>Bikramjit Singh<

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! Well now you know why I accepted his offer to meet him and why he ran to you and the other mods on sikhawareness to complain about me when he found out that he was going to get more than a cup of tea at our meeting. GurFateh Bikramjit

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! You don't have to do a search. Just click on the link and scroll down to the Bahadar Singh post Gurfateh Bikramjit

Posting link would be appreciated .. thank you Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! Our mate Lallesvari from Sikh awareness posts as Bahadar Singh Nirmala on the shia chat forum. There's even a picture of him even though he won't admit to being a gora to some but you can see that he is. Anyway here's the link -; htt p://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.ppa?sh...opic=18068&st=0 scroll down to Bahadar Singh's post of Sep 25 2003, 02:53 PM In case the link doesn't work Here it is regarding adrenaline ... it's you who will soon taste adrenaline if you meet me . It's true that the Sikh Gurus fought against the Mughals but it' also true that they made alliances with Sufis and SHias! We Sikhs are only against the blind faith of SUnnis and that's it. Now regarding anti-Muslim SIkhs I would like to remind you that during the Birtish Raj a movement, very similar to Wahabism,appeared and started distorting SIkhi in favour of the colinial powers. I belong to the pre-colonial tradition and to be honest I don't even consider these Neo-SIkhs to be my fellow brothers. They call themselves SIngh Sabha or AKJ and most SIkh temples in the UK are run by those bastards who impose their heretic views on others in the same way as many Sunni mosques are run by Wahabis even though most Sunnis are not necesserally Wahabis.... SInce my childhood I have hada deep devotion for the AhlulBayt and with God's grace I will translit that to my children love Bahadar SIngh Nirmala GurFateh Bikramjit

The point i m making... udhasi who still beleive in charan amrit are no different than me and you.. they are Sikhs as well period. Just like bhagats (above mentioned who took charan amrit before guroo nanak sahib nirankar) are in siri guroo granth sahib are sikhs!!!!!!!!!. Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fat eh!! N30 Singh I don't think you understand the point that ms514 Bhaji is making. After 1699 there has only been one form of Amrit, Khanday Di Pahul and the fact that you still consider those who take Charan Amrit as 'Sikhs' shows that you believe that your opinion is higher than that of Guru Gobind Singh. I don't know whether your views on Charan Amrit are your own or whether they are shared by the Taksal but as far as I am aware the Taksal does not consider Charan Amrit as a valid form of initiation. Jagjeet Waheguru You are quite right, there are agendas at work here. There is a conscious attempt to undo the work of the Singh Sabha and bring back into Sikhi all the anti-Gurmat and Hindu influenced sects. One Nang fool even posted once that the four Sampardhyas ( yes 4, N30 not 5 ) should take over the Akal Takht even by force. The fact that this Nang wasn't even born a Sikh and is more influenced by Shia Islam than by Sikhi. He even posted on a Shia Muslim forum that he considers 'mainstream' Sikhs as Bas*ards and has more in common with Shias. GurFateh Bikramjit

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! Learner Singh I see you make the same assumptions as Lallevari about there being no such thing as Hinduism. I won't ask you what the Gurus and the Bhagats were referring to when they used the term Hindu as I think you will use the same technique as Lallesvari and ask me to read some book by Richard King. You didn't actually answer my question ? Do you regard ALL the Gurus as having the same Jot as Guru Nanak ?. If so then why ask for a reference where Guru Nanak refers to his disciples as Sikhs ?. Doesn't the fact that the other Gurus refer to their disciples as Sikhs not the same thing as Guru Nanak calling his disciples Sikhs ? Also any chance of letting me know what relevance your c&p of Gurbani quotes had to do with the discussion ?? As for the assumptions on Ego, well you accused me of suffering from Ego yet it didn't stop you claiming to have defeated all the vegetarians on the forums GurFateh Bikramjit

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! N30 Singh If the study after death shows that reincarnation is a reality.. then is it possible.. and I know I am making a huge assumption.. but Sikhi might be the true path and religions that believe in only one earthly life ie Christianity, Islam and Judaism might be false ! GurFateh Bikramjit

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! Who's suffering from EGO now ??

