Rani and the Sikh rules

ok, tell me if sometime in the future "the majority of the society" chooses to accept paedophiles (sexual child abuse), would you be prepared to go along with that and would you say "yes, that is correct because that is what most of your society is pleased with"<<

Do you seriously think majority will ever like child molester, most people love their families and want to preserve them. On the contarary most societies ruled by religious laws have this problem. Their was a famous case of 65 years old Arab Sheikh and taking 14 years old girl (sold by her muslim parents)to his country, (democratic secular Indians with majority values) rescued the girl.

for we know in the past many of the socities did not accept abortion, for they considered it to be murder of children, yet it is perfectly okay nowadays because of "democracy".<<

This is okay because of large world population which mother earth cannot support. Previously a mother had to have 10 children for two to survive (nature kept the population in controlled) now with medical intervention all 10 survive. Human being are very greedy they want maximum off-spring at a great cost to the others.....huge population growth is also responsible for lot of wars in Africa and middle east.

rani, see if it wasnt for the police and its danda all you liberals would be walking naked in the streets along with whatever jungle of hair that you grow.

Sikh scriptures only preach spirituality and values, followers are left to device their own rules based on these spiritual values. With this I rest my case.<<<

and thats exactly why sikhism is just another regional religion followed by some locals of a state called punjab. the way the next generation seems to ridicule sikhism today… i think some years down the road it will be just another forgotten religion etched in history of some old books.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smile.gif

...here are some solutions...not perfect maybe but reasonable...
Kashmir...
...The majority should rule...the whole Kashmir should be an independant nation...China, India, and Pakistan should let go of the disputed territories at the same time...
India and Pakistan should work on their relations...
...stop spending on weapons; huge revenue for the west
...improve, so well-qualified people would return and help the nations prosper
...stop spreading hatred on media, for political reasons
Khalistan
...there shouldbe a small state within Indian constitution, for Sikhs...
...peace in Sri Lanka...
...peace in Afghanistan...
...peace in Kashmir...
There is fire all around us, if we feel burnt, it's natural...let's stop blaming eachother for who STARTED the fire; Who can help put it OUT...

BlanDamunda007,

The majority should rule...the whole Kashmir should be an independant nation...China, India, and Pakistan should let go of the disputed territories at the same time...<<

Independant Kashmir will never be able to defend itself and very soon will be taken over by China in a similar fashion as Tibet was taken over.

There are economies of scale in running a united country. United Europe is lot more powerful and prosperous then divided Europe. Delhi will have to rethink its relationship with various states. Article 53 which has kept Kashmir seperate should go, so that Indian Investment can flow in Kashmir and they reap the benefit of being part of India.

Rani,

Do you seriously think majority will ever like child molester<<

You are avoiding the question.

Previously a mother had to have 10 children for two to survive (nature kept the population in controlled) now with medical intervention all 10 survive<<
The figures are non-sense. So the other eight should be killed. But in order to control population growth, why don't people like you put themselves forward, instead taking it out on children. This is very greedy of you. Are you gonna help control world poulation & commit suicide. ?

Human being are very greedy they want maximum off-spring at a great cost to the others<<
What fault is of the un-born children. Why take it out on them.

BladaMunda said that the people of kashmir should be allowed to have their way. Rani's answer was

Independant Kashmir will never be able to defend itself and very soon will be taken over by China in a similar fashion as Tibet was taken over.<<

tryimg to justify the indian occupation. this is in clear contradiction to her statement and showing her prjudice against the muslims

rules in democracy are made to please the majority of the society<<

wheteher kashmir can defend itself or not is irrelevant. anyway, what makes you think india can defend itself. muslims kiked (Note from Admin: There is absolutely no need for you to be rude. Watch your language and if you feel that you cannot communicate without being abusive then don't.) for hundreds of years and then the british made them slaves. you've only been independent for 50 years. As the muslims continue to return to their religion, the unification amongst the various muslim states will get stronger and it will be payback time to india for it's attrocities in kashmir. India shall be no more.

