Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Burkha Controversy - Now Sikhism watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the Kirpan be banned?
    Yes
    75
    50.00%
    No
    75
    50.00%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I'm not for banning it as such, I'm for laws that apply equally to everyone. So either it's banned for Sikhs or it's opened up to allow other people to carry similar knives too. Perhaps with some restrictions.
    For self-defence purposes of course! :angelblush:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R.B.G)
    It's a proper sharp edged kirpaan.
    Why not unsharpened? Or better yet, blunt? Is it an actual requirement or just tradition?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    :lolwut: Yes it has. Check the OP for examples. Also you seem to be claiming the kirpan is no longer neccessary - which I agree with, thus it should be outlawed.
    It's necessary to Sikhs because it's part of the five Ks. It's a symbol of the millions of Sikhs who were killed because they refused to convert, and a symbol that one should fight for their faith. People, like me, still learn the martial art of gatka, even though you could argue it's no longer necessary. That doesn't mean it doesn't hold significance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bleughhh. Whoever posted this link as an example that the kirpan should be banned because it was used as a weapon to murder this guy:

    http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/news...&submissionID=

    Well, like it says in the article, it was a 'drug-fuelled' attack, exactly, he would have murdered the other guy regardless of using a Kirpan or not, he could have utilised another weapon as easily if the Kirpan wasn't there. It is a SYMBOLIC sword, a small blunt sword. The Sikhs who carry it are ''baptised'' Sikhs, who are far more disciplined and tolerant. I don't know how you can use that article as a representation for the Kirpan to be banned, firstly, intoxication like taking drugs are NOT allowed in Sikhism, so using a Kirpan to murder someone is 100 times worse, because that is not its intended purpose. So, therefore, I don't see how you can use that article because the taking drugs counteracts Sikhism in the first place thus murdering someone with a Kirpan is irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So on the basis on your argument do we ban the
    Scottish "dirk"; the small knife that comes with the custom of wearing a kilt?


    Culture Nazi.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harrifer)
    Yea, I don't like Islam. There are many decent Muslims but in my opinion that's despite their religion.

    Lots of people don't like the religion of Islam, particularly because of its use as the ideological foundation of some of the most brutal, sexist, reactionary and backward regimes on the planet.

    I think what annoys me most about Islam is how damn certain they are about everything. I've debated with lots of Muslims, and a vast number seem to be quite incapable of understanding that two people can come to different conclusion based on the same information.

    So yes, it's a particularly irritating religion. If you want to call me a bigot, I suggest you look that word up, and compare it to the teachings of Islam.
    Is that to do with the religion itself or the people that follow it? I understand what you're saying about everything being black and white to a lot and they piss me off too. What I'm saying is the religion on its own is not what a lot people perceive it to be.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoshniDiya)
    You guys are stupid. Sikhs who have taken amrit wear a kirpan, so very few. A small kirpan is worn under the clothes, and most of them are welded shut and only seen as symbols. The original point of them was to be able to protect those who needed protection and were defenseless; back in Guru Gobind Singh Ji's times, Sikhs were being brutally killed off by the Mughals who wanted them to convert. They had to create their own way of defending themselves and others (a martial art called gatka), which is why the kirpan has so much significance to it. Now, we aren't in battle, so it's largely seen as a symbol.

    Also, it's not a sharp "dagger". My brother is amritdhari, his kirpan is so blunt it couldn't even give me a small cut.
    I have no problem with a kirpan that is blunted to the point that it's no more effective as a weapon than say, a set of keys. Provided that it's legal for everyone else to carry similar blunt, knife like objects.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phenylethylamine_)
    Bleughhh. Whoever posted this link as an example that the kirpan should be banned because it was used as a weapon to murder this guy:

    http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/news...&submissionID=

    Well, like it says in the article, it was a 'drug-fuelled' attack, exactly, he would have murdered the other guy regardless of using a Kirpan or not, he could have utilised another weapon as easily if the Kirpan wasn't there. It is a SYMBOLIC sword, a small blunt sword. The Sikhs who carry it are ''baptised'' Sikhs, who are far more disciplined and tolerant. I don't know how you can use that article as a representation for the Kirpan to be banned, firstly, intoxication like taking drugs are NOT allowed in Sikhism, so using a Kirpan to murder someone is 100 times worse, because that is not its intended purpose. So, therefore, I don't see how you can use that article because the taking drugs counteracts Sikhism in the first place thus murdering someone with a Kirpan is irrelevant.
    Firstly, I never said it should be banned. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't.

