BhForce

Was? Worauf bist du? Who said anything about menstruation? Are you from Germany?

I agree that his tying of it seems loose. Also, just a question: Is is guy (or everybody else, too) simply assuming that "this is the style worn by Guru Hargobind ji" because of a painting? Aren't the paintings painted that way because kings were just represented in that style? Persian style? Does anyone have any other evidence (than the painting) that was actually the style of turban worn by Guru Sahib?

Who? and link?

Does that really need definition, bro? I think the vast majority of Singhs would understand "Guru's maryada" to be the maryada propagated by Guru Gobind Singh ji, and prevailing from that time period forward via oral transmission (seena-baseena). In this specific context, it would mean the maryada or hukum to wear a kachera, which as the poster above has so amply elucidated, means simply that: to wear a kachera. And if men would man up and wear a proper kachera, there's absolutely no reason to wear briefs or whatnot underneath.

Agreed! Please make an account and post regularly on this forum, bro. If there's one thing that our kaum desperately needs, it's a shot of masculinity.

If you found it, why would you not share the link? People don't get paid for responding on Sikhsangat. Why wouldn't you want to make it easier for people so you can get the most responses?

Agreed, but the hukum is not for assassinating people who merely slander Sikhs or the Gurus. As shown by 200 years of Gur-itihas, the hukum was not to kill people who speak against Guru Sahib. There were many slanderers of Guru ji (such as Pirthi Chand and so on). Guru Sahib did not direct that they be killed (unlike the circumsized Prophet, who called for the murder of a poetess who wrote against him). In the music video above, though, it starts off by the guy saying "I killed the thanedar (police station house officer) because was speaking anti-the Guru". That would not be allowed in Sikh ethics. It would be better if the song had portrayed the singer as having killed an actual violent monster who had escaped justice via a corrupt and oppressive system.

Agreed. A person that comes from either a non-Sikh, non-Punjabi, or non-Indian background, or even a young Sikh that doesn't know that much about 1980s history, will see this video and just see a bunch of toughs waving rifles, and will think that these are just people that seem to want to kill for the sake of killing. They'll have no idea why these people are so upset or angry to pick up rifles. On the other hand, if the video had shown scenes of desperation, terror, violence, etc. perpetrated by Indira Gandhi and her cronies, the viewer could have had some empathy for the plight of the Sikhs. Once you have that empathy, one can understand why desperate people might pick up weapons.

Do you mean Guru Gobind Singh ji? Anyway, yes, this episode is related in Sirdar Kapur Singh's Sachi Sakhi. As to the truth of it, who knows? A Sikh nationalist writer named Baljit Singh has cast doubt that the episode was quite so dramatic as Kapur Singh makes it sound. He also states that Ambedkar had his own designs, and did not have plans to become a devout Sikh or anything, merely to use Sikh institutions to further his political desires.

Well, yeah, there huge numbers of Jatts who are Muslims in Pakistan. Just as example their latest Army chief (if he hasn't been removed and had his head chopped off yet) is named Bajwa (a Jatt surname). Randhawa and Sandhu both also being Jatt surnames. The gadari runs deep. Among Sikhs, among Punjabis.

Yes, mainstream, as in believing in Akal Purakh (God), 10 Gurus from Guru Nanak ji to Guru Gobind Singh ji, the bani of the 10 Gurus, Guru Granth Sahib ji, and the Amrit of the 10th Guru.

You're right, bro, it's a tear-your-hair out type of moment when you think about what could have been. We could have been sitting pretty in our our Kingdom. With abundant rivers, mountains, hills, plains, beaches, sea access, uranium, etc. Curse the Sikh leaders who have led us to this moment. Anyway, we can still make something of what little we have left: ਕਹਾ ਭੂਲਿਓ ਰੇ ਝੂਠੇ ਲੋਭ ਲਾਗ ॥ Kehaa Bhooliou Rae Jhoothae Lobh Laag || Why do you wander lost, O mortal, attached to falsehood and greed? ਕਛੁ ਬਿਗਰਿਓ ਨਾਹਿਨ ਅਜਹੁ ਜਾਗ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ Kashh Bigariou Naahin Ajahu Jaag ||1|| Rehaao || Nothing has been lost yet - there is still time to wake up! ||1||Pause|| ਬਸੰਤੁ (ਮਃ ੯) (੫) ੧:੨ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੮੭ ਪੰ. ੩ Raag Basant Guru Teg Bahadur If we give up the petty individual lalach (greed) of stuff like huge mega-mansions and gold-plated gurdwaras, and wake up, there's still some good that can be done for our kaum.

