backward

The adopted ajit singh had a son named hatti singh who died in mathura. This is evidenced in mahant ganesha singh's bharat mat darpan....

@Gsethi please share more about what your grandfather taught you about Chetan (Satguru) and shabad surat? I have come to the same conclusion and seen this in evidenced in adhyatam parkaash as well as through the katha of baba dalel singh ji...any sources provided would be great. Sant Sanpuran Singh ji was supposedly a braj brilliance

I wish her all the best and hope that she continues to wear a beautiful smile!

We also know, thanks to Prof. Pashaura Singh's discovery of a copy [18] found in Vaid Mohan Singh's library of an imperial order given by Jahangir, that before relations turned sour, the Emperor had generously granted Guru Arjan 1400 bighas of land (approximately 280 acres) for Taran Taran. [19]- This was deemed to be a ‘reward’ for creating bauli’s during a time of draught....not a simple ‘you’re a saint, take this land’....also according to pashaura singh The straw that ultimately broke the camel's back is Guru Arjan's decision to side with the rebel Khusraw, who was attempting a coup d'etat against his own father: Jahangir. Up till then, Arjan's threat was perhaps perceived as non-threatening. But his treasonous move to ally himself with Khusraw meant that it was not Jahangir who initiated the conflict, but the "peaceful and unobtrusive" Sacha Padshah: Guru Arjan Dev ji: No mention of prithi chand and his amicable relationship with Jahangir..How Convenient.and jealousy of his brother’s position...another note. Sikh’s were building towns WELL before guru sahib.....they were now just in a location that was along a major trade route. Secondly, Khusrau visited the Guru as a rebel and was blessed by him. This blessing could have been sought only for his success in his rebellion and NOT for a religious purpose; because Khusrau was a Muslim and by showing his religious allegiance to a non-Muslim he would have jeopardized his claim to the throne of a Muslim state. In any case, both these instances mean a deliberate confrontation with the state.[40] (bold, underline, capital ours) Hypocrisy on the side of Jahangir no? The guru’s had their own ‘state’....so if the king blesses you, this isn’t a ‘religious’ allegiance but a simple political purpose.....what happened to shariat when Jahangir went to the gosain’s hut? But probably, the chief reason that upset the Emperor was that the Guru had blessed Khusro and helped him monetarily while the latter had rebelled against Jehangir. ... That this incident rankled in the mind of Emperor Jehangir, is evident from his own statement recorded in his autobiography. He wrote that he had ordered the execution by torture of Guru Arjun, unless he embraced Islam, because the Guru had raised aloft the standard of holiness and many Hindus and Muslims had foolishly become his followers. [44] (bold, underline ours) Kings always gave each other nazrana’s....Prithi chand still had more control.....why is it that guru hargobind sahib had to leave amritsar.....did they look at the policies of the first son getting everything In effect, Guru Arjan Dev sided with a man whose decision to unjustifiably rebel against his father had led to widespread unrest, the innocent bloodshed of young and old, and large scale wanton destruction. For Guru Arjan Dev, this, it seems, did not matter; if it did, why side with Khusraw? Because his brother who had political control over the money and that region was in with the administration and was doing his best to suffocate the kingdom financially.....unless we have to hear some weird prattle about the guru being gulluw and really being known as arjan shah faqir because of his allegiance to some extreme sect of heretic shia’s.... "state within a state" Allowed at that time....will get you sources. This is an opinion, juxtaposed on the premise that the islamic way is the best way. Rulers always use `rebellions` as a way to justify their extreme reactions to perceived threats. This article shows jahangir as both tolerant to conversion AND the flagbearer of shariat........good job!

See sikhi as your creed. Sikhs have their own language, but wisen up.....infrastructures that are more community serving or at least more serving to the larger community should take precedence over infrastructure that benefits only badal. What I find amazing is how much the politics of identity really inform our paths. Samparda's and jatha's are like organizations people get experience in before they decide on their choice of career (samparda). Again not being critical. I like dalsingh's post. Valid points are brought forth. The thing is there are multiple worldviews that are in place, simultaneously. What would a modern singh sabha be? a unified worldview?...is that even possible. Looking at some people who've been on this site earlier; I've noticed 1 instance of a person who had a certain worldview and tried to make sikhi fit their other world view and then the fissure with sikhi was so great that people beared the brunt of that person's reversion. one aspect of sikhs were the enemy to something greater and now the whole sikh panth is....and it is unfortunately so evident that any connection to sikhi is viewed from a viewpoint that is seen through the 'reverted' lens. Is this what we are all in for?

This is interesting, I wonder if it is true. We can't say they are lies...it seems like 1-off events ended up shaping history for sikhs and this could be the whole reason for the 4th pauri argument...