tonyhp32

Sarbrah was the manager appointed by the British to look after the whole complex and not just Harmandir Sahib. The whole complex was under a Sarbrah since the times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh who first appointed Desa Singh Majithia and then his son Lehna Singh Majithia. Part of the British justification in having a role in the selection of the Sarbrah was that they were continuing the tradition of the ruler appointing the Sarbrah from the days of Ranjit Singh. After Lehna Singh, the British appointed Jodh Singh. As Sarbrah his control was total and powers included being able to fine the Pujaris for misconduct as well as exclude them from the precincts for upto six months. The dastur-ul-amal of 1859, an administration paper was agreed between Lehna Singh, Jodh Singh and other sirdars clearly treats the whole complex as one classing the superiority of the Pujaris into three grades and then the rebabis, ragis and others. It is interesting that this paper does not even mention the Nihangs let alone grant them any status amongst the Pujaris and others. I would be wary of the claim of the budhadal site that those jathedars of Budha Dal were 'sworn' in as Akal Takht Jathedars. There are even doubts that the Budha Dal of today has any connected to the Dal founded in the eighteenth century.

I wouldn't waste my money to see a film made by a multi-millionaire to show me that the system through which he has made his millions 'doesn't work'!

Singh2, For someone who claims about the ignorance of others, you sure are ignorant than most. The Akal Takht also had Pujaris to take part in the various duties of worship there. It is clear from the eyewitness reports of the events of the Khalsa Biradri that they first went to Harmandir Sahib and then to Akal Takht. There were no Nihangs in Akal Takht acting as 'custodians' because that is a figment of your ignorant mind. Arur Singh was the manager of the complex (sarbrah) appointed by the British and had overall charge of both Harmandir Sahib and Akal Takht as well as the shrine at Tarn Taran. The fact that he was in charge of the whole complex is proved by contemporary accusations against him in the Sikh newspapers alleging that he was taking away various pieces of jewellery and precious stones and gifting them to British officers. Now if part of the complex in the form of Akal Takht was under heavily armed Nihangs, is it likely that they would have stood by and allow the treasures of the Toshakhana to be stolen and given to British officers? Arur Singh was sarbrah from c1907 to 1920. Would the Nihang custodians also have allowed Arur Singh to honour General Dyer at Durbar Sahib? The 1887 hukamnama from Akal Takht excommunicating Prof. Gurmukh Singh proves that even at that time there was no such thing as Nihang custodians of Akal Takht. The persons who signed the Hukamnama address themselves as Ahudedar, Granthian wa Pujarian - Office bearers, Granthis and Pujaris. None of them address themselves as Akali Nihang etc etc or Jathedar. However the 1913 Hukamnama from Hazur Sahib instructing Amritdhari Sikhs not to wear a Kirpan of less than one foot is signed Nihang Granthi, Granthi, Rasaldar wa Sarbrah, vakil Gurdwara, Dhupiey, Pujari and Master. There is no dispute over the fact that the Nihangs were in charge at Hazur Sahib at that time. Btw by a happy coincidence, today is the 89th anniversary of the takeover of the Durbar Sahib and Akal Takht by the Akalis.

Do we really need this bulls**t propaganda here. Imagine that, terrorist scum using Martin Luther King Jnr's name!

Singh2, Instead of offering to show me around the Akal Takht archives why don't you actually take time out to study there and gain some knowledge. You didn't even know of the incident of the Nihangs and now you claim to be able to acccess Akal Takht records! FYI the Khalsa Biradri also went to Akal Takht to get their offerings accepted and the Pujaris could not be found there and when summoned from their homes refused to come and accept the low castes' offerings.

MDS, Perhaps a recap is needed here-; Neo wrote about the incident;- I wrote -; You presented a quote from a book which stated that ONE Bibi beat up Baba Sahib Singh and even that quote states that she was restrained by two Akalis. How is that the same as Neo's fairy tale about the Akalis using women to beat up Nihangs because apparently the Nihangs would not hit back against women? As for the story anout the beating, we have already had two different versions of what the Nihang Jathedar was saying whilst being hit. As for you and Shaheediyan's piecemeal and sketchy evidence about Nihangs being custodians of Akal Takht, this does not amount to much. I could post a pic of some Hindu Sadhus outside Akal Takht, does that mean that they were custodians of Akal Takht. As is it there is no concrete evidence that Nihangs were custodians of Akal Takht in 1920 and if they were then the British would have had to have been very lax in their so-called attempt to exterminate the Nihangs. How is that it's open season on Nihangs one day and the next they are sitting pretty in Akal Takht.