    Secondly, you say the Sikhs who carry it are "baptised" Sikhs but the guy in the article wasn't. He carried it and used it to commit a crime, and yes he was a Sikh. How are the police etc. supposed to check if someone is a "baptised" Sikh? Are you saying there needs to be a register/database of Sikhs licensed to carry a weapon?

    Thirdly you say the kirpan is a symbolic sword, small and blunt. You even put the word "symbolic" in capitals. However that is simply untrue - it is a real weapon and often sharp. If it was a symbol that would make things easier because we could make a law saying has to be in a necklace, or impossible to remove from its sheath, or a PHOTOGRAPH of a sword. But it's not a symbol and you are deliberately misrepresenting what it is.

    Fourthly you say it's a 100 times worse when a Sikh sword is used to kill someone than any other type of sword or knife. Fine, that's your belief but you've got to realise most people don't share it as they aren't Sikhs. To us, it's just a length of sharp metal that's been used to murder a guy and no words will put that man back together again. He's just gone forever, and probably suffered horribly before he finally died.

    Fifthly you say "baptised" Sikhs are far more "disciplined and tolerant". Again, you know this isn't true. What about the Ravinder Powar incident? It was all "baptised" Sikhs involved. Similarly the many times the police have been called to Sikh temples in the Midlands and London (Southall) to arrest people who had pulled out Sikh knives and Sikh swords in their various squabbles... What have you got to say about that? Is that what you called disciplined and tolerant?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In my experience the Brits that have no knowledge of Sikhism, their 'kirpan' and their deep connection and loyalty to Britain, tend to be either Hindus, Muslims or chavs. Generally, if you talk to white British students from the better Universities you'll find a very healthy knowledge and respect for sikhs. I have a feeling that might be because the families of those students at the better universities have some sort of connection with the officer class of the armed forces where respect for the Sikhs and their kirpan is partcularly high given what they achieved for Britain. Indeed, Prince Charles tried damn hard a few years ago to restart a Sikh Regiment in the British Army. He had support from Conservatives and the officer class but.....the idea had to be dropped after complaints from Hindu and Muslim groups who claimed the sikhs were being given preferential treatment.
    Anyway, this whole debate about the kirpan reminds me of the wonderfully passionate speech Sir Winston Churchill gave to the House of Commons regarding the right of sikhs in the UK to wear their religious symbols (and bear in mind that the Sikhs are the oldest, most established and most well integrated of all the asian communities in Britain)

    Sir Winston Churchill : ".....It is a matter of regret that due to the obsession of the present times people are distorting the superior religious and social values, but those who wish to preserve them with respect, we should appreciate them as well as help them. Sikhs do need our help for such a cause and we should give it happily. Those who know the Sikh history, know England's relationship with the Sikhs and are aware of the achievements of the Sikhs, they should persistently support the idea of relaxation to Sikhs to ride a motorbike with their turbans on, because it is their religious privilege."

    He further added : "...British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans..........we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud."

    So you see, usually, in my experience, and I'm sure that is the case here on this forum, it will be Hindus and Muslims who have none of the historical connection and attachment to to Britain that the Sikhs have........have none of the sacrifices for Britain that the Sikhs have.......and have arrived in Britain a couple of generations after the Sikhs....who now want Britain to forget its gratitude and friendship with the Sikhs. I'd like to think we value our historical ties not to fall for that though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mature Joe)
    In my experience the Brits that have no knowledge of Sikhism, their 'kirpan' and their deep connection and loyalty to Britain, tend to be either Hindus, Muslims or chavs. Generally, if you talk to white British students from the better Universities you'll find a very healthy knowledge and respect for sikhs. I have a feeling that might be because the families of those students at the better universities have some sort of connection with the officer class of the armed forces where respect for the Sikhs and their kirpan is partcularly high given what they achieved for Britain.
    Respect the Sikhs who fought in the war. Not every single sikh, particularly the ones in the OP's news stories.

