So let me get this straight. You wanted evidence so I gave you it but suddenly its all too much? I've just presented you with evidence from multiple sources, one of whom comes from a Sikh of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. All of whom just said that Farid Ji met Guru Nanak Dev Ji and he ISN'T the same one as the on residing in the 12th Century. At-least have the balls to admit you were wrong.
eh have you ever bothered reading Anand Sahib? There's an entire pauri there devoted to the topic of listening to the Guru, and the Guru made every sikh drink Amrit. So tell me again how my definition of Sikh is wrong when its the very one that Guru Gobind Singh Ji followed.
This whole "definition of a Sikh" is getting off topic. The point of this thread was to point out Farid Ji was a Sikh. If you wish to discuss this then make a new thread. I have exams so I won't be answering anymore, however the Sangat here share my views so I'm sure they'll answer you just fine.
LOL now please just let me remind you of your last few posts.. You first threw into the mix bhai gurdas ji //, then randomly referred to Bilija ji then refer to a document by bhai vir Singh from the 19th century only to go back in time to bhai mani and to boot also throw in for credibility meharban sakhis..
Finally you some how say you're definition is laid out by guru sahib.. So let's cut to the chase.. Where does SGGS ji lay it out as you would have me believe?
you know there is something called an Index? Page 89. The same is mentioned in Bhai Mani Singh Ji's JanamSakhis, so will you now argue that Bhai Mani Singh Ji didn't know what he was talking about?
My definition is the one laid out by Guru Sahib. Cry all you want but you're fallible, Guru Sahib isn't.