Akalifauj

I

1 hour ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Because they were changing more than one aspect of humanity. They did things beyond spirituality. Like built cities, invented musical instruments, started revolutions, turned a conquered ppl into rulers, United many different types of ppl, and traveled many many countries and distances. Like Guru Tegh Bahadur focused on east India. From Nepal to UP (patna). Guru Gobind Singh the mountains area of anandpur and then Hazoor sahib. Guru ramdaas the Amritsar area. 

Did u know each Guru built a city?

Kartarpur, khadoor, Goindwaal, Amritsar etc. They built water sources like wells and baolis, invited skilled workers called kalikaars to adorn and merchants to set up shop. 

Taught sikhs kirtan, weaponry and warfare, how to read and write (invented an alphabet), changed culture( no sati, no evil, widows can remarry) created sikh rituals, wrote Gurbani, fought wars, traveled, taught sikhs the arts and  literature (via calligraphy and dasam granth which has many translation of famous poems and stories of the time), etc

The Gurus did not just want to spread the message but actually wanted to implement it.

This is not an answer.  The atheist could just ask.  God is great, so why couldn't he do it in one form or take no form and do it.  When you write answers like these they only show how you have not understood the question.

On 11/20/2019 at 11:42 AM, Premi5 said:

Why is the comparison wrong? 

I am not asking this question as atheist, I am just wondering if there was any reason we had so many Gurus?

Read the post above why your comparison was wrong.  Others have spoke to it.

Why are you assuming there are so many?  There wasn't too many and there wasn't too less.  God on the human for ten times as the Guru.  Do you question why Mohammed your prophet had to speak with an angel before becoming "enlightened" Why couldn't he speak directly to God?  I already explained there is one Guru, who took 10 human forms and is currently Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. 

Your question is an atheist view point because it's no different than asking why only one God, why not more?  Why not any? There is no absolute answer to this question because this is what God has ordained and it's either you accept it or follow the false Guru prophet Mohammed and continue to argue over questions that are fruitless.   Which you muslims are notoriously known for.

If you have concrete evidence to say there should have been less or more.  We can continue, otherwise I am not going to waste my time on explaining something that doesn't need to be explained. 

On 11/16/2019 at 10:36 AM, Premi5 said:

A simple question but say compared to other religions where there is just one main 'prophet'

Why were there 10 Gurus in 'human' form?

Why so many? 

The comparison is wrong as others have said.  Also Gurbani says there is only one Guru who is Akal Purakh himself.  Maybe read Gurbani and your mind will not travel into atheist thinking.  

On 10/31/2019 at 9:48 AM, Pallav2015 said:

Thank you for being so kind 

 

Thank you for leaving this forum

On 10/30/2019 at 11:00 AM, FreshMind13 said:

While Ang can be used, nothing wrong with Panna or Page. It is Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Nothing wrong with using either, no disrespect was intended.

Forgive me if I have made a mistake.

This guy will not admit his mistake.  If it was just a Granth.  Then Sri Guru Arjan Dev ji would not have carried adi Granth on his head.  For this guy Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is a book of philosophy that he agrees with.   So he will say page as Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji only holds value because according to him it's right.  

On 10/29/2019 at 8:45 AM, ADMIN said:

  ਕੋਈ ਮੇਰਾ ਉਸ ਕੁੜੀ ਨਾਲ ਵਿਆਹ ਕਰਵਾਦੋ"।

 

This sounds like a personal attack on a person the AkJ recently kicked out by making a public announcement. 

37 minutes ago, 1Anonymous1 said:

Think logically, it can only really be either Akaal Purakh or previous gurus before Guru Ramdas ji. Who else could Jagat Pooran Gur Avatar Akaal Purakh jyot be referring to as their guru?

