Bijla Singh

This might help: http://sikhfreedom.com/terrorism.html

This might help you: http://sikhfreedom.com/santmisc.html

I have not read his article nor do I have any interest. The Bir Sahib remained in the family of Sodhis from the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji.It was taken away by the Sikhs for a short while but the 9th Guru gave it back to the family.

Muslims don't use direct sources but rely on English books that claim to have written the facts. They need to look at Quran and its variations first and not to mention the multiple versions that floated around during Uthman's time. Current Quran's authenticity cannot be proven because it wasn't compiled by Mohammad or during his time. To make the problem acute, all other versions were claimed to have been burnt by Uthman.

After Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji became martyr in 1675, Guru Gobind Singh Ji added his father’s Bani and completed the saroop of Guru Granth Sahib. Many more copies were made from it. One copy was given to Pir Buddhu Shah whose descendants still have this copy. The place where this was done is called Damdama Sahib of Anandpur Sahib (the place still exists). It became the hub of literary work. One copy was sent with Bhai Mani Singh when he was given the charge of Harmandar Sahib in 1696.

The common misconception that the saroop was finalized in 1708 at Takhat Damdama Sahib was started by Giani Gian Singh and it has no basis. It is ludicrous to state that Khalsa was established first but its Guru under whose guidance it was supposed to live came 9 years later. Prin. Harbhajan Singh has written a book called Gurbani Sampadan Nirnay on this subject and it is on Punjab Digital Library. Dr. Trilochan Singh and Sirdar Kapoor Singh also held the same opinion.

It is probable that more copies were written at Takhat Sahib during Guru Sahib’s stay and one such copy was taken along to the south where it was given Gurugaddi and the same saroop was brought back by Baba Banda Singh. Giani Gian Singh states that it was lost during the holocaust while there are other scholars like Prin Harbhajan Singh and Giani Garja Singh who believe that the saroop still exists. Guru Rakha

There are many birs still in existence that bear the signature of the Gurus as an approval seal. Saroop of Gurbani was finalized shortly after 1675 and many copies had been made. Four birs by Baba Deep Singh still exist, a copy written by Bhai Hardas Ji still exists and many others. Gurinder Maan is a chela of mcleod and one can't expect much authentic info on Gurmat from him.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji invented Gurmukhi. The proof lies in his bani Patti Likhi. Sakhi of Paira Mokha also proves that Guru Sahib invented and taught Gurmukhi to Sikhs. Guru Angad Dev Ji popularized it just like Guru Amar Das Ji strongly advocated langar and everyone taking a part in it. The scripts Takri and Shaarda are similar to Gurmukhi. About 25 letters of Punjabi existed during Guru Ji's time and he took the original scripts and refined them. All Indian languages including Urdu come from Brahmi and not Sanskrit. Guru Rakha

All these are great. Thank you all very much.

I need the attached picture edited a little. I need the picture of Sundri sliced off from the rest of the image. In other words, no text. It is for a school project. Much appreciated.

This account has been mentioned by Sohan Lal Suri in his Umdat-Ut-Twarikh written in first half of 19th century. Bhai Vir Singh mentioned it in his Devi Poojan Partal. Other scholars have referenced this account as well.

Sri Gur Katha by Bhai Jeevan Singh (aka Bhai Jaita Ji) is more credible eye witness account. Another striking feature of this account is that it mentions Guru Sahib himself putting patasay (sugar balls) in Amrit. Bhai Binod Singh also wrote a granth but I am not sure if it mentions this account.

Majority of the Sikh scholars believe there was a tent. Bhai Jeevan Singh mentions tent in his account. Whether heads were actually severed or not could be debated but there were no goats. Guru Sahib asked for heads and Sikhs offered them. Whatever Guru Sahib decided later was his decision but one thing is crystal clear that Sikhs passed the test by offering their heads. Guru Rakha

Sikhi will never end. The Panth will recover and chardi kala will come. Khalsa is destined to rule the world. Those who do bad deeds will suffer and bring their own end but this cannot destroy the Panth.

"How can someone who has never taken Amrit become apostate by cutting his hair?"

How are they Sikhs to begin with? If hair cutting makes an Amritdhari a Sikh then clearly taking Amrit makes them a Sikh. Cutting hair is no way acceptable in Gurmat because it is considered a bajjar kurehat. If you assert that rehat only applies to Amritdharis and not others, then clearly you fail to understand Gurmat which is universal.

