Jump to content

No Mona Rule


Recommended Posts

So if a person that has faith in the Gurus they are a Sikh. Okay I bet there are plenty of men and women that cut their hair that still have faith in the gurus. So why shouldn't two people a Amrithari and non-Amrithari be allowed to marry if both have strong faith in god?
If Amritdhari person wants to marry a nonAmritdhari person that's that person's choice. Secondly, if a nonAmritdhari person really had faith in Gurus he/she would want to believe in Guru's words, hence they would keep 5 k's and become Amritdhari.
Does that make any sense to you? You would go against something that is clearly against Sikhi just because the Khalsa path says so? Think about that for a minute. Isn't that kind if ignorant way of thinking exactly what Guru Nanak tried to abolish?

Khalsa panth would never approve something that is against Sikhi and rehit maryada. end of discussion on that topic.

We can no longer live in isolation and pretend the other doesn't exist. So do

n't you think it is best if we start sharing our cultures and try a reach a nice middle ground? After-all their are lots of great things (and bad things) in all cultures.

What do you mean by middle ground exactly?
What if Guru Nanak had that thinking that you are espousing. What if he said "Well everyone thinks caste system is okay, so I guess it is."

First of all, if Guru Nanak Dev ji HAD said that then most everything else in SGGS ji would contradict that probably. Secondly, Hinduism goes by the caste system and he was trying to abolish that so why WOULD he say that? I don't get your point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dorothy - with all regards

how come u forgot to respond to my posts :@

Singh47 said:

Dorothy, incase you didn’t know, we come here to learn about Sikhism, from the Sikh perspective. That’s difficult to do for young Sikh youth, when you are here determined to put doubts in their faith, with your atheist westernized views.

First and foremost I am not a atheist. Second western views are hardly atheist. Actually the current nation (United States) that carries the torch of the west has its culture firmly planted in puritanical christian beliefs.

.

:@

Sory ur statement about US carrying the torch of the weest was jus STUPID

seriously!

Now with regards to Sikh youth, if someone's faith can be shaken by something as simple as a forum post made by a total stranger, that individual has much larger problems with his or her youth than anything I could cause.

Do u have to try yto shake someones belief :)

People are here to learn

and not to get confused

which is obviously ur goal of being here rolleyes.gif

I mean, why do you have to disprove and persecute people’s faith like the Spanish inquisition? What it comes down to is faith. Either you have it or you don’t. People who have faith in the Gurus and traditions of our forefathers are called Sikhs. People who don’t are non-Sikhs.

So if a person that has faith in the Gurus they are a Sikh. Okay I bet there are plenty of men and women that cut their hair that still have faith in the gurus. So why shouldn't two people a Amrithari and non-Amrithari be allowed to marry if both have strong faith in god?

I don't agree with above statement as Rehitnama Bhai Desi SIngh jee says -

REHIT BINA NAI SIKH KAHVAI!

-QuoteBegin-->

QUOTE
Eastern (Indian sub-continent) culture differs from your western culture greatly. Our culture and beliefs may seem very illogical and alien to you, just as your beliefs seem alien, and to a certain degree immoral to some of us.

Well it is something both sides have to get used to. We can no longer live in isolation and pretend the other doesn't exist.

We don't pretend they're not there

they're like our brothers n sises!

So don't you think it is best if we start sharing our cultures and try a reach a nice middle ground? After-all their are lots of great things (and bad things) in all cultures.

Well - We take the 'others' as brothers and sises

and due to the fact that

Sikhs dont force thier faithg on someone

w can't expect someone to convert to our religion -

and hence not marry

Basically Sikhs are very protective of there fait

h and traditions. It’s our faith in the Gurus which helped us get through and survive the horrible Islamic, British, and Mahant persecution and distortions. Sikhs believe in the rule of “live and let live”. Even when Sikh rule was established, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, and even European Christians lived in peace and harmony in Punjab, which was unseen at the time even in western countries. So c’mon lady, relax. Let us live and practice our faith and traditions with some tolerance.

I am not saying you shouldn't be a allowed to practice your faith. I am just saying that it is illogical to not marry someone because of superficial characteristics (ie. cutting hair) when they are otherwise a great person.

oits not just about Cutting hair

its he whole CONCEPT of

keeping the REHIT

and you said its illogical to not marry someone because of superficial charactaristics

would u marry someone

with a PERFECt personality - but is REALLY UGLY?

NO! cause outside DOES MATTER!

