Weedol

I Google bamoojab and found this excerpt and translation from Zafarnameh on rajkaregakhalsa.net:

Shumaa raa chu farz ast kaare kunee|| Bamoojab navishatah shumaare kunee

It is your duty and a binding on you to do as bidden in writing.

It shows it does not mean 'according to'. It is one half of a verb, the second half of it is kardan. It means you are compelled.

'Compel/order in writing (or according to writing), do it!'

[double]

Can't see what you are translating, but bamoojab (Punjabi from Farsi) just means "according to, in accordance with, under or vide".

It would make a difference, whether it was bamoojab or an imperative formed from moojaber kardan.

I see a lot of 'yapping' going on on this forum by Internet Yodai

Do a quick search and you'll find it's mostly you.

Napoleon was a great man. He respected Islam and exhibited no sexual deviance or public drunkenness.

Take it easy. I am not saying it wasn't there nor am I trying to offend. I am just interested in having a fuller picture of history.

"On the Visakhi of 1699 the compositions of the Sri Dasam Granth were recited together with those from Sri Guru Granth Sahib."

Is there any evidence for this leaving out the Kaushish account written in 1780 (which mentions some compositions which comprise some part of the document now known as Dasam Granth but apparently does not mention a 'Dasam Granth' itself)?

Siruf 'deewana' hai

[removed - never mind carry on]

So you may abuse my opinion but you can't erase own sanatan history.

They're almost there already. Can't say I'm bothered really...

Discrimination based on caste was totally rejected. Marrying within the same caste doesn't prove anything either way. Look at Gurbani and historic Rehatnamas. Plenty of Dalits/ Chamaars etc are Amritdhari Sikhs and there's no way to tell the difference between them and the rest.

Yes, that's the case now, but it's not 'puratan' is what I'm saying.

There is no evidence for any of the views you hold, which seem to be based entirely on stuff you've read on the Internet or Bahadur. Were you here as 'singho' in the past?

No, as mentioned before in answer to Kaljug.

I remain unconvinced about the interpretation of the Sikh tradition by the modern form of the Sikh religion - it can't be brushed aside as internet rumours. On this site I noted that Anand Karaj was originally performed around a havan. Also an interesting claim that because several Sikh Gurus used the pen-name 'Nanak', it is equally possible that later Sikh masters may have used 'Gobind Singh' as a pen-name. I don't think you guys have it all figured out and I remain open to new research on the practices of the early Sikhs when it was considered a 'dharma'.

LOL

Just what the forum needed, a confused chela of Bandar Ali.

To those who don't know, Weedol is the idiot once known as Singho on this forum. He is a confused ex-public school boy who adopted Bahadur Ali/Ishraqi as his surrogate father figure. Both were once some kind of Sikhs who have since "seen the light" and become Shia Muslims. When they were not brown nosing their "Persian" friends, they were here trying to propagate the idea that Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a secret member of their particular cult.

K.

K.

LOL you have confused me with someone else buddy.

The article doesn't make any sense and has no backing from Gurbani or legitimate historic sources. I also doubt that it was written by a Sikh.

I don't know, that guy has many videos on Youtube and says he is a Nirmala.

Weedol, out of interest and to help understand your point of view, what has been your main source of knowledge on Sikhi? Did you go to school in Slough by any chance and learn Religious Studies under Rishi Handa?

No, and I don't know anyone by that name. My point of view is that, on the basis of historical example, the Sikh Gurus married within their own caste group, i.e. they made a point of marrying only those people who were 'halal' for them within the parameters of respectable Indian cultural norms. Furthermore, the 10th Guru said he was a 'shatri'. Both of these historical facts seem to indicate that caste was not rejected in the way that many people might think. Also, if you look at Sikh people today, there are fringe groups such as the modern Deras comprising Dalits, the Chamars and other Mazhbi groups. There is an understanding that these people are not true Sikhs, and I suggest this is because they would not have been eligible to join the Khalsa at the time when the Khalsa was still extant (in original form). The 10th Guru also has a detailed history of his Sodhi family that's included in the Sikh sacred texts. So what this indicates to me is that the 10th Guru's 'Khalsa' may have been a fraternity to which a minority of people could aspire to join, on more or less the same conditions as those that applied to the traditional akharas of sadhus, on which example the early Sikhs modelled this fraternity.

The sadhus likewise reject the temple and household brahmins, because they are 'dead' to their household lives in the service of their Guru. They are/were in disciplined groups, they don't have any possessions, they have no fear of death and they eat and sleep little. This is a model of obvious benefit to any militant order so it makes some sense that the Khalsa would have been modelled after this pattern. Whatever the case may be, it seems clear that the Khalsa was not supposed to be a householder, and that not every Sikh was supposed to hope to become a Khalsa. The householder Sikhs would have continued their ancestral rites (including sacrifices into the havan while reciting Vedic formulae in the case of khatris, Bishts, etc.), and would not have been expected to hold to the creed of the renunciate Khalsa as summarised in some of the quotes from Akaal Das here on this forum. The popularisation of Khalsa was encouraged for political reasons first by the British then by separatists, and led to its apparent demise (notwithstanding recent attempts to reconstruct nihang heritage etc.). The whole model of initiation depends 100% on authenticity of lineage - when it's lost it's lost forever.

A view of a Sikh:

(http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_2/0050.html)

THIRD KHALSA PANTH.

This fact is well known to all the people but which are the other two?

Thinking logically, Khalsas do the philanthropic work of God and, thus he must have a knowledge of God. This knowledge he acquires from Ad-Granth, which is for the Sikhs.

So, the second Panth is Sikh.

