Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Jagdeesh Singh and Muslim/Sikh relations


    by Sunny
    23rd July, 2009 at 2:37 pm    

    I saw this on a mailing list and thought it should be highlighted. Jagdeesh Singh (pictured) is a Sikh activist now commonly used as a ‘representative’ or ‘leader’ on social issues by the media because he ran a long campaign against the killers of his sister Surjit Athwal. She was killed in an ‘honour killing’. You can see Jagdeesh being quoted here on a news story on Sikh officers within the Met.

    So this is how the conversation went. Some guy called ‘Sher e Panjab’ sends an email angry that a marriage took place between a Sikh woman and a Muslim man at a Gurdwara in Birmingham. He says:

    Out of concern we request our Sikh brothers and sisters to be present on Sunday 17th June at the above Gurudwara at 12pm, to protest against this disgraceful act and demand the resignation of the Pardhan (President) and his Committee.

    We are utterly disgraced that such marriages are taking place in Gurdwaras, this is not the first such incident to occur.
    The Ravidass Gurdwara on Union Road , Handsworth hosted the marriage of a Sikh woman to a non Sikh white man. The Ramgarhia Gurdwara in East London were also responsible for hosting the wedding of a Sikh girl to a non Sikh white man.
    Furthermore it is astonishing to see that the Ramgarhia Gurdwara on Graham Street , Birmingham host a Sikh Marriage Bureau service in which they even allow non Sikhs to participate. The marriage bureau should only be advocating marriage of a Sikh woman to a Sikh man.

    Then Jagdeesh Singh replies:

    Continue to name and shame this scum that dominate and control our institutions. Their apthetic and unconcerned attitudes, with their artificial turbans, manacured beards and conformity to the ways of the world; are suffocating the Sikh world.

    We need a SIKH CONSCIOUSNESS MOVEMENT to drive out their invaders sitting in positions of authority and power in our central institutions.

    It would be interested to ask, why the marriage wasn’t conducted in a Muslim setting such as a Mosque?. Would the Muslim groom have undertaken the marriage in a Muslim venue? Whilst Sikhs permit such marriages, prayers, etc in Gurdwara; the Muslims do not reciprocate? A Muslim can do a Muslim prayer in Darbar Sahib, but a Sikh cannot do a Sikh prayer in Mecca. Does the Muslim groom expect the bride to now make a formal declaration of acceptance of Islam? Do Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran permit Sikhs to function as a distinct society with full expression and freedoms? Certainly not. There it is a case of one way and only one way - the Muslim way. Accept it or get out.

    Am I being hostile and sectarian? No. I am just pointing out the stark imbalances in our world, where certain groups and communities are give disproportionate attention and recognition whilst other equally relevant and important communities get buried in the political mish-mash of ‘equal opportunities’, ‘community cohesion’ and ‘respect and diversity’.

    So firstly, a guy who claims to be working in social cohesion between Sikhs and Muslims clearly isn’t interested in that much inter-mingling between the two.

    Secondly this highlights the sort of bigoted attitudes that exist among Sikhs and Muslims (I’ve heard Muslims say similar stuff) about marriage and double-standards. It’s not very different to BNP language, who also compare everything to what’s going on in Saudi Arabia - as if we should hold ourselves to that standard.

    Lastly, it just shows how much the control of women continues to be an issue amongst Sikhs (and Muslims). They wouldn’t be worried so much if it were a Sikh guy marrying a Muslim woman (then some Muslim groups like HuT would create a stink).

    And lastly - it’s worth highlighting the real views of someone who the media takes seriously as a ‘commentator’ on social issues.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Race politics,Religion






    75 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 3:23 pm  

      Sikhs are normally no problem now they’ve given up on the ludicrous desire to have a Khalistan of their own.

      Young Sikhs even take their ceremonial shivs to school in Canada and have [so far] resisted the temptation to use them offensively;

      http://www.amren.com/ar/2007/02/index.html

      As for the proposal that Sikh police officers are the police officers best equipped to investigate criminal affairs among Sikhs, this sounds 100% reasonable. They - not I - can catch the cultural nuances [even putting the language issue on one side] in any Sikh-on-Sikh affairs, especially anything weird about bride price, Sikh clans and honour killings.

    2. Jeremy — on 23rd July, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

      ‘Do Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran permit Sikhs to function as a distinct society with full expression and freedoms? Certainly not. There it is a case of one way and only one way – the Muslim way. Accept it or get out.’ - is this not fact, how can you then claim this man is a ‘bigot’?

      Sikhs are great people & integrated in Britain plus they only have a wife as opposed to several.

    3. Narinder Purba — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:01 pm  

      Those Gurdwaras who have allowed mixed weddings are demonstrating progressive and inclusive attitudes to modern day British Sikhs who can happily marry outside of their faith/caste and maintain their belief to that faith.

      Mr Singh, who does come off as as being apoplectic, is missing the point. Instead of attacking the heads of these very churches for their liberal attitudes towards marriages between Sikhs and non-Sikhs, he should be applauding them for bringing people together regardless of their colour, ethnicity, or faith. As for other churches who do no advocate such practices, well that is their loss.

      However, as a friend tells me, it may be important to note that traditionally Sikh weddings are not just about a commitment between a man and woman, but also a commitment to the Sikh faith, so some may view the wedding as being hypocritical if who opts to convert to Sikhism. Just something to consider.

    4. Narinder Purba — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:04 pm  

      Typo! Should read as below:

      “so some conservative Sikhs may view the wedding as being hypocritical if the non-Sikh groom/bride does not convert to Sikhism”. Just something to consider.

    5. Sunny — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:04 pm  

      Man I really hate this soft racism of ‘sikhs are a model minority’.

    6. Random Guy — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:16 pm  

      Yeah, especially when it leaves the rest of the racist comment hanging in the air…

    7. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:26 pm  

      From an Islamic point of view the only non-Muslim women a Muslim man can marry are true believeing Christian or Jewish women. Even then there with privisos (the children be brought up Muslims)

      “Marriage” to women of other faiths (e.g Hindus, Buddhists, Zorastrians or in this case Sikhs) in invalid and not recognised as a marriage- the Muslim man involved is engaging in fornication . I do not know whether the Sikh woman would be considered to be sinning according to her faith but the Muslim certainly is

      To answer the questions put by Mr Singh

      It would be interested to ask, why the marriage wasn’t conducted in a Muslim setting such as a Mosque?

      because it isnt recognised as a marriage in Islam

      Would the Muslim groom have undertaken the marriage in a Muslim venue?

      No because it isnt a marriage- he’s fornicating

      Whilst Sikhs permit such marriages, prayers, etc in Gurdwara; the Muslims do not reciprocate? A Muslim can do a Muslim prayer in Darbar Sahib, but a Sikh cannot do a Sikh prayer in Mecca.

      Why would a Muslim want to pray in Darbar Sahib? Its not a holy place for Muslims and it may even be sinful to pray there

      Does the Muslim groom expect the bride to now make a formal declaration of acceptance of Islam?

      If he wants to follow Islam and not be a zanee thats really his only choice.

      Do Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran permit Sikhs to function as a distinct society with full expression and freedoms? Certainly not.

      Saudi Arabia no- Iran and Afghanistan yes

      “Am I being hostile and sectarian? No. I am just pointing out the stark imbalances in our world, where certain groups and communities are give disproportionate attention and recognition whilst other equally relevant and important communities get buried in the political mish-mash of ‘equal opportunities’, ‘community cohesion’ and ‘respect and diversity’.”

      what on earth has this got to do with attention and recognition? Its a Gurdwara doing this

      And believe me you wouldnt want the “attention” Muslims get -

      Be careful what you wish for

      On a related note- following the story of Sikhs victims being allowed to specify Sikh police officers - how do you think the Jewish zionist owned Daily Express runs the story?

      yep

      MUSLIMS COULD GET OWN POLICE
      http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115757/Muslims-could-get-own-police

    8. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:28 pm  

      Jeremy

      Sikhs are great people & integrated in Britain plus they only have a wife as opposed to several.

