Sikhs are a race?
Sarika Watkins-Singh won her case in South Wales this week. The news was in many newspapers, including The Guardian, which is normally well researched. Considering the high standard of journalism that its reporters are normally held to, it’s surprising that the following statement was made so off-handedly, in a story about Sarika’s case.
Mr Justice Stephen Silber concluded the school was guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations – Sikhs are a race – and equality laws. [link]
Um, we are?! Last I heard, Sikhi was a religion. How does a religion become a race? Where did this author get this idea from?
The only remotely related idea that this statement could come from stems from the antiquated idea that Sikhs are a martial race. But even wikipedia makes clear that this idea is no longer acceptable.
Martial Race or Martial Races Theory is an ideology based on the assumption that certain ethnic groups are inherently more martially inclined than others. It was a term originally used by the British, who observed that the Scottish Highlanders were more fierce in battle than others in the British Isles, and extended this concept to India, where they classified each ethnic group into one of two categories: ‘Martial’ and ‘Non-Martial’. A ‘martial race’ was typically considered brave and well-built for fighting but was also described as ‘unintelligent’. The ‘non-martial races’ were those whom the British believed to be unfit for battle because of their sedentary lifestyles. Of late, this concept has been dismissed as Imperialistic and based on racial stereotypes. [link]
45 Responses to “Sikhs are a race?”
Um…Reema, in England the answer is yes, we are a race.
Sikhs fought long and hard over a number of different issues to get recognition from the government. For a discussion how the Sikhs came to 'constitute' a race under the Race Relations Act of 1976, click here.
Muslims and Hindus have been angered that they were not included. This was a tactical decision by the Sikh community during the 1970s due to experiences of discrimination and vile attacks during the 60s and 70s. It was actually in reference to the Sikhs' ability to gain such recognition that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale commented that Sikhs are a separate 'nasal'.
Um…Reema, in England the answer is yes, we are a race.
Sikhs fought long and hard over a number of different issues to get recognition from the government. For a discussion how the Sikhs came to ‘constitute’ a race under the Race Relations Act of 1976, click here.
Muslims and Hindus have been angered that they were not included. This was a tactical decision by the Sikh community during the 1970s due to experiences of discrimination and vile attacks during the 60s and 70s. It was actually in reference to the Sikhs’ ability to gain such recognition that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale commented that Sikhs are a separate ‘nasal‘.
Reema, I think there's a bit of confusion over the historical context; "Race Relations" in the U.K. are not limited to the American conceptualization of race. Given that race is a social construct, yada yada, it has a VERY specific political and historical meaning that is NOT derived from, or related to, Martial Race theory. A good example of this is the historic use of the term "Black" in the UK; Southall Black Sisters, for example, are an almost entirely desi organization. However, "Black" at the time of their founding reflected an identity that transcended U.S. concepts of color and ancestry.
I think Jodha's link provides excellent context, and I do think it's fair to conceptualize of Sikhs as a nation in a similar (although very nascent) way to how Jews are viewed as a nation.
Going back to Jodha's comment on hate-violence in the 70s, if you look at the number of hate-based assaults that resulted in murder during this time in the UK, nearly 80% were against people of South Asian descent, and of those, Sikhs were disproportionately represented relative to their total % of the desi and overall "minority" population (these stats aren't online, but are available through the IRR library; the government didn't start collecting this information in an organized way until 1976, 11 years after the passage of the first Race Relations Act).
Also, in 2003 the act was expanded to include discrimination based on religious belief (thus incorporating Muslims, who had long gone unrecognized as a "racial group" that had experienced systematic discrimination).
Reema, I think there’s a bit of confusion over the historical context; “Race Relations” in the U.K. are not limited to the American conceptualization of race. Given that race is a social construct, yada yada, it has a VERY specific political and historical meaning that is NOT derived from, or related to, Martial Race theory. A good example of this is the historic use of the term “Black” in the UK; Southall Black Sisters, for example, are an almost entirely desi organization. However, “Black” at the time of their founding reflected an identity that transcended U.S. concepts of color and ancestry.
I think Jodha’s link provides excellent context, and I do think it’s fair to conceptualize of Sikhs as a nation in a similar (although very nascent) way to how Jews are viewed as a nation.
