain? Well you even said it was from scientific studies. Though i'm not sure why you keep on revisiting the plants feel pain thing as it means we shouldnt eat them either. Maybe you should answer why should sikhs not eat meat?

Next, you say this is about proving Randip wrong. Now you are clever enough to see he hasnt posted again. Maybe, just maybe, do you think he expected someone like you to show up, and knew that you would cause enough trouble to force moderate sikhs onto his side? Kaljug said he had reduced his meat consumption, only for you to goad him into thinking of having a burger. Do you see what you did? Do you even care that you are having the oppposite effect of what you say you wanted to achieve?

Lastly, science has a part in everything. Only five, it is clear your grasp of it is basic, which is unfortunate. Look around you. Look at Waheguru's creation. The sun, the moon, the stars. The grass, the trees, the mountains. The birds, the mammals, the reptiles. All of their composition, all of the reactions going on inside them and the effects of what they do, who do you think created that? It is clear to me that Waheguru is the greatest scientist, as Waheguru came up with every scientific 'theory' that affects our existence. So show some respect.

If this discussion carries on with no purpose or logic/reasoning I think the mods should just close it.

LOL, "wiseguy"

I dont think I'm wise, so dont be cheeky lol.

HSD that shabad about the sugar cane is the center piece of the meat eaters argument. They will fight to death to say it is saying plants suffer. To the question I asked it doesn't matter because either way they are stuck and need to answer the question i put forward.

Well I have given you the ammunition to destroy their misinterpretation of Gurbani in Ang 142 and 143. Of course, as they are meatheads, they will now never acknowledge plants feel pain or mention that shabad as they know what response you will come up with. Like a plague of locusts, they will move onto another section of Gurbani and twist that. The vegefascists will do the same in response to the first post in this thread. And so the never ending cycle will spin recklessly out of control. Dont you see what I'm trying to say? Do you think anything of consequence will be achieved in your life by hounding these meathead fools all over the internet?

Here is another shabad they like to use. When Guru Nanak Dev ji says, what is meat and what is not. The question i asked destroys their(meat eaters) arguement here because if everything is meat then why two different methods of killing the same food group. It doesn't hold Again they are not understanding the shabad. And the wisea** that will ask me what is your understanding of the shabad will get the same reply i gave that Gyani Jarnail Singh from SPN. Doesn't matter. Jhatka, which they thought was in their favor is, now a thorn in their neck. Well for the most of them cuz the others are not aware of this question that has not been answered.

Firstly, if you are not willing to give your interpretation of the shabad (burnt fingers, eh?), please give the reference so the sangat on SikhAwareness can look into it and tell you what should be the real meaning rather than what it is being misinterpreted as. Another point is this: hardly any sikhs in the west practice jhatka (i presume you live in the west), so how can they use that argument if they buy their meat in tescos, which is usually halal/kosher nowadays? Using logic and rationality are better weapons than firing chunks of gurbani at one another. It also avoids offending those of us who are getting sick of this petty arguing and 'internet battles' which are no use in the end.

The brain behind the meaters (Randip Singh) that loves to promote the article "Fools Who Wrangle over Flesh" has not even tempted to answer these questions. The Gyani Jarnail SIngh character on http://www.tapoban.o...orum/list.php?1 gave me the run around and he got called on it. Then he runs for the hills because he found out it wasn't going to work. He would love it if this question would be asked at SPN where these people( I was going to slander here, but i refrained from it) have control over what can be written. To bad I'm banned from there. Neither would I even discuss there because it's not a neutral place. They don't believe in fairness at SPN. Faujasingh learned the hard way today in the thread enough is enough.

Well lets not get into which forum is better etc, as that is an argument in itself. I have been banned from a sikh forum too. If this guy cannot back up his points or even show the logic/reasoning behind them, then he is a fool. If you are young, you shouldnt get so worked up and waste your time arguing with him, there are better uses for your time. If his reason for existence is being a meathead (which was hinted at in the first post), then he will bare his burden in time. You should not be dragged down with him.

So is that a challenge to the meat eaters, sure it is. Answer the questions. No one should take offense on these questions because your belief system is not built on or exist of your beliefs, but what Guru Sahib has told us. Guru Sahib said perform Jhatka on animals and your doing it. Was there rules when to perform jhatka and when not to-placed on it, sure there was. Some just chose to forget them and over time they became non-existent.

Well Guru Sahib does not change to give definitive answers to little things that crop up over time. What does Guru Sahib say about space travel? Or mining on the moon? Or first contact with aliens etc etc? It doesnt, thats why i mentioned the idea of sikhi principles that we can apply in a pragmatic way to the world around us.

