Beast

Also, the picture is date 1831. Does anyone know how old both M. Ranjit Singh and Hari Singh Nalwa were then? They look the same age in the picture. Without wishing to be too offensive, M. Ranjit Singh was also considered to be a very ugly dude with 'squintish' features. From the picture he doesn't look that bad.

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm sure I saw this picture a couple of years ago at a talk. The guy giving the talk (I think it was Parmjit Singh, author of 'WARRIOR SAINTS: 300 Years of the Sikh Military Tradition') pulled up a picture that *I think* was the same as that above. Using historical facts from that era, he actually said that it was very unlikely to be M. Ranjit Singh and Hari Singh Nalwa. Just to stress, I'm not sure.

lead the way Singh!!! I'm behind u all the way

And may I be the first to welcome you to this site Jamuka!

You're not sticking to the topic dude. Why not start this topic on another thread. Like everyone else I've got an opinion on this.

lol The reason why I said to watch Wayne's World is that there's a scene where two men are in love with each other, bit only plutonically. Although this is a spoof film (and a crap one), it did highlight an important issue ie there exists those homosexuals who do not necessarily cinsumate their relationship by buggering each other. I even had an argument abt this with a mate over a few drinks. He was surprised when hearing abt Sikander. Maybe he consumated his relationship with his partner before marriage by err...putting him through a bit of pain, or maybe he was just intimate in a plutonic way (i'm on abt Sikander by the way, not my mate). Also, have any of the things said so far in this thread made any impact whatsoever on the reader's feelings towards homosexuals? Since I've been a member here I have noticed time and time again that people will stick to their guns no matter what. http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...ighlight=#27207

You were doing so well until the second paragraph. lol

Does that mean that not being gay is associated with spirituality? I think this may have links with another sort of debate: Would a spiritually high person who is in complete control of his/her kaam be able to maintain their spirituality if they also had regular recreational sex with their respective partner? That old guy from Lord of the Rings is gay (Sir Ian McKellen, Gandolf). If we assume that physiologically he shares the same attributes as all other men his age, I doubt whether he could be more sexually active with his partner than the typical pensioner would be . So how does his 'gayness' interfere with his relationship with the Akaal? btw, I'm directing these questions to all on the forum, not just Saihajleen Kaur Khalsa.

lol. Like I said, watch Wayne's World. Btw, I have studied anatomy.

I see where you're coming from, but remember that nowadays the media is a much more powerful machine. It 'appears' that there are a lot more homosexuals because we are exposed to it to a much higher degree in the media. 'Liberal' and 'corrupt' are two very different words. I don't know about the States, but the UK is much more liberal but no where near as corrupt as many years ago. Gay people have always existed, but todays liberal, and in the case of the UK, uncorrupt society has made it easier for them to be accepted for what they are. In the UK a TV presenter called Michael Barrymore is a prime example. Also, this goes back to your first point where there 'appears' to be many more homosexuals. lol - so if I wasn't feeling accepted by society I would suddenly start walking with a floppy wrist and start talking with a higher pitched voice!! (And wearing really tight jeans and tight low cut t-shirts, preferably pink!) You're first point is totally, totally wrong. Look at the first post by lil'princess. If your first point in this quote was true then are you suggesting that animals become gay because of the social circles they keep? lol. A lot of what you are saying is linked to the creationist vs evolutionist argument. ie Did God create man explicitly or did God create the conditions for man to exist? I think that a person's answer to this question heavily influences their perception of gays. Yes God did give humans two different hormones generally, but what about those people you have discounted, eg 3rd genders (since this is a popular term!)? Also, some people believe that to reach a very high spiritual level we cannot get married/take a sexual partner. Well if we all did this then we would all die out. Also Khalistani Singh, there's a lot of cases out there where men have been happily married for years but deep inside had a secret desire to become women and in the end become tranny's. Remember, Alexander the Great (ie Sikander) had a male lover which was the norm in that time in Greece. It didn't mean that he hated women, it was just the way society was structured at that time (he would have married one later in life if he hadn't died). I get the feeling that you couldn't have read the first three posts properly Khalistani Singh, because they should have had some effect on the contents of your post. (btw that was not a personal attack, a lot of readers here would almost certainly agree with a lot of what you said) Not everything has to be connected to lust Saihajleen. Have you never watched Wayne's World? tut tut.

i agree totally with lil_princess. I've had the same discussion with friends who absolutely abhore the concept of homosexuality. I think a lot of it has roots in one's perception of the role of (in our case) Sikhi in their lives. I personally believe that Sikhi is the conduit for us to attempt to become one with Akaal. Why can't a gay/lesbian person not be allowed this? (Not that anyone said this here). In fact, who are we to say that God is only accesible to some and not to others - lol! Incidently, there's a certain species of monkey where the dominant male monkey will rape all the other male monkeys to preserve his dominance! (Source: The Beast's Handbook of the Bizarre. )

Sounds exciting. Anyone out there thinking of going?

Any ideas who the speakers will be? The event looks very promising.

lol don't think thats a good idea. Right now Niddar is one of the most hated Singh's around. Don't think he would appreciate it if Lalleshvari took over his mantle at the top. lol

she is a liar. The husband apparently told a truth about being a liar --> contradiction therefore not true. Conclusion --> the wife is lying I think

If these 52 Hakums are correct then how people are debating the Treh Mudra (sp?)? Also, Udhasi's are not Khalsa and yet they are Sikh so how do they fit in? Were the 52 Hukams written during Guru Gobind Singh Ji's time, or were they written afterwards based on what he 'said'?