For u its about looking nice -

for us its following the rehit!

khalistani said:

did u know guru gobind singh je and so many other guru je didnt even add any bani into guru je? Y? well, thats how vaheguru wanted it

guru gobind singh je told people to write reightnamas, guru hargobind sahib je wrote hukamnanams, guru gobind singh wrote dasam granth and sarab loh granth, all gurus wrote hukamnamas, so as a refrence for reight, theres a lot of places we need to look.

Okay, then lets see these primary sources of writing by any of the 10 gurus or the Guru Granth Sahib where it says a Sikh is only to marry a Sikh and the reasoning behind it.

I don't tihnk u've understood it yet

WE DON't CARE ABOUT THE REASON

our GURU told us - we accept it without further questioning

u might call it blind faith - we call it LOVE FOR OUR GURU - we do what our GURU TELLS US - why?

CAUSE OUR GURU IS MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT WHATS RIGHT OR WRONG - than the knowledge we have :wub:

P.s make a search on goggle

for

52 hukams of GUru Gobind Singh jee -

and read through all of them :wub:

on of them says it

we will follow our reight, and we always will

watever it says will be done

Isn't this a dangerous mindset to have? What if the rehat someday says drinking alcohol is okay? Would you do that without questing it as well?

WE'd compare it to other rehits, Gurbani

and other RELIABLE sources

and if thats whats it says

then YES

IF THATS WHAT ALL THE RELIABL

E SOURCES SAY!

Wouldn't it be wiser to read the rehat, ask yourself why it says such, then ask yourself does that make sense, and only then your decision as to follow it or not?

no, cause we are fools!

WE have NO KNOWLEDGE!

we look up the RELIABLE SOURCES

Mkhalsa said:

Dorothy, Guru granth sahib is not the source of almost any rehat. Almost NO rehat comes from guru granth sahib. Why? Guru granth sahib is universal, it is meant to be a message to humanity as a whole, not just sikhs. Guru sahib tells us how to live a good life and how to be spiritual, but does not tell us how to be in this physical world, for that we have rehat.

That doesn't make sense. The Guru Granth Sahib is a message to all of humanity on how to live a good life, but not in the physical world? Then what world are you taking about?

GURU GRANTH SHAIB JEE

teaches us SPIRITUALITY

not how to be outside!

its the INSIDE!

how hard is it for u to undastand :T:

And if the ENTIRE khalsa panth agreed drinking was ok, then yes I would accept it (knowing that would never happen of course).

Does that make any sense to you? You would go against something that is clearly against Sikhi just because the Khalsa path says so? Think about that for a minute. Isn't that kind if ignorant way of thinking exactly what Guru Nanak tried to abolish?

Hey!

look Guru Gobind SIngh jee

listened to EVERY HUKAM OF KHALSA PANTH

who are we to not do so?

GUru Gobind SIngh jee intention in the battle of CHamkaur was to fight to death

Khalsa Panth

said NO - and he HAD TO LISTEN TO THEIR HUkAAM

GUru GObind SIngh jee didn't want to leave the fort of Anandpur yet

KHalsa said YES WE SHOULD

and he had to!

What if Guru Nanak had that thinking that you are espousing. What if he said "Well everyone thinks caste system is okay, so I guess it is."

No cause 'everyone' dont have the AUTHORITY!

its the KHALSA PANTH!

Also, you said a person of high moral character who drinks and smokes. But you dont understand, to us those things make someone have a very low character, even sleazy in our minds.

Then fine, only marry someone that meets your characteristics of high moral character. I never said you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what defines high moral/personal character for anyone.

Teri prablem ki a pher?

I would pick someone who has the same rehat (outward show of faith) as me over someone whos nice and has similar characteristics. Why? because I know such a match would last longer. Because my wife would have so much love for god, and I could match my faith with hers and we could live in a loving, faithful, god-fearing/loving relationship.

How can you say someone that say, cuts their hair does not have as much love as someone that does not? What if that person never heard of the Sikh faith but loves god just as much as you do?

Again - the whoel concept of Anadkarj is jus wasted

causeits to have SANGAT

but if u pray sepearately

whats the point?

That is a good relationship, much better than this so called "puppy love" or "true love"

tried it, its all BS.

I don't understand this, please expound on this last statement

BS0 BullS*hit

n I tihnk i agree with MKhalsa jee here :lol:

bull chukk maaf

GurFateh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorothy, The last statement meant ive tried this "dating" idea when I was more of an athiest than a sikh, its a waste of time and entirely a false way to live.

