Mona And Sehajdhari

[J.A.T.T]

*edit*

 

[J.A.T.T]

You are absolutley RIGHT Bijla singh ji. Lets not get confused with "rai" or "Dass" "Lall"..etc etc. Next some one may say Gobind Rai was a MONA Guru !! ( Remeber the names of all the Nine Gurus !!..if it was all in the Name only..they can all be MONAS !!!There is absolutley NO Evidence that ANY "MONA" was martyred because the Only IDentity of a SIKH was KESH. Several instances of GREEDY HINDU PARENTS, Uncles etc..Cutting off the heads of GIRLS/women/etc to claim REWARD of RS 80 for a SIKH Head is PROOF that LONG KESH was reuired for the REWARD. The Girls were claimed to be YOUNG SIKHS...( Trust the greedy to find a loophole..) MONAS wouldnt be arrested. Even in Post 1984..it was the AMRITDHAREE that was Targetted by the security Forces..being an amritdharee was automatic attraction to the police/indian army/crpf etc.

Gyani jarnail Singh

I am sure no "mona" fought and die for the movement during 80's and early 90's. :roll:

 

[Veeru]

Well this discussion has taken an interesting turn.

Do we know why not that many monas were targetted?

My assumption is that there weren't many monas in Muslim times. But in 80's and 90's, there were some so-called kharhkus who cut their hair to disguise but did any monas go out there and kill people?

 

[Bijla Singh]

One has to be a fool to ignore the sources of 18th century and believe "Bed Time Stories" as an accurate account which has no references from old accounts. In 18th century giving up Sikhi meant cutting Kes. No account says that Bhai Hakikat Singh was a mona.

Sikh Ardas - "Bakhsho Ji Sikhan Noo Sikhi Daan, Kes Daan, Rehat Daan, Bibek Daan, Visah Daan, Bharosa Daan, Naam Daan, Sri Amritsar Ji De Darshan Ishnaan"

 

[sikh78910]

keeping ur hair in the gurus times was mainly for this reason- to distinguish between the true lions and the cowards, any sikh that kept his turban was automatically identified as such, a "sikh" and was therefore in immediate danger as the muslim rulers of the times specifically targetted sikhs. nowadays a sikh with a turban in a western country is generally NOT distinguished from a muslim, being seen by many even as members of the afganistani TALIBAN. lol so the wearing of a turban nowadays in western countries is for a completely different reason. if sikhs were under seige in the uk i would definitly look down of those sikhs that did not wear one as cowards not willing to stand up for their faith and hide. nowadays it is to do with the spiritual side of things, i do not condemn those who cut their hair as it is less of a segregating factor or a "show" as is common in 90% of todays amritdharis.



Sikh Ardas - "Bakhsho Ji Sikhan Noo Sikhi Daan, Kes Daan, Rehat Daan, Bibek Daan, Visah Daan, Bharosa Daan, Naam Daan, Sri Amritsar Ji De Darshan Ishnaan"

this line is not a prayer for sikhs to GROW THEIR HAIR it is for them to KEEP IT!!! in the gurus days and well afterwards until the 1980s in INDIA! hair, and therefore sikhs only identity and difference from hindus and muslims in india was taken away. i agree that SIKHS IN INDIA should keep their hair for this reason, but sikhs OVERSEAS need a reality check on why they keep their hair in the first place. i know why i keep mine, and its definilty NOT for show.....

 

[sikh78910]

this line is not a prayer for sikhs to GROW THEIR HAIR it is for them to BE ALLOWED TO KEEP IT!!! in the gurus days and well afterwards until the 1980s in INDIA! hair, and therefore sikhs only identity and difference from hindus and muslims in india was taken away. i agree that SIKHS IN INDIA should keep their hair for this reason, but sikhs OVERSEAS need a reality check on why they keep their hair in the first place. i know why i keep mine, and its definilty NOT for show.....

sorry read the bold writing instead!!

 

[kds1980]

4 - 5 months ago dal singh ji on this site posted sikh history from persian point of view and according to it there were beardless sikhs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a translation from a Persian manuscript completed in 1731 by Khafi Khan regarding the Moghul battles with Banda Singh Bahadur.

I made a few notes (in brackets) highlighting points I feel are interesting.
-----------------------

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikhi...story-persian-sources-edited-j.html#post45901
(Siege of Lohgarh)

The wretched chief of that sect (Banda) accompanied by his error tending, doomed followers, whom wealth seeking as well as deep faith had bound to that eternally misled one, incited and encouraged his followers to fight and resist with such fables and inducements as that whoever is killed in this battle will without delay in the very form, whether bearded or beardless, in which he dies, return and attain further progress in the stages of worldly life. Those persons who regarded the statement of their spiritual leader and chief in the matter of transmigration of souls (which is condemned by all scripture believing God praying faiths) as absolutely proved, lent their ears in agreement.

--(Note: That according to this account some of the people fighting on the Sikh side were "beardless").--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
so i think there were sahijdhari's in the 18th century who fought and died for the panth.

