Jump to content

Why was Ranjit Singh given a punishment only on one specific occasion?


californiasardar1
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/19/2022 at 10:44 PM, californiasardar1 said:

1. I am sure most of you know the story about Akali Phula Singh sentencing Ranjit Singh to be whipped allegedly.

2. Why was it on this one occasion that Ranjit Singh was deemed to have crossed the line?

3. In particular, why was his general drunkenness and womanizing tolerated?

1. He was whipped for drinking alcohol and not on account of the urban myth promoted by Mullah's that it was because of erstwhile birth religion of his (Sikh) wife Moran Kaur.

2. It's an urban myth cooked up by Mullahs (yet imbibed by our own without critical analysis) designed to prevent Sikh males from taking wives from the majority Punjabi community and thus increasing the strength of Sikh demographics in Ranjit Singh's raj (which would have left many Muslim men childless as a result and possibly prevented the partition of Punjab over a century later). Think about it logically why would Guru Sahib prevent Sikh men from California from marrying from one of a pool of one billion (Muslim) women today so long as via Anand Karaj (with the bride accepting Sikhi by default via the puratan definition that anyone bowing down before Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj is a Sikh) and the children being raised Sikh. We know from history that the Khalsa Fauj married many of the rescued Hindu and Muslim slavegirls that were being abused and mistreated by Muslim men.

3. His alcohol intake and debauchery were exactly what caused him to be whipped.

On 4/19/2022 at 11:22 PM, Jai Tegang! said:

1. Last thing you want is some half breed laying claim to the khalsa raaj throne with the help of rangarhs and pathaans. 

2. Sardars were not strict rehitvaans all across the board, but they pledged allegiance to the Panth, and that was good enough from a political perspective.

1. Sikh faith does not arise from birth or parentage but via conviction as we see in the example of Bhai Mardana Ji the first Sikh in History (who was an apostate from Islam as we see when Wali Qandhari tried to murder Bhai Mardana Ji and Guru Sahib for that very reason).

2. Agreed

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I think it's not that it was him barely getting punished, it was the fact that he was even punished at all that should be surprising. I'm going to say something controversial, but Rehat meant something different to olden Sikhs and modern Sikhs. (Most of the right-wing view on Maryada only happened when Bhai Randhir Singh came in the world and Damdami Taksal went from a Samparda into a Jatha under Sant Sundar Singh Ji). 

 

I am not the most knowledgeable person about rehat, but it does seem to me that certain things (such as a requirement for women to wear dastars as per the AKJ, and vegetarianism) seem to have come to prominence in the last 100 years or so. Now, maybe these were originally parts of rehat that were lost over time due to wayward practices and the AKJ and Taksal and other groups were bringing them back. I don't know.

However, alcohol being forbidden seems to not be controversial. Or am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

The concept of being sehajdhari and nanakpanthi was big. Religion back in the day was more about allegiance than following it to the letter. 

Amrit shako, kes rakho wasn't a big rally cry. Think about it a century before ranjit singh, it would be ridiculous to begging ppl to take amrit when they could be killed tortured for it. It was imperative that you do it of your own free will.

And because ranjit Singh was from a Sikh family, maybe that was enough to be Sikh. 

Ranjit Singh had to take Amrit back then because all Misls had to be Amritdhari, the British originally did the same with their British Sikh regiments of having on Amritdharis, (who took Amrit from a British sponsored Punj Pyare).

The thing was back then, being Amritdhari wasn't something that was seen as only religious/secular, and lots of people historically took Amrit for personal gain. (This actually increased during the Sikh Empire).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use