No idea. Maybe something to do with a T.V card, or maybe even a S-video connection on the back of newer graphics cards....which reminds me, I bought a graphics card Its an MSI FX-5600 series with 256MB of DDR RAM. Got it for £93 - is that good?

and are u the ruling authority on who a Sikh is and who a Sikh isn't? No? ... Instead of dismissing concepts which are possibly new to you why don't you investigate them first. Personally, Lalleshvari might be talking rubbish but I don't know that until I research it myself further. Thats why these forums exist, to share and discuss our differences (which is also why the Sikhi and Gangsterism thread should not have been removed - different topic, sorry).

Seems that your blending Punjabi in with Sikhi. What if a person's respective spouse is an Amritdhari from (eg) Europe? That person may be able to fully or partially understand Bani but their mother tongue is not Punjabi. Unless you follow a religion that imposes barriers on your lifestyle, I don't think Sikhi is constrained by language. Remember, Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not converse in Punjabi as his 'native' language. And history has shown that many Nihangs saw no problems marrying those women of other faiths. I've just thought of something. Up until 1699 how did one class themselves as being Sikh? How would they have dealt with these issues that have been bought up here?

try www.sikhsoc.co.uk

cool, i just hate people using the label 'monay' when really they are referring to those Sikhs who have no respect for their religion. There are many trim Singhs that act like prats and many monay who are very religious. Oh well, I suppose we should all follow in the footseps of a famous man who once said 'Kaho, peeyo, aish karo mitharo'!

Well Niranjana, you have your point of view and I have mine. I feel that you are labelling all monay as being the same, I feel that is very unfair. You seem to be judging the actions of a few as your standard bearer for what a model mona is like. I was looking outside earlier and I saw 2 Sikh 6th form students, and one of them was smoking. One student was a mona, but the student who was smoking was a keshdari - if an outsider used that as a working model of what all Sikhs were like then they would logically come to the conclusion that its not uncommon to see keshdari's smoke. --> the 'logical' way that was reasoned is extremely flawed, just as your argument is about monay. We can take this further - if an non-Sikh saw the way a nihang lived his life he would think that all 'baptised' Sikhs lived like this (ie bhang, alcohol, mahapurshad). Can you imagine what would happen at an AKJ meeting if this guy turned up with a bucket of KFC! Just to conclude, attacking a whole group of people on the basis of your experiences with a few of them is unjust and uneducated.

Sorry N3O for not sticking to the topic, but I feel that I need to respond to this. giani_g, I know you weren't talking abt all monay, but you were talking about the majority. Dude, its because I have a social life that my opinions on this subject you brought up are so valid. I've seen what the monay are like in Leicester, my cousin's from there and I've been to their university a good few times over the years. Leicester is one messed up area and a lot of the monay (and quite a few keshdari Singhs) live up to your description. I don't know what the Amritdharees are like in Leicester, so I won't judge. Now giani_g, you're only 16. You're big mistake is that you've used Leicester as you're working model. If you were able to get around more (improve you're social life maybe? lol) you would see that a lot of areas are nothing like that. When i first read you're post I knew exactly what kind of monay you were on about - what really made me angry was that you referred to them as the majority wheras experience (and an active social life - lol ) have tought me that they are in fact a very small minority. A better term than monay for apostate Sikhs is surely 'apostate Sikhs' - its only a few letters longer. Right then N3O, don't get your kachera in a twist. lol What I've seen monay kids do at first hand is tease kids with a joora. But this wasn't done at school or with friends, this was done at home by older brothers and sisters. I've noticed this in a couple of families. I really do feel that the parents of these kids should explain the significance of the hair to all the kids. But from what I personally saw the parents didn't step in because they just saw it as kids teasing each other. The kid with the joora would get teased, but then he would hit back and tease his bro/sis/cousin. But at this point the damage is done - the kid with the joora might have won the slanging match but he now feels an insecurity towards his joora. There's no point blaming 13/14 year old kids, they're at a biological stage in their lives where they're half way between childhood and adulthood. Kids at this age take the p*ss out of anything and everything. PS giani_g, you made your assumptions based on the monay you see in Leicester, I've made my assumptions based on Sikh university students. Some people will follow your argument, some people will follow mine. I don't think there's anything more either of us need to say on this topic.

just another point/observation: if a typical keshadari Singh saw a mona getting beaten up by a gang chances are he wouldn't interfere. If a typical mona saw a Singh getting beaten up he would go ballistic. No matter what the odds that mona would give his all to help the Singh. Remeber, I'm on abt the average keshadari/mona here. As a generalisation, the respect that all Sikhs have for the turban and beard is immense (whether those Sikhs are keshadari or not).

Actually, most monay don't want to have fun, booze, tobacco, etc. Your opinion is biased and prejudiced. Who the hell are you to say that they are not Sikhs???? You prat. If you said that monay aren't Khalsa then I agree 100% but to say that they aren't Sikhs is pure arrogance. I've seen at first hand the divide between religious and non-religious Sikhs in university. Monay feel that religious Sikhs (most of them Amritdharees) look down on them and are arrogant. And the religious Sikhs feel that the non-religious Sikhs "just want to have fun, booze, tobacco, indecent intimacy and in some cases bongs and other paraphernalia." I could write a lot more abt this but we'd be swaying away from the topic at hand. Suffice to say I'm really cheesed off with what you wrote giani_g - I think you need to sort out your own insecurities.