Mahakaal96

10 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

wasn't it tradition for mahals to be surnamed deva/ devi ? and if issuing hukams for the panth signing with that name would be more well known than her new moniker.

That would be very very unlikely as amrit sanchar was in 1699, mahraj returned to Sachkand in 1708, Mata jis hukamname are from several years after that. So your looking at a minimum of around 10-15 years after amrit sanchar so unlikely Mata would continue to use a previous name. And also if we look at other females in the panth right from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji I can't recall any of them having Deva or Devi added to their name. If Mata had taken amrit & therefore become a Kaur as is common practice today then she would not have continued to use a previous name... just like mahraj themselves never used sodhi or rai once they became a Singh.

1 hour ago, Akalifauj said:

This is not proof.  Provide Bhai chaupa Singh's rehat in its original writing.  A guy puffing his chest for hazuri singhs and Buddha dal is providing McLeod translations.  Lmao.... What's next Dr. Pashura singh writings.  What happened to your predated stipulation of 1900 evidence only.  Clown college presents translation dating from 1990 or so.  Hi Mr. Bigly Trump.....lol

What do you think this is... babysitting spoon feeding time?? The original is widely available... here's an idea... do some research yourself. The translation is of a text written in 1700. 

The handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva are originals from early 1700's, if Mata had taken Khanda da amrit she must have become a Kaur as is popular practice today... so why has Mata signed those rehitnama as Sahib Devi & not used the word Kaur anywhere?? 

Do your research and you will realise the word 'Kaur' actually means 'Prince'... not princess

You have been given a translation of a text  from 1700 (original widely available) & actual originals of hukamname written by Mata Sahib Deva herself from early 1700's..... where's your evidence that backs up your argument???

46 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

then why is it not said the same for the mona woman in the previous section ? stop making up stuff and recognise that there are some things here that against Guru Gobind SIngh's rehit  especially numerous Hindu specific rituals like yearly shrad and putting phul of antim sanskar in GANGA ... also no mention of anand Karaj anywhere.  

It is literally contradicting itself , then comparing againt Bhai Nand Lal SIngh's rehitnama  again the difference are apparent.

No daughter of a sikh is supposed to given in the house of a mona  from Guru ji's own hukam  - roti beti di sanjh.. so how does one equate this rehit nama to Guru ji's orders ?

 

I'm not making anything up, it's there in black & white to read & it's from Bhai Chaupa Singh not me.

People need to realise that the initiation rites of a SIKH & the initiation rights of a SINGH/KHALSA are not the same. The KHALSA rehitnama is for those initiated into the Khalsa FAUJ by way of taking 'Khanda Di Pahul'. The Khalsa is a fauj... not a social club where you bring your wives, sisters kids etc along. Firstly understand what a fauj is, then understand what the Khalsa is.

Like I said in previous post, please take your questions & grievances directly to Hazur Sahib to get clear answers 

"(v) A. Gursikh should not marry his daughter to a mona unless he agrees to accept
initiation. ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash a
Granth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be
recited. The couple should then drink the water. If the bridegroom has previously
worn a sacred thread he may .continue to do so during the wedding ceremony, but he
should subsequently remove 11. [16, 21)"

I assume this became the process by which charan pahul was prepared once SGGS were given gurgaddi;

' ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash a
Granth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be recited'

22 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

I could find  not the bit proscribing Khande di amrit but I certainly saw something else , a Gursikh bibi cannot recite gurshabad by taking vaak in satsang.... I know that Chaupa SIngh was a Brahmin and somewhere else in the same rehitnama he tells gursikhs that they should respect Brahmin singhs more than others and that women should consider their worldly husband as pati parmeswar (not a sikh belief) . They are some questionable ideas especially even if we compare against rehit of Guru Nanak Dev ji and subsequent Guru Sahiban . Sword is written in english but where is the original ? because a Khanda is a sword as well as a kirpan. Explain to me how kirpan di amrit is not sufficient in itself for male children (at least ) and yet is for women  who have to cook for their men who are not supposed to eat from non-amritdhari , does this mean they only ever ate langar prepared by men?

Bhai Chaupa singh was the nephew of Shaheed Bhai Mati Dass Ji & a Shaheed himself.

Hazur Sahib would be more then happy to answer your questions or anyone else's. Baba Kulvant Singh jathedar of Hazur Sahib is easily approachable as is Baba Prem Singh Ji from Gurdwara Mata Sahib Deva. 

