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 jumpingjesusholycow)
    So ban the full blown sword version, but allow a smaller kirpan, similar to that of swiss army knife in public use. In schools however, only a ceremonial kirpan could be allowed obviously. I don't see the issue. Other than those who view it as more than just a symbol, surely most could get on board?
    It doesn't fit the criteria of being able to use it for self defence then so it wouldn't be a legitimate kirpaan for a baptised Sikh to carry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    Just stop right there. I guarantee you I can find at least one group of Sikhs which do dispute it. There is always 2 contradictory interpretations in just about any religion.
    Enlighten me then because as far as I'm aware Sikhism works in tiers. You start as a Sahajdhari and one of your goals and aspirations is to become a Khalsa (baptized). They are not two separate sects within the religion with their own views and it is perfectly fine in Sikhism to remain Sahajdhari if you don't feel you can take on the commitment of becoming Khalsa, because taking it on then breaking it is a huge sin. To my knowledge even critics and or those who describe themselves as secular Sikh's do not claim that the Kirpan is not compulsory they just claim that it can be in the form of a pendant around the neck etc.

    That's fine but at it's core the Kirpan is supposed to be a weapon and having them wear modified versions or none at all defeats the purpose and meaning of it. This is in addition to what it symbolizes. I can't stress enough how it is a defensive weapon, despite the tiny amount of attacks the OP has scuppered up for such a "menacing" weapon being wielded by millions of Sikh's, there are remarkably few attacks.

    Can read up on its significance here: http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Unlike the niqab/birqa the compulsion of the kirpan is not disputed. It is true that Sahajdhari (non baptized) Sikh's do not wear it because they do not follow the 5 k's. This is not because they have completely differing views to Khalsa Sikh's but because they may feel they are not disciplined enough to follow the five K's (as breaking them later on is one of the worst sins). Should also be noted that it is one of the goals of Sikh's to become Khalsa.

    And your turban point is nonsense. Firstly understand that it's not a burqa ban, it's a ban on concealing your face in public. This applies to french citizens, immigrants and tourists. This covers religious garments to balaclavas and motorbike helmets.

    It would be comparable if 1) the French ban was actually targeted specifically at Islamic head wear and 2) it banned the hijab, something unanimously accepted as compulsory. You're trying to compare apples and oranges here. There is no hypocrisy.

    Also the poll is very close and there is literally no uproar, discussion or controversy regarding the Kirpan in the UK so I don't see your problem.
    I'm impressed with your knowledge of Sikhism, it's a shame we don't have more of our own putting forward well-reasoned points on this.

    Essentially, the main distinction that people should make is that an amritdhari (baptised) Sikh has made a crucial life decision to follow his religion in full, whereas your 'man/woman/child on the street' probably doesn't live by the same set of values to that standard. Not saying that everyone apart from baptised Sikhs can't be trusted, just that it in terms of a life choice, the difference between a baptised Sikh and an unbaptised Sikhs/rest of the population is huge.

    This is coming from a non-amritdhari Sikh.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R.B.G)
    Exactly! Which is why ANY type of knife which can cut through flesh should be banned.
    Well i pointed out earlier how scissors or utility knives are subject to the points being brought up against the Kirpan but people believe there's justification for carrying them around. I believe that Sikh's have just means for carrying Kirpans (the dagger, not the big ass swords obviously).

    What do you think? Should builders or tradesmen be banned from carrying utility knives or screwdrivers because they can be used in a fit of rage to attack somebody?

    Most say ceremonial sword because many of their reader's wont know what a kirpaan is. Also I never claimed there was an epidemic - Stop with the strawmans, it's getting pathetic.
    #

    And the man describing it as a "samurai"? It's evident he was talking about the larger actual sword-like Kirpan. The other incident also took place as a Sikh festival so I'm inclined to believe that one was also a more ceremonial Kirpan.

    Nothing you have presented me with indicates that there's a problem with Kirpans unless you consider glass bottles, pint glasses, utility knives, scissors, razors, screwdrivers, pens, pencils, hammers etc also a problem, so why are you so fervently campaigning against them? I mean do you want pubs to replace their glasses with plastic cups because of the dangers of bottles/glasses in a hostile situation?

