Balkaar

I'm afraid I can't tell you much about what I've done for the panth Veerji, but I can tell you about some of the things I didn't do for the panth. - I didn't stand idly by as Sikhs were being set on fire, whilst being armed to the teeth and calling myself Guru Sahib's Laadli Fauj. - I didn't accept blood money from the Sarkaar which killed my people, to rebuild Akaal Takhat Sahib in this same Sarkaar's name. - I didn't resist every request to lend my support to the pan-Sikh Dharam Yudh Morcha because I thought I deserved to be the leader of all Sikhs.

If we presume for a moment that Guru Sahib knew things about Muhammad that had eluded historians and even the entirety of the Muslim world for over a millennium, this could only be the case if he was indeed omniscient. However that then begs the question of why, in his tenth incarnation as Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib, Guru Ji did not know that Aurangzeb would betray him during the Siege of Anandpur and thereby set in motion the chain of events which would lead to the murder of his entire family. If he was God incarnate, possessed of the attendant godly quality of all-knowingess, he would have surely predicted this. If one insists that he is god and that he did predict this, then it would imply that he willingly sent the Chote Sahibzade, Mata Gujri, three of the original Panj Piaaray and numberless other Gursikhs to their gruesome deaths. It would have been rather pointless of him to have composed Zafarnamah afterwards if this were the case. I myself cannot believe this explanation brother. One only has to read Zafarnamah to feel the grief of a loving father in our Dashmesh Pitaa's words, and the heated outrage of a man betrayed, taken completely by surprise and never having anticipated any of these horrors to fall upon his Sikhs and his family.

Come on Preet, by that logic we ought never to criticise or punish anyone who perpetrates any wrongdoing ever. Should we leave axe-murderers and serial killers unmolested just because Vaheguru permeates their souls too?

I suspect I'm going to attract a lot of hate for this, but I don't happen think any of the Guru Sahibaan were magically omniscient beings who knew everything about everything. Nor do I consider them to be avtars of God, as Krishan was of Vishnu.They were God in as much as they tore through the veil of I-ness that separates us from our creator and become one with him. Many other people have done the same. The Guru Sahibaan themselves repudiated the idea that they were physical manifestations of the almighty: Jae Hum Ko Parameshvar Uuchar Hai, Thae Sabh Narak Kund Mehi Paar Hai. They were the best of men among us, but still men. They wouldn't have known about certain scientific phenomena, such as evolution by natural selection, or the structure of DNA (unless you wish to dispute this too) and, similarly, they may not have been aware of exactly just how much of a monster Muhammad was. I think Islam is a better authority on itself than any other religion is on Islam. The Koran and the Hadiths of Muhammad are rife with barbarity.

Preeet, I very much doubt that considering the bloke's interminable litany of crimes. When Guru Sahib advises us against Sant Ki Ninda he doesn't mean to say that everyone who is considered to be holy by anyone anywhere should be intacti. He isn't saying that Sant Yogi Satguru Sriman (insert name here) Dev Singh Sahib Ji Maharaj 999,999 Crori Mahapursh with his fleet of Audis and multitudes of gullible followers is immune from all criticism. Only Guru Sahib decides whether someone is a Sant, and honestly, I'm not convinced that he would ever bestow this honor upon a marauder who raped children and perpetrated genocide against entire tribes.

I don't even have to ask whether you are a Muslim, I can infer it from your totally incomprehensible writing. Then again I'm not surprised, hundreds of years of inbreeding/ first cousin marriage will tend to have an adverse effect upon one's sanity. You Muslims are notorious for your failed attempts to debunk other peoples' religions in order to glorify and magnify the epileptic ramblings of your desert warlord prophet.

The story of the Budha Dal is the one of the greatest tragedies in Sikh history. To think that the order which once led the Sikh Panth through its darkest days and could boast such illustrious Gursikhs as Baba Binod Singh, Nawab Kapur Singh and Akali Phoola Singh, could then become a byword for collaboration and betrayal because of that corpulent prima-donna Santa Singh, is very painful. The Budha Dal was founded in order to protect the Sikh people and their shrines. That was it's only reason to exist. It failed on both these counts, spectacularly. Why then is it still necessary? Why should any Sikh care who is at the head of this defunct relic when the widows and orphans that its betrayal helped to create are still crying out for justice?

-

JSinghnz, so far you haven't actually done much to corroborate the things you say. Your replies to everything I've written have consisted largely of telling me what an idi0t I am. I'd appreciate explanations over diagnoses. I'm sorry you object to the way in which I speak JSinghnz. It's the unfortunate side effect of a practice known as 'reading'. You might consider taking it up instead of torturing small animals, or whatever else you do in your leisure time that makes you so churlish and unpleasant. Yes. Thing is, not all Panj Piaaray have the same views on everything. A Nihang Panj would tell a supplicant that the consumption of meat for instance is permissible, even a good thing, whereas an AKJ Panj would inform their abilaakhee that the consumption of any flesh is an egregious sin.

