sikh princess

Alcohol, meat and cannabis are used by Nihangs, and are very much part of Nihang maryada - regardless of what modern Sikhs may think. This doesnt mean all Nihang Singhs are drug addicts, alchoholics and butchers. Inevitably, there are those who ABUSE the freedom given to them, but this is a minority.

He is the Giver of peace to the breath of life, the Giver of life to the soul; how can you forget Him, you ignorant person?

You taste the weak, insipid wine, and you have gone insane. You have uselessly wasted this precious human life. ||1||

O man, such is the foolishness you practice.

Guru Arjan Devji, Guru Granth Sahib page 1001

In my heart I cherish the Glories of the Lord, the Lord of the Universe. ||1||Pause||

Even if wine is made from the water of the Ganges, O Saints, do not drink it.

This wine, and any other polluted water which mixes with the Ganges, is not separate from it. ||1||

Bhagat Ravidass Ji Guru Granth Sahib page 1293

Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine

- no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell.

Bhagat Kabirji Guru Granth Sahib page 1377

Good post Neoji.

Akalbir don't let the personal views of anyone let you be diverted from the path of taking Amrit. Just approach the Guru Granth Sahib with humility and the Guru will guide you away from the narrow world of sampardhaya, gurudevs and 'lineages' to the gurmat gaddi rah. When you have the Guru as your guide what need have you of gurudevs or this dal or that dal?

a lalleshvari response..lol

Good luck debating with ppl with time on their hands to search out your references and I was under the impression you wanted to debate

So Bhai Vir Singh just says.. the sarbloh granth is not old enough?. How about expanding on his reasons? A few quotes maybe? It is usual for quotes from the relevant portion of the text referred to.

Moreover just refering to a work of M A McAuliffe by just to title to prove a point is not sufficient. How about a few quotes as well as their general context?

Thanks, that's much appreciated. If you can give the quotes, i will check them up in a few days and post my comments

I hope you will bear with this debate because some of the debates I've had with sanatan sikhs have had to be curtailed due to lack of positive response to my requests for proper references.

Kamalroop Singh. I asked you on the sikh heritage thread for references. Saying Bhai Vir Singh said..blah blah blah doesn't mean much unless you state in which book/text he makes that claim. I suppose you know the reason for references in a PhD thesis? Or are you going to expect your supervisors to read all of Bhai Vir Singh's book to see verify what Bhai Vir Singh's view is on Sarbloh Granth?

Your view on the Patiala states makes no sense? Who were the scholars that Patiala state employed to do the brit's dirty work? Or are you expecting us to search out each and every scholar employed by Patiala state. I would have thought your Nabha state would have been more your target as Nabha State was the state that employed Bhai Kahan Singh for most of his life.

Moreover just refering to a work of M A McAuliffe by just to title to prove a point is not sufficient. How about a few quotes as well as their general context?

NO I think you missed the point. This is funny, Narsingha's whole website is based on that fact that 'sanatan' sikhi goes back to the time of creation and lalleshvari has just admitted that there is no such thing as 'sanatan' sikhi before the 19th century!

I just don't understand Narsingha problem with a CD that's been brought out so that the youth can know something about the Shaheed's of 1984. Maybe he doesn't want the next generation of sikhs to know about Santa Singh's betrayal.

Beast nice to see you're awake. Try reading the whole tread rather than jumping in when you think you have found a 'clever' answer to someone's post!

Narsingha, you're the one who brought up the subject of 1984? So are you saying you're part of the lunatic fringe?

I think i know why Guru Ji didnt want the Sikhs to have sexual relations with Women of Islam.

1. If the Women is Married to another man and you are about to have an affair with that women, then thats a sin, because adultey (Sleeping with someone that is already married to another) is not permitted in Sikhism.

2. Women of Islam aint really surpose to marry anyone else but Muslims, this is within their dharama. Im thinking that Guru Ji didnt wanna apress anyone from someones religion, sikhs aint allowed to repress either.

What do you ppl think?

Rupz I think you are partially right. My view on this is.