      Ah yes another media sheep who watched Newsnight and is unable to understand they were talking about a tiny minority of Muslims

      What about the many white non-Muslims (50%?) who have a wife and a mistress or two on the side. Are they intergrated into Britain?

    9. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

      Jagdeesh Singh

      with their artificial turbans, manacured beards….

      Something which, if the picture is anything to go by, cannot be said of the venerable Mr Singh.

    10. Jai — on 23rd July, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

      Mr Singh, who does come off as as being apoplectic, is missing the point. Instead of attacking the heads of these very churches for their liberal attitudes towards marriages between Sikhs and non-Sikhs, he should be applauding them for bringing people together regardless of their colour, ethnicity, or faith.

      Spot-on. Mr Singh appears to be missing the point of one of the most basic principles and aims of Sikhism, symbolised most obviously by:

      a) the fact that gurdwaras are open to everyone irrespective of religious affiliation,

      b) the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib includes hymns written by religious figures from multiple religions, including Sufi saints,

      c) the fact that the foundation stone of the Golden Temple/Harmandir Sahib itself in Amritsar was laid by a Muslim (as requested by the Sikh Guru of the time),

      and d) the specific reasons for the gurdwara’s ‘langar’ being open to everyone, equally, without discrimination, and with the intention that everyone eats freely side-by-side with their fellow human beings regardless of their background.

    11. Vikrant — on 23rd July, 2009 at 5:30 pm  

      However, as a friend tells me, it may be important to note that traditionally Sikh weddings are not just about a commitment between a man and woman, but also a commitment to the Sikh faith, so some may view the wedding as being hypocritical if who opts to convert to Sikhism. Just something to consider.

      Haven’t Sikhs intermarried with Hindus quite a bit historically atleast? Is the non-Sikh in such a marriahe compelled to convert?

    12. MixTogether — on 23rd July, 2009 at 5:40 pm  

      Sikhs are a model minority. What they need to remember it that the power of their religion comes from its views on tolerance and equality, not from copying those blinded by dogma and caste.

    13. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 6:35 pm  

      Sunny thinks that for Sikhs in Britain or Japanese in the U.S.A. to be called ‘model minorities’ is a sort of demeaning and perhaps-even-belittling ‘soft racism.’

      Betcha the Somalis and Hmong would rather like to endure the ‘soft racism’ of being called ‘model minorities.’

    14. Amrit — on 23rd July, 2009 at 6:38 pm  

      It’s very depressing to see Jagdeesh Singh, a man I previously respected for his work campaigning for justice for his sister, spout this kind of thing.

      Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is very commonplace among some Sikhs.

      I must point out the slight illogic in this bit:

      Whilst Sikhs permit such marriages, prayers, etc in Gurdwara; the Muslims do not reciprocate?

      Given that he presumably doesn’t even want these marriages to happen in the first place, why is he making this demand? I suppose it’s just a rhetorical flourish.

      The archaic idea that women are the ‘keys’ to religion and honour, in need of protection from *shock, horror* making their own choices in life and love, needs to die. When Sikh men engage in this sort of idea, it goes against the whole idea of gender equality that is within Sikhism.

      If it’s a friend or relative, and you genuinely fear for her - well, that’s one thing. If you’re just unhappy about the choices she’s made for religious or cultural reasons, you need to get over yourself - it’s NOT ABOUT YOU.

    15. Golam Murtaza — on 23rd July, 2009 at 7:56 pm  

      I find it utterly baffling when some Sikhs and Hindus complain about the “attention” being given to Muslims. They want some of our attention? Hell, they can have it. Take it! Take it all! Please!

    16. Kulvinder — on 23rd July, 2009 at 8:03 pm  

      Its just the usual misogynistic ‘they’re taking our wimmin’; if it didn’t amount to the same objectification id advocate sikh girls whoring and throughly disrespecting themselves, just to show them.

      I’m sure if asked people with views like that would be all up for pointing out how egalitarian sikhism is and how women aren’t abused, whilst at the same time viewing them as little more than breeders who must be kept on a short leash to prevent the undesirables impregnating at them.

    17. Shatterface — on 23rd July, 2009 at 8:33 pm  

      ‘“Marriage” to women of other faiths (e.g Hindus, Buddhists, Zorastrians or in this case Sikhs) in invalid and not recognised as a marriage- the Muslim man involved is engaging in fornication .’

      Sheesh. Whenever there’s a thread about idiocy and intolerance, along comes munir to trump everyone else.

    18. Rumbold — on 23rd July, 2009 at 8:37 pm  

      Such a shame about Jagdeesh Singh. And the idea of having police officers for different faiths is ridiculous. What if a Muslim woman wanted to report a forced marriage, and could only deal with DCI Munir, since he was the Muslim officer? Why not just shove ethnic/religious minorities into walled ghettos and be done with it? Let’s try and cut them off from the rest of society as much as possible.

    19. Kulvinder — on 23rd July, 2009 at 8:43 pm  

      nb the ‘model minority’ wrt sikhs in britain is bollocks, if you’re disregarding the individual and considering it on a community or society level - it all depends on the socio-economic class the immigrants came from.

      In the days of the empire and for second half of the 20th century britain was seen as a place of greater opportunity for upper and middle class sikhs/south asians. When idi amin kicked out the middle class asians they settled here and more or less tried to carry on where they left off.

      Its a generalisation but for the purposes of this discussion its worth pointing out that the sikhs who settled in canada didn’t necesarrily come from the same socio-economic (or id argue very broadly religiously liberal) background as those in britain and the ‘issues’ that a ‘non-model minority’ would have are very prevalent there; there are examples of sikhs gangs and turf wars, drug dealing, religous extremism and terrorism (both the air india bombing and editors of critical newspapers being murdered), as well as the usual types of degeneracy.

      Similarly the jamaican immigrants in britain are seen as a ‘problem’ whilst in america exact opposite is apparently true - iirc colin powell explicitly stated his ‘jamaican upbringing’ - as opposed to the ‘other’ black americans as being part of the reason for his success. What i think he means is his parents were upwardly mobile immigrants who insisted on hard work and told him to go to university.

      Its easy to overlook just how much of an impact the socio-economic backgrounds of immigrants can have. The ‘white anglo-saxon’ britons who emmigrate to say spain come from a different s-e background to the ones that generally emmigrate to, say, america - and the problems those communities were facing before the emmigrated aren’t necesarrily eliminated by settling somewhere else.

      In short you could have had the terrorist supporting violent degenerate kulvinder, instead you got the anarchical degenerate kulvinder who doesn’t want to blow you up but would rather just subvert all you love until you cry.

      Luck of the draw, innit.

    20. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

      Rumbold
      “Such a shame about Jagdeesh Singh. And the idea of having police officers for different faiths is ridiculous. What if a Muslim woman wanted to report a forced marriage, and could only deal with DCI Munir, since he was the Muslim officer?”

      Yep its a story about Sikhs wanted their own Sikh officers …. and you out of nowehre bring in Muslims (guess the forced marriage statistic thing wasnt so innocent eh) Never mind that I oppose forced marriages (you yourself showed the evidence for their prohibition in Islam) and would gladly have the parents locked up for good …why deal with reality and what people actually say when you have the stereoype? Why not deliver her to a Sikh or Hindu PC who would no doubt rape her as Sikhs and Hindus do Muslim women in Kashmir and Gujurat ?

      Are you in fact Sikh/Sick?

    21. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 10:32 pm  

      OK OK peace peace salam salam

      Here are a couple of very interesting articles

      Frères ennemis? Relations between Panjabi Sikhs and Muslims in the Diaspora

      http://samaj.revues.org/index135.html

      Re-Imagining Sikh-Muslim Relations in the Light of the Life of Baba Nanak

      http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/re_imagining_sikh_muslim_relations_in_the_light_of_the_life_of_baba_nanak/

    22. Amrit — on 23rd July, 2009 at 10:58 pm  

      Kulvinder @ 19 - good point. You also said what I was trying to, but more concisely, at 16.

