Masand Story Is Been Used As Precedence For Panthic Policiing

[paapiman]

You're a typical whitey. Point fingers everywhere and ignore what's going on in your own back garden..

Bro, that was kind of rude. I guess, you should apologize to the sister. Rest is your choice.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

[paapiman]

I tried looking at it like that. But it seems too disconnected from what I know of Guru Gobind Singh ji. (Keep in mind, my understanding of Guru Sahib already lacks a sugar coating )

Why would he order the torture (I have to disagree with you there, this is not painless death), why would he order the torture of all masands for the acts of a few?

(if we are sure that they are acts and not rumours. There are plenty of rumours recorded in our history as well, and taken as fact today)

Guru Gobind Singh ji definitely killed people, but he always had certain code of conduct. He didn't go all out Tyrannical on people like Aurangzeb.

Bro, Satguru jee did not order the execution of all masands. There were three examples (might be more) in history.

1. There was a masand, who used a gift (cloth) by a Sikh, for his own purpose. The only punishment he received, was that he was tied upside down from a tree.

2. Another masand, turned out to be a Gurmukh. I can't recall his name. Maharaaj refereed to him as Sachi Dhaari (true beard or something like that).

3. Another sakhi, which is mentioned by Bhai Saab Bhai Vir Singh jee, is that of a person named Dulcha. This happened when the tenth master was very young. He had stolen gold bangles, sent by a Sikh for Satguru jee. He was also forgiven by the lord.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 24, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

Who gets to decide if someone is a rapist or pedofile? Is it purely taken on the victim's word? What if there is no definite evidence, only circumstancial? Capital punishment has resulted in many many deaths of innocent people who were convicted of purely circumstancial evidence throughout history. Who truly should get to decide someone's fate like that? Are we really qualified as humans? What if you killed a person only to then find out they were wrongly accused? Then you have effectively murdered someone... should you then also suffer the same fate?

Nowadays, I am pretty sure science can prove whether a person has been raped or abused. They can even find out (not always) who the perpetrator was.

Feeding a rapist in a jail and giving him life comforts might be considered civilized by some people, but for me, it is foolishness. We need to follow the footsteps of our great warriors. Women molesters and rapists have always been dealt with a strict hand in Sikhism.

Examples:

1. Masands - executed by Satguru's order - already detailed in this topic

2.

*

When in 1768, on the complaint of a Brahman whose married daughter has been forcibly seized by Hasan Khan, the Nawab of Jalalabad Lohari, the Sikh forces marched on Jalalabad under the command of Karam Singh Shahid who emerged successful in the fighting. The Nawab was tied to a cot and burnt alive. Nawab's agent, a Hindu Kalal, who informed him of the beautiful girls, was publically executed. The Brahman's daughter was restored to her husband and the Sardar saw that the food cooked by the girl was served to all the Brahmans of her husband's village. The Sikhs gave a sufficient amount of money to the girl's husband to assure good treatment for her.

* [1]

[1] - http://www.sikh-hist...ram_shahid.html

3. Example of Jabar Khan (executed by Satguru's order), mentioned above by Sikhkhoj.

There are many more....

Look at Sharia Law.... MANY MANY innocent girls and women are wrongly killed for supposed crimes they never committed merely on suspicion or accusations from a male family member. Once they are dead, its too late to say sorry for wrongful accusation...

You are referring to infidelity. Rape and infidelity are vastly different. Obviously, infidelity does not deserve capital punishment.

Do we want to be seen in this light? This is why capital punishment has been abolished in majority of civilized countries... I say civilized because I don't really consider USA to be civilized anymore (if they ever were, I think it was an illusion) just look at daily news from there!

We should not care too much about what people think about us. We need to follow Gurmat; not make all people happy and change our religion.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 24, 2015 by paapiman

[BhagatSingh]

The main reasons Satguru jee gave such extreme punishments were:

- burning saroop of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee

That's all it says in the writings.

You think someone should be boiled alive if they burn a saroop of Guru Granth Sahib ji? Don't we burn Guru Granth Sahib's saroops when it gets too old anyway?