Singh2, Learn to make constructive comments and not bukwas. Earlier you wrote-; And now-; So what's correct, Nihangs running around being persecuted or being caretakers of Akal Takht? Then when I wrote about the Nihangs being kicked out of Akal Takht you wrote-; You are now changing your views because earlier in this thread you stated-; You then wrote some nonsense about the Nihangs being the most respected in Punjab! What planet are you, please desist for displaying your lack of knowledge on this incident by making stupid comments. You wrote-; If they were custodians at the Akal Takht then why did they not allow the low caste members of Khalsa Biradri to have their offerings accepted at Akal Takht? This was the incident that precipated the takeover of the Akal Takht by the Akalis

MDS, Your quote as usual proves nothing. The impression given by the quote is of a forcible removal of Nihangs from the Akal Takht, but what you did not include was the lead up to this event as described in the book you quoted. The Nihangs were not in Akal Takht as caretakers but they had attempted to forcibly take over the Akal Takht from the Akali Jatha at the instigation of the Punjaris. The Pujaris after having lost control of Akal Takht went around instigating the Sikhs of the villages surrounding Amritsar spreading rumours that the low castes had taken over the Harmandir Sahib and mobs of Sikhs armed with lathis and chiviyan started to arrive in Amritsar to liberate the complex from the lower castes! They only left after they came to know that it was the Akali Jatha that had taken over. The Pujaris having failed then went to the Nihangs and said that they wanted to hand the Akal Takht to them. It was then that the Nihangs went and tried to take over the Akal Takht. The above is in the same book as you quoted. The book also states that the Nihangs were high on bhang which might or might not be true. Unlike the sanatan myth that Neo alluded to which implies that the Akalis forcibly removed the Nihangs from the Akal Takht where they had always been and the Nihangs did not fight back because women were put on the forefront by the Akalis. The truth is that the Akalis were in control of the Akal Takht having taken it from the Pujaris, the Nihangs at the instigation of the Punjaris tried to wrestle control of the Akal Takht and were beaten up severely and in one case a woman beat a Nihang up. The sentimental story of Baba Sahib Singh allowing himself to be beaten up by a woman rather than fight back might or might not be true but what did he think the Akalis would do when confronted by a band of armed Nihangs intent on forcibly taking over the Akal Takht and undoing the work of the reformers? If they were going to interfere in an ongoing tussle, the least they could have done is to find out the facts. The apology of the Nihang jathedar was because they had as usual allowed themselves to be used by Anti-Panth forces against the Panth.

That's the full quote and the operative word in yours is WERE. For a book written in 1908, that means that even then the Nihangs had been in charge at Akal Takht prior to that date. Please read the thead, what is asked for is proof that there was a Nihang in charge of Akal Takht as jathedar in 1920.

