French Niqab Ban in Action
The controversial new French law that bans Muslim women from wearing the niqab, or full-face veil, went into effect today and was met with resistance in Paris. The New York Times reports:
The police detained two fully veiled women at a small protest outside the Notre Dame cathedral in central Paris, where demonstrators were easily outnumbered by police officers and journalists. But it was not clear whether the women had been held under laws forbidding unauthorized demonstrations.
French authorities estimate that less than 2,000 women in the entire country even wear the niqab, in a country of nearly 63 million. The NYT article continues:
The ban also applies to foreigners visiting France… Violators may be punished with a fine of 150 euros, equivalent to $215. But people forcing others to cover their faces are subject to much stiffer punishments, including a maximum 12 months in prison and a fine of 30,000 euros, equivalent to more than $42,000, or twice that amount if the person forced to cover their face is a minor.
I’ve argued before that France’s so-called attempts at “liberating” Muslim women in reality perpetuates racist and assimilationist notions of national identity. Some Muslims in France are organizing to challenge the law. One wealthy property developer has set aside some $2.8 million to help women fight the ban and is encouraging women to wear the niqab in the streets as a form of civil disobedience. (Check out this video of a French Muslim woman taking a train to Paris today wearing her niqab)
As Sikhs, our Gurus have taught us to fight for a world that is inclusive of all ways of life, even if they aren’t necessarily in line with our way of life. Guru Tegh Bahadur gave up his life to defend Kashmiri Hindu Brahmins’ right to exist, even while Brahminical caste ideology is antithetical to Sikhi.
But at the end of the day, I think this is more about good, old-fashioned, state-sanctioned racism, cloaked in a liberal, securalist politics, than anything. I wonder how Sikhs in France are responding to the niqab ban and if they see it as a part of the same racist rationale that has challenged the Sikh identity in France. Or if instead colonialism’s divide and conquer methodology continues to be effective in this situation of religious minorities in France.
59 Responses to “French Niqab Ban in Action”
As usual you are the most inconsistent writer on this blog. A few weeks ago you complained about Sikhs not eating halal meat and went against the rehat maryada citing reason of unity and interfaith understanding. Can you now equally give the same sanctimonious advice to the Muslim community in France and ask that they get rid of their niqabs for the same reasons?
Just because you consistently disagree with my perspectives doesn't make me inconsistent. My opinion on this issue has nothing to do with what I think about whether women should or should not wear niqabs — that's irrelevant. I am criticizing a repressive state policy that that undermines religious freedom — the same kind of state policy that limits religious freedom for turban-wearing Sikhs in France.
You inconsistency reeks on this issue. Come on be consistent, tell these niqabi women to throw off the niqab in the interests of unity and the divide created between their wearing of the niqab with the rest of society. This is your sanctimonious advice about Sikhs not eating halal meat-;
>>Sikhi is arguably one of the most inclusive philosophies of the major world religions. Yet it seems to me that prohibiting the eating of an “animal slaughtered the Muslim way” serves only to divide.<<
@Blk: Brooklynwala is divided between being a staunch leftist/liberal/democratic and a Sikh.
Many times his staunch liberal/progressive political agendas overwhelm every other reason.
@Brooklynwala: Do you remember just few days back in your post on gay marriage you bashed WSO as being narrow minded for not supporting gay marriages? How broad minded is your support to wearing burqa?
Personally I don't mind anything, however I don't like your brainwashing people with liberal/progressive political beliefs which contradict very often with your beliefs on Sikhism. Here's an advice: Change the name of this blog to PoliticallyDemocratSikhs.com
I don't think he's divided at all. His liberal left wing agenda is clear for all to see. He will question established Sikh norms but like all 'useful idiots' Islam gets a free pass. For someone who questions the Sikhs for not eating halal meat because according to him it creates divisiveness, yet supports Muslim women who cut themselves off from society by wearing a burka. This blog is a joke to be honest, it might have started off with good intentions but allowing liberal left wing writers most of whom don't have a clue about Sikhism apart from the arrogance to question it has led this blog to becoming a haven for anti-Sikh forces.
France is a indeependent soverign country.
It is well with in its right to draft rules for its citizens.