      I am VERY apprehensive about these Sikh police officers (sorry, missed the link earlier). It sounds like it SHOULD be a good idea, but what if (say, in domestic violence cases) families use their contacts in the force to prevent victims’ voices being heard?

      I don’t want to be unrelentingly pessimistic, but I don’t want the situation to become like it was with the West Midlands police. Also, this Palbinder Singh guy looks like a bit of a climber to me.

    23. Kulvinder — on 23rd July, 2009 at 11:19 pm  

      That first paper linked by munir (the Christine Moliner one) is actually pretty ace, and certainly one of the most concise and attempts ive read at explaining the various ‘sides’ to sikh identity, especially wrt sikhs in britain.

    24. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 11:21 pm  

      Kulvinder
      That first paper linked by munir (the Christine Moliner one) is actually pretty ace, and certainly one of the most concise and attempts ive read at explaining the various ’sides’ to sikh identity, especially wrt sikhs in britain.

      it is truly excellent

    25. Kulvinder — on 23rd July, 2009 at 11:26 pm  

      oh bollocks shes french, well its still a good paper.

    26. Don — on 24th July, 2009 at 12:38 am  

      Why not deliver her to a Sikh or Hindu PC who would no doubt rape her as Sikhs and Hindus do Muslim women in Kashmir and Gujurat ?

      What the fuck? How the hell do you expect to be taken seriously when you think that is acceptable? Your grievence gives you total licence?

    27. Cauldron — on 24th July, 2009 at 5:43 am  

      Kulvinder @ 19: bang-on post. Now…let’s draw the logical conclusions:

      (1) Some immigrants, and some immigrant cultures, are more desirable than others.

      (2) It is perfectly legitimate for a sovereign nation to distinguish between desirable and undesirable immigrants. A sensible immigration policy ought to ‘raise the bar’ of the populace - no point in bringing in foreign trash when there is already so much indigenous trash.

      Of course, the idea of distinguishing between desirable and undesirable behaviour is anathema to rainbow-coalition Left dogma. Hence the Leftist flaming of ‘model communities’ and the general denigration of minorities who don’t subscribed to Left-approved dogma.

      Well, sod that. If I am part of a ‘model’ community who pays my taxes and works hard why the hell should I wish to be associated with illegal immigrant queue-jumpers or believers in medieval religious dogma? (And please, please don’t quote Martin Niemöller as a justification….)

    28. bumhead — on 24th July, 2009 at 10:09 am  

      Surely its just common sense to use someone with specialist knowledge and first hand experience where it’s required. If I work for a consulting firm after working for a mobile phone company and my firm had a mobile phone company as a client, it will use my specialist knowledge.

      not everything has to be a huge issue about identity, the fear of consessions for immigrants who are taking the mick out of the system and, ridiculously, somehow about muslims every time as well.

      There really is no difference between minorities, or the majority, all you have to do is vary the degree of poverty and education and they amount to the same, whether it´s the “model sikh” minority, muslims or white “indigneous”.

      “Well, sod that. If I am part of a ‘model’ community who pays my taxes and works hard why the hell should I wish to be associated with illegal immigrant queue-jumpers or believers in medieval religious dogma? (And please, please don’t quote Martin Niemöller as a justification….)”

      cop out.

    29. Jai — on 24th July, 2009 at 10:18 am  

      Don,

      What the fuck? How the hell do you expect to be taken seriously when you think that is acceptable? Your grievence gives you total licence?

      Whether Munir thinks it’s actually acceptable or not, the fact that he thinks it’s acceptable to “suggest” that sort of activity even as a “joke” or some kind of rhetorical statement speaks volumes about his character and state of mind, along with his mentality towards Hindus and Sikhs.

    30. bumhead — on 24th July, 2009 at 10:34 am  

      issues get so boring when they become intra-sikh-hindu-muslim.

      it´s all been said before.

    31. Rumbold — on 24th July, 2009 at 11:02 am  

      Munir:

      I was merely bringing up the example of what would happen if a poor lady in trouble encountered you.

      It’s like saying that only white officers can deal with the BNP.

    32. Jai — on 24th July, 2009 at 11:18 am  

      Rumbold
      “Such a shame about Jagdeesh Singh. And the idea of having police officers for different faiths is ridiculous. What if a Muslim woman wanted to report a forced marriage, and could only deal with DCI Munir, since he was the Muslim officer?”

      Yep its a story about Sikhs wanted their own Sikh officers …. and you out of nowehre bring in Muslims (guess the forced marriage statistic thing wasnt so innocent eh) Never mind that I oppose forced marriages (you yourself showed the evidence for their prohibition in Islam) and would gladly have the parents locked up for good …why deal with reality and what people actually say when you have the stereoype? Why not deliver her to a Sikh or Hindu PC who would no doubt rape her as Sikhs and Hindus do Muslim women in Kashmir and Gujurat ?

      Are you in fact Sikh/Sick?

      Charming.

      I also see that Munir has responded with deathly silence to the handful of questions I asked him about Sufism in South Asia on the other thread (here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5208#comment-172293) , despite the fact that they were the simplest, easiest questions I could think of. Although I’m sure he’ll come out with any number of excuses to “explain” his refusal to answer them (eg. “Why should I prove anything ?”, “I have better things to do”, “Who are you to ask me those questions ?”, etc etc etc). All very predictable.

      ************************************************

      So, Munir, the bottom line is that you actually didn’t know the answers. If you really were as familiar with South Asian history as you have claimed, especially in relation to Islam and Sufism in the region, then it should have taken you less than a minute to answer all of them, off the top of your head, and without having to resort to any external sources of information such as the internet (or, indeed, having to ask anyone else).

      That’s how easy the questions actually were.

      And it’s unwise to attempt to minimise the importance and impact of South Asia when it comes to Islam — not only because, as I said before, the subcontinent as a whole contains more Muslims than anywhere else on the planet and has an associated history stretching back over a thousand years, but because the specific regions and populations most heavily affected by Sufism are not exactly “minor” matters where Islam in South Asia is concerned – or on a global scale, in fact, due to the huge numbers of people involved and the subcontinent’s own history as a Muslim-ruled part of the world for about 800 years.

      For example, numerically Punjabis make up the largest group in Pakistan, and coupled with what can be termed the “greater Punjab” region – the province of the same name in Pakistan, plus the corresponding modern state in India, along with Haryana and Himachal Pradesh – that’s a huge geographical region and a massive number of people. It gets even bigger if, due to various historical reasons and the overlapping cultural & historical events involved, one adds Kashmir and Sindh to the list of regions affected.

      It’s fascinating that people like you repeatedly make such a big noise about “Muslim Spain” and various regions in the Middle East, but are either suspiciously silent or grossly misinformed about historical Muslim superpowers such as the Indian subcontinent. Even Persia, the subcontinent’s immediate neighbour to the west and another medieval Muslim superpower, is strangely absent from your assertions – a region, incidentally, which had a colossal influence on medieval north India. And tying this back to Sufism, the life and writings of the Persian Sufi poet Rumi are not exactly unfamiliar to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike in modern-day northern India and Pakistan, for example. I bet that you’re barely aware of who he was, never mind about his life, his poetry and his teachings. Not to mention Hafiz, Sa’di, or Omar Khayyam.

      I’m willing to bet that, even if you are actually South Asian, your grasp of high-level Urdu and Farsi (along with Punjabi and Sindhi, if you’re serious about South Asian Sufism) is rudimentary at best, and not even close to your level of fluency in “all things Arabic” which you’re clearly so enthralled by. Which rules out an entire body of Muslim cultural, literary, poetic and religious heritage from South Asia and neighbouring Persia, stretching back many centuries and influencing hundreds of millions of people, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if even the works of Mirza Ghalib, Meer Taqi Meer, Zauq, even Bahadur Shah Zafar II are mysteriously unfamiliar to you.