Come on now, it means the tomb he worships.  The guy who is dead and buried at a 3ho burial site.   The guy who draw the ling and worshipped it and got other gullible people to worship it.  @Pallav2015 worships Shiva ling.  For him it lives forever 

On 10/21/2019 at 7:19 AM, Pallav2015 said:

If I started this topic why does it bother u ? U probably thought I worship radasoami

thete are so many fake babe in sikhi to making up fake storylines and confusing khalsa panth

 

Yup, your a yogi worshiper.  Do you go to yogi bhajan tomb and worship with rest of the 3ho.  Or are you worshipping him in top secret mode.  Make sure the blinds are closed, smart tv is facing away from you and then you pull out his toe nails to bath in milk and feed them sweet indian food.  I think he liked white women that he can force himself on.  So maybe try that next time you worship him.  you pull his picture out from under the bed sheets and coerce a white woman into your livingroom.  

On 10/16/2019 at 1:11 PM, Pallav2015 said:

No agenda buddy just need to know the meaning

ya he’s our satguru can u anwser my question what is jug?

what is that pangti mean by guru ramdas ji

You have started a topic on this multiple times.   So yes, you have an agenda. 

Can you tell me what is a fake Guru.  Start off by naming your dera baba.

On 10/8/2019 at 8:05 PM, GurjantGnostic said:

I'll give you benefit of doubt Veer. Maybe I was mistaken. 

You are not mistaken, but there is something wrong with you.   

1 hour ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Like editing your posts after you look poorly?  Nice admin abuse. Y'all are too much. 

You know who the father of lies is?  When you lie and obfuscate that's who you're serving Veer Ji. 

Editing post?  What are you smoking or sucking on!!!

19 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

There is no original saroop sadly.

This right here is a statement made without any evidence.   It's one person talking out of his you know what.  Credibility will only be assigned to such statements if they can provide evidence.  Has he examined all saroops or know where all saroops are?  No! Yet he makes a huge statement.   This is the ego of a man.  When you don't know,  you get scared and may look unintelligent if you make statements of saying, I dont know. The correct statement would be, I dont know if we have an original saroop written by Guru Sahib or by  a Gursikh scribe as Guru sahib says the Bani or a hand written saroop of the original saroop. But this much humanity and humility doesn't lie in these type of people.  They like making stupid comments because their ego cant fall. Hes trying to cover his tracks.  In doing so, he made a huge mistake.   

16 hours ago, Pallav2015 said:

Dass need to know what this pangti really mean

har jug jug peeri chalay satguru de

jinni gurmukh naam dhiyaa

what does the jug mean

how long is the jug ?

how long one jug last how many years?

who guru ramdas ji calling satguru in this pangti

 

It seems as you have an agenda here.  But prove me wrong by answering one question.   According to Gurbani is Satguru Ramdas ji satguru?

Not a tricky question.  Let's see how honest you are.

7 hours ago, Guest guest said:

you think Guru Tegh Bahadur ji would approve?

cow is not worshipped, but it is respected by sikhs.  Maharaja Ranjit Singh banned cow slaughter and the kukas also revolted against cow slaughter.

you drink its milk, then you turn around to kill it and its offspring?

you want to kill an animal just because you hate a group?

you're not "Akali fauj".  go learn what "dharam" and "daya" means.

any sikh that eats beef is a disgrace.

 

Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib ji did not stick his neck out for Hindus.  He stuck his neck out because a group of people were being slaughtered because of their beliefs. That could have been any group, it just so happened at that time it was Kashmiri pandits. So, in the correct context, you have no point.  Massaging a pandits legs will get you no points in God's book, but you will continue to do it because you are blind.  I can just see your head spinning as you read the word "book".  I wonder which way you will twist this word now.

If my post about cow jhatka is read in context of previous post made by pro hindu posters, then it's well understood the comment was made to ignite a fire that challenges their ideas.  

A goat also gives milk to its offspring and humans for consumption.  So why is it that the goat is allowed to be chopped up by some Sikhs for food?  Are these people a disgrace? The goats blood is used in a ritual, while the cow is respected?  Seems to me the pandit just didn't get his legs massaged from you, he gave you the house special.  What about the people who close their eyes to how their veggies came to the market?  Some poor person was exposed to chemicals over a long period  of time and will get a illness that will eventually kill him.  Is a cow's life more valuable than goats and a poor human? 