Sri Guru Panth Prakash (which contains the above lines) was written by Gyani Rattan Singh jee Bhangoo, who was the grandson of great Shaheed, Bhai Saab Bhai Mehtaab Singh jee. I don' t think he will lie. He must have heard the episode of masands.from someone.

I think everyone is capable of lying and of having bad information (bad sources). So all accounts should be checked with other independent sources to verify their validity.

But you misunderstood what I said.

What I meant was that maybe, just maybe, the guys who tortured the masands, did so for personal reasons and then claimed that they had been ordered by Satguru to do so. And they spread this story well after the guru had passed away (in 1708), and when Ratan Singh Bhangu came to write about it in (1800s), one hundred years later, he wrote the story that he was told about.

What do Guru Sahib's contemporaries have to say about this incident?

[BhagatSingh]

Look at Sharia Law.... MANY MANY innocent girls and women are wrongly killed for supposed crimes they never committed merely on suspicion or accusations from a male family member. Once they are dead, its too late to say sorry for wrongful accusation...

On a side note - You have to be careful of Feminist language. It is primarily a tool to demonize men.

They will always pose it as 'women are innocent' and 'men are evil'.

Notice how the feminist says "accusations from a male family member", as if men are the only ones making accusations of infidelity, and as if their accusations are taken more seriously than female accusations. Hint: It's all BS. But the feminist will always say it as if it's the case. Without any empirical evidence to back up their statement, they will demonize men to no end.

"MANY MANY innocent girls and women" notice how the feminist emphasizes the innocence of girls and women, and will always completely fail to mention the innocence of boys and men in the same or similar cases.

To the feminist, girls and women are almost always innocent, and boys and men are almost always guilty, making accusations to get them killed. They will ignore that boys and men have always received longer and harsher punishments for same/similar crimes. Even to this day, boys and men serve longer prison-terms for the same crimes, than women. They ignore this reality, and will dismiss it, if brought up.

"Look at Sharia Law...." Then the feminist will demonstrate their superior ignorance and claim to know sharia law.

They have never read one Chapter of Sharia Law and they will claim it is based on "merely on suspicion or accusations", relying solely upon their own ignorance. Sharia Law requires at least witnesses to be present during the crime but the feminist's concern is not with Sharia Law, it's primarily concerned with hating on men.

I am simply pointing out the language pattern of feminists in general. No offence to the person who made this remark, they've been fed Feminist propaganda since birth, so who am I to judge them?

Rape and infidelity are vastly different.

They are not as different as you think. They both involve abuse on all levels, sexual, physical, emotional, etc. Think carefully about that and you'll find they are both pretty heinous crimes.

Edited April 24, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[Singh123456777]

Feminists are cray cray lol

[CdnSikhGirl]

On a side note - You have to be careful of Feminist language. It is primarily a tool to demonize men.

They will always pose it as 'women are innocent' and 'men are evil'.

Notice how the feminist says "accusations from a male family member", as if men are the only ones making accusations of infidelity, and as if their accusations are taken more seriously than female accusations. Hint: It's all BS. But the feminist will always say it as if it's the case. Without any empirical evidence to back up their statement, they will demonize men to no end.

"MANY MANY innocent girls and women" notice how the feminist emphasizes the innocence of girls and women, and will always completely fail to mention the innocence of boys and men in the same or similar cases.

To the feminist, girls and women are almost always innocent, and boys and men are almost always guilty, making accusations to get them killed. They will ignore that boys and men have always received longer and harsher punishments for same/similar crimes. Even to this day, boys and men serve longer prison-terms for the same crimes, than women. They ignore this reality, and will dismiss it, if brought up.

"Look at Sharia Law...." Then the feminist will demonstrate their superior ignorance and claim to know sharia law.

They have never read one Chapter of Sharia Law and they will claim it is based on "merely on suspicion or accusations", relying solely upon their own ignorance. Sharia Law requires at least witnesses to be present during the crime but the feminist's concern is not with Sharia Law, it's primarily concerned with hating on men.

I am simply pointing out the language pattern of feminists in general. No offence to the person who made this remark, they've been fed Feminist propaganda since birth, so who am I to judge them?

They are not as different as you think. They both involve abuse on all levels, sexual, physical, emotional, etc. Think carefully about that and you'll find they are both pretty heinous crimes.