As for jhatka, yes it may be out of date and not as complete as it was. If we had a sikh scientific research institution we could get them to investigate what would be the best way to kill an animal nowadays. Until one is set up, this argument could go on forever.

On a side note: in post 31 i mentioned not eating meat in the west as the way it is created for easy purchase at your local supermarket. I didnt mention that chocolate, certain fruit and coffee etc are also grown in bad conditions with devastating consequences for the local communities and environments in the world. We need to tighten our belts and be conscious of what we buy, meat or other wise.

The problem started like this: the vege-fascists started going on that eating meat was evil and anti-sikhi. As many sikhs had eaten meat from a young age, it seemed almost bizarre that it was considered such a serious sin. Most other things we are told not to do, we are unable to as children anyway. To back up their claims, the vege-fascists combed Gurbani, in a similar way christists and musis do when they have a 'theological debate'. Anything of any use was used. Hence you have all these misinterpreted points in Gurbani in the first post on this thread.

The meat-heads, not to be outdone, then went on a similar crusade. Just because the vege-fascists had misused Gurbani, the meatheads decided to be just as bad. "Oh, if hurting animals is wrong, what about plants, they hurt too!?", and then they quoted the reference Only Five provided. Cant anyone see where this is going? It will come to a point where we are so vicious and aggressive in twisting gurbani to suit our own personal beliefs that the younger generation will believe our skewed interpretations. Does anyone really want that? Who are we even to do such things?

Now some of you will say, 'so whats the solution wiseguy?'. Well we are sikhs who live in the real world. Fish stocks are severely depleted, and science isnt funded or encouraged enough to come up with the solutions. No real sikh would like to be responsible for destroying entire ecosystems, and this is the main reason I no longer eat fish. I also dont eat turkey, having learnt that they are bred to be so fat that they can no longer reproduce without human assistance. If the turkey market was not propped up by thanksgiving and christmas, they would be virtually extinct apart from the ones used in shooting games in the states. The same goes for the treatment of other poultry in the west. See, it's not hard to come up with reasons to not eat meat - using sikhi principles - without twisting gurbani isnt it? This way you wont get meat eating sikh's backs up either, especially if they are thinking of reducing their meat consumption. Its a shame that there arent more sikhs in the farming industry where the diaspora lives, as well as some sikh-funded science/agricultural institutions who could look into these problems and give solutions that would reverse the amount of damage we have done to this earth.

This is all trivial because i am not condemning Jhataka, Singh. Understand in the context what is being presented by others and then why I say it's trivial. Sarbat da Bhalla is what these guys had to say about Inuits. Better yet i should have said it right off the bat and saved the trouble. Again that modern weapon stuff and killing a goat is all trivial because when your in war are you going to keep a goat with you. it's trivial. We have ways today that can put the animal complete to sleep. Again it's all trivial and it becomes irrelevant.

So your not against jhatka, but dont agree with eating meat? Or are you saying that jhatka is irrelevant with today's weapons and techniques? If so, its a fair enough comment to make.

Well the question we should be asking first is when is the plant actually dead. When does it die. As you say the animal dies right after the head is cut off, but it's unclear when the vegetable dies. But if you have seen a person kill a chicken with a knife or sword. Some of them even after with there head chopped off run around.

Yes, some chickens do run around, but the head does not feel the pain. The body is just acting without instruction, just like pressing buttons randomly on a machine without knowledge of what it will do. As for death, I dont really think thats an issue. Death and birth are nothing more than road bumps in the journey of our souls, but we do have to be considerate to animals and plants. I've always wondered if souls can be reincarnated into plants, but never actually asked anyone as I was worried it would be considered a stupid question. You raise some interesting points.

Reading the shabad by Guru Nanak Dev ji( starts on ang sung 142 goes to ang sung 143) even after the sugar cane is cut from the ground it is alive. hence why it suffers when in the wooden rollers. And even after that when it is heated it still groans. So it is still alive.

As to when the sugar cane actually dies is not clear, but the definite death comes when in the fire and being burnt. Would you agree.

Thank you for the reference brother. When reading ANG 142, the important part is the reference to corn. This is a metaphor used to describe the lower class of society, as corn is a common crop. The corn that sticks to the central stone and is spared represents those great souls who will be saved from reincarnation by Waheguru. The rest of the kernels are ground into nothing, which is what will happen to the majority of people in this world. On ANG 143, the sugar cane represents the decadent, selfish and money loving people at the higher end of society (i.e. the people who do not understand the Guru's message as mentioned in the first half of ANG 142). The sugar cane suffers as it has been treated so well during its life, and its treated in high regard for its sweet crop and value compared to simple corn. Even though people are treated well and respected when living, in the end these bad people have the worse fate. A very apt and deep metaphor.