But you are God,  you get to choose what you value and don't.   The rules are made up as you are pulled and pushed by your pandit.  

Why use the word hate?  I know because you're an emotional mess and that's your way of trying to label someone as bad.  Well after reading the above post you will not be calling me bad, but more colorful swear words will be coming out of your mouth because your God and everyone else tells you what to do. 

3 hours ago, Singhkhalsa19842020 said:

Make you a lion. Singhs right. Lions eat meat. If Guru Gobind Singh jis ...singhs are not lions then they can eat grass like cows 

3 hours ago, Singhkhalsa19842020 said:

Guru Gobind Singh ji maharajs Singhs are suppose to be lions .....not grass eating cows herds. 

Lions and hawks eat meat. ...

Sheep and cows eat grass..  

Which you think is khalsa ? 

This is pure comedy.  Singhs are lions in the aspect of fighting.  If you look at who is the hunter in the lion family it is not the lion.  The hunter is the lioness.  Lions control their area and protect the family from attack.  First learn why Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji called Singhs lions then apply the analogy. 

4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

You can't change historical fact. 

I think someone like yourself would actually detest many of your own warrior ancestors who fought and died to make sure this thing survived. 

I told you before to post that whole shabad so we could read it in context. But you obviously don't want to. 

The whole shabad doesn't need to be posted because its already understood in context.  For everyone info, dolly is originally from an atheist forum that refers to themselves as sikh forum.  So he is a atheist at heart pretending to be a Sikh.  

Bhagat kabir has laid out the context and said it perfectly.   

Here bicep and child, I will repost the initial post of mine that gave both of you a nervous breakdown.  Now the idea here is to read and read and read and read and read, well keep reading the post because you two are Larry and moe from the three stooges. 

Gotra were used in 10th Guru period to identify people.  Rattan Singh bhangu makes this clear in his book.  Its not due to the west.  Only thing the west did was make people write it down on documents.   Famously the Brar gotra is mentioned in rattan Singh bhangu book.  And it's done to identify that group of people. It was already prevalent.   In English it's called last name and in india its call gotra or clan or however they classified themselves distinctly from other people. The west again, just made them write it down.  People not writing it down in india is irrelevant because some wanted to classify themselves as proper Sikhs so they dropped it on paper.  Like the lap dog of Indian government balbir Singh jathedar of buddha dal.  However they had a deep connection with the last name/gotra and were very proud.  Guru Gobind Singh ji was Guru Gobind Rai before taking amrit.  Rai identifies him to a specific clan.  There was nothing wrong with the Guru keeping the last name/gotra/clan as Rai.  The Guru didn't attach any spiritual or emotional value to it.  It was simply there as a pointer.  

So disregard this child's ignorance.   Hes talking out of his you know what.

6 minutes ago, MrDoaba said:

It's interesting...how some have the complete lack of ability to deduce from a short piece of writing. To read between the lines of, what is actually a very basic block of text. Shockingly simple minded.

For the benefit of the simpletons, I shall try my very best to write in simple English...given that their grasp on the English language parallels that of one who's had a lobotomy.

My driving licence number can be used to identify me. So can my NHS number. Are they the same thing though? No they are not.

A surname can be used to identify someone. So can a gotra - clan. Are they the same thing? No they are not. Even though gotra is used in a similar capacity as a surname today - because Sikhs moved to the west and live where there is a different system of recording. There is a very obvious difference in the use of surnames in the west and gotra; it's not rocket science.

In my earlier post, I didn't state that gotra were not used for identification (unless you're a simpleton and can't read). I only stated that gotra's are not surnames in the western sense. But of course they were used to identify - an individuals clan, his people, his location, his history. In most scenarios it was never really about the individual though. I mean sure there may have been a scenario such as: "which Harjap? Harjap Bhangal? Or Harjap Sidhu?" "Oh I meant Harjap Bhangal of course!"

But enquiring about ones gotra was about ascertaining more than identification of the individual. In the west surnames are about identifying the individual.

