tonyhp32

I don't think this forum is becoming more like Sikhsangat. It's got more a lot more lively than it usually is. The reason for the Sikhsangat comment may have been that someone's positive views on Sants/Brahmgianis were challenged and he was unable to answer back.

Shaheediyan, Where did I say that Guru Nanak or the other Gurus were not aware of Islamic thought? There is a difference between being antarjami and thus having prior knowledge of everything and having to study the Quran under the supervision of a Mullah. As for the use of Quranic or Sufi verses/terms to preach Gurmat, this is a method best used in areas where the predominant culture is Islamic such as in Western Punjab before partition. The maximum use of this style of teaching was by Sewapanthis who lived and preached in such an area. Sewapanthis were virtually unknown in Eastern Punjab where the common culture was more Sikh and Hindu. This type of preaching would have been thought as being very novel in Eastern Punjab whereas it would have been the norm in Western Punjab. This is in line with the way the Gurus preached and where it is possible to see where a particular Shabad would have been first sung and to what audience.

I posted this on sikhsangat.

I suppose the best way to judge when man became worthy of Mukti is when he was able to conquer his base instincts and develop a moral code. When he determined that things such a theft, adultery and murder were wrong and that might is not always right and that the weak needed to be defended.

Be careful, as with every text use the touchstone of Gurbani to try and sift through some of the fanciful sakhis contained there.

Some people here need to look up the word Antarjami. Studying something imples that one has no knowledge of a subject and studies it in order to gain undertanding and knowledge of that subject. As for Panth Parkash, did Guru Nanak teach the Muslims that it's ok to take slaves in war, or that women captured in war can be used as sex slaves? Did Guru Nanak also state that Mohammed is the final prophet as well? Compare this with the Babar Vani and how Guru Nanak feels the pain of the common people caught up in a war. We had already had this discussion on the Guru Ki Maseet thread. Would the Gurus actively promote a religion that is in direct contradiction to their own?

I have no problem with people believing and attending Sant deras, personally I think a true Sant or Brahmgianis tend to be be known only after they are gone. The problem is that some Sikhs are prepared to call any tom dick or harry a Sant or Brahmgiani and when some of these people fall short then that brings the whole concept of a Sant or Brahmgiani into disrepute.

I think the question asked was whether the Gurus studied the Koran. The answer for which I gave is no. Was the Koran studied around the bungas of Durbar Sahib, methinks it's highly unlikely. What does Rumi have to do with the discussion?

Most dambhis preach love and respect until they gain a large enough following to claim to be equal to the Gurus.

Nope.

That figures. Every sect of Islam thinks the rest of the world because they are kafirs owes the Muslims a living! The funniest quote was at the end of the article.

Yes, wahabism was founded in the 1700s, although they claim that theirs is the original form of Islam and they are probably right. The case doesn't prove that the country is moving towards Fascism, it's cases like these brought by some Muslim thinking he can get a pay out which ruin it for those with legitimate causes.

Randip Singh There's no reason why the Koran MIGHT not have been studied there but it is highly unlikely. We can easily say that Robinson Crusoe might also have been studied there but then that is also highly unlikely. Because we are discussing a time when the Sikh literature refered to the rule of the Khalsa as a time when the Maseetan, Sunnat and Baag would all be destroyed. I suppose Niddar Singh keeps quiet about that!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/8064474.stm If they're not blowing people up they are tying up the employment tribunal system with stupid claims!

Khalsa was a term that the Mughal emperors used for land that was in the direct control of the Emperor ie not farmed or leased out to someone else. The Emperor received the income direct from these villages without middlemen like the Chaudharis. The use of the term Khalsa by Guru Tegh Bahadur in his hukamnamas is in reference to Sangats who were in direct linkage to the Guru ie there was no Masand acting as an intermediary. In 1699 when the Khalsa was created this was not show that the Masands as a system were to be abolished and henceforth all Sikhs would have a direct relationship with the Guru. Even after 1699 the term Khalsa was still being used in the Hukumnamas for Sikhs who from their names it is clear that they had not taken Amrit but this is natural as the Guru would not deprive the old Khalsa Sikhs from being referred to as such after 1699.

No offence Randip Sian but being eloquent doesn't make someone right! I remember he made some claim a few years ago that the Koran used to be studied in the Bungas around the Durbar Sahib during Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time. Yeah right! The Badshahi mosque was used as a stable but the Koran was studied!

