Truly fascinating. I had no idea there are over 500,000 Sikhs in the US, and I certainly didn't know the basics of Sikhism is to love and serve others, regardless of the others' race, religion, gender, etc.
As a religion, this one seems much less offensive to the senses than theism /theistic Big 3.
#veryintetesting
That's what they say but so long as they want you to become one of them, there is no reason to believe that they have embraced you regardless.
@SeaGreenEyez They all do. It is only subtle for some on them. In when you convert into Islam it is called Tuba
@SeaGreenEyez well sikh don't marry non-sikh and Islam will make sure you're one of them before marriage takes place. I think you once mentioned you were married to a Muslim? I could be mistaken
I've known the Islamic following all my life here in South Africa - they "force" their workers to convert to Islam if they want a job and keep their job. If you marry someone that follows Islam, you are "forced" to convert to Islam. They will not allow you to remain the way you are. Their children are not allowed to veer outside of Islam. Their children are "forced" to pray at certain times and go to mosque and told not to visit non-islamic homes. I was told once by a Muslim that their aim is to build mosques at every corner of the world to encourage non-Islam to turn to Islam. There are plenty other forced incidents I'm aware of. I lived amongst them, went to school with them etc and go to their homes in the line of work I'm in. They know I'm an Atheist. Sometimes the wives will say "why don't you turn to Islam". I've known some for most of my life and believe me they do try their best to push it in your face. They're (I shouldn't generalise but) mostly anti everyone else. I've had run ins with many of their men and stood my ground voicing my own thoughts and opinions on my own walk in life. Most ARE forceful and this is my experience.
@SeaGreenEyez, @Monsignor
Muslims in South Africa get involved with charity and drive their religion in the townships they visit. You can call it a "food for religion" programme. There are about 1.2bn Muslims in Africa and growing.
@SeaGreenEyez suspect it is cultural..
@SeaGreenEyez hi I've lived in the same community and schooled with them. Indians which included Muslims lived in a restricted area as govt dictated through the apartheid system so they were basically my neighbour's. This is my life's experience here. I have no reason to make up these stories. It is well-known throughout South Africa.
@SeaGreenEyez Religions are different because came out of a culture. It is mostly the culture that defines a religion.
@SeaGreenEyez "Sikh and Islam don't attempt to convert. That's a Christian thing. Sikh and Islam believe one is born into the religion".
You made those broad statements above.
I disagreed. I provided reasons why I disagreed. You said it’s a Christian thing. I disagreed. In Africa and South Africa, just like the Salvation Army provided food to the poor and converted them, Muslims have done the same thing here, whether the Quran condones it or not.
Your comments to me, “Again, you're including cultural factors. Much like say Saudi Arabia. Painting all Muslims with a Saudi slant is irresponsible or disingenuous. 90% of Muslims aren't Saudis and that percentage doesn't agree with the fundamentalist take on Islam that is Saudi culture”.
What’s this all about??? Who is painting who with what brush. Why are you accusing me of being irresponsible and disingenuous? All I did was state what happens where I live and know of Muslims who have converted the poor because you said it’s just a Christian thing. The charity was just a front. The Muslims who live in South Africa are not Saudi’s either and I didn’t have Saudi Arabia in mind when I disagreed with your statement.
I am happy that your situation with your partner has not taken that approach. That’s your personal experience in your area in your country. …doesn’t mean that’s happening all over of the world.
Your comments to me, “But painting all people, no matter what people, with the same brush is short-sighted”.
This is an outrageous accusation. I have in no way been short-sighted regarding what I have stated and have not painted ALL with the same brush. You seem to be taking this personally.
Your comment, “And given we are all needing to acclimate to one another, I personally prefer to see the positive aspects of people, regardless someone else's negative take. We need to get along. It's a matter of survival”.
I am all for people getting along. It’s not a habit of mine to see the negative in others. I am also not in the habit of condemning others either. Sure we need to survive together. We have one Earth and we all live on it.
Thanks for making progressive posts all the time.
However, like many Western progressives, I think you are overcompensating to defend Islam in order not to contribute to Islamophobia.
This is an admirable goal but it ignores reality:
Islam is most definitely a converting religion. This is evident in its theology, history, and current practice.
Moreover, as a progressive who has worked with Muslims, I can personally vouch for their attempts to convert me numerous times.
I have also seen numerous Muslim charity efforts that also include conversion attempts.
As an Indian, I also see the same when mixed relationships develop. Hindu and Christian partners are constantly cajoled to convert.
At an interfaith event I attended, an educated Muslim woman said that there are basically different neighbourhoods in heaven. One earns promotion to a better neighbourhood according to how much one works for Islam on Earth.
Islam is inherently fundamentalist. No Muslim will ever say that Muhammad did not get his messages from Allah. No Muslim will ever say that the Arab and Muslim conquests to spread the faith were wrong.
No Muslim will ever say that Muhammad was ever wrong!
The founding act of Islamic ascension was Muhammad's destruction of other religions in Mecca. If Islam does not force conversion, how come these other religions do not survive there?
You blame the fundamentalism on Saudi Arabia but it was Mohammed who set the standard that Saudi Arabia follows. It is Mohammed who set the standard for Muslims, who believe that he never did anything wrong.
In their beliefs about the Koran, every Muslim is theoretically like a fundamentalist Christian. They may not act on those fundamentalist beliefs because they are nice people, but those fundamentalists beliefs are nevertheless there in the background.
