full_taur
Member
Vere ik me apni Sikhi karan ta chup betha.....othewise..
Bulle Shah!!! another lesson for you.. ah dekh le yehe jehe hunde ne GURU DE SINGH.... see it for yourself
Why do Sikhs keep hair?
- Thread starter SehaJ
- Start date
- Replies 79
- Views 15K
Bulle Shah!!! another lesson for you.. ah dekh le yehe jehe hunde ne GURU DE SINGH.... see it for yourself
karansidhu_jatt
$Patialvi By Nature$
Bulle je kisi cheej baare poori knowledge nahi hundi taan chup rehna hi changa hunda
SehaJ
Troublemaker
lil knwledge is a dangerous knwledge
kuj articles par ke ehh religion hi preach karnn lagg jaundee neee
He is just a wannabe....
jattpunjabi
Member
Shah
main reason to hide haird under turban is to preserve the sikh identity.........Guru Gobind Singh Ji said "my sikhs will be recognized among millions"
Panjaban
*~DoAbAn~*
omg kall mai sochdi c ke jadh mai kall nu vapas aunna "bulleshah" nu bann kitta hou ga but he's still here, apna ganndh khillaar reha ah, par i dont know Dhillon ji ki sochde ah, apne members nu nikki nikki gall te warnings den rahe ah, te ah "bulleshah" ainna kujh boll gya ohnu kujh v nai?????????
Dhillon ji tusi keha ke "Bulleshah" ne apniya posts sahi taraa present ni kittiya, so you are trying to say ke assi saare pagal haan? Jehna ne ainni behanns kitti, ainna kujh samajaun di koshish vich lagge rahe to this stupid guy, Im sorry to say, but he's nothing but a mindless bastard, WE WERE ALL WRONG?? HAJE V ASSI GALLAT HAA? PAR OH "BULLESHAH" NAI, HAINA??? Gud work ji tusi "incharge" ho, jo dil karda karo. Te assi v ohi karaan ge jo saada dil karda, "Bulleshah" nu koi hakk ni haiga saade dharam, saadi sikhi vaare aiddan da bakwas karn da.
Fateh Ji!
Bhull chukk maaf!
-raman
Dhillon ji tusi keha ke "Bulleshah" ne apniya posts sahi taraa present ni kittiya, so you are trying to say ke assi saare pagal haan? Jehna ne ainni behanns kitti, ainna kujh samajaun di koshish vich lagge rahe to this stupid guy, Im sorry to say, but he's nothing but a mindless bastard, WE WERE ALL WRONG?? HAJE V ASSI GALLAT HAA? PAR OH "BULLESHAH" NAI, HAINA??? Gud work ji tusi "incharge" ho, jo dil karda karo. Te assi v ohi karaan ge jo saada dil karda, "Bulleshah" nu koi hakk ni haiga saade dharam, saadi sikhi vaare aiddan da bakwas karn da.
Fateh Ji!
Bhull chukk maaf!
-raman
jattpunjabi
Member
bhene je bulleshah diyaan galan da jawab den di bajaye usnu ban kar ditta taan is da matbal aa ke sade ch tant hi nai aa usda jawab den da ya asi kaane aa.......je jhoothiaan gallan da sahi jawab hi nai de sakde taan ki karange asi????????
- -
- -
Sehaj,
You forgot to add :
"hair helps to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight. It helps to supply the piturary gland (located in the head) with phosphorous. Phosphorous is an element which is used in meditation by the aforesaid gland. The hair on our body regulates body temperature and our eye lashes, nostril hairs and ear hairs help to keep out dust particles..."
Please stop embarrassing yourself and the other Sikh.