 

[Bijla Singh]

Study who Khafi Khan was first. According to him Baba Banda Singh butchered pigs and cows in the mosques to get back at Muslims which is not true. Khafi Khan's accounts are highly biased and not true when compared to other sources. Baba Ji's army included muslim pathans as well. Not all were Sikhs. Many were very young at age. How many "sehajdharis" were beheaded in Delhi out of 700 Sikhs? None. How many "sehajdhari" heads were loaded on the carts? None. How many "sehajdhari" heads were displayed on the spears? None. Sahibzadas of Guru Sahib were beardless (except Baba Ajit Singh Ji) so does that make them "sehajdharis"? No.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<Sri Amritsar Ji De Darshan Ishnaan>>

i am surprised at a Sikh believing in asking God for boons of pilgrimages...

this ardas was built by SGPC and is not a part of SGGS

as someone pointed out earlier...many of the SGPC reforms were politically oriented

 

[Bijla Singh]

The Ardaas (except first paragraph) was compiled over the years in 18th century. The only new portion that was added in 1947 was about Gurdwaras that were separated from the Panth. Ishnaan at Darbar Sahib is not related to this discussion but you are free to start a new topic on this.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<The Ardaas (except first paragraph) was compiled over the years in 18th century. The only new portion that was added in 1947 was about Gurdwaras that were separated from the Panth.>>

can you give me valid proofs, document references, links for the same?

as far as i know it is documented that it was structured and compiled during the Singh Sabha movement.


<<Ishnaan at Darbar Sahib is not related to this discussion but you are free to start a new topic on this.>>

i think though the point might not be, but the essence is relevant to the topic.

it drives home the point that most of the dogmas which people believe to be REQUIREMENT of "Sikhism" MIGHT not be originating from the Gurus but added by other people later....

i am not contesting whether they are good or not...but the origin..



thanks..............

 

[Bijla Singh]

Once again, you ask for proofs and then reject them without giving any reason. Vaar Chandi includes first paragraph of Ardas. Rest was compiled later. Just think about it. If Ardas was compiled during Singh Sabha movement (no reference provided) which was during British Empire then how exactly did Sikhs do Ardas before then? Ardas has been part of the panth since beginning. There are numerous sakhis recorded of Sikhs which prove that Sikhs did Ardas back then. At any rate, this is going away from the topic.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<Once again, you ask for proofs and then reject them without giving any reason.>

it was just a taste of your own medicine..

anyways... we are discussing the totality of the ardas and especially the paragraph you mentioned.

do you intend to say that sikhs made EXACTLY the same ardas throughout the periods? this is ridiculous...of course they would have said ardas, but we donot have written proofs of what it was....hence using a contemporary document and raising it to level of Guru-bani is wrong.


in my personal opinion ( if u may bear to read it) ardas is a personal supplication to God..and can be said in any fashion, respectfully.

All i contend to say is that Ardas is not something to give a example . it is a composition made by multiple authors and over a long period of time. the ardas we do today was composed during singh sabha movement.....yes ..the inital portion authorship is ascribed to Guru ji but later portions were added over time... and the only written proof is available when singh Sabha wrote it down during Gurudwara reforms.

for reference sake,
you can check Macaulife's translations to see the ardas being used in his times...............it has no reference to the lines mentioned by you.

i donot have a soft copy but have read a hard bound book written by Macaulife.

 

[roopsidhu]

thanks Amarsanghera ji
'Well said' Ardas means supplication to god. It may have any form, any language and any words.
The only authenticated words of guru ji's are the Gurbani og SGGS ji.
all other litratures are nullified by the hukam of Sri guru Gobind Singh Ji which ask sikhs to Guru Maniyo Granth.

 

[jasi]

I am confused about these people. Do Sikhs classify these people as Sikhs or not? What do people here think about them?

Thanks for posting your question about "Jatt". If they qualify as sikhs or not.. Ofcourse they are considered sikh as any one else. Any one from any cast or background who belives in sikh principals are considered sikhs. Jatts are the people who belongs to farming class in India as the rajput belongs to warrier class. Though there are more sacrifices recoreded by rajput and other sikhs background but still Jatt contribute lot to our agriculture out put accross India or Pakistan.

jaspi

 

[J.A.T.T]

Thanks for posting your question about "Jatt". If they qualify as sikhs or not.. Ofcourse they are considered sikh as any one else. Any one from any cast or background who belives in sikh principals are considered sikhs. Jatts are the people who belongs to farming class in India as the rajput belongs to warrier class. Though there are more sacrifices recoreded by rajput and other sikhs background but still Jatt contribute lot to our agriculture out put accross India or Pakistan.

jaspi

Huh? Jatt were more than just a farmer class. Do a little history research to see how powerful Jatts were especially during after Khalsa was created.

Anyway, thanks for your input on this topic.

 

[freedom84]

Huh? Jatt were more than just a farmer class. Do a little history research to see how powerful Jatts were especially during after Khalsa was created.

Anyway, thanks for your input on this topic.

I think it maybe better to say Jatt's are just farmers. We don't want to start dividing into 'castes', or we will be no different to the Brahmins.

Sikhs are just Sikhs.

 

[gursikh]

i dont understand what will happen to sikhism after another 10 yrs...
truley the condition wont be goood....
Sikhism is now seen socialy and politicaly rather than spiritualy.... Oh GOD!!!
how narrow and empty so-called-sikhs have become.....

 

[nimana17]

There is no Sehejdhari Hindu ,muslim or jews, why only sikhs.
Only keeping hair is not a identity of a sikh, with out Amrit you can call aperson ,with hair a perfect Human, not sikh, to become a sikh you have to
1 keep your body as God gave to you ( symbol of good human)
2 Take amrit pan and follow the laws of Gurbani
so there should be no question of Sehajdhari sikh

 

[kds1980]

There is no Sehejdhari Hindu ,muslim or jews, why only sikhs.

there are sehajdhari muslims.mohammed strictly recommended that all muslims should keep beards and he has no connections with muslims who do not keep their beards but 99% of muslims don't keep their beards.