If you dont like the rules then the answer is simple :–
“PLEASE LEAVE ”
French men are not coming to Punjab and telling SIKHS not to wear Turbans .
I agree and also think that Sikhs should adhere to their rules and shave their beards and take off their turbans, or leave the country. France is an independent, sovereign country afterall. Unlike the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom, which is governed by . . . . That was sarcasm incidentally.
France is France and is not USA ,UK or Canada .
SIKHS should not go to countries like France to get themselves humiliated.
There are plenty of countries in Universe which are secular and allow Sikhs to wear dress they desire to .
My advise is go to countries which welcomes you rather than imposing yourself on some unwilling hosts.
You are saying people should shave their beards, cut their hair if they want to live in France? Never have Sikhs at any point of time ever said that they would allow anyone to not follow their religious beliefs. Guru Teg Bahadur died so that Hindus could practice their religion. The world would be a lot different if the Gurus had decided to become Hindus or Muslims rather than dying for their beliefs, or the beliefs of others..
Think about that
I think Navdeep was pretty clear he was being sarcastic and even made a note at the end for fools who don't fully read the comments "that was sarcasm by the way." And still got a comment like this haha. He was making a reference to the above comment and ridiculing the idea that said any muslims who don't want to abide by the rules the french govt was forcing should either follow the rules or leave.
I wasn't talking about Navdeep Singh, I was talking about Harinder.
Oh. My bad =)
Guru Tegh Bahadur gave up his life to defend Kashmiri Hindu Brahmins’ right to exist, even while Brahminical caste ideology is antithetical to Sikhi.
That was an issue of religious freedom. The niquab is not religious at all. Nobody is stopping muslims females from wearing the hijab. More so, will you people please stop framing this debate in the context of a civil rights issue. We all know the french ban is a strike against what the Niquab is REPRESENTATIVE of, and not the covering itself so much. It is very telling when Muslim religious organizations themselves (atleast the ones in Canada) are SUPPORTING the ban. Let me state that I am OPPOSED to the idea of the French banning crosses, turbans, hijabs etc. This, however, is an entirely different beast all together. It is an action for which I applaud the French and hope that others follow suit quickly.
Moreover, enough is enough. This archaic form of dress needs to go. As for our Sikhi duty to defend the rights of others….well, if you perceive this as a right worth fighting for, then you have drunk the religious Kool-Aid. It's issues like these that hide under the guise of religion and thus are afforded a ridiculous degree of protection that any common sense human being would be opposed to. It's no wonder that religion is a dying commodity when it perpetuates/protects foolishness such as this. Thank God 😉 for that.
I see the point you are trying to make, but the point of this post, as I understand it, is not to endorse any specific religion or religious attire, but is opposed to the government mandating what is appropriate religious attire and what is not. Sikh turbans are still banned in France and Sikhs are mandated by the government to take their turbans off to go to school, university, and even to get their driver's license photo. Even though we might be ideologically against the niqab, we should be against the government seeking to take control of religion and religious attire. If the government starts to dictate what is an "archaic form of dress," then God help us all.
Exactly, Navdeep. It's the same logic that is justifying discrimination against Sikhs, and it is a slippery slope.
Further, if we are truly concerned with ending the subjugation of women in France, this is hardly the way to do it . Liberation comes through consciousness-raising, through grassroots organizing, through education and empowerment.
I may be confused, but how can you talk about the government regulating religious attire by citing an article talking about the banning of a non-religious article of clothing? If this specific article were talking about banning the hijab, then your point would have been better served as it is comparable to the turban.
However, lets just say for the sake of argument that the Niqab was a piece of religious attire. From what I could discern from your post, it appears that you don't really have a moral position on the donning of the niqab itself. You appear to be more concerned with the notion of it being banned because you are afraid if we don't speak up, then the French gov't will come for us next. I think you're trying to invoke that famous piece about how when the Nazis came for various groups and how the narrator never protested until they eventually came for him and there was nobody left to protest. This is nothing like that. So is it your contention that we should essentially stand up for this issue, no matter how reprehensible, just to save our own tails? That doesn't appear to be a very sound moral position to me. As far as I am concerned, if you are willing to endorse this, then you must be willing to endorse Sharia Law. The exact same arguments can be applied to that, yet for some reason you're not as passionate about it. Aaaah, that's why, because we don't appear to have any stake in that. We're not trying to pass any Sikhi civil law system ourselves or something to that effect. So, meh, who cares about supporting that oppressive law system, instead I will support the wearing of a oppressive piece of clothing instead as it better serves my interests to do so. Not exactly the most righteous way to fight against the banning of the turban is it?
