• advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BhForce

  1. I had thought that this place was called Sikh Sangat, not Sikh Admins. The sangat is what makes a forum, without the sangat there is no forum. I could be wrong, but I think that most people want rules to be applied evenly to all. That lesson was the entire point of Guru Gobind Singh ji creating the drama of seeming to bow to Dadu's tomb, for which the Khalsa had the temerity to sanction Guru Sahib. If Guru Sahib has to follow established rules, why doesn't Sukhvirk76? Is he special in some way?
  2. With respect, I'll tell you why it matters: One of the biggest questions Sikhs without Khanda-Amrit have is "Why do I have to take Amrit?" If it is established that Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim (as defined above), naturally the next question is: Why do I have to do all this stuff if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim! Secondly, one of the biggest issues facing Satkar committees is girls marrying Muslims. Now, if it is generally thought that Sheikh Ji was a Muslim (as opposed to an apostate from Islam), then naturally one of the first things the bride or her family will say is: Why can you stop a Muslim from getting married here if Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim? You won't have an hour to answer this question with all sorts of caveats and philosophical detours. You'll have 1 minute or so. Not only that, if most Sikhs should believe Sheikh ji was a Muslim, they won't demonstrate against a Sikh-Muslim marriage in the first place. Compare that to the situation wherein it is generally known and accepted that Sheikh Farid ji was an apostate from Islam. In such a case, it becomes much harder for someone to argue that a Sikh-Muslim marriage is OK. What I've attempted to do is give people who are on the frontlines of the battle to prevent destruction of our faith (ideological or demographic) practical answers to this very pertinent question. I invite others to agree or disagree that the question of Sheikh ji being Muslim is salient to the Sikh-Muslim marriage issue.
  3. There are discussions going on in some threads at the moment about whether Sheikh Farid ji was a Muslim. I would like to hold these discussions in one place, partially because they are extraneous to the thread titles in those other threads, and we should let those threads discuss the specific items that the thread creators wanted to originally discuss: http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/80863-human-rights-in-islam/ http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/80838-why-muslims-should-never-be-trusted/ I propose that Sheikh Farid ji was not a Muslim at then end, whatever he may have been at some time. I started off with: S4NGH then responded with And I followed up with:
  4. This thread is not about whether Islam is enough or the Prophet Mohammed was perfect or imperfect. This thread is solely about whether Sheikh Fareed Ji was a Muslim, under a reasonable definition of Muslim. Those other questions can be debated or have been debated in other threads, and I urge everyone to stick to the topic of this particular thread. Islam could be good, bad, or medium, but this thread is whether Sheikh ji was a follower or rejecter of it.
  5. No, the rest of the members do need to know: that Sukhvirk is violating the rules, that he's on quality control, and is trying to evade quality control and also prevent readers from easily accessing his past posts by posting from multiple accounts. I explained this above: And no, no one should engage this multiple-poster until he decides he wants to abide by the rules everyone else has to follow.
  6. Why are you continuing to post? Sort out your login issues, possibly with the help of the mods, then come back and post as your actual username @Sukhvirk76, under quality control, and we can and will have a dialogue.
  7. He's on quality control now posting as Kuks to evade that, flagrant flaunting of the rules. As for his query, it's not like an emergency situation (I accidentally ate Kutha, quick, where's the next Amrit Sanchar)! (Quick, what's the nature of Gur-prasaid, I need to know on an emergency basis!)
  8. 1. "Gursikhs hide behind moderation"? You make it sound as if posting from multiple accounts is just some minor rule, like forgetting to put a period or full stop on a sentence It is not. People come on this forum to engage honestly. Posting from multiple accounts is not honest because it allows people to project their side of the argument as having more support than it really does. I would just like to acknowledge this, and we will be able to move on. 2. But when you log in as your original account, @sukhvirk76. The reason for this is to allow readers to see your full posting history and compare your historical arguments. That's the whole point of the forum, otherwise, arguments are lost in the air. If it takes you a while to contact mods, get your old account back or whatever, I (and everyone else) will still be here tomorrow and the next day.
  9. I just told you why we can not move on, literally minutes ago: (it says "Kuks said" but that's just due to a quirk in the quoting system)
  10. Double-posted? What does that mean? The one post was by user @Sukhvirk1976 and then the second was by user @Kuks? You just brazenly admitted you're posting from multiple accounts with no regard for the rules? No, we can't move on to the question. When someone comes on here, he is accorded a modicum of respect and belief that he is being genuine. I just exposed you as manipulating multiple accounts, which shows as not being genuine, so we cannot move on at this point.
