Jump to content
Guest Jacfsing2

How Missionary Jatha Got Influence?

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

The majority of the Panth hold these pro-Gurmat views as espoused by Dhadrianwale, Panthpreet, Dhunda, Dhapali, Shaheed Bhai Bhupinder Singh etc. The majority of the Panth does not want to see Bachittar Natak placed parallel alongside Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj at Gurdwara's as was done so until the liberation of Gurdwara's from the control of Hindu Mahants. The majority of the Panth rejects the assertion that our Guru Sahibaan were Hindu Kings from only two clans in their alleged previous lives.

The majority? What survey have you done to see where the majority lie?


If these miss nari cretins had the support of the majority, why did they not win the Delhi Gurdwara elections ? Sarna gave these fools total freedom to spew venom against Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth for years, but Banta Singh and Gurpreet Singh undid all their stupidity in 6 months. Now tell me where the majority of the Panth stands?


As for parallel parkash, it has been done for centuries at various places, iniitiated by Sikhs who knew far more about Gurmat than you or I or your miss nari role models ever will, so it is good enough for me. It will never change no matter how many lies you or dhundlu tell.


16 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

Not at all - the pro-Sikhi pro-SGGS Khalsa Panth alliance of pro-Gurmat parcharaks like Dhadrianwale and Panthpreet that you term as missionaries emphasise that practical actions for the benefit of humanity are the most true form of naam simran as opposed to sitting down and counting how many times one can repeat Vaheguru according to a reward system allocated by the Dera Mukhi depending on the numbers of times of repetition without contemplation and without any accompanying action to uplift those less fortunate.


The three main principles of Gurmat, are naam Simran Krit krni and wand shakna. But Naam SImran is the bedrock of the other two. Your gurus want to deny naam simran and call it silly names and discourage other Sikhs from doing naam simran as well. No Sikh Dera mukhi allocates anything to anyone whorepeats Naam. Only Waheguru does. Sant Dhanrianwale always used to do naam simran until recently. maybe he has been infected with gandpreets venom as well.


17 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

Please give one example of where Dhadrianwale, Panthpreet, Dhunda, Dhapali, Shaheed Bhai Bhupinder Singh (murdered by DDT) have stated that the Khalsa Panth should not keep kes. Kala Afghana is one man who has nothing to do with centuries old pro-Gurmat pro-Sikh pro-SGGS views held by the Khalsa Panth all the way since 1699.


yet your precious dhundla along witrh the other miss naris use kali faghanis books as the only resource for sikhi.


17 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

Let's examine your claims about Nanaksar, Taksal and the Dals:


yes let's. I'm talking about the instituions, not the people within them. If you want to talk about people in them look at the rapist kali faghani, the bus condiuctor who stole money and was sacked - jeonwala, the electircity board employee who stole from his employers - inder ghuggu, let's talk about ghuggus daughter who whilst unmarried got pregnant from a man who marriage she destroyed.


17 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

Sikhi is all about social welfare. What we do as Sikhs to uplift those within the Qaum and others who are suffering is 99% of what Sikhi is about. The pro-Gurmat camp are at the forefront of attacking the silent Genocide via female infanticide, drugs, cancer, biraderi apartheid, poverty, illiteracy and long may that continue.


No it is not. Sikhi is all about living in hukam. We have a duty to live by ALL aspects of sikhi, including Naam Simran, Krit karni and vand shakna. If the so-called "pro-gurmat" camp wanted to tackle these socials evils with a sincere heart then they would have without attacking anyone.


Who did Bhai Ghaneya attack? No-one, he worked for the scial welfare of all.


Who haven't the miss naris attacked? No-one, everyone and every Sikh institution bar themselves is a target. You want to eradicate femlae infanticide by creating shanka over Naam Simran, Amrit, Dasam Granth, Nanaksar? You will never win.


17 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

But all that's being requested is ... Just let the ordinary pro-Gurmat majority of Sangat with the likes of Panthpreet and Dhadrianwale et al who believe in ikko Guru Maneyo Granth to try focus on the silent Genocide affecting our Qaum re drugs, infanticide, cancer, declining fertility, poverty, biraderi apartheid without killing them as fellow Sikhs.


Why shouldn't gandpreet and dhundla just focus on social welfare then? The day they gain their senses they will stop attacking other Sikhs and Sikh institutions and focus on what needs to be done. How is insulting others fighting infanticide drugs etc?