These fundamentalist beliefs come out when the Koran or Muhammad is supposedly insulted. Then we see the general Muslim population calling for the death of the transgressor. In Pakistan, the killers of native minority Christians are applauded by the population.
It is this fundamentalist, inherently reactionary nature of Islam that has enabled it to be used by imperialism to oppose socialism and social progress in the Muslim world.
You have merely bought into the Public Relations PR version of Islam presented to you. The coercive, intolerant elements in the Koran were left out in those presentations.
Muhammad made his more tolerant comments in his early days when he and his fellow Muslims were a besieged minority in Mecca. Besieged because they were attacking the native pagan beliefs to gain converts. One he gained strength in Medina, the intolerance comes out and conversions were effected by force.
Do you really think that Islam became a world religion without caring about conversions? That people outside Medina somehow miraculously and spontaneously saw the glories of Islam? People from Spain to the Philippines?
An indication that conversion is fundamental to Islam is the fact that reverse conversion, leaving the faith, is punishable by death!
You are simply ignoring Islamic theology, history, and current practice.
Defending Muslim countries from imperialist attack and defending minority Muslims from racist attack is progressive. However defending Islam itself is liberal naivete.
Your apologies for Islam amount to a sort of Holocaust Denial. It is a denial of the suffering that Arabs, Jews, Africans, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Albanians, Indians, Afghans, Egyptians, Anatolians, Armenians, and Persians etc. faced from the intolerance of Islam that resulted from the Islamic conquests prompted by the desire to convert.
Something else that you haven't considered is that the tolerance you experienced from your partner and his community was due to your White Privilege.
Were his girlfriend a non-believer woman from his own community, that tolerance would not have been shown. There would have been pressure for her to convert.
However, due to racism, White Skin, Blonde Hair and "Sea-Green Eyes" as seen as high status characteristics in a partner, even by people of color. Your possessing those "superior" characteristics thus made you immune to the pressure that a brown-skinned non-believer woman would have experienced. Basically, a white woman is such a great catch that you shouldn't endanger your luck by attempting to convert her!
Those of us who have actually grown up side-by-side with our Muslim brothers and sisters know about the Muslim pressure to convert. It is a little self-centered of you to use your privileged white experience in a country where Muslims are mostly a besieged immigrant minority to deny the reality that we and others who actually grow up with Muslims around the world really face.
@Krish55 "Those of us who have actually grown up side-by-side with our Muslim brothers and sisters know about the Muslim pressure to convert. It is a little self-centered of you to use your privileged white experience in a country where Muslims are mostly a besieged immigrant minority to deny the reality that we and others who actually grow up with Muslims around the world really face".
I AGREE! You couldn't have said it better.
Really? Smoke and mirror bullcrap. What religion doesn't claim the same bs? islam, the religion of love, christians god is love, hindus, buddhists, meanwhile they all kill each other around the world. I don't fall for that service and love bullshit when all I have is to open my eyes. Sikhs are violent too, just read about the assassination of Indira Gandhi and the aftermath. I just don't buy any religious propaganda.
@SeaGreenEyez wrong assumptions again.
@Mofo years ago Sikhs were pro-polygamy in a huge way. Some have married from 33 up to 300 wives at a time. It depends on the teacher in that time. They are also guilty of a caste system even though some deny it. Jat Sikhs look down on the Mazhabis. The difference between farmer and landless labourer. In the past, depending again on on the teacher, they could marry non-Sikhs, new teachers have forbidden non-Sikhs marriages. Arranged marriages are the norm for Sikhs. Love marriages are very scarce. They change their belief systems from time to time. They follow a man's instructions. You're right it's bs - just another following that changes from time to time as new teachers give instruction.
@Mofo Sikhs always carry a knife. They're recognised by that. It's one of their five symbols of faith. They stress its not for aggression but for their readiness against any form of oppression. Who's fooling who. It was a Sikh who shot the first Ghandi too.
@TimeOutForMe that is exactly what I said. Thanks.
@TimeOutForMe Nathuram ghodse was sikh? I do not think so. A sikh bodyguard killed Indira Gandhi as a retaliation for operation blue star during which trained commandos battled out the sikh separatist extremists in the Golden temple of Amritsar. Are you referring to that?
While people carry on cranky about wearing a mask two Sikh doctors shaved to be able to wear the ppe needed and to continue to serve others. In the article there is also the down side part of the Sikh community that said they should not have. [edition.cnn.com]
Watched a really good movie about Sikhs, can't remember the name of it. They didn't really explain the religion, but it was a good movie. The lead character was a driving instructor. Looked up the movie, thanks Google! Learning To Drive
[imdb.com]
It is much less offensive but still based on human text. Tao is even less offensive so I went with that.
@rainmanjr "still based on human text". Exactly that and new teachers may have different or conflicting views. They don't argue with new sworn in teachers who are their "gods", their leaders, they just follow.
Thanks for the link. I had often wondered about that part of my own ignorance, and I now have something on which to base my future learning.
Fuck that shit!
You tell 'em, dude.
Another intelligent, well thought out and well supported comment. Impressive.
@Mofo1953 .............nor am i , mr fo. im quite sure im way more hetero than thou. i have "gaydar" and youre pegging the meter. do you take my comment as indicating some sort of attraction to you? au contraire, dear mo. its more along the lines of a simple desire for you to go to your room, take your unperceptive and inane comments with you, and stay there