57 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

This is coming from a person who used said a reason didn't exist and then turned around and said a doesn't exist because the second reason which I already said didn't happens is the reason why the first claim never happened.  Also it's coming from a person who changed his position after being caught in his illerate assessment of Khande da Amrit, once charan pahul factual point was brought up and was given to both genders without any stipulation.  Here let me show you

This is the first time you have mentioned kirpan amrit and never say it in your first post.  You do say the following:

Then later in the post you speak about amrit and say the following:

If you had not changed your position, the above would have said women were first given kirpan amrit by Buddha dal and naamdhari were the first to give khande da amrit.  Let's say you made a mistake and was not clear on your post.  Okay, I'm giving you a chance to clear it up.  So one member quotes your post and poster jkvlondon gives you and example of Mata Bhago Kaur taking amrit.  Now here is a perfect chance for clown college poster mahakaal to clear up according to his beliefs, woman did take amrit but they took kirpan amrit.  But this never happens instead poster mahakaal writes the following:

In the same post poster mahakaal is asking for proof of women taking amrit when he himself want to change his position later to say women were given amrit through kirpan amrit.  Here it is:

Now poster jkvlondon directly challenged you to present evidence to say Mata Bhao Kaur never took amrit.  You did not provide any comment saying women were given kirpan amrit.  Instead you say no women were given amrit.  Clown college has done a number on your ability use logic.  But let's go with your clown college taught rationality and say you made a mistake and forgot to mention women were given kirpan amrit.

In his last post before he is presented with charan pahul being given to all Sikhs regardless of gender he writes the following.  Again, I am giving him a lot to clear up his post and he had three post where he could have cleared up amrit was given to women through kirpan the amrit.  But in his last post he repeats what he said in the first two post.  Here it is:

Nope didn't clear it up here either.  Such a crucial point of how women were given amrit after being challenged by two poster and this clown college member couldn't remember to write women took amrit through kirpan amrit?  Poster mahakaal, I officially give you the title of Mr. Bigly Trump. Then to add damage to insult he makes up the following example of how Punj Pyare would have to take amrit with their wives as a previous poster said a spouse can't take amrit without their spouse.  Here it is:

Read the first line, again he ask for proof for women receiving amrit.  Amrit and women being or not being given amrit was clearly in his head, but his clown college brain couldn't pull out of his thick head, oooooo by the way women were given kirpan amrit.  This poster mahakaal clearly changed his position after I presented charan pahul was given to all Sikhs regardless of gender and in the same way.  I can't believe I am wasting my time on this thick headed child.  I told him don't play with fire, but Mr. Bigly Trump couldn't resist.  Chalo let's get into rest of his nonsense post. 

 

Humpty dumpty claims there is no evidence of him sitting on the wall, so how could he fall off the wall?  I will provide evidence humpty dumpty sat on the wall after you provide what evidence Hazur Sahib Sikhs and Buddha dal have to say women never took khande da amrit. 

 

Okay, finally some hint of honesty.  But I won't take the bait.  Provide evidence for Mata Sundri ji and Mata Sahib Kaur ji as well.  You made the claim and now it's time to present it.  And no humpty dumpty business.

 

For the same reason naamdhari claim Baba Ram Singh says he was the next Guru of the Sikhs.  baba Ram Singh ji never claimed he was the Guru, but naamdhari continue to do so.  Again stop with the humpty dumpty business or I will be forced to call you Mr. Bigly Trump from this day forward. 

 

Okay, I'm drop the clown college business because I can see your problem.  I won't mention it here because it will only embarrass you even more than you have been.  The Punj Pyare took amrit and so did Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji from the Punj Pyare and then Sikhs from the sangat took amrit.  Which may or may not have included the Punj Pyare wives and Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji's wife.  DamDami Taksal Rehat Maryada was written after Amrit was given to the sangat.  Spouses receiving amrit together is instructions for Sikhs.  Just to stay consistent, provide evidence on 1699 Amrit was given and it was given in the way you want to promote it.   

I clearly said before addressing your murti comment, your sentence is not clear.  The murti got into Sri Harmandir Sahib because the British allowed it as the British had control of Sri Harmandir Sahib at the time.  British didn't really care about Hazur Sahib because the hub, main place where Sikhs got directions from was Sri Akal Takht Sahib.  Yet Hazur Sahib still was corrupted by the very same people who were set to protect it.     

In this whole mess of a post, you never answered my question, why would women not be given khande da amrit when they were equally given charan pahul?  Since you changed your position.  Here is another question, why are women given kirpan amrit and men are given khande da amrit according to your proof.  If you have not caught on yet, I want proof for all your claims.  You asked others for proof and now it's only fair to ask proof from you.  I will be waiting for this proof.  Don't run and hide.   

Rehitnama written by Bhai Chaupa Singh (if you don't know who Bhai Chaupa Singh is then research it)

This rehitnama was written in 1700 which means Guru Gobind Singh Ji were still on this mortal world (maharaj returned to sach kand in 1708)

heres translation for you, it is written that khanda da amrit should not be given to women;

I've asked several times but will ask once more, please provide written historical source which predates 1900 that proves women did take Khanda da amrit. Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama from 1700 says women should not be given khanda da amrit & hukamname from Mata Sahib Deva from early 1700's show Mata never used Kaur in her name (which she would have had she taken khanda da amrit)

Hazur Sahib have written historical sources from the time of mahraj to back up their maryada, unless you provide some ACTUAL evidence then this conversation is at a standstill & pointless.