      You should know all of this already. The question of why you do not is extremely curious; it’s like someone loudly claiming to be a “staunchly patriotic Pakistani” but turning out to be unable to list the provinces comprising Pakistan or even name the country’s national language.

      Therefore, coupled with your ignorance of the above and your continuing ignorance of extremely basic information about South Asian history along with the culture, beliefs and practices of non-Muslim South Asians, not to mention the actual real-life current & historical interpretation of Islam in the parts of the subcontinent where it was most widespread, it means that one or more of the following applies to you:

      - You’re not actually of South Asian ethnicity, despite making insinuations to the contrary.
      - You’re a convert to Islam.
      - You’re not actually a Sufi, despite your claims to the contrary.
      - Your contact with the bulk of South Asian Muslims in Britain or overseas is minimal or non-existent.
      - Your contact with South Asian Muslims here in Britain involves people who are completely ignorant about the history & interpretation of Islam in the subcontinent, especially in relation to Sufism, and they have to rely on various “scholars” in order to fill in the huge gaps in their knowledge.
      - Your contact with South Asian Muslims involves people here in Britain who, for whatever reason, have rejected the interpretation of Islam traditionally practiced in the part of the subcontinent where their own roots lie and have adopted a predominantly non-South Asian (not even Persian) frame of reference in terms of Islam, identity, worldview, and global history.
      - You’re so fixated with Sunni Muslims (especially the “traditional orthodox” kind, as per your interpretation of the concept) that it’s ended up leaving a huge gap in your knowledge in relation to regions where they have not been the dominant group, ie. the subcontinent as a whole, along with Persia, and you end up having to fill in the gaps via various third-party sources and “scholars”.
      - Some combination of the above.

      Either way, what is blindingly obvious is the fact that you live such an insular, isolated, parochial life in relation to your lack of contact with the majority of British South Asians (especially those from different religious backgrounds) that you don’t even know about some of the most basic things which the average South Asian Muslim is perfectly aware of, including those who are British.

      But it’s good that matters are now becoming clearer. We’re finally starting to get somewhere.

    33. Jai — on 24th July, 2009 at 11:26 am  

      Incidentally, Munir, since you mentioned your hero Aurangzeb on another thread yesterday, you conveniently forgot that – as confirmed in his own memoirs and his letters to his sons – at the very end of his life, Aurangzeb completely renounced his previous interpretation of Islam and the disgusting way he had treated so many people as a result (in fact, the very policies and actions for which you admire him so much), and rapidly made proactive efforts to try to make amends for his previous actions. He spent his final days a bitter, broken man who deeply regretted everything he had done during his long life beforehand, regarded it all as being a complete waste, and was absolutely terrified about what kind of nightmare awaited him after his death – because he became very, very aware of the horror of his crimes and the type of human being which he had become. Fortunately Aurangzeb began to gain real integrity and self-awareness before the end, but perhaps you should do some thinking about why you are determined to walk the same path which Aurangzeb had previously been on, when Aurangzeb himself ultimately rejected all of it.

      Many people on this website have already given you “objective feedback” on exactly how you come across as a person. Another commenter made the following point, but it’s a highly accurate one so I’m going to reiterate it: Your behaviour is practically identical to the type of people – in any given faith, and unfortunately there are people like this in most major religions — who really enjoy sadistically treating other human beings like absolute dirt (especially those who are not from the same religious background as them, along with co-religionists who they believe are “lax” in their own beliefs and practice of the faith), but think that it doesn’t matter either in general or to God because they can ostentatiously quote chapter & verse of their respective scriptures/holy book and any associated scholarly work & history and because they strictly adhere to the more ritualistic aspects of the faith which do not involve them actually having to treat others with kindness, decency and respect. They think that the veneer of “extensive religious knowledge” and the mask of piety compensate for their comparative lack of positive character traits and the horrific way in which they treat other people (sometimes using a flimsy religious pretext, sometimes not).

      You mentioned that you’ve obtained your interpretation of Islam from various “respected scholars” and so on. Munir, this means that either your sources are wrong, or your understanding, interpretation and implementation of much of what you’ve learned is wrong. Either way, as a human being it’s turning you into a monster in terms of your attitude towards other people; your behaviour has been (and frequently still is) literally psychopathic, and the level of confusion about people’s characters, attitudes and intentions along with the world outside your head has repeatedly manifested in some kind of autism at best and actual psychosis at worst. From a psychiatric perspective, you’re well on the way towards genuine insanity.

      Step back from the abyss. While there’s still time. Otherwise, one way or another, your life is heading towards a very, very nasty destination indeed; if your hero Aurangzeb managed to turn away from that path, surely you can too.

      You can be much better than this, and you deserve much better than this.

    34. Narinder Purba — on 24th July, 2009 at 12:49 pm  

      Vikrant:

      From what I know, Hindus are expected to convert, but it comes down to which gender is the non-Sikh.

      The subjugation of women in Indian culture is an issue here. If a Hindu woman marries into a Sikh family, she’s expected to follow that lifestyle. She’s now “left her family nest” and is thus part of another family, i.e. her husband’s. Now, on the flipside, if a Sikh woman marries a Hindu guy, the Hindu groom is unlikely to convert to Sikhism or have a Sikh wedding. These conclusions are based on what I know from conversations with Asian contemporaries.

      Of course, a lot of this is often formality and aside from attending religious festivals and church on the odd occasion, most inter-faith British couples who are religious but do not practice their faith in the truest sense, don’t see much of a change in their lifestyle.

      It’s worthwhile noting here where the ceremony takes place. Of all the Sikh guys I know who have married a Hindu woman, the ceremony has taken place at Gurdwara. However, I expect that the Hindu lads I know would not go down this route if they were to marry a Sikh woman. They would much prefer to have a Hindu wedding, and thus, if I am to understand, the woman would be accepting a Hindu lifestyle.

    35. Adnan — on 24th July, 2009 at 12:59 pm  

      “Well, sod that. If I am part of a ‘model’ community who pays my taxes and works hard why the hell should I wish to be associated with illegal immigrant queue-jumpers or believers in medieval religious dogma?”

      Big deal, I’m part of a non-”model” community who pays taxes and works as hell - so what?

      Sikhs have had their moments in the UK. I remember schoolmates moaning about Sikh policemen wanting crash helmet exemptions, but my “lot” were okay (that was a few years before “my lot” started burning books in public :( ). There were the celebrations of Indira Ghandi’s assassination in Southall, various bits of violence amongst Sikh and Muslim gangs in Birmingham, Slough, and the Bezhti protests.

      Regarding, model community status, many Sikhs in the UK aren’t like the family in “Bend-it-like-Beckham”, or picklers such as Sunny, Jai, Amrit, Kulvinder etc even amongst the ones I met at university.

      “(And please, please don’t quote Martin Niemöller as a justification….)” Well it would be useful for BNP-supporting ethnic minorities to take note of after the BNP deals with the most “troublesome” minority.

    36. Cauldron — on 24th July, 2009 at 1:43 pm  

      Adnan @35, if a person from an ethnic minority deviates from Leftist dogma on any particular issue I’m not sure that automatically means that they are BNP supporters.

      In my post I did not mean to slur any particular community (other than Lefties, whose cretinous slogan-based policies make them enemies of all communities other than their fascist alter-egos) and I’m sorry if my comments came across that way.

      But I do think it is fair to point out that race/religion based identity politics - of the sort practiced by fascists, religious nutjobs and the multi-culti Left - is vacuous because it ignores the varying experiences of people as individuals. As some other posters have more articulately pointed out, education (for example) is a much better proxy for social utility than ethnicity.

      As you describe, your own experiences as an individual show the limitations of ethnic labeling. But Leftist analysis leaves no room for individual behaviour: everyone is lumped together into the Rainbow Coalition regardless of age, place of birth, education, migration status (legal/illegal) and you will be sneered at by the Left (see comment #6) if you abandon grievance politics, roll up your sleeves and behave in a ‘model’ fashion by working hard and paying your taxes.

