Jump to content

can 5 Women give Amrit di Pahul to anyone ?

Recommended Posts

On 16/05/2017 at 5:43 PM, Akalifauj said:

this topic of why women cannot be in punj pyare has been discussed.  Every arrogant point you will bring up and have stated has been answered.  This topic took off recently as well and your arrogant points expressed by another did not pass the test of Gurmat.  Now on keski or kes being matter of opinion of which one is kakkar.  This is a complete lie.  Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji made it clear in his Bani Kesh is Kakkar.  There is no mention of keski being kakkar.  This poster is affiliated with the people who rub up on each other during kirtan programs....forward and backwards they rub each other screaming and hoalering male to male.  While rest of the sangat is disgusted. He pretends to be humble but give me couple of more post and watch how the mask falls off.  He will be cracked like a hollow nut in a old brittle man's hand.

If all my points have been answered then I have nothing more to say, close off this topic and let the reader decide for themselves rather than having you forcefeed your own opinions to them. 

As for the keski kakkar subject, that's another topic for another day; and chances are somebody's already started that thread. 


  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-1 at 4:40 PM, Jacfsing2 said:


It was Sri Mata Jito JI, yes despite Sri Mata Sahib Kaur JI being the mother of the Khalsa it was Sri Mata Jito JI who put the pataase in Khand-Di-Pahul, (the reason the story of Sri Mata Sahib Kaur Ji being the main story is because some non-Taksalis Khalsas wanted to respect their mother, so they made this story, which is respectable as she's our mother, but we shouldn't make false history).

Khalsa was made from the Khoon of the Punj Pyare giving their heads, none were female and every true Sikh will respect that ithias, only 3HO and AKJ really made this a controversy.

None of the Punj Pyare were female, and nor has there been any female guru. That's why. A child can still be Punj Pyare because some of the forms of Guru Sahib were children, but none being female and Guru Khalsa Panth.


Despite that, both men and women should take Amrit.

How ridiculous a analysis.. Do you know who was the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th person to take khande da Pahul? 

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-15 at 7:16 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

When Taksal, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind's own made institution), declines it and Badal's Akal Takht allows female Punj Pyare you get a serious problem. The argument isn't about equality it's about Maryada, and the Gurmat Maryada and all Rehatnamas do not mention 5 Kaurs as Punj Pyare, (if you can post ANY Historical maryada instead of AKJ and 3HO emotional b.s. than I will consider looking at it).

No one said the first panj pyare to take khande da Pahul... But the fact one wasn't doesn't mean they can't... The first khande da Pahul amrit sanchar involved a woman.. So there was female participation.. 

  • Like 1

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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji didn't discriminate between satguru as their is only one same satguru for every yug.  He told us to praise, worship, meditate on the one and only satguru.  He wrote about the 24 incarnations of Vishnu and he corrected what happened actually to the 24 incarnations.  If Krishna and Vishnu were satguru, Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji would have said it in his writing about them.  Instead he wrote to say I don't praise them or think of them, I hold Mahakaal ( which translates into Vaheguru in this context as he is the destroyer of all) praise only in my mind.
    • people need to stop having WWA matches with rehits imo. 
    • This whole jathabandi nonsense has had a negative impact on Sikhi, and I wish we would do away with it.
    •   Jagsaw, I am very surprised that you consider the movement of Sikhs out of areas with substantial Sikh populations to be "progress". First of all, I thought you lived in Southall?  Or perhaps another part of West London?  If so, I find it odd that you consider it a positive thing not to live in areas such as the one that you yourself live in. Second of all, I think you are greatly overlooking just how much of a positive impact that living in an area with a substantial Sikh population can have when it comes to preserving our religion and culture.  It is foolish to discount the importance of children being able to grow up in a "community", with Gurdwaras and Khalsa Schools nearby, with peers who come from the same background, who practice the same things, speak the same language.  I credit the "ghettoization" of the Sikh community in the UK for preserving the Sikh religion and Punjabi culture despite several generations having elapsed.  The vast majority of Sikhs in the UK trace their roots in the UK to the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s.  Yet somehow, young Sikhs in the UK appear to be more religious and interested in Sikh issues than the Sikh youth in Canada or America.  Somehow, young Sikhs in the UK seem to have almost as much exposure to Punjabi language and culture as their American and Canadian counterparts whose families arrived from India in the 1980s and 1990s. In America, the vast majority of Sikhs live in cities and neighborhoods with effectively no Sikh presence.  That has an impact.  It leads to young Sikhs who grow up with little knowledge of, connection to, or regard for their religion and culture.  It leads to interfaith marriages that effectively wipe out Sikhi from families.  It cripples our ability to safeguard our way of life.  I very much doubt that young Sikhs in America in the year 2060, whose families arrived in the 1990s, will speak fluent Punjabi, go to the gurdwara, engage with their religion, and connect to Sikh political issues the way that a surprisingly large number of young Sikhs in the UK do today. 
    •   I think Malwa gets more credit for keeping Sikhi alive than it deserves.  Malwa is bigger than Majha and Doaba combined (in both land and population).  So the contributions its people have made to Sikhi in recent times is a bit distorted (I say "recent times", because before 1947, Majha and Malwa were comparable in terms of land and Sikh population).  Malwa is so much bigger that it dominates.   It is notable that even though Majha has a much smaller population than Malwa, the vast majority of young Sikhs who took up arms in the 1980s were from Majha. The Majha district (especially what is now Amritsar District and Tarn Taran District) have historically been the strongholds of Sikhi.  However, this region was the hardest hit during the dark times of the 1980s and 1990s, and it is perhaps the hardest hit today when it comes to the drug epidemic.  Sadly, the Sikh youth in Majha seem to have discarded their kesh, do not follow rehat, and have in many cases succumbed to drugs.