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

[californiasardar1]

I am sure most of you know the story about Akali Phula Singh sentencing Ranjit Singh to be whipped allegedly for marrying a Muslim dancer.

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

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

[Jai Tegang!]

musli-yudh  presents a real danger of Islamification of the offspring. Last thing you want is some half breed laying claim to the khalsa raaj throne with the help of rangarhs and pathaans. Akalis were strict about all things related to Islam and keeping its influence at bay. 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.

[Jacfsing2]

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

I am sure most of you know the story about Akali Phula Singh sentencing Ranjit Singh to be whipped allegedly for marrying a Muslim dancer.

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

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

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). 

[SinghPunjabSingh]

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

 

[californiasardar1]

8 hours ago, SinghPunjabSingh said:

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 am 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) 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.

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

 

 

 

 

Do you have any references about him being sentenced to a whipping (my understanding is that he was never actually whipped) for alcohol? And how would that make sense given his apparent regular indulgence of alcohol?

[californiasardar1]

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?

[S1ngh]

26 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

Do you have any references about him being sentenced to a whipping (my understanding is that he was never actually whipped) for alcohol? And how would that make sense given his apparent regular indulgence of alcohol?

I don’t think it is true that he was punished for alcoholism. Will be looking forward for any source of such claim from him. 

[Not2Cool2Argue]

17 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). 

Wow. You've grown up!

I would never have expected such a deep insight esp a controversial one from you. I had pegged you as a really black and white, this is the one correct way poster.

The  credit goes to @dallysingh101 and Sikh awareness forum ofc. Showcasing of the puritan ithihaas thru olden granths, historical/contemporary accounts was a major wake up call to Sikhs. Ofc it might also be due to nihangs. Their bringing back all the things we had successfully repressed...time will tell if it's a good thing..

[Not2Cool2Argue]

18 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

I am sure most of you know the story about Akali Phula Singh sentencing Ranjit Singh to be whipped allegedly for marrying a Muslim dancer.

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

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

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. 

[Jacfsing2]

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).