27 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

This is coming from a person who used said a reason didn't exist and then turned around and said a doesn't exist because the second reason which I already said didn't happens is the reason why the first claim never happened.  Also it's coming from a person who changed his position after being caught in his illerate assessment of Khande da Amrit, once charan pahul factual point was brought up and was given to both genders without any stipulation.  Here let me show you

This is the first time you have mentioned kirpan amrit and never say it in your first post.  You do say the following:

Then later in the post you speak about amrit and say the following:

If you had not changed your position, the above would have said women were first given kirpan amrit by Buddha dal and naamdhari were the first to give khande da amrit.  Let's say you made a mistake and was not clear on your post.  Okay, I'm giving you a chance to clear it up.  So one member quotes your post and poster jkvlondon gives you and example of Mata Bhago Kaur taking amrit.  Now here is a perfect chance for clown college poster mahakaal to clear up according to his beliefs, woman did take amrit but they took kirpan amrit.  But this never happens instead poster mahakaal writes the following:

In the same post poster mahakaal is asking for proof of women taking amrit when he himself want to change his position later to say women were given amrit through kirpan amrit.  Here it is:

Now poster jkvlondon directly challenged you to present evidence to say Mata Bhao Kaur never took amrit.  You did not provide any comment saying women were given kirpan amrit.  Instead you say no women were given amrit.  Clown college has done a number on your ability use logic.  But let's go with your clown college taught rationality and say you made a mistake and forgot to mention women were given kirpan amrit.

In his last post before he is presented with charan pahul being given to all Sikhs regardless of gender he writes the following.  Again, I am giving him a lot to clear up his post and he had three post where he could have cleared up amrit was given to women through kirpan the amrit.  But in his last post he repeats what he said in the first two post.  Here it is:

Nope didn't clear it up here either.  Such a crucial point of how women were given amrit after being challenged by two poster and this clown college member couldn't remember to write women took amrit through kirpan amrit?  Poster mahakaal, I officially give you the title of Mr. Bigly Trump. Then to add damage to insult he makes up the following example of how Punj Pyare would have to take amrit with their wives as a previous poster said a spouse can't take amrit without their spouse.  Here it is:

Read the first line, again he ask for proof for women receiving amrit.  Amrit and women being or not being given amrit was clearly in his head, but his clown college brain couldn't pull out of his thick head, oooooo by the way women were given kirpan amrit.  This poster mahakaal clearly changed his position after I presented charan pahul was given to all Sikhs regardless of gender and in the same way.  I can't believe I am wasting my time on this thick headed child.  I told him don't play with fire, but Mr. Bigly Trump couldn't resist.  Chalo let's get into rest of his nonsense post. 

 

Humpty dumpty claims there is no evidence of him sitting on the wall, so how could he fall off the wall?  I will provide evidence humpty dumpty sat on the wall after you provide what evidence Hazur Sahib Sikhs and Buddha dal have to say women never took khande da amrit. 

 

Okay, finally some hint of honesty.  But I won't take the bait.  Provide evidence for Mata Sundri ji and Mata Sahib Kaur ji as well.  You made the claim and now it's time to present it.  And no humpty dumpty business.

 

For the same reason naamdhari claim Baba Ram Singh says he was the next Guru of the Sikhs.  baba Ram Singh ji never claimed he was the Guru, but naamdhari continue to do so.  Again stop with the humpty dumpty business or I will be forced to call you Mr. Bigly Trump from this day forward. 

 

Okay, I'm drop the clown college business because I can see your problem.  I won't mention it here because it will only embarrass you even more than you have been.  The Punj Pyare took amrit and so did Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji from the Punj Pyare and then Sikhs from the sangat took amrit.  Which may or may not have included the Punj Pyare wives and Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji's wife.  DamDami Taksal Rehat Maryada was written after Amrit was given to the sangat.  Spouses receiving amrit together is instructions for Sikhs.  Just to stay consistent, provide evidence on 1699 Amrit was given and it was given in the way you want to promote it.   

I clearly said before addressing your murti comment, your sentence is not clear.  The murti got into Sri Harmandir Sahib because the British allowed it as the British had control of Sri Harmandir Sahib at the time.  British didn't really care about Hazur Sahib because the hub, main place where Sikhs got directions from was Sri Akal Takht Sahib.  Yet Hazur Sahib still was corrupted by the very same people who were set to protect it.     

In this whole mess of a post, you never answered my question, why would women not be given khande da amrit when they were equally given charan pahul?  Since you changed your position.  Here is another question, why are women given kirpan amrit and men are given khande da amrit according to your proof.  If you have not caught on yet, I want proof for all your claims.  You asked others for proof and now it's only fair to ask proof from you.  I will be waiting for this proof.  Don't run and hide.   

