Do you believe the 5Ks are stunting the growth of Sikhism?

[Kuttabanda2]

How come Gur Sobha was written in '1701' but mentions events from1708 too?

'1701' is out of question.

And I didnt say Gur Sobha mentions Devi, I just said "by some of these accounts", meaning some of these so called puratan books. Das Gur Katha is fake too just like Sri Gur Katha. [don't want to discuss on this point]

Exactly my point about Arab and Iraqi Sikhs, they did not have connection with Sikhi after Guru Nanak (or limited) but yet maintain Kesh and recited Japji. They used to say Guru Nanak asked them to keep their hair.

There were dozens of such nanakpanthi families last century, but yes they follow their faith in secrecy in Islamic countries.

Sri Gursobha was finished in 1711, the writer had previously chosen to conclude it in 1701, but later on added more chapters to it as many more important events had taken place. That's what I've read in regards to the dating issue.

I would agree, Das Gur Katha is indeed fake.

These Arab and Iraqi Sikhs have been isolated for a long while. Has anyone Made attempts to contact them and connect them to the rest of the Sikh Panth?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Kuttabanda2

[amardeep]

Whats the evidence that these Arab and Iraqi Sikhs even existed after 18th century or later?

[kdsingh80]

The Sikhnet post mentions Sri Gur Sobha. It was most probably not written in 1701 but 1741 as claimed by some scholars. Thus the claims made in those post may not be valid given the gap of 42 years.

The book by Purnima dhavan also quotes Sainapati which is the same source as above.

And if we were to go by some of these accounts then Guru Gobind Singh also meditated on Devi before creating Khalsa or sought her blessings? Just saying that these accounts are not the final word.

Why would Guru and his close Sikhs keep kesh but not more? Why did Arab Sikhs have kesh till the 20th century when they even did not take khandi di pahul? They said they are followers of Nanak and keep kesh as he ordered them to.

Hairs always had important significance in Asia culturally and religion wise. If large number of Sikhs pre 1699 had shunned the earlier rituals with their hair then there must had been conflicts and they should had been recorded by historians.In sikhs history with persian source mentioned mughal court recording between khalsa and sikhs regarding Khalsa rituals . No such conflicts were ever found pre 1699

As far Arab sikhs are concerned we need more research of them and they need to come out openly , so far there is no mention of Arab sikhs on any site on internet

Edited May 24, 2015 by kdsingh80

[SikhKhoj]

Hairs always had important significance in Asia culturally and religion wise. If large number of Sikhs pre 1699 had shunned the earlier rituals with their hair then there must had been conflicts and they should had been recorded by historians.In sikhs history with persian source mentioned mughal court recording between khalsa and sikhs regarding Khalsa rituals . No such conflicts were ever found pre 1699

As far Arab sikhs are concerned we need more research of them and they need to come out openly , so far there is no mention of Arab sikhs on any site on internet

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I previously asked you, are there really that many accounts pre 1699 by non Sikhs? Janamsakhis clearly mention that Guru ordered Mardana to keep Kesh. Guru himself kept kesh.

2. Again, just because you have not found it on internet doesn't mean its not there. Several Sikh historians have confirmed this. Pritiphal Singh, an ex Muslim, met these Arab Sikhs personally last century - 1930s.

Let me tell you another amazing fact, there was a Gurdwara in the middle east that was venerated by the Khalsa. A British author of the 19th century said that Sikhs deem it as holy as Jews Jerusalem and Mecca for Muslims. But today this fact is unknown. Doesn't mean it didn't happen because I have that old english book with me.

[jaikaara]

There are secretly practicing hindus too ..and neither those Nanakpanthi Sikhs or Hindus of Arab origin will risk coming out in the open. I doubt if they must have been in contact with modern technology since most of them would be from interiors and little known places. Those in contact with modern world would have completely converted to islam.

[kdsingh80]

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I previously asked you, are there really that many accounts pre 1699 by non Sikhs? Janamsakhis clearly mention that Guru ordered Mardana to keep Kesh. Guru himself kept kesh.

2. Again, just because you have not found it on internet doesn't mean its not there. Several Sikh historians have confirmed this. Pritiphal Singh, an ex Muslim, met these Arab Sikhs personally last century - 1930s.

