tonyhp32

Shaheediyan I think you are twisting things. Don't ascribe the feelings that Sikhs have for helping fellow Sikhs as just based around caste, religion, town etc while defining yourself as patriotic to humanity. You now admit that Punjab has problems whilst according to your alturistic uncle there is nothing wrong in Punjab. Did any of the Gurus forsake their own Sikhs whilst going out of their way to help non-Sikhs? Did Bhai Kanhaiya skip the injured Sikhs and help the injured Muslims instead? No one is saying that every penny of Sikh donations needs to be spent on Sikhs but at the moment I would be surprised if any more than 1% of Sikh donations from the west goes to Sikh causes. As for Khalsa Aid, in my personal view they just duplicate work that other aid agencies are already doing. I would much rather donate to the Red Cross or any number of established charities than donate to Khalsa Aid.

Personally I always contribute to projects in Punjab and those involved in helping Sikhs rather than ones like this Khalsa Aid jaunt. Unfortunately the attitude of your uncle is one that a majority of Sikhs have. They are so blinded by their take on what Sarbat Da Bhalla is that they always forget that Sikhs are also included in Sarbat as well. This attitude of your uncle is why most projects aimed at Sikhs are virtually at a standstill. You are right that most Sikhs aren't running around naked and eating ants but that's not to say that the Sikhs in Punjab aren't faced with many problems such as water pollution, desertification, deteoration of the education standards, suicides by farmers etc I'm sure that many of the Sikh farmers who committed suicide in the last few years would be happy to know that their Sikh 'brothers' considered their plight to be less important than those of non-Sikhs. On Khalsa Aid it was interesting to read their blog a few years ago when their rep was in Pakistan during Eid and he wrote that he was very weak because he was fasting! The thought that came to my mind that if he ate something in front of the people he was helping they would happily have lynched him without a second thought!

Makes for a good story but most of it is fiction and some of the facts are purposefully muddled up. Such fantasy stories by so-called spiritual descendents are two to a penny nowadays. 1, Guru Nanak did not want to set up a separate religion. Wow, how's that for totally negating the message of the Guru. I suppose the Guru must have had second thoughts because he made Guru Angad his successor! Nice try by our Sufi friend. Butter the Sikhs a bit by heaping praises on their Guru but subvert his message. If Guru Nanak didn't want to set up a new religion (ie did not have a ideology to preach) then aren't we Sikhs dishonouring the Guru by building Gurdwaras and preaching Sikhism? 2. Bhai Mardana was a Muslim and remained a Muslim all his life. Another 'fact' which is disputable. The tendency to describe Bhai Mardana as a Muslim as well describing Bhagat Kabir as a Muslim Sufi are all recent innovations. To the early Sikh community Bhai Mardana was a Sikh as proven by the fact that one of the Janamsakhi mention that Guru Nanak asked Bhai Mardana to keep the early rehat ie keep Kesh and treat all beings as equal. Bhai Mardana's son was a missionary in Afghanistan. The so-called descendents of Bhai Mardana are just Muslims from the Mirasi caste. Every Mirasi in Punjab considers himself to belong to the family of Bhai Mardana. There are of course a few hundred Sikh mirasis as well. 3. Laying the foundation stone of Harmandir Sahib. There is no doubt that Mian Mir was a holy person who had good relations with the Gurus. His laying of the foundation stone is a matter of dispute. Although it looks good in inter-faith meetings but as Sikhs we should be concerned with the truth and not what may appear in these days to be politically correct. The first mention of the laying of the foundation stone of Harmandir Sahib by Mian Mir is by a Muslim writer in the early 1800s. Sikhs sources do not mention this and as far as I am aware Guru Arjan is mentioned as the person laying the foundation stone. The foundation stone realignment by the mason is a story from Sikh history but not one that mentions Mian Mir. 4. Guru Nanak going on Haj The Haj is a particular ritual that Muslims take part in which involves a visit to Mecca and medina as well as the performance of various allied rituals such as stoning the devil etc at these places. The Janamsakhis do not describe the visit of Guru Nanak as a HAJ. It is described as JANA - visit or going to. This is an important distinction which Sikhs need to be aware of when taking part in any discussions on Guru Nanak's visit to Mecca. Only a Muslim can perform the Haj to Mecca. Guru Nanak visited Mecca. In some Janamsakhis the discusssion of going to visit Mecca is seen as a challenge - Bhai Mardana wants to see 'this Mecca which the Turks never tire of praising' Guru Nanak says that no non-Muslim is allowed there. Bhai Mardana responds 'Who is it that can stop you from going there' In another Janamsakhi the challenge is the distance, Guru Nanak says that Mecca is many thousands of miles away and Bhai Mardana responds 'your one step is like the thousand steps of ordinary men' While it's good that some leaders of other religion take time out to discuss the Gurus or Sikhism in general, we Sikhs need to be weary none the less of the tendency of many of these people to subvert the message of Sikhism.