A lot of effort & hot air but still no ACTUAL evidence or historical evidence. 

you seem to love the exhibition of your so called knowledge... even though it is based on no real evidence.

unlike you I'm not going to talk much, I'm just going to post up some actual evidence for you. I'm not going to do all the work for you... go research it yourself but anyhow 

Mata Sahib Deva hukamname;

1 hour ago, Akalifauj said:

The kirpa and Shakti at Hazur Sahib is because of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj and current Guru Dhan Dhan Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.  If a place having so much Shakti and kirpa is your reason to say the place is not corrupt then how come in a previous post you say the following:

When we know people who were blind have received the blessing of sight at Sri Harmandir Sahib.  So this mean the SGPC thieves and Badal using Sri Harmandir Sahib golak as his personal bank account and the fact SGPC maryada is wrong never takes place because there is so much Shakti and kirpa there.  Clearly logic and linking claim to reason was never taught to you.   

You're clown college teachings don't stand a chance to Gurmat.  I had a whole post written up but it got deleted by mistake.  Currently I don't have time to write it back up.  Don't go anywhere, there is a lot more to come.

seems like you have selective vision that alters what is actually written so that it can be changed to fit a narrative that suits you... My post said '

2 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

Hazoor Sahib as Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji left it is very different than how it is today.  Many false practices are taking place at Hazoor Sahib today.  Not to mention it's run by a RSS leader/member currently by the name of Amrik Singh Varsikar. 

Buddha Dal claim their lineage goes back to the Sixth Guru and is named after Baba Budha ji.  Amrit was first introduced by Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji as Charan Pahul.  Bhai Gurdas ji has wrote this history in his vaaran (vaar 1, pauri 23).  Bhai Gurdas ji writes Sikhs were given Charan Pahul by the Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji.  There was no stipulation on which gender can take Charan Pahul or who can't, clearly stated Sikhs.  Sixth Guru kept up the lineage of Charan Pahul as Amrit from the Punj Pyare started much later in 1699.  Since Buddha Dal wants to claim their lineage all the way back to the first war fought by Sikhs (which were at the time of Sixth Guru), this would mean Buddha Dal followed Charan Pahul from the Guru given to Sikhs, which includes males and females.  So the question for you to answer now is, what changed from Charan Pahul to Punj Pyare where women were never given Khande Di Pahul?  This is your claim, women were never given amrit from the Punj Pyare, so substantiate it and tells us what changed.  Provide references to where you find the answers and links, so you can be given a good lesson.  Little kids shouldn`t play with fire...

Well when you define Sikhi including manmat practices, then its very easily for the locals to follow that fake version of Sikhi.  It's like the other deras who allow their followers to drink and smoke.  All they have to do is make a false claim they are apart of the dera and like magic the dera followers are much stronger in their beliefs.  Kesh and shastar only help when the shackles of manmat practices are lifted off the head.  These poor people are enslaved by hindu rituals in the disguise of a Sikh identity. 

So what, they worship the very devta and devis Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji tells them not to worship in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji. 

 

Very confusing sentences, but I believe you are saying, the Hazoor Sahib leaders had no problem with mahants bringing murtis in Gurdwaras.  If so, then you don`t have the basic understanding of Gurbani from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji or Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji.  Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji called the murti worshipper a murakh (completely blind) and Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji says, he break murtis.  The first and 10 Guru have made it crystal clear on not to allow murtis in Gurdwaras, which will basically turn into murti worship.  Mahant were bringing in murtis of devta and devis who were never to be worshipped.  So take your head out of the murti and maybe start reading Gurbani.  

If you are going to believe the claim of Naamdharis, then you also must believe Baba Ram Singh ji said he was the Guru of the Sikhs.  Here I will give you a better example of your illogical reasoning.  I was the first one to claim this poster, Mahakaal is a pandit terrorist who believes in cow worship.  I claimed it, now it must be true.  So mahakaal how does it feels to drink the urine of cows as you worship them.

1 hour ago, Akalifauj said:

In your previous post you say amrit from Punj Pyare was not given to women.  You believe this to be true.  The other side claims kaur was given to women who took amrit.  Since you think women were never given Amrit before naamdhari started around 1850, you can`t say Mata Sahib Kaur ji never took amrit because her handwritten hukamname never put kaur in her name.  How could she place Kaur in her name when you don`t even believe the initial event of taking Amrit by a women never happened, which would have allowed her to place kaur in her name.  Once you use the primary claim of no women was given amrit.  The secondary reason (hand written hukamname never had kaur in them) is nulled and can`t be a support for the primary reason.  

Guess what.......I`m just getting started with you.  This will be a good brain refreshing exercise.       

Don't know if you've ever been to Hazur Sahib or not but I'm sure most would agree that if they were following manmat practices then there's no way that place would have so much shakti & kirpa there.

You seem to lack understanding of evidence collecting & in general don't seem capable of having an intellectual adult conversation but never the less...