    I'd understand if there was some sort of ongoing trouble with them but that's not the reality. There's a few isolated incidents here and there but no where near enough to warrant an outright ban when you consider the importance of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)

    That's fine but at it's core the Kirpan is supposed to be a weapon and having them wear modified versions or none at all defeats the purpose and meaning of it. This is in addition to what it symbolizes. I can't stress enough how it is a defensive weapon, despite the tiny amount of attacks the OP has scuppered up for such a "menacing" weapon being wielded by millions of Sikh's, there are remarkably few attacks.
    I support a secular democracy with secular laws and don't particularly care if it's apart of someone's superstition/religion. If something is a clear danger to the public then it cannot be allowed in society. It needs to be banned. Remarkably few cases isn't comforting when I have to see the father of the boy attacked asking us "Why do you let people carry swords to family outings." Religious observance should not make you excempt from the law - particularly to ones pertaining to values such as health and safety. There are pagan religions which oppose paying taxes - should they be excempt? There is an endless list of things people can claim their religion does not allow. When it comes to the safety of the public secular laws must always prevail because they can be derived from logic and not superstition.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Well i pointed out earlier how scissors or utility knives are subject to the points being brought up against the Kirpan but people believe there's justification for carrying them around. I believe that Sikh's have just means for carrying Kirpans (the dagger, not the big ass swords obviously).

    What do you think? Should builders or tradesmen be banned from carrying utility knives or screwdrivers because they can be used in a fit of rage to attack somebody?
    Builders and tradesman have a legitimate purpose for carrying those knives - in order to work. I don't regard religious observance as legitmate purpose for weilding a knife - especially when it's intention is to stab people.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    And the man describing it as a "samurai"? It's evident he was talking about the larger actual sword-like Kirpan. The other incident also took place as a Sikh festival so I'm inclined to believe that one was also a more ceremonial Kirpan.
    He was hit in the back he didn't know what he was getting hit with and not being Sikh probably didn't know the Sikh term. Not to mention the article itself reports it as a ceremonial sword. It is easy to mistake it for a samurai sword really.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Nothing you have presented me with indicates that there's a problem with Kirpans unless you consider glass bottles, pint glasses, utility knives, scissors, razors, screwdrivers, pens, pencils, hammers etc also a problem, so why are you so fervently campaigning against them? I mean do you want pubs to replace their glasses with plastic cups because of the dangers of bottles/glasses in a hostile situation?
    That's a false equivalency. A knife is not the same as a glass bottle. Also it is already outlawed, with the absurd exemption of religious observance.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    I'd understand if there was some sort of ongoing trouble with them but that's not the reality. There's a few isolated incidents here and there but no where near enough to warrant an outright ban when you consider the importance of it.
    Yes there is, it's the same risk as allowing anyone to carry a knife. Therefore Sikhs should not be exempt from the law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Argument 1: Freedom of beliefs etc - part of their religion - respect it - Allowed to defend themselves etc etc etc

    Argument 2: "It's bad news im afraid, your son is the victim of a racist attack. He's in pieces atm.....12 to be exact."

    I go with Argument 2 personally....but of course if the majority agree with me its racist so.....yea w/e
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How is this discussion relevant/beneficial to the student forum??

    I sincerely hope that no-one is allowed to carry any form of weapon into school (or any public place) for any reason.

    I don't like the way this thread has descended and would appreciate if someone would close it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmostAVet)
    How is this discussion relevant/beneficial to the student forum??

    I sincerely hope that no-one is allowed to carry any form of weapon into school (or any public place) for any reason.

    I don't like the way this thread has descended and would appreciate if someone would close it.
    Why? everyone has stayed on topic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Warrior078)
    They aren't used as weapons, only for defence purposes. Schools? My old school wouldn't allow Sikhs to bring in a big kirpan, only a small one that wouldn't cause much harm. So stop *****ing.
    To be honest even if its ment to be used for defence purposes it can still very much be used by some people to attack, that could be the person carrying it or someone who has grabbed it off of them.

    oh and the people who ran your own school were idots then allowing to bring in knives, it doesn't matter if they are large or small.



    Oh and its no point trying to NEG me because you know deep down that I am right.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R.B.G)
    Do we really have to waith untill it happens? I remember hearing of a couple Sikhs charged with fighting with swords in my area a few years back. Not sure if it was a kirpan but it's a perfectly reasonable fear to suspect they could be used in an attack. As someone who favours a secular democracy don't you think that knives should not be permitted based solely on religous grounds?

    Oh here is a news article on it being used to attack someone: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...-brampton.html
    Wow, its great that you answered the many calls for an example of these objects by getting an example from somewhere as local as Canada.

    As someone who favours a liberal society, complete with a parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and tolerance, why dont we stop finding any excuse to hound people for practising their chosen faith?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n33t)
    So how many of you have actually heard about someone 'attacking' someone with the kirpan? How many cases do you see when someone has been stabbed/killed with the kirpan?

    The only people that really carry it are baptised sikhs/ v religious sikhs; There aren't many around to be honest. And the people that do, aren't little 17 year old chavs who are going to stab anyone who comes in their way. It's literally JUST a symbol of sikhism - 5 K's.

