SikhKhoj

Why are you comparing the Chariters and porn?
And the Charitars are quite descriptive at times.

1) Nothing wrong in asking questions to sangat:
ਹੋਇ ਇਕਤ੍ਰ ਮਿਲਹੁ ਮੇਰੇ ਭਾਈ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਦੂਰਿ ਕਰਹੁ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥ (Guru Granth Sahib)
2) There is a difference in vaad (arguing) and khoj (research):
ਖੋਜੀ ਉਪਜੈ ਬਾਦੀ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਹਉ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਰਤਾਰਾ ॥ (Guru Granth Sahib)

This author agrees with most of the assertions in my very first post.

 

1) Nothing wrong in asking questions to sangat:
ਹੋਇ ਇਕਤ੍ਰ ਮਿਲਹੁ ਮੇਰੇ ਭਾਈ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਦੂਰਿ ਕਰਹੁ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥ (Guru Granth Sahib)
2) There is a difference in vaad (arguing) and khoj (research):
ਖੋਜੀ ਉਪਜੈ ਬਾਦੀ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਹਉ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਰਤਾਰਾ ॥ (Guru Granth Sahib)

During the times of the Gurus and early period after (till about Baba Deep Singh) contacts were maintained with the Sangats established by Guru Nanak throughout the world. There were Gurdwaras in far away places like the Arab countries, Uzbekistan, Nepal and the east (Assam etc). The arabic bir supposedly prepared by Baba Deep Singh could not have been for Punjabi Sikhs living in Arab lands, that does not make sense. It was most perhaps for the Arab Sikhs living there. Sayed Prithipal Singh talks about an Arabic Japji he saw in Arabia. Our historical sources talk about Gurdwaras sponsored by local Muslim rulers in Arabia.
I think somewhere between the period of severe persecution (Ghallugharas) contacts were slowly lost, so till the 20th century only small communities of Arabic, Iraqi & other non Punjabi Sikhs survived, which by now might have completely vanished. Just because there were over a 100 Arabic Sikh families in 1930 does not mean that the numbers of Arabic Sikhs was always insignificant, Arabic sources discovered by Syed Prithipal talk about significant proportions of Arabs adopting Sikhi during and just after Guru Nanaks visits. If Qazi Rukn Deen could've been persecuted, just imagine what would've happened to other Arabic Sikhs? 

Neo, can you move the last few posts regarding Guru Tegh Bahadur & rebellion to another topic?
Dhanvaad.

1. Post 20th century the Singh Sabha mindset has hurt the 'Sikh' numbers by sidelining and ignoring the Sehajdharis and Nanakpanthis.
For example: There was  a time when nearly all non Muslim Sindhis were Nanakpanthis, but the radicalisation post Singh Sabha made them move away. Ofcourse many of them also venerated Jhule Lal besides Guru Nanak Ji but still.
Years ago I was also shocked at the 2001 census having only 20k Sikhs for Bihar, the birth place of Guru Gobind Singh. But since I have discovered that Bihar once had a quite significant population of Sikhs (Nanakpanthis), which withered due to our own neglect and partly the Udasi sadhus 'reverting' to Hinduism post SGPC to prevent their Dharamshalas from getting under SGPC control.
Even today some indigenous Sikhs of Bihar can be found near Lakhmipur and other areas visited by Guru Tegh Bahadur.
2. I also used to believe that most Sikhs inhabiting foreign countries were of Punjabi descent, but I think a critical reading of the Janamsakhis is needed to ascertain this. The person who gave the elephant to Guru Gobind Singh Ji was a native Assami King, his ancestors having converted at the times of Guru Nanak.  The Raja Shivnabh of Sri Lanka also converted. More than a hundred Nanakpanthi native Arab families existed in 1930, Sikh since Guru Nanaks times (source: Mushtaq Hussain alias Prithpal Singh). Remember Salas Rai Johri the jeweller? His descendants are Nanakpanthis but in dire need of parchaar just like many other tribes and people but our SGPC is doing nothing, in a few generations they will also be back to Hinduism. Bihar used to have above 300 Dharamshalas, all with native Bihari Sikhs, such as Bhai Bhagwan during Guru Har Rais time (ex Buddhist).
While one may not take this statement too seriously but the Dabistan also talks of Sikhs living in most corners of the world. But you could argue that it talked of Punjabi Sikhs, which I doubt but fair enough.
3. So from the above we can assume that lots of non Punjabi Sikhs used to exist. But where did they all go?
a) reverted back over generations due to lack of parchaar, just as we are seeing right now with Johris.
b) many of them were not in Khalsa form and thus were neglected
 