Going back to Jodha’s comment on hate-violence in the 70s, if you look at the number of hate-based assaults that resulted in murder during this time in the UK, nearly 80% were against people of South Asian descent, and of those, Sikhs were disproportionately represented relative to their total % of the desi and overall “minority” population (these stats aren’t online, but are available through the IRR library; the government didn’t start collecting this information in an organized way until 1976, 11 years after the passage of the first Race Relations Act).
Also, in 2003 the act was expanded to include discrimination based on religious belief (thus incorporating Muslims, who had long gone unrecognized as a “racial group” that had experienced systematic discrimination).
Camille and Jodha,
Thanks for the clarification!
Camille and Jodha,
Thanks for the clarification!
Reema,
I feel like the point of the article still stands. The way the term "marshall race" is thrown around when it come to Sikhs is ridiculous.
While I understand the reason Sikhs fought for the the right to be defined as a "race" in England, I am slightly discouraged that action couldn't be taken in a way that didn't perpetuate such a stigma: it really can't work in a positive way for Sikhs, as races can be categorized especially in stereotypes, in ways that religions can't (but thats a whole other article).
Jews are different. They actually ARE a race and define themselves as such. You are a Jew if you are born of a Jewish mother. Bloodline, is essential to being a Jew. This has of course changed with a number of different reformations…but many still maintain it.
Anyway, thanks again Reema – I still maintain the wake-up call was necessary.
-JTS
Reema,
I feel like the point of the article still stands. The way the term “marshall race” is thrown around when it come to Sikhs is ridiculous.
While I understand the reason Sikhs fought for the the right to be defined as a “race” in England, I am slightly discouraged that action couldn’t be taken in a way that didn’t perpetuate such a stigma: it really can’t work in a positive way for Sikhs, as races can be categorized especially in stereotypes, in ways that religions can’t (but thats a whole other article).
Jews are different. They actually ARE a race and define themselves as such. You are a Jew if you are born of a Jewish mother. Bloodline, is essential to being a Jew. This has of course changed with a number of different reformations…but many still maintain it.
Anyway, thanks again Reema – I still maintain the wake-up call was necessary.
-JTS
[…] a link for this or something to verify your post, thanks? I did a quick search and came up with this, which seems to have been written by a Sikh and seems to confirm Muttys assertion, although there […]
Im really lost here. I thought Sikhism was a religion not a race? I just had a huge argument with my father about this, on the census form he wanted to put sikh as our race and i was like "why don't they list catholics, Christians, and other religions if our religion is going to become our race?"
Im really lost here. I thought Sikhism was a religion not a race? I just had a huge argument with my father about this, on the census form he wanted to put sikh as our race and i was like "why don't they list catholics, Christians, and other religions if our religion is going to become our race?"
Strictly, No. But if one goes by the definition of Sikhs Nation, they can call themselves a nation, but that is not a reference to a country, but of being part ofd Khalsa…Most Sikhs are Punjabi
Strictly, No. But if one goes by the definition of Sikhs Nation, they can call themselves a nation, but that is not a reference to a country, but of being part ofd Khalsa…Most Sikhs are Punjabi
Sikhism is a religion !! That is news to me. I thought it was a spiritual philosophy.
British imposed their concept of religion onto Sikhs for census purposes and lent all the ills that religions bring.
Sikhism is a religion !! That is news to me. I thought it was a spiritual philosophy.
British imposed their concept of religion onto Sikhs for census purposes and lent all the ills that religions bring.
Sikhs r not a dffrnt race,all human beings belong to hosapiens categry.Its not even an independent religion,it is an amalgamation of diffrent spritual thoughts mainly from hinduism and islam,combined with some philosophy by the gurus.With so much mixture no wonder it doesnot have a consice or clearcut doctrinal message.
Sikhs r not a dffrnt race,all human beings belong to hosapiens categry.Its not even an independent religion,it is an amalgamation of diffrent spritual thoughts mainly from hinduism and islam,combined with some philosophy by the gurus.With so much mixture no wonder it doesnot have a consice or clearcut doctrinal message.