    37. Adnan — on 24th July, 2009 at 4:17 pm  

      Cauldron @36, I don’t subscribe to the notion that
      deviating from Leftist dogma makes an ethnic minority person a BNP supporter. IMO, you were a bit presumptuous in expecting Niemöller to be quoted at you, and it is a good warning to folks who are surprised to find that the BNP are now their “friends”.

      I also took issue to the beginning of your sentence (“If I am part of a ‘model’ community”) as the implication is that merely being part of that community somehow bestows more legitimacy as a citizen upon you.

      People tend to forget when focusing on a particular community that others have / had their own issues in the past. Also, lumping people together is not solely the preserve of the Left.

    38. Dalbir — on 25th July, 2009 at 2:22 pm  

      I don’t know if anyone posted this before but there was a recent ‘edict’ from The Akal Takhat to the effect of permitting only marriages between Sikhs in a Gurdwara.

      I know people these days want to interfere and define other people’s cultures according to their own tastes. Plus I would not be surprised if I now get responses condemning Sikh institutes for making decisions as outlined above. But fact is fact and the edict has been passed.

      Regarding Sikh with Sikh marriages in a historical perspective, there is ample support for this being normal/standard/preferred practice in extant rahit namas going back to the 1700s.

      Make of it what you will, but it is wrong to push westernised, liberal Anglocentric thinking on Sikhs. Least of all on their religious institutes.

    39. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

      Adnan

      Sikhs have had their moments in the UK. I remember schoolmates moaning about Sikh policemen wanting crash helmet exemptions, but my “lot” were okay

      Quite. And recall that at the time it was Sikhs who Enoch Powell criticised in his Rivers of Blood speech not Muslims

      ‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

      All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

      For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

      So it turns out it was all the fault of the Sikhs, “the model minority” ;)

    40. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

      Going back to this marriage between the Muslim fornicator and Sikh lady - I wonder how they are going to negotiate things in every day life.

      According to the Sikh religion Halal meat is forbidden to consume; according to the Muslim religion only Halal (and Kosher -which is also forbidden to Sikhs) is permitted to be consumed.

      Even the most irreligous Muslims (the type who fornicate) tend to be fussy about eating halal meat and this lady is obviously concerned enough about her faith to marry in a Gurdwara.

      What are they going to do ? If hubby brings home halal chicken and chips his wife cant eat it. If Kaur brings home some non-halal stuff it isnt kosher for hubby.
      Shared eating is a pretty intergral part of married life. Maybe they could both become vegetarians but this again entails a pretty big sacrifice.

      I give it 5 months…..

    41. Dalbir — on 26th July, 2009 at 2:41 pm  

      Munir at #39

      If you think trying to shift attention away from Islamist morons by deflecting on Sikhs will help your cause, so be it. But some friendly advice, it looks really lame and desperate.

      Personally I couldn’t care less about being part of a ‘model community’ as some people put it. If Sikhs occasionally stick a finger in the white supremacist eye, then jolly good! You should be happy about that too.

      If they have managed to fight for their rights to wear their religious symbols, the fact that they have, in general, conducted themselves in a way that doesn’t give a constantly ‘negativity seeking’ white press lots of ammunition, is to be commended (and learnt from by others…hint hint…nudge nudge….wink wink).

      But if you really are astute about the WASPY mind, such things are temporal and you should be aware of the fact that any one of us migrant communities can become victims of a concerted malignment campaign by the white press at any time. Yesterday it was blacks, today it is Muslims….who will be next in line is anyone’s guess….I wouldn’t put it past these people to turn on their so called model minority when it suited them.

      ’tis their nature…’

    42. munirAurangzeb — on 26th July, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

      Jai since youve brought up Aurangzeb again

      Incidentally, Munir, since you mentioned your hero Aurangzeb on another thread yesterday, you conveniently forgot that – as confirmed in his own memoirs and his letters to his sons – at the very end of his life, Aurangzeb completely renounced his previous interpretation of Islam and the disgusting way he had treated so many people as a result (in fact, the very policies and actions for which you admire him so much), and rapidly made proactive efforts to try to make amends for his previous actions. He spent his final days a bitter, broken man who deeply regretted everything he had done during his long life beforehand, regarded it all as being a complete waste, and was absolutely terrified about what kind of nightmare awaited him after his death – because he became very, very aware of the horror of his crimes and the type of human being which he had become. Fortunately Aurangzeb began to gain real integrity and self-awareness before the end, but perhaps you should do some thinking about why you are determined to walk the same path which Aurangzeb had previously been on, when Aurangzeb himself ultimately rejected all of it.

      Do you have a credible source for this? I think you are simply interpreting the self-critical comments of the deeply pious (who from their piety are always very hard on themselves) as something else.

      It has already been mentioned to you (but blinded by religious fanaticism over this, you ignored) that Muslims admire Aurangzeb not for his battles etc (as mentioned he wasnt someone like Muhammed bin Qasim who first brought Islam to India and conqurered new territory) but for his deep personal piety- the other Mughal emperors spent their time drinking fornicating etc.

      Aurangzeb was a scholar of enough knowledge to compile books of hadeeth and contribute to some of the greatest
      works of fiqh in the Indian subcontinent. When he died instead of spending a fortune from the public treasury (the peoples money) building a huge tomb for himself he just was buried in a simple grave- this was an Emperor of one of the richest places on earth. Whats not to admire about that? His offing some rebelious religious kook in the Punjab has nawt to do with anything. Its a minor footnote, at best.

      This article was posted before exposing many of the lies about Aurangzeb- you need to read it

      Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad
      History?

      http://www.albalagh.net/general/0093.shtml

      Sadly you are too brainwashed to realise the truth

      With regards the “respected scholars” I quote from these sources are not wrong- rather they represent was Islam teaches being the consensus of the scholars on clear cut verses of the Quran. Its amusing you criticise me for the abundant flaws in my own religious practice when the people promoting ideas that homosexuality is OK in Islam or the hijab isnt compulsory are practising homosexuals and athiests.

      Its also hypocritical since you stick up for Sikh orthodoxy anytime you get the chance. Take your vilification of the true 8th Guru Baba Ram Rai - a man who tried to created peace between Sikhs and Muslims- accepted by moderate Sikhs but rejected by hardline extreme Sikhists such as yourself

      “Aurangzeb never forgot that the Guru had helped Dara. So, when he became Emperor, he called the Guru to Delhi. The Guru could not find time to go so he sent his son, Ram Rai, on his behalf.

      When Ram Rai appeared before Aurangzeb, he was asked many questions about Sikhism. Ram Rai tried to answer them all as best as he could. Aurangzeb then wanted to satisfy himself that there was nothing against Islam written in the Holy Granth (The Sikh Bible). He asked Ram Rai to explain why Guru Nanak had said,


      “Mitti Musalman ki, pere pai ghumiar,
      Ghar bhande itan kian, jahdi kale pukar.”
      “The ashes of Moslems find their way into the potter’s clod,
      Pots and bricks are made out of them, they cry out as they’re fired.”

      Ram Rai thought for a time and then, forgetting altogether what his father had instructed, he said,

      “Your Majesty, Guru Nanak wrote ‘Mitti Beiman Ki’ that is ‘The ashes of the faithless,’ not ‘of the Moslems’ fall into the potter’s clod. Some ignorant person seems to have copied wrongly from the original text. The scribe seems to have inserted ‘Musalman’ in place of ‘Beiman.’ This mischief has given a bad name not only to your religion but also to mine .” The Emperor was very pleased at Ram Rai’s answer and was fully satisfied with his explanation. He sent Ram Rai away very respectfully.