4. We did not forcibly convert others. While forcing is the un Sikh way, I wish more was done to convert non Sikhs during the Misl and Ranjit Singh Kaal, but sadly we are too secular... We are even butt hurt at ex Sikh Christians returning back to Sikhi to avoid political disturbances in Punjab. This explains why we are only 10-20% of the total Punjabi population.
5. Indian census is not reliable, they do not count poor tribal Sikhs as Sikhs, who are atleast 2-3 million in number. Search for Sikligar, Vanjara, Lobana, Johri, etc.
 
 

Christians see (Nepal) disasters as an opportunity to spread gospel of Jesus Christ.
Muslims see weak people and opress & convert them.
We see the poor and do nishkam seva without asking them to convert, and instead of opressing the weak, we defend them as taught by our Gurus.
This might work against us in demographics but in characters all these religions look weak in front of Sikhi.

Christians see (Nepal) disasters as an opportunity to spread gospel of Jesus Christ.
Muslims see weak people and opress & convert them.
We see the poor and do nishkam seva without asking them to convert, and instead of opressing the weak, we defend them as taught by our Gurus.
This might work against us in demographics but in characters all these religions look weak in front of Sikhi.

Christians see (Nepal) disasters as an opportunity to spread gospel of Jesus Christ.
Muslims see weak people and opress & convert them.
We see the poor and do nishkam seva without asking them to convert, and instead of opressing the weak, we defend them as taught by our Gurus.
This might work against us in demographics but in characters all these religions look weak in front of Sikhi.

1. Post 20th century the Singh Sabha mindset has hurt the 'Sikh' numbers by sidelining and ignoring the Sehajdharis and Nanakpanthis.
For example: There was  a time when nearly all non Muslim Sindhis were Nanakpanthis, but the radicalisation post Singh Sabha made them move away. Ofcourse many of them also venerated Jhule Lal besides Guru Nanak Ji but still.
Years ago I was also shocked at the 2001 census having only 20k Sikhs for Bihar, the birth place of Guru Gobind Singh. But since I have discovered that Bihar once had a quite significant population of Sikhs (Nanakpanthis), which withered due to our own neglect and partly the Udasi sadhus 'reverting' to Hinduism post SGPC to prevent their Dharamshalas from getting under SGPC control.
Even today some indigenous Sikhs of Bihar can be found near Lakhmipur and other areas visited by Guru Tegh Bahadur.
2. I also used to believe that most Sikhs inhabiting foreign countries were of Punjabi descent, but I think a critical reading of the Janamsakhis is needed to ascertain this. The person who gave the elephant to Guru Gobind Singh Ji was a native Assami King, his ancestors having converted at the times of Guru Nanak.  The Raja Shivnabh of Sri Lanka also converted. More than a hundred Nanakpanthi native Arab families existed in 1930, Sikh since Guru Nanaks times (source: Mushtaq Hussain alias Prithpal Singh). Remember Salas Rai Johri the jeweller? His descendants are Nanakpanthis but in dire need of parchaar just like many other tribes and people but our SGPC is doing nothing, in a few generations they will also be back to Hinduism. Bihar used to have above 300 Dharamshalas, all with native Bihari Sikhs, such as Bhai Bhagwan during Guru Har Rais time (ex Buddhist).
While one may not take this statement too seriously but the Dabistan also talks of Sikhs living in most corners of the world. But you could argue that it talked of Punjabi Sikhs, which I doubt but fair enough.
3. So from the above we can assume that lots of non Punjabi Sikhs used to exist. But where did they all go?
a) reverted back over generations due to lack of parchaar, just as we are seeing right now with Johris.
b) many of them were not in Khalsa form and thus were neglected
 
