ISDhillon Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 you still havnt responded to my post its under the propaganda one happy reading 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 1. International law applies to sovereign nation. If nations don't apply it they receive sanctions. Ask Serbia about it... The Khalsa is NOT a nation see point 3. 2. Gurdwaras are places of worship. Doing kirtan, paath etc.. is worshipping God. Meditating on God's names is also worship. 3. The only time the word qaum is used by Guru Gobind Singh is when talking about the Brars. Sikhs are a distinctive religious community not a nation. There are Sikhs of all kinds of backgrounds, origins, languages and nations. Neo-Sikh tend to think of Sikhs as a nation but it doesn't make sense (no unity of language, ethnicity, origin, food etc...). One can say that Panjabis may have the status of a nation but not a religion.Sikhi is above the tribal concept of qaum. 4. Bhindranvala said he'd give the killer of the Nirankari Baba his weight in gold. Ask Bhai Ranjit Singh if he received his weight in gold. So much for:"Sant Ji acted on his words!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Guys, just a reminder no personal attacks, death threats etc is allowed in this forum, attack the views in form of debating and discussion, attack the message not the "MESSENGER" :!: :!: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhraj Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 1. International law applies to sovereign nation. If nations don't apply it they receive sanctions. Ask Serbia about it... The Khalsa is NOT a nation see point 3. 2. Gurdwaras are places of worship. Doing kirtan, paath etc.. is worshipping God. Meditating on God's names is also worship. 3. The only time the word qaum is used by Guru Gobind Singh is when talking about the Brars. Sikhs are a distinctive religious community not a nation. There are Sikhs of all kinds of backgrounds, origins, languages and nations. Neo-Sikh tend to think of Sikhs as a nation but it doesn't make sense (no unity of language, ethnicity, origin, food etc...). One can say that Panjabis may have the status of a nation but not a religion.Sikhi is above the tribal concept of qaum. 4. Bhindranvala said he'd give the killer of the Nirankari Baba his weight in gold. Ask Bhai Ranjit Singh if he received his weight in gold. So much for:"Sant Ji acted on his words!" -Does "International Law" apply to the USA? or China? It's a farce. Anyway, no worldly law applies to the Khalsa. - Nation does not have to mean a geographic country. There is unity in language - Gurbani (translations just aren't the same), belief etc - Do you know that Bhai Ranjit Singh didn't receive the gold? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 a.You're implying by that that Muslims (who all share Arabic as a common liturgical language) are one nation which is wrong. Your argument doesn't stand. b. Bhai Ranjit Singh didn't receive the gold and that is a fact too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISDhillon Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Gurdwaras are places of worship. Doing kirtan, paath etc.. is worshipping God. Meditating on God's names is also worship. no it isnt, lighting candles and burning incense in front of statues is a form of worship, singing dharmic geet is a form of worship, we "use" god to awaken our soul, bani recognises an intimacy and primacy with mans spirit you remarks are off tangent. The only time the word qaum is used by Guru Gobind Singh is when talking about the Brars. Sikhs are a distinctive religious community not a nation. There are Sikhs of all kinds of backgrounds, origins, languages and nations. Neo-Sikh tend to think of Sikhs as a nation but it doesn't make sense (no unity of language, ethnicity, origin, food etc...). One can say that Panjabis may have the status of a nation but not a religion.Sikhi is above the tribal concept of qaum. My statement has nothing to do with quam or the punjabiat, when you take amrit you are elevated from restrictive qualities that humanity gives to children the day they are born, the law is also one of these restrictions, in sikhism the idea of creating sovereign people was khalsa the idea that all humans are self-governing people the guru did not believe in man-made governments and laws he taught us that our enlightened faculties were enuff to judge right from wrong. "sovereignity is a vehicle for self-realisation" - this is the key to understanding the twin doctrine of guru granth and guru panth, again i will reiterate that when you have the corporate body politic of the khalsa it is ok to call that body sarbat khalsa or a nation. Your idea of the "neo-sikh" is incompatible with sikh doctrine continuity and change go hand in hand that is why the rehat maryada can be changed to reflect the prevaling circumstances of the time if we lived by chibbars rehat today we would would all get arrested as soon as we encountered a muslim. 4. Bhindranvala said he'd give the killer of the Nirankari Baba his weight in gold. Ask Bhai Ranjit Singh if he received his weight in gold. So much for:"Sant Ji acted on his words!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 1. Your statement about worship is subjective and remains your won personal definition. God is NOT a tool and Sikhi isn't Advaita Vedanta where God is just a "tool". Kirtan is an act of worship! 