BhForce

Yes. But I and that poster on Twitter are not making this stuff up. All he's saying is what Guru Hargobind Ji taught us. Again, it is not to do bad things with your physical power. It is to have the physical power to do good. And that's not the job of women. Sure, they should be healthy. But they can never be as muscle-bound as men. So brothers need to get off their sofas and build some muscle. Here's how Maharaj starts the Bachittar Natak, his autobiography, with a paean to the Khanda: ਖਗ ਖੰਡ ਬਿਹੰਡੰ ਖਲਦਲ ਖੰਡੰ ਅਤਿ ਰਣ ਮੰਡੰ ਬਰਬੰਡੰ ॥ Khga Khaanda Bihaandaan Khladala Khaandaan Ati Ran Maandaan Barbaandaan ॥ The sword chops well, chops the forces of fools and this mighty one bedecks and glorifies the battlefield. ਭੁਜ ਦੰਡ ਅਖੰਡੰ ਤੇਜ ਪ੍ਰਚੰਡੰ ਜੋਤਿ ਅਮੰਡੰ ਭਾਨੁ ਪ੍ਰਭੰ ॥ It is the unbreakable staff of the arm, it has the powerful luster and its light even bedims the radiance of the sum. ਸੁਖ ਸੰਤਾ ਕਰਣੰ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਦਰਣੰ ਕਿਲਬਿਖ ਹਰਣੰ ਅਸਿ ਸਰਣੰ ॥ It brings happiness to the saints, mashing the vicious ones, it is the destroyer of sins and I and under its refuge. ਜੈ ਜੈ ਜਗ ਕਾਰਣ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਉਬਾਰਣ ਮਮ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਰਣ ਜੈ ਤੇਗੰ ॥੨॥ Hail, hail to the cause of the world, saviour of the universe, it is my preserver, I hail its victory. 2. ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੧ - ੨/(੪) - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ OK, so how are you going to pick up a Khanda without muscles? Those things are heavy! Secondly, note in the 3rd verse that the purpose is to bring happiness to the Saints. Not Nihangs killing Nihangs.

You're welcome. madhur bachan tāhī rasnā sai pyārō lāgai kaurak sabad sun lāgai ur bān sō . Just as sweet words uttered by tongue feel loving to the ears, but bitter words said with the same tongue hurt like arrow. Bhai Gurdas ji, Kabit 644 Olden Singhs used to share everything. Rehitnama says Sikhs are not to kill another Sikh. Rehitnama says not to have a poor Sikh sleep on the floor while you sleep on a cot.

Just for further clarification, Kazi Nur Mohammed, in writing about the Sikhs, whom he calls sag (dogs), says that they had chests like hillocks. Compare that to the average flat-chested Sikh man of today (in the West). Secondly, the old Singhs used to memorize Gurbani. They didn't have YouTube to do Rehras. Or Nitnem. Rehatnama says: "Doou Granth meh bani joee Chun chun kanth kare nith soee" The bani in both Granths Choose and memorize it constantly So the old Sikhs had both physical form and love for Gurbani. They were neither wimps nor meatheads.

No, bro, that's not my vision. What I'd like is for the quam to do what Guru ji wanted us to do. That's a combination of spirituality and love for Gubani, physical strength and weapons, and appreciation for learning, literature and poetry. These are the qualities of Guru Gobind SIngh ji. The Mahankosh notes how many ser (quantity of weight) was required to pull Guru Gobind Singh ji's bow. It was an insane amount. Guru ji didn't create a bunch of wimps. Again, just having physical strength without Gurbani will lead people in the wrong direction.

I'm wondering when the National Crime Agency says they were busted for "immigration crime" it means that they were bringing over Afghan Sikhs in return for cash money. If so, it's really hard for me to condemn them. I mean, at the same time that European countries were welcoming a million Muslims pretending to be refugees and allowing them to take over London and also refusing Afghan Sikhs passage.

The height of this stupidity is when that Punjabi actress, Sonam Bajwa, was asked about becoming Christian. She actually replied, "It's not true, I'm still Punjabi", as if that had anything to do with it!

Bro, how does it help to denigrate her? Secondly, what is it she said that you think is wrong? She said physically fit masculine men are gravitating towards Islam. We might not want that to be true, but it is. Instead of giving a possible answer, you just call her names. The fact is, we as Sikhs have become far too weak. Props to the sister for calling out Sikh men for being wimps. This isn't what Dasmesh ji taught us to do.

Sikhs forgot Gurbani. Gurbani is redpill: ਜੋਰਾ ਦਾ ਆਖਿਆ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਮਾਵਦੇ ਸੇ ਅਪਵਿਤ ਅਮੇਧ ਖਲਾ ॥ The men, who act as women tell them, are impure filthy and foolish. ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪੇ ਕੁਸੁਧ ਨਰ ਸੇ ਜੋਰਾ ਪੁਛਿ ਚਲਾ ॥ The impure persons are engrossed in lust. They consult women and walk accordingly. ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਆਖਿਐ ਜੋ ਚਲੈ ਸੋ ਸਤਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਭਲ ਭਲਾ ॥ He who walks as the True Guru tells him he is the true man the best of the good. p304 Not to mention Dasam Granth Sahib. But Sikhs want to pretend to as if Sikhism is just Western feminism with kakkars. Sikhi provides for true happiness for both men and women. And it doesn't consist of apneean screwing around.

OK, once you put it this way, it's hard to argue, I have to admit.

Woohoo! Let's hear it for girlboss apneean!

