Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?

[Balkaar]

9 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Simply wearing a turban and calling yourself a Sikh doesn't make one a Sikh. The black cats also dressed-up like Sikhs as well as RSS agents. Also Banda Singh Bahadur gave a rise to the Sikh population in Punjab.

Yes, and simply being a non-Sikh doesn't mean you had a hand in the downfall of the Sikh Empire. The overwhelming majority of the Sikh Empire's population were non-Sikh and committed to their country. Shah Muhammad's Jangnama Hind Punjab encapsulates this mood well, this was a non-Sikh writing of his patriotism for the kingdom of the Sikhs. They were not responsible for its downfall, the intriguing of the court was, and most of the people at court were Sikh. You can't just absolve our people of all responsibility every time they goof up and don't act in the way you think Sikhs should by saying they aren't actually Sikhs.

 

[proactive]

57 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Simply wearing a turban doesn't make you Sikh, anyone who was against the Sikh Raj as a Sikh were either disappointed that the empire wasn't a theocracy, or they were Hindus masquerading as Sikhs. The Dogras are an example of this, they even lied and said they took Amrit. Banda Singh Bahadur at least cared enough to help people find the truth, under him Sikhi grew. We failed because of the liberalism, not because we were overly devout.

Everything Guru Sahib does has a purpose, read just a bit of what he said about Muhammad, and you'll know Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji truly believed that the message of Gurbani was always the highest. Not a single line in Dasam Granth says even once that Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is equal to Muhammad. He believed in this fully.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh made some mistakes which ensured that his kingdom did not last long after him and to be honest we have never recovered from his mistakes. 

It is unfortunate that the Maharaja was not born a decade earlier because when the British took over Delhi and started to make inroads towards the Satluj river, the Maharaja was still not well established in his rule and thus he had to relinquish some of the areas he had conquered in Malwa in 1809 under threat of war with the British. Had the British come a decade later or the Maharaja been born a decade before he would have subdued the Malwa area years before and the British would have faced a united Sikh kingdom rather than being given the golden opportunity to expand into Punjab through the fears of the Malwa Rajas for Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Rather than the Satluj, the border between the British and Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom would have been the Yamuna and Ghaggar. 

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's secular policy while helping his secure his kingdom ensured that when the British won the first Anglo-Sikh war, they dealt not with a Sikh ruling elite but a mixed elite of couriers of various religions. Also because of his secular policy and not using the state machinery to propagate Sikhism is ensured that the Sikhs were a small minority in the kingdom rather than a significant minority or even a majority. One thing we have to understand is the the Muslim Jat and Rajput tribes although they like to claim that they became Muslim due to the preaching of the Sufis, the fact is that most became Muslim due to forcible conversion policy of Aurangzeb. So they had only been Muslim for 4-5 generations. Had the Maharaja used the state machinery for propagation of Sikhism among these tribes then it is possible that some may have come over to Sikhism. During the British times the Suddhi movement had brought many Rajput and other tribes back to Hinduism because even then in the 1920s these tribes though Muslim on paper were still using Brahmins as priest and still following many of the rites of Hinduism. This was also the case with the Muslim Jat and Rajput tribes in Punjab in the 1800s. The kingdom should have financed various schemes to bring the numerous lower castes into Sikhism. 

The other mistakes he made was farming out whole districts to rich administrators who would then pay the treasury a certain amount each year and would be responsible for the collection of the revenue. Such forms of administration do not allow these districts to become integrated into the kingdom and hence when war occurs with outside powers these administrators will look at their own interests rather than the interests of the state. In the same way rather than amalgamate Jammu into the kingdom he installed a corrupt and disloyal soldier of fortune as the Raja of Jammu who then betrayed the Sikhs during the Anglo-Sikh wars and in the end bought Kashmir valley from the British and became a Maharaja. Maharaja Ranjit Singh should have set up a well staffed and professional administrative and civil service to manage and integrate the different areas of his kingdom. 

The Maharaja's other mistake was not to nominate a strong successor. He knew that Kharak Singh would not be an able Maharaja and should instead have nominated his grandson Naunihal Singh as his successor during his lifetime. Perhaps if the Maharaja had not made the mistakes the Sikh kingdom would have survived into modern times and our national condition would not be such as it is today. 

[Guest Jacfsing2]

6 minutes ago, Balkaar said:

Yes, and simply being a non-Sikh doesn't mean you had a hand in the downfall of the Sikh Empire. The overwhelming majority of the Sikh Empire's population were non-Sikh and committed to their country. Shah Muhammad's Jangnama Hind Punjab encapsulates this mood well, this was a non-Sikh writing of his patriotism for the kingdom of the Sikhs. They were not responsible for its downfall, the intriguing of the court was, and most of the people at court were Sikh. You can't just absolve our people of all responsibility every time they goof up and don't act in the way you think Sikhs should by saying they aren't actually Sikhs.

I've never read Shah Muhammad's stuff, so I'll look into it.

But just so we are clear, I don't consider KPS Gill and ex-CM Beant Singh as Sikhs either, (if you consider these Hindus masquerading as Sikhs, that's your choice).

[Guest Jacfsing2]

5 minutes ago, proactive said:

Maharaja Ranjit Singh made some mistakes which ensured that his kingdom did not last long after him and to be honest we have never recovered from his mistakes. 

