138 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Your entire proposition is flawed and yet you still rage 

MY proposition is flawed? ok then. Please go through that post bit by bit and point out where the flaws are, point out where in that quote that this Farid wasn't the contemporary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. You simply decided off the top of your head that it was the Baba from 350 years ago. So prove it.  All you do is making sweeping statements and have nothing to back it up. I'm not even raging, I'm just baffled someone is so clueless about the very history they come here to discuss.

 

http://www.vidhia.com/Bhai Veer Singh Ji/Puratan Janam Sakhi Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji-Bhai Vir Singh Punjabi.pdf

 

Here you go. Purtan Jaman Sakhis from the 19th Century done by a Historian who also agrees with me. So please, go on. Refute him and dissect his evidence.

Edited by Kira
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kira said:

MY proposition is flawed? ok then. Please go through that post bit by bit and point out where the flaws are. You simply decided off the top of your head that it was the Baba from 350 years ago. So prove it. 

I could go on and on and systematically undermine it.. Your whole assumption is is based on the idea that to be recognized as a Sikh bhagats would have needed to firstly have met Guru sahib and secondly taken Charan Pahul ie. Amrit... If sikhi and guru nanak dev ji  teaches us we should move beyond such labels why would he compel people to do that!? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kira said:

MY proposition is flawed? ok then. Please go through that post bit by bit and point out where the flaws are, point out where in that quote that this Farid wasn't the contemporary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. You simply decided off the top of your head that it was the Baba from 350 years ago. So prove it.  All you do is making sweeping statements and have nothing to back it up. I'm not even raging, I'm just baffled someone is so clueless about the very history they come here to discuss.

 

http://www.vidhia.com/Bhai Veer Singh Ji/Puratan Janam Sakhi Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji-Bhai Vir Singh Punjabi.pdf

 

Here you go. Purtan Jaman Sakhis from the 19th Century done by a Historian who also agrees with me. So please, go on. Refute him and dissect his evidence.

So you have a source that apparently agrees with you... What about sources that show no evidence of it at all 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I could go on and on and systematically undermine it.. Your whole assumption is is based on the idea that to be recognized as a Sikh bhagats would have needed to firstly have met Guru sahib and secondly taken Charan Pahul ie. Amrit... If sikhi and guru nanak dev ji  teaches us we should move beyond such labels why would he compel people to do that!? 

You keep repeating the same thing yet you provide no evidence for anything you say. Right. Continue to flaunt hot air, if Labels were so bad then why does Bhai Gurdas Ji use them, why does Gurbani use them. "systematically undermine it" Don't make me laugh. You tried to assert Farid Ji wasn't a Sikh and that went badly. Now you have evidence that you were talking about the wrong Farid Ji so you decide to just ignore it and say "i can undermine it" 

ok then kiddo.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kira said:

MY proposition is flawed? ok then. Please go through that post bit by bit and point out where the flaws are, point out where in that quote that this Farid wasn't the contemporary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. You simply decided off the top of your head that it was the Baba from 350 years ago. So prove it.  All you do is making sweeping statements and have nothing to back it up. I'm not even raging, I'm just baffled someone is so clueless about the very history they come here to discuss.

 

http://www.vidhia.com/Bhai Veer Singh Ji/Puratan Janam Sakhi Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji-Bhai Vir Singh Punjabi.pdf

 

Here you go. Purtan Jaman Sakhis from the 19th Century done by a Historian who also agrees with me. So please, go on. Refute him and dissect his evidence.

Please show me where I should look in the source you have provided.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kira said:

You keep repeating the same thing yet you provide no evidence for anything you say. Right. Continue to flaunt hot air, if Labels were so bad then why does Bhai Gurdas Ji use them, why does Gurbani use them. "systematically undermine it" Don't make me laugh. You tried to assert Farid Ji wasn't a Sikh and that went badly. Now you have evidence that you were talking about the wrong Farid Ji so you decide to just ignore it and say "i can undermine it" 

ok then kiddo.

I didn't say he wasn't a Sikh! I just don't believe in your narrow definition of the term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kira said:

You keep repeating the same thing yet you provide no evidence for anything you say. Right. Continue to flaunt hot air, if Labels were so bad then why does Bhai Gurdas Ji use them, why does Gurbani use them. "systematically undermine it" Don't make me laugh. You tried to assert Farid Ji wasn't a Sikh and that went badly. Now you have evidence that you were talking about the wrong Farid Ji so you decide to just ignore it and say "i can undermine it" 

ok then kiddo.

Guru maneyo Granth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Please show me where I should look in the source you have provided.. 

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?

 

7 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I didn't say he wasn't a Sikh! I just don't believe in your narrow definition of the term

My definition is the one laid out by Guru Sahib. Cry all you want but you're fallible, Guru Sahib isn't. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kira said:

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. 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kira said:

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. 

Were all fallible my friend.. That's the point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

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? 

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.

Edited by Kira
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kira said:

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.

Bul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now