We left Islam

[Niranjana]

This is a great debate...let's hope people can understand the difference from one's own opinion and belief and the use of an arguement to highlight an issue... keen to seen where this discussion goes...

[ISDhillon]

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.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Indy Bhai kindly see pm das sent to you.Your points are good.But try to gain knwolged Bhai tSingh Ji and N30singh Ji are making.

and keep up givng your comment .Panth will gain a good lot from debate which is been done on this thread.Akal Bless.

[tSingh]

Ahem, indeed Niranjana!

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.

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.

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

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.

On the issue of the status of women, firstly you need to understand what patriarchy means. It has two meanings, one denoting a society in which men/fathers have the greatest authority in the family, and second, extended to society in which men rule/are the authority in it. Honestly I.S. Dhillon rather than a 'should have' argument, are you seriously trying to tell me that within the authority structures historically to this day, within Sikhi that it is both men and women running it equally? Have you EVER listened to a female Gyani? Have you never tried to see Sikh religious practice from the perspective of a woman? Try it! Go to a smagam, to Darbar sahib, to a gurdwara and see what signals it sends women about their status within functionning Sikhi. 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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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)?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tSingh]

Ooh I missed a bit, the non-amritdhari issue. You have designated them outside of the 'Guru panth', thus politically redundant. But what about their spiritual status...can a Sikh who is non-amritdhari attain mukti? What do you feel? Is it imperative for a Sikh to take amrit to reach mukti?

[ISDhillon]

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.

[SAadmin]

just freindly general reminder to everyone generally- please be respectful to each other while debating, discussion.

[tSingh]

OK ISDhillon. You are absolutely correct. Cybertankhaa, make it cyberarrest. Clearly my vain prattle is rhetoric (not rhetorical) and my own personal opinion founded on my very poor understanding of Sikhism taken from the Tribune paper, and my reading of Nitzch (or Nietzsche). You got me. I haven't heard of the ISC because I'm a raving demented athiest muslim recruit to the RSS who writes incoherent questions on Sikh forums to undermine the mass spiritual reawakening arising from the heroic acts of Babbar Khalsa International. I'm lying down on the floor now ISDhillon, my hands are in the air, no weapons, put the cuffs on, guilty as charged (Just fun Indy, just a bit of fun).

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.

But for those others who might be reading this, the original point a long time back was that the whole premise of this 'that religion is outmoded' critique is spooled out at will whenever numbnut representatives of faiths muscle up to each on such forums as this.

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? Isn't this the very problem with the idea of certain types of reform? Reform on what terms according to whom? This is why in my opinion (from the likes of Adorno and Heidegger) metaphysics is ignored by physics-positivism. Continue the use of this 'our belief system is scientific/rational/modern' and you potentially end up in the tyranny of empirical reason that leads to Kala Afghana and his ilk. I'm not arguing that Sikhi IS lacking reason as such, nor that the worldview at the time of the Gurus was totally out of kilter with the modern scientific worldview, and not surprisingly that worldview is more in tune with modern society than some of the ideas of the world at the time of the Prophet. But that using this as a means of articulating the advantage or disadvantage upon a model of spiritual-metaphysical-mystical truths is inherently flawed, 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. For example it is a fact highlighted by the Sachar Committee report in India last week that Muslims are among the poorest and most discriminated against in Indian society. Is this because they belong to a religion that is out of kilter with modern society? Or is it more to do with the political economic and caste based recent history of India?

So the original point of all this was that it is clearly possible from the perspective of an non Sikh individual in a western modern society, who abides by the post-enlightenment values of 'modernity' to argue on the same principles that Sikhism is on different issues also at odds with modern society. Not only did I demonstrate the nature of this debate, but examples of where this debate has happened and turned into literature and legislation. Pheeweee.

[ISDhillon]

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

[ISDhillon]

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

[tSingh]

I'm in the chair now Indy, I'm in the chair. Strapped in. I'm still smiling but you're about to flick the switch. You've got me Indy. This is the end, goodbye cruel world, goodbye mum. All I wanted to do was to have a family, maybe some bricks I could call my own, a dog, a pan, cote d rhone once in a while. Its over.

...Alhuwalia eh! My response wasn't 'melodramatic', merely sarcasticlly amused at the irony of your choice of ultimate authority. Lets face it, even in Punjab politics where big figures rarely get done (Sidhu for example), its one thing a politician having a smear campaign against them like Badal with all he's done, its quite another for the Chief Minister to force you to resign on grounds of 'immoral conduct' and a court case for attempted murder. As for his writings, yes they're alright. Greatest authority? No, I don't think so. I've read Sovereignty of Sikh Doctrine a long time ago, it was alright. I was impressed by the big words he used.

Remarkably you then state that you never said Islam wasn't a modern religion having said 'Islam...does not account for the reality of the times it is not adaptable to all walks of life'. Does not account for the reality of the times implies 'the times have changed and it doesn't account for it'. Is that not what you meant?

But this debate here is getting embarrassing Indy!

I've resisted in directly criticising your style and understanding (although you have me from the beginning), and maybe I shouldn't say this but...

You have consistently throughout this discussion not only failed to really understand key points, but also seem to not really possess a sound grasp of the terms being used as evidenced through mis-spellings of those very terms such as 'rationality' becoming 'rationale', 'rhetorical' being read as 'rhetoric', 'modernity' becoming 'modernism', etc. I feel you haven't the understanding to actually engage with central points of this. The fact that your only reply to post-enlightenment values (which I can only assume you do not know of) is to say I have been around people who say 'science, rationale and modernism' too much! My dear, the vast majority of academic literature for over the last two hundred years onwards has been talking about science, rationality as in REASON (not rationale), and modernity (not modernism which traditionally related to the arts at the turn of the 20th century, hence 'modernists') either directly or indirectly. Sikhs lived in a society ruled from Maharaj Ranjit Singh's times onwards by individuals who ALSO lived and breathed these concepts - a further admission on your part that you know nothing of the research into orientalism, postcolonialism and the Enlightenment and the very well documented effects it had on Indian society ever since (and prior) to the Raj!

I'm not brushing you off, since the debate never really existed in the first place, it was only the justification of my rejection of the self-defeating criticism which it seems you are unable to comprehend the implications of! So where to go from here? Well, you'll keep saying there's nothing new in this, I'll keep telling you you're not equipped to comment and around we go, eternal recurrence. So I bow out humbly with my hands clasped together.

[ISDhillon]

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

[tSingh]

hahahahahaha I can't believe you cut and pasted me! You cut and pasted an expose of my 'scheming clueless' personality! Very nicely written though, a bit like a bitter leaving speech, but really a 'I think you're wrong' would have sufficed and taken a lot less time.

I know I'm asking for trouble, but one very last question...its a very simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. Apart from the occasional points I said 'in my opinion' (women and morality)...

To your mind, were the arguments I gave above my own convictions?

Yes

or

No

If you say they are not, then what do you actually know of my 'dead and worthless convictions'?

I did however like the 'nomadic' thing. I'm reading the works of a man called Gilles Deleuze at the moment, and he says nomads are way cool!

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Dillhon Bhai has become more like Sunny Deol of Bole So Nihal,

No If No But Sirf Jatt!

Not to be taken seriouly and forgive joker das for this kidding and sorry in advance.

[ISDhillon]

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,

[tSingh]

was that a yes or a no?