To "Hair is Nature's gift" theory, all I will say is that the wool on the body of Sheep is Nature's gift to the sheep but the Sikh wear it anyway. Wool was meant to cover the Sheeps body. Then there is cow milk which was solely meant for the cows child not the human child. The fact that a women's body stops producing milk after a few years should be proof that God doesn't want humans to drink milk after a certain age and certainly not cow's milk which as I said is for the cows child. But the sikh like every other drink it anyway. Then there are the finger nails. OK, they are a nuisance but hair could be a nuisance for some people too. And by the way humans have also been gifted with the ability to build tools. Like scissors. Certainly there is a reason behind it. What it is only God knows and he won't tell.
If you ask me I can tell you what the five K's signify. Hair is a symbol of wisdom(Brahmin), Kirpan of a warrior and ruler(Kshatriya) and the Kada is worn by shudras throughout India. Sikh were supposed to be all in one. As to Kanga and Kasherha, well, the Kanga signify cleanliness and the quest to hone up one's wisdom in a continuous and never ending search of Truth, and the Kasherha is a symbol to remind one to always try to reign in human desires (carnal as well as material).
Nanak's Sikhism never made that a condition and was never supposed to be dogmatic. Sikhism was born in an age when Society had absorbed corrupting influences and was rendered as just a doctrine in rituals and outward appearances. Nanaks struggle was against that. The Hindus no longer wear a janneyu or shave their heads but nobody calls them adharmy. But the moment a Sikh shaves his beard he is branded as adharmy by the stupid and ignorant Granthi’s.
"Mund mundae jo sidhhi paee, mukti ped na gaiiya jaee."
I thing the above argument applies both ways. To grow ones hair in order to attain Boddhi/Sikhi/vitamin-D is as stupid and illogical as shaving ones head to attain salvation is.
No body calls a Hindu adharmi if he doesn't wear a janneyu but a sikh is branded as an out-cast by even his own relatives if he trims his hair. Whenever I think about all this I am reminded of the story behind Shivratri. The story goes that when during the amrit-manthan along with the amrit of life even vish was produced in an equal measure. Shiva descended from his abode and in order to cleanse the amrit decided to drink away all the vish that could have killed all life as soon as it began. In doing so, though he saved the world, he himself turned blue.
Would it be wrong to say that Sikhism today is what Hinduism used to be be 500 years ago ??
I am not non-believer. I just don't want to be a parrot prompted by other parrots. The Supreme reality what it is I would prefer to continue to search for instead of listening to people(Granthi, Maulvi, Padre, Pandit) who claim to have found it.
As to codes of conduct like the five K's, I believe those were supposed to be for the Khalsa-Panthi's to follow. I am not sure whether there really is any compulsion on a Sikh(non-amritdhari) to follow the doctrine of the five K's. At least not to follow one or two K's and forget the rest.
Thanks
- -
- -
- -
Sehaj,
You forgot to add :
"hair helps to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight. It helps to supply the piturary gland (located in the head) with phosphorous. Phosphorous is an element which is used in meditation by the aforesaid gland. The hair on our body regulates body temperature and our eye lashes, nostril hairs and ear hairs help to keep out dust particles..."
Please stop embarrassing yourself and the other Sikh.
To "Hair is Nature's gift" theory, all I will say is that the wool on the body of Sheep is Nature's gift to the sheep but the Sikh wear it anyway. Wool was meant to cover the Sheeps body. Then there is cow milk which was solely meant for the cows child not the human child. The fact that a women's body stops producing milk after a few years should be proof that God doesn't want humans to drink milk after a certain age and certainly not cow's milk which as I said is for the cows child. But the sikh like every other drink it anyway. Then there are the finger nails. OK, they are a nuisance but hair could be a nuisance for some people too. And by the way humans have also been gifted with the ability to build tools. Like scissors. Certainly there is a reason behind it. What it is only God knows and he won't tell.
If you ask me I can tell you what the five K's signify. Hair is a symbol of wisdom(Brahmin), Kirpan of a warrior and ruler(Kshatriya) and the Kada is worn by shudras throughout India. Sikh were supposed to be all in one. As to Kanga and Kasherha, well, the Kanga signify cleanliness and the quest to hone up one's wisdom in a continuous and never ending search of Truth, and the Kasherha is a symbol to remind one to always try to reign in human desires (carnal as well as material).
