tonyhp32

Invented implies that someone made a conscious effort to make this rehat. What I am saying in that at some stage probably in the last quarter of the 18th century, the bulk of the Misls settled down and parceled out areas of Punjab as their territories. One of the Misls possibly the Shaheedan or elements of all Misls who did not want to settle down then formed bands which stayed tied to the nomadic lifestyle. The rehat which the bulk of Sikhs do not adhere to but which forms a part of the Nihang lifestyle must then have come into existence during the period 1770-1849. The importance given to the Sarbloh Granth is a case in point. Although I accept that lately many non-Nihang Sikhs have also started to accept it as the work of Guru Gobind Singh but even the Nihangs accept that Sarbloh Granth did not come into Punjab until the first decade of the 19th century. Now for a text which Nihangs ascribe provides them with intense 'Bir Ras' then it seems curious that the Khalsa did not have this Bir Ras Granth during the very period that they required it the most, ie the period 1699-1770. So how does this sit with the theory of the of the Nihangs as the original Khalsa? A bulk of the Sikhs as well as the Nihangs for a 100 year period never had access to the Granth which is now described in the same manner as the Guru Granth Sahib

The commentary provided by the other poster is true because in the traditional sense the family would be involved in the selection of a marriage partner for him. If he is from a white American background especially if he is from the Yogi Bhajan background then if he is born into a white American Sikh family then they do also take a hand in selecting a marriage partner. In the earlier days Yogi Bhajan used to choose the marriage partner for them. So technically a Sikh should not be in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship although from what you have written yours is not what one would describe as the usual western boyfriend-girlfriend relationship which are known for the physical relationship. Your relationship seems to be one which some Punjabi Sikhs in the West would have no problem with their son or daughter having provided that the boy and girl have made a commitment to get married, ie they are engaged. As for his wandering eyes with regard to other women, I think this would be a problem for any women especially if she is with her man and he still looks at other women. The other posters have given you some very good background about the way a ideal Sikh should conduct himself. In the western environment where some women dress in such a way as to attract the attentions of men, it might be difficult for him to stop himself looking at these women but he should have enough self control to stop himself especially when he is with you. The reason for not staring at women is to do with the fact that it can be a short leap from 'admiring' the beauty of a woman to then having lustful thoughts about her. This is not to say that he is like that but this is the reason for the injunction. His excuse of comparing the beauty of trees and mountains with that of women is a clever excuse but he can't have lustful thoughts about trees and mountains but he can about women. Personally I think you will need in the end to let him know that what he does is bothering you.

This then begs the question as to why does he make these changes? He changes the name of the art from Jhatka Gatka to Shastarvidya to Sanatan Hindu Sikh Shastarvidya. The Akharas have now become Shiv Akharas. It does look like he is introducing a Hindu element into this so-called Sikh martial art. As for the mythology that has been created around this art, one of the most patently false is the one about Guru Nanak having taught SV to Baba Budha. There is not a shred of evidence of this and there is no allusion to this in any of the Janamsakhis. Unless of course you think that Guru Nanak also wanted to keep this art a secret. But then why is Niddar splashing this 'secret' art in the newspapers and on the internet. You can't have a secret art which it seems every tom dick and chris crudelli knows about!

One thing that is confusing, was Shastar Vidya or Jhatka Gatka known by all Nihangs prior to 1849 or was it even a secret art back then. There is an account of some Nihangs taking exception of the East India company sepoys taking out a shia procession through the streets of Amritsar and being badly mauled in the brawl. This is given as the reason for Maharaja Ranjit Singh modernising his army. These Nihangs were not just ordinary run of the mill Nihangs but they came from their choani near Akal Takht so one would guess that if any Nihangs in the 1800s would know SV it would have been these ones. Also if SV was so effective then why wasn't it also used in the modernised army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh?

