(S Singh)

If a person has sound argument based on Gurbani Viakaran and translates a tukh even if it is slightly different than Sahib Singh's translation it is acceptable just as long as it does not violate the rules of Viakaran. But when a person who has absolutely no knowledge of Gurbani Viakaran does a complete wrong translation based on only his own Matt, then it is wrong to follow such a person against a person doing translation based on Gurbani Viakaran. On one side you have a person with no knowledge of Viakaran doing translation not based on viakaran but only on his own personal idealogy, and on the other side you have a person doing translation based on Viakaran and supported by other Viakaran masters, which side should a logical thinking Singh Sabhiya choose? Singh Sabhiyas are not blind followers of any one person's idealogy who translates against the niyams of Gurbani Viakaran. A group claiming to be of Singh Sabhiya thought must first and foremost base their translations on Viakaran, and if their translations go against viakaran then such a translator should have no right to claim they are promoting or upholding Singh Sabha legacy. Sadly, ignorant ‘scholars’ claiming to be Singh Sabhiyas with no knowledge of Gurbani Viakaran argue so fervently about their wrong translations making a complete mockery of not only Gurbani but also of the Singh Sabha. It is almost as if a person claiming to be a great mathematician yet still goes against basic rules of math by fervently arguing that 2+2=3

International Akali, Since the only body of document that you seem to believe in is the Akal Takht Maryadha, then please ho please tell us if Vaheguru Simran is not important, then why does it say at the very start of the document: 1. A Sikh should wake up in the ambrosial hours (three hours before the dawn), take bath and, concentrating his/her thoughts on One Immortal Being, repeat the name Waheguru (Wondrous Destroyer of darkness). In the Punjabi version it says: 1. Sikh Amrit Vele (pehr raat rehndhi) jag kay ishnaan kray atay ek akaal purkh dha dhiaan karda hoya Vaheguru naam japay. Now surely if Vaheguru simran was not important and the Gurus themselves had never done simran on this gurmatra as you claim, then why is it this in the Akal Takht Maryadha which you so vehemently claim to follow? You in a previous post wrote: This is Kufr! This is hypocrisy! Your own statements are in direct conflict which your views. On one side you put down Taksal and others who do not follow Akal Takht Maryadha 100%, but then you sidetrack by picking and choosing which aspect of the Akal Takht Maryadha you want to follow or should I say which ever aspect suits Sardar Inder Singh Ghagha Sahib. You cannot have it both ways. Either you choose Akal Takht Maryadha 100% as is written by also acknowledging the importance of Vaheguru Simran, or you follow Ghagha/Kala Afghana party. You can’t have it both ways, you don’t allow us to have it both ways, so you should also not be allowed to have it both ways.

I dont live in the UK, so I dont know how the situation is there, but if they do all they things you have described then it is best to stay away from such people.

In the true Singh Sabha thought one goes by the translations of those who translate it according to Gurbani Viakaran. Some of those who have translated according to the rules of Viakaran are Sahib Singh, Harbanse Singh, while others have translated many banis like Joginder Singh Talwara. Bhai Randhir Singh Jee has also written his commentaries in light of Gurbani Viakaran. All of these men have written one book each on Gurbani Viakaran if one would like to learn Viakaran. There are also many wanabees out there who pretend they are of the Singh Sabha thought but in actuality they are just Bhekhee. These would include people like Kala Afghan and Ghagha Sahib who have not an iota of knowledge in Gurbani Viakaran, yet they will argue to death that they have translated Gurbani correctly even when it goes against Gurbani Viakaran (or Sahib Singh's translations which they profess to follow). But when these people have to debate against a person who has knowledge of Gurbani Viakaran, there arguments turn into “you believe whatever your want and I'll believe whatever I want”. Some how they no longer want to debate any further on the topic, and they will just jump to another topic. Any group, Jatha, Sampradaa which say that Vaheguru Simran is against Gurmat, is not only against Gurmat, but also Akal Takht Maryadha.