^ Says a fella that worships flying monkeys. With his track record we should definately sit up and take notice of what he says about religion. 🙂
Seriously though, what it shows is the respect given to Sikhism and Sikhs, not by Indians because they generally show it very little respect, but by the British. The highest authorities in English legal system examined the evidence and concluded that of all the worlds religions it was only two : Jews and Sikhs that deserved the title of a 'race' of people, thus given more protection in English Law than any other faith. But of course, what do they know…They only spent 60 years studying and making the Law after Cambridge and Oxford. Mr Rakesh Sood, knows better…He got his information from not one but two library books he borrowed. The man is wasted as a rickshaw puller in Bombay…he should be teaching law at Harvard.
You know Dosanj, I was so offended not too long ago by some Hindu guy telling me that I didn't know all Sikhs were originally HIndus, that Sikhs were made by Hindus giving one son to protect Hinduism from Moslem invaders, and that Sikhism just became an independent religion later in the Punjab because that is where the Moslem invaders came from. I responded to him and he told me I wanted to kill everyone in India, Sikhs and Hindus and this and that and that he wouldn't argue with me anymore because other people on the blog didn't need to hear my propaganda. I just don't like it when Hindus think they just have this right to tell Sikhs they are Hindus. It is offensive when people mess with your identity and make such ignorant statements. I'm glad Sikhs are defined as a race in England. They are working on it in the U.S. too. It will help save our identity from being annexed by Hinduism.
yes guestji, Sikhs WERE Hindus not very long ago. They could not be, and perhaps did not want to be, differentiated from their Hindu brethren, They shared, and still do, roti-beti da rishta. as some poster has point out in this thread, the term 'religion' was imposed upon khalsas by machiavellian colonist who wanted a loyal community in the north bordering barbarian Afghans.
" In 1881, ca. 41% of the Panjabis classified themselves as Hindus, only 5.5% as Sikhs; by the time of Partition, the percentage of “Hindus” had decreased to 26%, that of “Sikhs” increased to 13%."
"Khushwant Singh confirms this much, that the British came to the rescue of the dwindling Khalsa by setting up Sikh regiments to which only observant Khalsa Sikhs were allowed. This worked as “a kind of hot-house protection” to Sikh identity, and “by World War 1, a third of the British Indian Army were bearded Khalsa Sikhs”
Go through literature of the Gaddar movement which was dominated by Sikh peasantry in the first quarter of the last century, only two communities are mentioned MOST of the time – Hindus and Muslims.
Every battle they have fought together every calamity they have endured together. they share everything from literally birth to death (cremation grounds). still have communities (eg Ravidassias, Kamboj, mazhabis) where children have both Hindu and sikh names.
Hindu icons are used too liberally in the Granth. according to an estimate: 8,300 times Hari (630 times by Nanak alone), 2,400 times Râma (the god-name whose constant remembrance leads to Liberation), 550 times Parabrahman (the Absolute), 400 times Omkâra (the primeval sound Om) is mentioned in the Adi Granth. very unusual to borrow so heavily, almost every icon, the complete philosophy, every context mentioned in Adi Granth comes from the sanatan tradition of dharmic 'religions'. show me one reference anywhere to Sikh or Khalsa Dharma. NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE REFERENCE even though sikh/khalsaism is such a nascent religion.
EVERYTHING including Ik Onkar, saffron colour, gurumukhi script (from ;lande; used by punjabi business comunities eg aahrtiyas), alphabets… you name it everything borrowed from Hinduism yet you call these two separate faiths. do you?
I can go on and write many volumes about this contentious issue but the post getting a bit too long.
As far as dosanjh jibe about 'flying monkey' is concerned, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". I pity him for ridiculing 'other' people's faith' while talking about lack of respect for sikhism in india (is he really serious??!!!)
as far as saving sikh identity is concerned, you cannot do much guestji. Ravidassias have already branched out and set up a new RELIGION. they have 'moved' (to use an euphemism for 'throwing out") Adi granths from their temples after Vienna atrocity. SGPC had earlier kicked Sindhi sikhs out by changing def of ;sikhs' for their narrow political gains. Bhim Ambdekar was not allowed to join sikhism along with millions of his dalit followers as Sikh clergy feared losing control (read monopoly) over 'golak' and guru.
In the end i would quote Khushwant Singh: Many Faces, p.4. " Sikh scholars sat down to take Hinduism out of the Granth Sahib. They took it out page by page. In the end, however, they were left holding the binding cover in their hands."