Neo, I have to disagree with you on this. Basically you are saying that for some there is no need to take Khanday Baatay da Amrit they can still call themselves Sikhs provided they take naam from a Brahmgiani. Now no one can doubt Guru Gobind Singh, as there was only one Guru Gobind Singh but which 'brahmgianis' should a Sikh take instead of Guru Gobind Singh? Can someone take that Sirsa Saadh fellow as many believe that he is a 'brahmgiani'? Shaheediyan That victorian argument is one used by our old wannabe Iranian friend. Just being critical of Sikh texts such as Sooraj Parkash doesn't make him revisionist. Are you saying that Sooraj Parkash is 100% accurate? Although it is possible that Guru Gobind Singh did not give Amrit to Bhai Nand Lal or Bhai Ghanaiya but this does not preclude them having taken Amrit later in life. The descendents of Bhai Nand Lal were keshdharis during the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The spiritual descendents of Bhai Ghanaiya became Keshdharis around the same time. Using the Sakhi of Bhai Nand Lal to justify that some can still remain Sikhs without Amrit is faulty logic. There is a sakhi that many in the congregation of 1699 especially the high born Brahmins and Khatris refused to take Amrit saying that they would not leave behind the rites and rituals of their ancient religion. Now if Guru Gobind Singh was offering Amrit as a voluntary act then why would these people feel the need to protest against having to take Amrit? The same is the case of Sainapat's Sri Guru Sobha, some Sikhs of Delhi mainly Brahmins and Khatris socially boycotted some of their neighbours who had taken Amrit and returned to Delhi. This goes in the face of Khanday Baatay Da Amrit being a choice for a Sikh and not a requirement. Guru Sangat Keeni Khalsa (var 41) It isn't Aadhi Sangat Keeni Khalsa!

The meticulous details that were kept by Bhai Kahan Singh's family were of Baba Ajaipal Singh. Chakkarvarti just took these details, added him own masala mix and made Baba Ajaipal Singh into Guru Gobind Singh living incognito.

There are a Vadbhag dera in Greenford Rd, Southall which is being rebuilt at the moment. I am not sure if this place has any authority from the vadbhag dera in HP. From what some people have told me the place is run by a lady who for the last few decade used to do the usual 'pucchhan'. Someone who is from our village went to her many years ago when she hadn't amassed so many fools as her followers because she had a problem with her job. The lady told her that husbands' grandfather had been an ardent follower of a Muslim shrine in her village and because her husband's father and her husband hadn't followed continued the tradition that was why she was facing a problem at her job. The fact is that all the people from our village know that although there were a number of Muslims living there pre-1947 there had never been a Muslim shrine there. This is the kind of BS these kinds of deras dish out.

Jat Singh Sabha domination.. that old chestnut again! The Jats dominate the Gurdwaras because they are the majority of Sikhs. It's simple demographics and not as some try and argue some type of nefarious Jat plot to deny non-Jats the opportunity to wield power in the Gurdwaras. By bringing up the same argument and using it as an excuse to try and justify why there are Ramgarhia and Ravidas Gurdwaras you are just adding to the problem. Have you seen a Jat wield power in the Delhi Gurdwaras committee? It is full of Khatris and Aroras. Everyone is free to stand for elections, but elections are by their nature dirty and if people want to vote based on their own caste or if it isn't caste then it is region, then there is not much apart from education we can do about it. The setting up of Ramgarhia and Ravidas Gurdwaras are less likely to be because of Jat discrimination but are based on the nature of the settlement patterns that took place in the UK. Ramgarhias who formed a majority of Sikhs who migrated from Kenya and Uganda wanted their own places and to keep their identity intact in the face of the overwhelming Punjabi Jat Sikh migrants in the UK. The Ravidas Gurdwaras are a continuation of highly political Ravidas identity from the Doaba region of Punjab which incidently has more people from the Chamar background than the other two regions. The fact is that Singh Sabha Gurdwaras are probably the only Gurdwaras where any Sikh regardless of caste can stand for election. In Ramgarhia and Ravidas Gurdwaras only people belonging to that caste can stand for elections. Recently there was a legal case where a non-Ravidasi tried to take the local Ravidas Temple to court because of he said it discriminated against non-Ravidasis.