Except that... under Sharia, women require 4 witnesses to prove their innocence. If it comes down to the woman vs the man, the man will win because his one statement is worth that of 4 women. Also, it's a well known fact that although the punishments may be harsher, the men are rarely ever punished, vs the high amount of women who are. (There was a recent case where a woman was raped, and she was the one punished... with 900 lashes... also put in prison for illicit sex, while he was not punished at all, even though if they are saying she slept with him willingly, then he too was guilty was he not??) And I think death is pretty harsh ...especially by stoning etc. (don't you think??) And mostly it's carried out by vigilante justice (honor killing etc). Sharia is also harsh on the men... public lashings for being late to Friday prayer at the Mosque is one example.

My statement earlier was not specifically about women - just that was a well known example... my statement was for both men and women who might be wrongly accused. We have to be careful to be 100% absolutely sure they are guilty before dishing out capital punishment. Otherwise, we are doing worse crime by killing an innocent. What if that rapist you condem to death by burning was framed by the woman for example? This is why we have to be careful. For BOTH women and men... for humanity. Capital punishment can not happen without 100% certainly of guilt. Even a signed confession is not enough as there have been many many confessions signed under duress and torture.

[BhagatSingh]

Satkirin
Except you haven't studied Sharia.

I know very little about Sharia but what I do is that is for Adultery, 4 witnesses must be present in order to testify it. Only then punishment is given. Are you sure you are not confusing that with whatever the feminists told you?

You have demonstrated in other threads that you do not understand the traditionalist model of human societies. Sharia is based on a traditionalist model, I am damn sure you don't have a clue about it either. Instead you are just parroting what you've heard.

Also, it's a well known fact

Where's the evidence? A lot of your so-called well-known facts have their sources in feminist ignorance. Empirical claims require empirical evidence. Please show some empirical evidence or else detach yourself from this false knowledge.

And mostly it's carried out by vigilante justice (honor killing etc).

Do not confuse vigilante justice with Sharia. These are two separate things. Suspicion is not grounds for punishment in Sharia.

We have to be careful to be 100% absolutely sure they are guilty before dishing out capital punishment.

Would you say the same for the western penal system and jailing?

For BOTH women and men... for humanity.

I like that.

[BhagatSingh]

Feminists are cray cray lol

... also dangerous.

[Singh123456777]

... also dangerous.

lol

[CdnSikhGirl]

Satkirin

Except you haven't studied Sharia.

Actually I have... as I have studied Theology

I know very little about Sharia but what I do is that is for Adultery, 4 witnesses must be present in order to testify it. Only then punishment is given. Are you sure you are not confusing that with whatever the feminists told you?

Nope. Four witnesses is only on the female's part. They are far more likely without the girl having 4 witnesses (come on who rapes someone with 4 witnesses around anyway???) They are far more likely to deem it as consensual illicit sex. And in cases of illicit sex, the male usually *but not always* seems to get off without being punished, or receive a lesser punishment.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/sharia-in-action-norwegian-woman-raped-by-islamist-gets-16-months-in-jail-for-illicit-sex-outside-of-marriage-rapist-gets-13-months/

You have demonstrated in other threads that you do not understand the traditionalist model of human societies. Sharia is based on a traditionalist model, I am damn sure you don't have a clue about it either. Instead you are just parroting what you've heard.

Again, nope! As I have studied this in college!

Where's the evidence? A lot of your so-called well-known facts have their sources in feminist ignorance. Empirical claims require empirical evidence. Please show some empirical evidence or else detach yourself from this false knowledge.

Why do you keep spouting the word feminist anyway? TRUE feminism only wishes to see that women AND MEN are treated EQUALLY and receive EQUAL opportunity. TRUE feminism doesn't wish to see female superiority etc. On the opposite side of the scope, 'masculinism' or patriarchalism, wishes to establish a heirarchy where males are at the top and females are subordinate. Femisinsts are not trying to establish matriarchy and put men in a subordinate position... or even label men as bad! Why is patriarchalism in your mind okay, but feminism not? Is it because you yourself are male?? Do you believe you are superior to females?

Do not confuse vigilante justice with Sharia. These are two separate things. Suspicion is not grounds for punishment in Sharia.

Realy??