      The Sikhs of Delhi reported the whole incident to the Guru and told him that Ram Rai had changed the text of the Granth and thought himself superior to Guru Nanak whose writings no-one had the right to change. When Guru Har Rai heard that from fear of death his son Ram Rai had changed the Holy Text and shown weakness, he was extremely angry. The Guru thought that Ram Rai was unable to withstand pressure and understand the true meaning of the text. He had shown no strength of character. So Guru Har Rai judged that he was unfit to be Guru. He therefore disowned him and said that he would never see him for the rest of his life. He made up his mind to make Har Krishan, his younger son, the next Guru of the Sikhs.”

      http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smspublications/inthegurusfootsteps/chapter11/

      “Though Ram Rai was well-blessed with all powers and strictly instructed only to explain Guru’s position, but to sooth the minds of his host he choose to mis interprete Sri Guru Nanak’s writings which was completely forbidden. Further, he performed miracles for Aurangzeb’s pleasures. When Guru Har Rai Ji heard of this incident, he forbade Ram Rai from ever returning home. Guru’s word in Gurbani is absolute divine revelation and not subject to any modifications by anyone. Miracles although recognized by Sikh faith, are actively discouraged. Their exposition or display is considered arrogance (competing with Vaaheguru’s powers).

      Though Ram Rai managed to please Aurangzeb, Guru Har Rai Ji forbade all Sikhs from ever associating with Ram Rai. Aurangzeb gave Ram Rai a jagir of four villages in the Doon area as a reward. He died there in sunmat 1788. Because of Ram Rai’s Dehra, Duun came to be popularly known as Dehradun. A historical katha suggests that when Ram Rai was engrossed in meditation, the neighbouring masands mistook him for dead and cremated his body. For this reason, Mata Punjab Kaur sought punishment of masands from Kalgidhur patshah. Today there is a small following of Ram Rai. However, by Guru Har Rai’s hukam, all Sikhs are forbidden any association with Ram Rai’s followers.

      http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Ram_Rai

      Seriously this is indefensible stuff- Guru Har Rai cut off his son, forbade all Sikhs from speaking to him for ever… because he said something nice about Muslims and sought a non-anti Muslim interpretation !!

      Kind of destroys the notion that the Sikh faith isnt deeply anti-Muslim. Maybe Sunny could explain?

    43. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 3:11 pm  

      Dalbir

      If you think trying to shift attention away from Islamist morons by deflecting on Sikhs will help your cause, so be it. But some friendly advice, it looks really lame and desperate.

      No it was not my intention to deflect onto Sikhists but to merely re-iterate Adnans point that it was Sikhs more than muslims that the bigots had a problem with.

      Their are of course a number of people from minority communities such as Jews, Catholics, Sikhs, Hindus etc who do precisely this- demonising and deflecting attention onto Muslims in the hope that that will someone keep right wing bigots busy with Muslims and away from thier community. No it just strengthens them and your turn will come after theyve dealt with the Muslims.

      So your Islamophobia just contributes to your own downfall. When you demonize Muslims you demonize yourselves.

    44. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 3:23 pm  

      Dalbir

      If they have managed to fight for their rights to wear their religious symbols, the fact that they have, in general, conducted themselves in a way that doesn’t give a constantly ‘negativity seeking’ white press lots of ammunition, is to be commended (and learnt from by others…hint hint…nudge nudge….wink wink).

      Thats clearly bollox - the row over a Sikh driver wearing his turban was resolved only when Sikhs threatened to set fire to themselves. And when Indire Gandhi was popped their were racious celebrations all over the UK

      And look at the Behezti reactions - a play which didnt even deal with religious figures directly (as the Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoon did) which provoked violent reaction

      Sikhs simply havent been provoked as much as Muslims have- there havent been UK bombs raining down on Indian Punjab killing hundreds of thousands. there havent been cartoons running mocking Guru Nanak in major western newspapers

      Hadnt they been the loony Sikhs from “the model minority” would have reacted exactly the same as some loony Muslims did

    45. Dalbir — on 26th July, 2009 at 3:26 pm  

      No it was not my intention to deflect onto Sikhists but to merely re-iterate Adnans point that it was Sikhs more than muslims that the bigots had a problem with.
      ——————————-

      That may be because Sikhs were more forthright about their rights back then than Muslims. Who waited until their numbers were up before they asserted themselves.

      I understand your point about NF types wanting to deal with migrants in a piecemeal fashion now. First Muslims then rest….but for you to go on like there are no problems within your community is burying your head in the sand.

      Anyway you said:

      “Kind of destroys the notion that the Sikh faith isnt deeply anti-Muslim.”

      Have you read the Koran? The bits about kafirs? If you are going to pass around statements about other people’s faiths, could you not interpret these ideas as anti-humanity?

    46. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 3:29 pm  

      Dalbir

      “But if you really are astute about the WASPY mind, such things are temporal and you should be aware of the fact that any one of us migrant communities can become victims of a concerted malignment campaign by the white press at any time. Yesterday it was blacks, today it is Muslims….who will be next in line is anyone’s guess….I wouldn’t put it past these people to turn on their so called model minority when it suited them.

      ’tis their nature…’

      And rest assured when its no longer Muslims there will be idiot Muslim Richard Desmonds and Mel Phillips demonising this new community as previous victims of bigotry amonsgt the Irish, Catholics, Jews etc now demonise Muslims

      Wont be me though- not my style :)

      In any case Islamophobia has legs and dont expect it to subside as the hate du jour for decades if not centuries.

    47. Dalbir — on 26th July, 2009 at 3:32 pm  

      “And rest assured when its no longer Muslims there will be idiot Muslim Richard Desmonds and Mel Phillips demonising this new community as previous victims of bigotry amonsgt the Irish, Catholics, Jews etc now demonise Muslims”

      What are you on about here?

    48. Dalbir — on 26th July, 2009 at 3:35 pm  

      Plus how you get the red writing up?

      Pray do tell.

    49. Don — on 26th July, 2009 at 4:13 pm  

      Dalbir,

      Try this;

      http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/html_tutor.html

    50. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 4:20 pm  

      Dalbir

      That may be because Sikhs were more forthright about their rights

      Are you ever able to get out of your “heroic brave Sikhs” Gurdwara caricature?

      back then than Muslims. Who waited until their numbers were up before they asserted themselves.

      Yeah thats right Dalb, It was a carefully hatched plan at our Eurabia meeting that wed wait till our numbers reached a certain level before starting our plan for domination

      I understand your point about NF types wanting to deal with migrants in a piecemeal fashion now.

      You understand a point. Thank heavens for small mercies!

      First Muslims then rest….but for you to go on like there are no problems within your community is burying your head in the sand.

      When did I say that? There are problems in all communities . Are there none in the Sikh community?

      “Kind of destroys the notion that the Sikh faith isnt deeply anti-Muslim.”

      Have you read the Koran? The bits about kafirs? If you are going to pass around statements about other people’s faiths, could you not interpret these ideas as anti-humanity?

      Sigh.Yes there are not a few verses in the Quran about kafirs going to hell. This refers to sane adults who have properly received the message of Islam in its entirety and rejected it. Its the same with the Bible saying all who reject Christianity will go to hell.
      But neither the Bible or the Quran specify that one particular group with go to hell

      This verse specifies and singles out a particular groups (Muslims) .Big difference.

    51. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

      Dalbir

      “What are you on about here?”

      good grief youre dumb

      the red writing is done by putting blockquote at the start of the quote and /blockquote at the end each butressed by two brackets

      Put instead of X:

      XblockquoteX My name is Dalbir X/blockquoteX

    52. Ravi Naik — on 26th July, 2009 at 4:42 pm  

      Plus how you get the red writing up?

      <blockquote>
      quote
      </blockquote>

    53. Ravi Naik — on 26th July, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

      Going back to this marriage between the Muslim fornicator and Sikh lady – I wonder how they are going to negotiate things in every day life.

      I give it 5 months…..

      How petty can you be, Munir? They got married, and I am sure they have though this through. Only people like Jagdeesh Singh and yourself seem to be really uncomfortable that people of two different religions fell in love and got married. Your reaction is hilarious… OMG! - how will they eat together? :)

      Hysterics aside, we live in a multicultural society, and it is great that people feel comfortable and marry outside their communities. It will hurt extremists, but you know fuck them, I say. Furthermore, it is great that individuals like that couple are able to follow their conscience, and not behave like drones and do stuff because a mullah, priest or rabbi said so.