Rupinder Singh, instead of criticizing those who actually go out and take action, wouldn't it be better for you to lead by example? One should never be critical and give instructions to others if they don’t do it themselves. The saying “those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones” comes to mind. Pehla aap kamm karo, phir dhoojia(n) noo updesh karo.

Sunny Johal seems to be one of those people who try to become famous as quick as possible. They do this by dissing their own community in front of westerners. Now days, it is popular for these types of turn coats to compare religiously observant Sikhs to Muslim fundamentalists. These types of upcoming turn coats are just following the footsteps of the likes of Ujjal Dosanjh, Balwant Gill, Tara Hare, Sukhjinder and Ramuwalia's younger brother (forgot his name). These guys are the big names in the list of sell outs in our community. Sunny Johal in comparison is still just a beginner. The list of sellouts in our community is long, while the loyal ones are few.

Namstand Bhai Saab Jee, I don’t want to put you on the spot, but do you believe that the Kuka Gurus are "Satguru" as they claim to be? I know that you are a Sikh of Guru Granth Sahib Jee, but does it not make your blood boil to hear that they (Kuka Gurus) claim that Guru Gobind Singh Jee passed the Gurgadhi to "Guru" Balak Singh in 1812! and not Satguru Granth Sahib jee? Then what remains the difference between them and the Ram Raiyas, Dhir Maliyas, Radhaswamis and others who make a similar claim to Gurgadhi of Guru Nanak Dev Jee? There are some things Sikhs are willing to tolerate, but a Dhedhari Guru claiming he is on the GurGadhi which rightfully belongs to Guru Granth Sahib Jee is unacceptable.

The Kukas have a dislike for Taksal because the Damdami Taksal Sants have always openly spoken against the Kuka Gurgadhi. Sant Gurbachan Singh jee was against this practice. Even Sant Jarnail Singh Jee was against this practice of the Kukas and even said how he was going to do Parchar against them, but unfortunately operation blue star happened, and the Kukas have flourished. The Kuka Gurus claim to be "Satgurus", which they call themselves in their Kuka Ardas. This is the highest blasphemy, and an insult to Sikhs who consider Guru Granth Sahib jee as Satguru.

The lies spread about Bibi Amarjeet Kaur were spread by mischievous people who wanted to make sure that Singhs not unite at a critical period of our history. Such people are very scheming and many times they misinform authors who come to them for the 1984 and post 1984 stories. Consequently those who read books by misinformed authors will believe these false stories.

The picture is a fake. This guy is no Maharaja. Please read the following: http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1...317#reply_15317 Here are a few images of Sher Ali and you'll see that it is the same man:

I think that this picture of Gardner (with the soldiers) was taken between 1860-1880 period which would make it 20-40 after Raja Ranjit Singh died. So the picture is not a contemporary of Raja Ranjit Singh. As for the supposed picture of Ranjit Singh, that was not Ranjit Singh at all. I think it was of a guy named Sher Ali and his Pathan body guards standing with British officers.

Alexander Gardner was more closely involved with the Dogras and their army and not the Sikh army of the Lahor Darbar. That picture with him standing with those soldiers are not Sikh soldiers, but Dogra soldiers. Although he was very close with the Dogras he knew alot about their dealings with the British he has written about their involvement with the British during the Anglo-Sikh wars.

If the Shiv Sainiks said this slogan, then it is good they got beaten up. Next time they will think twice before saying such slogans in Punjab.

This guy’s stance on Sant Jarnail Singh Jee and 1984 speaks for himself. Are these the kind of people that support Ghagha? IMHO, it is better to read about this from the perspective of over zealous writers of Panthic weekly, than a GOI chamcha of Sikh times.

Singh 1986, I dont know who sarmad is, But tell me, would Sant Jarnail SIngh Jee support homosexuality?? would Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Jee? would Sant Gurbachan Singh Jee? If you think that homosexuality is acceptable in Gurmat, then do you also support beastiality?