As to the last point, yes, liberation comes through empowerment and all that good stuff. But that is a red herring as this is not an issue of empowering Muslim women per say. It may be a eventual by product, but the main intent is to INTEGRATE these people. If we had the ethnic riots that broke out in France happen in America, I think you would definitely be marching to the beat of a different drummer.
And since we are on the subject, what is the best way to empower women? Get them to produce their own income, correct? Well, how do you expect them to land a job with a Niqab on? If you ran a store, would you want somebody with a covered face working the sales counter? Of course not. So don't be ridiculous and try to frame this as an empowerment issue. If anything, the niquab is standing in their path to empowerment.
Finally, it is very telling that many Islamic countries (Egypt, Syria, Turkey) had imposed (I use 'had' because it appears that in lieu of recent events, they are stupidly relaxing restrictions as a show of solidarity) restrictions on the wearing of Niqabs. Yet if the French do anything of that nature (as they are perfectly entitled to do so as it is entirely consistent with their views on assimilation), up go the placards shouting "Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-islamism". Please level those accusations against the aforementioned ISLAMIC countries first, then we will talk.
Once again, it appears that fervent belief in the infallibility of religion has trumped common sense.
The ethnic riots that broke out had nothing to do with religion and as far as I recall there weren't any women with niqaabs or hijabs partaking in the riots. And of course the niqaab is a religious attire. There are many muslims who don't wear any head covering, some who wear the hijab, and some who wear the niqaab (countries such as Iran). If the government can decide that the niqaab is illegal on the streets, the turban and hijab illegal in schools and universities, what is to stop them from deciding to make the turban illegal in the streets?
As Sikhs, our Gurus have taught us to fight for a world that is inclusive of all ways of life, even if they aren’t necessarily in line with our way of life.
Hmm….looks like I'll sit back and wait for an article to pop up on here about how we should support the implementation of Sharia law for Muslims living in Western countries. It's funny because Sharia law is more of a religious issue than the Niquab is and we of course must defend other religions rights no matter how ridiculous they may be. Cmon people, we must have some consistency in our hypocrisy after all.
Also to state I dont think the Gurus' were in support of the Niquab or the hijab for that matter.
no government should tell its citizens what they can wear or not wear. this is blatant racism and discrimination by the french government to further marginalize and demonize the muslim community and faith. boooo.
It is very telling that many Islamic countries (Egypt, Syria, Turkey) had imposed (I use 'had' because it appears that in lieu of recent events, they are stupidly relaxing restrictions as a show of solidarity) restrictions on the wearing of Niqabs. Yet if the French do anything of that nature (as they are perfectly entitled to do so as it is entirely consistent with their views on assimilation), up go the placards shouting "Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-islamism". Please level those accusations against the aforementioned ISLAMIC countries first, then we will talk.
Essentially, your comment holds no weight since these same restrictions have been imposed by Islamic countries in the past. By your logic, these are Islamic countries discriminating against Islam huh? Good one.
Muslims do it to themselves, please refer to Saudi Arabia and how they state non citizens to wear a hijab or Niquab or be fined …..wow awsome job a muslim country once again telling people what to do (Y) and here you are worried about the french
The lesson of history being read in a wrong context by some TLH wrtiers :– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%8…
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
French men are not NAZIS .
They are only trying to prevent implementaion of "SHARIA " in France .
Harinder,
The rest of your poem there…
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
So who will be there for you? If we are not there for others, there will be no where there for us…..
As Sikhs, we are to fight injustice against all… don't forget that the Gurus are martyrs so that OTHERS can practice their faith and beliefs.
And the irony of it all… the Gurus died so that those who were opressing Sikhs could still practice their faith…
haha. Convenient Harinder left that bit out because it didn't support his well thought out thesis.
I left it out deliberately so that you could go and read the whole concept and in what context it was written.
