Kavita

You are discussing ethics and liturgy. This is a discussion on jurisprudence.

Who's talking about Islam or Judaism here. All I see is that you are ready to put important decisions in the hands of five people and their judgements even though you have no proof whatsoever that what they decide is divinely inspired. The case of the two groups of panj pyare just shows how unreliable that system is.

So you are relying on human authority basically. That's all I needed to know.Thanks.

Good start kirpa_karo. Finally someone who provides and answer.It's a good example. A tankhaya has to apologize and do seva or pay a fine to get back into the Panth. But a patit who commited one of the bajjar kurahit has to take amrit again. So curring your hair is worse than killing your daughter? No offense intended. This is an abstract discussion about an issue of jurisprudence.

The answers you all provided deal with ethics and that's all fine and dandy but I was talking from a point of view of jurisprudence, law and sources of authority. The panj pyare argument doesn't make sense because it is highly subjective. We all know the anecdote of the guy who was told by the panj pyare of the Bhai Randhir Singh jatha to stop eating meat. Later on the Nihang panj pyare came along and ordered him to eat meat. Two set of panj pyare gave two different verdicts to the same person. I am asking a simple question of jurisprudence.

No need to expose me you all know who I am. You don't answer amardeep's or my questions. I asked a very simple question.to which you don't seem to able to reply. I did not talk about ethics. We all know that someone who would kill his father would go to hell and is deemed a sinner by the Guru. Fine we all know that. Doesn't take a Nobel Prize to know that. I am talking about law, jurisprudence and organisation and where authority is derived from. One set of panj pyare may say one thing and anothe rset another thing. I am asking for textual evidence.Where does it state in the rahit maryada that a fault other than the bajjar kurahit could get one kicked out of the Panth? It's a simple question and I think it deserves a reply. Who I am (you all know who I am btw) does not matter here. Answer the question if you please and stop avoiding the issue by accusing me of this and that. Why is it that you don't accuse amardeep? After all he is the one who started the thread...

Again I am not talking about ethics. I am talking practical codes and laws. Please provide quote from rahit maryada.

We are talking about rahit maryada not ethics. The SGPC president Jagir Kaur murdered her own pregnant daughter and she still is part of the Khalsa Panth. She has not committed any of the bajjar kurahit. So please provide me textual evidence from the rahitname that says that a thief or murderer could be excluded from the Panth. It's not a difficult question.

Matheen on which grounds do you claim they are not part of the Khalsa if they haven't broken any bajjar kurahit? Please provide reference from rahit maryada.

I am asking a simple question. So does amardeep. what I am or who I am is of no importance. It's a simple question. If you guys can't answer to it then there is a problem...

Gurbani does not give rules for the khalsa. I am asking per the codes used by the Panth. Is an amritdhari who killed his father still part of the khalsa as long as he doesn't commit the bajjar kurahits? Why is it so difficult to answer such a question. It's not like this situation hasn't happened before.

doesn't answer my question. Common sense is very subjective and depends on culture and society. Common sense among Aztecs and Mayas meant that human sacrifices were ok. Common sense among Romans made slavery and gladiator fights normal. Common sense cannot be used when it comes to divine laws because it is not universally valid. Either the codes are complete or they're not. So I am still waiting for an answer...

Is an amritdhari Sikh who has murdered his father excluded from the Panth? If yes provide section in the rahit maryada to prove it. Thank you.

So... technically if you eat a kebab you're a manmukh but if you kill your father you can still be khalsa?

So... technically if you eat a kebab you're a manmukh but if you kill your father you can still be khalsa?