Jump to content

Jagraj Singh On Beeb This Sunday @ 10am


Recommended Posts

you are a bit confused no white man made oil, or any resource , they may have exploited other's resources since they are not naturally occuring on land of the British Isles besides these three resources are NOT why the Europeans wanted access to India. they wanted spices, cotton, tea, fabrics printed in colourful ways, silks and to exploit the cheap labour whilst robbing the unwary elites.

I'm really tired of arguing with you. You are a broken tape recorder. No amount of information can fix you. You're a 'one trick' pony. The Americans have a good adage to describe the likes of you and here is how it goes, "You can't fix stupid". Here is another, "Stupid is as stupid does".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Low IQ Pendu, Wikipedia by itself is not a source. It is irrelevant who they quote as the information can be edited by anybody. I stand corrected.

Please stop making a fool out of yourself. You are clearly not educated beyond high school. Even that, I have my doubts.

From wiki itself

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessibletertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

From Harvard

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

< PREVIOUS | NEXT >

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Super brainy 'bigot-troll', use the references to cross-reference the figures which Johny posted - if you are really interested in learning anything.

Your learning curve on this forum is zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whites never looted anything from colonies. This is a lie. There was nothing to loot as the east was largely agrarian societies. If anything they brought industry to the east.

WJKK WJKF

LOL? The whites just asked black people to jump on a boat and for them and their future generations to be slaves?

What history books do you read bro to get to your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whites never looted anything from colonies. This is a lie. There was nothing to loot as the east was largely agrarian societies. If anything they brought industry to the east.

WJKK WJKF

LOL? The whites just asked black people to jump on and for them and their future generations to be slaves?

What history books do you read bro to get to your opinion?

the Beano probably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only caught the last 20 minutes and I heard Jagraj Singh speak once. To be a panellist on these shows, one has to more or less interrupt with a louder voice in order to get heard. Will have to watch the rest on i-player.

I think he spoke more than I was expecting him to. The others on his side spoke less than him. He did ok in my opinion. And confronted the other speakers when they said that the British empire stopped sati, informing them that it was actually the Gurus that did.

The Dr Singh on the left, oh tha railways ch fasea reha. The Kohinoor topic was brought up by the Muslim guy at the end.

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

    • I was searching igurbani.com which gives correct pronunciation of Gurbani. I can’t remember all of it at once. I guess it relies on more practice, like more Sehaj Paths. The meaning becomes clearer. I have noticed slight variants in it. This could be because it’s written in old Punjabi.  
    • Veer Manpreet Singh, a lay preacher, claims that -Sikhs aren't supposed to worship Guru Granth Sahib ji. -We are only supposed to worship God as is written in Guru Granth Sahib ji. -We only "revere" Guru Granth Sahib ji.     He says a lot of other things in this video, some are good refutations of Hindu superstitions, but the reformers often go too far. Anyways, what he is saying about not worshipping Guru Granth Sahib ji is totally wrong. The reason is Guru Granth Sahib ji is Guru. Guru is Satguru. Satguru is God. We worship God. Therefore, we also worship Satguru (Guru Granth Sahib ji).   There are innumerable verses in Gurbani equating God and Guru. ਗੁਰੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਡੁਬਦਾ ਲਏ ਤਰਾਇ ॥੨॥ The Guru is the Supreme Lord and the Transcendent Master. The Guru floats (saves) the drowning one. p49   ਗੁਰੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਣੁ ॥ Know the Guru and God as One. p864   ਗੁਰ ਨਾਲਿ ਤੁਲਿ ਨ ਲਗਈ ਖੋਜਿ ਡਿਠਾ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੰਡੁ ॥ There is no one at par with the Guru. I have searched and seen the whole universe. p49 (If the Guru is the greatest in the whole universe, shouldn't we worship the Guru?)   I'd like to ask Manpreet Singh what is worship? Any reasonable definition would include obeisance, remembrance, and praise. Those are exactly the same things Gurbani says to do regarding Guru! Remembrance and obeisance: ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਅਪਨਾ ਸਦ ਸਦਾ ਸਮ੍ਹਾਰੇ ॥ Ever, ever, I think of the True Guru, ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਚਰਨ ਕੇਸ ਸੰਗਿ ਝਾਰੇ ॥੧॥ and the Guru's feet I brush with my head's hair. p387   Praise: ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਆਪਿ ॥ The Guru himself is the transcendent Lord and the supreme master. ਆਠ ਪਹਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰ ਜਾਪਿ ॥੪॥੧੬॥੬੭॥ Throughout the eight watches of the day, O Nanak meditate thou on the Guru. p387   In fact, Gurbani says the way to find God is to worship (puja) of Guru: ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਚਰਨ ਧੋਇ ਧੋਇ ਪੂਜਹੁ ਇਨ ਬਿਧਿ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਲਹੁ ਰੇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ Washing and bathing the True Guru's feet, worship thou them. In this way thou shall obtain my Lord Master. Pause. p1118   Could it be any clearer that we are to worship Guru ji?
    • Bro, reciting a shorter Chaupai Sahib is hardly "anti-Dasam". It's fine to argue that the longer Chaupai is more traditional, but the short one isn't anti-Dasam. That's like claiming shorter Rehras is anti-Guru Granth Sahib ji just because there are fewer selections from Guru Granth Sahib. It might not be traditional, but it's not anti-Guru Granth Sahib. I prefer the longer versions, but let's not exaggerate. Every tradition has a slightly different Rehras version. Nanaksar vs Taksal vs Nihangs and so on. The basic template for Rehras is at the beginning of Guru Granth Sahib ji. Later, Chaupai Sahib was added and Anand Sahib always follows as the end of a process. Then some sangats added more saloks to start Rehras and others were added at the end. Some additional selections from Dasam Bani were also added, but it wasn't the same ones for every sangat. The important thing is to not hate on each other for these variations.
    • Umm, so you're upset that this jatha did Chaupai the same way it's being done at Harimandar Sahib for 100 years? Shouldn't you be upset at the manager of Darbar Sahib? I'm not saying that Sikhs who are aware of certain issues shouldn't do the longer Chaupai, but there are only so many battles you can fight. Instead of calling some jatha traitors because they're doing the (for better or worse) "standard" Chauapai published by the SGPC, it would be better to change things from the central point. You can't fault the average Sikh for picking up the average Gutka and doing paath.
    • It's the same here in Toronto. Alot of the gudwaras here are political orientated and get tons of funding from the government-probably want them stay hush hush with all the BS that has been happening with India.  These guys are skewing gurbani. A complaint was sent to a ragi singh a couple of days ago in regards to a hukamnama. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use