As the poster has stated, it's a meeting to resolve the issues within the 'DAL PANTH' and not in THE PANTH.

The Dalai Lama a great soul? Next you'll say Mother Theresa was a saint! Sometimes its good to get away from the publicity created by the Hollywood and Liberal Western set and look at what the Dalai Lama means in Tibet. He is the last reminent of a feudal privileged order which lived off the sweat of the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lama publicity machine is the same as that which is used to convince people that M K Gandhi was a Mahatma. A good read if you would like an alternative view of the Dalai Lama http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html

It depend whether you take the literal meaning or as some have done an esoteric meaning. I'm sure that many a fake Baba who asks for the wife or daughter of his dumb follower to spend the might with him will give his dumb follower an esoteric meaning for what will take place that night!

McLeod is wrong on this as he is wrong on some other things to do with Sikhism. Sehajdhari means someone who takes to the Khalsa in stages. This is proven by the fact that during the 20s and 30s the Sehajdharis had their own organisation of which each and everyone of their presidents took Amrit in the end. The Sehajdhari rehatnama states that a Sehajdhari should keep his Kesh. This is the least of the requirements required of a Sehajdhari. If you look at most of those claiming to the Sehajdharis today they have cut hair so they do not even meet the minimum requirements of a Sehajdhari. McLeod confuses a lax cut hair person belonging to a Sikh background as a Sehajdhari. If anyone person belonging to a Sikh backgroup could automatically become a Sehajdari then there would be no need for words such as Sir Gumm in the Rehatnamas. Sehajdhari is a term for those who coming from various non-Sikh backgrounds who are interesting in becoming a Sikh and are going towards Khalsa baptism in stages. As the Sehajdhari rehatnama states the first of these stages would be to keep their Kesh. It's natural hat if one wants to eventually become a member of the Khalsa then one has to start to keep some of the same Rehats as the Khalsa has in order to get used to them. The McLeod definition of Sehajdhari is a new one and one which has come about because due to lax parchar quite a number of Sikhs choose not to keep their Kesh nowadays. Ordinarily a person born into a Sikh household would keep his Kesh and and at some stage he would take Amrit. Nanakpanthi is a term for those families who at some stage had a connection with Sikhism prior to Khalsa baptism. They never went through the stage of Khalsa baptism and have kept their beliefs in Sikhism as a family tradition.

The disbanding of the Masands and the creation of the Khalsa and near simultaneous events and I think it is Sri Guru Sobha or one of the other near contempory texts that describe the actions of the Guru in one line. (Guru) disbanded the Masands and Created the Khalsa. The Khalsa would have been the Sikhs who had possibly taken Charan Amrit before the Khanday Di Pahul and therefore have direct contact to the Guru without the Masand intermediatories. These Sikhs would have been close followers in the Gurus entourage or Sikhs from far off places where the Masand system did not exist or for one reason or other they did not have Masands as intermediatories. With the creation of the Khalsa and the disbanding of the Mahants then all Sikhs by default became Khalsa as they were no Masands to act as intermediatories. The Khalsa Sikhs in far of places may not have had occasion to come to Punjab and take Amrit and become Amritdhari. However the two titles Khalsa as an Amritdhari Sikh and Khalsa as a Sikh who had direct access to the Guru seems to have been used used at the same time. This explains why many person without Singh in their names were referred to as Khalsa in the Hukumnamas. Over time the Khalsa came to just mean Amritdhari Sikhs. The other Sikhs became Sehajdhari which as the name implies who at some stage were meant to take Amrit.

I think the chicken run around because he wanted to cross the road! Sorry couldn't resist that one. Haven't seen the videos so can't give an opinion.

Yeah and her dad is some kind of professional who visits Iran regulary and thinks it's heaven on Earth. Plus her Iranian female friends sleep with their boyfriends/husbands after having done Muta marriage. More likely he's a Portugese fella whose just become a Shia and is sitting in some shyt*ole in Iran. What was the name of that band that sang 'That's what I go to school for' oh yeah..BUSTED!

Nice to see some old sajjans are back on the forum. The question itself doesn't make sense because it assumes that the Khalsa has a whole set of laws and regulations that will deal with each and everything minute situation that he or she will find themselves in. If you want to be told how and with which hand to wipe your butt and if the stones(!) used should be an odd or even number or whether peeing standing up is recommended or sitting down for a pee like a woman is best then Islam has the answers. By the way peeing like a woman is best according to Islam! If your aim is to increase your spirituality and use your God given common sense then Sikhism is best for you. Our old Sajjan/Sajjani Kavita Rano says that common sense changes over time! My God she's hit the nail on the head.. exactly! Because each and every situation will be viewed different at different times. In the olden days it was thought of as common sense that witches existed and they were killed. Islamic 'divine' law says that you should kill a homosexual by, and here it beggers belief that some Imams actually sat down and decided which was the best way, either by throwing him off a mountain or by having a wall fall onto him! I think the 'divine' law was so advanced that it took into account that in the future a Muslim mght be living in Holland or Belgium and might be hard pressed to find a mountain in his local area! Now chances are you won't find a witch burning in even the most roughest areas of London but you might be able to watch a homosexual being flung off a mountain in some part of Islamic world. So which is better the legal system which has evolved over the years taking into account the intellect and rational thinking that man has made over the years or a legal system that is stuck in the mentality of the 7th century? Legal systems always evolve and even though some Muslims might not say so they know that their 'divine' law will need to envolve if they do not want to remain the laughing stock of the world! The above examples aren't being given in order to downgrade anyone's belief but to show that when ones goe the legalistic way and that legalistic way will always be frozen in the age and beliefs of the era when it was first thought up then one will always be well behind the people who use common sense to decide the way they handle things. There are a number of ways to look at this-; The Rehat specifies the Bajjar Kurehats and these are the things which takes one out of Khalsa. One could argue that well it doesn't says don't kill your father but then again the Gurus were inclined to believe that their followers knew that one shouldn't kill ones dad. The Rehat Maryada also doesn't say anything about not jumping off a cliff, again the Gurus trusted that their followers would have a certain minimum IQ level. The people who think that they need to be told in no uncertain terms and be provided with chapter and verse not to kill their dad's were perhaps best left to join legalistic faiths until they had progressed spiritually enough to know without being told that killing your dad is a definate no no. No offence to the person asking the question but the mindset of wanting to have an answer for everything given on a plate or perhaps in a text is not the mindset of a spiritually awakened person. We had a guy come on our forum once whose argument was that Islam is the 'truth' and Sikhism is 'false' because among other things Islam gave an answer of when it is permissible to set off a nuclear bomb and the best way to ride a horse! That idiot thought that he could get hold of some Imam's fatwas and because Sikhs are not in the habit of asking absurd questions such as these then chances are that Sikhs would have the 'divinely' guided Sharia answer that Islam has. Apart from looking like an idiot he probably showed more than anyone what the difference is between a follower of a spiritual path and the follower of a legalistic path. Mind you I am surprised that Kavita asked the kebab question as she was always saying in her previous male incarnation, she believed in the Shia Sufi tariqa. I suppose 'don't kill your pappi' is one of the first injunctions on their list of do and don'ts. Or put simply Bajjar Kurehat is what makes someone a Tankhaiya and therefore liable to re-admission to the Khalsa after being given a punishment. The Rehat Maryada says-; The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided 1. Dishonouring the hair; 2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way; 3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse; 4. Using tobacco. The Bajjar Kurehats are not a list forbidding the most extreme actions such as murder or rape or anything like that. I think you are making a major mistake if you think that they are a legal code to govern each and every minute detail of someones life. It is a list which one signs up not to do. If one then breaks that injunction then one naturally puts oneself out of that organisation. So if you break a regulation then you need to retake Amrit in order to rejoin.