    Also people that do carry a Kirpan, have to be registered anyways with the local police. So no, if someone is seen with a knife and uses the 'Kirpan' for an excuse, the poice can actually find out if their registered to have one or not.
    How many people have you heard being stabbed by the burkah ?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Enlighten me then because as far as I'm aware Sikhism works in tiers. You start as a Sahajdhari and one of your goals and aspirations is to become a Khalsa (baptized). They are not two separate sects within the religion with their own views and it is perfectly fine in Sikhism to remain Sahajdhari if you don't feel you can take on the commitment of becoming Khalsa, because taking it on then breaking it is a huge sin. To my knowledge even critics and or those who describe themselves as secular Sikh's do not claim that the Kirpan is not compulsory they just claim that it can be in the form of a pendant around the neck etc.

    That's fine but at it's core the Kirpan is supposed to be a weapon and having them wear modified versions or none at all defeats the purpose and meaning of it. This is in addition to what it symbolizes. I can't stress enough how it is a defensive weapon, despite the tiny amount of attacks the OP has scuppered up for such a "menacing" weapon being wielded by millions of Sikh's, there are remarkably few attacks.

    Can read up on its significance here: http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm
    you sir, are very very good. +rep when i can

    all the points he's made are spot on...

    the problem with this is people don't understand Sikhism. The Kirpan has a moral significance and this is why it is a religious fundamental, as "thisisnew" has quoted

    people need to understand Sikhism, and also need to realise that that the number of crimes committed with the kirpan are absolutely tiny

    Sikhism teaches discipline and understanding - for this reason it will never pose a threat to our society

    OP has made a massive deal out of something which has remained legal for many many years because it has never posed a problem

    @OP: why change something which isn't causing any harm and hasn't done in the UK since Sikhs first arrived here?

    Your misunderstanding leads you astray...real shame.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G550NDH)
    Only Baptised very religious Sikhs can wear them. Not every Sikh. In our holy book it states to use it only when diplomacy cannot help. i.e self defense. Sikhs have been able to wear Kirpans for decades in this country. Why do you think there are hardly any news reports on attacks or the actual kirpan ? Because Sikhs understand the responsibility and not to use it like a chav.
    So if the ultimate reason for having one is self defence, then how is it fair that Sikhs are allowed them and not anyone else?

    No religious groups should have special rights above anyone else. We are all equal. We shouldn't make exceptions purely because it's part of their religion. Doing so is discriminating against other religions. Some people might have their own personal religions. They might believe carrying a knife is part of their religion. Why should Sikhs have that right but not this individual? Just because there are more Sikhs?

    I think it's irrelevant that very few attacks have been carried out using a Kirpan. It's the principle of it. There are many other people who can carry a knife around and use it responsibly. But they are not allowed to because they are not Sikhs.

    It's also irrelevant if it's a "compulsory" part of a religion or not. People say it's not like the burkha because the burkha is not compulsory. Who says wearing the burkha is not compulsory? I'm sure many of the people who do wear it believe it to be so. It may not be considered compulsory to mainstream Islam, but it is compulsory according to their personal religious beliefs. It doesn't matter whether that agrees with mainstream Islam or not.

    All religious beliefs are equally as valid, and ideally all religious practices would be equally legal. Regardless of how many people follow that religion. However in some cases we have to restrict them for safety reasons or to prevent infringing the rights of others.

    The question we should be asking is "Is it safe to allow people to carry knives?". If the answer is no, it's no for everyone. As I suggested earlier we could give people the opportunity to prove they will use it (or not use it) responsibly. An opportunity that would be open to anyone of any religion or none.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear.

    So much for religious freedom - a majority here wish to ban the kirpan too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    Oh dear.

    So much for religious freedom - a majority here wish to ban the kirpan too.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    Wow, its great that you answered the many calls for an example of these objects by getting an example from somewhere as local as Canada.

    Handsworth
    , Birmingham and Slough local enough for you?

    (Original post by adam_zed)
    As someone who favours a liberal society, complete with a parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and tolerance, why dont we stop finding any excuse to hound people for practising their chosen faith?
    If that specific practice puts society in danger then it must be outlawed; no one should be exempt from the law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What's with all the double-standards? Like it's already been said, if Muslims were to wear kirpans, I am pretty sure it'd be on the headlines constantly. "Burkha this", "burkha that." etc, it's getting pretty tiresome; to claim a burkha is more 'dangerous' than what could potentially be used as a weapon, it's quite frankly retarded.
    Offline

    0
    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.Not once has the kirpan been used to hurt someon since then.
    :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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.