Nanak's Sikhism never made that a condition and was never supposed to be dogmatic. Sikhism was born in an age when Society had absorbed corrupting influences and was rendered as just a doctrine in rituals and outward appearances. Nanaks struggle was against that. The Hindus no longer wear a janneyu or shave their heads but nobody calls them adharmy. But the moment a Sikh shaves his beard he is branded as adharmy by the stupid and ignorant Granthi’s.
"Mund mundae jo sidhhi paee, mukti ped na gaiiya jaee."
I thing the above argument applies both ways. To grow ones hair in order to attain Boddhi/Sikhi/vitamin-D is as stupid and illogical as shaving ones head to attain salvation is.
No body calls a Hindu adharmi if he doesn't wear a janneyu but a sikh is branded as an out-cast by even his own relatives if he trims his hair. Whenever I think about all this I am reminded of the story behind Shivratri. The story goes that when during the amrit-manthan along with the amrit of life even vish was produced in an equal measure. Shiva descended from his abode and in order to cleanse the amrit decided to drink away all the vish that could have killed all life as soon as it began. In doing so, though he saved the world, he himself turned blue.
Would it be wrong to say that Sikhism today is what Hinduism used to be be 500 years ago ??
I am not non-believer. I just don't want to be a parrot prompted by other parrots. The Supreme reality what it is I would prefer to continue to search for instead of listening to people(Granthi, Maulvi, Padre, Pandit) who claim to have found it.
As to codes of conduct like the five K's, I believe those were supposed to be for the Khalsa-Panthi's to follow. I am not sure whether there really is any compulsion on a Sikh(non-amritdhari) to follow the doctrine of the five K's. At least not to follow one or two K's and forget the rest.
Thanks
- -
- -
SehaJ
Troublemaker
Kine kamaal kerti?
- -
- -
I believe that hairs don't make a Sikh, and Sikhism by its very definition was meant to be progressive. Infact, the strength of the Sikhs has been their ability, atleast within India, to move ahead of the established traditions and adopt more progressive ideas.
I believe that Granthis are just another form of Brahminism. Sikhism was meant to be an antithesis of orthodoxy, and somehow along the way it fell into the same trap of dogmatism. I am also amazed by the intolerant and orthodox 'talibanised' ways of some of the Sikhs, most of them living in countries like Canada and UK, Sikhs who have hardly understood the concept of Sikhism.
Also, I have no turban, and I cut my hair a long time back. I believe in the spiritual and the meditative aspects of Sikhism/Hinduism/Budhism.
I believe what Guru Gobind Singh meant for us is to understand the Shri Guru-Granth by naming it the Guru in perpetuity; but then he would not have expected the sikhs to make a "Chatar" over it and wave a fan over it to keep the flies away, to put the Granth to sleep, and then to wake it up every day!!. As individuals who evolute,
we need to move away from the half baked truths being taught by the Granthis.
I think that as Sikh, weu need to move on from the Dogmas created by Granthis.
Now...SABAR SURAT SIR DASTAR SEHRA no way means that not wearing a dastar
should be considered sinful. How would the Granthi explain contradictory verses in the same Granth ??
"kabeer preeti ik siau keey aan dubhidhaa jaai;
bhaavey laambe kes karu bhaavey gharari mundaai"
(Kabir, when you are in love with the One God, duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald.)
-- KABIR Source: Adi Granth, p. 1365
Maintaining unshorn hair has been a part of Indian culture sine the vedic times.
Mostly it was associated with wisdom.