Let me tell you another amazing fact, there was a Gurdwara in the middle east that was venerated by the Khalsa. A British author of the 19th century said that Sikhs deem it as holy as Jews Jerusalem and Mecca for Muslims. But today this fact is unknown. Doesn't mean it didn't happen because I have that old english book with me.

Historians always record when there is something interesting going on in society on large scale. Sikhs were not political force pre 1699 so majority of historians never mentioned them

As far Bhai Mardana is concerned , first sikhs need to settle the debate whether Bhai mardana was sikh or muslim. Many Sikhs on the issue of sikh muslim unity proudly say that how Guru nanak's companion Maradana was muslim

If he was sikh then how come his descendents did not become fully sikhs?

Lets accept that Bhai mardana kept kesh then how come his descendents who were associated with sikh Guru's did not keep kesh or is there any history of Bhai Mardana descendents keeping kesh and later few of them returned to older practice ?Bhai Ghulam mohammed Chand did not keep his hair and also use to smoke but still he was rababi

[kdsingh80]

There are secretly practicing hindus too ..and neither those Nanakpanthi Sikhs or Hindus of Arab origin will risk coming out in the open. I doubt if they must have been in contact with modern technology since most of them would be from interiors and little known places. Those in contact with modern world would have completely converted to islam.

Why do Hindu's need to secretly practice sikhism. There are plenty of hindu's who regularly go to gurdwara , read bani do sewa but still they don't become sikhs. They are like honorary citizen of sikhism with all the rights and no restrictions.Sikhs become very happy when they see them . No wonder they never accept sikhism openly

[SikhKhoj]

Historians always record when there is something interesting going on in society on large scale. Sikhs were not political force pre 1699 so majority of historians never mentioned them

As far Bhai Mardana is concerned , first sikhs need to settle the debate whether Bhai mardana was sikh or muslim. Many Sikhs on the issue of sikh muslim unity proudly say that how Guru nanak's companion Maradana was muslim

If he was sikh then how come his descendents did not become fully sikhs?

Lets accept that Bhai mardana kept kesh then how come his descendents who were associated with sikh Guru's did not keep kesh or is there any history of Bhai Mardana descendents keeping kesh and later few of them returned to older practice ?Bhai Ghulam mohammed Chand did not keep his hair and also use to smoke but still he was rababi

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.

[SikhKhoj]

Why do Hindu's need to secretly practice sikhism. There are plenty of hindu's who regularly go to gurdwara , read bani do sewa but still they don't become sikhs. They are like honorary citizen of sikhism with all the rights and no restrictions.Sikhs become very happy when they see them . No wonder they never accept sikhism openly

Try to read properly brother. He is not talking about Hindus practising Sikhi. He is talking about ethnic Arabs practising either Hinduism or Sikhi in secrecy.

And on a side note, yes, we do respect Sehajdharis and Nanakpanthis. They are an integral part of our Qaum.

[amardeep]

Which Janam Sakhis mention Guru Nanak telling Bhai Mardana to keep kesh? The Pre-Khalsa Janamsakhis (Puratan & Bhai Bala) or the post-Khala Janam sakhis (Bhai Mani Singh's account, Mahima Prakash, Suraj Prakash) ?

[SikhKhoj]

The pre 'Khalsa' Sikhs in Arabia kept kesh. I have been in contact with people who met them a few decades back. Can't divulge more on here.

And try to put the Singh Sabhia influenced Vaisakhi Khalsa concept aside and form your picture SOLELY from (all) old books. What kind of a picture do you get? Vaisakhi 1699 (didn't happen that year according to Puratan Granths) was not THAT important, a lot of events that people ascribe to having started that day actually were part & parcel of our Panth since a long time.

It is misconceptions like these that have made many scholars, historians and authors say that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh changed Guru Nanaks 'peaceful' mission... 

[amardeep]

Let me ask you again: Which Janam-Sakhis mention it? The earlier ones or the later ones (from after the Guru Gobind Singh period)? Examples of early Sikh and non-Sikh writings could be: Puratan Janam Sakhi, Bhai Bala Janam Sakhi, Dabistan, the Janam Sakhis of the minas etc.

Refering to some source you can't disclose isn't really helpful. Do you have any other info about these Arab Sikhs you can actually say more about?

Edited May 31, 2015 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

Doesn't mean it didn't happen because I have that old english book with me.