    54. Ravi Naik — on 26th July, 2009 at 5:32 pm  

      It is ironic, Munir, that you whine all the time about how Islamophobic Sikhs are… and yet, here is an example of tolerance: a Muslim is accepted in their temple to marry a Sikh woman. And your response is utter contempt. I guess the BNP is not the only one with problems with multiculturalism, and inter-relations between communities.

    55. Don — on 26th July, 2009 at 5:41 pm  

      Well said, Ravi. Good luck to them. As Leonard Cohen said, ‘Love’s the only engine of survival.’

    56. Dalbir — on 26th July, 2009 at 7:15 pm  

      Are you ever able to get out of your “heroic brave Sikhs” Gurdwara caricature?

      Are you ever able to get out of your “poor, angelic oppressed Muslims” dawa caricature?

      Yeah thats right Dalb, It was a carefully hatched plan at our Eurabia meeting that wed wait till our numbers reached a certain level before starting our plan for domination.

      No need to get arsy about it. I wasn’t implying that there was plan for domination (then). Only that Sikhs were much more confident in fighting for their religious rights at that time compared to some other groups. The Muslim community took much more time in asserting themselves, that is what I remember. When it did finally burst onto the scene it was under the whole Satanic Verses thing.

      There are problems in all communities. Are there none in the Sikh community?

      Yes, there are and I pray that Sikhs have a better strategy of dealing with them than pointing out the faults of other communities to falsely assure themselves that everything is normal.

      good grief youre dumb

      Well I wasn’t claiming to be a genius but thanks for the heads up……

      BTW, trying to imply that Sikhism believes that every single Muslim is condemned to hell just shows how ignorant of the faith you are.

    57. Jai — on 26th July, 2009 at 7:54 pm  

      Ravi,

      Welcome back. Your much-needed presence has been greatly missed.

      ****************************

      Dalbir,

      Mate you need to read the “BNP pwned” thread too. Given your ongoing conversation with Munir here, I think you’ll find it to be of great interest. I suggest you start with comment #69 on that thread and then continue reading onwards.

    58. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 7:55 pm  

      Ravi Naik

      They got married, and I am sure they have though this through.

      Yes because people in love always think things through. Especially young ones.

      Only people like Jagdeesh Singh and yourself seem to be really uncomfortable that people of two different religions fell in love and got married.

      Yes I have been unable to sleep since reading this story

      Your reaction is hilarious… OMG! – how will they eat together?

      Its a logical question and is amongst the least of their worries as a couple

      Hysterics aside, we live in a multicultural society, and it is great that people feel comfortable and marry outside their communities.

      Its a nice platitude but its irelevant. India is a multicultural country - doesnt make it lawful for a Muslim man (or woman) to marry someone of the Sikh faith.

      It will hurt extremists, but you know fuck them, I say.

      Extremists here = anyone who actually follows what their religion teaches

      Furthermore, it is great that individuals like that couple are able to follow their conscience, and not behave like drones and do stuff because a mullah, priest or rabbi said so.

      I love how when people want to avoid what a religion clearly says they will use the “we dont follow mullahs/rabbis/ preists etc” line or the “thats your opinion” on clear cut issues

      Yeah this girl is really rejecting the shackles of religion isnt she and not behaving like a drone… by getting married in a gurdwara

      All the pretty words in the world dont change the fact that this isnt a marriage according to the religion of at least one of the participants (the Muslim one) and he will be commiting fornication should he be intimate with her. (one assumes even if the marriage is meatless it wont be unconsumated)

      Such relationships rarely work

    59. Sunny — on 26th July, 2009 at 8:30 pm  

      Its a nice platitude but its irelevant. India is a multicultural country – doesnt make it lawful for a Muslim man (or woman) to marry someone of the Sikh faith.

      Erm - it’s perfectly legal under secular law in India for people of different religions to marry. And it has happened plenty of times. And it is possible. It just depends on how important the people see their religion - if they don’t then it’s not really an issue.

    60. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 8:52 pm  

      Ravi Naik

      It is ironic, Munir, that you whine

      Whine is a subjective,loaded word whose usage weakens the actual content of your argument

      all the time about how Islamophobic Sikhs
      are…

      Islamophobia is hatred of Muslims. Not wishing to marry a Muslim is not Islamophobic or hatred of Muslims.

      Were I to go to non-Muslim parents seeking approval for the marriage of their non-Muslim daughter and they were to reject me for being Asian that would be totally wrong and unconsionable.

      Were they to say they would prefer I didnt marry their daughter because I was Muslim and they arent they would have every right to do so. Id do the exact same in their situation.

      and yet, here is an example of tolerance: a Muslim is accepted in their temple to marry a Sikh woman. And your response is utter contempt.

      My “contempt” (another loaded word) is solely for the Muslim man involved and is for none of the Sikh participants involvement (though I find Jagsdeer Singhs equivalence line of argument rather odd- either this is allowed in his faith or it isnt -BTW which is it?)

      So Ravi here is an oppurtunity to join me in availing yourself of the chance of bashing a Muslim man- what are you waiting for? bet Douglas Clark, et al are kicking themselves :)

      I guess the BNP is not the only one with problems with multiculturalism, and inter-relations between communities.

      A stupid argument because the BNP would heartily approve of this marriage - it is after all of two people of the same race. As would the racists in the Asian community. I think the fact “Sher Punjab” mentions the non-Sikh in another marriage is “a white man” is redolent of some of the repulsive racism in the Asian community.

      I dont have any problems with inter-racial marriages - on the contrary I think they are wonderful.

      I actually find it appalling that 96% of whatver of South Asian Muslims marry people of the exact same racial background (another appalling aspect of their parents’ Asian culture). I have absolute contempt for Muslim parents who forbid their sons (and especially daughters) to marry Muslims of different races-something that happens not infrequently in our community. They are following the practice of Iblis (satan) not of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who conducted many inter-racial marriages.

      But a Muslim man is only allowed to marry a Muslim woman (or in restricted circumstances a Jewish or Christian woman).

      Of course in this country there is no restriction on you marry who you wish. People have the legal right to do that. And others have the right to point out such things are religiously forbidden :)

      Out of interest what does the Sikh religion say on marrying non Sikhs?

    61. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 9:14 pm  

      Its a nice platitude but its irelevant. India is a multicultural country – doesnt make it lawful for a Muslim man (or woman) to marry someone of the Sikh faith.

      Erm – it’s perfectly legal under secular law in India for people of different religions to marry. And it has happened plenty of times. And it is possible.

      The point was Ravi’s saying “its a multicultural” society as some kind of argument. Whether its a multi-cultural or mono-cultural society or a multi-religious or multi-cultural one the rulings on who isnt prohibited to marry stay the same. Even if the bleeding Caliph did it- the rulings stay the same.

      It just depends on how important the people see their religion – if they don’t then it’s not really an issue.

      This is true and the crux of the matter. The “problem” resolves itself. The people who care about their religion follow what it says and marry those of their religon. Those that dont care just disregard what it says . So making a big fuss over x religious communities marriage patterns is pointless.

    62. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

      The point was Ravi’s saying “its a multicultural” society as some kind of argument. Whether its a multi-cultural or mono-cultural society or a multi-religious or multi-cultural one the rulings on who isnt prohibited to marry stay the same. Even if the bleeding Caliph did it- the rulings stay the same.

      I mean the religious rulings

    63. munir — on 26th July, 2009 at 9:28 pm  

      Ravi Naik

      It is ironic, Munir, that you whine all the time about how Islamophobic Sikhs are… and yet, here is an example of tolerance: a Muslim is accepted in their temple to marry a Sikh woman.

      Another aspect of mentioning the prohibition of Muslims marrying Sikhs is that is shows to the Sikh community ,and Hindus to whom the ruling also applies, that Muslim men “chasing after” Sikh/Hindu girls has no religious sanction whatsoever (there were fanciful claims Muslims were deliberately targetting Hindu/Sikh girls) , quite the reverse it’s a sin. Even chasing after them “for the purpose of conversion” is forbidden.