MDS, What was required was proof that there was a Nihang in charge of the Akal Takht who was a Jathedar there in 1920. When were 500 Nihangs there? Before or after the British annexation? If it was before the annexation then what relevance does this have in discussing an incident in 1920? So Nihangs went from Punjab to Hazur Sahib, so what. What is being questioned here is the sanatan claim that the British had shoot on sight orders against Nihangs. Although Hazur Sahib was in the control of the Nizam of Hyderabad, the British still have a great deal of influence being the paramount power in its political relationship with that state. The British if they wanted could easily have had the Nizam hand over these Nihangs to them. There elimination so far from Punjab could have been much easier for the British than a shoot on sight order in Punjab given that sanatan claim that ALL Khalsas were Nihangs then potentially the British were issuing shoot on sight orders on every Sikh male! More conspiracy theories, so the Akali leader was a stooge of the British, so why were the Akalis giving the British such a hard time during the Akali movement? How was is that Santa Singh, for the ease of his master, Indira Gandhi was able to keep his Nihangs aloof from the biggest Panthic movement since the Akali movement but the British puppet Sikh leader couldn't dampen the Akali movement? What we have here are two varying accounts of an incident. I don't know why AKJ sites claim that their 'jatha' threw out the Nihangs as the AKJ did not exist in 1920. Does the account you refer to just mention women being involved or does it state that a conscious decision was made to use the women to cover the cowardice of the Akalis? Shoot on sight orders are very different from expressing a desire to finish the Nihangs. As it is not much evidence has been provided for these shoot on sight orders. Who mentioned Baba Sahib Singh Kaladhari? What was mentioned was that Nihangs from their Chaoni at Amritsar were used by the Pujaris/Mahants in an unsuccessful attempt to dislodge the Akalis after their takeover. I do wish you would take your own advice. You haven't provided any evidence which disputes the main points of my posts about this incident. Try not to go off at a gradient. I hope since you claim to know more than most about Nihang history you will come back in your next post with the following evidence-; 1. Proof that there was an Nihang Akal Takht jathedar in 1920. 2. The British issued shoot on sight orders against Nihangs after the annexation.

Navjot2, You are probably the best example of what results when a feeble and weak mind is exposed to sanatan propaganda. You claimed that Prof. Sahib Singh and Bhai Vir Singh were criminals, would you care to back up your claim and are you as I suspect making up for your lack of intellect by making ridiculous statements. Of course they were, a Sikh could matha tek at a Gurdwara, bow before idols at a Mandir, visit a Sufi khankah and place a chadar there and matha tek there as well as still be a Sikh! Same as they are living in harmony around the world with people of different religion after the Singh Sabha. Although if you are talking about before the British annexation, you might want to note that the Muslim call to prayer was banned in areas of Sikh control. Not that I take that as a negative, our ancestors knew much more about the Muslim mentality than the PC Sikhs of today. No doubt, but the Singh emphesis of education by setting up hundreds of schools made Sikhs one of the most educated communities in Punjab by 1947 far surpassing the Muslims and almost level with the Hindus. Singh Sabha 'criminals' like Bhai Vir Singh were instrumental in setting up Sikh finanacial institutions such as Punjab and Sind bank. Pad Ched has happened so get over it. Pad Ched doesn't change the meaning of Gurbani. Did this violence perchance have anything to do with the fact that 40% of the Sikhs were overnight made homeless and attacked from all sides by people wanting them to migrate and leave their ancestral lands or just sit quietly and be murdered. This is the first time I have seen the partition violence blamed on the Singh Sabha! What great strategy would someone like you have for the Sikhs in 1947? Please enlighten us. Tall claim, care to elaborate? Get rid of pad ched and the whole world is put to rights! get over yourself, this is the same ideological stagnation that you claim to resent which you are displaying here!

Neo, Relying on people you believe to be Brahmgyanis is all very well if you totally trust in their status. However, is this progression mentioned in Gurbani, Bhai Gurdas vars or even in Sakhi concerning the period directly after 1699 to 1708. Why would Guruji create the Khalsa and yet leave no guidance that this is just a stage and it is ok to drop the Rehat after one gets to the next more spiritual stage. How does this tie in with the 'Rehat Pyari Mujh ko Sikh Pyara Nahi'? 'Rehni Rahe Sohi Sikh Mera' etc. I believe the wholesale transfer of the Sufi stages into Sikhism by so-called Sants is a recent development, especially the de-emphesising of Sharia/Rehat. My belief is, not being a Brahmgyani please feel free to ignore it, is that there are stages of spiritual growth but one can achieve the highest stage and yet still keep the Rehat. If some Brahmgyanis keep the Rehat only so that others do not get discouraged from keeping the Rehat then what of those Brahmgyanis who do not keep the Rehat, are they not worried about discouraging their followers? How about Guru Gobind Singh, he also kept the rehat and even allowed himself to be fined for a transgression of Rehat? I think we need to be careful about sprouting views such as Rehat is just a stage and is not needed upon progression. This totally negates our history, did all those Shaheeds of the 18th century undergo martyrdom for the defence of just a 'temporary' stage in their spiritual progress.