Dastar is a piece of cloth used to cover ones head while meeting or receiving someone/anyone you wish to demonstrate you respect towards. Recieving someone superior/elder with ones shoes/sandals on is considered a sign of disrespect. The western civilization is an opposite culture. You never enter a church with head-covered. You doff(remove) your hat to recieve a superior/elder/lady. And you never recieve anyone with bare feet. (Note I am not saying this is wrong and that is right or vice-versa. All I am saying they both are different. And they both are cultural developments. Nothing to do with Faith, Religion, Blah-Blah...)
Like I said, maintaining unshorn hair has been a part of Indian culture sine the vedic times. It was associated with wisdom.
Hair is a symbol of 'learning'(Brahmana), Kirpan is the mark of a 'warrior'(Kshatriya) and Kada symbolises servility(Shudra).
A sikh is supposed to be Brahmana, Kshatriya and a Shudra all in one. That's what it is.
The rest is poetry.
Thanks
Also read Post #8 and #48
- -
- -
- -
I believe that hairs don't make a Sikh, and Sikhism by its very definition was meant to be progressive. Infact, the strength of the Sikhs has been their ability, atleast within India, to move ahead of the established traditions and adopt more progressive ideas.
I believe that Granthis are just another form of Brahminism. Sikhism was meant to be an antithesis of orthodoxy, and somehow along the way it fell into the same trap of dogmatism. I am also amazed by the intolerant and orthodox 'talibanised' ways of some of the Sikhs, most of them living in countries like Canada and UK, Sikhs who have hardly understood the concept of Sikhism.
Also, I have no turban, and I cut my hair a long time back. I believe in the spiritual and the meditative aspects of Sikhism/Hinduism/Budhism.
I believe what Guru Gobind Singh meant for us is to understand the Shri Guru-Granth by naming it the Guru in perpetuity; but then he would not have expected the sikhs to make a "Chatar" over it and wave a fan over it to keep the flies away, to put the Granth to sleep, and then to wake it up every day!!. As individuals who evolute,
we need to move away from the half baked truths being taught by the Granthis.
I think that as Sikh, weu need to move on from the Dogmas created by Granthis.
Now...SABAR SURAT SIR DASTAR SEHRA no way means that not wearing a dastar
should be considered sinful. How would the Granthi explain contradictory verses in the same Granth ??
"kabeer preeti ik siau keey aan dubhidhaa jaai;
bhaavey laambe kes karu bhaavey gharari mundaai"
(Kabir, when you are in love with the One God, duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald.)
-- KABIR Source: Adi Granth, p. 1365
Maintaining unshorn hair has been a part of Indian culture sine the vedic times.
Mostly it was associated with wisdom.
Dastar is a piece of cloth used to cover ones head while meeting or receiving someone/anyone you wish to demonstrate you respect towards. Recieving someone superior/elder with ones shoes/sandals on is considered a sign of disrespect. The western civilization is an opposite culture. You never enter a church with head-covered. You doff(remove) your hat to recieve a superior/elder/lady. And you never recieve anyone with bare feet. (Note I am not saying this is wrong and that is right or vice-versa. All I am saying they both are different. And they both are cultural developments. Nothing to do with Faith, Religion, Blah-Blah...)
Like I said, maintaining unshorn hair has been a part of Indian culture sine the vedic times. It was associated with wisdom.
Hair is a symbol of 'learning'(Brahmana), Kirpan is the mark of a 'warrior'(Kshatriya) and Kada symbolises servility(Shudra).
A sikh is supposed to be Brahmana, Kshatriya and a Shudra all in one. That's what it is.
The rest is poetry.