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/sharia-in-action-in-yemen-islamic-jihadists-murder-man-on-suspicion-that-he-was-homosexual

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2972970/posts

Would you say the same for the western penal system and jailing?

Nope! Because at least in western system, if someone is wrongly convicted, and the evidence to free them is found later, they still have a life left. If you've killed them, then what? Say 'OOPPS' and move on??? That person's life was taken away for no reason and that can never be justified.

I like that.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[CdnSikhGirl]

... also dangerous.

Only for men who fear losing their superior position over women... TRUE feminism wants to see EQUAL status for both women AND MEN. No heirarchy, unlike patriarchalism which establishes a heirarchy with men at top and women subordinate. Feminists are not trying to establish some domination over men! LOL. They are only wanting that every human be treated equally and receive equal opportunity!

Let me explain it in easy to understand terms..... women do not wish to have someone telling them what they can and cant do based on their gender, any more than men would!!! Why can't men understand this?? Anyway this is off topic... and I dont know why you even brought it up!

We were talking about capital punishment and torture for crimes... and my point was that without 100% certainty, you will end up with innocent people being killed. I only used Sharia as an example because it happens a lot there.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[truthseeker546]

As a Non Sikh, I'm intrigued as to why exactly did the 10th guru have the masnads killed. In the original quote it only refers to disrespecting Sikhism and having their own place of worship. said nothing of rape or murder. can someone enlighten me on this please.

Also as an added note to Satkirin_Kaur, you know I find it interesting that when Sikhs are trying to defend aspects of their faith they quote SGGS and gurus, any controversies they simply say this is not Sikhi - I just saw a very disturbing video of an elderly man being beating by a group of men for praying in the wrong place or something. reading the comments, every Sikh was saying this is not Sikhism.

Yet when it comes to other religions (I've noticed especially when it comes to Islam) the same rule doesn't apply. Rather then asking an imam or scholar of the Islamic faith, Sikhs cite actions by certain fanatics or go to Islamaphobic websites (such as the one you have posted above ) as proof. Seem's a little hypocritical, don't you think.

I'm studying comparative theology (due to start my Phd soon ) and I've looked into the controversial aspects of Islam. First of all in the Sunni and Shi'a traditions, 4 witnesses are required for BOTH men and women. for accusations of rape, adultery and fornication.

In case of rape where the woman of course can't provided 4 witnesses then her sexual organs are examined by doctors to see if intercourse was forced or not. This is taken into account. As DNA is a relative modern discovery, this was not mentioned of course classical shariah however modern Sharia councils in Sunni countries take this into account.

Just as a comment;

As a non Sikh I've read a lot of books on Sikhism, but when I have a question on Sikhism, I either ask my Sikh colleagues on their opinions, consult books on Sikhism by Sikh scholars to ask on Sikh forums such as this. I suggest when finding out about other faiths, you all would do the same as ask those of that faith before making assumptions.

Also to note - It's very interesting to also see whenever I see something negative regarding Sikhs/Sikhism, Sikhs are very quick to point fingers at Muslims or Christians and say well they have the same in their religion. That's a really pathetic way of defending or questions actions in ones faith. If Sikhs want to be understood as a unique faith different from Islam and Hinduism, then they need to take responsibility for the actions of Sikhs according to the teaching and principals of their own faith.

[paapiman]

As a Non Sikh, I'm intrigued as to why exactly did the 10th guru have the masnads killed. In the original quote it only refers to disrespecting Sikhism and having their own place of worship. said nothing of rape or murder. can someone enlighten me on this please.

They committed rape too.

Also as an added note to Satkirin_Kaur, you know I find it interesting that when Sikhs are trying to defend aspects of their faith they quote SGGS and gurus, any controversies they simply say this is not Sikhi - I just saw a very disturbing video of an elderly man being beating by a group of men for praying in the wrong place or something. reading the comments, every Sikh was saying this is not Sikhism.

The people who committed this act of violence, are not Sikhs as they don't understand the basics of Sikhism. Violence can only be used in Sikhism, when all other means have failed.