Regarding where guru sahib said a sikh is only to marry a sikh, guru gobind singh said in his 52 hukams that if a sikh were to give their child to a non sikh, that person is a sinner.

Also, cutting ones hair is a direct insult to our gurus and our shaheeds, this is why it is inconceivable to me and most people on this board for a sikh to marry a hair cutter (guru gobind singh also says in his 52 hukams that marrying a hair cutter is a sin). Not only does it seem like a disgusting idea to me, but i see it as an insult on guru sahib and our beloved martyrs who gave their LIVES and their CHILDRENS LIVES rather than cut their hair. Thats all they had to do, cut their hair and they could live, but hundreds of thousands of sikhs have died rather than cut their hair, so saying that a sikh can marry a hair cutter is BIG insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waheguru Ji

1st of all Sikhi comes from within, although appearance is very important for us, there is too many bekhandis and people who dekhava.

let the Guru into your life and appearances will come after.

I think families should always try get a gursikh match, however if it was a choice between a sikh who wore a pugg and had a beard but drank

and a mona who had sikhi from within and did not drink or smoke i would say the mona was a better option

please note it is my view although a gursikh match would always come first im only saying if it ever became a situation

forgive me if have offended

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Net pay after taxes. If you don't agree, think about this: If you were a trader and started off in China with silk that cost 100 rupees and came to India, and you had to pay total 800 rupees taxes at every small kingdom along the way, and then sold your goods for 1000 rupees, you'd have 100 rupees left, right? If your daswandh is on the gross, that's 100 rupees, meaning you have nothing left. Obviously, you owe only 10% of 100, not 10% of 1000. No, it's 10% before bills and other expenses. These expenses are not your expenses to earn money. They are consumption. If you are a business owner, you take out all expenses, including rent, shop electricity, cost of goods sold, advertising, and government taxes. Whatever is left is your profit and you owe 10% of that.  If you are an employee, you are also entitled to deduct the cost of earning money. That would be government taxes. Everything else is consumption.    
    • No, bro, it's simply not true that no one talks about Simran. Where did you hear that? Swingdon? The entire Sikh world talks about doing Simran, whether it's Maskeen ji, Giani Pinderpal Singh, Giani Kulwant Singh Jawaddi, or Sants. So what are you talking about? Agreed. Agreed. Well, if every bani were exactly the same, then why would Guru ji even write anything after writing Japji Sahib? We should all enjoy all the banis. No, Gurbani tells you to do Simran, but it's not just "the manual". Gurbani itself also has cleansing powers. I'm not saying not to do Simran. Do it. But Gurbani is not merely "the manual". Reading and singing Gurbani is spiritually helpful: ਪ੍ਰਭ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਬਦੁ ਸੁਭਾਖਿਆ ॥  ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਪੜਹੁ ਨਿਤ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੈ ਤੂ ਰਾਖਿਆ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The Lord's Bani and the words are the best utterances. Ever sing hear and recite them, O brother and the Perfect Guru shall save thee. Pause. p611 Here Guru ji shows the importance of both Bani and Naam: ਆਇਓ ਸੁਨਨ ਪੜਨ ਕਉ ਬਾਣੀ ॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਿਸਾਰਿ ਲਗਹਿ ਅਨ ਲਾਲਚਿ ਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਨਮੁ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The mortal has come to hear and utter Bani. Forgetting the Name thou attached thyself to other desires. Vain is thy life, O mortal. Pause. p1219 Are there any house manuals that say to read and sing the house manual?
    • All of these are suppositions, bro. Linguists know that, generally, all the social classes of a physical area speak the same language, though some classes may use more advanced vocabulary. I'm talking about the syntax. That is, unless the King is an invader, which Porus was not. When you say Punjabi wasn't very evolved, what do you mean? The syntax must have been roughly the same. As for vocabulary, do you really think Punjabis at the time did nothing more than grunt to express their thoughts? That they had no shades of meaning? Such as hot/cold, red/yellow/blue, angry/sweet/loving/sad, etc? Why must we always have an inferiority complex?
    • I still think about that incident now and then, just haven't heard any developments regarding what happened, just like so many other things that have happened in Panjab!
    • There was a young Singh from abroad who went to Anandpur Sahib Hola and got into a fight with some Punjabis who were playing loud non-religious music. He had bana and a weapon or two. There were more of them than him.  He ended up losing his life. Don't be like that. Not worth it to fight manmukhs. @californiasardar1 ਮੂਰਖੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਨ ਲੁਝੀਐ ॥੧੯॥ Argue not with a fool. p473
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use