Thanks
Also read Post #8 and #48
- -
- -
dhana_jatt
~*~ NiMaNa ~*~
kini var paste karega iko gal 
Da Tiwana
Inspector Sa'ab ;)
sorry to say bulla but sikhism doesn't go by what you think or what any other person thinks. it goes by what our Guruji said and to be true to our religion, we have to follow what they say.
if one who goes by his own beliefs is called 'Manmukh' and manmukh is never a true sikh. a true sikh is a 'Gurmukh', who follows what Guru Ji tells him.
and for your kind information, with all due respect Kabeer Ji was not a sikh. He was a bhagat and Guru Granth Sahib ji has Bani from many bhagats, both hindu and muslim.
so their way of approach may not fully comply with the way a sikh is supposed to move on.
and dear buddy for ages you have been stressing on this thing that sikhs are none other than hindus, and since then, you have not been quite comfortable with answering a few questions asked by me. but, here i am putting another question to you, think about it and if you can answer it, i will be highly obliged. so here it goes:
For long you have been stressing hindu-sikh unification, providing bani from SGGS ji, i present you with bani of bhagat Kabeer ji, along with its meanings:
so doesn't that make us all muslims, since Allah created us?
and then you have asked why sikhs do daily chores with SGGS ji, as are done with any living being. the reason for this my friend is, that for YOU SGGS ji might be a BOOK, but for sikhs it is living soul and is our Guru. and that my friend is not only the views of a few sikhs, but is supported by The Supreme Court of India as well.
The recent Supreme Court judgment that Guru Granth Sahib is a "juristic person" is the reiteration of its earlier viewpoint. A juristic person, like any other person, can own property, can sue and be sued. But every copy of the holy book cannot be given the status of a "juristic person". The holy book becomes a person in the eyes of the law when it is installed at a place (Gurdwara) through a proper ceremony.
then you said a few things about the symbols of sikhs and related them to hinduism as always. here my friend lemme try n make some things clear for you, although i am sure that I will fail in this, as have been my earlier attempts, but still, sikhs keep uncut hair, because we don't make amendments in how God has sent us. If God would have wanted us to have short hair, then he would have sent us like that. But, He wants us to have long hair, so we keep those.
Kirpan is not just a mark, it was given to us for the protection of Truth.
the other thing you mentioned was 'Kada'. Again, it has nothing to do with servility. it is their on our hands, so that whenever we are going to do any bad deed, then 'Kada' reminds us that God is watching us and we shouldn't do any wrong deed with these hands.
hope you get some sense out of it and learn what Sikhi is and who Sikhs are and what Guru Ji really expect from a Sikh.
THANKS
if one who goes by his own beliefs is called 'Manmukh' and manmukh is never a true sikh. a true sikh is a 'Gurmukh', who follows what Guru Ji tells him.
and for your kind information, with all due respect Kabeer Ji was not a sikh. He was a bhagat and Guru Granth Sahib ji has Bani from many bhagats, both hindu and muslim.
so their way of approach may not fully comply with the way a sikh is supposed to move on.
and dear buddy for ages you have been stressing on this thing that sikhs are none other than hindus, and since then, you have not been quite comfortable with answering a few questions asked by me. but, here i am putting another question to you, think about it and if you can answer it, i will be highly obliged. so here it goes:
For long you have been stressing hindu-sikh unification, providing bani from SGGS ji, i present you with bani of bhagat Kabeer ji, along with its meanings:
Aval aleh noor oupaaeiaa kudhurath kae subh bundhae
First, Allah created the Light; then by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings(which i think is reffered to human beings)
First, Allah created the Light; then by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings(which i think is reffered to human beings)
so doesn't that make us all muslims, since Allah created us?
and then you have asked why sikhs do daily chores with SGGS ji, as are done with any living being. the reason for this my friend is, that for YOU SGGS ji might be a BOOK, but for sikhs it is living soul and is our Guru. and that my friend is not only the views of a few sikhs, but is supported by The Supreme Court of India as well.
The recent Supreme Court judgment that Guru Granth Sahib is a "juristic person" is the reiteration of its earlier viewpoint. A juristic person, like any other person, can own property, can sue and be sued. But every copy of the holy book cannot be given the status of a "juristic person". The holy book becomes a person in the eyes of the law when it is installed at a place (Gurdwara) through a proper ceremony.
then you said a few things about the symbols of sikhs and related them to hinduism as always. here my friend lemme try n make some things clear for you, although i am sure that I will fail in this, as have been my earlier attempts, but still, sikhs keep uncut hair, because we don't make amendments in how God has sent us. If God would have wanted us to have short hair, then he would have sent us like that. But, He wants us to have long hair, so we keep those.