In my first post I wrote 'according' to maryada of Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal women were not given khanda da amrit (they are given kirpan amrit at Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal) in 1699. In support of this stance both Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal claim that there is no evidence from 1699 that suggests women took Khanda da amrit. To further support this they say that handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva shows that Mata signed them as Mata Sahib Devi... but why would she do this if she had taken amrit & become a 'Kaur' as is popular practice at other takhts. There's apparently also hukamname by Mata Sundri Ji where Kaur has not been used but I don't know if that is true or not as I haven't seen them myself. Separate to these but of interest is the fact that around 1850s the naamdharis make written claims that they are the first ones to give women Khanda Da amrit... if women were already being given khanda da amrit why would they make such a claim that would be easily blown out the water? If men can only take amrit with their wives then what are the names of the wives of the panj pyare who would have also taken amrit? Why do eyewitness accounts from that actual day in 1699 not mention women at all apart from Mata adding patasee into the amrit. Accounts from 1699 unanimously state mahraj asked for 5 heads.... not 5 couples heads.

also you misunderstood the murti comment. Before formation of SGPC mahants had installed murtis of Devi Devte into the parkarma at Harimandir Sahib... in the Punjab, yet in Hazur Sahib where they are supposedly meant to be Hindu worshippers this never happened. Point being, not just based on the murti incident but a general feeling seems to be that Hazur Sahib sikhs seem more dedicated & committed to following a maryada & rehit that they claim has been unchanged since time of 10ve patshah. We can't just sideline Hazur Sahib & dismiss it as manmat... it's 1 of the 5 takhts so all their claims & practices need to be examined & looked at seriously in an intellectual adult way. 

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Any Taksali will tell you a man can't take Amrit without his wife, let's not forget in 1978 and 1984 it wasn't Anti-Woman Amrit Sanchars people who gave their lives for Sikhi, but rather Taksalis and AKJs. They weren't busy with killing goats, but rather bringing enemies to justice.

I asked for historical sources that predate 1900 that give evidence of women taking amrit... not emotional blackmail pappu parchar. Even if what your saying is right then that would mean that in 1699 the Panj Pyare would only have been allowed to take amrit WITH their wives & when Mahraj themselves took amrit they would only have been allowed to do so WITH Mata Sundri Ji, Mata Jeeto Ji & Mata Sahib Deva Ji! There's eye witness written accounts of what happened that day... of how mahraj asked for 5 heads.. beheaded 5 heads then bought back to life then bowed down & took amrit from panj pyare themselves... no where does it mention women or that the men could only take amrit with their wife. 

If women took amrit & became 'kaurs' then why are all handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva signed Mata Sahib Devi & not kaur??

Naamdharis have written sources that say they were the first to give women amrit & did so around 1850 onwards.

57 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

You know you posted something from a guy who doesn't even believe in the light of Vaheguru: Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. http://www.yespunjab.com/sikh/issues/item/3668-akal-takht-excommunicates-dharam-singh-nihang The Free Akal Takht Jathedars also have supported his excommunication.

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

so please explain to me why there is sakhi of Dasmesh pita ji giving Amrit to Mai Bhago and if sikh women never had amrit how did their names changed to Kaur and how did they remain equal in sikhi?

 

This guy in the video has been excommunicated from panth for his views... 

Listen to his katha on Guru Granth Sahib to make up your own mind.... he was ex-communicated for political reasons under the guise of him supposedly being anti Guru Granth Sahib (which he is not as evidenced in his SGGS katha). He was ex-communicated because he openly calls akal takht corrupt & under the control of government & openly criticises the jathedars.

Mata Bhago ji's final resting place & tap asthan is just south of Hazur Sahib... no one there refers to Mata Ji using 'Kaur'. 

All Hukamname issued by Mata Sahib Deva were signed by Mata as 'Mata Sahib Devi'... no use of the word 'kaur' by Mata herself. 

Please provide historical written source that predates 1900 that gives evidence that women were given amrit... apparently there is no source available so would like clarification on this 

According to maryada of Hazoor Sahib & Buddha Dal women were never given Khande Di Pahul. Hazoor Sahib/Buddha Dal has maintained the original maryada since time of 10ve patshah. Sikhi in the area of Hazoor Sahib is much stronger then the whole of Punjab (man made maryada land). Every Sikh in Nanded is mostly kesadhari & shasterdhari. They have Prakash of Sri Dasam Granth & never had a problem where Mahants bought murtis into the Gurdwara like what happened in Panjab but still get accused of being followers of Hindu traditions. Naamdharis were the first to start giving amrit to women around the late 1800's, there's written proof of this. Watch this video to get knowledge about why & when women were given amrit & when it all started;

13 hours ago, 13Mirch said:

Baba Khan Singh was Baba Binod Singh Ji's brother.