Muslim women have always been used as a means to gain conversion of non-muslim men to Islam. So the issue in this case isn't adultery. It is to counter the Islamic use of Muslim women to seduce non-Muslims to Islam. So being sexually involved with Muslim women would mean conversion to Islam. In an Islamic state governed by sharia law it is impossible for a non-Muslim man to marry a Muslim woman without him having to convert. During Mughal times especially under Akbar these rules were not always rigidly enforced. Only during Aurangzeb's rule did he enforce these rules rigidly. There are instances of Aurangzeb giving orders to his governors that they should find out households were a Muslim woman had married a non-Muslim man and either force the husband to convert to Islam or take the wife away from her husband and give suitable punishment to the husband. So during the time of Guru Gobind Singh a non-Muslim man taking a Muslim woman would be making a conscious decision that could only lead to conversion to Islam.

During the times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh the British writers noticed that most of the prostitutes were Muslim women. This may have also been the case during Mughal times. In a time when most women lived secluded lives within the extended family it is well nigh impossible for adultery to occur. So the type of adultery which may have been envisaged by the sakhi writer was one of a husband or a non married man visiting a prostitute who would almost certainly have been a Muslim.

Narsingha

Personal grudge match? You might be used to ppl accepting everything you write without checking your references but ppl I know like to check where you get your 'facts'

I look forward to seeing your article. I hope it's got more references than the main website!

I think you have all misunderstood Harmless veerji/penji

Bhai Gurdas tells us that as Sikhs there is greater merit in us explaining a shabad of Gurbani to another Sikh than there is in us building seven temples of Gold dedicated to God. I take this to mean that it is incumbant on us to try and lead a Gursikh life ourselves as well as helping others to lead to lead a life according to Gurbani. 'Aap Japai avra Naam Japaveh' Gurbani tells us to contemplate on Waheguru ourselves as well as help others to do the same.

If you do not consider yourself a sufficent Sikh that you cannot encourage and help a fellow Sikh live the Gursikh way then it is best to keep quiet otherwise you are just misleading that person. I did not reply to Jahan's post as I do not consider myself as sufficently a Gursikh that I can counsel him into Sikhi.

Telling someone who is looking for guidence to 'set your own path or join another religion' is not the way a Sikh should be giving advice to a fellow Sikh. I know Jahan Veer is an intelligent guy and he won't be misled by what you wrote. But what of all the young kids that might be similarly confused as Jahan? If they approached their parents intent on falloiwng your advice what would the parents feel when the kids tell them they were advised to do this by a forum called 'Sikh Awareness'!

Canadian Jatti i found you remark about your life not being centered around Guru Granth Sahib yet your focus is of God confusing. The Guru Granth Sahib is a way to approach Waheguru.

There has been much said under the Naamdhari thread on the similarities between their maryada and that of Nihangs and Udasis stemming from the lineage they possess from Baba Ram Singh (a Nihang Singh in the army of Nau Nihal Singh) and Baba Balak Das (or Singh, as commonly portrayed), respectively.

I think the implication of Fateh singh's statement was that Nihang singhs were taking part in the kuka movement. I don't think this is about maryada, it is whether any or all the kukas that were blown up by canons were nihangs. This is very doubtful because there was even well before that time a great deal of animosity between nihangs and kukas

My maternal grandfather was in a Hindu family that made every first born son a Sikh...

This is interesting. Although there is a great made of the roti-beti relationship between Sikhs and Hindus as well as the oft repeated statement that some Hindu families made their first born son a Sikh out of respect for Sikhism, the truth is quite different.

Roti-Beti relationship between Sikhs and Hindus never existed amongst the majority of Sikhs. The common Sikh Jats never married into Hindu Jat families. The only ones that occurred between Sikh Jats and Hindu Jats were between royal families. If a match was found between a Sikh Jat male or female with a Jat Hindu then the Jat Sikhs always insisted on the Hindu Jat family converting to Sikhism. There are many instances of this in Panjab during the british period.