Obviously you left it out deliberately. And it was clearly so it would prove the lopsided "argument" you are presenting. I'm pretty sure you didn't do it for the reasons listed above but I find it funny that's the story your stickig to.
If you are tryng to equate French men with NAZIS then it is you who is having a lopsided argument.
Even more convenient is how you fail to ask Random what exact INJUSTICE has been perpetrated in this situation. What a lot of people do here foolishly is invoke the whole Guru Tegh Behadur situation to justify their position. Call me foolish, but it would be rather remiss of anyone to equate the KILLING of people (the Hindus) to be on par with the "injustice" being faced in this situation.
And I seem have to keep repeating myself because some people just don't get it: Within the framework of THIS post specifically which is discussing the banning of a NON-RELIGIOUS piece of attire, how can you state that Muslim religious rights are being infringed upon?
Please carry out your fight also in
Afghanistan and Paksitan
Then come and preach .
I dont like living under “SHARIA ” for sure.
This all has to do with immigration control. France is blaming their high unemployment rate on anyone black or brown, whom they consider to have lower IQs. The proportions of Muslims in France is 8% , compared to 0.55% in the USA. Since it is not required to be legal to have access to the education and health systems, many immigrate there. Of all Europe, France has one of the largest Muslim population (over 5 million), mostly of Algerian and Moroccan origin. Moreover, France considers its way to be more enlightened, and assimilation is the core of its culture. They don’t give a damn if you wear a turban or a niqab. They want to take it off. This whole assimilation idea is backfiring. You take a person’s religious freedom, you take away self-determination, which is what they want. If you don’t like it, move. They want to curb the influx of immigration.
And what’s with the Sharia law paranoia? In India, female infanticide, dowry and honor killings, drug and alcohol abuse are rampant. Human rights violations are everywhere. Some will label it as Sharia and others with a different name. I say down and get rid of them all, not just Sharia.
Sharia is a sanctioned Legal Religious law of islam While all the evils of society you have mentioned are illegal except alcohol .There is different in these two If overcoming illegal things is so easy then why the USA and Europe have crime?
@KDS
"Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
I have no idea what Sharia is, but I’m sure some Muslims have interpreted it to its basest nature. Most only see thru what’s in their hearts, no matter what's in the text. 95% of people are born into religion. As most question, challenge, and reaffirm traditions, so will most Muslims and try to reconcile. With the advent of the internet, there’ll be more discussions. The viral and beastly aspect of every culture and religion will be soon brought to light.
Report
{moderators please delete my duplicate post; this one is a direct reply to kds}
moorakh88
Large number of people don't have any access to internet ,The one who have use it for facebook and social networking.Some use it for other sites.very very few people visit and try to explore religious sites so don't think internet is going to change anything in religion
As far sharia is concerned India don't have Sharia but it has muslim personal law Which is very discriminatory for women
@KDS “has muslim personal law Which is very discriminatory for women;” true ;also a good point of internet used for facebook; but let’s not forget it helped free Egypt; there’s only so much of Farmville you can play =)
I can't speak for others, but I have no paranoia whatsoever about Sharia Law. Either you are mistaken or you've chosen to take my comments out of context. I only referenced it to prove a point: how far are you willing to defend something, no matter how unethical, as long as it hides under the religious banner? Basically, if you are allowing to allow this one thing, then you must say that you are okay with allowing the other. It is as if some Sikhs have abandoned all critical thought behind what the veil is reminiscent/representative of and foolishly think that since it is associated with religion, it automatically deserves our protection. Don't be mistaken: Some religious tenants/customs/dress fly in the face of common sense and deserve to be abhorred. (And I don't know why I am even defending this from a religious perspective, as many Muslims will tell you that the Niqaab is more of a CULTURAL RELIC. However, some people on this board ie. Camille, do consider it religious attire, so I guess I do have to speak of it in that context.)
It is also beyond me how people cannot see the problem with women walking around with their faces covered. Last I checked, France was not the Middle East. Oh wait, there are plenty of places in the Middle East that don't allow veils EITHER!!! The government is not asking them to run about scantily clad. Just remove the veil. Cover yourself up as much as you please otherwise and don't worry, your chastity will still be in tact. And yes, your last paragraph is OBVIOUS and doesn't need to be stated: all these things need to go, no matter what you label them as. Please don't think for a second that I am casting certain injustices in a more evil light just because they are labeled Islamic. Bullsh*t is bullsh*t in my book, irrespective of the label.