Benedict Arnold was a great strategist and commander of the American war of independence yet is today remembered by the Americans as a traitor because he tried to hand over West Point to the British forces. Betraying the very people you claim to be defending is the worst of crime and one shouldn't be surprised that Santa Singh is today thought of as a traitor in non-Nihang circles.

I think you need to read the post that you want to respond to before making wild accusations. Where have I said there were no such things as Nihangs, I said that there were no Nihangs as we know them during the period 5-6 decades after 1699. I wonder if anyone is aware of the hundreds of paintings in Europe from the Renaissance period which depict classical Greek and Roman as well as biblical scenes but where the attire worn by the subjects is of the Renaissance period. Projecting the images of the present into the past is nothing new. Paintings of Nihangs may exist from the 1770s which show them in the company of Guru Gobind Singh but that does not mean that the Nihangs were present at the time of Guru Gobind Singh. Many paintings painted by artists today depict the Khanda symbol in the flags of Sikhs with Guru Gobind Singh yet we know that no such symbol existed then. Quite apart from the fact that the rehatnamas which span the era 1710-1799 state that the rehat is for the Singhs or Sikhs or even the Khalsa and make no mention of Nihangs. If you want to believe that the Nihangs were the 'original Khalsa' then that is up to you but don't try and present your belief as serious research. Jhatka is not just a rehat for the Nihangs, other non-Sikhs have also performed Jhatka. Didn't the million or so non-Nihang Singhs in Punjab at the time of British not consume Jhatka? It is only with the recent vegetarianisation of the Sikhs that most Amritdharis do not eat Jhatka but non-Nihang Singhs have always eaten Jhatka. What is a particular Nihang rehat is rituals such as the blood tilak on shastars, sukha, Sarbloh Granth etc which non-Nihang Singhs do not take part in. I know it's very difficult for some here to comprehend something so basic as, if you believe that Nihangs were the original Khalsa then there would be no other Khalsa from 1699-1770. The fact is that there were other Khalsa, lakhs of Singhs who were not Nihangs. This poses an interesting question, if one were to accept that the Nihangs are/were the 'original' Khalsa then that would imply that the Nihang lifestyle of today is the accepted lifestyle that Guru Gobind Singh decreed for the Khalsa. So why are the Nihang wannabes from the UK and US and Canada living western lifestyles, why aren't they riding horses, living in a chaoni, drinking sukha like the Nihangs in India?

Neo, I don't think anyone has ever advocated that Monas whether Sikh or non-Sikh not be allowed to do sewa whether it is in the langar, gatka or playing the tabla. The dispute has been over whether monas should be allowed to do Kirtan from a Gurdwara stage. Doing Kirtan is a form of Parchar whereby the Kirtaniya is urging the Sangat to follow the words of the Gurus. How can someone do this yet not himself follow the Guru's words?

Turk tareekat jaanee-ai hindoo bayd puraan (Kabairji SGGS page 340) The Muslim is known by his path and the Hindu by the Vedas and Puranas Hindu anhaa Turkoo kanhaa, duha tay gianee sianaa ( Namdevji SGGS page 875 ) The Hindu is blind and the Muslim is one eyed, the knowledable one is wiser than both

Drawrof, The problem with your theory is that it fails to address how millions of Sikhs were not Nihangs. So who were they, were they Nirmalas or Udasis or Sewapanthis? How about the Malwa Rajas whose connection with the Gurus was also long standing and who were never Nihangs. What of their forces who like the Khalsa forces had also been fighting first with Banda Singh and later with minor Muslim Nawabs as well as Mughal Faujdars?