    (Original post by Mature Joe)
    (and bear in mind that the Sikhs are the oldest, most established and most well integrated of all the asian communities in Britain)
    :confused: You call carrying a sword everywhere, well integrated?


    (Original post by Mature Joe)
    So you see, usually, in my experience, and I'm sure that is the case here on this forum, it will be Hindus and Muslims who have none of the historical connection and attachment to to Britain that the Sikhs have........have none of the sacrifices for Britain that the Sikhs have.......and have arrived in Britain a couple of generations after the Sikhs....who now want Britain to forget its gratitude and friendship with the Sikhs. I'd like to think we value our historical ties not to fall for that though.
    Again unless these are the same individuals who fought in the war then it is all irrelevant. You do not get special treatement for sharing the same religion as the brave people who actually fought.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mature Joe)
    In my experience the Brits that have no knowledge of Sikhism, their 'kirpan' and their deep connection and loyalty to Britain, tend to be either Hindus, Muslims or chavs. Generally, if you talk to white British students from the better Universities you'll find a very healthy knowledge and respect for sikhs. I have a feeling that might be because the families of those students at the better universities have some sort of connection with the officer class of the armed forces where respect for the Sikhs and their kirpan is partcularly high given what they achieved for Britain. Indeed, Prince Charles tried damn hard a few years ago to restart a Sikh Regiment in the British Army. He had support from Conservatives and the officer class but.....the idea had to be dropped after complaints from Hindu and Muslim groups who claimed the sikhs were being given preferential treatment.
    Anyway, this whole debate about the kirpan reminds me of the wonderfully passionate speech Sir Winston Churchill gave to the House of Commons regarding the right of sikhs in the UK to wear their religious symbols (and bear in mind that the Sikhs are the oldest, most established and most well integrated of all the asian communities in Britain)

    Sir Winston Churchill : ".....It is a matter of regret that due to the obsession of the present times people are distorting the superior religious and social values, but those who wish to preserve them with respect, we should appreciate them as well as help them. Sikhs do need our help for such a cause and we should give it happily. Those who know the Sikh history, know England's relationship with the Sikhs and are aware of the achievements of the Sikhs, they should persistently support the idea of relaxation to Sikhs to ride a motorbike with their turbans on, because it is their religious privilege."

    He further added : "...British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans..........we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud."

    So you see, usually, in my experience, and I'm sure that is the case here on this forum, it will be Hindus and Muslims who have none of the historical connection and attachment to to Britain that the Sikhs have........have none of the sacrifices for Britain that the Sikhs have.......and have arrived in Britain a couple of generations after the Sikhs....who now want Britain to forget its gratitude and friendship with the Sikhs. I'd like to think we value our historical ties not to fall for that though.

    well said

    people all too often forget the sikh sacrifices in both world wars...the sikhs weren't obliged yet they were the largest minority group to fight for the British

    as i've said all along, we've deserved to reside in this country and practice our religion...the kirpan is a fundamental of sikhism and the vast majority baptised sikhs that carry a kirpan carry a small, blunt one which is likely to cause little/no damage.

    People need to understand: the reason as to why the kirpan hasn't been banned is because it hasn't been a problem for the numerous number of years sikhs have lived in the UK.

    let it be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    One law for all is very intolerant and goes against what many like to take pride in this country being. The UK prides itself in accepting other cultures and religions and accommodating their beliefs.

    This is not a my country, your country thing. Sikhism has a worldwide vision and is universal. The Kirpan is a strict requirement for baptised Sikhs and is not simply a tradition. The rules imposed on baptised Sikhs are in effect on them regardless of where they may reside. From this point of view, there is nothing unfair about Sikhs being able to have kirpans and non Sikhs not being able to (that is, if the UK is implementing and maintaining its so called tolerant and accepting values as it claims to all the time).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    Respect the Sikhs who fought in the war. Not every single sikh, particularly the ones in the OP's news stories.