[This message has been edited by Admin (edited July 22, 2000).]

muslims kiked indian ass for hundreds of years and then the british made them slaves. you've only been independent for 50 years. As the muslims continue to return to their religion, the unification amongst the various muslim states will get stronger and it will be payback time to india for it's attrocities in kashmir. India shall be no more.<<

Your ancestors ass was killed pretty badly by so called muslims....you just took on the religion of the invaders out of fear and to avoid procecution...now you think you were the invaders ....very funny. We stood up for our rights in the process learnt very valuable lessons. Don't measure everybody by your standards.
(Note from Admin: What kind of discussion is this Rani? What's the need to attack? All you are doing is saying "you this, you that". Have you no reasonable argument? This is not a "you" versus "me" fight. This is a debate. Stay within the realms of decent discussion or cease participation. Thank you.}

Your pay back time has already come...watch out, world is wiser about what you stand for ...Jehad and terriorism aganist non-muslims.

I will stop the discussion now, I have nothing more to say...Good bye!

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited July 22, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Admin (edited July 22, 2000).]

Rani you are lieing totally On india forum you spew antislamic venombased on edited clippings from this pak forum.You have trashed mohommedpbuh sww by calling him cult leader.
Remember when i told you that sikh is poor synthesis by your guru of hinduism & OBSERVED behaviour of mogul conquerer whom you emulated to reighn power. Well mogul were poor representative of islam & more of tyranny monarchy.
JUST REMEMBER SIS IF THERE WAS NO ISLAM THERE WOULD BE NO SIKH NO GURU NO SEPERATE RELIGION FOR YTOU.THANK US & OUR RELIGION BABY GO CONFUSED WHO U R HINDU OR MOSEM??
(Note from Admin: What's the need for upper case lettering here? Are you trying to show your frustration and anger? Are you yelling, because in the cyberworld that's what capitals mean. Sanam, find a better way to get your message across.)

[This message has been edited by Admin (edited July 22, 2000).]

JUST REMEMBER SIS IF THERE WAS NO ISLAM THERE WOULD BE NO SIKH NO GURU NO SEPERATE RELIGION FOR YTOU.THANK US & OUR RELIGION BABY GO CONFUSED WHO U R HINDU OR MOSEM<<

Sikhism came to India as a reform movement to get people out of meaningless rituals and to bring equality for all people. It opposed forcible conversions by muslims and took up arms to fight it.

We have to thank muslims for years of trynanny and mistreatment of non-muslims.

BTW, you are going off topic ....I will stop this discussion...good bye.

Is there nobody here that can communicate with getting personal?

Rani - Your recent complaint to us appears to be baseless since you appear to be one of the biggest perpetrators. You seem to find it extremely difficult to get your message across without being antagonistic and rude. Can you not curb your desire to fight?

Please note that since your complaint, we are taking extra special care to monitor the behaviour of you and members in the Political and Religious sections.

Admin,

Please take note of Safali's language,

Safali wrote

wheteher kashmir can defend itself or not is irrelevant. anyway, what makes you think india can defend itself. muslims kiked indian ass for hundreds of years and then the british made them slaves. you've only been independent for 50 years. As the muslims continue to return to their religion, the unification amongst the various muslim states will get stronger and it will be payback time to india for it's attrocities in kashmir. India shall be no more.<<

Can you please tell me why you have have no objection to this kind of language used by a Pakistani (calling Indians 'slaves' whose ass was kicked by muslims for hundreds of years). Please note use of derogatory words. To call anybody "slave- whose ass was kicked", will enlist a strong reaction from them, there was nothing in my previous post to prompt use of derogatory words. From now onwards I will try to stay out of religious forum.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited July 22, 2000).]

Rani,

We have repeatedly asked that if you are offended by a member's abusive language then please contact the moderator or [email protected].