17 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

You misunderstand bir'ay. To each his own thing. If Damdami Taksal want to kill fellow Sikhs and propagate that ideology that's your choice. If you want to organise flight tours to Pakistan so that the Pakistani descendents responsible for the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs can earn hard earned money off Sikhs while our Qaum are dying from lack of money to fight infanticide, drugs, poverty, cancer etc then that's fine.


Bi-ray, then shut your damned mouth and keep your black nose out of other people's affairs and concentrate on what you need to do Bi-ray.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
16 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

Sikhs should be able to "agree to disagree" respectfully.


But should Siksh tell open lies on a Sikh forum? Time and time again you have said that Taksal openly canvassed for Congress Party votes in 1980 elections. Time and time again i have asked you to provide any evidence for you claim. Time and time again, you refuse but repeat the same allegation. Bi-ray why won't you answer?


14 hours ago, SinghSabha1699 said:

However, in relation to what is stated in Bachittar Natak below it is not related to Ram Chander but the insinuation that GurGaddi was not chosen upon the basis of bibek buddhi and kamai between 1469-1708 but instead was divided up akin to a business deal in previous lives by a bunch of Hindu Kings enthralled by the Vedas.


The first three gurgaadi passings were based on hukam. Those that obeyed the Guru were supreme. You and your bibek budhi nonsense here. If Bhai lehna had used Bibek Budhi, he would never have climbed the tree to pick sweets, Bhai Lehna would never have agreed with Guru Nanak that it was nightime when it was daytime. Nor was kamai any part of it. Baba Budha never had kamai? Why didn't Baba Budha become next Guru ?


You aren't fooling anyone here with your rubbish bi'ray.


Try readiing about gurmat and history from better sources rather than your american council chump baldev.


6 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Before we actually continue any further and me giving my view on this: do you believe in Dasam Granth?


He doesn't beleive in gurmat, never Dasam Granth. he is a darshan panthi.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/04/2017 at 10:56 PM, genie said:

Parchaarik means missionary there's no difference really ones in punjabi other in english.

The uneducated low IQ indians and illiterate Sikhs in punjab are going around defaming the term missionary in an attempt to be politically correct and not to show intolerance to christians and muslim missionaries so they generalise their attack on the word "missionary" rather than attacking the individual anti-sikh abrahmic and personality cult missionaries

We need proudly say we are Sikh missionaries. I have personally made it my mission to convert non-sikhs from their backward and filth ideologies. I have made social media posts, help share inspirational sikh convert videos and many other forms of propaganda to help people embrace Sikhi from islam and Christianity mostly.

I'm going to be focusing hindu extremists next I want to target the hindu extremists hard where it hurts and convert their ignorant monkey and cow worshipping people from their filthy evil anti-sikh and anti-khalistan ideologies.

