Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TheeTurbanator last won the day on March 4

TheeTurbanator had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

161 Excellent

About TheeTurbanator

  • Rank
    Jeh Jaaeeay Thahaa Sohelay
  • Birthday 04/14/2017

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests
    Sikhi is Love, Sikhi is Life
  1. I have already provided more than enough evidence to support my arguement, and the fact that this user has the audacity to tell me that IM a Manmukh when I literally quoted the Guru twice and provided multiple real life examples of the Guru, just shows how intellectually deficient he is. Its obvious that proper intellectual arguments aren’t going to work, and you have to sometimes speak their language. I also would like to point out that their position isn’t advocating Death for Apostasy in Sikhi, it’s for death for the desecration of the traditions of the Khalsa Panth. I’m sure they wouldn’t care if people leave Sikhi, they just care when they attack the Panth.
  2. Did you not read a single thing I wrote? I literally justified my views using Gurbani and History. What I say literally can’t be Manmat because I use Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s literal words to back it up. You are indirectly advocating terrorism. You are creating parallels with ISIS and radical Muslims who want to kill people who they disagree with. People like you need to calm down, drink some lassi, put your Kirpans in their sheets, and just contemplate Gurbani before you lecture others on things you don’t understand. I challenge you to a debate to prove your points using Gurbani and the Gurus history, will you accept? Or run away like the other coward!
  3. The Masands were also going out and physically committing violence, which included rapes, murders, etc, it's not mere words or committing victimless crimes. I have already stated that when things get violent, then violence can be used, you are bringing up the masands as a strawman fallacy to muddy the waters. Saying that Sikhs should not assassinate people for victimless crimes and not answer non violence with violence is manmat? Can you show me of any Gurbani or History from the Guru that shows the Guru assassinating people for non physical, victimless crimes? People like you, who aren't willing to sit down and have an intellectual discussion, and just pull out a kirpan on those they disagree with are the problem in the panth. You can't just advocate violence against everyone you disagree with, you are very unreasonable. I formally challenge you to a debate to prove your argument using Gurbani and history from the Guru, will you accept?
  4. The fate of empires

    Can we try to pinpoint the specific issues, so that we can learn from them in the future. Lack of unity is definitely an issue they led to the downfall, however exactly between which parties? People often blame the Dogra's, however lets forget the "Sikhs" who also killed Ranjit Singh's successors. I have also heard there was some tension between the more orthodox Sikhs of the Jatha's and the more cultural Sikhs. Aside from the Dogra's, who else was responsible for the betrayal? and what where their motivations? This is a really strong point, we have to make sure that even the lowest of the low in terms of parties isnt interested in treachery, and truly need to focus on the lower denominator.
  5. The fate of empires

    What were the main factors affecting the downfall of the Sikh Empire? Here's what I think: The lack of investment in a proper successor The betrayal of the Dogra's and others The over liberalization of the Empire The treachery of the British Honestly, if the Sikh Empire was faced with another enemy that wasn't the British, they would have lasted way longer, the reason they fell was becuase the British was specialized in taking down Epires using divide and conquer and had a lot of resources.
  6. The fate of empires