If the USA or even Israel was to bomb Iran it would be by the use modern technology so it would mean minimal civilian casualties. Now if the regime were to use human shield and locate civilians at the nuclear sites then it would be Iran's fault and not the US or Israel's fault. The Americans are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If the sit back and allow a madman like Ahmedinejad to get a nuclear bomb and then he sets one off in new york or london hoping for the mehdi to come along then most of the people will be complaining about why the Americans didn't take action!

Rangila Rasul From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rangila Rasul was published during the time of Arya Samaj and Muslim confrontation in Punjab (Undivided india) during 1920s[1]. It was written by an Arya Samaji, Pt. Chamupati in 1924, but the name was never revealed by the publisher Rajpal in Lahore. On the basis of Muslim complaints Rajpal was arrested but acquitted in April, 1929, by a Christian Judge of the Lahore High Court after a five years trial. After several unsuccessful attempts to kill him, he was stabbed to death by a young man Ilam Din[2] on April 6, 1929. He was hanged but was hailed as a martyr, and is now accorded the title of Ghazi. Originally written in Urdu, it has been translated in Hindi and English, but remains banned in South Asia. --------------------- Interesting enough Bhagat Lakshman Singh praises Rajpal in his autobiography as one of the most learned men in Punjab at that time. The Rangila Rasul agitation was a prototype of the Satanic Verses and later the Mohammed cartoons agitations.

These aren't bans solely because the oppressors who were Muslims were doing these things but because not taking intoxicants and not cutting hair is part of the Gurus teachings. Persian was the language of the oppressors so then why didn't the Gurus ban the use of Persian amongst the Sikhs? What is the use of banning a few usages of the oppressor when the greatest influence which is the adoption of the oppressors language is allowed to remain? If someone starts a new religion and adopts some of physical appearance of a Sikh it doesn't mean that Sikhs have to then change their own appearance to maintain their distinctinveness!

Thanks Shaheediyan for posting the book. The book is one of many published during the British rule in response to the activities of Christian missionaries in Punjab. The books in English are aimed primarily at those Sikh youth who through their studies at Colleges and Universities would come into contact with Christian doctrines and it would equip them with the knowledge to compare the founders of the two religions. Quite a few of the Colleges and Universities were affiliated with Christian Missionary organisations. The Christian Missionaries were very active in Punjab and in the early days of the annexation of Punjab had leased some Bungas in the Harmandir Sahib complex as well in order to preach to the Sikh pilgrims there. This English book seems tame in comparision to the ones brought out by polemicists of all religions in the native languages. Some books actually led to murder as in the case of the author of Rangila Rasul (the colourful Prophet).