We have limited resources and try our best to ensure that the bulletin board remains in a state of "peace". We cannot be everywhere all the time. Surely you can understand that much.

Finally, just because a member behaves badly it does not mean that there is freedom for retaliation. That's not a good enough defense.

It seems everyone is really good at pointing the finger in the other direction. "I did it cuz he did it first!" - This, ladies and gentlemen, will not cut it.

Take the initiative and don't be provoked.

[This message has been edited by Admin (edited July 22, 2000).]

Admin Wrote (Note from Admin: What kind of discussion is this Rani? What's the need to attack? All you are doing is saying "you this, you that". Have you no reasonable argument? This is not a "you" versus "me" fight. This is a debate. Stay within the realms of decent discussion or cease participation. Thank you.}

Thanks, how come you had nothing to say to Safali (a Pakistani) when she started "You this and you that", she is the one who started the personal attacks.....it is for everybody to see. Your preaching should have started with her.

Safali Wrote ...why don't people like you put themselves forward, instead taking it out on children. This is very greedy of you. Are you gonna help control world poulation & commit suicide. ?<<

The problem is the Indians on the forum are treated very differently then the Pakistanis.

Admin

It seems everyone is really good at pointing the finger in the other direction. "I did it cuz he did it first!" - This, ladies and gentlemen, will not cut it.<<

You are the one who is pointing the finger without looking at all the facts....if you want to issue warning to the participants look at the facts first. Surely you must have read the post I was replying to....but you just choose to ignore her offending and abusive language towards India and all Indians.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited July 22, 2000).]

Kashmir CAN survive without China, India, and Pakistan...The British were saying the samething when Hindus and Muslims asked for FREEDOM. Let Kashmir GO.
More people were killed in 1947, than the overtake of socalled invaders...
Why did the invaders come? Read the history...a shameful episode of a corrupt ruler who confiscated a ship of Muslims...an act of piracy...and refused to return the people or the goods...
We need to stop acting like children, stop pointing fingers...(very immature)... and discuss the issues...as if we MEAN to solve something, NOT set a fire...
"us ne mujhe PEHLAY mara, us ne PAHLAY gali dee." willnot get us anywhere...

Rani,

Go back and read what we wrote once more. We clearly said, we can't be everywhere all the time. If someone started first, you should have complained about his/her post first rather than retaliating. We can't say it any more clearly than that.

As far as the constant complaint about Indians being treated differently than Pakistanis here, sorry we completely and totally disagree. That is a baseless accusation. In fact, we are the ONLY site where citizens of both nations are encouraged to participate and do so without a total breakdown of communication. We are the ONLY site where the forums remain open without filth all over them.

Anyone sufferring from feelings of persecution should get over them and try to participate in debates without allowing their emotions to take control. This applies to both Indians and Pakistanis.

Back to the topic;

I visited another sikh website and found some more interesting articles concerning sikh rules and would be interested in Rani or Chanmahi’s views on the following articles; quite long so perhaps you could comment on one point ata a time.

==========================================================================================
http://www.panthkhalsa.org/rahit/rahit_sikh.html

The Primary Code of Conduct is that one MUST receive baptism of the Double-Edged Sword.

  • [RahetNama Bhai Desa Singh Ji]

Only upon receiving ordination from the Guru Can a disciple call himself a Sikh.

  • [Bhai Gurdas Ji, Var 3, pauri 1]