Scan the page and post it and give the book reference. All this 'clandestine' stuff just makes it look like you're covering up weaknesses in your argument. 

[SikhKhoj]

Then so be it Dal. My comments are up here, unedited and you will see in a few years when these things come out in open.

And Amardeep from the Gurmukhi sources its mostly 'post Khalsa' ones but the question itself shows your ignorance. But yes there are Arab sources and other Indian language sources too which mention Kesh during Guru Nanak period.

 

Edited May 31, 2015 by SikhKhoj
cff

[SikhKhoj]

And Amardeep, Prof Sahib Singh argues that Bala Janamsakhi was actually written really close to 1699 (post 1693). So you can't really call it a 'puratan' Janamsakhi. Debatable fact. If it was Puratan it would mention Saidpur and not Eminabad amongst many other errors which show the latter date of composition. 

[SikhKhoj]

Mahan Kosh mentions several Hajis of Punjab going to Mecca and then confirming to Bhai Kahan Singh that these Dharmshalas/Gurdwaras exist in Saudi and other Arab countries. And one of these is mentioned in a 19th century British book too as being of high importance to Sikhs. Since I won't scan that British book you are free to read Mahan Kosh confirming the above. Hope that is enough evidence.

Secondly I am telling you that Sayed Pritpal Singh was an ex Muslim who embraced Sikhi after discovering some Arabic manuscripts and meeting Arabic Sikhs while on Hajj. You can meet his descendants in Patiala if you want? 

I can back up my every single claim on here but there are things I can't let out because I have promised some scholars not to divulge the information.

 

 

[SAadmin]

Would this help in this discussion?

.

Gurfateh !

The 'rehatnama' you are looking for is the 'Vajib Ul Arz' - or 'reasonable request' - This document is found in Bhai Mani Singh's 'Bhagat ratna wali'
and is in the form of ten questions - said to have been asked of Guru Gobind Singh by Sehaj dhari Sikhs - and Guru Sahib's response.

It is quite controversial - the version I am posting - an entry from Kahn Singh Nabha's Mahan Kosh - is prefaced by Kahn Singh saying that this cannot be the writing of Bhai Mani Singh and Guru Sahib would never have made such 'Hukums'.

The main controversial points are to do with the keeping of kesh (the document allows the trimming of kesh to an 'acceptable' length) and various ceremonies requiring the presence of a 'Brahmin'
It must be remembered that 'Mahan Kosh' was written at the height of the Singh Sabha Movement and it could be argued Kahn Singh was its chief apologist.


Like always it's for you to make your own decision.


hope this helps in someway !


Ranjit Singh 'Freed'


Here is the entry (in my copy of Mahan Kosh - 2000 edition, its on page 901) this version is from srigranth.org