 

"Dohra : Sri Guru Angad Dev (the Second Sikh Guru) and Sri Guru Amardas (the third Sikh Guru), Belonged to the Trehan and Bhalla sub-castes of (Sareen) Kshtriyas. (Their descendents Baba Binod Singh and Kahan Singh) received Khande-ki-Pahul3 , (And became members of the Khalsa Panth) as initiated Singhs. (1) Chaupai : While Bhai Kahan Singh was a brother of (Baba) Binod Singh Trehan, Baba Ram Singh Bhalla had another brother (Daya Singh). All of them donned the blue Khalsa robes, And adorned their turbans with dagga studded steel rings. (2) They partook their food in the prescribed steel bowls, And meditated upon the Timeless (Akal) Divine Almighty. When the revered (tenth) Guru Gobind Singh willed it so, They were deputed to accompany Banda Singh (to Punjab). (3) A large contingent of Khalsa Panth force was deputed to accompany them, In order to avenge the death of Sahibzadas from the Mughals. They were ordered to proceed against the Mughals and Hill chiefs, And destroy them after meting out severe punishments. (4) They were ordered to seize power from the Mughals and Hill chiefs, And gradually become sovereigns (in their place). The Khalsa Panth accepted the Guru’s express will, And joined their forces with the Banda Singh’s force. (5)" 

 

-Sri Gur Panth Prakash, pg. 453. 

Thanks for that.

Its says that baba Binod singh was a Trehan (Guru Angad Dev Ji) whereas I thought Baba Binod Singh Ji was from  Bhalla lineage of Guru Amar Das Ji? 

I've heard that Baba Baaz Singh was the nephew of Baba Mani Singh & cousin of Baba Uday Singh, bhai Bachiter Singh & the other 9 brothers, is that correct? 

16 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

Baba Baaz Singh Ji (son of Baba Binod Singh ji) was actually Shahid at Delhi. 

Wasn't Baba Kahn Singh Baba Binod Singhs Ji's son? 

On 13/07/2016 at 8:21 PM, Jonny101 said:

Yes you are right according to the lies spread by Binod singh about this great shaheed. Binod singh spread these lies in order to justify his own treason. All of these criticisms have been answered by Dr Ganda Singh in his book.

The way Baba Banda Singh Bahadur attained Shaheedi is the agni pariksha that proved beyond a doubt who is the true Sikh of Guru Gobind Singh jee and binod singh's collaboration with the mughals is proof of his double face. Baba Banda Singh Bahadur followed the the example set by Guru Gobind Singh jee and sacrificed his own son for the Panth while binod singh used his influence with his Mughal allies to free his son while all the other 700 Singhs attained shaheedi.

No wonder Sant jee had Darshan of Baba ji who was with Baba Deep Singh ji, Bhai Taru Singh jee and another great brahmgiani Shaheed Singh whose name I don't remember right now. This is the the high status of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur in the divine Dargah. Doing Nindya of a Brahmgiani is Maha Paap. Just think, if you are wrong about Baba Ji, how much Paap you have put on yourself by doing his Nindya like this.

Jonny boy you are out of your depth on this one. There's a hukamnama from Mata Sundri Ji herself commanding that all sikhs abandon Banda because he had gone off the path of gurmat.

The only person who has done nindiya is you... saying those things about Baba Binod Singh... someone who stuck to gurmat & obeyed the command of Mata at all times... who the hell do you think you... read some books & think you know it all. 

For your information Baba Binod Singhs son was only released due to the intervention of Mata Sundri Ji herself.

And when Baba Mani Singh placed the two papers in the Harimandir Sahib sarovar to see which faction mahraj declared as the true Khalsa then it was Tat Khalsa under the command of Baba Binod Singh that mahraj chose & not Banda Khalsa (under command of Amar Singh if my memory serves me right)

In the future watch your mouth... reading a few books doesn't mean what you've read is the truth. And even if you wanted to express your views they could have been done politely 

11 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

Is it any wonder that Jatt women run off with muslims.. Their parents concentrate on instilling jatt nonsence into them that they forget about teaching them about their actual faith. 

 

What else can you expect from a people with a peasant brain and mentality?

Keep spewing all the rubbish you want, & if you think it's just jatt girls who do such thing then you are obviously delusional.

You can have all the biased views you want, fact is historical accounts from hundreds of years ago are still available and there for everyone to see..... who cares about what some bum who calls himself big tera thinks? 

Largest numbers of sikhs outside of Panjab and abroad are jatts for your information & as for the distribution of wealth we all know the truth.

Anyway, I hope everyone enjoyed the accounts about jatts from non jatts from hundreds of years ago. There's actually plenty more out there if anyone is interested. 

Jealousy is a very bad trait.... if outsiders praised jatts but didn't mention any other caste then so be it.

Last post from me. I don't need to justify or argue any point. I posted independant non Sikh non jatt accounts.... everyone can take them how they want.... fateh 

2 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

Mahakaal ji, it is a huge blunder on your part to divide our Shaheeds and warriors of the past in something so silly as caste. As a Jat you are claiming Baba Deep Singh Jee Baba Budha Jee and others while Ramgarias are claiming Jassa Singh Ramgaria as their own, Khatris are claiming our Gurus and Hari Singh Nalwa, Rajputs are claiming Baba Banda Singh Bahadur and Brahmins are claiming Bhai Mati Das, Bhai Sati Das and Bhai Dayal Das as their own not realizing that all the accomplishments they attained and Shaheedis they gave was ONLY for Sikhi and the casteless principles that Sikhi upholds.