So why doesn't Guru Nanak Dev ji say stop people this is not right. We should find a better way to kill this sugar cane as we do with animals. because the jhatka is the prescribed way to kill an animal. And with plants we can do as we wish or see fit. So why the double standard here when some say plants and animals are the same on the food line? One is not higher or lower than the other.

Well I hope you dont feel the same way if you read what I wrote above. Animals and plants are not equal, unless of course we can be reincarnated as plants. If we can, then what about certain rocks, bacteria, other undiscovered forms of 'life'? I'm not sure where but I have been told that Sikhi does say that humans are one of the highest forms of existence on this planet. I personally do not believe that animals and plants are equal.

I'm not going to bother responding to the post about what a person can do in a war and then someone brought up world war 2 stuff. Irrelevant stuff when it comes down to the question I asked. I can easily put the arguement we have modern weapons today. So blah blah about this irrevelant stuff. It's trivial and doesn't go anywhere. And the screaming about Inuits. Well if you want to bring this arguement, then also consider import and export. And if you still want to scream about it then it's wise to go talk to the Nihangs and tell them they will hit the gold mine living with the Inuits.

HSD, why shouldn't we eat plants either. What are you getting at. You might be right here. And I'd rather stay at both and just post the same theory in a different site http://tapoban.org/ , so let's see what they have to say.

So the question goes unanswered. Why the double standard on meat and plants when it's said by some(majority meat eaters) that these two food groups are on the same food line. Not one higher than the other.

Usually when someone says they arent going to respond to a point they dont then go on to write three paragraphs. That aside, why is it irrelevant to your question? Not everything revolves around you and my point was to all the readers, not just you. As for modern weapons, what is your point? There are people who have survived multiple high velocity bullets to their heads. On the other hand I have not seen an animal get its head cut off and then still manage to live, but its not even clear what you are trying to point out by mentioning 'modern weapons', so its hard to actually try and discuss with any clarity.

No one is 'screaming' about Inuits. Its not there fault that your fundamentalist theories fall apart in the real world. What have the Inuits ever done to you? Also, the basis of Nihang life is not about meat or jhatka. Unfortunately, for some veggies, that is the sole purpose of their existence. Unable to build a Khalistan, unable to stop the baptist conversions in the punjab, unable to stop RSS influences, unable to meaningfully change their lives and powerless in every sphere of their existence, these people whine about things like this to try and make themselves feel righteous. Unfortunately they just cause more splits in the panth. They dont mind though, as the more we divide ourselves, the more chance each of these fundamentalists has of gaining power in each little segment. Your mention of 'blah blah', 'irrelevant' and 'trivial' just shows at best a lack of maturity, at worst a complete inability to think rationally or see the bigger picture.

As for the plants, why should we eat them? If we cant eat meat, lets not eat plants either. If this is in relation to your comment about crushing sugar cane, then I ask you what is a good way of 'killing' plants? Now I only studied Biology up to A-Level, but even i know that plants and animals are very different. You can cut a plant and quite often it still survives. A lack of a fully sensitive nerve system all helps. Therefore, crushing is a fine way of 'killing' plants. Animals on the other hand are very different. Like I said before, how many decapitated animals still carry on functioning fully? I could give a fair few analogies, but I'm tired and most of the time they go over people's heads.

I've just read some of you posts and its not clear what question you are asking. For the purpose of clear, meaningful debate please repeat your question in a clear, coherent manner. Thanks.

I thought that jhatka was a common practice. In WW2, sikh soldiers serving in greece and crete would give the heads of goats to the locals as the natives considered them a delicacy. It doesnt take a genius to figure out what the singhs did with the rest of the goat.

As for the plant/animal theory, proposed by only five, surely that means we shouldnt eat plants either then? These fundamentalist really cant come up with any good analogies. I suggest you keep your 'argument' on sikhsangat where the mods can protect you from rational debate.

Obviously not Indian either...

Well he sure as hell wasn't portuguese. Makes me wonder why ethnicity is so important if islam is meant to be for all people. Unless of course islam has its own version of racial superiority inherent in its social structure across the middle east. It would explain the link between the mufti and the fuhrer.