preacher is a better word than missionary because we do not have a MISSION to gain something for ourselves by changing others but by expounding the word of Truth and giving guidance on how to live better without knocking the people. Missionaries tend to approach it from a we are right/better, you are hellbound kind of mentality , which feeds the ego: a dangerous activity . 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The US are only the in Syria region because they had their arms twisted to get rid of ISIS. The reason? Because Russia was there doing that job. Russia was good buddies with Asad's regime and they are allied with Iran. USA are not on good terms with Iranian regime and wants to get rid of them. Asad is Druze (they are a Shia sect) and this minority rules Syria which has a Sunni majority as well as your regular Shias and Christians. There is no way that the US wants Iran to have influence in the region. Lebanon has a very large Shia  population,  that is where Hezbollah come from and they have traditionally allied with Syria regime and Iran (Shia boys united). Hezbollah rule South Lebanon and have given Israel loads of grief in the past. Saudi cannot stand Iran and they don't like Syria. They want to play a part in dismantling Iran's influence. ISIS has had a lot of their insurgents from Saudi, they want to get rid of Asad. Iran in turn supports the Houti rebels (Shias in Yemen) and Shia majority areas in Saudi which is coincidently where Saudi's oil fields are based. Iraq which is now run by Shia's in the south and Kurds in the north. Saddam Hussain was Sunni and the Iraqi Sunni are no longer in power.  That is where a lot of ISIS support comes from as well as Saudi and as well as Turkey who also hate Syria. They think Israel is complicit in this as they all have common interests.  So you have Syrian regime + Iran + Hezbollah + Yemeni Houthis + Iraqi Shias + Russia vs Saudi+ Israel + Turkey. Turkey has been growing it's Islamic ness in the last few decades and with Erdogan are flexing their muscles, they want to be Ottomans again. The Ottoman Empire controlled large parts of the Middle East and controlled Mecca and Medina, Islam's holy sites. Iraq is controlled in the north by the Kurds. Kurds are not Arabs, they are an Iranian speaking people. It is a de-facto Kurdish republic. The pisses off the Turks because they do not want their Kurds in Turkey to get any ideas. Also there is a lot of oil in the Kurdish controlled Iraq. With instability in Syria and the Asad regime not being in total control, it means that there is a vacuum in power. It stands to reason that the Kurds in Syria will fight back against ISIS and it stands to reason that the Kurds in Iraq will support them. So you end up with two Kurdish controlled regions. One in Iraq and one in Syria. The Turks are s****** themselves. What happens if these two regions become one breakaway country? They have oil too. The Kurds in Turkey will want to breakaway. (The govt in Turkey don't like calling the Kurds Kurds, they want to call them Mountain Turks.) The only thing they don't have is the pipelines to export it. That is why Turkey was interested,  they can control that area and build oil pipelines to the Mediterranean so they can export the oil. Erdogan's family is complicit in the traffiking of the oil supplies. Turkey's Turk population is experiencing a serious decline, the Kurds have a higher birth rate therefore the Turks are scared that the Kurds may become a majority.  What I have explained so far is far too simple and it goes beyond even that.
    • Here is some history about the Ottomans. They were a turkic people like the Mughals.  Like the Mughals who bred with Rajput women, the Ottomans did the same with the locally conquered women: https://www.thoughtco.com/ottoman-sultans-were-not-very-turkish-195760
    • Thread from an Albanian friend of mine (Albania is a formerly part of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans) so he has far better understanding than I ever will.
      There are aspects that can be related to our people and the history of partition (but this guy does not like Greeks or Turks very much), but I suspect if you ask a Greek he may have different point of view:

       Okay thread.



      Not a joke.


       During the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, ethnic groups were spread out across the empire.

      Once ethnic states started to appear with the creation of Greece by Germans in 1827, a chain reaction ensued across Ottoman Rumelia (aka Land of Romans), the mess started.

       Long story short, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey etc were created over the course of 100 years from the Roman Revolution in 1822, now known as the Greek Revolution.

      3/ During these 100 years, from 1822 to 1923, (literally 101 years), was to find a way to pinpoint all borders in order to avoid ethnic conflicts, within each new ethnic state multiple ethnicities resided, which itself had multiple religions, which was normal for the ottomans.

       There were Orthodox Greeks and Muslim Greeks, orthodox bulgarians and muslim bulgarians, orthodox serbs and muslim serbs, orthodox albanians and muslim albanians, orthodox turks and muslim turks.

      And all were spread UNEVENLY across the collapsing empire.

       In the meantime what we now call Western Europe, was going through an ethnic consolidation as well, as German elite was trying to create Unified Germany, which they achieved in 1871, excluding the Austrians, who refused to be Germans.

      6/ Long story short, by late 1870s onward, Ottoman elite was getting together with the western elite, aka Big Powers, to solve the mess.

      It started with Congress of Berlin in 1878, then Treaty of London in 1913, it ended with Lausanne Treaty in 1923.

      7/ During these years, Balkan Wars occurred and the weakest links were sacrificed to achieve some kind of managed peace in the Balkans.

      It started with Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the unified Germany declaring:

      "The Albanian nation does NOT exist".

       So, the only way to find any solution was to assert that X nation does NOT exist at all or does not exist in X area, there was no other way.

       So, that is what they did.

      What is now called Greece, it used to be a mixture of Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Vlachs (Romanians) and Turks.

      Baaaaam, nobody else exists, only Greeks. Decision made.

       The only reason that Albanians now exist, is because at last moment a Hungarian prince raised the issue with the Austro-Hungarian emperor, that if Albanians do not exist, then Serbia/Russia would have access to the Adriatic.

      The Emperor freaked out. Albanians exist he said.

       Long story short, after 101 years, all comes down to the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 between Greece and Turkey.