DEFINITION OF A SIKH

Who is a Sikh? The literal meaning of the word Sikh is a ‘disciple.’ A Sikh is one who is a disciple of the Satguru. To be a disciple of the Satguru, one must completely surrender one’s will and wisdom to the Will and Wisdom of the Satguru. Only then, the Satguru admits one is in his fold as a ‘Sikh’ and blesses him with the holy Naam. This initiation ceremony was previously referred to as the deekhya or charan pahul and has been prevalent right from the time of Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, as support ed by Bhai Gurdas Ji:
Gur Deekhya Lai Sikh, Sikh Sadaayaa (Var 3, Pauri 11)
One is called a Sikh only after he has been blessed with 'deekhya.
Charan Dhoe Rehraas Kar
Charnamrit Gursikhaan Pilaaayaa (Var 1, Pauri 23)
(Guru Nanak) followed the system of washing the Guru’s Feet and blessing the GurSikhs with the Charan amrit (Charan-Pahul)
Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji prescribed specific rules and regulations which must be unconditionally accepted by the candidates before they can be admitted as disciples (Sikhs). The ceremony by which the Panj Pyaras are authorized by the Satguru to admit such persons in the fold of Sikhism is partaking Khande-ki-Pahul or Amrit. Therefore, according to the Commandment of the Satguru, one can become a Sikh of the Guru only by taking Amrit. Such a person is also called an Amritdhari because he has been blessed with the holy Amrit and has, thus, become a Sikh. It is further explicit from the following couplet from Rahitnamaa of Bhai Desa Singh Ji.
Pratham Rahit Yeh Jaan, Khande-ki-Pahul Chhakey.
Soee Sikh Pardhan, Avar Naa Pahul Jo Lai.
The primary Rahit for a Sikh is to take Khande-ki-Pahul. And, only he is a great who does not accept anything else.
Generally, people do not grasp the true meaning of the terms Amritdhari and non-Amritdhari Sikhs. The phrase non-Amritdhari Sikhs is meaningless. One cannot make a comparison between them.
There is only one class of Sikhs and that class is the SIKH (Khalsa). Thus, one is either a Sikh or not a Sikh.
Now consider this point from another angle. If someone belonging to other faiths like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., wishes conversion into Sikhism, what is he required to do?
Does he become a Sikh by merely refraining from cutting his hair and wearing a turban as Sikhs do? Obviously not. (There are a number of such people with long hair, and even wearing turbans, belonging to faiths other than Sikhism). He has necessarily to partake the holy Amrit to become a Sikh. How can, then, one become a Sikh simply because of accident of birth, without being baptized? This point has also been explicitly made clear by the Satguru himself as:
So Sikh Sakhaa Bandhap Hai Bhai,Jay Gur Ke Bhaaney Vich Aavey
Aapney Bhaaney Jo Chaley Bhai, Vichharr Chotaan Khaavey (pg 601)
Only that person is a Sikh and he is my near and dear one, who comes under the total allegiance of the Guru. As against this, one who owes allegiance only to his personal will, always remains in separation and will suffer
Clearly, therefore, being a non-Amritdhari means that one has not yet declared his total allegiance and obedience to Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji / Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji / Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as his Guru. Nor has he been blessed with the Gurmantra or Naam which is given ONLY at the time of baptism by Guru Sahib himself through the Panj Pyaras. Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself put a seal on this point by bowing before the Panj Pyaras for his own baptism. Are these so-called non-Amritdhari “Sikhs” greater without being baptized?
It is thus, abundantly clear that the non-Amritdharis, even though they may claim to be Sikhs, and are also considered Sikhs politically and socially, are not Sikhs in the true sense and in the eyes of the Satguru. In Gurbani, they are referred to as (a) Nigurey; (b) Gurmantar heenus; (c) Sakat; (d) Manmukh or Vemukh, and (e) Vedeen (Faithless), etc. howsoever prominent or outstanding they may be in the social and public life of the community. Gurbani defines such terms as under:
(a) Nigurey: one who has not become disciple of the Guru.
Nigurey Ko Gat Kaaee Naahee Avgann Muthhey, Chotaan Khahee. (pg 361)
For him who is without the Guru, there is no liberation. Deluded by evil propensities, he suffers.
Satgur Bajhon Gur Nahi Koee Nigurey Kaa Hai Naao Bura (pg. 435)
Without the True Guru (i.e. Guru Nanak), there is not another Guru. And one without the Guru is known as evil.
(b) Gurmantar-heenus: One who has not been blessed with the Gurmantra (Naam).
Gurmantar-Heenus Jo Praani Dhrigant Janam Bharashtneh. Kookreh Sookreh Gardheh Kaakeh Sarpaneh Tul Khaieh (pg. 1356-1357)
One who is without the Gurmantra, is the most accursed, and contaminated is his life. He is like a dog, a swine, an ass, a crow a snake, and a blockhead.
(c) Saakat: Infidel
Saakat Suaan Kaheeyey Baho Lobhee, Baho Dunnat Mael Bhareejeypg. 1326)
The dog like infidel is said to be very avaricious and is full to the brim of evil thoughts.
Saakat Besuva Poot Ninaam (pg 1239)
The infidel is nameless like a prostitute’s son.
(d) Manmukh: One who follows his own will; the egocentric.
Manmukh Oodha Kowi Hai, Na Tis Bhagat Na Naao (pg. 511)
The egocentric person (i.e. Manmukh) is like a reversed lotus and possesses neither devotion nor God’s name.
Manmukil Seti Sang Karey, Muh Kalaldi Daag Lagaaey (pg. 1417)
Whosoever associates with an egoist, to his countenance attaches the stigma of blackness.
Manmukh Naam Na Jannani, Vinn Naavey Pat Jaaey… Vishta Kay Keerray Pavey Wich Vishta Se Vishta Mahe Samaaye(pg. 28)
The egocentrics know not the Naam, and without Naam lose their honor… They are worms of excrement, fall in excrement, and get absorbed in excrement.
(e) Vedeen: The faithless; the irreligious.
Choraan, Jaaran, Randiaan, Kuttaneeya Di Baan. Vedinaa Ki Dosti Vedlnaa Ka Khaann Sifti Saar Naa Jannani, Sada Vasey Saitaan (pg. 790)
It is the habit of thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, and pimps that they contract friendship with the irreligious or faithless and eat their food; they know not the worth of God’s praise and Satan ever abides within them.
The above are only a few of the numerous quotations from Gurbani and are self- explanatory and need no further comment.
[Gurmat Rahit Marayda, The points of Contention, Bhai Manmohan Singh Ji]