I think the Shia issues that are discussed on the forums will be one of the legacies of our friend Bahadur. Bahadur went looking into Sikh texts for mention of Shias or Ali or anything that he could then remotely claim to be a validation by the Gurus for his obsession with Ali and Shi'ism. There is very little he could latch on to but the Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi was one of the texts which he could manipulate to suit his own beliefs. He also made a number of unsubstantiated statements such as Shias were with Baba Deep Singh and attempted to save Harmandir Sahib from Abdali. His claim that Pir Budhu Shah was a Shia is also unsubstantiated. To the Sikhs of the Gurus time, there was very little difference between the Shia and the Sunni. The earlier Janamsakhi make very little mention of Shia and lump them with other Muslims. The division was more pronounced when it came to Sufi and other Muslims. Although this is not to say that Sufis always had good relations with Sikhs, one of the Sufis actually sent letters saying how happy he was that Guru Arjan Dev had been martyred.

I think what you are propounding here is a very liberal interpretation of what constitutes a Sikh and is more a post 1947 Gandhian interpretation than something that Sikhs of the Guru period would have recognised. This is similar to the Indian Socialist interpretation of the word Khalsa as 'pure' meaning that Raj Karega Khalsa just means rule fo the pure and can mean rule of Hindus, Christians, Muslims as well as Sikhs! You are right there were people of many different background who intertacted with the Gurus. Bhai Mardana for all intents and purposes was a Sikh of the Guru since he left many of his Islamic beliefs. The use of the words Sikh, Gursikh or Guru Ka Sikh in Sikh texts have a much more limited meaning than the one you have given. Nowhere in Sikh literature of that period is Mian Mir, or Pir Budhu Shah referred to as Sikhs. If the contemporary Sikhs did not count them as Sikhs then who are we to revise the concept of a Sikh to include them?

Mehtab Singh, Banda chalah giya par Banday di mat har ik member laie parhan laie hai. Kaie memberan utay vi uss da assar hajjeh vi hai.

As far as I know it's not available in English. For an analysis of the Janamsakhis here is a very good book which is an English translation of Kirpal Singh's Janamsakhi Parampara http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/janamsakhi.pdf The Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi as well the other janamsakhis are available in the original here http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/pun_jan.pdf

Bahadur, You have either not understood the text, which I don't think is possible given that it is written in basic Punjabi even a layman would understand or you have read the sakhi with a preconceived bias. Having debated with you many a times, I have already made sure that rather than rely on your translation or in this your interpretation I had access to the text and read it myself. The sakhi which you refer to is from the Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi-; Having met with a number of Muslim holymen in the city of Mashhad the Guru is asked -; Fer ohna puchiya ki Sunni jo hain so Mohammed nu manday hain asin jo hain so Ali nu manday han. So tusin kaho ki duhan vichon visaikh kavan hoiya. Tan Baba kehiya ki juanmardi karkai ar shastran karkai Ali vadheek hoiya hai. Atay Ilam karkai Mohammed vadheek hoiya hai. Par samajh karaki dono ikko jahay hain. Ar noor Khudai da Chawan Yaarn vich bhi ar Mohammed vich bhi ikko jehay hai ar tusadi vich bhi ohi noor hai. Par khudi karkai tusanu Khudai bhul giya hai. So jay tusin Santan nun millo ar khudi aapni door karo ta Khudai nun paavoh. The Muslim holymen asked those who are Sunni believe in Mohammed and we believe in Ali. So please tell us who was the better of the two. Baba said in terms of chivalry and use of weapons Ali is the greater of the two. In terms of knowledge Mohammed is the greater. But understand both are the same. The light of God which was in the four companions is the same that was in Mohammed and WITHIN YOU ALSO IS THE SAME LIGHT. But due to your haumai you have forgotten God so you should meet the Sants and keep your haumai away and be in remembrance of God. I have had to put capitals on the most important line in the sakhi. Far from supporting the theological position of the Shias who believe that Mohammed and Ali had the same light the Guru is put forwarding his teachings that each and every person has the same light of God in them. It seems Bahadur forgot to read the last few lines which totally negate his theory that Guru Nanak supported the Shia theological position against the Sunni. The Sunni also have hadiths which they claim show that Mohammed claimed Abu Bakr to have been the same light as himself. Bahadur has also claimed that Guru Nanak was a Shia Sufi and that was the reason that he went to Mecca. The very same Janamsakhi that Bahadur has used to try and twist to his way of thinking has a sakhi about the trip to Mecca. The Hajis say to Guru Nanak that there is a place where a ship anchors and they will take anyone who wants to go to Mecca but only after that person has said the Kalima. They never allow a Hindu to go to Mecca. The Hajis then ask Guru Nanak not to travel with them (possibly perceiving problems for them should they be discovered having a non-Muslim with them). Guru Nanak then says that no one comes with anyone and everyone comes alone and goes alone. So they let the Hajis proceed while Guru Nanak and Mardana do Kirtan. When the bhog is done, miraculously they both see the Minarets of Mecca ahead of them. So the question to you is this? If Guru Nanak was a Shia Sufi then why would the Hajis have brought up the subject of every person going to Mecca having to say the Kalima. If Guru Nanak was a Shia Sufi such a question would never have arisen. Why mention the fact that Hindus are not allowed on the ship? The Bhai Bala Janamsakhi on which the Bhai Mani Singh Jamasakhi is based also has a discussion between Guru Nanak and Bhai Mardana. Bhai Mardana asks Guru Nanak where is this Mecca which the Turks keep on praising. Guru tells him that it is 2500 koh in distance and they do not allow any Hindus to go there. Bhai Mardana says that for you 2500 koh is like 2 and a half steps and you say they do not allow Hindus there but who is it that can stop you. I think you just like to take a few lines out of the Janamsakhi which you can twist to suit your pet theories and disregard the mountain of evidence which negate these very theories.