       In the Lausanne Treaty, it was codified the practice of deciding whether a nation exists or not.

      Venizellos and Mustafa Kemal, one orthodox greek and the other muslim greek (Ataturk spoke greek fluently), simply decided that any orthodox was Greek and any muslim was Turk.

       So, within Greece, per Lausanne Treaty now codified as international treaty supported by big powers, all orthodox were forced to be hellenized, all albanians, bulgarians, vlachs and turks.

       Per the treaty as well, codified as international law, anybody inside Turkey, whether turks, greek, albanian, bulgarian, or ....KURDISH, simply did not exist, there were only Turks in Turkey.

       Hence per the treaty, anybody had to be Turkified, like in Greece anybody had to be hellenized.

      The problem here, and I understood this by reading Taleb saying "scale matters", the problem is that it takes long time to Hellenize and Turkify large populations.

       Based on past practice now codified in international law, Greece and Turkey intensified now openly what they say "population exchange", which was LEGAL MUTUAL ETHNIC CLEANSING, now codified in international law.

      17/ Greece, per the law, ethnic cleansed all muslims from Greece, except for the ones in Thrace, which was part of the treaty.
        Turkey per the law ethnic cleansed all orthodox from Turkey, except the ones in Constantinople, which was part of the treaty, they moved to Greece. 18/ These ethnic cleansing did not happen instantly, it took decades to be completed, literally decades. In 1945, Greece ethnic cleansed "muslims" from Chameria per the Lausanne Treaty, they were all Albanians. 19/ Yugoslavia, made a deal with Turkey in the 1960s to have about 400k "muslims" moved to Turkey. The offer from Ankara was 1 horse for 3 muslims (no joke, as they were all Albanians). The serbs replied: take them all for free, as long as all albanians leave. 20/ The tricky part of this one is that Turkey wanted these 400k Albanians to displace the Kurds in East Turkey. Of course Albanians refused, they settle in West Turkey. So, the plan to ethnic cleanse the Kurds by use of Albanians, failed. 21/ In 1999 Abdullah Ocalan, Kurdish fighter against Turkey was arrested in Kenya after the Greek government delivered him into the hands of the Turkish gov, fully complying with the Lausanne Treaty. 22/ So, as you see, it is Turkey's right legally, per lausanne treaty, to ethnic cleanse the Kurds. 23/ The only difference here is USA. USA does NOT recognize international treaties which come against its interest, it is in the US constitution. Hence, USA disregarded the Treaty of London of 1913 giving Kosovo to Yugoslavia, simply invaded KS away from Serbia. 24/ USA is disregarding Lausanne Treaty as well now, by organizing the Kurds together against Turkey. It takes time, but they will do it, as Turkey is now basically an enemy. 
      Give it 20-25 years, just like with Kosovo. 25/ END  
    • Erdogan in June 2015:

      “I’m addressing the whole world. Whatever the cost it might be, we will never allow a state established in Northern Syria”

      Why does he not want a Kurdish state in Northern Syria? I know why, does anybody know why?
    • What caste pride do I have? Only Juts have caste pride? Let's get back to the question of Kurds. Instead of looking at the situation from the filter of only British colonialism and caste, what do you actually understand about the whole situation of the Kurds in it's entirety? Do you understand the history of the Kurds, their relationship with the Ottoman Empire, their role in exterminating the Armenians from Eastern Anatolia (1915 genocide) the carving up of former Ottoman lands (sandjuks) in the picot sykes agreement. The effect of the Lausanne Treaty between Greece and Turkey. The role of the Young Turks and Ataturk. The relationships of the Kurds in the 4 countries I have mentioned with Shias/Sunni Arabs/Turks in those respective countries. The relationships and groups within those Kurdish groups, the demographic changes in Turkey. The effect of Erdogan and his family's relationship with the intention of supporting ISIS so that the gas/oil pipelines can be transmitted through Turkey. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There are whole geopolitical implications here that involve Iran, Iraq, Eastern Med, Russia, parts of the caucuses, even parts of the Balkans are impacted. It is very complex and far more nuanced. Compared to that, subcontinental politics is a picnic. You'd be really shocked to see the level of hatred between these people. A real eye opener. You might make some synergies with struggles of our panth with the Kurds but that is an over-simplification.  If you want to do rajniti, you have to understand everything in it's entirety and not what suits us.      

Important Information

Terms of Use