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! This thread was started because the other thread where this topic was being discussed became a slinging match. Now someone called 'Learner Singh' has again started to get personal. But this is to be expected, when you lose the argument then you try and sabotage the debate by getting personal and hope the other party will also start getting personal and then the topic is locked by the Mods. Learner Singh I am touched that you have taken the time and effort to locate my posts on other forums but I advise you to use the time that you have for more worthwhile activities rather than chasing my posts on different forums and then deciding whether they are racist or not ! Not that you need to be a rocket scientist to locate my posts, I post under the same name in all the Sikh forums unlike some people with an agenda who post as Narsingha, Nihang, Brown Cookie, Learner Singh etc on different forums. Now back to the debate 1. Where would you like the reference to be from to prove that Guru Nanak called his followers Sikhs ?. From the Janamsakhis where the Sakhi usually ends with the characters becoming Sikhs of the Guru ?. From Bhai Gurdasji's vaars ?. From the Guru Granth Sahib where the 2rd and 4th Jot which warrior Princess has quoted in her post. Here's a question for you ?. Do you believe that all Gurus contained the same Jot as Guru Nanak. If so under what foolish assumption are you asking for references to Guru Nanak referring to his followers as Sikhs ? 2. Your Gurbani Quotes. Congratulations, you have mastered the technique of cutti ng and pasting. Any chance of showing me where the quotes that you have c&p have a relevance to the debate. Unless of course you are attempting to show me up to be a egoist or my beliefs to be due to the this age being Kalyug. 3. The fact that many Sikhs today are involved in Jathebandis does not mean that the Gurus never intended there to be just one Panth. The Nang view of Sikhi as espoused by yourself wants to make Sikhi into a 'Mini Hinduism', as does N30 and his flavours of Sikhi. 4. As far as I am aware I did not discuss Dasam Granth, only Sarbloh Granth. Nice to know that even the Nangs are keeping up with the Hukumnamas from Akal Takht. 5. My ego. You sound a lot like my old mate Narsingha. GurFateh Bikramjit

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! N30 Come on, I have yet to see them update their site and none of the Nangs like Narsingha or Lallesvari have admitted that the Taksal is the 5th Sampardhya. As far as I recall Narsingha was pretty vague about updating the sarbloh site with the admission. So let me see, does this now mean that the Nangs admit that their site was not entirely correct in the first instance ? I mean missing out one important Sampardhya is pretty sloppy work. You asked what my view is how the Panth should be. Well a Sikh should be solely a Sikh and not a Taksali Sikh, a Nihang Sikh or a Nirmala Sikh. Perhaps you missed the import of the last line of the Gurbani quote and I will reproduce it here for you The Yogis way is to seek enlightment The Brahmin's to follow the Vedas The Kshatris is heroism The Shudra's service to others But to the one who understands this matter Knows that there is one and same way for all ( SGGS page 469 ) Does this not contradict your many 'flavours' of Sikhi viewpoint ?. If there is only one way to liberation then there can be no such thing as a Nihang, a Nirmala or a Udasi Sikh ? You misunderstood this verse, it is not solely about the caste system but it criticises the belief that it is possible to have different ways to reach liberation. Just as the Guru has said that it is wrong to assume that following the Yogi way ( ie asceticism ) will give you liberation so it follows that being an Udasi and having an Udasi lifestyle will not bring you liberation. From the Sikhawareness site I assumed that you would have re ad the sarbloh granth thread. I was referring to to the fact that the Sarbloh Granth was a secret text and only available with the Nihangs. If the Taksal NOW accepts the Sarbloh Granth then for over 100 years after the creation of the Khalsa it had not been available to the Sikhs. The Nihangs could only have accepted it 100 years ago and the Taksal much later than that as it has not been referred to by any writer both Sikh or non-Sikh until about 120 years ago. So it is possible to have a Guru other than Gur Nanak- Guru Gobind Singh and still be a Sikh !. So are Radha Swamis Sikhs ?, how about those 'sikhs' who follow Ashutosh or Baniarawala are they also Sikhs ?. You are creating quite a precedent with your views. It is not solely the Amrit but also the beliefs that differ. Would you believe that some Nirmalas who throughout their history have been heavily influenced by Hinduism believe that Guru Nanak was an Avatar of Vishnu ?. Or that Guru Granth Sahib is just the vedas translated into a language understood by the common people ?. Btw there seems to some person going around trying to convince people that all Sikh Sants starting from Sant Attar Singh Ji have been influenced by Nirmalas and their beliefs. The sole basis for this is that during their childhood they were sent to study Gurbani at Nirmala Deras. Since in Punjab at that time teaching the Guru Granth Sahib was the sole preserve of the Gyanis, the Nirmalas and the Udasi deras then it is not inconceivble that these Sants went for their early education to one of these establishments. GurFateh Bikramjit