      The majority of situations where a Hindu/Sikh girl converted to Islam to marry a Muslim were in situations where they were doing something Islamically impermissable such as being boyfriend and girlfriend

    64. Ravi Naik — on 26th July, 2009 at 9:52 pm  

      Whine is a subjective,loaded word whose usage weakens the actual content of your argument

      I do not throw the term “whiner” to just anyone, Munir. You definitely earned it.

      Islamophobia is hatred of Muslims. Not wishing to marry a Muslim is not Islamophobic or hatred of Muslims.

      Nice try, but here goes again: you claim Sikhs have a deep hatred against Muslims, and yet, here you have an example of absolute tolerance for Muslims - Sikhs celebrating marriage in their temple and accepting a Muslim to marry their “own”.

      I guess you are not just pissed off that a Muslim dared cross that line, but the fact that it really screws up your anti-Muslim Sikh hatred.

      A stupid argument because the BNP would heartily approve of this marriage – it is after all of two people of the same race.

      It is irrelevant. They see identity as race, and you see identity as religion. The mindset is the same: you cannot cross identity boundaries. Both of you believe that marriages that cross identity boundaries are doomed to fail and should be discouraged. Both of you use charged words such as race traitor or fornicator.
      Quite honestly, I see little difference between parents not accepting their daughter marrying someone because he does not share the same identity - be it caste, religion, or race.

      Oh wait, bigotry is fine when it stems from religion, right?

      So Ravi here is an oppurtunity to join me in availing yourself of the chance of bashing a Muslim man- what are you waiting for? bet Douglas Clark, et al are kicking themselves :)

      I prefer to bash someone like you for being petty and narrow-minded. :) Now that our BNP trolls have disappeared, I think you will do just fine.

      Of course in this country there is no restriction on you marry who you wish. People have the legal right to do that. And others have the right to point out such things are religiously forbidden

      Absolutely. And isn’t great you have words like “fornicator” to help you express your disapproval?

    65. Ravi Naik — on 26th July, 2009 at 9:56 pm  

      I guess you are not just pissed off that a Muslim dared cross that line, but the fact that it really screws up your anti-Muslim Sikh

      … narrative.

      (sorry…)

    66. Dalbir — on 26th July, 2009 at 10:23 pm  

      Jai@57

      I had a trawl through. Munir’s manic posts are hard for me to take too seriously.

      I noticed he doesn’t have any issues with stooping down to insulting the Sikh Gurus…….

      Frankly though, given the bull propaganda I have heard against Sikhs from such quarters, it comes as no surprise.

      yawn……

    67. Amrit — on 27th July, 2009 at 2:24 am  

      And isn’t great you have words like “fornicator” to help you express your disapproval?

      YES! YES, it is. Myself and I would suspect others too were missing the gap left by Ashik’s departure. Who else would supply us with hilarious Victorian-style terms of abuse?

      I know there have been calls to ban munir, I would say to the mods that perhaps they should keep him ‘on a short leash,’ so to speak, but he really is quite entertaining nowadays. His reactions to things often remind me of someone poking a mad old person with a stick and then watching them go off.

      The comedy factor is only enhanced by the fact that quite often, nobody is actually doing any metaphorical ‘poking’, Munir just THINKS they are and sets off. Witness the ’8000 forced marriage cases in 2008′ thread. He can be civil, but he’s mostly fickle in bestowing his, er, affections.

      I don’t care though, I’m probably a ‘fornicator’ because my bf’s not technically of the same religion. MWAHAHA! FORNICATION! I have also been given to procrastination, though I tend to avoid prevarication…

    68. Jai — on 27th July, 2009 at 1:10 pm  

      Extremists here = anyone who actually follows what their religion teaches

      People have the legal right to do that. And others have the right to point out such things are religiously forbidden :)

      The people who care about their religion follow what it says and marry those of their religon. Those that dont care just disregard what it says .

      Yet more hypocrisy from Munir.

      Let’s take a look at a highly relevant example from another PP thread he has very recently been simultaneously commenting on, with the extract and my own subsequent remarks reproduced in full:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5287#comment-172706

      Jai: Munir is a textbook example of what can eventually happen to a person’s mental state in extreme cases when they exploit religion (particularly when placing an overemphasis on “academic theological knowledge” and an ostentatious adherence to some of the rudimentary ritualistic aspects, whilst conveniently ignoring any religious injunctions to behave with respect, empathy and basic decency towards others) as a source of egotism and an attempt to hide & compensate for their own fundamental lack of any redeeming character traits, resulting in the development and manifestation of clearly-identifiable psychiatric illness.

      Munir: Like some of the Sikh Gurus you mean?

      The “retaliation” above is yet another example of Munir persistently violating major Islamic injunctions while simultaneously claiming to act in the name of Islam and for the benefit of Muslims (sound familiar ?), despite also having repeatedly claimed to be “conveying the position of orthodox Sunni Islam” — specifically the following non-negotiable, mandatory Islamic obligations:

      a) The Islamic injunction that one should never lie,
      b) The Islamic injunction that one should always behave with respect, courtesy and integrity towards others,
      and c) The Islamic injunction to never ridicule or gratuitously insult the religious founders & figures of other faiths under any circumstances when interacting with adherents of those faiths.

      So, that’s 3 major Islamic injunctions which Munir is deliberately and maliciously violating in one post alone, the latest in a very long list of countless previous examples where he has repeatedly done this. What’s next, Munir – Are you planning to visit a lapdancing club, get drunk on tequila shots, and eat a bacon sandwich tonight as well ?

    69. Shamit — on 27th July, 2009 at 1:43 pm  

      “Like some of the Sikh Gurus you mean?”

      Munir -

      Did you read the Satanic Verses or the Children of the Alleys?

      I wonder what your reactions would be to those books - and I am sure anyone using those references would be dubbed by you as Muslim haters. So could we now call you a Sikh hater for starters please?

    70. Suzy — on 27th July, 2009 at 3:50 pm  

      Munir has to be the most hilariously pathetic whiner I have ever read on this blog, and he has had some big competition for that accolade. What a horrible, and yet hilarious man he is.

      As for the marriage between the Sikh and Muslim, he will have bowed his head to Guru Granth Sahib in order to do that inside the Gurudwara, and that is excellent, because it will cause Munir to have further heart attacks, and his head explode with fury ;-)

    71. Suzy — on 27th July, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

      I noticed he doesn’t have any issues with stooping down to insulting the Sikh Gurus……

      And yet you imagine that he bursts into flames if anyone insults Muhammad….he really is a silly, bile filled, tiny man, a small man, a very very silly man. You can deal with hate filled racist bigots like him by either banning him, or keeping him around for amusement.

    72. Ravi Naik — on 27th July, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

      I don’t care though, I’m probably a ‘fornicator’ because my bf’s not technically of the same religion. MWAHAHA! FORNICATION!

      Of course, Munir’s “insult” here when he uses the term fornication is to imply that the Muslim who married the Sikh is not really married because he didn’t have a “proper” Muslim wedding. Which means that for Munir, non-Muslims are never properly married, and therefore are all fornicators.

      Not that there is anything wrong with fornication. ;)

    73. Suzy — on 27th July, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

      I think the issue of mixed religious marriages with Sikhs only becomes fraught when there is a lack of reciprocity and respect accorded to the Sikh religion. If people are conditioned to accept that in order to marry someone you must forsake your own religion and culture, then that is repulsive to your average Sikh. In my experience, this is the presiding factor in Sikh peoples attitudes towards inter-faith marriage.

    74. Ravi Naik — on 3rd August, 2009 at 2:53 pm  

      If my sister married a muslim i personally wouldn’t go to the mosque and would disown her for hurting her family but at the same time would wish the best in the future for her.

      One hopes that your kind is a dying breed.

    75. observer — on 15th February, 2010 at 10:15 pm  

      Its about time the truth came out about him….he puts on a public face but is really something else.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.