Also to note - It's very interesting to also see whenever I see something negative regarding Sikhs/Sikhism, Sikhs are very quick to point fingers at Muslims or Christians and say well they have the same in their religion. That's a really pathetic way of defending or questions actions in ones faith. If Sikhs want to be understood as a unique faith different from Islam and Hinduism, then they need to take responsibility for the actions of Sikhs according to the teaching and principals of their own faith.

Idiots and fools are born in almost all communities/religions. We do not need a phd to understand this fact.

Peace

Edited April 25, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

That's all it says in the writings.

You think someone should be boiled alive if they burn a saroop of Guru Granth Sahib ji? Don't we burn Guru Granth Sahib's saroops when it gets too old anyway?

Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is the living form of Satguru Sri Guru Nanak dev jee Maharaaj. He is considered by many, to be like a parent. How will you react, if someone tries to burn alive your father or mother?

Satguru jee's old saroops are cremated as a dead body of a person is cremated. You cannot compare, burning a person alive to cremating him, once he/she is dead.

That was a very very disappointing statement, especially if you are a Sikh.

The masands deserved all the types of punishments, they received as mentioned in Sri Guru Panth Prakash. There was nothing wrong in burning them alive/bricking them alive for the heinous crimes, they had committed.

Edited April 26, 2015 by paapiman

[BhagatSingh]

feminism wants to see EQUAL status for both women AND MEN.

Feminism is the idea that men were and are oppressing women. This is a false belief and the institutions built on this ideology are dangerous for both men and women.

If you are for equality you are egalitarian. If you are for rights for everyone you are a humanist.

Actually I have... as I have studied Theology

Nope. Four witnesses is only on the female's part.

Again, nope! As I have studied this in college!

You should pay more attention in class lol.

The penalty for zina

Sharia law states that if either an unmarried man or an unmarried woman has pre-marital sex, the punishment should be 100 lashes.^[14][15]If a married man or a married woman commit adultery, the punishment should be 100 lashes and then stoning to death.^[16] There are some requirements that need to be met before this punishment can happen. For example, the punishment cannot happen unless the person confesses, or unless four male eyewitnesses each saw, at the same time, the man and the women in the action of illicit sex. Those who accuse someone of illicit sex but fail to produce four eyewitnesses are guilty of false accusation and their punishment is 80 lashes.^[17] Maliki school of sharia considers pregnancy in an unmarried woman as sufficient evidence that she committed the hudud crime of zina.^[18][19]

(come on who rapes someone with 4 witnesses around anyway???)

How else were they supposed to verify the claims of rape??? You go on harping about wrongfully punishing the innocent, then you have a problem with their verification? Lol

Nope! Because at least in western system, if someone is wrongly convicted, and the evidence to free them is found later, they still have a life left.

Yea jail for life time then when they are 90 say "Oops, sorry you were never guilty."

Or jail them for non-crimes such as smoking weed.

I only used Sharia as an example because it happens a lot there.

More empirical claims without empirical evidence. You gona have to do better than that.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/sharia-in-action-norwegian-woman-raped-by-islamist-gets-16-months-in-jail-for-illicit-sex-outside-of-marriage-rapist-gets-13-months/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/sharia-in-action-in-yemen-islamic-jihadists-murder-man-on-suspicion-that-he-was-homosexual

1. This is not empirical evidence of a trend. Do you understand the difference between a trend and an isolated incident?

2. Anti-Islamic websites are not evidence against Islam or Sharia. As much as Anti-Sikh websites are evidence against Sikhism. These are clearly biased sources.

3. Using biased sources just shows your lack of an unbiased perspective.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/sharia-in-action-in-yemen-islamic-jihadists-murder-man-on-suspicion-that-he-was-homosexual

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2972970/posts

4. Again, confusing vigilante justice with sharia.

Edited April 26, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[BhagatSingh]

They committed rape too.

Where does it mention rape?