It is unfortunate that the Maharaja was not born a decade earlier because when the British took over Delhi and started to make inroads towards the Satluj river, the Maharaja was still not well established in his rule and thus he had to relinquish some of the areas he had conquered in Malwa in 1809 under threat of war with the British. Had the British come a decade later or the Maharaja been born a decade before he would have subdued the Malwa area years before and the British would have faced a united Sikh kingdom rather than being given the golden opportunity to expand into Punjab through the fears of the Malwa Rajas for Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Rather than the Satluj, the border between the British and Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom would have been the Yamuna and Ghaggar. 

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's secular policy while helping his secure his kingdom ensured that when the British won the first Anglo-Sikh war, they dealt not with a Sikh ruling elite but a mixed elite of couriers of various religions. Also because of his secular policy and not using the state machinery to propagate Sikhism is ensured that the Sikhs were a small minority in the kingdom rather than a significant minority or even a majority. One thing we have to understand is the the Muslim Jat and Rajput tribes although they like to claim that they became Muslim due to the preaching of the Sufis, the fact is that most became Muslim due to forcible conversion policy of Aurangzeb. So they had only been Muslim for 4-5 generations. Had the Maharaja used the state machinery for propagation of Sikhism among these tribes then it is possible that some may have come over to Sikhism. During the British times the Suddhi movement had brought many Rajput and other tribes back to Hinduism because even then in the 1920s these tribes though Muslim on paper were still using Brahmins as priest and still following many of the rites of Hinduism. This was also the case with the Muslim Jat and Rajput tribes in Punjab in the 1800s. The kingdom should have financed various schemes to bring the numerous lower castes into Sikhism. 

The other mistakes he made was farming out whole districts to rich administrators who would then pay the treasury a certain amount each year and would be responsible for the collection of the revenue. Such forms of administration do not allow these districts to become integrated into the kingdom and hence when war occurs with outside powers these administrators will look at their own interests rather than the interests of the state. In the same way rather than amalgamate Jammu into the kingdom he installed a corrupt and disloyal soldier of fortune as the Raja of Jammu who then betrayed the Sikhs during the Anglo-Sikh wars and in the end bought Kashmir valley from the British and became a Maharaja. Maharaja Ranjit Singh should have set up a well staffed and professional administrative and civil service to manage and integrate the different areas of his kingdom. 

The Maharaja's other mistake was not to nominate a strong successor. He knew that Kharak Singh would not be an able Maharaja and should instead have nominated his grandson Naunihal Singh as his successor during his lifetime. Perhaps if the Maharaja had not made the mistakes the Sikh kingdom would have survived into modern times and our national condition would not be such as it is today. 

[Mahakaal96]

On 9/21/2017 at 9:29 AM, Jonny101 said:

 

Nothing wrong with forging relation with an enemy of an enemy. There is absolutely no wisdom in Sikhs making enemies out of Hindus and Muslims at the same time. 

DELETED.... a few weeks ago he did nindiya of mahapursh Baba Binod Singh Ji by wrongly accusing Baba Ji of being a 'mogul collaborator'..... and now he comes on here calling for relationships to be forged with Muslims.... DELETEDo back up his false allegations.

DELETED implied that Mata Sundri Ji, Rattan Singh Bhangu, Sant Jarnail Singh & Giani Gian Singh were all nindaks because they held a different opinion then him.... ?

When myself & others like @13Mirch first challenged his views a few months back he DELETED

DELETED

Accuses a mahapursh of being a moghul collaborator then says we should forge relationships with Muslims.... 

[proactive]

I've always found Jonny101's posts informative and enlightening. I don't know what thread you think he did nindya in but I highly doubt he would say anything against Mata Sundri. or Sant Jarnail Singh unless you inferred this. FYI Rattan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh were writers and not brahmgianis so their writings can be challenged and as such this does not make one a nindak. 

[Mahakaal96]

12 hours ago, proactive said:

I've always found Jonny101's posts informative and enlightening. I don't know what thread you think he did nindya in but I highly doubt he would say anything against Mata Sundri. or Sant Jarnail Singh unless you inferred this. FYI Rattan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh were writers and not brahmgianis so their writings can be challenged and as such this does not make one a nindak. 

I'm aware that Rattan Singh Bhangu & Giani Gian Singh were writers & not brahmgyanis but on this topic their writing was based on a hukamnama by Mata Sundri Ji.

[S1ngh]

12 hours ago, proactive said:

I've always found Jonny101's posts informative and enlightening. I don't know what thread you think he did nindya in but I highly doubt he would say anything against Mata Sundri. or Sant Jarnail Singh unless you inferred this. FYI Rattan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh were writers and not brahmgianis so their writings can be challenged and as such this does not make one a nindak. 

His posts are always on positive and good ! 

[sitokaur]

Gurfathe Jio_/\_

Khalsa have always SHONE PURELY IN PAST, PRESENT, AND WILLIN FUTURE Jio_/\_, our GREAT NOBLE GURU GOBIND SINGH JIO'S immense sacrifise for ungrateful hinds, us worldly sikhs, WILL NOT BE IN VAIN_/\_chardhi kala musalman helped Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Jio just one example Vahiguroo Jot IN ALL if we get blessed with barosa_/\_bhul chuk muaf_/\_

 

 

[sitokaur]

https://youtu.be/uWpC3efviRc