Raising the first born son of a Hindu family into a Sikh was due to a number of factors. If a Hindu woman was unable to have a child or more importantly a son, then it was common for such women to go and pray at important Sikh gurdwaras and to make a vow ( sukh ) that if a son was born then they would raise him as a Sikh. During the british period in Sikh majority areas only Sikh Jats were enlisted into the army. If a Hindu Jats wished to join the army then they would have to take the Pahul at the recruitment office. This was also the case with Lobana and Mazhibi and Ramdasia Sikhs. During the 1920s there was a Hindu-Muslim riot in Multan and although the Hindu population was quite large in the city, the Hindus took a bad beating from the Muslims. A few weeks after there was a Sikh-Muslim riot in central Panjab in which the Sikhs worsted the Muslims. A Hindu politician Madan Mohan malvaiya gave a call to the Hindus to raise their eldest son as a Sikhs so that that Sikh could protect the rest of the family from possible Muslim attacks. This call was largely ignored by the Hindus.

My ancestors weren't Hindus or Muslims. They were Jats whose religion was jathera or ancestor worship. As far as I know none ever worshipped Hindu Gods or prayed in Mandirs. Their religious places were 'marhis' or memorials to an illustrious ancestor from whom the whole got was descended.

:shock:

wow.. how many times have i heard this?

If you do a search for Narsingh's previous posts you'll see that he's been giving website excuse for a year now.

Quick question before I post a more comprehensive answer

What is you view for the reason why Bhai Gurdas used the word 'Kateban' rather than 'Koranan'?. Mohammed doesn't belong to the four books of the semites but the koran alone. Any ideas for this apparant anomaly?

Nek. Khushwant Singh has gone from being a good writer who presented the Sikh viewpoint correctly to one who wastes no time in abusing Sikhi. His views contained in his speeches for the most part depend on which political alliance or individual is picking up the tab. Amongst Congress he will go on about what a friend ( ie chumcha ) he was to the Gandhi family, at BJP meets he will talk on the greatness of Indian culture and Hinduism and how the Gurus were Hindus.

His recent books are mostly soft porn, about the sexual antics of ppl he has known.

My advice is if you want books on Sikhism, a good book is the Sikhs by Patwant Singh. Try and get books by the institute of Sikh studies of Chandigarh

But Narsingha, your “articles†if you could call it that, never have any references. They just seem to be based on your opinions rather then being supported by scholars.

Yeah and his website's only reference for the use of the word sanatan was use of the same word in a shabad by Bhagat Kabirji

Good questions Shindasingh Ji

The problem is that some ppl aren't prepared to accept the fact that Santa Singh did 'pesh' before the Panj. Their problem stems from the fact that they spend their time 24/7 badmouthing the Panth and calling mainstream Sikhs as 'british influenced' or the new word 'protestantized' Sikhs. How is it that Santa Singh the so-called Jathedar of the Panth apologise to the Akal Takht jatheder who in Santa Singh and other sanatans' eyes is not even a Sikh! So they need to evolve new lines of thinking, Santa Singh did 'pesh' for 'panthic unity'.. which panth is this, the protestantized or the sanatan panth? Why do the sanatans want panthic unity with the protestantized panth when the bad mouth it at every opportunity? Even after Santa Singh's magnamous act they still bad mouth the SGPC? So did Santa Singh's panthic unity efforts fail?

So you admit it doesn't mean 'beloved of God' so why use the translations of sikhi to the max website when you now admit are wrong. They stretched the meaning of 'yaara' to ridiculous lengths?

Can I have your views on the post regarding Bachittar Natak quote?

Jamuka Veer

Lalleshvari is at mistranslating in order to protect his 'beloved prophet'. He uses the translations on Sikhi to the max site for his 'yaara' translation. No other scholars makes 'yaara' mean 'beloved of God'. Even someone with basic punjabi knowledge would know that 'yaara' does not mean 'beloved of God'

LOL

Everyone and everything that proves the sanatan viewpoint as wrong is part of a british conspiracy. Now where did I put that check from Tony Blair!

Can one of the moderators please transfer the above two posts onto another thread as this thread is going off topic?

Thanks

Mod's Note: Done!!!. Keep it Clean!!!

We cant stress this enough. Follow the Rules!

This was sent by a friend of mine

This appears to be another example of poor and motivated scholarship. This is particularly relevant as you seem to miss no opportunity to abuse others by trying to show yourself to be knowledgable in northern

indian languages but your translation is both inept and highly suspect.