I couldn't agree more. Karma,Dharma, Chaurasi Lakh Chakra, Sat Guru, Naam. All these concepts are Hindu. I love the Gurus teachings and I honor their way of life but they never invented anything new or made a "race". The greatest thing they did was to clear the fog and make spiritual teachings understandable though now their language is becoming hard to understand as modern Hindi,Panjabi etc. are morphing like all languages.
Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak Sahib. Guru Nanak Sahib was born in a Hindu family but he never adopted Hindu religion. On the other hand he rejected Hinduism and its rituals. He refused to wear Janeo (a thread which is sacred to the Hindus). For a Hindu Janeo is obligatory (though most of the Hindus have forsaken it now). Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was born in a Quraishi family. He founded Islam and rejected the religion of the Quraishi Arabians. It will be wrong to call Islam as a branch of old Arabian religious belief. Moses, the founder of Judaism, was born in a family which worshipped idols. Moses rejected idol worship. Christ was born to Jewish parents. No one will define Christianity as an offshoot of Judaism. Similarly, Guru Nanak Sahib, though born to Hindu parents, founded a distinct religion. It is ignorance (or conspiracy) to call Sikhism as an offshoot of Hinduism. Guru Nanak Sahib had proclaimed in unequivocal words that the Sikhs are "neither Hindus nor Muslims" (na ham Hindu na Musalman). Before his death Guru Nanak Sahib appointed Guru Angad Sahib as his successor and merged his light in the light of Guru Angad Sahib. Guru Sahib fulfilled his mission in ten lives (Guru Nanak sahib to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib). Guru Gobind Singh Sahib installed Guru Granth Sahib as Guru-Eternal of the Sikhs on October 6, 1708, thus granting the status of Guru to the Word.
http://www.sikhmarg.com/english/The-Sikhs.html
^ Says a fella that worships flying monkeys. With his track record we should definately sit up and take notice of what he says about religion. 🙂
Seriously though, what it shows is the respect given to Sikhism and Sikhs, not by Indians because they generally show it very little respect, but by the British. The highest authorities in English legal system examined the evidence and concluded that of all the worlds religions it was only two : Jews and Sikhs that deserved the title of a 'race' of people, thus given more protection in English Law than any other faith. But of course, what do they know…They only spent 60 years studying and making the Law after Cambridge and Oxford. Mr Rakesh Sood, knows better…He got his information from not one but two library books he borrowed. The man is wasted as a rickshaw puller in Bombay…he should be teaching law at Harvard.
You know Dosanj, I was so offended not too long ago by some Hindu guy telling me that I didn't know all Sikhs were originally HIndus, that Sikhs were made by Hindus giving one son to protect Hinduism from Moslem invaders, and that Sikhism just became an independent religion later in the Punjab because that is where the Moslem invaders came from. I responded to him and he told me I wanted to kill everyone in India, Sikhs and Hindus and this and that and that he wouldn't argue with me anymore because other people on the blog didn't need to hear my propaganda. I just don't like it when Hindus think they just have this right to tell Sikhs they are Hindus. It is offensive when people mess with your identity and make such ignorant statements. I'm glad Sikhs are defined as a race in England. They are working on it in the U.S. too. It will help save our identity from being annexed by Hinduism.
yes guestji, Sikhs WERE Hindus not very long ago. They could not be, and perhaps did not want to be, differentiated from their Hindu brethren, They shared, and still do, roti-beti da rishta. as some poster has point out in this thread, the term 'religion' was imposed upon khalsas by machiavellian colonist who wanted a loyal community in the north bordering barbarian Afghans.
" In 1881, ca. 41% of the Panjabis classified themselves as Hindus, only 5.5% as Sikhs; by the time of Partition, the percentage of “Hindus” had decreased to 26%, that of “Sikhs” increased to 13%."
"Khushwant Singh confirms this much, that the British came to the rescue of the dwindling Khalsa by setting up Sikh regiments to which only observant Khalsa Sikhs were allowed. This worked as “a kind of hot-house protection” to Sikh identity, and “by World War 1, a third of the British Indian Army were bearded Khalsa Sikhs”
Go through literature of the Gaddar movement which was dominated by Sikh peasantry in the first quarter of the last century, only two communities are mentioned MOST of the time – Hindus and Muslims.
