Talk:Sikhism/Archive 3

From June 2006 to July 2006

Review of Decision Making Section

"The sixth guru, Har Gobind, was responsible for the creation of the Akāl Taḵẖt (throne of the timeless one)." CORRECT

"The Akāl Taḵẖt serves as the supreme decision-making centre of Sikhdom and sits opposite the Harimandir Sāhib." CORRECT

"The Sarbat Ḵẖālsā is a gathering of a representative portion of the Ḵẖālsā Panth." CORRECT - EACH GROUP SENDS SOME SELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ALONG WITH A SPOKESMAN.

"The Sarbat Ḵẖālsā historically gathers at the Akāl Taḵẖt when there is a need to discuss matters that affect the entire Sikh nation." YES - MEETINGS ALSO OCCUR ON VAISAKHI AND DIWALI.

"A gurmatā (literally, guru's intention) is an order passed by the Sarbat Ḵẖālsā in the presence of the Gurū Granth Sāhib." CORRECT - THE ROLE OF THE JATHEDAR OF THE AKAL TAKHT IS NOT TO MAKE ANY DECISION BY HIMSELF, BUT TO HEAR ALL SPOKESPEOPLE AND ANNOUNCE THE CONSENSUS DECISION THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. IF REVISIONS NEED TO BE MADE TO AN INITIAL DECISION, THE SIKHS ARE CONSULTED WITH AGAIN.

"A gurmatā may only be passed on a subject that affects the fundamental principles of Sikh religion." THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE SIKH RELIGION ARE ALREADY WELL-ESTABLISHED. SIKHISM IS A WHOLE-LIFE PHILOSOPHY.

"A gurmatā is not binding on all Sikhs unless issued directly by the Akāl Taḵẖt after which it is known as a hukamnāmā (literally, edict or royal order)." FALSE - A GURMATA IS BINDING ON ALL SIKHS. A GURMATA IS ONLY ISSUED BY JATHEDAR OF AKAL TAKHT ANYWAY, SO HUKAMNAMA ISSUE DOES NOT COME INTO THIS.

"A hukamnāmā represents the "will of the Sikh community." FALSE - HUKAMNAMA IS MEANT TO REFER TO A HYMN FROM GURU GRANTH SAHIB GIVEN AS AN ORDER FOR ALL THE SIKHS (LITERAL MEANING IS 'WRITTEN ORDER'). RECENTLY PEOPLE ARE USING 'HUKAMNAMA' INTERCHANGABLY WITH 'GURMATA' TO REFER TO ORDERS BY JATHEDAR OF AKAL TAKHT, BUT ORIGINALLY THIS WAS NOT THE CASE.

I am leaving for India soon so I wish everybody the best of luck for the next month. The more participation with this article, the better it is. I encourage as many people to participate as possible - leave a comment if nothing else. --hardeep 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Final Push to FA

Hi,

I'm going to incorporate Hardeep's comments and do a final copyedit. Then I'll ask Rama's Arrow to do a copyedit, after which I'll put this baby up for nomination as a FA! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the job. Rama's Arrow 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured Article Candidate

Please vote here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sikhism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is their no mention of Sikhism & Hinduism as ONE?

I made a small small small small paragraph showing a link for people to click on if they want to learn about Hinduism & SIkhism being as ONE...I didnt give any opinions...I didnt take up space...I didnt blah blah blah....I just set up a link...and u took it down....see this is why many people hate Wikipeida and hate wasting time trying to add things. Because people like you just want a biast article in your own way and its sad 71.107.54.199 08:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please add your comments to the bottom of the page.

Your edit [1] provided no sources at all and was essentially conjecture. The article already discusses (quite indepth actually) how Sikh philosophy relates to aspects of Hinduism. As you are aware, there is a whole article dedicated to Sikhism and Hinduism - your information can be added there.