"Plus does anyone here deny the existence and contribution of sehajdhari Sikhs even after 1699. Because if you do, you obviously haven't been making much effort to understand Sikh itihaas."

You are very confused. Monas and Sehajdharis are very different from each other. Look up a picture of sehajdhari given in Mahan Kosh first. Since when did Guru Sahib sanction Sikhs to cut their hair and still remain sehajdharis?

"We even had a thread here recently with pictures of shaheeds of 1984 who were sehajdharis or monas (whatever you want to call them?).

I guess too Bijla's mind those guys weren't as good a Sikh as he is and they were manmukhs. Maybe? But I tell you one thing straight, they are bigger men than you'll ever be."

This is not about me being a good or bad Sikh. It never was. Your own idiotic assumptions and being paranoid about your mona-puna are leading you to concoct statements and putting them in my mouth. Monas who gave their lives were great people but they acknowledged the fact that they had cut hair to serve the Panth. Their this particular act does not redefine the essence of Gurmat. Their number was in fact miniscule compared to that of the Amritdharis. Now how are you serving the Panth while being a mona? How is your lot contributing to the chardi kala of the Panth by going to pubs? How many monas are doing parchaar of Gurmat? The fact is that while shaheeds like Sukha Jhinda came back to Sikhi and wished to become Sikhs, you continue to stay in denial and hide behind those respected people and consider yourself to be their equal just on the basis that you are a mona.

"Stop using the faith as some ego prop - for your own sake. Find some less obnoxious way to prop up your confidence and self-image for everyone's sake."

And once again you are speaking like a paranoid child. Stop distorting Sikhi for personal reasons.

"And where do we go if we accept Bijla's assertion that all sehajdharis or monay aren't Sikh? Where does that leave us? The smallest faith in the world? Whether we like it or not, the majority of the Sikh panth is now mona. How we got to this can, and should be discussed. Attempts to, in effect, excommunicate the majority of people who consider themselves Sikh by Bijla types is mind boggling."

Oh and now Sikhi is about quantity, numbers and some rank in the world? Since when? You clearly do not understand the most fundamentals of Gurmat. How can there be a proper discussion over bringing monas back to Sikhi when irrational people like you fail to acknowledge the fact that taking Amrit is the first step in becoming a Sikh which you are far removed from. Monas like you call themselves Sikhs with haircut. This is plain stupid. Sikh Panth not too long ago had majority Amritdharis which lead to the rise of awakening and freedom movement. After that, we get majority monas and the result of Punjab and the Panth is right before us. No freedom movement in Sikh history has ever been and never will be started by monas. There is no point in excommunicating those who willingly decided to leave Sikhi by cutting their hair.

So-called lower-caste are leaving Sikhi because of anti-Sikhi behavior of so-called upper caste. This is not Sikh like behavior. A Sikh does not believe in caste system. This needs to be addressed but monas willingly cut their hair and leave Sikhi. I never say that there are inferior or lower than Amritdharis but they are not Sikhs. Serious efforts should be made to bring them back but your attitude to justify faulty behaviors and anti-Gurmat practices by some to justify yourself as a better mona is ridiculous and more damaging. You talk about studying Sikh history yet fail to understand the difference between a smoker drunkard mona and a sehajdhari. A Sikh of Guru can never be a sehajdhari, the term specifically used for certain people not generally for monas. You do not fall in category of a sehajdhari at all. No one denies that fact that monas and sehajdharis have made contributions to the Panth but their lack of rehat does not redefine Gurmat.

If you have some problem with Amritdharis then resolve them on your own. Puratan Singhs were far better than me and I will never be their match in any field of Sikhi. I accept it as a fact. This topic is about Bhai Hakikat Singh which you have not written a single word on and right from the beginning without considering the ample amount of evidence presented, you started to accuse Amritdharis of “revisionism”. So much for rationality and integrity. Those who cut hair are called manmukhs and niguras in Gurbani. Your denial of this fact is not the characteristic of a Sikh. You can call me weak, coward or whatever you want but that doesn’t change the fact that monas are not Sikhs. Your post reminds me of Gurbani pankti: ਜਿਉ ਨਿਗੁਰਾ ਬਹੁ ਬਾਤਾ ਜਾਣੈ ਓਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਦਰਗਹ ਹੈ ਭ੍ਰਸਟੀ ॥1॥

I am not the one throwing insults, hiding behind others’ faults to make myself look good or distorting Sikhi to justify my own weaknesses. Don’t hijack the topic. Do you have any evidence to prove Bhai Hakikat Singh was a mona?