Further, a person cannot be a Sikh of a Satguru unless he is a disciple of a Pandit guru who imparts the worldly knowledge of his physical parents and how to lead your life in the political circles. The duty of a Pandit is to keep the person reminded of his physical father and that makes a person a Hindu. The word Hindu originates from HONDH, the identity and the wisdom of the great Pandit Ravan is still visible in Southern India, where the name of a boy includes the name of his father and that of the village i.e. JAATI and BAASI.

No Saint Who belong to the Fourth Panth ever concealed his tribal identity as that is given by God by birth. No body is born into a family of his own free-will but that of God.

So, the first Panth is Hindu, the second is Sikh, the third is Khalsa and the fourth is of Nirmallae Sants or Bhagats.

As a students of a secondary school would not be attending the classes of the primary school, so a person belonging to a higher Panth would not be attending the religious places of the lower Panth. In this sense a Sikh would not be attending a Mandir of a Pandit, a Khalsa attending the Gurdwara or a Nirmallae Sant taking on the sword or weapons of the third Panth.

As the Bhagatan Sikhs and Nirmallae Sants are compatible, so the Khalsas with weapons are odd persons in the Gurdwaras or Har Mandir Sahib, the root of all the Sikh Gurdwaras. That is why Sachae Paatshah Gobind Singh Ji, the establisher of the Khalsa Panth never visited Har Mandir Sahib whilst the Sachae Paatshah Har Gobind Ji was the founder of UPKAARI FAUJ Who prepared the Sikhs for the Khalsa Panths under His own guidance. Khalsas after Sachae Paatshah Gobind Singh Ji is an independent PAR UPKAARI SOLDIER, a Sardar who is subject to no secular authority.

So, those people who take Amrit of Khalsa are not aware that the Amrit is to be taken in the Places of the third Panth, the True TAKHTS and not in the places of the second community, the Gurdwaras. What could you expect of such Khalsas who soon after the baptism run towards their family homes instead of their Sachae Takhts?

What do you Sikhs think of this?

what makes you make such a a bold statement? This issue is settled in Japji Sahib Ji.

When you take away the separatist dogma, it seems obvious that Sikhism is, if not a conglomeration of Muslim and Hindu beliefs, deeply influenced by both strands. Check the Devi Pargat thread for the Hindu influence. Also, what is the 'amrit' referred to in Adi Granth? Don't tell me it's the sugar-water that householders take on 'initiation'. For there to be an initiation there has to be a tradition, and the khalsa mode of initiation as it departs from charan pahul is clearly derived from Muslim-Sufi initiation rituals resembling an initiation into a Sufi sect. Most of the people who think they've taken initiation into 'khalsa' have not, simply because the lineage and tradition isn't there. A 19th/20th century reform movement doesn't have the lineage, and yet that's what the majority of Sikhs today refer to as 'khalsa'.

It doesn't 'settle it' in my view because an important part of the creed of the Sufi masters - a group to which Guru Nanak is very likely to have belonged - is that they have no native home on earth: 'Woe be to him who considers his home [insert city here] or any other city of this world' - Sohrawardi. If Guru Nanak made that utterance it belongs to the category of spiritual secrets and denotes his separation from worldly attachments, and does not constitute an injunction for his self-appointed followers.

Moorakh.

"Going by these highly selective quotes" I said. The quotes selected and the context in which they were used said much more about the selector than their alleged author.

Anyway, not believing in the infallibility of your guru doesn't make me a 'moorakh' otherwise all non-Sikhs are moorakhs. True moorakhs are ordinary stay-at-home householders who think they are 'khalsa' and use these quotes to justify why they fail to honour their ancestors by performing shraadh and other obligations detailed in their respective ancestral sutras.

Hmmm... could it be the 'holy' absynthe?

Going by these highly selective quotes, the Emperor and the Guru did not understand that there is no such religion as 'Hinduism', and held only a superficial understanding of the beliefs and practices of the Indian people as revealed here. Also, 'khalsa' is not synonymous with 'sikh'. The majority of Sikhs are not 'khalsa' and most likely the original meaning of 'khalsa' is lost. Example: sadhus attend their own funeral service before initiation into the akhada. This is supposed to show they are dead to the world and renounce their former lives.

To cut a very long story short, without this level of intention, there is no possible way anyone can renounce heredity. You may incline to Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity or Islam. But at the end of the day, by dint of genetics you remain jatt, khatri, chamar, or whatever. The way of sadhus is not for ordinary people like 'the Sikhs' or other Hindus.

If you are from India, professing any particular religion does not change your gotra, varn, vansh, etc. These characteristics show where a person is from and their lineage, and are protection against inbreeding. Even today, older people in Iran call Pakistan, Bangladesh, India all 'Hendostan' and the people from these places 'Hendovi' or 'Hendi'.

A very sad occurrence. It is better to assess the situation first. Many petty criminals carry knives and would be prepared to stab a man for less than a handbag. Cops wear stabproof gear while on duty.

LOL I thought Rasta nah deal wi' violehnce

'Abandoned buildings'. The real intention is probably to do some kind of combat training there (probably taking advantage of less restrictive firearms laws or accessibility). The Russian neo-Nazis use sad BB-campaigning gatherings to build their gangs up. Losers always blaming others for their inadequacies.

If it was as simple as killing the Taleban scum, it would be a different issue. However there are significant civilian casualties and refugee displacement because of the presence of foreign troops fighting the Taleban the wrong way. It's feeding resentment and playing directly into the hands of the Taleban.

Why I consider the UK an enemy? On the basis of the colonial history of the British Empire only. I am deeply suspicious of the UK and consider its intentions fundamentally malevolent.

I know Bahadur but no I'm not that person you have in mind.

Yes but don't take it personally because the Army is a rough culture without manners or refinement. A thick skin is needed but you shouldn't try to develop it artificially by being complicit in war crimes against civilians. I am only trying to help you.