Neo Which book is that quote from? and what is the context in which Bhai Sahib wrote this?

The submission to the US congress by one of the former extremists Maajid Nawaz does contain information about how he became involved with the extremists. http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/s...ion-09-2008.pdf

MDS, Stop going around in circles. I have answered all your points and all you have is that some writers stated that Nihangs were treated with respect and were revered as demigods. Which writers state this and when did they write this? So the Sikh masses (all of them non-Nihang) go from revering the Nihangs as demi gods in the early 1800s and yet a few decades later sit by while the maharaja of Patiala massacres them and the british issue shoot on sight orders. I hope none of us here are given this kind of reverential treatment! One swallow doesn't make a summer and one bujhangi doesn't make Nihangs the original Khalsa. The story of Baba Gurbaksh Singh is told in Parcheen Panth Parkash, the first text that exclusively calls Sikh warriors as Nihangs and when was it written? It was written in the 1840s. Your claim about the word Bujhangi, Nihang and Akali having the same meaning in Sikh history is incorrect. Amritpal Singh clearly shows that Nihang in various texts could mean sword, horses, of just warrior (not exclusively Sikh). If you want to engage is a serious discussion I suggest to answer all the points made regarding this. The use of the word Nihang in early Sikh literature was your main point in showing the Nihangs to have been the original Khalsa. Nihang and Akali may mean the same thing now and it may even have meant the same thing in the 1770s but it did not mean the same thing between 1699-1760s as shown in the research by Amritpal Singh. I have never disputed the use of the colour blue as the colour of the Khalsa so I fail to understand the reason for your making this an issue.

Personally I think the religion itself is prone to extremism and most Islamic terrorism in rooted in the Quran and Hadiths. But if want to write a politically correct account about how a good old Muslim youth can become an extremist just use the key words like Islamophobia, British foreign policy, war against Islam, Israel's very existence etc etc. That should get you an A* There's an organisation of former Islamic extremists which works with the British govt mainly taking taxpayers money and shouting that if they don't get the funds then it could lead to more terrorism, bit like the Jizya in fact but this time a small minority are the ones demanding it from the state and not the state demanding it from a small minority! Who says terrorism doesn't work? They have quite a few publications on their website which should help you out. Their website is-; http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/

MDS, 1. Whether the Sarbloh Granth has more Bir Ras than Dasam Granth is not the main issue here. The Nihangs claim that Sarbloh Granth is a Bir Ras Granth. What is important here is that a group which claims to be 'original' Khalsa and puritanical with it can so easily accept a text as genuine when it had not been available to them from over 100 years. This is all the more important given that scholars belonging to the sanatan mindset have dismissed the Sarbloh Granth as being the work of Sukha Singh from Patna Sahib written a few decades before it became available in Punjab. 2. Nihangs are mentioned in Dasam Granth but again let's not lazily accept that the word 'Nihang' used in Dasam Granth means exactly what the word Nihang means today. The context in which the word has been used is important. Bhai Amritpal Singh's site gives a good account of what the word Nihang meant to these early Sikh writers in comparison to what it means today. http://www.amritworld.com/main/nihang/in_dasamgranth/ If Amritpal Singh is right and the first time the word Nihang has been used exclusively for Sikh warriors was Pracheen Panth Parkash then that negates all the myths of Nihangs being with Guru Gobind Singh in 1699. 3. The rehat that the Bandais shunned was the Khalsa rehat with regard to Jhatka which I have already stated was not solely a Nihang rehat. Khalsas had been eating Jhatka long before any Nihangs had come on the scene. What era do Kahan Singh Buchangi' and 'Gurbaksh Singh Nihang Singh' belong to? So out of Lakhs of Sikhs two had the name Bujhangi and another had Nihang to his name. There was contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh called Nihang Khan. Does that means that Nihangs as we know them now were around then? 4. The late 18th century is the period that is important. That fact that many English writers state that some Singhs kept the Nihang rehat does not prove anything, I have already said that there were groups around who we would recognise as Nihangs at that period. 5. The Vaar of Bhai Gurdas Singh were written during the time that the Khalsa was in a struggle to the death with the Mughals. It describes Sikhs wearing blue. The fact that Sikh warriors in the era before Nihangs wore blue does not prove anything. In fact the colour blue was amalgamated into the uniform of the Lahore Durbar army when it was modernised.