Amardeep, In the Bhai Bala Janamsakhi, the conversation runs where Bhai Mardana asks Guru Nanak, 'where is this place called Mecca/' to which Guru Nanak asks 'Mardana do you want to see it'. Mardana says that the Muslims praise it always and shall we go and see it as well' Neo, The problem with the Sharia to Tariqa progression is that the same can be argued about the Rehat. I can understand the need for islamic spiritual seekers not wanting to keep the Sharia and sunnah with all it's bukwas like how many number of stones to wipe ones backside after a visit to the loo but then is that the same for Sikhs as well. Obviously the answer is no because Guru Gobind Singh described the Khalsa in such glowing terms. If Khalsa is just a stage beyond which the spiritual seeker need not keep the Rehat as he progresses then that would not make sense. How authentic is the Pir Budhu Shah sakhi? Kathakars have a tendency to invent more and more fantastic stories without checking what they are saying is actually in line with Gurbani. In the area of Dina-Kangar, after administering Amrit to a Muslim, Guru Gobind Singh made the announcement that the Khalsa was open to all. In the var 1 of Bhai Gurdas some Muslim names are given as followers of Guru Nanak and yet none is described as a Muslim Sikh. You cannot remain a Muslim if you want to be a Sikh of the Guru. Now, it might be possible given that the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death, that some of the followers of Guru Nanak who were from a Muslim background may not have wanted to publically declare themselves to have apostasised and might have maintained their outward display of following Muslim rites but in private may have taken part in Sikh rites. For Hindus there would be no such problem. The reason why I do not accept the veracity of so-called Muslim Sikhs is that why is it that if it was an accepted that there were Muslim Sikhs then why did the Khalsa in the 18th century choose to convert Muslims by giving them Amrit when given the political situation of that time it would make all the more sense for the Muslims interested in Sikhism to hide their true beliefs and remain Muslim Sikhs if such a thing actually existed.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that Islam as founded by Mohammed was false or as Bachittar Natak states, Mohammed subverted and corrupted the message given to him. Watch out or you'll have some Sikhs on this forum foaming at their mouths shouting ISLAMOPHOBIA! The oft repeated reference to Bhai Mardana as a Muslim follower of Guru Nanak owes it origin to foreign writers on Sikhism who did not have ready access to most of the Janamsakhis or Bhai Gurdas' vars. Modern Sikh writers have followed the same trend without researching further. Mahan Kosh mentions that Guru Nanak personally did the antim sanskar (cremation) of Bhai Mardana at Kurram in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Bhai Mardana was born in a Muslim family but did live his life as a Muslim, that is the question.

Shaheediyan, Let's use some logic here. Gurbani gives a definition of a Muslmaan, now is that in line with the definition given by the Quran? If not, then the Guru is asking a Muslim (according to the Quran) to not follow the teachings of the Quran and follow Gurbani. I know it's heretical for Sanatanists to think that the Gurus could ever believe Islam to be false or it's rituals as empty. The fact that certain persons from an Islamic family background can accept Baba Nanak as their pir does not make them Muslim Sikhs, it just shows how confused they are both about Islam and about the teachings of Guru Nanak. You also say then why would Bhai Mardana have a problem, well if you think that a Muslim can eat every Ramadan and yet still remain a Muslim then that shows your ignorance. I don't know how many of Bhai Mardana's kul became Singhs. Do you know? But I do know that many Mirasis who are Singhs in Punjab. Does the fact that some or all of Bhai Maradana's kul didn't become Singh prove that he was not a Sikh but a Muslim? How many members of the Gurus house never became Sikhs. Some Hindu Bedis and Sodhis in Punjab claim to be descendents of the Gurus and yet claim to be Hindus. Does this mean that the Gurus were Hindus and never founded Sikhism? Were Baba Farid and Rumi Muslims in the Quranic sense? If they had Hindu friends then they were certainly going against the teachings of the Quran. I see you are still playing the same game of accusing anyone who does not lend any credence to your sanatanists 'anything goes' Sikhism of being conspiracy theorists and blinkered.