Our atma has no caste. You could have very well have been born a non Jat in your previous lifetimes and who knows, if you show too much Jaat Abhiman, you might reincarnate into a caste that you deem as low or inferior to your own as the God's way of teaching a lesson. Jaat Paat is only skin deep. Improve your spritual life, keep as much Rehit as possible while Japping Naam is what really counts in the Dargah of Vaheguru.

 

The division & other rubbish on this thread was not started by myself. It's ok for a member to refer to every other jatt as phudus on this site but if someone posts independant accounts that are positive about jatts then they are branded as being casteist? Does that sound fair & according to the principles of truth to you?

you are very right when you say our atma has no caste. Our prarabdh Karma dictates the family, religion, caste etc that you are born into. Atam Gyan katha from Suraj Prakash as uttered by the mouth of bhai Daya Singh on direct instructions from 10ve patshah covers the whole topic.

Bottom line is when someone is going out their way to insult jatts at every opportunity then why should we stay quiet. No one pulled him up on his casteist comments but as soon as someone put up something positive about jatts the whole forum comes out to play

13 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think it was because they were studying us (pretty much from the get go) to form strategies for our eventual conquest. No one has ever denied that juts were numerically high in the panth (and it makes even more sense because they were the ones who would, and did, directly benefit economically from a moghul decline as it appears they been getting continually shafted over their farm revenues), but everyone knows that leaders in the panth came from all communities, this is from our own literature not foreign ones.  There are also accounts both independent (like Wendels) and our own literature (Bhangus) that mention war and conflict between juts and the Khalsa. Moghuls even used juts to hunt down Singhs in the jungles according to Bhangu. Brars are castigated therein too for (of all things) trying to seduce Singhnia when the Khalsa was lodging in their territory in the troubled 1700s. So the picture isn't not remotely simple as you make out. Plenty of juts were anti-Sikh and supported the moghuls and many appear to have been beaten into submission before they were compelled to join the Singhs. 

History speaks for itself. When we were subjugated by the British, they used standard divide and conquer policies and patronised conformist hordes in the numerically dominant community causing them to perceive their own Sikh brothers and sisters as lesser beings. They also introduced a lot of changes in our community that changed the nature of how many Sikhs perceived their own religion. It worked a treat for them. It's sad that people like yourself still haven't managed to get your head around this simple manipulation. 

Jagraj here explores some of the changes the western concepts caused with Sikh understanding of their own faith:

 

 

 

 

I'm very aware of what the British did to our panth, especially through the formation of the SGPC & the sidelining of Akali Nihang Singh's 

24 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

 

 

You failed to answer the question. Where are articles of Hindu and Muslim Jatts?  Dont dishounour the Sikh faith by attributing any 'greateness' to being jatt then comming from Sikhi. The Turban-Kesh. Beard - Dhari ect instill the warriorness in us and the people we are and were.

Its also a numbers game. The British saw the Jats were in the majority at the time. Why not praise these people and concentrate on them as they will be the most valuable assets to exploit and use. Most of Jatt praise comes from actual jatts themselves. Be it in bhangra songs or movies. Dont blow your own trumphet pal. Have some common sence and manners and decency.

Also many Jatts are stealing the limelight away from other communities who did great things at the early stages of Sikhism.  There were no racist colonials to note this down as they had not reached India at that early time. Remember these people who helped establish Sikhism or you would probably be a muslim or hindu today had it not been for their great sacrifices. 

 

 

Obviously didn't bother reading any of the accounts... some which say being kesa dhari was a jatt tradition before they adopted sikhi. 

You seem to think there is some kind of burden of proof on me to provide accounts regarding Hindus & Muslims.... you want such accounts go find them, and while your at it find some about other Sikh tribes... there must be some, there's plenty about nihangs. 

None of the praise in all those accounts comes from jatts.. they are all non jatt, non Sikh & non Indian accounts ranging from 17th to 20th century.

People shouldn't be so ready to speak provocatively using insulting language on here about jatts & not get a reply. Everyone knows who started this. 

The difference is everything he said bout jatts was based on his prejudices. Everything I posted is from historical accounts by non jatts & from several sources that cover several hundred years.

36 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

Is there any similar articles by the British on Muslim Jats or Hindu Jatts? 

The answer is no. Because all this praise comes from attributes that is derved from the Sikh faith. Not Caste or race. If you are anything it is because you are Sikh or you would be just another Hindu and Muslim Jatt that are not recognised at all. You have been watching to many Bhangra videos and glorifying caste nonsence its time you woke up and smelt the expresso. 