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw! vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!! N30 Singh Are there now 5 Sampardhyas ?. I thought that Sanatan Sikhi only believes in 4 Sampardhyas as having a lineage going back to the Gurus ?. It is easy to explain your concept of different flavours by claiming that the concentration is still one. But this is not what Gurbani teaches. The above definations have remarkable similarity with the way that Hinduism has been divided. Brahmin = Nirmala Kshatriya = Nihang Yogi = Udasi Shudra = Sewapanthi Guru Nanak in Asa Di // remarks on the different religious duties assigned to the Hindu divisions The Yogis way is to seek enlightment The Brahmin's to follow the Vedas The Kshatris is heroism The Shudra's service to others But to the one who understands this matter Knows that there is one and same way for all ( SGGS page 469 ) Do you really think that after Guru Nanak's criticism of the different divisions of the Hindus that Guru Gobind Singh would then create the same divisions in Sikhi ? Tolerance is all very well but it is not just the UK Nangs that say that their Amrit is the only true Amrit but the Budha Dal claim this as well. As for Nirmalas their Amrit is also different and Udasis use Charan Amrit which was abolished by Guru Gobind Singh. Can these Sampardhyas still claim to have concentration of the same Guru Granth Sahib ?. Apologies, I stand corrected. But you still refer to Dasam Granth as 'Dasam Guru Durbar' and Sarbloh Granth as 'Sarbloh Guru Durbar'. It is all very well to say that you have faith in Sikh scriptures but the Sarbloh Granth has never been considered as Gurbani by anyone other than Nihangs. As you know even some Nirmalas do not believe it to be Gurbani. So can you still consider the four Sampardayas as 'flavours' when they do not even agree on the basics ?. The reference to Lallesvari and Narsingha was because you seem to have brought into their sanatan Sikhi drivel. GurFateh Bikramjit

Chamkila I agree that there should be a list of anti-Sikh sites so that anyone who is interested in learning about Sikhi could avoid these sites. The Sarbloh site is a joke. Their evidence for their sanatan Sikhism is based on the words of so and so Baba and this and that Das. I would much rather base my Sikhi on the Guru Granth Sahib than what some Udasi or Nirmala says about it. This is why I would never take anything that anyone says at face value. Always double check what they say and if they give references then check these references. As you may know the people promoting sanatan Sikhism do not give any references but just make statements. GurFateh Bikramjit

WJKK WJKF N30 Singh I have read some of your posts on various threads and I have a few questions for you 1. You stated that Sikhi has many flavours and one should pick one and stay with that ? Are you saying that Sikhi is a religion of sects ?. Did the Gurus preach Sikhi to be a collection of various sects rather than just Sikhism. No founder of a religion has ever created two or three sets of followers. Did the Gurus create different types of Sikhs ?. 2. You have referred to Sampardhayas who have a lineage going back to the Gurus. What research have you done on them and what makes you think that any Sampardhya which has a lineage going back to the Gurus has the right to claim themselves to be the only true Sikhs and their Amrit to be the only true Amrit ?. Over time every Sampardhya is liable to corruption and so have the four Sampardhyas that you are been referring to. Didn't Guru Gobind Singh finish the Masand system when they became corrupt even through they had a lineage going back to the Fifth Guru ?. 3. You have, in imitation of the Nangs started to refer to the Guru Granth Sahib as 'Aad Guru Durbar', the Dasam Granth as 'Dasam Guru Durbar' and Sarbloh Granth as 'Sarbloh Guru Durbar', why ?. You have claimed to be a Taksali and sometimes a Nanaksari on sikawareness but does the Taksal refer to the Guru Granth Sahib as 'aad Guru Durbar' ?. Does it give the title of Guru to the Sarbloh Granth ?. If you believe the Sarbloh Granth to be Guru can you give us some reasons why you think that Sarbloh Granth is Gurbani. I am right in thinking that you have not read the Sarbloh Granth, if that is so t hen what led you to conclude that it is Gurbani ?. I ask this question solely because I am interested to know why someone like yourself would believe in the Sarbloh Granth as Gurbani when only a few dozen Uk nangs believe in it be so and a few thousand Nihangs in India. Thanks in advance for the answers Btw you can get any help you want from Narsingha and Lallesvari to answer these questions. GurFateh Bikramjit Admin note: We are only letting this discussion among Bikramjeet Singh and N30 take place because Bikramjeet Singh has asked all his questions using polite speech, and we are also expecting that N30 will not step down the ladder to prove his points. If something happens and 'both' of these men decide to take the rough path to discuss topics we will have to close this thread. Others may only contribute to this thread if they wish to correct the 'points' given by either party. 'Off the topic' posts will be removed immediatly without any notice or warning.