    This is really interesting stuff. Are their any parallels you can draw between this and the rise/fall of the Sikh empire?
  7. My post wasn't showing how they are the victims, it was that a non-violent act should not be met with violence. There are other ways we can combat this than go out and assassinate people for victimless crimes. Of course they should face a punishment, however it should not be physical, let alone death. If someone changes a Khalsa practice, such as the Khand Di Phaul, then they should try to justify their views as per Gurmat, and if they fail. they should apologize, however even if they dont, they should not be killed, an excommunication and boycott is more than enough. If you are going to rebut an argument, you should at least read the entire thing in context. I am fully aware of the perpetrators of these actions, and I still agree they should not be KILLED, and in the worse case excommunicated, do you have a problem with that?
  8. I cant read English Larivaar, can you please type your message properly so we can understand?
  9. I just learned about this issue, and I need to learn more about it before I offer my opinion.
  10. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Recently, there has been an assassination attempt on a man named "Kuldeep Singh" from Virginia, USA, over the desecration of the "Khand Di Phaul" Amrit Sanchaar ceremony of the Khalsa Panth. In May of 2016 a famous Sikh preacher named "Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale" was also faced with an assassination attempt, which was also carried out by not the Indian government or some external power, but by fellow Sikhs. Without going into the specific issues behind the motivation of their attempted assassinations or the issues themselves, I would like to discuss the very use of violence as per Sikhi. I have seen some Sikhs, as well as some users on this sub, who openly advocate for violence. I would just like to remind them that although from a Sikh point of view violence has historically been advocated and used, the context under which it was used is very important. Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself says: "ਚੁ ਕਾਰ ਅਜ਼ ਹਮਹ ਹੀਲਤੇ ਦਰ ਗੁਜ਼ਸ਼ਤ ॥ ਹਲਾਲ ਅਸਤ ਬੁਰਦਨ ਬ ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੀਰ ਦਸਤ ॥੨੨॥" "When all other methods fail, it is proper to hold the sword in hand. (22)" -Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Dasam Granth, Ang 1471 As anyone who can read can clearly see the Guru very specifically states that the sword (in this case symbolizing violence) must only be used when "all other methods fail", the Gurus message is very clear, yet its some of those who claim themselves to be Sikhs of the Guru who are having a hard time understanding what the Guru himself is saying. On the issue of those who manipulate or change Sikh practices, spread misinformation, and are disingenuous, the answer is not to go out and assassinate them or endorse physical violence against them, but to rather have an open dialogue and show them the errors of their ways, becuase dialogues are what really change peoples minds, not putting a bullet to their heads, becuase then their is no one to save. If you have to resort to violence in response to someones opinion, then you have already lost, becuase you have shown that you cannot win the battle of ideas, and thus must resort to your primal instincts. The problem with killing someone, is that you dont necessarily kill their ideas, and in some famous cases, killing someone can even act as a catalyst to spread the idea even further. A prime example of this is the Shaheedi of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, which inspired Sikhs to take up arms and fight back against the Mughal tyranny. This doesn't go to say that all people who are assassinated are morally correct, it just proves that killing someone can have the opposite intended effect. When you kill someone, you also take away their ability to later redeem themselves, and if after the fact you find out that they were innocent, you are not able to bring them back. It is only in the most dire of circumstances that physical violence should be used, becuase violence itself doesn't prove who is morally correct, only who is martially superior. Lets also not forget that when you "kill" someone, as per Sikhi, you aren't killing them but rather just their physical vessel. On a deeper philosophical level, according to Sikhi, everything and everyone is just another form of ੴ, which is ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ (Akaal murat), meaning essentially beyond, above, not subject to ("A" prefix), death, time, end (Kaal), "Image" personified (murat), so in essence, "you" aren't killing anything. The concept of Justice is often confused with Revenge. Revenge is one-sided, and motivated by self-interest, Justice is impartial. Revenge is more "An eye for an eye", while Justice provides a solution to the problem, and tries to resolve it. Revenge is often driven exclusively by emotion, while Justice is usually driven by logic and rationality. Often times people like to bring up the historical example of Guru Gobind Singh Ji ordering Banda Singh Bahadur to fight the Mughal forces. This was not done out of "revenge" for the brutal execution of the Chaar Sahibzaade, the 4 biological "sons" of the Guru (technically all Sikhs are his sons), but rather to deliver the long awaited Justice to the Mughals, to free people from their oppression, take back stolen land, and as a defense mechanism to prevent further conflict and oppression. Sikhi does not advocate the concept of revenge as many claim, however it does fully advocate Justice. "ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕੇ ਭਗਤ ਨਿਰਵੈਰ ॥" "The devotees of the Supreme Lord God are beyond hate and vengeance." -Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1145 One might ask, if unjustified violence and forms of revenge are not acceptable in Sikhi, then how should Sikhs deal with serious issues of those who attack Sikhs and Sikhi by manipulating traditions, spreading misinformation, being corrupt, etc? There are a verity of different ways Sikhs can deal with these issues: Education: The most effective, and tired and true method to change people has allways been education. If you disagree with someone, instead of trying to assassinate them, its a better idea to get to understand their point of view, and change it. Check out this article on how to change peoples minds. Ignoring: Oftentimes people just do stupid stuff for attention without having a hidden agenda or malicious intent, if this is the case, then just ignore them and deny them any attention. Check out this article on 10 tips to dealing with Trolls. Denunciations, boycotts, or even excommunication: In the worst case scenarios (aside from using physical violence), denunciations, boycotts, etc are to be used when the individual refuses to change their ways despite every other effort. This has historically been used by the Khalsa Panth and even the Guru himself, it is reffered to as "tankhiya". However, a tankhiya is not the end, and their is allways an option for redemption, but that is up to the Khalsa Panth and Guru to decide. These are just a few of many options, however the main idea is that there is a long list of protocols one must follow before physical violence can even be an option.
  11. can you be a sikh without taking amrit?

    You are not what you identify as, just as I cant just identify as an Apache Attack Helicopter as my gender. There is a reason why the Guru himself put the definition of a "Sikh" in Gurbani, the Guru also excommunicated people and no longer declared them his Sikhs, so your argument comes from a point of ego and is not inline with Gurbani or History.
  12. can you be a sikh without taking amrit?

    Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru the True Guru shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name. ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥ Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar. ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥ Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased. ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name. ਜੋ ਸਾਸਿ ਗਿਰਾਸਿ ਧਿਆਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥ One who meditates on my Lord, Har, Har, with every breath and every morsel of food - that GurSikh becomes pleasing to the Guru's Mind. ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਦਇਆਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਮੇਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਸੁਣਾਵੈ ॥ That person, unto whom my Lord and Master is kind and compassionate - upon that GurSikh, the Guru's Teachings are bestowed. ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਧੂੜਿ ਮੰਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਆਪਿ ਜਪੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥੨॥ Servant Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself chants the Naam, and inspires others to chant it. ||2||
  13. But then if there is no free will, what’s the point of Dharam? I know that’s the “only Waheguru knows” question, but seriously. Also, in response to “ape beej ape khao” line, you said that: “if you do the actions with doership*/indentity/ego then cycle of karma ensues then you will get fruit based on those actions.” but using that logic, YOU are still DOING something, doesn’t that imply free will? Why would Gurbani constantly tell us to jaap Naam, etc if in the end everything is done by the one? Whats the point? Why would the One fool parts of himself into thinking they are separate?