2. If being Khalsa means to be above nation and law why do you use terms such as "nation' and 'peoplehood' 3. What does Zafarnama have to do with Bhai Ranjit Singh killing Gurbachan SIngh Nirankari? Let me understand the logic: a.Sant Ji promises to weigh the killer of Gurbachan Singh in gold b. Bhai Ranjit Singh kills him c. "Sant Ji" doesn't fulfill his promise Where on earth did "Sant Ji" act on his words (your statement remember?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhamka Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 a point to make bhai ranjit singh had got arrestted before Sant Baba Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale Jathadar Damdami Taksaal had given him the gold, its a fact and bhai ranjit singh knows that Sant ji wud have given him everything. Sant Ji acted on his words he was a true KHALSA he stood by his words and defended Sri Harimandir Sahib like a True Lion that article by sarbjit singh hits the nail on the head AKAAL Bhindranwala sant saphi jin suthi quam jaagi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Gurfateh just some info. Abdalis did Attack Darbar Sahib and Baba Gurbax Singh did make adefence over there. Likewise when Sikhs were doing hola Mahala at Anandpur Sahib,Perhaps Adina Beg forces killed them a lot. Anyway was some Shaheedi Gurpurab during assult from Indian Army to evict mens and sants during Summer 84? Just few inputs.But in both historic cases Sikhs did had miliatry sternght in shrine but that could be for defence but Akalis did harbour some so called Babbers(nothing to do with AKJ) out to Kills hindus and Sikhs who do not folloow them but all accusitions were attributed to Sants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISDhillon Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 " Your statement about worship is subjective and remains your won personal definition. " actually it isn't we focus our mind on gurshabad we dont formulate rule from scripture, we sing kirtan so others can listen and also be attuned to god I think you should do some extra reading, I never said god was a tool bani is the touchstone of self-realisation it is not a book worshipping god our religion is neither vedantic or abramanic but it shares similarities with both, if anything these traditions are a part of sikhism wheras as sikhism is not a part of those traditions. Kirtan is an act of worship! not so please read above, just saying so does not make your argument more valid. 2. If being Khalsa means to be above nation and law why do you use terms such as "nation' and 'peoplehood' now your being pedantic by getting me on a language technicality, words are just noises javanmard understand this and you will be a lot wiser. Let me understand the logic: no let me understand yours I am the one who has made a mistake I actually thought you understood the way the universe worked let see: Where on earth did "Sant Ji" act on his words (your statement remember?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Bhai Ranjit Singh actually visited Jarnail Singh Bhindranvala at the Golden Temple Complex before the attack of the Indian army. Bhindranvala refused to see him and this is a fact. You can twist it anyway you want: Ranjit Singh didn't receive any gold be it by Bhindranvala or his men. ps. Gurbani refuses the notion of self-realisation. Sikhi is a religion of grace. And for your information: I actually don't care about "Mother India" or the Indian government. South Asia as a whole has been partitioned on artificial constructs based on colonial concepts of identity. The whole concept of an Indian nation is a pure illusion as is that of Pakistan. A federal South Asian union of states including present day Pakistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in terms of area not political division would have been much better. I think personally that a United Azad Panjab with Lahore as its capital makes much more sense. Unfortunately reality is now different but it doesn't mean we can't reach that result in a century using the economic and cultural way that Europeans used to create the European Union. In this endeavour I find Khalistanis to be as counterproductive as dangerous as the RSS or the Sunni radicals in Pakistan. The other reason why I am against the whole concept of Khalistan is very simple: a. it's Jatt nationalism using religion b. why limit ourselves to this diminished Panjab when we can actually be an active force in bringing about a cultural and economical union of states and play a much greater role in South Asia. If people like you dream of a state without barbers and where the diet is restricted to saron da saag and makhi di roti good for you but I believe we were born to achieve much more than that and that the world is not restricted to Gurdaspur disctrict. The whole Mother India concept is based on Hindu Nationalism which I hate passionately as much as I hate Wahabism and Neo-Sikhism. As I said before I think the only difference between the militants and the Indian government is the uniform: all I see is men enacting violence on civilians. The ones do it in the name of a saffron nishan sahib the others for India's triranga.It's just the colours that are different: the cruelty is the same! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Converting holy sites into military functionalities is and has always been considered an offense. Temples, churches, mosques, gurdvare are places of worship NOT fortresses. To transform them into such especially when there is no need for it is an offense.In fact in international law it is considered a crime. When al Sadr tried to convert the shrine of Najaf into a military functionality he was heavily condemned by the Shi'a clergy for that. It was, is and will always be unacceptable to do that. Especially in Bhindranvala's case because he had no reason to do it. If he wanted to wage war on the Indian government he should have done what other generations of Sikhs did before: use the Shivallik hills. Instead he used Akal Takht as a shield in order to exert cheap and nasty emotional blackmail. How disgusting!!! Can you use any sikh references to say the akal takht or any gurudwara should not be used for political purposes, as far as i know politics is a highly integral part of sikhi. Please givr sikh sources which criticise rather than trying to view histroy through anglocised constructs. international law refers to state entities, not individual people. And stop being an apologist for indian state terrorism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 also i think international law promotes a peoples right to self determination. something that the indian regime has denied many states trhoughout the union of india, as well as numerous other violations of international law. its ironic that indian state apologists then use it to justify the attack on harmandir sahib. furthermore Sukhraj is university educated, and from a top university at that, so lets stop the mudlsinging, it doesn't befit a singh to have so much hankar and look down at ppl with such sorts of superiority complexes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 "Bhai Ranjit Singh actually visited Jarnail Singh Bhindranvala at the Golden Temple Complex before the attack of the Indian army. Bhindranvala refused to see him and this is a fact." Can you woute sources for this. and i mean reliable sources, not your beloved KPS Gill 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISDhillon Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Bhai Ranjit Singh actually visited Jarnail Singh Bhindranvala at the Golden Temple Complex before the attack of the Indian army. Bhindranvala refused to see him and this is a fact. You can twist it anyway you want: Ranjit Singh didn't receive any gold be it by Bhindranvala or his men. you dont seem to get it you are using this whole story about the gold to counterargue my claim that bhindranwale was one of few men who have stood by their word, i couldn't care less about twisting anything its of no use to me, snap out of it. ps. Gurbani refuses the notion of self-realisation. Sikhi is a religion of grace. whith a little grace and a little self-determination self-realisation or mukti or whatever you want to call it will shine on you. The whole concept of an Indian nation is a pure illusion as is that of Pakistan. A federal South Asian union of states including present day Pakistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in terms of area not political division would have been much better. basically america in the east, youre not very original are you just a follower not a leader. In this endeavour I find Khalistanis to be as counterproductive as dangerous as the RSS or the Sunni radicals in Pakistan. youre taking me on a world cruise far from what this discussion is/was about you called the militants baddies I am saying they were originally good now you start a discussion about your views on khalistan which is irrelevant. I prsonally think poverty is more important than khalistan but thats another story however in the same breath i think bhindranwale was right also. If people like you dream of a state without barbers and where the diet is restricted to saron da saag and makhi di roti good for you but I believe we were born to achieve much more than that and that the world is not restricted to Gurdaspur disctrict. get stuffed! you dont know me you are guilty of plenty of antigurmat stuff by labelling me this person, why are you so paranoid why dont you go for counselling i am not this person you have prtrayed me to be. As I said before I think the only difference between the militants and the Indian government is the uniform: all I see is men enacting violence on civilians. then i suggest you start listening to what they have to say and get a good pair of glasses. The ones do it in the name of a saffron nishan sahib the others for India's triranga.It's just the colours that are different: the cruelty is the same! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 "Hindu Nationalism which I hate passionately as much as I hate Wahabism and Neo-Sikhism." and don't hate, it blinds your judgement and makes u no better than a wahibist or salafist "As I said before I think the only difference between the militants and the Indian government is the uniform: all I see is men enacting violence on civilians. The ones do it in the name of a saffron nishan sahib the others for India's triranga.It's just the colours that are different: the cruelty is the same!" joker, i dunno if i shud really start to answer this. Difference was Indian forces went out to destroy a peoples self belief and destiny, through indiscriminate murder, rape and rampage. They were centrally organised. Sikh freedeom fighters tended to battle these terrorists. There were some sikhs who also committed crimes, however we have to remember that a lot of these people acted individually, there was no central organisation giving them orders, unlike the indian govt. There are massive differences, there are plenty of threads on this subject already. I really don't want to have to go off on long ones and have to start writing about subjects which are well covered on this forum already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 "If people like you dream of a state without barbers and where the diet is restricted to saron da saag and makhi di roti good for you