I think this thread has run it's course. Time for those who were so eager to talk up Bahadur as some kind of authority on Sikhi to reassess their views.

Bahadur Ali, If countering your misrepresentation of Guru Nanak is barking then bark I must and as often as I can! You seem to have a very short memory. I am only responsible for what I do and not what you think my friends or people you assume to be my friends do or do not do. I only ever sent you one PM on which I said that your gora arse would be kicked. If you take that to have been a threat then take it as such. You claim to not have threatened me, you are joking aren't you? I know you've been a Muslim a few months but I would have thought that it would be some time before you take on their trait of lying. What happened at the Niddar Singh talk? You accused me of having put you photo on the net which I did not. The only personal information I posted about you was when you told someone that you are not a gora and I told them you were. Your comment on 1857 is uncalled for. Such comments as yours just show how difficult it is for a person of a different culture and religion to totally understand the history and culture of the religion they are joining. I think I made this comment before. FYI the Sikhs fought for the British for a number of reasons, one being a sense of seeking revenge on the Purbias who had just a decade earlier robbed and looted the Punjab. The other was to stop the reconstitution of the Mughal empire which has killed lakhs of Sikhs. Your revisionist history would make even an ardent Hindu RSS scholar ashamed. Do you really think that the Sikhs would have made common cause with the Mughals and Purbias? Now that really would have been a paindu thing to do wouldn't it. A bit like the Jews helping to resurrect the Nazi regime in 1945! I see that you have not addressed any of my other views where I showed that you were the one who came in with a bagload of dodgy views into Sikhi. Calling one section of the religion you are joining as bast*rds doesn't really bode well for your time in that religion. The muta marriage comment was to show that the morality of some people is very subjective. If prostitution is clothed as a religious act then for those types of people there is nothing wrong in it. Having the government act as the pimp is hardly a defence! Anyway I don't know to make this a personal argument. I told you during our PM exchange that I felt that what some of the sanatanists had done to you was very wrong.