    :confused: You call carrying a sword everywhere and dressing like a pirate, well integrated?




    Again unless these are the same individuals who fought in the war then it is all irrelevant. You do not get special treatement for sharing the same religion as the brave people who actually fought.
    A pirate? If your are talking about our beards, the beard is a mark of a real man. It differentiates us from women. You've obviously got issues against sikhs. And on top of that, I saw from your profile that you are part of the anti racist society. Lol.
    What a Clown.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brightdays)
    A pirate? If your are talking about our beards, the beard is a mark of a real man. It differentiates us from women. You've obviously got issues against sikhs. And on top of that, I saw from your profile that you are part of the anti racist society. Lol.
    What a Clown.
    It was a joke, sikhism isn't a race and the sword point still stands.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    Respect the Sikhs who fought in the war. Not every single sikh, particularly the ones in the OP's news stories.



    :confused: You call carrying a sword everywhere and dressing like a pirate, well integrated?




    Again unless these are the same individuals who fought in the war then it is all irrelevant. You do not get special treatement for sharing the same religion as the brave people who actually fought.
    I swear you've got issues against Sikhs. If i do a quick search you were debating something on another thread against them too.

    live and let live.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    It was a joke, sikhism isn't a race and the sword point still stands.
    Now its a joke?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by notts4life)
    I swear you've got issues against Sikhs. If i do a quick search you were debating something on another thread against them too.

    live and let live.
    A debate with a Sikh is not the same as disparaging sikhs or sikhism. I have only ever had 2 discussions with Sikhs on TSR. So stop with your ridiculous accusation about how I am prejudiced towards Sikhs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    A debate with a Sikh is not the same as disparaging sikhs or sikhism. I have only ever had 2 discussions with Sikhs on TSR. So stop with your ridiculous accusation about how I am prejudiced towards Sikhs.
    From reading your posts, it wouldn't surprise me at all - if you were in fact prejudice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Kirpan comes from the words Kirpa: meaning mercy and -an:to deliver/ distribute Thus it places the duty on the owner to protect those who are unable to protect themselves

    a True Sikh would treat a kirpan as part of his body and would only unsheath the weapon as an ultimate last resort

    The reason why people do not usually see sikhs carrying their kirpans is 1) They are unbaptised
    2) They have a small kirpan which they wear under their clothes.

    It is very rare to witness cases of the misuse of the kirpan as Sikhs revere weaponry to have the Godlike power to give and protect life and would not unsheath it unless in a life or death situation.

    As extremist Sikhs do not have as much of a reputation for murder and suicide bombing as extremist muslims the sikh population are not tarnished with the "extremist<" brush and thus allowed the right they have earned and uphold to have their religious identity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sohinder)
    Kirpan comes from the words Kirpa: meaning mercy and -an:to deliver/ distribute Thus it places the duty on the owner to protect those who are unable to protect themselves

    a True Sikh would treat a kirpan as part of his body and would only unsheath the weapon as an ultimate last resort

    The reason why people do not usually see sikhs carrying their kirpans is 1) They are unbaptised
    2) They have a small kirpan which they wear under their clothes.

    It is very rare to witness cases of the misuse of the kirpan as Sikhs revere weaponry to have the Godlike power to give and protect life and would not unsheath it unless in a life or death situation.
    The kirpaan's symbolism is irrelevant. The point is the kirpaan is a prohibited weapon in the UK and only Sikhs are exempt from this law. The arguement stands that no one should be exempt from this law as it is puts the public at risk.

    (Original post by sohinder)
    As extremist Sikhs do not have as much of a reputation for murder and suicide bombing as extremist muslims the sikh population are not tarnished with the "extremist<" brush and thus allowed the right they have earned and uphold to have their religious identity.
    Are you saying Sikhs should have more rights than Muslims because there is less extremism done in the name of Sikhism than Islam?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.