Every battle they have fought together every calamity they have endured together. they share everything from literally birth to death (cremation grounds). still have communities (eg Ravidassias, Kamboj, mazhabis) where children have both Hindu and sikh names.
Hindu icons are used too liberally in the Granth. according to an estimate: 8,300 times Hari (630 times by Nanak alone), 2,400 times Râma (the god-name whose constant remembrance leads to Liberation), 550 times Parabrahman (the Absolute), 400 times Omkâra (the primeval sound Om) is mentioned in the Adi Granth. very unusual to borrow so heavily, almost every icon, the complete philosophy, every context mentioned in Adi Granth comes from the sanatan tradition of dharmic 'religions'. show me one reference anywhere to Sikh or Khalsa Dharma. NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE REFERENCE even though sikh/khalsaism is such a nascent religion.
EVERYTHING including Ik Onkar, saffron colour, gurumukhi script (from ;lande; used by punjabi business comunities eg aahrtiyas), alphabets… you name it everything borrowed from Hinduism yet you call these two separate faiths. do you?
I can go on and write many volumes about this contentious issue but the post getting a bit too long.
As far as dosanjh jibe about 'flying monkey' is concerned, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". I pity him for ridiculing 'other' people's faith' while talking about lack of respect for sikhism in india (is he really serious??!!!)
as far as saving sikh identity is concerned, you cannot do much guestji. Ravidassias have already branched out and set up a new RELIGION. they have 'moved' (to use an euphemism for 'throwing out") Adi granths from their temples after Vienna atrocity. SGPC had earlier kicked Sindhi sikhs out by changing def of ;sikhs' for their narrow political gains. Bhim Ambdekar was not allowed to join sikhism along with millions of his dalit followers as Sikh clergy feared losing control (read monopoly) over 'golak' and guru.
In the end i would quote Khushwant Singh: Many Faces, p.4. " Sikh scholars sat down to take Hinduism out of the Granth Sahib. They took it out page by page. In the end, however, they were left holding the binding cover in their hands."
I couldn’t agree more. Karma,Dharma, Chaurasi Lakh Chakra, Sat Guru, Naam. All these concepts are Hindu. I love the Gurus teachings and I honor their way of life but they never invented anything new or made a “race”. The greatest thing they did was to clear the fog and make spiritual teachings understandable though now their language is becoming hard to understand as modern Hindi,Panjabi etc. are morphing like all languages.
I think Sikhs and Sikhism is more than a religion, as it also has very rich-cultural history shown by our gurus and gursikhs throughout centuries. If one reads and reflect about Sikh history, for instance, regarding act of bravery and leadership, there are many examples throughout and regarding act of sacrifice, there are many examples. Moreover, regarding act of kindness, again we have many unlimited examples throughtout history since the formation. Furthemore, standing and fighting against injustices we have many more examples. If it is analyzed altogether, it is clear Sikhs have martial sprit as well as spritual facet, the concept of Sant-Sipahi, as given by our Gurus. And these different aspects have been shown and exercised from time to time.
Hence, Sikhi and Sikhs who follow that Chardi Kalaa Spirit are more than a religion as compartive to others religions around the world. On the other hand, if we looks biological or anthropological distinctions of race, we may not fit in that category, however, some definitions of Race also refers to – Group of people forming an ethnic stock, or any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, and even religious believes etc. In this regard, Sikhs can be classified as race. When comparing both aspects, I believe it is more than religion or race, and english word cannot describe it appropriately. In punjabi it is better understood as one panth and it refers the path to salvation by using the Guru's advise or Guru's word. This is the main core of Sikhism.
I think Sikhs and Sikhism is more than a religion, as it also has very rich-cultural history shown by our gurus and gursikhs throughout centuries. If one reads and reflect about Sikh history, for instance, regarding act of bravery and leadership, there are many examples throughout and regarding act of sacrifice, there are many examples. Moreover, regarding act of kindness, again we have many unlimited examples throughtout history since the formation. Furthemore, standing and fighting against injustices we have many more examples. If it is analyzed altogether, it is clear Sikhs have martial sprit as well as spritual facet, the concept of Sant-Sipahi, as given by our Gurus. And these different aspects have been shown and exercised from time to time.