Mahan Kosh Encyclopedia

Entry - ਵਾਜਿਬੁਲ ਅਰਜ


ਅ਼. __ ਵਾਜਿਬੁਲ- ਅ਼ਰਜ. ਯੋਗ੍ਯ ਪ੍ਰਾਰਥਨਾ. ਵਿਨਯਪਤ੍ਰ। ੨. ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਸਾਖੀ “ਭਗਤਾਵਲੀ” ਵਿੱਚ ਲਿਖੀ ਸਹਜਧਾਰੀ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੀ ਬੇਨਤੀ, ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਸ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ਨ ਦਸ਼ਮੇਸ਼ ਦੇ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਹਨ. ਵਾਜਬੁਲਅਰਜ ਦੇ ਪਾਠ ਤੋਂ ਮਲੂਮ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਨਾ ਇਹ ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਕਲਮ ਤੋਂ ਲਿਖੀ ਗਈ ਹੈ ਅਰ ਨਾ ਕਲਗੀਧਰ ਦੇ ਅਜੇਹੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਪਾਠਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਗ੍ਯਾਨ ਲਈ ਇਸ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਸਲ ਪਾਠ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ. (ੳ) ਸਮੇ ਵਿਆਹ ਦੇ ਅਸੀਂ ਵੇਦਪਾਠੀ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੁਲਾਇਕੈ ਵਿਵਾਹ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਾਂਡੀਆਂ ਪੜ੍ਹਾਇਕੈ ਵਿਵਾਹ ਕਰਦੇ ਸਾਂ. ਤੇ ਹੁਣ ਸਿੱਖ¹ ਕਹਿਂਦੇ ਹਨ- ਤੁਸੀਂ ਆਨੰਦ ਪੜ੍ਹਕੇ ਵਿਵਾਹ ਕਰੋ, ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਬੁਲਾਵੋ. ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ! ਅਬ ਜਿਵੈ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਵੈ. ਦਸਤਖਤ ਖਾਸ ਹੋਏ- ਪਹਿਲੇ ਆਨੰਦ ਪੜ੍ਹਨਾ, ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕਰਨੀ, ਪਿੱਛੇ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣਾਂ ਥੀਂ ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਜਿਸ ਤਰਾਂ ਪੜਾਵਦੇ ਆਏ ਹੋਂ, ਤਿਵੈ ਪੜਾਵਣਾ, ਸੰਸਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਨਾ. (ਅ) ਸਾਹਿਬਾ ਦਾ ਜੋ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਪੰਜਾਂ ਮੇਲਾਂ- ਧੀਰਮਲੀਏ, ਰਾਮਰਈਏ, ਮੀਣੇ, ਮਸੰਦ, ਸਿਰਗੁੰਮ- ਨੂੰ ਨਹੀਂ ਮਿਲਣਾ. ਸਿਰਗੁੰਮ ਕੌਣ ਹੈ? ਬਚਨ ਹੋਇਆ ਸਿਰਗੁੰਮ ਸਰੇਵੜੇ ਅਨੀਸੁਰਵਾਦੀ ਹੈਨ. ਨੰਦਚੰਦ ਸੰਘੇ ਦੇ ਭੀ ਸਿਰਗੁੰਮ ਹੈਨ. ਪੱਕਾ ਸਿਰਗੁੰਮ. ਤੁਰਕ ਹੈ. ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕੀਤੀ- ਕੋਈ ਬਪਾਰ ਦੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ, ਕੋਈ ਮੁਸੱਦੀ ਪੇਸ਼ਾ ਹੈ, ਵਿਹਾਰ ਦਾ ਸਦਕਾ ਸਭ ਕਿਸੇ ਦਾ ਆਨ ਮੇਲ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ. ਤਾਂ ਖਾਸ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਹੋਏ- ਪਹਿਲੇ ਪੁੱਛਕੇ ਵਰਤਣ ਕਰਣੀ, ਜੋ ਭੁੱਲ ਭੁਲਾਂਵੇ ਵਰਤੋਂ, ਤਾਂ ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕਰਵਾਇ ਲੈਣੀ. (ੲ) ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ! ਅਸੀਂ ਸਹਜਧਾਰੀ ਤੇਰੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਜੋ ਹੈਸਾਂ, ਸੋ ਮਾਤਾ ਪਿਤਾ ਦੇ ਮਰਣੇ ਉੱਪਰ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਕਰਮ ਭਦ੍ਰ ਜੋੜੀ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਦੀ ਰੀਤਿ ਸੀ, ਜੋ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੈਸਾਂ. ਤੇ ਹੁਣ ਸਿੱਖ ਆਖਦੇ ਹਨ- ਜੋ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਵਰਤਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਹੁਣ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਏਹੁ ਰੀਤਾਂ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਨਾ ਕਰਿਆ ਕਰੋ. ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਵੈ. ਤਾਂ ਬਚਨ ਹੋਇਆ, ਖਾਸ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਹੋਏ- ਭੱਦਨ (ਭਦ੍ਰ) ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਨਾ, ਹੋਰ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਤੂਤ ਜੈਸੀ ਦੇਸਚਾਲ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਿਵੈ ਕਰਕੈ ਬਖਸਾਇ ਲੈਣਾ. (ਸ) ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸਾਹੁ! ਸਮੇ ਵਿਵਾਹ ਅਤੇ ਖਿਆਹ ਸਰਾਧ ਦੇ ਦਿਨ ਅਸੀਂ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭੋਜਨ ਕਰਾਂਵਦੇ ਹੈਸਾਂ, ਹੁਣ ਸਿੱਖ ਆਖਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜੋ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਛਕਾਵਣਾ. ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਇਆ- ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭੀ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭੀ ਅਤਿਥਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭਲੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਰ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਕਰਕੈ ਸਭਸ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ ਛਕਾਇਆ ਕਰੋ. (ਹ) ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ! ਵਖਤ ਜੰਞੂ ਪਾਵਣੇ ਦੇ ਅਸੀਂ ਪੁਤ੍ਰ ਨੂੰ ਉਸਤਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਭਦ੍ਰ ਕਰਾਂਵਦੇ ਸਾਂ, ਹੁਣ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਿਵੈ ਕੀਚੈ. ਹੁਕਮ ਤੇ ਖਾਸ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਹੋਏ- ਜੋ ਸਹਜਧਾਰੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੇਟਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਾਹੁਲ ਦੇਣੀ. (ਕ) ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ! ਅੱਗੇ ਅਸੀਂ ਅਸਥੀਆਂ ਗੰਗਾ ਭੇਜਦੇ ਸਾਂ ਹੁਣ ਸਿੱਖ ਮਨੇ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜਿਵੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਵੈ. ਬਚਨ ਤੇ ਖਾਸ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਹੋਏ- ਜੇ ਪਹੁਚਾਇ ਸਕੋਂ ਤਾਂ ਅਸਤੀਆਂ ਪਹੁਚਾਇ ਦੇਣੀਆਂ ਅਰ ਜੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਜੁੱਧ ਵਿੱਚ ਜਿੱਥੇ ਹੁਕਮਸਤਿ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਸੋਈ ਕੁਰੁਛੇਤ੍ਰ ਹੈ. ਇਕੇ ਸਾਧਸੰਗਤਿ ਕੀ ਚਰਣਧੂਰਿ ਵਿੱਚ ਪਾਇ ਦੇਣੀਆਂ, ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤਸਰ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਚੌਫੇਰੇ, ਏਸੇ ਥਾਂ ਓਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਗਤਿ ਹੋਵੈਗੀ. (ਖ) ਅਸੀਂ ਜੋ ਆਮਿਲ ਪੇਸ਼ਾ ਕਚਹਿਰੀਆਂ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਦਾੜੀਆਂ ਕੇਸ ਇੱਕੋ ਜੇਹੇ ਕੈਂਚੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਕਟਵਾਇ ਲੈਂਦੇ ਸਾਂ, ਹੁਣ ਜਿਵੈ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਿਵੈਂ ਕਰੀਏ. ਹੁਕਮ ਤੇ ਖਾਸ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਹੋਏ- ਜੇਹੜੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਸਹਜਧਾਰੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਹੋਂ, ਜੇ ਕੇਸਧਾਰੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਤਰਾਂ ਸਾਬਤ ਰੱਖੋਂ ਤਾਂ ਭਲਾ ਹੈ, ਨਹੀਂ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਜਰੂਰ- ਮਾਤ੍ਰ ਵਧੀਕ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੋ ਬਰਾਬਰ ਕਰਵਾਇ ਛੱਡਣੇ, ਫੇਰ ਬਖਸਾਇ ਲੈਣਾ. ਜੋ ਕੇਸਧਾਰੀ ਇਹ ਕਰਮ ਕਰੈਗਾ, ਓਹ ਸਿੱਖ ਨਹੀਂ. (ਗ) ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ! ਜੋ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਸਿਰਗੁੰਮਾ ਪੰਜਾਂ ਮੇਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੁਹ ਕੋਈ ਲੱਗੈ ਨਹੀਂ. ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਆਂਵਦਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਮੁਹ ਲਗ ਜਾਵੈ, ਤਾਂ ਕਿਉਂ ਕਰ ਵਚਨ ਹੈ? ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਇਆ- ਰਿਦਾ ਸੁੱਧ ਗੁਰਾਂ ਵੱਲ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਆਂਵਦਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਮੁਹ ਲਗ ਜਾਵੈ, ਤਾਂ ਕੀ ਹੈ? ਵਰਤਣ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਨੀ. (ਘ) ਜੇਹੜੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਗੰਗਾ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਇਸਨਾਨ ਨੂੰ ਗਏ ਹਨ, ਜੋ ਇਸਨਾਨ ਕਰਕੈ ਆਵਨ ਤਾਂ ਕਿਵਕਰ ਵਰਤੀਏ? ਵਚਨ ਹੋਆ- ਹਿਤ ਪਿਆਰ ਨਾਲ ਓਨਾ ਨਾਲ ਵਰਤਣਾ ਬਹੁਤੀ ਦਿੱਕਤ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਰਨੀ ਭਾਈ ਸਿੱਖੋ! ਤੁਸਾਡੇ ਉੱਪਰ ਸਾਡਾ ਏਹ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੈ- ਪੰਜਾਂ ਮੇਲਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਮਿਲਣਾ, ਕਿਉਂ ਜੋ ਓਨਾ ਦਾ ਮੇਲ ਕਰਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਦਾ ਸਿਦਕ ਘਟਦਾ ਹੈ. ਕੋਈ ਓਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਭੀ ਮੇਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਚਾਹੇ, ਸੋ ਮੇਲ ਲੈਣਾ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਦਾ ਉਪਦੇਸ਼ ਦੇਣਾ, ਭਜਨ ਕਰਣਾ, ਧਰਮ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਤ ਕਰਣੀ ਤੇ ਵੰਡ ਖਾਣਾ, ਸਿੱਖ ਦੀ ਰਹਿਰਾਸਿ ਏਹੋ ਹੈ. (ਙ) ਸੱਚੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ! ਅੱਗੇ ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੁਕਮਸਤਿ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਸੀ, ਤਾਂ ਅਸੀਂ ਪੰਡਿਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੁਲਾਇਕੈ ਗਰੁੜਪੁਰਾਣ ਵਚਾਂਵਦੇ ਸਾਂ, ਤੇ ਦਸਗਾਤ੍ਰ ਕਰਾਂਵਦੇ ਸਾਂ, ਤੇ ਹੁਣ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਂਵਦੇ ਕਹਿਁਦੇ ਹੈਨ- ਜੋ ਧਾਗਾ ਤੇ ਲੰਗੋਟ ਰੱਖੋ ਤੇ ਦਸਗਾਤ੍ਰ ਕਰੋ ਤਾਂ ਅਸੀਂ ਆਵਨੇ ਹਾਂ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਿਵੈ ਕੀਚੈ. ਵਚਨ ਤੇ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਹੋਏ- ਤੁਸਾਂ ਸਿਦਕ ਤੇ ਤਕੜੇ ਰਹਿਣਾ, ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਭੋਗ ਪਵਾਣਾ ਤੇ ਪੰਜਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਸਹਸਕ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਸਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਥਾ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਥੀਂ ਸੁਣਨੀ. ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀ ਦਾ ਭੀ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਜੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਾਸਾ ਹੋਵੈਗਾ, ਤੇ ਤੁਸਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭੀ ਗਿਆਨ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੋਵੈਗਾ. ਸਿਦਕ ਜੇਹਾ ਤੇ ਨਾਮ ਜੇਹਾ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ.