  11. Do you want us to accept that this is a genuine query when the text is the exact same as that posted just 5 minutes apart in another post by of the same title by @Sukhvirk1976in the very first post you've made on this site. And that too, when @Sukhvirk1976 is a newly created account for @Sukhvirk76? http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/80923-what-is-gur-prasad/&do=getNewComment http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/80922-what-is-gur-prasad/&do=getNewComment Or did you get your sock-puppet accounts messed up?
  12. Why are you creating new avenues to bless the Sangat with your enlightenment when you haven't finished out the thread on Sheikh Farid ji? And why have you found the need to post from another account?
  13. Well, if you believe that nindak McLeod, Sikhism was just an accidental outgrowth of a sant gaddi started by a guy named Nanak who was a North Indian sant in the bhakti (bhagti) tradition. I see any bhagats that came before Guru Nanak Dev ji as being in the mold of John the Baptist or others in the Bible who prepared the ground before the coming of Jesus Christ. I also see Sikhism as the fulfillment and embodiment of the Bhagti movement. A lot of people say they like spirituality, but not "organized" religion. I think they are mistaken, as an elixir needs a vessel to contain it. Have you every tried to serve tea without a cup? How would you propose to keep something valuable, like rosewater, without a bottle? I think Guru Nanak ji wanted to create a panth to institutionalize the Bhagti movement and to allow it (the panth) to serve as a means for spreading Bhagti ideals: ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿਕਾ ਜਗਤ੍ਰਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਇਆ। In the world, he established the authority (of his doctrines) and started a religion, devoid of any impurity (niramal panth). https://searchgurbani.com/bhai_gurdas_vaaran/vaar/1/pauri/45 Similar as in the 15 Bhagats, or the other ones? As far as the other ones, they couldn't be absorbed because their ideology was imperfect. But as for the other ones, it's a tragedy that they could not be combined into Sikhism. As far as I know, many/most of these Bhagti movements are just absorbed into idol worship of the founders, like the Kabir-panthis, Ravidassias, and followers of Bhagat Namdev ji. Sad.
  14. It seems that you're saying that something that Guru Sahib did would be something that we would emulate.
  15. Would this include the oppressive, patriarchal and misogynist institution of marriage?
  16. The stuff you mentioned is mostly stuff with specific sanction in Hindu society specifically overturned by Guru Sahib. I'm just pushing back the Punjabi-hatred (self-hatred) of some of our people while simultaneously being unquestioning accepters of Western culture as just normal common sense.
  17. Seems to be a bit puzzling why you self-hate Punjabi culture and society, a culture and society in which our Gurus were born in, lived in, and accepted, except for specified Hindu beliefs such as janeu and prohibition on widow remarriage.
  18. You just added this paragraph after I responded to your post, which changes the entire basis of where you're coming from without assigning a reason in the "Reason for edit" box. It's a bit difficult to have a conversation this way.
  19. OK, so you're saying all that we possibly have to guide is is explicit injunctions of Gurbani, and anything not explicitly enjoined there we can do? Is that correct?
  20. So, friend, are you saying that once we adopt Sikhism, we have to dispense with all of the accumulated wisdom of the ages, and all that we possibly have to guide is is explicit injunctions of Gurbani, and anything not explicitly enjoined there we can do?
  21. You have two different questions: 1) What does Gurbani say, and 2) Is it OK for the husband to be 7 years younger. Firstly, Gurbani doesn't address the question per se, because that's not what Gurbani's purpose is. Gurbani is mostly about pure spirituality, not about various rules. But that doesn't mean you should do whatever you want to do. Secondly, it is generally understood in our society that the man should be somewhat older than the woman. This is for the simple reason that boys mature later than girls. This is actually written in some books of Maryada, such as that published by a Taksal. Now understand you're free to do what ever you want. But you may want to think about what you're doing before you make an irrevocable mistake in your life.
  22. In some states of the US, a sexual relationship between a 24 and 17 year old would be statutory rape.
  23. "no" as in she should not get engaged, or "no" as is there's no problem?
  24. Sorry to hear that the front part of your massi's restaurant was demolished, but the main way that corrupt people get an in to hassle people is if they are doing something wrong in the first place (no insurance, no registration, encroachment, etc.). In this case, your mention of "frontage" rings alarm bells in that I wonder if your massi was encroaching part of the road, or violated any laws required setbacks from the road.