Surnames have been recorded for over a thousand years in the west for various reasons. Births, baptisms, confirmations, marriages, and deaths. All in an effort to identify an individual. Just look at the Domesday Book, the great survey.

Whilst surnames in the west quite possibly may have had the same connotations as gotra at some point in very distant history, they haven't for a long time. Surname and gotra do not have the same connotations. Yet both can be used to identify. Just like my driving licence number and my NHS number. Does that make then the same? I think not.

The only instance of recording gotra as a means of identifcation in an offcial manner (like the surname in the west) that comes to mind is, when Sikhs would go to Haridwar to disperse the ashes of the departed. Records were kept of deaths.

Or if one was writing about oneself...as Kalgidhar Swami Ji does in Sri Dasam Guru Granth Sahib Ji where They mention that Their lineage/clan is the Sodhi Bans.

There is nothing wrong with knowing your gotra. There's nothing wrong, imo, using it as your surname in this modern world for the purpose of records. However if you have false pride over it, then that's on you. When asked what your name is you can simply say "my name is XYZ Singh" or "my name is XYZ Kaur" - no need to mention your gotra even if it's on your birth certificate and passport. If one enquires about, only then should you mention it.

Simply explained for the simply minded. SIMPLES.

Gurbar Akaal!

Child, you have not learned.  Every time you write a post directed at me.  Keep in mind the fact you did not even understand the mean of ਕਰਿ in bhai gurdas ji Vaar.   This right here tells everyone how intelligent you truly are.  Now once again I will present how arrogant you are here.

Gotra/clan/last name identify a person to a specific type of group from BIRTH.  Now let's look at your comical comparison to license number and NHS number  License numbers and NHS number dont specifically tell a person is part of a group from BIRTH.  For this reason they can't be compared to how gotra/clan/ last name can identify the person to a specific group.  Leave this forum man.  You are making a complete mockery of doaba by vomiting your stupidity here.  Do your clan a service and leave.

Rest of his post was based on the above comical comparison that failed and was addressed in the first post.  Child, dont make it so easy for me.  

1 hour ago, Big_Tera said:

You are obviously a bigger fool then I thought. Do you think millions of Sikhs who only use Singh or Kaur are inbred? These people know full well what 'clan' they are from so there is no need to have that name on official documents you budoo.

Unlike you who still wants everyone to use family names as mark of pride. Instead of creating Sikh unity with one surname for all.Your actually going against the Sikh teachings. 

You have nothing to respond back with and dont address the question I asked or the wiki article I posted. As you dont have the intelligence to support your claims pendoowala.

 

 

 

This guy is truly stupid as a dumbell.  I write some people are not writing their last name because they are faking it but truly hold strong ties with their last name  I, then give an example.  But bicep is so retarded he can't see past his stupidity. That post could not be more clear and to the point. But bicep is having an episode of trigglypuff.  So yes you are an inbred.  You proved that here.  I just stated the facts.  Do you see how that works?  

I have never said use last names as a display of pride.  I actually say the opposite.  You are having a nervous break down because I present the facts that Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji used Sri Guru Gobind Rai before taking amrit.   You have a problem with facts.  Like a true sjw, you had a melt down when facts are presented.  

Present the evidence from a credible source that says Sikhs will use Singh and kaur as their surname. 

Bicep you asked no question.   Try again.  

2 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

Looks like your just jealous of all the millions of Sikhs that only use Singh or Kaur as their last name without any other name. You are advocating that we all use a caste name also like you. Well that is not going to happen. Your obviously still to much attached to caste ideology and are a proud pendoowala or whatever you last name is. 

I know fully well what particular group I belong to and clan without writing it down on my passport of official document. I obviously know its important to have it but does not need to be officially on any papers or birth certificate. I am advocating you also change your name and all your family name to only singh or kaur. 

Yes, you got me I'm jealous of people like you.  You are so smart.  Your name from today is bicep.  I know you wont be able to figure out why your name is bicep but maybe one of your inbred family members will be able to tell you.