The thing is that these big money payouts hurt them, but they also galvanize public opinion against sikhs. Read the comments on the daily mail site and you will see the never-ending whining that i affectionately describe as 'white noise'. If we could get the culprits sent to prison for racism/intolerance/bullying of different people, we would see a drop in racism. Mind you, these people would then whine that sikhs are imprisoning those whites they dont like and claim racists are just patriots/expressing their right to free speech etc. The more i think about it, the more i think that they will always justify racists for saying in public what they wish they could also get away with saying. These whingers are beginning to get out of hand in britain. Maybe it will all end with 'rivers of blood'. Thanks to attitudes like theirs, i'll make sure i go down fighting.

The thing is, in this country, when someone takes people to court over racism issues, the only way to hurt them is to claim money. If these sorts of racist attitudes/actions were punishable with prison sentences, we would see a massive change overnight. However, by forcing people to go down the monetary route, it allows the white 'silent' majority to whinge that the victims are after money and that racism doesnt exist etc, which is an attitude I am sick of seeing them have. As for the payout? Nowhere near enough - considering how every white man, woman and child has benefited from what these lot stole from the punjab and then invested in their country. Did my grandfather and grandmother get any money for what they lost in partition thanks to the british? Like hell they did. No sikh should put up with any insolence from these people.

balaclavas for those who have kesh. and those who dont. we have to keep our heads warm dont we?

and some nice meat tenderisers for multi purpose uses.

I think some people need a reality check here. If the whole Panth became Nihang tomorrow what would that achieve. What have the Buddha Dal achieved lately living the lifestyle that they do. If they had joined the movement en masse then possibly the idolising of them here would make some sense but because they didn't and because their achievements in the last few decades amount to zilch then praising and attempting to make their lifestyle an aspiration for the Panth is just a pipe dream.

The Kharkoos were the true heirs of the Dal Khalsa and the Misls and not the Buddha Dal. None can deny that the mass of the Kharkoos died the death of martyrs in the same way that our ancestors achieved martyrdom during the struggle against the Mughals and Afghans. The Kharkoos might not have been as colourful as the Nihangs are and they may not have been able to display oversized domalas or claim to have been given farlas but they did what the Panth asked of them which was to the fight the enemies of the Panth. This is something that the Nihangs never did and to try and posit their lifestyle as some sort of ideal Khalsa lifestyle is sheer lunacy.

You've touched on a very good point there - why do sikhs stay stuck in attitudes that are well out of date? another example is how we as a nation cannot fathom the threat of organised hindu fanaticism. just because our ancestors only ever faced maharattas (which they beat the living daylights out of) when it came to large hindu nationalist forces, does not mean that over time the threat didnt grow. and then we end up with 1984 and being ghetto-ised in east punjab.

I saw on sky news how the EDL had put indian, israeli and jamaican flags on one of the buses they used to get to birmingham. I found it funny at first but realised that if they really do have links to the BNP, then these sort of gestures will help get support from ordinary whites by 'convincing' them they are not racist. That will open the door to more BNP support.......

Also of interest: http://www.easterneye.eu/news.html?groupId=7&newsId=5395#top

I think its a lie as i havent found anything on http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/index.html

If it is a lie, then we need to complain at these journalists who like to scaremonger about what sikhs are supposedly doing. One minute they say we have links to al-qaeda and then to the EDL, its hard sometimes trying to keep up with who we're meant to be in cahoots with! lol

The Prophet said about him and his family:" We are not Arabs".

so he was a hindu then!! lol. the RSS are going to be glad one of their lies is actually true.

HSD - why do Bahadur's beliefs bother you? Keep personal chit-chat to the PMs.

they dont. read a few posts on the first page to see where i mentioned how his intolerance is skewing all his posts in one direction. you could ask why he is bothered by everyone else's opinions.

My faith is not the result of my experiences, it is the way that has been established and show by all our prophets and Imams from Adam (as) to Imam-e Zaman (ajf) though Noah (as), Abraham (as), Moses (as), David (as), Jesus (as) and Mohammad (saws). For me to have Arab ideas would mean that I am either Arab or that I was brought up in Arabic which is not the case. And just in case you wondered: Shi'ism being non-tribal is NOT an Arab religion. Next time you wish to have a go at me chose better arguments.

so your faith is exactly as laid down by those you mentioned? i somehow doubt anyone can fully comply with people from that far back in time, especially as they didnt put a lot of it in writing. and why is having an arab belief system mean you are an arab? if an african beleives in russian communism, it does not make him a russian. trying to present my points as twisted logic will not work as i will just point out how you are messing about. shi'ism, suni'ism, why is it that some people always like to cut something down to the lowest denominator they can think of just to make themselves feel unique? islam is islam. before we know it, ishraqi will be a buddhist or a ravidassia. you really shouldnt treat religion like fashion.

and is this queen fatimah some kind of link to a persian pagan goddess?

wait, the muslims have a queen of the universe? what are you lot on about?