Under whose definition of what constitutes a religion should we take in order to come to a conclusion about Sikhi? Does Sikhi need definitions from a Semitic or Indic background? The Gurus envisioned a Sikhi that would cater to the spiritual needs of the Sikhs and did not think that their followers would need religion to guide them about which way to wipe their butts after going to the toilet? or how many stones to use to wipe their butts? Times change and one type of economic system might not suit each and every age. The Gurus were wise enough to leave the economic sphere to what is best for that given time as long as it doesn't infringe the tenets of Sikhi. Politically the Gurus have defined Halemi Raj as ideal. The rule for the benefit of all. The Panj Pyare system is a respresentative system based around either a democratic or nominative system. The danger of keeping having a political system suited to a desert environment in the 7th century and casting it in stone has meant that no woman can ever become the the leader of an Islamic state. Those that have done so have faced the might of the religious establishment. The bombing of Benazir Bhutto in which over 100 people were killed was because someone had written 1400 years ago that a woman should not be allowed to become the leader of an Islamic state.

Spare us the fake indignation my friend. Again typically warped sense of morality. Lottery funding bad, religiously sanctioned prostitution (sigheh) good!

Bahadur Ali, Thankfully you have given up the idea of keeping the name Bahadur Ali Singh which would have created more confusion. I don't personally have any problems with your reversion to Islam of whatever variety best suits you. Your conversion is your own business but it become the business of Sikhs if you misrepresent Guru Nanak and Sikhi in order to justify your conversion. This is why so much has been written on this thread as well as others. During all our discussions I had always thought that I was debating with a Muslim and not a Sikh let alone an Amritdhari Sikh. Converts come in two types, those who do not bring any of their previous religious beliefs to their new religion and those who being in a bagload. The former immerse themselves in every facet of their new found religion and attempt to follow it fully. The latter come to their new religion with an arrogant attitude and bring all their previous beliefs and biases into the new religion. I am sure that most of the people who know you will recognise you as the latter. One of the first things your did on Shia chat was to curse the four Kalifas of the Sunnis, which in many cases is a Shia trait but your cursing of these Kalifas was such that even the Shiachat mods had to warn you to tone it dowe. In those first few introductory posts on Shiachat you also referred to AKJ as Bas*ards. Now you can understand why many Sikhs might be taken aback and utterly surprised that a Sikh who claims to be an Amritdhari Nirmala would go on a Shia forum to curse the four Kalifas whom Sunni Muslims hold dear. You post about hate and how the Punjabi Sikh community is tribal and non-accepting of outsiders like you. But can you see where your argument fails, if you yourself are so eager to curse others, putting aside the fact that cursing anyone is a totally contary to the Gurus teachings, even those others who have nothing to do with your Sikhi. On that forum you also stated that you are an Alim of the Sikh community which was patently false and apt to give the Shias on that forum the wrong notion that they were debating with someone who was an authority on Sikhism. You were never accepted as an Alim by anyone apart from a few Sanatanis. Even they seemed to get revolted later on when you theories about Sikhi became more and more ridiculous. It was clear from the outset that you still held deeply entrenched Shia views even though you had taken Amrit and claimed to be a Nirmala. You get the hand that is dealt with according to your Karams, you were always meant to be a Shia but for a number of years you pretended to be a Sikh by taking on the appearance of a Nirmala. Ironically enough one of the Shias on that forum even thought that given your Shia views expressed on that forum and your personal description of yourself as a Sikh that maybe you might be a Shia practicising Takiyah or deception amongst the Sikhs. Even though you denied it then but you have to admit that indeed was ironic. As someone has pointed out was the fact that you were one of the most vociferous members when it came to calling AKJ and Singh Sabha as Ram Raias and yet you are the one who has become a Bemukh while the people you called Ram Raias are still traversing the Gurmat Gaddi Rah. Irony indeed! You wrote that 90% of Gurdwaras are funded by the lottery! As usual your comments are high on rhetoric and low on facts. A few Gurdwaras have taken lottery funding but do you really need to be so harsh on them? Such harshness can only come from someone with