Sikhs will continue to use last names.  Biceps like you are in denial because you are the very people who act to be Sikh.  I stated some facts and your underwear is all twisted up now.  Go drop a couple more dumbbells on your head.  Maybe the wires will reconnect correctly this time.

1 hour ago, MrDoaba said:

There isn't really a concept of surname from an Indic perspective, it's a western naming custom. What has become surname today is actually gotra or clan. Which became prevalent when people began to immigrate to the west. Sometimes the surname is one based on family profession/occupation - not really seen this amongst Punjabis though.

If you look at names pre-Sikhi you'll find ambiguous 'surnames' such as Ram, Chand, Laal, Kumar. Quotation marks used because these are not surnames. People didn't use their gotra back then as a surname either.

Gotra were used in 10th Guru period to identify people.  Rattan Singh bhangu makes this clear in his book.  Its not due to the west.  Only thing the west did was make people write it down on documents.   Famously the Brar gotra is mentioned in rattan Singh bhangu book.  And it's done to identify that group of people. It was already prevalent.   In English it's called last name and in india its call gotra or clan or however they classified themselves distinctly from other people. The west again, just made them write it down.  People not writing it down in india is irrelevant because some wanted to classify themselves as proper Sikhs so they dropped it on paper.  Like the lap dog of Indian government balbir Singh jathedar of buddha dal.  However they had a deep connection with the last name/gotra and were very proud.  Guru Gobind Singh ji was Guru Gobind Rai before taking amrit.  Rai identifies him to a specific clan.  There was nothing wrong with the Guru keeping the last name/gotra/clan as Rai.  The Guru didn't attach any spiritual or emotional value to it.  It was simply there as a pointer.  

So disregard this child's ignorance.   Hes talking out of his you know what.

ਕਬੀਰ ਭਾਂਗ ਮਾਛੁਲੀ ਸੁਰਾ ਪਾਨਿ ਜੋ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ ਖਾਂਹਿ ॥

ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! ਜੇ ਲੋਕ ‘ਭਗਤਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਗੋਸਟੇ’ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਤੀਰਥ-ਜਾਤ੍ਰਾ ਵਰਤ-ਨੇਮ ਆਦਿਕ ਭੀ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਤੇ ਉਹ ਸ਼ਰਾਬੀ ਲੋਕ ਭੰਗ ਮੱਛੀ ਭੀ ਖਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ,

Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine

ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਤ ਨੇਮ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਸਭੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਜਾਂਹਿ ॥੨੩੩॥

 ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਉਹ ਤੀਰਥ ਵਰਤ ਆਦਿਕ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਕਰਮ ਬਿਲਕੁਲ ਵਿਅਰਥ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ।੨੩੩।

- no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. ||233||

SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI - 1377 
SALOK KABEER JEE BHAGAT KABEER JI

4 minutes ago, TigerForce1 said:

100 or so years from now, historical observations from the late 80’s and early 90’s armed resistance of Khalistan Guerrilla Fighters is going to be examined and debated upon.  They will find some of the Guerrilla fighters used Afeem (Opium) to  help them stay alert and fight fatigue during the harsh times when they were being hunted or carrying out missions.  Examining this through the present we can say that by no means was ‘Afeem’ a part of their Rehit Marayada, or were they encouraged or given exemption by the Jathedar of Akal Takhat to do so.  They did this because they simply chose to do so.

Unless anyone can submit evidence from Sikh sources or written Hukamnama from the 18th Century that taking Bhang was part of Sikh Rehit Marayada, this is no more than an observation of ‘some Sikhs who chose to do so’.

You will be hated for making sense.  The poster above you will now call you the F word in punjabi.  Dolly101 cannot comprehend this type of deep thought.

On 9/14/2019 at 2:44 PM, Redoptics said:

He can go in just don't follow any of their religious customs.  Guru Nanak Ji went everywhere even to mecca.

Yes Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji went to mecca but he went to teach Gurmat.  The reason for the Guru going to mecca is the most important part, so why leave it out?  Leaving the reason out means you are purposely distorting history for your own views.