If you define the word Sikh as simply student then you come to the ridiculous conclusion that everyone who is studying at schools, colleges and universities are Sikhs and the teachers and lectures are Gurus! The writers of the Janamsakhi and the early Sikhs didn't understand the word Sikh to be simply a follower of any Guru but as the followers of the Gurus, starting from Guru Nanak. It's amusing how those with a sanatanist mindset have to stretch the meaning of the word Sikh to defend their ridiculous theories. I see where Only Five is coming from and he is right. If you want to throw around oxymoron terms like Muslim Sikh then you have to define what is a Muslim and then what is a Sikh and then define whether the term Muslim Sikh compliments these definitions. Rather than bend and twist or stretch each accepted definition in order to justify the term Muslim Sikh, why admit that there can be no such thing as a Muslim Sikh. Did Bhai Mardana fast at Ramadan, if he did then he is outside the definition of a Sikh because Gurbani teaches that fasting is an empty ritual and tortures the body. If Bhai Mardana didn't fast then he was not a Muslim. Sometimes things can be that black and white.

I remember reading on a Muslim website that claimed that the Jews were planting the Gharkad tree all around Israel because they knew that that tree would protect them according to the hadith. This is how screwed up the mentality of some Muslims are. I suppose 100 nuclear bombs don't offer much security!

No doubt as soon as there is an outcry thug sahib will claim to have been misquoted or taken out of context. Lying is a way of life for these people!

As the majority of population at that time lived in villages, then the main recourse to right a wrong would have been the Panchayats. In the towns each biradri would have a panchayat which would deal with the civil legal affairs within the biradri. The State would only be concerned with capital offences such as murder, rioting etc. The government functionaries such as the Kirdars would be responsible for ensuring peace in their area. The Governors would pass judgement on cases and these could very well be determined by who could give the most in bribes. The Muslims would still be able to go to Qadis with regard to their own religious affairs, the capital provisions of Sharia would not have been allowed to be enforced. Death sentences could only be given by the State. In the Malwa areas before the British protectorate was established only the Rajas had the right to give the death sentence. When the British protection was declared in 1809, this right was taken away although after 1857 it was given back to some of the states.

Mainly to settle personal scores. Some of the women who had composed poems against Mohammed. Two of the men were ones who had renounced Islam. One man was the son of Mohammed's enemy.

Here's quite a good debate on whether Islam encourages violence. Note how the Muslim taking part in the debate tries to shout down and interrupt those who are criticising Islam. The Hijabi woman at the end shows how ignorant she is when she states that Mohammed 'liberated' Mecca and no blood was shed. In fact six men and four women were ordered to be executed by Mohammed. This debate shows just how the media is moving on from the usual bukwas of 'Islam is peace' to taking a more critical look at Islam. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mqhq2/The_Big_Questions_Series_2_Episode_34/

Just as Muslims considered any land that was under their control at any point in history to be perpetually Islamic so do the Chinese believe that both Tibet and Xinjiang as Chinese forever having been under Chinese control. Uighurs conmplain about the Han Chinese being settled in 'their land' but isn't this just a reversal of the usual Islamic scheme of taking over other land ie settle Muslims from neighbouring countries there. This was the case with India with the Muslim ruler inviting Turks, Persian and then Pathans to settle around Delhi. Due to the numerical superiority of the Han Chinese they are able to arrest and push back the demographic Islamic onslaught on their country.

One interesting aspect of these terrorism cases is how there always seems to be one of two converts involved. Outside these cases the so-called preachers of hate also appear to include quite a few converts. There's that Izzadin idiot as well as some Jamaican Sheikh who was the first to be convicted of incitement to hatred a few years ago and was later deported. Do you ever see Jewish, Christian or Sikh converts who when converting to these religions take part in terrorism activity? I can't imagine any 3HO Sikhs setting off bombs. So why is it that people converting to Islam appear to be more likely to take part in terrorist activity than converts to other religions? There's food for thought.

They do look like a bunch of retards from the pictures that the newspapers carried. The 'mastermind' of the cell was so thick he had to google "how to dig a hole" when he wanted to hide some of the explosive materials and then forgot to put a marker so that he could dig them up again later!

Malaysia is often cited as one of the rare examples of a state where Muslims can live in harmony with non-Muslims by dhimmis and Muslim propagandists eager to divert legitimate criticism of Islam and its fanaticism. Looks like that example has gone down the tube like all the others!