a warped sense of morality because in your view gambling is a big sin (haram) but paying a women for a temporary marriage which may last until copulation is an 'act' of God (halal). You might want to take a trip to the Shia 'holy' city of Qom now that you are in Iran and take the delights of Shia life. I hear that theres a new batch of girls for the use of the seminary students to take part in sigheh. Now do you really want to discuss Haram and Halal? You have also claimed that the Khalsa and the Rehat is anti-Islam. I will accept that some of the rehats given in the Rehatnamas are not too appreciative of Islam. But given that the Khalsa twice in its history was publically proclaimed by the government of the day to have been wiped out then is it any great surprise that some of the Rehats asks Sikhs not to trust Muslims, not to eat Halal meat etc? If something like 99% of a community is wiped out by Muslims and please do not come up with the revisionist nonsense that only the Mughals persecuted the Sikhs, it was the common Muslims who went into the jungles to hunt down Sikhs for price money, can you blame them for a little bit of distain for Islam? Not that the Rehats are as hyper as some of the Islamic hadiths, I mean 'don't trust a Muslim' is not exactly in the same league as 'rape captured enemy women' But then this is a purely Muslim trait which you have inherited. Muslims bomb the underground, people avoid Muslims, People say my Islam is violent, Muslims accuse them of being racist Islamophobes! or the best one, Pope says Islam is violent, Muslims attack nuns and western compounds to prove the Pope wrong. The Punjabi Sikh community has a long way to fall if it is ever to aspire to the depths of the Muslim community. During the Afghan invasions the common Punjabi Muslims only changed their attitude to the Khalsa when the Afghans started to rape and pillage regardless of religion. Now whilst your Portugese ancestors were destroying the native cultures of South America and forcibly converting Hindus in Goa to Catholicism, the Khalsa was involved in a life and death struggle with the Muslims. You can come up with all your fancy theories about Shias marching against Abdali when he attacked Harmandir Sahib but even the most illiterate Punjabi Sikh would be hard put out to believe such fairy tales. It's a bit rich you claiming that the Khalsa is fixated on being anti-Islamic when the Islamic world even the Shias can't forget the crusades which happened 600 years ago and affected perhaps less than 10% of the Muslims at that time. Who is fixated now? Who are the ones who can't move on? Even richer is the harshness against the Punjabi Sikhs when all they may be doing is, contary to Gurbani avoiding you and not getting involved in your theories. Most Punjabis would rather avoid people with whom they have no sense of solidarity. A Punjabi Sikh would be more comfortable with a mona than with a gora especially one who has warped views. That's a fact of life. You may believe that your Iranian friends will now accept you and chances are they will but no one in this day and age has the time or even the inclination to mollycuddle a convert and cater to their whims all day. I hope you do not find that to your detriment. You have written a lot of personal details on this forum and it is hyprocritical for you then to criticise others when they discuss something that have written about. There is no doubt that you were in many cases badly treated by the Punjabi Sikhs, but can you with you with hand on heart really say that it was not a two way street. You came to Sikhi criticising the Akali movement for reforming the Gurdwaras, you wrote that Sikh men and women in pre-British Punjab would go to a barber to shave off their pubic hair this particular gem was based on something another scholar friend told you at university! You also wrote that women who take Amrit are becoming a third gender! So how many women have you abused just with that comment? I could continue this list but I am sure the forum members who may not have any read your previous posts will get a gist of what have written. Your latest theory of Guru Nanak being a Shia is the one when most members on this forum, at least those that knew you well would have taken as your final break with Sikhi. Most people had got used to your make believe world of the Khalsa being a continuation of Shia chivilary orders but what you wrote about Guru Nanak was a pure blasphemy. Some people might take the above as a personal attack but since you have attacked an entire community then I think it is time that people realise that there are two sides to every story. I have one final piece of advice, you need to tone down any theories that you might now develop about Shia Islam. You were able to get away with a lot of ridiculous theories wbout Sikhi but for your own good you need to realise that the Muslims are not that tolerant. Anyway good luck in your religion and I hope all goes well for you.