? OK, touche. I'm a Sikh. Chill type.

Yes, you're right. He was run by his taste buds (taste for alcohol) and his p*nis (taste for women). He forgot the larger goal of Guru ki Fauj sitting on the throne of Delhi. He was a fool in thinking that he could take in snakes, nurture them to health, and that they would not then sting him (us). Here's a song called The Snake that encapsulates all this. Please everybody listen to this song: Lyrics: On her way to work one morning Down the path alongside the lake A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew “Oh well,” she cried, “I'll take you in and I'll take care of you” “Take me in oh tender woman Take me in, for heaven's sake Take me in oh tender woman,” sighed the snake She wrapped him up all cozy in a curvature of silk And then laid him by the fireside with some honey and some milk Now she hurried home from work that night as soon as she arrived She found that pretty snake she'd taken in had been revived “Take me in, oh tender woman Take me in, for heaven's sake Take me in oh tender woman,” sighed the snake Now she clutched him to her bosom, “You're so beautiful,” she cried “But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died” Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite “Take me in, oh tender woman Take me in, for heaven's sake Take me in oh tender woman,” sighed the snake “I saved you,” cried that woman “And you've bit me even, why? You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die” “Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in ”Take me in, oh tender woman Take me in, for heaven's sake Take me in oh tender woman,“ sighed the snake

Welcome to the forum, I hope you keep posting. Very interesting thought experiment, and I do agree that we'd be sitting pretty if the Maharaja had not been so fantastically stupid. It is agreed by all (including the British) that we only lost before the British by a hair. If we had won, we would have basically been a power like the British in India, except that we would have been indigenous, and therefore there couldn't have been the same kind of "Quit India, you don't belong here" movement against Sikh rule against us. We could definitely have taken over great expanses of territory, and most importantly, a route to the sea. The foreign empires/Africa is a bit fanciful, but we definitely would have had an intact empire, flourishing numbers, a route to the sea, and industrialization. You have all that, and you basically have a great power, like France or so. Or Japan.

Nadeem? Are you a Muslim? If so, what kind? Chill / jihadi / Sufi / Shia ?

No, it's not silly. (Though it does seem silly to wishy-washy Sikhs who would be just fine with the Panth of Guru Nanak Dev ji vanishing from this Earth.) Props to the jihadis where they deserve it. OK, interesting idea, but the problem then becomes we're intellectual dummies who have no feeling for our religion nor do we understand its grand doctrines. Thus rendering the plan of marrying others and bringing them in useless.

Agreed and liked. It's the head in the sand Sikhs who say "oh, quantity doesn't matter, just quality". So they're basically wanting to have like, maybe 1000 Sikhs in the entire world, and they'll be wearing blue cholas and have all of Guru Granth Sahib ji memorized, and they'll be content to let all the rest of the Sikhs slide into Abrahamic religions or Brahminism or atheism. Great plan there. I also agree that in our kaum it has been just one traitor after another. We have more traitors than devotees! The one thing were I disagree with you is on forced conversions. Leaving aside the fact that that is doctrinally wrong (what distinguishes us from the Muslims, in that case?), it would also have been simply unnecessary. All we needed to have done is to inform the populace (via heralds) that they no longer need follow Islam (or "Hinduism"/Brahminism). The Islamic death penalty for leaving Islam is no longer in force, so you can leave that yoke right now. And people would have. Follow that up with Sikh parchar. And reminding people that the only reason that they are Muslim is that a generation or two ago, the jihadis raped their mothers, etc. Well, one strange thing is how, all of a sudden, the British became votaries of "democracy" and "majority rule", concepts which they never accepted during the time that they were in India. Now, if it was morally OK for a few tens of thousands of British to rule over crores of Indians, then what would have been the problem with a few million Sikhs ruling over, say, a tens of millions of Muslims? AFAIK, the British were obligated by the Treaty of Amritsar to hand over the Sikh kingdom to us when they left. We never pressed the point because none of our leaders had the guts and intellect to do so.