¹ਖੰਡੇ ਦਾ ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਛਕਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕੇਸਧਾਰੀ ਸਿੰਘ.

[amardeep]

When I say Puratan Janamsakhi im refering to the one also known as Wilayat Janam-Sakhi which seems to be an early Janam Sakhi pre Guru Gobind SIngh.

If the sources are close to or after 1690s then it seems like quite a big statement to make that Sikhs of Guru Nanaks period (ie 200 years earlier) were keshdharis. Which early sources pre 1690 mention anything about Guru Nanak asking his Sikhs to be keshdharis?

You are mixing up things here. We are asking for proof of the Arab Sikhs being keshadharis. What you talk about are sources from 20th century that mention the existence of Arab Sikhs. Im asking for proof that they were keshdaris.. As far as I recall, Syed Pritpal Singh does'nt mention anything of them being keshadharis.

im gonna look aside your comment of me being ignorant. I dont know if you have a personal problem with me since you always throw in these personal attacks. Its too childish if you ask me.

Edited May 31, 2015 by amardeep

[amardeep]

"But yes there are Arab sources and other Indian language sources too which mention Kesh during Guru Nanak period."

And I take it you are not gonna disclose the 'other Indian language sources' either?

[SikhKhoj]

Contact Syeds descendants if you do not believe me. There were over 100 families who were Nanakpanthi Sikhs at his time who kept Kesh since Guru Nanak visited Arabia. I am sure it is mentioned in his notes.