As I stated before, I think it is excessive for the French to harm all benign religious symbols such as the hijab, turban, skull cap etc. I may not agree with it, but once again, the French are well within their rights to do so as they have never really minced words about it. They have always leaned towards being a secular society.
@Slackersingh My point is that the French notion to liberate Muslim women is disingenuous. If you’re an immigrant, Sikh, Muslim or otherwise, you’ll experience a wee bit of trouble and discrimination. -;)
I agree with the discrimination point. There is no denying that. But we all have our crosses to bear and that is the price one pays for following their religion. Even the Gurus told the baptized that it wouldn't be easy. So to me it is a personal choice and you have to prepared to deal with it.
Also, I feel that it was always the intention of the French to integrate rather than to liberate. And really, they are not in the wrong for wanting to do so. Once again, I fear that they have taken it a bit far with the hijab/turban ban. But the veil ban is spot on. I don't know how some people can consider the niqab ban in the same vein as the hijab/turban ban to be honest. The former is clearly incompatible with you having any semblance of a normal life in Western society, whereas the latter at least allow you to be a functioning citizen. And with the the full veil seen as a sign of a more fundamentalist Islam, known as Salafism, which the government is trying to undercut, who could blame them? You don't think extremist Islam is an issue, especially in Europe? And please don't tell me that the extremists from all religions are akin. The Islamic radicals clearly reign supreme in that department. If anything, these people are sullying the good name of hard working, law-abiding Muslims.
So, once again, I don't think we are really disagreeing. I just have yet to see anybody comment specifically on why it is honorable to defend the veil as is put forth in this article.
@slackersingh i see your point; i'll reply when i get back tonight; i'm giving you a thumbs up; i'm cutting you some slack =)
@slackersingh “ I just have yet to see anybody comment specifically on why it is honorable to defend the veil as is put forth in this article.”
Take a deep breath moorakh88. Now exhale. Wheeewwww. Ok here we go.
I agree that not everything can be defended with a religious “banner.” I’m defending it under a woman’s rights banner.
First, I’m ready to protest and protect Muslim women who want to take off the hijab in any oppressive states controlled by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or fundamentalist power; all of course, from the comfort of my home and in front of my computer. Forcing women to wear anything is to treat them as second class citizens. Secondly, I’m also ready to defend the hijab if women want to wear it in a free or democratic country. In both cases, I’m defending the women’s right to choose. No one has the authority to declare what women should wear and what they can do to their bodies. Is the hijab archaic? Perhaps. Do I agree with it? NO. I don’t get it. I don’t get it. That’s irrelevant. Maybe certain women feel empowered wearing one. They don’t have to spend money on makeup, conform to western standards of beauty, or just want to make speed dating more difficult. Who really cares? I don’t agree with half the things people do with their bodies, piercing, tattoos, etc. That’s their choice. I read some articles on Sikhs boys being bullied from the internet. I read user comments about how the turban is archaic, that we should conform or go back to where we come from. If we want a normal life, just look and act normal. The bottom line is that tolerance does not require understanding, be it religious or not. It takes guts to wear a turban or a hijab, or any other form of religious or cultural garment to stand out in a free state. Not because your parents or govt is forcing you, but you feel comfortable and have faith.
The Taliban and the French are the two sides of an extreme. But both want to force and create homogeneity. But true liberation requires people to be educated and be given the right to choose. Yet this process is long, murderously slow. Who has the patience for that? In America, at least women are protected if they want to turn from their traditions or turn to it.
Moorakh88 – YOU ARE AN IDIOT…….please be educated before you talk and reference your points you make no sense you flip flop from side to side and use what you can to cater to your pesonal interest
also stop saying random comments that have nothing to do with your point of expression.
@BadSikhBadMuslim What no thumbs up? =) Happy Vaisakhi. Yeah, i just took the high road.
here's an interesting debate between two muslim women on the subject well worth watching:
@brooklynwala: You're such a staunch leftist that you would never come to center to debate or show proof from unbiased source. Your links and youtube videos are always from leftist/liberals organizations, news or think tanks. And we know how liberals/leftists are politically correct for sake of their votes and power.