ਮਸੰਦਨ ਪਰ ਜਬ ਪਰ ਗਈ ਬਾਈ । ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਤਿਨ ਦਯੋ ਫੁਕਾਈ ।

ਤਿਹ ਪਰ ਦੀਨੋ ਡੇਹਰੋ ਚਿਨਵਾਇ । ਹੁਤੋ ਪਿੰਡ ਤਿਸ ਤਾਂ ਪਰਨਾਇ ।੧੪।

ਦੋਹਰਾ : ਗੁਰ ਸੰਗਤ ਉਨ ਤੋੜ ਬਹੁ ਤਿਹ ਥਾਂ ਲਈ ਪਰਸਾਇ ।

ਐਸੀ ਐਸੀ ਬਾਤ ਸੁਨ ਦਏ ਮਸੰਦ ਮਰਵਾਇ ।੧੫।

ਚੌਪਈ : ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਹੁਕਮ ਖਾਲਸੈ ਭਯੋ । ਮਸੰਦ ਭੇਟ ਚੰਡੀ ਕਰ ਦਯੋ ।

ਕਈ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਕਈ ਨੀਹ ਚਣਾਇ । ਕਈ ਘਸੀਟ ਮਾਰੇ ਕਈ ਤੇਲ ਤਲਾਇ ।੧੬।

[CdnSikhGirl]

It may state that the punishment should be the same, however in practice the men are rarely punished or punished as harshly.

Also "nless four male eyewitnesses each saw," BAsically a man could rape a woman with 4 other women there seeing it and their testimony would not be taken into consideration.

Okay maybe your right maybe we should just light everyone on fire who we think has committed some crime against Sikhi.... Should we also establish a religious police like Islam? DO we arm them with flame throwers??

Feminism is the idea that men were and are oppressing women. This is a false belief and the institutions built on this ideology are dangerous for both men and women.

If you are for equality you are egalitarian. If you are for rights for everyone you are a humanist.

You should pay more attention in class lol.

The penalty for zina

Sharia law states that if either an unmarried man or an unmarried woman has pre-marital sex, the punishment should be 100 lashes.^[14][15]If a married man or a married woman commit adultery, the punishment should be 100 lashes and then stoning to death.^[16] There are some requirements that need to be met before this punishment can happen. For example, the punishment cannot happen unless the person confesses, or unless four male eyewitnesses each saw, at the same time, the man and the women in the action of illicit sex. Those who accuse someone of illicit sex but fail to produce four eyewitnesses are guilty of false accusation and their punishment is 80 lashes.^[17] Maliki school of sharia considers pregnancy in an unmarried woman as sufficient evidence that she committed the hudud crime of zina.^[18][19]

Edited April 26, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[truthseeker546]

That was my question as well BhagatSingh, where indeed does it mention rape, as it's not mentioned in that quote.

Any other references to rape. quote would be nice

@ Satkirin Kaur - I don't want to get into a debate about shariah law, A - it's not my field of expertise and B this is not the proper forum, or topic for it. I suggest you join an Islamic forum to get an better idea about Islam or other religious forums to learn about particular religions.

As paapiman so elequantly put it:" Idiots and fools are born in almost all communities/religions. We do not need a phd to understand this fact." true dat fam.

Edited April 26, 2015 by truthseeker546

[CdnSikhGirl]

That was my question as well BhagatSingh, where indeed does it mention rape, as it's not mentioned in that quote.

Any other references to rape. quote would be nice

@ Satkirin Kaur - I don't want to get into a debate about shariah law, A - it's not my field of expertise and B this is not the proper forum, or topic for it. I suggest you join an Islamic forum to get an better idea about Islam or other religious forums to learn about particular religions.

As paapiman so elequantly put it:" Idiots and fools are born in almost all communities/religions. We do not need a phd to understand this fact." true dat fam.

My point was in reference to the OP... extremism in any religion is bad.

[paapiman]

Where does it mention rape?

ਮਸੰਦਨ ਪਰ ਜਬ ਪਰ ਗਈ ਬਾਈ । ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਤਿਨ ਦਯੋ ਫੁਕਾਈ ।

ਤਿਹ ਪਰ ਦੀਨੋ ਡੇਹਰੋ ਚਿਨਵਾਇ । ਹੁਤੋ ਪਿੰਡ ਤਿਸ ਤਾਂ ਪਰਨਾਇ ।੧੪।

ਦੋਹਰਾ : ਗੁਰ ਸੰਗਤ ਉਨ ਤੋੜ ਬਹੁ ਤਿਹ ਥਾਂ ਲਈ ਪਰਸਾਇ ।

ਐਸੀ ਐਸੀ ਬਾਤ ਸੁਨ ਦਏ ਮਸੰਦ ਮਰਵਾਇ ।੧੫।

ਚੌਪਈ : ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਹੁਕਮ ਖਾਲਸੈ ਭਯੋ । ਮਸੰਦ ਭੇਟ ਚੰਡੀ ਕਰ ਦਯੋ ।