You have translated the word Mahdeen to refer to Islam or sunni islam in particular. A scholar worth his salt would make sure that his translation of a particular word fits in firstly with the spirit of the work he is translating but more importantly the translation he has made of that word (Mahdeen ) is consistant and make sense at places were the same word reoccurs. Terms used have to necessarily be of the same category. Why would Guruji break this rule and refer to personalities like Gorakh, Ramanand and yet mean Sunni Islam instead of Mohammed?

Looking at the inept translation I can only assume that you have not read the whole of the Bachittar Natak otherwise your translation exercise would not have been so shoddy.

The word Mahdeen occurs at a number of places in the

Bachittar Natak

Here using the same ISO conventions here is the places were it occurs

pun har gorakh ko uprAjA, sikh karai TinhOn badRAjA

sravan fAr mudrA duai dArI, Har kI prit rIt n bIchArI

pun har rAmA nand ko KarA, bhes bairagI ko jin dharA

kanthi kanth kAth kI dArI, prabh kI kriyA kachu bichArI

jai prabh param purkh upjAae, tin tin apnai rAh chAlai

MahAdeen tab prabh uprAjA, arab des ko kIno rAjA

ling binA kInai sabh rAjA, tin bhI ek panth uprAjA

ling binA kInai sabh rAjA, sabh tai apnA nAm japAyou

sat nAm kAhou n drirhyou, sabh apnI apnI urjhAnA

pArbrahm kAhu n pachhAnA, tap sAdhat har moh bulayou

eim keh kai eih lok pathAyou

Then I brought Gorakh into existence and he made great

kings his disciples

He tore the ears of his followers for the ear rings of

the yogi but gave no thought to God's path of love

Then I created Ramanand who assumed the garb of a

bairagi

He placed a wooded necklace around his neck but minded

not the way of God

Those I created each and everyone created their own

sects/religions

I then created Mohammed and made his king of Arabia

He too started his own path making the kings undergo circumcision

He made people utter his own name and not the name of

the eternal God

Thus they all involved only in themselves recognising

not God

The whole import of the verses is clearly delineated

by the Guru when he states

jai prabh param purkh upjAae

tin tin apnai rAh chAlai

Those whom God created each and everyone created their

own sects/religions

The import of these verses is that God had sent down saints and bhagats to teach people the right way but they all set up their own religions and sects.

The Guru mentions here the personalities of those who

strayed away from God. Mahdeen has always been

translated to mean Mohammed. Each and every Sikh

scholar I have read whether he was Udasi, Nirmala or Singh Sabha

has always translated Mahdeen as Mohammed. Because it

is keeping with the essence of the verse. It can only

be down to motivated or inept scholarship that can

translate Mahdeen as 'Islam' or 'Sunni Islam' mainly

because that person does not like his 'beloved

prophet' being shown as someone who went astray from

the path of God.

Previous to this verse these line occur

kitai krisan sai kIt kotai banAi

kitai rAm sai mait dArai upAi

mahAdIn kaitai prithI mAj huay

samai ApnI ApnI ant muay

Many worms like Krishna did you create

Many Ramas did you also create and brought to an end

Mohammeds too were many on earth

They came and disappeared when their appointed time

came

So it is clear here that Mahdeen is a person and not an allegorical figure used to represent Sunni Islam.

Such inept scholarship can only be expected from those

whose mother tongue is not Punjabi or one of the other

indian languages. Only those who require Shackle

glossary can come up such amateur translations.

The stance of the Budha Dal with regards to the S.G.P.C will be made clear VERY shortly on www.shastarvidiya.org. The stance of Akali Nihangs during the events prior to, during, and post-1984 will also be FULLY explained, along with Akali Nihang Baba Santa Singh's full biography.

However, for the moment:

a) the claim that Baba Santa Singh admitted he was wrong with regards to 1984, is another attempt by S.G.P.C. to twist the truth.

the Budha Dal does not recognise the authority of the S.G.P.C.

c) the Budha Dal does not recognise the Akali Dal party, or any other British Raj-nurtured institution

d) Akali Nihang Baba Santa Singh and the Budha Dal, has not changed its views with regards to the stance taken in 1984

You can be assured that AMPLE proof of this will be provided....

So the Tribune newspaper got it wrong? Did Santa Singh give a clarification to the newspaper and ask it to retract it's story? Look forward to you providing links and not just your usual.. see the website tamasha!