tSingh Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 For the love of Jehovah...I don't give a damn about what your problems are with a comparison with Rushdie, the point remains the same, some within a religious community rejecting a piece of written work that falls outside of the usual constraints of their modern religious perspective, and then an organised attempt to have the work denounced and the author removed from his position (Cynthia Mahmood, who produced one of the two seemingly sympathetic khalistan books from western scholars, even refers to threats to his personal safety). I'm glad you noticed the ridiculousness of areas I requested a quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib for! That was essentially my point. Just as ridiculous as requiring an 'ought to be' approach you have taken to the reality of Sikh identity in the late 19th century. Really, this is not hard to understand Mr. Singh! Oberoi is not trying to paint a picture of what ought to be Sikh identity as you feel so neccessary. He was researching what was the reality of Sikh identity at that time. If you asked me what Sikhs are like in the UK, and I said 'all amritdhari, selfless servants of God, mahagyanis' you'd laugh (I hope), perhaps this is what ought to be the case. It tells you nothing about the REALITY my friend! To reiterate, there is a difference between prachaar and investigative research into Sikhism. As for the Grewal comment...please re-read your post. The book I'm referring to is not in your original post. pheweeee, inshallah we can move on now! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 For the love of Jehovah...I don't give a damn about what your problems are with a comparison with Rushdie, the point remains the same, some within a religious community rejecting a piece of written work that falls outside of the usual constraints of their modern religious perspective, and then an organised attempt to have the work denounced and the author removed from his position (Cynthia Mahmood, who produced one of the two seemingly sympathetic khalistan books from western scholars, even refers to threats to his personal safety). I'm glad you noticed the ridiculousness of areas I requested a quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib for! That was essentially my point. Just as ridiculous as requiring an 'ought to be' approach you have taken to the reality of Sikh identity in the late 19th century. Really, this is not hard to understand Mr. Singh! Oberoi is not trying to paint a picture of what ought to be Sikh identity as you feel so neccessary. He was researching what was the reality of Sikh identity at that time. If you asked me what Sikhs are like in the UK, and I said 'all amritdhari, selfless servants of God, mahagyanis' you'd laugh (I hope), perhaps this is what ought to be the case. It tells you nothing about the REALITY my friend! To reiterate, there is a difference between prachaar and investigative research into Sikhism. As for the Grewal comment...please re-read your post. The book I'm referring to is not in your original post. pheweeee, inshallah we can move on now! Well if you don;t give a damn then no reason for debate to continue. I was commenting on your linking rushdie with oberoi, maybe you want to show him as some sort of martyr. maybe you want to show the sikhs who criticise him as fanatics. this is the impression i get. Seems strange to tell someoen to read a book that person has already mentioned :shock: Grewal really does make oberoi look like a amatuer and not the scholar you try and make him out to be 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Mr singh, Your writing look likes our beloved freind Mr Bikramjit Singh in this thread who was banned earlier. Are you sure that your account isnt hacked or something??? Last thing i want to know that you becoming an meditator in the middle where mr bikkie is using you to post all this debate. If my guesses are right then please tell him to stop hiding behind the veil and come out debate with his name. After all, he is not banned. He can come anytime with his id Oh Young Man or his old id- Bikramjit Singh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Depends what you think Grewal as a scholar! sorry for sounding rude...it just didn't seem to be going anywhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 I'm still here (to N3O) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman_90 Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Ok, The confusion of this actually happened due to the fact the Founder Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, made Sikhi. As you all may be aware of, he was a Hindu. Due to this, and the fact of The Gurujis helping Hindus in some way, Hindus began to say we are Sikhs because Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a Hindu and he was the founder. That is the reason we are or were considered Hindus in the first place. I can relate to that easily because, I was born a Sikh, therefore I consider myself to be a Sikh, if I was born Christian or Muslim, I'd consider myself to be that religion. - So if you think about it, us being mistaken for Hindus is logical because of what I just said. This is my opinion. Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.