It might be, but you do admit that I'm not the only one who does so, right? Even Sikhs who currently reside outside the Lahore Kingdom's borders (i.e., west of Satluj) look back to Maharaja Ranjit Singh fondly. Few look fondly to the Patiala or other kingdoms. Instead of being puzzled, I'd ask you to probe the reasons. Why indeed do Sikhs remember Maharaja Ranjit Singh and not any of a half dozen other Sikh rajas?

You make good points, but none of them invalidate the reasons I gave that it's not just "a bunch of rocks".

Totally not taken as personal. We're just discussing pathways for the Panth. There are two ways to gain what you want: having power yourself, or being useful to someone who has power. Since we don't have #1, the remaining option is #2. It's basically like the "Iraqi National Congress" hanging out in Western countries until such time as a great power needs them. I can't promise this is the path forward. But it's one approach. I'd be interested in hearing your approach(es).

Bro, you're totally right as far as "a bunch of rocks". But it's what they represent which is the issue. The Sikhs took the Peacock throne from Delhi. Sure, "who cares about some yellow metal". But it represents sovereignty. "Khalsa Badshah" Guru Hargobind ji fought a war for some hawks. Sure, "just a bunch of birds". But they represented the sovereignty of the Sikhs. These are the crown jewels of the Sarkar-e-Khalsa. (I don't see that India has a claim on them.)

You're right, it's not, because Sikhs aren't that smart. The white man is, however. The white man uses scribblings on pieces of paper to gain power. Such as: This 500-year-old Catholic decree encouraged colonization. Will the pope revoke it? The papal Doctrine of Discovery was used to justify colonization in the name of Christianity—and eventually became embedded in U.S and international law. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/doctrine-of-discovery-how-the-centuries-old-catholic-decree-encouraged-colonization You don't need to fight a bloody war and get your family members rap ed and killed. You get international institutions to declare countries occupying Sarkar-e-Khalsa lands to be in violation, and then make it difficult for them to access the international financial system (IMF, World Bank, SWIFT, etc). The Jews got the British to "give" them land in the Balfour Declaration much prior to them actually getting physical custody of the land of Israel.

But wait, the Koh-i-Noor was taken from the Sikh Kingdom. So what is India's claim on the diamond? Props to Narendar Kaur for mentioning that it was taken by Brits from the 10 year old Dalip Singh under the Treaty of Lahore. Ironically, the white lady also made a good point in mentioning the Sikhs and the Lahore kingdom (so Pakistanis/Punjabis would have a claim too). If Sikhs had any sense, they would make a deal with the UK "granting" a 999-year lease on the diamond in exchange for the crown "giving" the Sikh Raj territories "back" to the Sikhs so it establishes a de jure claim on those lands (including Kashmir). Who cares about the diamond? The lands are much more useful.

You're not wrong. AFAIK, they meet in a small room in the Darshani Deodi (the tower which is at the start of the causeway to Darbar Sahib). They're all sitting in front of a small "daftar" or those little tables with storage you often see in front of a Gurdwara treasurer who is taking donations and issuing receipts. How this is Maryada is anybody's guess.

The Rehitnama of Bhai Nand Lal ji states that Guru Gobind Singh ji says that if the child of a Sikh cuts his hair, the root of his family line dries up. And if he keeps his hair, it greens. Whatever level of "Gursikh" Nimrata Randhawa's father is, his line is dried up. And going to America for greed and spending all your time earning money and not spending any time teaching your children about Satguru is not what a real "Gursikh" would do. Now if you do teach your children all you should, and they still go astray, it's on them. But that's a different matter.

Shaking my head, too, bro. Regarding her name: It's not "Nikki". It's Nimrata. Which is a fine name for a Sikh. She pretends that that's her actual name and she has claimed that that's an actual Punjabi name. She's just fooling the gore. No one names their children "Nikki". That's just a word that means little one or little girl. It might be a childhood nickname, but her parents almost certainly did not name her that. The only reason she claims that is that is because Nicki is a common name in the US. If she were called "Chhoti" by her family, she wouldn't (and couldn't) claim the same thing. Everything about her is fake.

How do you define religion, bro? Also, how do you define dharam? (Btw, the root of culture is cult )

Clueless "Uncle ji's" will be providing fundraising for "Nikki's" campaign. She'll gladly accept the funds while also believing or pretending to believe that Sikhs are going to hell because they don't believe in Jesus: https://realchristianity.com/judgment-for-non-christians-great-white-throne/

The reason your cousins are atheists is that their grandparents couldn't answer the basic question: Why be a Sikh? The pathetic answer that many of our "elders" have is that it works for them. OK, so obviously that means that their children or grandchildren shouldn't be Sikhs because it doesn't "work" for them. The real answer to the question of why be a Sikh is that Guru Nanak Dev ji is the True Guru, whose seat is held now and forever by Guru Granth Sahib ji, who blesses complete knowledge and uplift to all those who come to him with sincere heart. Our "elders" demean Satguru by portraying him as just another religious figure among many.

True that we're suppose to do simran continuously, bro, but that's not what we're talking about. People were asking whether to do simran first or do paath first (while doing simran with each breath, of course). When you say "there is no any before or after this", that is literally wrong. Did you not read the Gurbani line quoted above? ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ Afterwards at sun rise he sings Gurbani and whilst sitting or standing he meditates in God's Name. p305 ਫਿਰਿ. Meaning "then" or "after". Gurbani is clearly saying do simran then Gurbani.

I agree with this. If you're a rebel army without a prison system, how can you keep a prisoner without a prison?

Bro, that's the entire point. Jesus didn't write anything. Other people (anonymous) wrote stuff. They wrote that Jesus quoted from Psalms. Whether he did or didn't we have no idea. And we don't have to. We just see Gurbani as complete. Anything else, if it is in accord with Gurbani, can be quoted as Maskeen ji used to. But we don't have to go around making truth claims for other scriptures.