4. We did not forcibly convert others. While forcing is the un Sikh way, I wish more was done to convert non Sikhs during the Misl and Ranjit Singh Kaal, but sadly we are too secular... We are even butt hurt at ex Sikh Christians returning back to Sikhi to avoid political disturbances in Punjab. This explains why we are only 10-20% of the total Punjabi population.
5. Indian census is not reliable, they do not count poor tribal Sikhs as Sikhs, who are atleast 2-3 million in number. Search for Sikligar, Vanjara, Lobana, Johri, etc.
 
 

That's a bit rude. Why the low standards?
 
Crystal

​We shouldn't lick others tattay either as you will see apne bande wishing Eid Mubarak but nothing on vaisakhi or 1984 while they die when something happens in Palestine.

​Lets not talk emotionally but with proofs.

The Sri Gur Sobha, a near contemponary source, disagrees with what you say. It clearly mentions Singhs under Guru Gobind Singh seized areas around Anandpur. I have read the same in some other old books too.
There are some people who like to find only spirituality in the Guru Granth Sahib but the various mentions to Begampura and Halemi Raaj should not be taken as mere states of mind, especially given the fact that Guru Arjan Dev were martyred for these revolutionary ideas (halemi raaj).

Sikhistan is not a new term, it is as old as Khalistan and dates back to the 1940s. The most important is that we have a home, doesn't matter if its Khalistan or Sikhistan altough the Panth has accepted Khalistan.

Sikhistan is not a new term, it is as old as Khalistan and dates back to the 1940s. The most important is that we have a home, doesn't matter if its Khalistan or Sikhistan altough the Panth has accepted Khalistan.

Hinduism is not one religion. It is a vast ocean, some people do hold the Manusmriti in high regard. How else would you explain the century long opression of Dalits by Hindus?
The lines you have quoted try to explain bigoted Hindus like yourself that the real Brahmin (i.e. learned one) is the one who loves God and the real Shudar (i.e. outcaste, lowly person) is the one who is greedy and far from God.

ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਜੋ ਬਿੰਦੇ ਹਰਿ ਸੇਤੀ ਰੰਗਿ ਰਾਤਾ ॥
सो ब्राहमणु ब्रहमु जो बिंदे हरि सेती रंगि राता ॥
He alone is a Brahmin, who knows the Lord Brahma, and is attuned to the Love of the Lord.
Guru Amar Das, 68, Guru Granth Sahib

ਬਬਾ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਜਾਨਤ ਤੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ॥
बबा ब्रहमु जानत ते ब्रहमा ॥
BABBA: One who knows God is a Brahmin.
Guru Arjan Dev, 258, Guru Granth Sahib
The discussion is closed by the following Shabad, moorakh Hindus like you who deny the truth can continue crying:

ਗਰਭ ਵਾਸ ਮਹਿ ਕੁਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਤੀ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਿੰਦੁ ਤੇ ਸਭ ਉਤਪਾਤੀ ॥੧॥
ਕਹੁ ਰੇ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਬਾਮਨ ਕਬ ਕੇ ਹੋਏ ॥ ਬਾਮਨ ਕਹਿ ਕਹਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਮਤ ਖੋਏ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਜੌ ਤੂੰ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣੀ ਜਾਇਆ ॥ ਤਉ ਆਨ ਬਾਟ ਕਾਹੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਇਆ ॥੨॥
ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ ਹਮ ਕਤ ਸੂਦ ॥ ਹਮ ਕਤ ਲੋਹੂ ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਦੂਧ ॥੩॥
ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ॥ ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਕਹੀਅਤੁ ਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੈ ॥੪॥੭॥

In the dwelling of the womb, there is no ancestry or social status. All have originated from the Seed of God. ||1||
Tell me, O Pandit: since when have you been a Brahmin? Don't waste your life by continually claiming to be a Brahmin. ||1||Pause||
If you are indeed a Brahmin, born of a Brahmin mother, then why didn't you come by some other way? ||2||
How is it that you are a Brahmin, and I am of a low social status? How is it that I am formed of blood, and you are made of milk? ||3||
Says Kabeer, one who contemplates God, is said to be a Brahmin among us. ||4||7||
Bhagat Kabeer, 324, Guru Granth Sahib
 

^ And no, giving to Nepal or Haiti is not bad. Its good. But we need to get our priorities straight.