but I believe we were born to achieve much more than that and that the world is not restricted to Gurdaspur disctrict." I have to agree with Dhillon, you are jumping to big assumptions about what he thinks and perhaps libelling people. I would classify myself as a khalistani but wouldn't welcome being subjugated or living under the taliban regime you think any proposed state would be. I don't think it is valid for you to make assumptions that all people who have thought processes you do not agree with are all extremists with a uniform agenda and views. Believe it or not, not all kahlistanis are extremists, might be a hard pill for you to swallow. Stop labelling people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Palm and IS Dhillon: here are my last words on this thread... Get a one way ticket to Khalistan and fight it out with the Indian government or any other clownish state organisation. You guys seem to think that not being for Bhindranvala means one is pro-Indian government which is NOT true. Human right abuses have been commited on BOTH sides both by Bhindranvala and the Indian army. You chose to idealise him: I idealise none. Again I just say that they are as worse as each other. But then again I guess that means I must be a traitor... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhamka Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Javanmard said "Bhai Ranjit Singh actually visited Jarnail Singh Bhindranvala at the Golden Temple Complex before the attack of the Indian army. Bhindranvala refused to see him and this is a fact. You can twist it anyway you want: Ranjit Singh didn't receive any gold be it by Bhindranvala or his men." just a thought bhai ranjit singh was arrested long before the indian regime stormed into panjab??? plus when bhai ranjit singh was handover to the indian govt by the akalis was it not Sant Ji saying give me Ranjit Singh i will show u how i weigh him in gold??? this is all recorded on tapes and videos, u can hear it from the horses mouth!!! plus no one ever mentions when Sant ji says killing inncoent ppl is wrong or when his jatha helped hindus or the poor out just a shame we look at one point. Plus Sant ji always had respect for ppl who stood by the quam in the hour of need he had loads of respect for Baba Sohan Singh Jathadar Baba Bidi Chand Jatha of Nihangs and other groups even though he did not agree with some aspects of their sikhi. He did not enforce his views on them when they went to places like Patna Sahib they dnt cuss or change the maryada of the local Sikhs. That’s a fact. The notion of a Taliban state is pathic Sant Ji nor the freedom fighters would have wanted a state like that but just wanted one where they could live lifes of Gursikhs without their faith and ppl being dishonoured. just a benti to ppl who attack Sant ji lets not attack our follow brother he NEVER killed any innocent everyone off us trys to live our lives according to Guru ji we got one guru one panth lets show ekta and move our lives forward helping and serving the world thats what Sant ji and the Shaheeds wanted. any ways ppl who want to have a hip hop sikhi life can, the rest off us will look at the shaheeds Bhai Jinda and Bhai Sukha and the likes Baba Deep Singh Ji and Baba Gurbakash Singh Ji Sant Jarnail Singh for inspiration akaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal dego tegho fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Javanmarg, I am just curious if you have read this book, if you havent then you defaniately missing other side of coin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 N3O do you really think that as a researcher I haven't read that book? Of course I have and I have also read the reviews about it. Mrs. Mahmood in my view idealises Jarnail Singh into a sort of Panjabi Che Guevara. That was the reproach made to her. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 "Get a one way ticket to Khalistan and fight it out with the Indian government or any other clownish state organisation. You chose to idealise him: I idealise none. Again I just say that they are as worse as each other. But then again I guess that means I must be a traitor..." Don't get emotional man, your labelling yourself there, not my words. Just look at the facts rather than getting emotinal and hot headed, and perhaps making grandiose statements without the evidence to back them up. My opinion on Mahmoods book: it is pretty good, and based upon FACT (sources stated throughout the book), rather than hearsay. My opinion on Bhindrawale, he was great person but human, he made some hot headed statements in the heat of the moment that i don't agree with. Such as burning amritdharis who drank alcohol. But compared to the amount of good he did i think the scales tip in favour. Jai Hind 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhalsaForce Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Fateh veera, Kidda ki haal chaal. What you know about sant jarnail singh from reading few books or seeing pictures of dead hindu's? Alot of you educated people read too many books and invent new GAND(garbage) in your head about others. Why dont you guys try reading gurbani that long instead of books written by people, then you can compare your garbage to the nicest thing you will get after reading gurbani. N3O do you really think that as a researcher I haven't read that book? Of course I have and I have also read the reviews about it. Mrs. Mahmood in my view idealises Jarnail Singh into a sort of Panjabi Che Guevara. That was the reproach made to her. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.