Could have brahmins let Guru Nanak go, when he had said everybody is one and equal? Could have the brahmins let Guru Gobind Singh go, when he had raised his voice against Brahminism? What is Khalsa and how Sikhism is different from Hinduism (Brahminism)?

No brahmins don’t let go anybody without putting a fight. How would it have been possible that Brahmins and the Sikhs then lived together in peace? What is this lie that the brahmins are propagating now? Could the Sikhs who were mostly Dalits and Shudras be lived with by the brahmins peacefully? No, you cannot certainly be possible and I would not believe any shit that a brahmin says.

There are continuous attempts by Brahminical forces to show that Sikhism is same as Hinduism. No, it’s not.

Professor Gurnam Singh explains what is Khalsa and how Sikhism is different from Hinduism (Brahminism)

1) A Khalsa would listen, speak and read (the truthful ideology which started from Guru Kabir).

2) A Khalsa would always be armed (as Shudras were never allowed to carry arms)

3) A Khalsa would eat and drink only in the iron bowl (as the rule said that a shudra should only eat and drink in the bowl made of clay or mud)

4) A Khalsa would wear turban and clothes (as Shudras were only allowed to have feathers on their heads and were not allowed wearing only torn clothes)

5) A Khalsa would always use the salutation ‘Fateh’ i.e Victory (because Shudras were defeated by the brahmin ideology everywhere)

6) Khalsa would always ride a horse (because Shudras were never allowed to sit in a higher position)

7) Khalsa would drink from the same bowl (because the brahmins practised casteism and had different bowls for different people depending on the caste)

8) Khalsa would not differentiate and would eat with all others in langar (because the brahmins did not allow inter-dining)

9) Khalsa so would have the suffix ‘Singh’ i.e. Lion, besides his name (as Shudras were always supposed to be fearful)

10) A Khalsa would treat everyone as his brother, sister and mother (as Shudras were never allowed to have any relations with someone from the other caste)

Brahmins propagate that Sikhism had come to reduce the fight between Hindus and Muslims so that they both could live peacefully. It would have been good for Brahmins that they confined their secularism to Sikhs and not invaded our history of Sikhism. Stop giving your ‘rational’ leftist angles to Guru Nanak’s teachings, where Guru Nanak comes as one who was against all kinds of symbolism. The name of the one who was with Guru Nanak or whom Guru Nanak was with all the time was ‘Mardana’ not ‘Mariana’ as some Brahminical writers propagate. Mardana was a Pasmanda Muslim, Guru Nanak never asked him to stop reading Namaz. Sheikh Farid whose writings are included in the Guru Granth Sahib also used to read Namaz 5 times a day. Sikhism never was against such religious practices.

If one is to see what Guru Nanak had rejected, it would come out that Guru Nanak had refused to wear Janeu. He was an Idol-breaker.

He wrote “Ik Onkar, Satnam karta purakh, Nir Bho, Nir vair, Akal Murat ajooni sai bhang”

It means that God hates nobody; God does not take birth again. Why did he say so? Because he knew that the God of the brahmins takes different avatars for such as Vishnu, so he simply said God does not take birth again. He knew that the God if the brahmins hate too. So he said God hates nobody.

This indeed would have put a great fight against Brahminism.

–From Pritam Singh Tinna’s Facebook posts