Hence, Sikhi and Sikhs who follow that Chardi Kalaa Spirit are more than a religion as compartive to others religions around the world. On the other hand, if we looks biological or anthropological distinctions of race, we may not fit in that category, however, some definitions of Race also refers to – Group of people forming an ethnic stock, or any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, and even religious believes etc. In this regard, Sikhs can be classified as race. When comparing both aspects, I believe it is more than religion or race, and english word cannot describe it appropriately. In punjabi it is better understood as one panth and it refers the path to salvation by using the Guru's advise or Guru's word. This is the main core of Sikhism.
So, using the logic of 'Sher' and 'SikhiFever' there is no such thing as Christianity because it is basically a branch of Judaism…..And there is no such thing as Islam because it is basically a version of Christianity and Judaism.
Or……..do they reserve their fuzzy logic for Sikhism only as it helps in their pan-hinduvta ideals ?
(note how they quite conveniently fail to talk about the many Islamic terms and ideals within Sikhism. Not surprising though, considering how they would then be forced to apply the same 'logic' to this and state that Sikhism is basically Islam)
Having said that, I am now coming 'round to Sher and SikhiFever's ideals. I used to think I have a flat screen HD TV. But I now realise that the foundation of my TV is the same basic technology that gave rise to my grandad's black & white TV in the 60's. My flat screen colour TV does not, therefore, exist. It is basically a bulky black & white TV with a different name.
Dosanjhji,
I am NOT saying Sikhism is NOT a religion today. My argument is, this was not exactly what Gurus wanted and also there was virtually no difference between Sikhism and Hinduism till late 19th century.
As far as 'conveniently failing' to mention Islamic terms and ideals is concerned, well i would correct that with an apology.
the word 'allah' is mentioned 20 times in GGS. 'Mohammad' is NOT mentioned even once (!!!).
which Islamic terms and ideals you are talking about? Asking so that I (or anybody) could do some independent research and report the findings here.
"The Guru Granth Sahib contains around 15,028 of references to Hindu concepts and the names of Hindu gods.
A near-exact count is given in K.P. Agrawala: Adi Shrî Gurû Granth Sâhib kî Mahimâ(Hindi:“The greatness of the original sacred Guru scripture”), p.2, and in Ram Swarup:“Hindu roots of Sikhism”, Indian Express,
The name of the Hindu god Shri Ram, is recited 2,400 times,(the gods name whose constant repetition leads to salvation).
Hari (Vishnu) over 8,300 times, 630 times by Guru Nanak alone,
Parabrahman, 550 times, Omkara,(the primeval sound of OM) 400 times."
One strange finding, and i got to be horribly wrong in this, terms "waheguru or wahe guru' are not mentioned in GGS. could someone shed some light about this 'omission'?
and as far as your television analogy is concerned…. what should i say. i have mentioned in the very beginning that SIKHISM DOES EXIST. i would be a fool to deny the existence of sikhism as a religion TODAY. i would repeat once again, this was not what gurus wanted.
thanks javascript: postComment(1);
Sher
@Sher, How did you arrived at conclusion and made this statement "this is was not exactly what Gurus wanted and also there was virtually no difference between Sikhism and Hinduism till late 19th century." Can you please elaborate on this, providing clear cut instruction from Sikh Gurus?
You are wrong at two places ,firstly on the mention of Prophet Muhhamed who is mentioned as Rasool in GGS and then you very next statement "One strange finding, and i got to be horribly wrong in this, terms "waheguru or wahe guru' are not mentioned in GGS". I am very sorry to say that you are not only horribly wrong but grossly messed it up , the term Waheguru is there in the Guru Granth Sahib. It tells that you have not read the GGS.
But one thing I have loved about you is that your fascination for Hinduism , as a brahmin , I can perform "shuddi" as yajna will be done alongside and afterwards Janeeou will be put .