I don't think that book has been translated into English. Can you read Punjabi ?. If so then read the Punjabi version it is still the best book on countering the Hindu claims that Sikhs are Hindus. Hindus still use the same arguments that Bhai Kahan Singh demolished over 100 years ago. GurFateh Bikramjit

At Idiots R Us

WJKK WJKF Khalsa Souljah Bro, I had a discussion with this guy a few days ago on yahoo messenger and he is pretty amateur. Like most Muslims they like to garble endlessly about 'knowledge' and 'rationality' but in the end all they have as proof of the truth of their religion is the story of a man 1400 years ago who thought he was visited by an Angel and some horse took him to heaven. He started off the debate with the usual arrogance of a fanatic who thinks he has all the answers. After the intros he started off with 'let's cut to the chase' and half an hour later he couldn't leave fast enough. His technique is to try and latch on to one thing in Sikhi in which he thinks he can create a doubt about and then keep on hammering at it. He's good at sprouting the usual 'thousands are converting to Islam every day' drivel but when you question any of his views further he will try and hit you with some koran quote as if that provides the definative answer!. I enjoyed myself questioning his belief that Allah is 'above heaven'. Here's a brief summary of the debate as I remember it. Me: Is heaven a physical place ? Muslim : Sure is Me: Is Allah in Heaven Muslim: No. He's 'above Heaven' *provides quote from Koran which I cannot remember* Me: Is 'Above Heaven' a place. ie physical Muslim: No, it's not physical, it is spiritual, another plane of existence Me: So how can the location of something that is not physical as 'above Heaven ' is, be referenced by something that is physical ie Heaven ?. *long gap* Muslim: You did not answer my quest ion about the Gurus He also has a 'soundbite' which is his opinion as to why he cannot think about Sikhi as a true religion. I think it goes like this When I look at Sikhism I see the belief in reincarnation, nirvana and I think of it as Hinduism and I could never consider becoming a Hindu My reply was When I look at Islam, I see Judaism, a liberal sprinking of Christianity and later Jewish heresies and topped off with the delusions of one man. I think the debate ended with the usual blind faith argument of 'Allah knows best' The problem is that Muslims are not used to having to answer questions logically about their religion. They think that they can question every minute detail of someones else's religion but that when we ask them a question about Islam then we should accept their answer 'Koran says so' or 'Allah knows best' !. There are two ways to counter this guy. 1. Take support and help from people that know about their techniques. Apparently this guy is now refusing to debate with me or ignoring me. The only way their technique can work is if the person who is debating with them has no support from the Sangat. The guy realises this and that's why he doesn't wish to debate further. His email to Sarbloh Kaur saying that he did not wish to have a debate and was just showing her what Islam has to offer shows that he cannot handle logical questioning of his views. After my debate with him he sent Sarbloh Kaur a long cut and paste article off the net 'proving' that Allah is in a place 'above Heaven'. Obviously I had created some doubt in him and he must have spent some time searching for an answer to clear his doubt!. Nice to know that one Muslim got a taste of his own medicine!. 2. Cut off all contact. Consider him like a dog barking in the night, annoying but harmless. GurFateh Bikramjit