Sorry your topic got derailed. I do believe, though, that your answer was questioned in my post before it got derailed. Did you have any other questions on the topic, or are you satisfied that the word Sikhi was used from the earliest times? It should be noted that our religion is also called "Gurmat". This word occurs many times in Gurbani. There is also the word Sikhia, meaning teaching. This occurs in two forms: ਸਿਖਿਆ - ਸਿਖੀ ਸਿਖਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥ Contemplating the Guru, I have been taught these teachings; ਗੁਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਧਿਆਨ ਧਾਰ ਕੇ ਮੈਂ ਇਹ ਸਿਖਮਤ ਸਿੱਖ ਲਈ ਹੈ, ਸਿਖੀ = ਸਿੱਖ ਲਈ। ਗੁਰ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ = ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਵੀਚਾਰ ਦੀ ਰਾਹੀਂ। ਇਹ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਮੱਤ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਲਈ ਹੈ, The other form is a shortened form "sikh" (meaning sikhia): ਮਤਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਰਤਨ ਜਵਾਹਰ ਮਾਣਿਕ ਜੇ ਇਕ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਸਿਖ ਸੁਣੀ ॥ ਮਃ ੩ ॥ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਸਿਖ ਕੋ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਲੇਵੈ ॥ Gur kī sikẖ ko virlā levai. How rare are those who receive the Guru's Teachings. It should be obvious that the meaning here is not "how rare is those who receive Guru's Sikh", not that that would grammatically mean anything since "sikh" here is female, not male.

Yeah, he did, right here: https://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/83063-was-our-religion-really-called-sikhi-back-in-the-days/&do=findComment&comment=703993 Behind his back? He directly addressed you.

Yes, that would be him.

When you first showed up on this board and posted a few good posts (meaning well though out, not necessarily that I agreed with them or not, though I did for many), I thought you had promise to have serious discussion. This, however, is content-free nonsense: And this is a blatant lie: Yes I do So, if you want to just state that your desire to refute some views of mine (none of which were expressed in my original response to the OP) got the better of you, and you started attributing stuff to me which I didn't state here, and you also lied above, then we can have a discussion on various topics mentioned by you above. (But not in this thread, a separate one, a week or so later.)

Yes, do indeed explain why on the one hand you pose as the protector of the Sikhs from the evil colonial British-created Sikhism while on the other hand using the invader's language.

Uh @BhForce , I think TheeTurbanator is using this British technique known as sarcasm. Bro, if it were something like Mr. Doaba being funny, it would be a different thing. He usually posts "just kidding", "joke" or whatever in the following post. @TheeTurbanator could have done the same. Except that when I challenged him, he chose to blatantly lie that he has a 3ft kirpan on him while he's reading this website. There is simply nothing in my original response to the OP which could have warranted an oblique attack on me by TheeTurbanator such as quoted by you above. Let me explain further: I realize and accept sarcasm as a technique. But it only properly applies to people holding a view that could plausibly be refuted by the sarcasm you're posting. For example, I (and most of the posters on this board) are not Islamophiles. If TheeTurbanator had sarcastically taken a swipe at my supposed Islam-hatred, that would be possibly warranted. However, in no sense am I a promoter of post-British changes to our faith or practices. Therefore, TheeTurbanator can expect a strong response (muh-toR jawab), which he got. And which he has no response to other than lying and blabbering.

SGPC is doing a great job preserving the Abrahamic Framework of Sikhism, I love those guys! SGPC ZINDABAAAAAAAAAAD! Go ahead and share with us how exactly you live in pre-SGPC, pre-British rehit.