The only thing I've done is research historical accounts & posted them here because of the constant casteist views of a certain member. At no point did I say I agree in part or completely with the accounts posted. It is what it is... independant eye witness accounts by non Sikh individuals from a vast period of time. 

By your very logic, why are there no similar accounts about Sikh tharkhans or Sikh chumars?

Similar British accounts about the attributes of other tribes such as native Americans, abhoriginis, zulus & middle eastern tribes can be found. Likewise derogatory accounts about sikhs (mainly about nihangs) by the British are also available. Of course the praise & large part of the whole picture is down to Guru kirpa but why are similar accounts about other tribes like tharkan or chumars not found to this extent? They received the same kirpa after all 

1 hour ago, Akalifauj said:

Claiming people who didn't even know how to speak English were brainwashed by English speaking gora writings. LMAO    

This guy has been swearing at other members and certain communities.  But now we know how intelligent this guy is.  It's not his fault.  lmao...

I've noticed his language towards other members & in particular his casteist views hence why I decided to post. His intelligence (or rather lack of) is quite evident to see. 

He obviously has some kind of psychological problem with jatts which was most probably caused by some kind of trauma, maybe bullying or a beating received 

50 minutes ago, JSinghnz said:

This is how the British started dividing and ruling Sikhs and the dumb accepted their slavery to them most willingly and agreed to be cannon fodder for their pommy masters.

Although that was the aim within the highest ranks of the British it is absurd to think that all colonels, soldiers, historians & travelers were 'all in' on the plot. The dates of the sources provided cover from the 16th century upto the 20th century so that debunks your theory. Most jatts in panjab today can't read English so how on earth were accounts written in the 16th 17th & 18th centuries used to divide & rule?! The bristish have historical accounts about Africans, native Indians of America, the Aboriginal tribes of Australia to name but a few. For the most part these are just historical accounts, whether they were used as reconnaissance material by the higher ranks of the British may well be true but the bottom line is that they are eye witness independant accounts... there are many about the Akali Nihangs as well... I suppose they were written to divide & rule them as opposed to just an honest observation.

I sometimes wonder why the panth is in this current state, coming on this website & seeing the level of intellect & logic explains a lot.

1 hour ago, caveman said:

Episode 23 

The majhail singhs according to panth parkash are the bravest of the brave, read about the brar jatts and majhail singhs. many references to their fierce fighting, showing true faith in guru khalsa.

I'm not sure which way round it is but in Suraj Prakash Singh's from maja are praised & called the most loyal where as in Panth Prakash it is singhs from Malva who are praised. My memories not that great on this but do remember the difference in the 2 Granths

Anyone with a brain can see what pattern this thread has followed.

Posting independant historical accounts that are hundreds of years old are not good enough & just because those accounts don't fall in line with casteist views of certain members they are ignored whilst unfounded vile based on casteist views from other members is ok?

same member who used the term pudu jatts in a thread just a few days ago

And you call yourself sikh!! Pathetic 

19 minutes ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Also u r implying there was no need for the Gurus, the jatts wouldve solved all the problems of panjab, and there was no amrit di shakti that turned sparrows into falcons. The jatts were already the best. 

You even went farther to say, the Gurus only came to panjab cuz of the jatts!! Really?! I mean seriously?!? God on Earth, had to wait and hope for lowly peasants, jatts to accomplish his mission? He couldnt impart any power himself to lift the downtrodden??

FYI, Guru ji came to Earth hearing the cries of the distressed ppl, he is like a doctor who came to the worst disease ridden area, which happened to be panjab. Being looted, invaded for centuries before the gurus came. The muslim invasions started in 1100s. No rajput, jatts, brahmins, or even the kings of the time managed to stop them and save their country, land, or daughters from the looting and pillage. So panjab was suffering the most, in fact none of the muslim kings managed to rule the south of india.

And then the Mongols came. You should read about them. They had the best cavalry and were the best horsemen ever. No one could stand against them from the Russians, chinese, turks, persians, no one. They conquered the world fiercly n fast. Only khalsa fought them, becoming good horsemen, crackshots etc and even then, it was the mongols infighting that led to their doom and Gurus curse upon them.

Also u only have accounts of jatts, after sikhi was introduced to them. How do u know wat u so proud of them, wasnt due to sikhi? You have no accounts of the jatts before the gurus time. And if jatts r so great, then the jatts of bihaar, pakistaan, and rajasthan should be the same. Ur article mentioned that thats where jatts could be found. But there is no difference between those jatts and rest of indians or jatts n rest of pakistaanis. Even afghanis n pathans r proud to be tall, warriors, with arab features. How r jatts any different then other warrior 'tribes'?

Secondly why didnt u list the non jatt contributers to Sikhi, if ur being so unbiased?

You know that is not the implication being made and you know it. Some of the sources listed in this thread claim that there may have been a strong possibility that a selective selection took place in that the Guru identified certain qualities in the jatts of Panjab & thus chose to start the movement from there. Guru is king of all places but why did they chose Panjab & why were the initial followers mainly from the jatt tribes?