From it's very inception the book starts off with an untruth. That Guru Gobind Singh arrived at nader along with some Nihangs. We need to look beyond fairy stories like these. There was no such thing as a Nihang as we know them today in 1707. It was Amritdhari Sikhs, or Khalsa Sikhs that were with the Guruji. The original Budha Dal was a dal of Singhs and not Nihangs. Nihangs came later probably in the 1770s at the earliest after the Misls had started to break up areas of Punjab into their own rule. The Nihangs of the 1770s which many British travellers encountered were likely to be either members of the Shaheed Misl who did not settle and take over areas of Punjab or was made up of members of other Misls who wanted to continue the normadic lifestyle of the Khalsa after Banda Singh Bahadur. The lately oft made claim of the Nihangs to be the original Khalsa is patently false. 1. Entry into the Khalsa during the period between 1699-1870s is claimed to have been solely through the Nihangs at the Takhts. If this is true then the vast majority of Sikhs who were the soldiers of the Lahore Durbar as well as those in the armies of the Malwa maharajas would have been Nihangs. So where was the need for the Lahore Durbar to have separate units of Akalis? No doubt with the modernisation of the Sikh Army under the French generals it would have meant Nihangs (if all Sikhs solders were Nihangs) would have had to dispense with their Bana. The Lahore durbar also had the use of the Jagirdaris fauj the majority of which would have been the army supplied by the Sikh jagirdars. Yet none of these appear to have been Nihangs. During the First Anglo-Sikh war fought in the Malwa area the British reported that some of their troops who were stragglers and unable to keep up were being ambushed and killed by Sikh villagers. In no place do they state that these villagers were Nihangs. 2. The story of the slaughter of Nihangs in Patiala or even the shoot on sight orders against Nihangs by the British as claimed by Niddar could never have happened if his claim of Nihangs being their only Khalsa. You would have had a case of Nihang Rajas and their fauj helping the British to hunt down other Nihangs. What about the bulk of the Sikh population in Punjab estimated to be anywhere between 1.8 - 2.5 million. Were these 2.5 million Nihangs also being hunted down? Did these 2.5 million Nihangs suddenly take off their Nihang attire? Incidentally since Niddar in his Independent newspaper claims that he has used the British obsession with record keeping to resurrect the history of the Nihangs and Shastar Vidya, has he found the original shoot on sight orders or even copies or allusions to these orders? I know this will vex a lot of the Nihangophiles here Nihangs were a law and order problem for Maharaja Ranjit Singh as well. Most travellers who visited his Durbar noted that Nihangs were troublesome yet he managed to control them through a combination of flattering their leaders and making donation to their camps. Some food for thought.

In Gurbani as well as in the Rehats, the word Turk has always meant Muslim. Whether the advice given in the rehatnamas is time specific or universal is open to debate. http://www.amritworld.com/pbi/commentary/r...asingh/turk.pdf

It does seem that the promoters of Snatanism do appear to make a number of u-turns and amendments to their beliefs. First it was only 4 sampardhas, then it became 5 with the inclusion of DDT, then again 4 with the DDT being placed within the Nirmalas. Now if Kam1825 is right, then they have now been removed from the 4 sampardhas, so does that mean there were then 'originally' only 3 sampardhas? It doesn't do Snatanism any favours when the promoters keep on changing their views. As for the book, personally I wouldn't waste my money on it. The prints and photos are good but then by purchasing the book you are not purchasing just them you are also funding the viewpoints of the writers. If you agree with their viewpoint then by all means you will want to purchase the book and perhaps more than one but if you do not support their views then buying the book is like shooting yourself in the foot!

Karate Kid..Harry Potter..Chronicles of Narnia..Da Vinci Code..Lord of the Rings..etc yes it's all there in the Shastar Vidya story!

Valli, You cannot post so called jeevan charitars of Santa Singh which would no doubt be hagiographic in nature given that he is such a controversial figure without posters making adverse comments. To you and some others of a Nihang background Santa Singh might have been the best thing since sliced bread but to a vast numbers non-Nihang Sikhs Santa Singh is seen as a traitor to the panth. So my advice to you is that you shouldn't be surprised when your posts get attacked on other sites.

