Talk:Benipal assault case

i don't know why these radical sikh groups went there for his turban binding as he have cut his beard which is not allowed in sikhism. (Lucky 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Reason

It seems that they were put up to beating the man because he revealed the duplicity of certain powerful men. I can't tell if his beard is tucked, twirled or trimmed. It looks as if his hair is cut as well from this angle.

The photos of the Sikhs taking refuge from oraksai at Punja Sahib also appeared to not be wearing turbans or keeping long hair, most were wearing handkerchiefs with tied corners, but one doesn't know from photos who was who.

The man may have a knot of hair not seen in the photo, at least he was left with his kara and underpants - his kirpan? I do not know if he was wearing one. Allenwalla 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Should one be less outraged at his turban being taken because he trims his beard? That would be like the taleban saying that it was ok to rape a woman not wearing a burka, because she was inviting an attack. I believe that the original words of the Qur'an, translate as displaying their charms. Which I have seen as meaning the gold and silver bands worn on their arms. In those days as now one can see much of the family wealth carried on womens' arms from India back to Egypt in 22karat gold or better. Many Sikh men also sport gold karas, I have noticed here. That is sort of the equivalent of a gorilla getting a silver back, or an elder chinese getting fat in China, when everyone else was starving in the last century.

Symbols of wealth replace the lost virility of youth, and old men switch older wives for younger ones. I don't know if that happens in India - I haven't been there, but the recent spat over the Jathedar, the effort of Baitullah to get a son from a younger more fertile bride that led to his death and the example of Salman Rushdie, all make me wonder.