Sher 
Bakwas band kar.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Casteism has no place in Sikh Scriptures & our Gurus lives, unlike your Manusmritee and other books.

Yes, sect it is.
As I said, there are 2 broad distinctions within the Panth. Amrit and sahejdhari. You can belong to some of the sampardas while being sahejdhari and some require amritdhari. I am not saying that certain sampardas = sahejdharis. Just that Sevapanthis were, for the most part of their early history, NOT amritdharis. 
About Mughals, they were not too educated about Sikhs to begin with. Don't Mughal account refers to Guru Arjan Dev as a Hindu? Besides that how does your account deny the existence of sahajdhari sikhs who didn't have kes? Mughals shaved people to differentiate hindus and khalsa, fine. But who says sahajdharis did keep kesh? Sahajdharis had much less problems than amritdharis during those times. Explains how udasis etc were able to take care of Gurdwaras when Amritdharis were busy fighting and living in jungles. 
You still have not explained how early sources mention it is not right to have kes and not be amritdhari? So a sahejdhari with kes would basically not be parvaan, but they were historically.
Bhagat Ratnavli, a spurious source to some, allow sehajdharis to cut kes but at the same time encourages them to maintain outer rehat as much as possible & most importantly making their children take pahul. 
 

​We shouldn't lick others tattay either as you will see apne bande wishing Eid Mubarak but nothing on vaisakhi or 1984 while they die when something happens in Palestine.

Guru Sahib pointed feet at their Kaaba, threw water in the opposite direction, mocked Jain sadhus in Bani and what not...
and yet all I see is Sikhs trying to be politically correct or suck upto some community (koi gorea da tatta bani firda te koi sullay bahmna da).

I think if you spend your whole life worrying about other people's feeling when you dont know how or why they are the way they are then you are just exposing yourself. In the world today your kind of Sikh self-policing is a hindrance not a help. To really believe your actions are the root of further hate and violence by refusing to accept others bigotry and stupidity just screams appeasement.

Paapi, brother if you read history. Muhammad did loot & distribute war booty including women amongst his followers. Don't even go far, look up on google: 'Rayhana Bint Zayed'.
She was a Jewish woman, her entire tribe including her father and husband were murdered by Muslims. Think one second from a logical perspective, would she willingly marry the man who ordered all of that? No. She was a war captive, then forced to marry.

Muhammad fell in love with his adopted son Zayeds wife, so he uttered a Quranic verse where it allows men to marry their adopted sons & then married her. Her name was Zaynab. As you can see Muhammad seems to be a prophet who had revelations to give a god-accepted authority of his actions and urges...
Read the Quran 33:37 about the above verse. It is clear, it allows to marry adopted sons wives just because Muhammad did.
 
 
 

1. Exactly my point, not many accounts exist in the first place so how can you judge whether Kesh keeping happened or not? Besides that Kesh keeping amongst hindus was not unnatural, this is mentioned in an Arab manuscript from the 11th century. I am not saying all Hindus kept kesh but many did.

Just like Hindus also often wore turbans last century but almost don't now. Does it mean that historically Hindus did not wear turbans?

2. What kind of Muslim bows down to a 'human' (as Muslims would put it - refering to Jagat Guru Nanak)? And enough Sikh literature mentions Mardana as a Guru da Sikh.

3. Your ancestors were (most probably, like mine) Hindus, why aren't you? That is a flawed logic you are applying - can't judge ancestors by the present generation or vice versa.