Kirpan is not just a mark, it was given to us for the protection of Truth.
the other thing you mentioned was 'Kada'. Again, it has nothing to do with servility. it is their on our hands, so that whenever we are going to do any bad deed, then 'Kada' reminds us that God is watching us and we shouldn't do any wrong deed with these hands.
hope you get some sense out of it and learn what Sikhi is and who Sikhs are and what Guru Ji really expect from a Sikh.
THANKS
- -
- -
Da Tiwana,
Quoting from my previous post#48 becomes relevent here :
To "Hair is Nature's(Gods) gift" theory, all I will say is that the wool on the body of Sheep is Nature's gift to the sheep but the Sikh wear it anyway. Wool was meant to cover the Sheeps body. Then there is cow milk which was solely meant for the cows child not the human child. The fact that a women's body stops producing milk after a few years should be proof that God doesn't want humans to drink milk after a certain age and certainly not cow's milk which as I said is for the cows child. But the sikh like every other drink it anyway. Then there are the finger nails. OK, they are a nuisance but hair could be a nuisance for some people too. And by the way humans have also been gifted with the ability to build tools. Like scissors. Certainly there is a reason behind it. What it is only God knows and he won't tell.
I do not retract a single word of what I wrote.
(Unless you provide verses from the Guru Granth so much as even
mentioning the five K's of Guru Gobind Singh...)
Hair is a symbol of wisdom(Brahmin), Kirpan of a warrior and ruler(Kshatriya) and the Kada is worn by shudras throughout India. Sikh were supposed to be all in one. As to Kanga and Kasherha, well, the Kanga signify cleanliness and the quest to hone up one's wisdom in a continuous and never ending search of Truth, and the Kasherha is a symbol to remind one to always try to reign in human desires (carnal as well as material).
Nanak's Sikhism never made that a condition and was never supposed to be dogmatic. Sikhism was born in an age when Society had absorbed corrupting influences and was rendered as just a doctrine in rituals and outward appearances. Nanaks struggle was against that. The Hindus no longer wear a janneyu or shave their heads but nobody calls them adharmy. But the moment a Sikh shaves his beard he is branded as adharmy by the stupid and ignorant Granthi’s.
"Mund mundae jo sidhhi paee, mukti ped na gaiiya jaee."
The above argument applies both ways. To grow ones hair in order to attain Boddhi/Sikhi/vitamin-D is as stupid and illogical as shaving ones head to attain salvation is.
No body calls a Hindu adharmi if he doesn't wear a janneyu but a sikh is branded as an out-cast by even his own relatives if he trims his hair. Whenever I think about all this I am reminded of the story behind Shivratri. The story goes that when during the amrit-manthan along with the amrit of life even vish was produced in an equal measure. Shiva descended from his abode and in order to cleanse the amrit decided to drink away all the vish that could have killed all life as soon as it began. In doing so, though he saved the world, he himself turned blue.
It would be, in no way, wrong to say that Sikhism today is what Hinduism used to be be 500 years ago...
Thanks
Please provide references and verses from the Guru-Granth to validate your claim that a Sikh is compulsorily required to don unshorn hair. The validity of your claims is something you must provide and not leave it to the reader to go search for the validiry of your claims.
