AnakinSkywalker

When did I ever say one beadbi was less than another. Go on...quote me where I said that.

I never said it wasn't Guru Jis property. You're misreading again....not surprising. Makes you feel all warm inside?....hey whatever floats your boat dude. :D

You know what they say...don't cry over spilt cholay....

Oh so by your logic either the building was never owned by Guru ji, (even though Guru Jis golak was used to fund or purchase it) or if it was once owned by Guru Ji, (which you haven't admitted it was) the ownership was somehow magically transferred to someone else once beadbi occurred in that building! :D

That scenario would be an abuse of the funds. I'm talking about the building that you referred to in your quote below It's a very simple question that you seem to have difficulty in answering. Again I ask. If the Golak is Guru ji's and it's used to purchase a building, then who then will own the building?

If the Golak is Guru ji's and it's used to purchase a building, then who then will own the building?

Again you've ignored my question on who owns the hall. You keep on talking about the association of the activities that were occurring in the hall to Guru Ji whilst I'm talking about ownership of the property to Guru Ji. If Guru Ji doesn't own a building or reside in it then how can beadbi that the Akal Takhat states in it's Sandesh occur? I have never stated that beadbi was not occurring before the protests....so what am I admitting too? Just because beadbi has occured before the protest doesn't mean its justified to do more beadbi! How stupid can a person be to go and protest again beadbi and then do beadbi themselves during the protest. What hypocrisy. And yet you're trying to justify it? Youre trying to put the blame on others, other than the perpetrators who actually carried out the act? One beadbi doesn't justify another. Again you've ignored my question on who owns the hall. You keep on talking about the association of the activities that were occurring in the hall to Guru Ji whilst I'm talking about ownership of the property to Guru Ji. If Guru Ji doesn't own a building or reside in it then how can beadbi that the Akal Takhat states in it's Sandesh occur? I have never stated that beadbi was not occurring before the protests....so what am I admitting too? Just because beadbi has occured before the protest doesn't mean its justified to do more beadbi! How stupid can a person be to go and protest again beadbi and then do beadbi themselves during the protest. What hypocrisy. And yet you're trying to justify it? Youre trying to put the blame on others, other than the perpetrators who actually carried out the act? One beadbi doesn't justify another.

Just because individuals are doing beadbi on property that Guru ji owns doesn't automatically mean the ownership of that property transfers to someone else. Guru ji owns the property and individuals were doing beadbi on it. What part of that do you have difficulty in understanding? I don't know who's posts you have been reading but beadbi of Guru ji's property was being done when celebratory parties where held in it serving non-religious music with alcohol and meat. More beadbi was done when a minority of retards trashed Guru ji's property, smashing windows, spilling vegetarian food on the floor and other vandalous activities.

I don't understand why you think the hall was not Guru ji's property? It was funded by Guru ji's golak yet you state it's not Guru ji's. You still didn't answer my question on who owns the hall? Answer my earlier question first then I'd be happy to answer your later ones.

Let me take the moral high ground here and offer my apologese if I have offended anyone on this forum. I won't however offer my apologese to anyone who supports this beadbi....sorry admins I just can't do it....although I will now strive to ignore childish remarks or respond likewise to some of the immature members of this forum.

100% agree

Kaljugi...you see it's Guru ji's property....

No worries...you're still a joker to me. ** Mod Note: Stop the personal attacks or a warning will be issued. It does not matter who started this childish behaviour **

Abusive language?...ahh whose the cry baby now! Someone pass the Kleenex to Only Five :D

Thats rich coming from you. Youre definitely not one of those!! :D

You're a paapi. No compassion and no empathy.

I will be respectful to you The property was guru ji's, if not whose was it?

Shows how sick you are that your finding this beadbi all amusing. Beadbi of my Gurus property has been done and my sentiments are hurt and you're finding it amusing! Paapi

Just listen to the BBC Asian Network report and the scum who stormed the hall and trashed the place also broke the arm of an auntie. The retarded scum who did this (a minority) went there to stop beadbi yet did beadbi themselves. What a joke!! Is that the best response you've got? You're a joke

So if Guru Jis property is being used to serve alcohol and meat that gives people the right to smash Guru jis windows, throw food on guru jis the floor and trash the place?...RATHER than to do seva and clean the place of alcohol and meat?

I don't think that excuse would hold even in God's court for someone trashing guru ji's property....but hey only God knows. Trashing guru ji's property was never the right thing to do....

I understand and respect your viewpoint, (its valid for some people) however that's no excuse for their actions...and such an excuse would not hold up in a court.

In the Rigveda, the word appears as an n-stem, dhárman-, with a range of meanings encompassing "something established or firm" (in the literal sense of prods or poles), figuratively "sustainer, supporter" (of deities), and semantically similar to the Greek ethos ("fixed decree, statute, law"). In Classical Sanskrit, the noun becomes thematic, dharma-. It is a derivation from Proto-Indo-Iranian root *dhar- ("to fasten, to support, to hold"), in turn reflecting Proto-Indo-European root *dʰer- ("to hold"),[5] which in Sanskrit is reflected as class-1 root √dhṛ. Etymologically it is related to Avestan √dar- ("to hold"), Old Persian √dar- ("to hold, have"), Latin frēnum ("rein, horse tack"), Lithuanian derė́ti ("to be suited, fit"), Lithuanian dermė (agreement),[6] darna ("harmony") and OCS drъžati ("to hold, possess"). Classical Sanskrit word dharmas would formally match with Latin o-stem firmus < *PIE *dʰer-mo-s "holding", were it not for its historical development from earlier Rigvedic n-stem. From the Atharvaveda and in Classical Sanskrit, the stem is thematic, dhárma- (Devanāgarī: धर्म), and in Pāli, it takes the form dhamma. It is also often rendered dharam in contemporary Indian languages and dialects. It is used in most or all philosophies and religions of Indian origin—sometimes summarized under the umbrella term of Dharmic faiths—including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. It is difficult to provide a single concise definition for dharma, as the word has a long and varied history and straddles a complex set of meanings and interpretations. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are called Hindu Dharma, Buddha-Dharma, Jain-Dharma and Sikh dharma, respectively.

I want to know what retard smashed this window. I want to know who he is, what jatha/group he belongs to, and I want him to make a heart felt apology to Guru ji and the Sikh Panth for bringing them into disrepute.

If people accepted ALL the hukumnamas from the Akal Takhat then we wouldn't have this problem. Now we have a myriad of maryadas, some restrictive, some odd...each supporter of which is championing his own flavour of Sikhism...so many divisions and so many agendas... Why can't we all just accept the Akal Takhat Maryada and ALL of it's hukumnamas?