I don't see any 'wild rumours' against Santa Singh. Unless of course they have deleted some of the posts or maybe saying Santa Singh took money from Indira Gandhi and had CRPF Hindu guards whilst he rebuilt the Akal Takht are now considered wild rumours!! Such is the state of the Panth!

Not been watching it. I'm not paying another tenner to the already 40 odd quid I pay for my Sky package. The IPL comes on some Irish channel called setanta. I am looking forward to the twenty20 world cup in June though.

The article writer is right in one sense that if the SGPC and the Delhi committee gave away land which was under their trust then that is reprehensible. Also giving away lakhs of rupees donated for the most part by humble Sikhs to an already affluent family like Maskin's is also very wrong. If the family took the money even when they did not need it then that puts Maskin's family in a poor light. I think the best points the writer makes is the fact that nowadays Sikhs will give anyone the status of Brahmgiani. All it takes nowadays is for some Baba to convince a few Sikhs to give him a pice of land to build a dera. Ina few years he will gain some chelay and they will then propaganise for him and soon he's a Brahmgiani and has enough chelay to affect election results! The writer is stating that in his view only Waheguru is Brahmgiani and no human being can be given that status. Historically speaking no Sikh has been given the status of Brahmgiani until the last century and the same goes for the oft misused term of Sant. Whatever you feel about a writer, it is best to read and then decide, if after reading his views you end up disagreeing with him more than you did before you read it, then even then you have gained a better understanding. If you find something which enlightens you then again you have not lost out by reading. It's sad that attitudes such as those expressed on this thread exist especially on a so-called open minded forum!! We'll be burning books soon at this rate!

It is generally accepted that Sher Mohammed was killed in battle with Sikhs at Chappar Chiri in 1710. Check any book on the subject and it will confirm what I have said. In fact the Sikh encyclopedia also confirms this-; http://thesikhencyclopedia.com/muslims-rul...tml?directory=1

Fatehsingh The Singh Sabha only came into being a few generations after Baba Sahib Singh, so that is why there hasn't been much written by the Singh Sabha about him. Baba Khem Singh was a contemporary of the Singh Sabha and therefore they criticised his attempt to make himself a 'Guru'. One interesting fact that comes from the article posted by Neo is that Baba Sahib Singh attacked the Rais of Raikot, the same Rais who a generation earlier had hosted Guru Gobind Singh! The same is the case with Maharaja Ranjit Singh who deposed the widows of the Rai family and gave their territories to his father in law, the Maharaja of Jind. Maharaja Ala Singh of Patiala had also fought against the son of Rai Kalha, although this could be put down to a territorial struggle. Another interesting fact is that the Sikhs also fought and killed not only Sher Mohammed of Malerkotla (he spoke up against Wazir Khan's actions against the Sahibzadas) but also around 3-4 other Nawabs of Malerkotla who followed his rule. Could it be that the Sikhs of the 18th and 19th centuries weren't as sentimental as some Sikhs are nowadays and were always willing to fight anyone who stood in the way of Khalsa Raj?

I think the fault that Niddar's hatti had been doing such a roaring trade up until a few years ago is in many ways the fault of Nihang Dals in India. I remember about 5 years ago I knew a Nihang in the UK who through his contacts in Budha Dal was doing his best to get a written statement from Santa Singh confirming that Niddar was not a Jathedar of Budha Dal UK and that his statements about 'snatan' Sikhism were false. After countless phone calls and other contacts it all came to naught mainly because the Budha Dal just didn't take the Niddar thing seriously enough. This is why I believe that Budha Dal has been at fault for allowing Niddar's hatti to run for so long. It is important for any organisation to keep a careful watch on anyone seeking to use it's name in order to enhance his own credibility whilst misrepresenting the views of that organisation. Try setting up a burger bar and calling it McDonalds and see what happens!