Ever been to a Rehansbhai? Funnily enough, after a prolonged evening of Saas Giraas Simran and the attendant breathlessness, I literally feel kind of high. Sort of dizzy, hazy and wonderfully mellow. Before anyone jumps on my back, I'm not joking, and I'm certainly not criticizing. It's amazing. Far cheaper and far less spiritually corrosive than a drug habit too.

'Apne' it means 'our (Sikh) people'. Sorry, it was inadvertent

That was an appeal to the cerebellum then was it? Use your imagination. Infertile couples can be fully aware that they are barren prior to marriage, and still choose to be wed. It isn't unheard of. By your logic, such a union ought to be considered an abomination.

With the exception of your QPR fanhood, you've expressed my own sentiments exactly. I can't say that football allegiances are hereditary in my family, unfortunately, speaking as a Brentford supporter who was sired by a glory-coveting red devil. Why feel guilty eduardo? It's hardly the white mans' fault that apne are so utterly predictable and adept at living up to their own stereotypes.

Fantastic

If you'd scroll back through this thread to an earlier comment of mine, I said that the reasons for one to be married were completely different in the times of the Guru Sahibaan, and that the Sikh marital laws would naturally reflect that historical epoch. Namely, the production of legitimate children who could inherit property and further the family line, and the establishment of alliances between families. None of these can accommodate homosexuality. Love did not enter into the equation. But it does now. The institution of marriage has changed completely, it would be unrecognizable to renaissance Sikhs, and to the Guru Sahibaan. The Guru Sahibaan did not marry for love. They did the bidding of their Satkarjog mothers and fathers and wed the women whom they were instructed to marry, in much the same way as my own grandfather did. Contemporary marriage is not the same practice as the one which Guru Sahib was thinking of when they evolved their ideas on marriage.

That's the funny thing about real Sants, they're usually seemingly ordinary people who go about their whole lives without being recognized because they keep themselves to themselves and they haven't the hubris to claim titles. Beautiful story Jio.

You didn't eduardo. That Sutton Hoo helmet that used to be featured in your avatar probably gave him this idea.

It's typical of immigrants, recent or otherwise. Ask any guy who has literally just floated into this country on top of a box of mangoes which football club he supports and he will invariably tell you 'Manchester United'. Why someone who lives in West London would support a Manchester based club is beyond me. Support your local team.

No, not really. If the inability to have offspring equals natural imbalance, an infertile couple are naturally imbalanced. And if marriage between two homosexuals is impermissible on the grounds that it is naturally imbalanced, then the same could be said of a marriage between two people who cannot have children. Just looking for some consistency in your arguments.

Of course Islam is a plagiarism of Judaism, the very worst bits of it. Muhammad appropriated the injunctions of Yahweh to the Israelites and twisted them in order that they should apply to Muslims - Muslims circumcise themselves because this was a condition of the covenant made between the Jews and God, in order than they should retain the Holy Land. Apparently, God reneged on this promise to his formerly chosen people and decided that his favorite place should belong to the Muslims instead. Christianity can't be called a plagiarism in the same way, since it's unlikely that the Nazarene ever meant for his following to be anything other than a Jewish sect. But Jesus was hardly this game changer that he is made out to be. His celebrated teachings were not new in the religious landscape of his time. His injunction to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (which is basically the same thing as "let he who is without sin cast the first stone) was formulated over a century before he was even born by the Babylonian Rabbi Hilel when prompted to summarize the Torah whilst standing on one leg. A form of it is also present in the Analects of Confucius. Early Christianity had just two major contributions of its own - Hell and Judgement Day. The Jewish God, as sadistic as he was, never punished anyone after death. When he was done toying with them, their suffering was over. Not until gentle Jesus meek and mild did God extend his torture of souls across all eternity. Jesus is one of the most ironic figures in human history. . Muhammad inherited this unfortunate precept from the Christians. He then infused these borrowed tenets with a homicidal vigor, and the result was Islam.

So is it wrong for two people who are infertile to be married?

Well, who decides who is a Sant today? It's usually the people who are responsible for making sants. And boy do they make a hell of a lot of them. And mahapuraks. And brahmgianis too.

No. I don't object to her wanting to remove her hair, what she does with her body is entirely up to her. But attempting to slyly access loopholes to undercut one the most sacred institutions of the Sikh religion and flaunt its conditions is not on. If one wishes to remove any body hair, they may do so, but they cannot then take Amrit. I am sorry this is not in conformity with your opinions, but it is our way. Nobody is forcing bearded women to become Amritdharis.

What you are proposing is akin to someone going on a sex rampage and sleeping with as many people as they can before their wedding day, when promiscuity shall be prohibited thereafter. It rather defeats the point of taking Amrit in the first place, doesn't it?

I suppose I could have been more sympathetic, I'm sorry