- -
- -
- -
Da Tiwana,
Quoting from my previous post#48 becomes relevent here :
To "Hair is Nature's(Gods) gift" theory, all I will say is that the wool on the body of Sheep is Nature's gift to the sheep but the Sikh wear it anyway. Wool was meant to cover the Sheeps body. Then there is cow milk which was solely meant for the cows child not the human child. The fact that a women's body stops producing milk after a few years should be proof that God doesn't want humans to drink milk after a certain age and certainly not cow's milk which as I said is for the cows child. But the sikh like every other drink it anyway. Then there are the finger nails. OK, they are a nuisance but hair could be a nuisance for some people too. And by the way humans have also been gifted with the ability to build tools. Like scissors. Certainly there is a reason behind it. What it is only God knows and he won't tell.
I do not retract a single word of what I wrote.
(Unless you provide verses from the Guru Granth so much as even
mentioning the five K's of Guru Gobind Singh...)
Hair is a symbol of wisdom(Brahmin), Kirpan of a warrior and ruler(Kshatriya) and the Kada is worn by shudras throughout India. Sikh were supposed to be all in one. As to Kanga and Kasherha, well, the Kanga signify cleanliness and the quest to hone up one's wisdom in a continuous and never ending search of Truth, and the Kasherha is a symbol to remind one to always try to reign in human desires (carnal as well as material).
Nanak's Sikhism never made that a condition and was never supposed to be dogmatic. Sikhism was born in an age when Society had absorbed corrupting influences and was rendered as just a doctrine in rituals and outward appearances. Nanaks struggle was against that. The Hindus no longer wear a janneyu or shave their heads but nobody calls them adharmy. But the moment a Sikh shaves his beard he is branded as adharmy by the stupid and ignorant Granthi’s.
"Mund mundae jo sidhhi paee, mukti ped na gaiiya jaee."
The above argument applies both ways. To grow ones hair in order to attain Boddhi/Sikhi/vitamin-D is as stupid and illogical as shaving ones head to attain salvation is.
No body calls a Hindu adharmi if he doesn't wear a janneyu but a sikh is branded as an out-cast by even his own relatives if he trims his hair. Whenever I think about all this I am reminded of the story behind Shivratri. The story goes that when during the amrit-manthan along with the amrit of life even vish was produced in an equal measure. Shiva descended from his abode and in order to cleanse the amrit decided to drink away all the vish that could have killed all life as soon as it began. In doing so, though he saved the world, he himself turned blue.
It would be, in no way, wrong to say that Sikhism today is what Hinduism used to be be 500 years ago...
Thanks
Please provide references and verses from the Guru-Granth to validate your claim that a Sikh is compulsorily required to don unshorn hair. The validity of your claims is something you must provide and not leave it to the reader to go search for the validiry of your claims.
- -
- -
Da Tiwana
Inspector Sa'ab ;)
>haha >haha
just as i thought
you never have any clue about sikhism buddy, you just pick up stuff from our posts which you can manipulate. in my whole post this was not the only topic touched by me. i covered a whole lot of things, but you never had any courage or knowledge to talk about other things.
man you are just imitating ostrich, who rons very good otherwise, but just when sees any enemy hides its own face in the sand, believing that he has become invisible.>haha >haha
may god give you some wisdom......................
just as i thought
you never have any clue about sikhism buddy, you just pick up stuff from our posts which you can manipulate. in my whole post this was not the only topic touched by me. i covered a whole lot of things, but you never had any courage or knowledge to talk about other things.
man you are just imitating ostrich, who rons very good otherwise, but just when sees any enemy hides its own face in the sand, believing that he has become invisible.>haha >haha
may god give you some wisdom......................
SehaJ
Troublemaker
>haha >haha
just as i thought
you never have any clue about sikhism buddy, you just pick up stuff from our posts which you can manipulate. in my whole post this was not the only topic touched by me. i covered a whole lot of things, but you never had any courage or knowledge to talk about other things.
man you are just imitating ostrich, who rons very good otherwise, but just when sees any enemy hides its own face in the sand, believing that he has become invisible.>haha >haha
may god give you some wisdom......................
Dont waste ur time on this .....****.....simply he does
Simplay say THANKS
TC Bro
Similar threads