So I take it you think Rattan Singh Bhangu made that up or something?

You did not address my points.

It says a lot that pub brawlers types have to defend the Sikh community these days and people like yourself hide behind dogma as if it will cover up your own weaknesses.

You are sidetracking the discussion here. Let’s assume I am weak and hiding behind my computer (even though you have not presented any evidence), how does that make a mona a Sikh? How does that make you a better person? You have not presented any evidence to show that Amritdharis are not defending the Sikh community and the Panth now has to rely on “pub brawlers”. I commend those who stand up but that doesn’t make them Sikhs.

lets widen the context to get a truer picture of what is going on in terms of abject failures of meeting what being Sikh entails.

The first thing for you would be to look at yourself and then point at others. You seem to have problem with the fact that an Amritdhari is a Sikh and not anyone else. Those who take Amrit and fail to keep any rehat are no different if not worse.

That old game of dogmatic types to hide behind their physical form and castigate those who fail in this department whilst cowardly ducking any action requiring some courage and risk, whereas those being condemned as apostates and whatnot step up like MEN is an issue that rears its head periodically and needs to be nailed at the outset.

Once again, you are defending monas like they are all angels and true heroes. It is foolish to categorically call them good based on a few good men. At the same time, you are categorizing all Amritdharis as cowards. Where is the evidence? Even if I assume for the sake of argument that Amritdharis are not showing enough courage, it does not make monas Sikhs. Amritdharis being weak does not support the argument of monas being Sikhs. An apostate will always be an apostate regardless of his courage. Not too long ago, majority of the Panth was Amritdhari and when things changed, the majority became apostates and the sad affairs of the community are in front of us. It is Gurbani that defines a Sikh and one who commits bajjar kurehat is not a Sikh. Those who deny this fact turn their back on Gurbani which is not the character of a Sikh.

I do not mean to say that monas are bad or inferior people or Amritdharis are better and superior. My simple point is that Bhai Hakikat Singh was a Sikh and those who commit bejjar kurehats are apostates whether they are courageous or cowards is irrelevant.

What about Kaura Mal?

A respected Sikh who actually smoked - of all things!

1. Where is the evidence that he was a Sikh? Which source claims that he actually took Naam/Amrit?
2. Smoking is against Gurmat. One cannot be a smoker and a Sikh at the same time. Granted he helped Sikhs and he was respected by the Sikhs but that doesn’t make him a Sikh.

Your attempt to justify people’s anti-Gurmat behavior and practices as “Sikhi” and trying to define Sikhi based on history rather than Gurbani and Vaars is a clear example of revisionism.

What about teh majority cowardly Amritdharis who NEVER put themselves forward when violent action needs to be taken against outsiders in the diaspora.

What kind of fake jackasses in a tiger skins are they?

Completely irrelevant. Is this another attempt to justify your own apostasy? You think you can do better? Then take Amrit and lead by example rather than trying to look at others’ faults just to give yourself some consolation of your own weakness. Is there any rehatnama that advocates Sikhs to take violent actions or else they are apostates?

You fail to understand the fact that there is a fine line between making mistakes, taking wrong decisions etc. and committing bajjar kurehats. Latter makes one an apostate whereas the former doesn’t. This topic is about Bhai Hakikat Singh. Do you have any evidence to prove that he was a Hindu?

Another example is the one of Bhai Nand Lal and the periodical controversy over his being Amritdhari or not that pops up.

There is no controversy over Bhai Nand Lal Ji being a true Sikh of Guru Sahib. He had obtained Naam from Satguru and become a Sikh. Even before 1699, he was an Amritdhari because he had taken charan Amrit. His name along with Bhai Kanhaiya Ji are being misused by monas to justify their apostasy. Sehajdhari refers to someone who is a non-Sikh and slowly adopting the Sikh rehat. Term Sehajdhari after 1947 has been exploited to the extent of including monas and patits whereas this was never the case in the past.

Bhai Hakikat Singh is being misrepresented in the history to make him part of the Hindu society but the fact doesn’t change that he was a Sikh.

Link is here: www.searchsikhism.com/An Exposition of Gurmantar.pdf