Sobti tribe in Iraq kept kesh too since Guru Nanak, its mentioned in many 'recent' books (20th century). And people met them in the 1960s too. I can tell you my source if you want?

Bhai Mani Singh wrote no book, both Gyan and Bhagat Ratnavli are wrongfully attributed to him but that does not take away from its significant historical importance being an early 18th century book. Secondly Sahejdharis are part of our nation and many older books confirm that there were 2 types of Sikhs: amritdharis and sahejdharis (and charnias but that stopped in 1708 I assume).

Edited May 31, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

While the post Khalsa janamsakhi may not be the ultimate proof, it is however an indication that Guru Nanak ordering Mardana to keep kesh is not some recent 'singh sabhia influenced notion of religion' phenomena. It re-inforces the point that even in the 18th century people did think that Guru Nanak ordered Sikhs to keep kesh. The ultimate proof is the Arab Sikhs whom Sayed met and the Arabic manuscipts. 

I hope there is no discussion on the fact that Guru Nanak himself was kesdhari.

[amardeep]

What those Janamsakhis of 18th century imply is that the authors assumed that Guru Nanak 200 years earlier commanded Bhai Mardana to keep kesh. They are not historically valid as any historical proof unless you can find earlier sources that mention likewise. You havent been able to come up with any so far.

 

The Guru Nanak links of the Sobti tribe of Iraq is debatable. There is a khatri subcaste named Sobti and khatri sehajdharis were notorious for travellling for trade across Central Asia and Persia. The question is whether the 20th century sobtis were descendants of Arab Sikhs from the 1500s or from Khatri traders who settled in Iraq/Persia during the Maharaja Ranjit Singh period. Many of the Afghan Sikhs of today are not ethnic pashtuns but rather khatri punjabis whose ancestors settled in Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad etc in the early 1800s. Until further research is done, the same might be the case with these sobti sikhs of iraq.

 

I havent mentioned anyhting about Singh Sabha at any point so I dont know why you always bring them up in all our discussions. Do yourself a favour and stop assuming that I blame everything on Singh Sabha.

Edited May 31, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

Dr Ganda Singh met them, they were native Iraqis. They are called Sobti in Punjabi but they are actually Subis in Arabic. He got it confirmed from Iraqi people. These people had nothing to do with Punjab except for being followers of Guru Nanak.

And why do you run from the Arab Sikh claim? They were native arabs, 100+ families and Sayed met many of them in 1930.

And yeah most Afghani Sikhs are khatris.

You often bring theories of Singh Sabha and this and that being anti Dasam anti Sarbloh and don't back it up. Thats why I said it, and you're not the only one here blaming singh Sabha for alot of things.

[SikhKhoj]

I told you Arabic manuscripts exist and Sayed Prithipal Singh met Arabic Sikhs who kept Kesh cos Guru Nanak ordered them to, what more do you need? Either disprove my claim that Arab Sikhs did not keep kesh from 1510s - 1930s or just accept the fact. There are not many pre Khalsa punjabi manuscripts confirming the Kesh thing as I have said earlier.

And you're theory is plausible but it also shows that people claiming Guru Nanak ordered Sikhs to keep kesh is not a recent phenoma as some like to imply. But the thing is, I used that book as an additional proof not main proof. My main proof is people meeting Arabic and Iraqi Sikhs who confirmed they converted since Guru Nanaks times, aren't Muslim and keep Kesh because Guru ordered them too. You haven't been able to reject my theory instead you keep on asking more historical sources while you know that pre Khalsa  sources are pretty scarce already. The few that exist are full of errors and not complete either, so again 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. the Arabic manuscripts will be published in a few years, wait till then. Until then you can accept my claims because people met Arab Sikhs, got it confirmed from them and what not. Oral tradition supported by the Arabic books (some excerpts are even published in Punjabi - translated by Sayed, try to get them) is a good starting proof.

Im done on this discussion. You just want to fish for sources but I cant disclose them.

[SikhKhoj]

I have the notes published in book form lying in my library. He clearly mentions having met elders of the Sikhs and them confirming 100 +  arab Sikhs in the 1930s. Don't make claims you cant back up.

Edited May 31, 2015 by SikhKhoj