Instead of lying repeatedly can you point out a post where i cursed non-sikhs. If not take your words back.

did i say you cursed them? i said you imply that non-sikhs use low language, are stupid etc. maybe you should just watch what you say and think that if its not worded well it can cause issues.

I wrote in my 2nd post that your post replete with abuses is worth not to read even. I never flaunted my credentials. I revealed when you asked for those. To ask that itself shows lack of immaturity.

my post is 'replete with abuse'? there were a few in that post but it was hardly overflowing with them. and thank you for complimenting me on my lack of immaturity. one of us has to be the adult here.

You seem to be a genius but try to rise above using abusive language while conducting yourself on a public forum.

do you know or experienced what this 'cul' is like? he hysterically spouts his own misinterpretations again and again. on the jeendan kaur thread, he attacked me and sikhs in general for no reason. he does it elsewhere aswell.

Not really, it's just that I have an aversion to poorly written english, especially if it is by a journalist that is pulling up others on quality of their english.

i just realised i havent put capitals at the start of any sentences in my posts. my bad. i shouldnt have got so used to autocorrect on MSword.

You have problems in understanding English also. Read what i wrote in my previous post.

i did. it is clear your english is unbelievably basic.

He can understand it. But he is going per your rule.

what rule? i never mentioned any. if you want to be pedantic about grammar, then i could have ripped apart most of your posts on that basis alone. but i chose to ignore most of your typos, and only went on about those sentences you had constructed in order to deliberately twist my points. you are no engineer, as most engineers listen to sound advice. you must be a rubbish engineer with an attitude like yours.

HSD,

Please start your sentences with a capital letter.

Thanks.

why, can't you understand them otherwise?

Before pointing out mistakes in my writing you better look at how you write. This is not the way journalists write. Journalists also do not hurl abuses as you do. i did not write anything in respect of non-sikhs. I wrote that there is a difference between living as a sikh with saroop and a sikh without saroop. before cooking up stories better understand what is written. Have a nice day

wow! finally you admit you make mistakes, and what big ones as well. we can all see you are a bigot now, especially with how you view non-sikhs. as you're not a journalist and you dont know much about many things, the rest of your post is irrelevant posturing on your part.

A set of European Arab set of ideas? I asked you to define me what these are.

a 'set of european arab set of ideas'?! i never used that phrase. what on earth are you on about now? if your referring to the arab muslim and european belief system, well i'm referring to your own belief system which is a result of your experiences, and your lack of ability to deal with certain issues.

Now you are caught lying. i did not edit that post in which i asked you when were women given voting rights in UK. Here is that post given for you to see. it is still unedited. Sikhs are known to maintain some ethics.

did i say you edited it? no - i told you not to go and change it like you did with other posts. once again you have been proved to have such ignorance and bad levels of english that you cannot even comprehend simple sentences let alone type one. and sikhs are known to maintain some ethics? well you're not a sikh then. and what does it say for non-sikhs? stop being a bigot. there are many non-sikhs who are better humans than you.

and your question about women voting, as well as being entirely random, was worded so badly, most probably on purpose. that way you can spin my replies and drag out your pathetic ideas.

Your so called mastery of history is failing you as there was no west germany in Hitler's time.

i never said there was. another unbelievably faulty and misinformed assumption on your part.

The meaning is very obvious. Your so called knowledge is failing you as there was no west germany in Hitler's time.

you see that word in the middle of the sentence: 'and'? well that means you can express two different points. one point about having lived in W.germany, and another about having experienced what happened before firsthand. as for the question about women, you worded it badly (and dont go editting that post now that i've pointed it out). you also didnt explain why you asked such a random question or explain what you are trying to achieve with you ignorance.

When it is written institutionalized it cann't confined to your narrow scope of definition. It means it is at administrtive level.We have bigotry still in many american institutions. That is why affirmative action was enacted. So let it penetrate your mind . it is no more confined to a group of individuals. Govt baskc it by law as was happening in South africa.

even when it's institutionalised, its the people in the bloody institution who are the bigots. get that?

You have to be in the streets of delhi in 1984 to experience that.

why, were you there? where were you hiding?