Observer, IMHO, that is,
Please read my previous post in which i had given my argument that since each and every reference point in Guru Granth sahib is …shall i say borrowed from various sanatan Hindu traditions; it has to be one of the 'dharmic faiths (NOT dharmas)/. the only point where (like so many other Bhakti period faiths) Sikhism differs from Hinduism is inclusion of banis of TWO sufis in the GGS. now i also leave it to you to provide 'clear cut instructions; to sikhs to shun Hinduism, Hindu practices and icons from Guru Granth Sahib.
as far as Muhammed is concerned, i could not find a mention of 'Rasool' either. so what should i say about your knowledge of Sikhism?
sorry to say that too but i still could not find the term 'waheguru/vaheguru/wahe guru' in GGS and you have also failed to let me know which page this term is mentioned. all i read in GGS is about Hari, Ram/Raam, Parhlad, etc.
Would you please care to explain the following wiki excerpt to me
" Waheguru is the distinctive representation of God's name in the Sikh dispensation. In Sikh scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, the term does not figure in the compositions of the Gurus, though it occurs therein, both as Vahiguru and Vahguru, in the hymns of Bhatt Gayand, the bard contemporary with Guru Arjan, Nanak V (1553-1606), and also in the Varan of Bhai Gurdas.
Now you have read GGS so pls enlighten me. as even you would appreciate, i have already admitted my ignorance.
As you are claiming to be a Brahmin, your 'caste-mate' (wow, i have coined a term 😉 ) Bhatt Gayand can claim copyright over the term 'waheguru'. one fact is clear 'WG' does not figure in Guru's bani at least. but shuddi from what and why janeou? as a Brahmin, do you wear a janeou in this age? that is a part of karam kand….for some reasons an innocuous janeou is considered part of karam kand but six meter long turban is not. same about the other kakkars (no mention in GGS again).
as far as your jibe about my 'fascination for hinduism' is concerned, sorry sir you got it grossly wrong here. none of my post is about Hinduism so where did you come to this wrong conclusion? i should mention here, i have nothing against Hinduism or any complex of being a Hindu.
Coming back to sikhi, i have closely observed and grown-up around sikhs and their modern day version of Sikhism/khalsa.'. once again i am more of an atheist but, since i have lived most of my life in punjab, you cannot take sikhi out of me. and that pains me the most – the disgusting exercise by various Tat khalsa to make sikhi an EXCLUSIVE faith.
As someone not very religious but still interested in religion for academic purpose, I would be interested in knowing which Islamic ideals influenced Sikhism…. and by that I mean ideals that were originally conceptualized by Islam.
So, using the logic of 'Sher' and 'SikhiFever' there is no such thing as Christianity because it is basically a branch of Judaism…..And there is no such thing as Islam because it is basically a version of Christianity and Judaism.
Or……..do they reserve their fuzzy logic for Sikhism only as it helps in their pan-hinduvta ideals ?
(note how they quite conveniently fail to talk about the many Islamic terms and ideals within Sikhism. Not surprising though, considering how they would then be forced to apply the same 'logic' to this and state that Sikhism is basically Islam)
Having said that, I am now coming 'round to Sher and SikhiFever's ideals. I used to think I have a flat screen HD TV. But I now realise that the foundation of my TV is the same basic technology that gave rise to my grandad's black & white TV in the 60's. My flat screen colour TV does not, therefore, exist. It is basically a bulky black & white TV with a different name.
As someone not very religious but still interested in religion for academic purpose, I would be interested in knowing which Islamic ideals influenced Sikhism…. and by that I mean ideals that were originally conceptualized by Islam.
Dosanjhji,
I am NOT saying Sikhism is NOT a religion today. My argument is, this was not exactly what Gurus wanted and also there was virtually no difference between Sikhism and Hinduism till late 19th century.
As far as 'conveniently failing' to mention Islamic terms and ideals is concerned, well i would correct that with an apology.
the word 'allah' is mentioned 20 times in GGS. 'Mohammad' is NOT mentioned even once (!!!).
which Islamic terms and ideals you are talking about? Asking so that I (or anybody) could do some independent research and report the findings here.
"The Guru Granth Sahib contains around 15,028 of references to Hindu concepts and the names of Hindu gods.
A near-exact count is given in K.P. Agrawala: Adi Shrî Gurû Granth Sâhib kî Mahimâ(Hindi:“The greatness of the original sacred Guru scripture”), p.2, and in Ram Swarup:“Hindu roots of Sikhism”, Indian Express,
The name of the Hindu god Shri Ram, is recited 2,400 times,(the gods name whose constant repetition leads to salvation).