Xtreme, I know what you are saying but then if you really think about it, how many Muslims are the Muslims in the true sense as described by their scrpitures, how many Christians are Christians in the true sense?

I don't think all the fuss about religion and God in the World of today is about religion or God. It is all about politicially power, dominance and social/cultural sense of belonging. Or was it always about that.

Chanmahi, there are muslims who practice and muslims who don't. This isn't a post to knock sikh worship as I don't really know that much about it.

Rani has been comparing islam unfavourably with other eastern religions, using usual hindutva terminology like 'invading Arab religion'. For this reason, I want her to look at the above definition of a sikh (from sikh sources) and explain why she sees fit to comment unfavourably on islamic codes when similar codes can be found in her own scriptures.

I know she is posting today, so perhaps she will find time to explain.

this website seems to claim that only amritdharis are sikhs. this is definitely not true socially or otherwiese. the website quotes.

***So Sikh Sakhaa Bandhap Hai Bhai,Jay Gur Ke Bhaaney Vich Aavey
Aapney Bhaaney Jo Chaley Bhai, Vichharr Chotaan Khaavey (pg 601)
Only that person is a Sikh and he is my near and dear one, who comes under the total allegiance of the Guru. As against this, one who owes allegiance only to his personal will, always remains in separation and will suffer
Clearly, therefore, being a non-Amritdhari means that one has not yet declared his total allegiance and obedience to Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji / Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji / Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as his Guru.
**

I think it is a far fetched interpretation.

none of the quotes says that taking amrit is necessary to become a sikh (guru nanak dev ji was not amritdhari, for example), nor it is clear that only if u r baptized then u r true followere of guru and not otherwise. The quotes mentioned above dont say so, You can twist and turn and try to find out the meaning u like in them. But thatg does not make the argument valid.
xtreme, pls. look for a better website.