Jump to content

Ex-Jathedar Ragi Darshan Singh and the Emperor of the United States


Recommended Posts

I find it quite interesting that extremist missionaries always used to say that that there is no such post as "Jathedar of Akal Takhat". Yet after Ex-Jathedar Ragi Darshan Singh joined up with the extremist missionaries by denouncing the Dasam Granth Sahib, they did an interesting thing: They would describe him as "Sabka (ex) Jathedar, Akal Takhat, Singh Sahib Darshan Singh". Yet to refer to the sitting Jathedars, they would say "so-called Jathedars".

That's quite strange. If you think a post is made up, why would you describe someone as a former holder of that imaginary post?

Now let me introduce the Emperor of the United States. Joshua Norton was a drifter who in 1859 declared himself to be Emperor of the United States. If you've read the US Constitution, or even if you haven't, you should know that there is emphatically no such post. Joshua Norton was a nutcase. How much sense would it make to introduce him as a former (or current) Emperor of the United States, in the manner that ex-Presidents of the US are presented? It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. 

So now, to the point: Why do missionaries describe Ragi Darshan Singh as ex-Jathedar when (according to them), the post of Akal Takhat Jathedar is as imaginary as that of Emperor of the US?

The answer, friends, is will to power. They will say anything and everything to gain power, and once they do, they will change all the rules to consolidate power, just as in every Communist revolution. Once they get power, they will forget that they ever said there is no Jathedari of Akal Takhat, rather, they will use that power to ex-communicate any Sikh that believes in God, Guru, and Sikhism.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good observation. This is one of many examples of their hypocrisy. Why do some like Rogi Darshan and dandrialwala wear malas when they dont even belive in the concept of Simran and meditation?

 

They criticize people using titles like Sant but they don't feel shame when their own use titles like professor even though they have never attended a university.

 

And gandhpreet is the biggest deciever of them all. Why does he use Dr in front of his name even though he is a desi hakeem? He dresses as a Sant because he knows Punjabi people respect that attire, but his parchar is purely atheistic missionary soch amd goes against everything that attire represents.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Probably got his doctorate from the same place as Dr. Dre and Dr. Fox.

My friend who is also a doctor has it on good authority that they are all legitimate doctors....my friend's name is Dr. Pepper.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
15 minutes ago, Koi said:

My friend who is also a doctor has it on good authority that they are all legitimate doctors....my friend's name is Dr. Pepper.

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

Probably got his doctorate from the same place as Dr. Dre and Dr. Fox.

:rofl

3 hours ago, BhForce said:

I find it quite interesting that extremist missionaries always used to say that that there is no such post as "Jathedar of Akal Takhat". Yet after Ex-Jathedar Ragi Darshan Singh joined up with the extremist missionaries by denouncing the Dasam Granth Sahib, they did an interesting thing: They would describe him as "Sabka (ex) Jathedar, Akal Takhat, Singh Sahib Darshan Singh". Yet to refer to the sitting Jathedars, they would say "so-called Jathedars".

That's quite strange. If you think a post is made up, why would you describe someone as a former holder of that imaginary post?

Now let me introduce the Emperor of the United States. Joshua Norton was a drifter who in 1859 declared himself to be Emperor of the United States. If you've read the US Constitution, or even if you haven't, you should know that there is emphatically no such post. Joshua Norton was a nutcase. How much sense would it make to introduce him as a former (or current) Emperor of the United States, in the manner that ex-Presidents of the US are presented? It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. 

So now, to the point: Why do missionaries describe Ragi Darshan Singh as ex-Jathedar when (according to them), the post of Akal Takhat Jathedar is as imaginary as that of Emperor of the US?

The answer, friends, is will to power. They will say anything and everything to gain power, and once they do, they will change all the rules to consolidate power, just as in every Communist revolution. Once they get power, they will forget that they ever said there is no Jathedari of Akal Takhat, rather, they will use that power to ex-communicate any Sikh that believes in God, Guru, and Sikhism.

Missionaries should be split-up from the religion; or the real Jathas such as Taksal and others will be splitting Akal Takht authority, (they already got a separate maryada because of the Feminazis in the SGPC maryada). The missionaries already denounce the real Jathedar: Bhai Jagtar Singh Hawara because of his things, (don't know much about his views on controversial topics, so I can't explain it, nor would I be interested in all that), to put their Pakhandi Jathedar who let that Pakhandi Baba, (Gurmeet Sio of Dera Sauch Sahib), to be doing chaos in Punjab. But really it seems if Badal is Panth Rattan Fakhr-e-Qaum, then does the Jathedari of Akal Takht really mean anything, heck the Keshdhari RSS Hindu Agents give Siropas to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

Good observation. This is one of many examples of their hypocrisy. Why do some like Rogi Darshan and dandrialwala wear malas when they dont even belive in the concept of Simran and meditation?

 

They criticize people using titles like Sant but they don't feel shame when their own use titles like professor even though they have never attended a university.

 

And gandhpreet is the biggest deciever of them all. Why does he use Dr in front of his name even though he is a desi hakeem? He dresses as a Sant because he knows Punjabi people respect that attire, but his parchar is purely atheistic missionary soch amd goes against everything that attire represents.

This. Very perceptive.

Their methods go against the sort of hypocrisy that is condemned all over Gurbani. E.g., claiming to be a Pandit and then also doing Muslim rituals. If you don't believe in God, what's the free-flowing and uncut beard for?

They would have more credibility as atheists if they had the bhekh of Richard Dawkins (cut hair, shaved, western clothes).

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use