Hari (Vishnu) over 8,300 times, 630 times by Guru Nanak alone,
Parabrahman, 550 times, Omkara,(the primeval sound of OM) 400 times."
One strange finding, and i got to be horribly wrong in this, terms "waheguru or wahe guru' are not mentioned in GGS. could someone shed some light about this 'omission'?
and as far as your television analogy is concerned…. what should i say. i have mentioned in the very beginning that SIKHISM DOES EXIST. i would be a fool to deny the existence of sikhism as a religion TODAY. i would repeat once again, this was not what gurus wanted.
thanks javascript: postComment(1);
Sher
@Sher, How did you arrived at conclusion and made this statement "this is was not exactly what Gurus wanted and also there was virtually no difference between Sikhism and Hinduism till late 19th century." Can you please elaborate on this, providing clear cut instruction from Sikh Gurus?
You are wrong at two places ,firstly on the mention of Prophet Muhhamed who is mentioned as Rasool in GGS and then you very next statement "One strange finding, and i got to be horribly wrong in this, terms "waheguru or wahe guru' are not mentioned in GGS". I am very sorry to say that you are not only horribly wrong but grossly messed it up , the term Waheguru is there in the Guru Granth Sahib. It tells that you have not read the GGS.
But one thing I have loved about you is that your fascination for Hinduism , as a brahmin , I can perform "shuddi" as yajna will be done alongside and afterwards Janeeou will be put .
Observer, IMHO, that is,
Please read my previous post in which i had given my argument that since each and every reference point in Guru Granth sahib is …shall i say borrowed from various sanatan Hindu traditions; it has to be one of the 'dharmic faiths (NOT dharmas)/. the only point where (like so many other Bhakti period faiths) Sikhism differs from Hinduism is inclusion of banis of TWO sufis in the GGS. now i also leave it to you to provide 'clear cut instructions; to sikhs to shun Hinduism, Hindu practices and icons from Guru Granth Sahib.
as far as Muhammed is concerned, i could not find a mention of 'Rasool' either. so what should i say about your knowledge of Sikhism?
sorry to say that too but i still could not find the term 'waheguru/vaheguru/wahe guru' in GGS and you have also failed to let me know which page this term is mentioned. all i read in GGS is about Hari, Ram/Raam, Parhlad, etc.
Would you please care to explain the following wiki excerpt to me
" Waheguru is the distinctive representation of God's name in the Sikh dispensation. In Sikh scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, the term does not figure in the compositions of the Gurus, though it occurs therein, both as Vahiguru and Vahguru, in the hymns of Bhatt Gayand, the bard contemporary with Guru Arjan, Nanak V (1553-1606), and also in the Varan of Bhai Gurdas.
Now you have read GGS so pls enlighten me. as even you would appreciate, i have already admitted my ignorance.
As you are claiming to be a Brahmin, your 'caste-mate' (wow, i have coined a term 😉 ) Bhatt Gayand can claim copyright over the term 'waheguru'. one fact is clear 'WG' does not figure in Guru's bani at least. but shuddi from what and why janeou? as a Brahmin, do you wear a janeou in this age? that is a part of karam kand….for some reasons an innocuous janeou is considered part of karam kand but six meter long turban is not. same about the other kakkars (no mention in GGS again).
as far as your jibe about my 'fascination for hinduism' is concerned, sorry sir you got it grossly wrong here. none of my post is about Hinduism so where did you come to this wrong conclusion? i should mention here, i have nothing against Hinduism or any complex of being a Hindu.
Coming back to sikhi, i have closely observed and grown-up around sikhs and their modern day version of Sikhism/khalsa.'. once again i am more of an atheist but, since i have lived most of my life in punjab, you cannot take sikhi out of me. and that pains me the most – the disgusting exercise by various Tat khalsa to make sikhi an EXCLUSIVE faith.
Religion
Religion
Sikhs are both a race (nassal) and a religion as well as a way of life. The father of every Sikhs Is Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji.
I think the real issue here is why have we been disarmed? Sikhs must be fully armed at all times.
Only deviants (atheists, liberals, devils etc.) fear weapons. Healthy individuals Love weapons.
Sikhs are actually Scythians living in India and they're Scythians and most of the Sikhs went to Punjab and it's there homeland now Punjab
Great.