CNN=Communist (left) News Network aka Liberals' Bastion!!!!
BTW, I replied only to point out your hypocricy, which is so blatantly visible in every article and comment you post!
Sharia and what it means to non muslims :–
1) Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped
((Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775) :–
Sikhs would land up getting whipped daily under Sharia.
2) Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off (Quran :5:38)
3) Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye(Quran :5:45)
4) Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed
5) Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death
6) Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself
7) Islam orders apostates to be killed
8)Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad
Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women.
no; just internet can be useful
Internet can be useful Only for countries where there is internet freedom.Saudi Arabia type countries don't have any internet freedom so in case of islamic countries only site compatible to islam will be allowed
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/news/artic…
Ah…the French. Not the sharpest tools in the box. A first world country in which third world politics is played. If you read the wording of the actual ban you'll see it is a law against the wearing of the burqua (full face veil). And now guess how many women in France wear the burqua ? ……Zero. Zilch. Not a sausage. None. A big fat '0' !!!! Only a country like France (and Belgium is very much like France) would go through all the effort of passing a law which by defenition affects absolutely nobody….but as a convenient by-product can be used to affect the grand total of 1500 women. 1500 women out of a total of 30 million women. Clever move by Sarkozy. By the time a British muslim woman takes the matter up with the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the French flouting her right to free movement and the ECJ consequently rule the French in breach….the French elections will be over and sarkozy would've picked up the fascist votes he needs. Third world politics in a first world country.
[…] of the burqa and niqab in European countries. We’ve talked about France before, where the implementation of its law banning Muslim face covering began this past spring. Now Belgium, which passed a […]
Yahoo results…
While searching Yahoo I found this page in the results and I didn’t think it fit…
[…] also learned some interesting things about conflicts within Islam sparked by a blog post on the Langar Hall (Nikaab Ban in Action) written by Brooklynwala in response to the face veil […]
"Guru Tegh Bahadur gave up his life to defend Kashmiri Hindu Brahmins’ right to exist, even while Brahminical caste ideology is antithetical to Sikhi"
Both of these assertions are highly debatable.
ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤਿ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸ੠ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸਿਰਰ੠ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥
For the sake of Dharma, he sacrificed himself. He laid down his head but not his creed.
GTB has himself written that his 'Dharma' is Hinduism. The other definition of dharma is "righteous' way of life. Nowhere in ANY Sikh scripture, we see the mention of "Sikh Dharma". So why drag KPs in this equation?
Anand Sahib (part of our daily nitnaym banis) speaks of Sikhs:
"Avoh Sikh Satguru ke piario gavo sachi bani"
@pnrk, point is? pls read my post again, i said "Sikh Dharma" as in ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤਿ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸ੠ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸਿਰਰ੠ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥ not just 'Sikh'
The Sikh Dharam/religion has liberated us from the futile search of a human Guru. Baba Nanak told the Siddhs when asked who was his Guru, "Shabad Guru Surat Dhun Chela". The 10th Master declared his Guru is "Ad ant ekai avtaara soi Guru samjaeo hamara" – ie. ape Guru Chela.
This is a clear and salient difference between so-called Hinduism and Sikhi. Yes, it can be argued that certain elements of Sanatam Dharam are like the foundation but the Sikh faith is Different. No Human Guru needed. And the vegetarian ethic applies to all human beings not that certain castes can eat whatever – this is what the 10th Paatshah says of malecches " sakal malech karo ren ghata".
A malech by definition is a non-vegetarian. Hinduism says bahmins eat this sudras that etc. there is no caste in Sikhi (except for endomagous marriage traditions – the Gurus married within ethnicity so that is our ideal.
Gurbani clearly states a GurSikh has nothing to do with either Hinduism or Mohamedanism:
"Ram Rahim Puran Kuran anek kahain mat ek na manyo".
Pakistan was the first to recognize Anand Karaj – India recognizing Anand Karaj is too little too late.
The consequence of the atrocities of 1984 will be Khalistan – illiterate traitors betrayed us in 1947 when the subcontinent was divided on religious lines.
[…] by Brooklynwala in Human Rights, Politics, Women, World News on 04 11th, 2011 | 57 responses […]
Good article