ਕਈ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਕਈ ਨੀਹ ਚਣਾਇ । ਕਈ ਘਸੀਟ ਮਾਰੇ ਕਈ ਤੇਲ ਤਲਾਇ ।੧੬।

I heard about the rape part of it, from a famous Gurmukh. Even if they had ONLY burnt a copy of Satguru jee, that would have been enough to justify the punishments, they received.

How would you people feel, if your father, mother or a loved one is burnt alive? What punishments would you people recommend?

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 26, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

That was my question as well BhagatSingh, where indeed does it mention rape, as it's not mentioned in that quote.

Any other references to rape. quote would be nice

Please see my previous post.

Peace

[paapiman]

It may state that the punishment should be the same, however in practice the men are rarely punished or punished as harshly.

In Sikh history, most of the harsh punishments have been received by men (this is from what I have heard). I have not heard about any sakhi, where a prostitute was burnt alive or stoned to death, even though prostitution was prevalent during the times of gurus.

Okay maybe your right maybe we should just light everyone on fire who we think has committed some crime against Sikhi.... Should we also establish a religious police like Islam? DO we arm them with flame throwers??

In this topic, we are not talking about crimes such as prostitution, adultery, theft, libel, assault, etc. We are talking about two major crimes:

- Burning a copy of Satguru jee which is equal to burning the physical body of Satguru Sri Guru Nanak dev jee Maharaaj

- raping of women

In addition to the above two, pedophilia and aggravated assault (which leads to a major injury and done out of no proper cause) can be considered for death penalty, after it has been proven, without doubt, who the perpetrator was.

Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa

Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Edited April 26, 2015 by paapiman

[chatanga1]

There is new disturbing trend among many sikh youths, they are using previous examples of Guru sahib undisputed event of Guru sahib burning masand alive as some sort of precedence after they gone astray to radicalize new set of youths here.

Neo Bro, there have always been physical punishments in the history of the panth, from the killing of Chandu, to killings of Wazir Khan etc. Even during Guru Khalsa century people like Lakhpat were given horrible death because of their crimes.

But since 1960/70 there has been a change in punishment from the Panth, (although this may be more to do with the fact that now Sri Akal Takht under SGPC gives tankhah, whereas before it was Dal Panth that gave Tankhah). Punishment has gone from physical to more community-service type punishment where person is given sewa at gurdwara and small symbolic fine.

The precednt has been set by Sri Akal Takht Sahib and for the time being this is what we should use. Any punishments of this type have to come from high authority.

The Sikhs had been compa,ing about the masands for some time before Guru Ji took action, but even then it was the Guru who gave the order, the Sikhs did not burn masands by themselves. So these people who use masands as comparison have to understand that such orders can only come from higher authority, Sri Akal Takht Sahib, and not from themselves.

[chatanga1]

As a Non Sikh, I'm intrigued as to why exactly did the 10th guru have the masnads killed. In the original quote it only refers to disrespecting Sikhism and having their own place of worship. said nothing of rape or murder. can someone enlighten me on this please.

when i read this sakhi i thought of it more of the masands appropriating the sangats money earned through blood sweat and tears. Guru Ji set this example as a warning for people in the future of committing such deeds.

Also concerning sangats money, Bhai Mani Singh undertook a gruesome death rather pay one anna of the sangats money to the moghal agents occupying Lahore.

Also to note - It's very interesting to also see whenever I see something negative regarding Sikhs/Sikhism, Sikhs are very quick to point fingers at Muslims or Christians and say well they have the same in their religion. That's a really pathetic way of defending or questions actions in ones faith. If Sikhs want to be understood as a unique faith different from Islam and Hinduism, then they need to take responsibility for the actions of Sikhs according to the teaching and principals of their own faith.

Thats more to do with humans being humans more than anything, trying to deflect questions to avoid giving answers. You know like when you ask a kid why did you do that and they say well so and so did it as well.