Has anyone watched this TV channel. Apparently they are based in Iran and during the Gaza conflict I started to watch this channel just to get the Arab perspective on the conflict. They do try and appear to be neutral by inviting Israelis to discuss the conflict but overall they tend to cut off any Israel who makes a good point. Unlike other channels the interviewer rather than be neutral actually attack the Israelis or anyone whose point is not the same as the Iranians or Arabs. They also have left wing 'Socialist Worker' type idiots on who regurgitate the same old tripe as the PA/Hamas people. They had a phone in programme during the conflict called Gaza and You which allowed people to phone in their views. Quite a few phone and the general views are that the holocaust never happened and that people should be happy when Jews or Zionists die! Although I must say the host of the programme does take some of the people to task. Btw they also have Galloway on as well as that paragon of free thought and enlightened debate Yvonne Ridley!

Iraqi woman had 80 women raped then recruited as suicide bombers http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...1-12335,00.html

Morghe, Nice try. I think the others posters have already said what I would have replied to your over the top comments. It's the height of idiocy to equate 1400 odd years of slavery and rape of female slaves to the Chritopakhyan. You have no answer to why a master can rape a female slave and have tried to bend and twist sharia ruling into order to prove that rape is not allowed when clearly it is. I think we should leave it here. Rape of slaves in allowed in islam the schools of jurisprudence state and no amount of argument by you will change that fact.

The Middle East episode was good especially the coverage given to the Yazidis of Iraq and Alawites of Turkey. Although having researched further myself it does seem that the programme overlooked the links and background of the Alawites to Shia Islam and portrayed them as being almost an independent religion.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh has never been portrayed as an example of all Sikhs to follow so your snide comment fails of course. Whereas Allah himself wants Muslims to look on the 'prophet' as an ideal human being and worthy of being emulated by Muslims. Hence the stories one reads from the Middle East and Afghanistan of old men marrying little girls. As for the little boys, where is the proof of this? Are you sure you are not mistaking the court of Lahore with the way heaven is described in the Quran? Constantly regenerating virgin concubines and little boys belong to Jannah. You are obviously lying about the slave master not being able to rape his female slaves. Leave aside slavery even in the Islamic marriage the mehr a man gives as well as his providing protection and food for the wife is a form of payment for the enjoyment of the wife's vagina. Before some Sikhs rightly become outraged at this comment, please note that this is exactly how some scholars have termed the Muslim marriage! You will of course be aware that a Muslim woman has to be constantly available for her man and can only refuse her husband during her period. If she refuses him for no good reason apparently all the Angels curse her in heaven! As if Angels have nothing better to do than take offence as Abdul's wife not being in the mood when he is! A master's right over the female slave is even more than a man's right over his wife so it is a well established right in Islam that the master can take his female slave against her will. According to Al Hilli as Shia theologian the master can allow his friend to have sexual relations with his slave. The only restrictions Islam placed on the rape of slaves is that the master should not rape a female slave belong to his wife!! As for your contention of freeing a slave after 7 years, I believe that this is only the case of a slave who has become a Muslim. If I am wrong then feel free to correct me. Unlike the western slave trade which was based on economics, the Islamic slave trade was based on sexual gratification. A majority of slaves were females which were brought with the express object of their being used to satiate the lust of their masters. The problem with Islam is that it did not abolish slavery. Quite surprising given its claim to be a 'perfect' system. As Bernard Lewis writes, there is no contradiction between someone being a devout Muslim and being a slave owner. No doubt various rules were made which set out ways in which a slave could be released but without the abolition of the whole system all this does is create more demand for slaves. If a master frees a slave especially in the case of where payment is made by the slave for his release then the master has capital to buy another slave and thus more demand is created. Your contention about the freedom given to a slave girl once she is pregnant is also not correct. She can only be freed once her master has died and in Shia Islam only in cases where the master has died and the child is still alive. Given the high infant mortality of those times it is very likely that a female slave would be raped many times and get pregnant and then her child would die and she would be in exactly the same position as before.