If you are able to provide sources AND reasoning behind the assertion that the Gurus didn't intend to create a new faith then please present them here on the talk page and we can discuss adding them to the article. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand....When I gave detail after detail after detail you guys deleted everything because their was another link set up for that....So I said fine ill accept that, and i put up a small section that sets up a link....And now ur telling me their is no need for that either....Do I have to file a complaint? It is just ONE SMALL SENTENCE! NO OPINIONS...JUST A LINK!... 71.107.54.199 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually know what you're talking about now. What "detail after detail after detail"? As far as I am aware, you haven't sourced your opinion and that's good enough for it do be deleted. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Try to understand something....Their are many people out their who do not believe that Hinduism & SIkhism are meant to be seperated....now their is another link that is already set up for all that info....so I am just taking a 2 sentences to show the link....THATS ALL...It doesnt make sense for me to "back it up with proof" like u say, because their is an article for that....ALL IM SAYING IS ALLOW 2 GOSH DARN SENTENCES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE THE OTHER ARTICLE IF THEY WANT!!!....WHY IS THAT SUCH A PROBLEM FOR U?!??! 71.107.54.199 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism and Hinduism

Their are a few refrences here saying that Hinduism and Sikhism are pretty much the same thing, I did some research on this and I found out it was just propaganda.

[2] (Click Temporal) [3] [4]

As you can see I don't think 3 things would make it VERY SIMILAR

So I guess we could remove this if people agree, this will also clear up alot of other things which needed aid here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

YOU CALL THIS RESEARCH? ALL YOU DID WAS GO THREE WEBSITES THAT WERE MADE BY SIKH PEOPLE. ANYBODY CAN MAKE ANY WEBSITE, ABOUT ANYTHING....YOU DONT GO BY WHAT PEOPLE SAY....THATS NOT RESEARCH....YOU GO BY THE ACTUAL WRITTEN TEACHINGS OF BOTH HINDUISM AND SIKHISM....IF YOU HAD DONE MORE RESEARCH YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT ITS MORE THEN JUST "3 THINGS" THAT MAKE THEM THE SAME 71.107.54.199 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please post your comments at the bottom of the page and sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright but what do you think of the proof and stuff I got?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

Again, please sign your posts! Indentation with ':' is also helpful.

I'm aware of the differences and similarities with Hinduism and Sikhism. The article doesn't claim Hinduism and Sikhism to be the same religion. Is there a particular issue with the article and/or its contents? Or is this just a general discussion? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres on in the first topic

""Sikhism is also linked closely with Hinduism, and are often not considered to be separate"".

Talk 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Didn't even realise that was there. I agree that's too strong and a bit of a generalisation. I'll remove it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if U THINK they are not the same...THATS YOUR OPINION...BUt their are many people, throughout history and today, that have always said we are linked as ONE....Just because U DONT AGREE, doesnt mean u should speak for everyone else and decide what article comes and goes.....The job of Wikipedia is to put out info and let peopel decide...NOT USEER EVANS AND SUKH AND GSINGH....Better known as Khalistan klan 71.107.54.199 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not listed in the Khalistan Klan let me put in my two penny's worth- the founder might not have wanted to start a new religion but the founder distanced himself from a lot of tenets prevalent in other religions and proposed a different approach. ( ie idol worship, sacred thread, praying towards mecca).

There is common heritage and influences ( ie beef is forbidden for Sikhs too, and Sikhs also celebrate Diwali) but there are enough differences ( including a seperate place of worship) to point to the two being seperate.Linkages are there but seperation too exists. Haphar 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Haphar has written, however, Sikhs are not forbidden from eating beef. That's a common misconception (some Sikhs don't even know this). It's largely due to strong Hindu cultural influences that beef eating is frowned upon. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL... Now someone who disagrees with the opinion that Sikhism and Hinduism are the same religion belongs to the Khalistan Klan? Some people *may* consider Sikhism and Hinduism as one religion - but a) you've not sourced that view AT ALL and b) it's not a prevailing view amongst Sikhs. It *may* be a prevailing view amongst Hindus (I don't know actually) but they're not followers of Sikhism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its my religion stupid so I think I would know, like I said I did research and I found it was basicly propaganda. If someone converts from one relgion to another they are basicly severing their ties.

I gave you a ton of info on the whole propaganda thing and if you can't belive it then you were probably a misguided youth. And if you think these articles are made by the staff of Wikipedia then you habe ALOT to learn, no one says we are linked as one! (We meaning Sikhs) Do we worship 12 gods? No....Do we worship Cows? No...Do we bath in Milk? No.....Do we belive in Hindu Myhtology? No.....Do we pray at Hindu temples? No.....Do we belive in the caste system? No.........If you belive Sikhism and Hinduism are the same things then you my friend are a idiot! Also suppose I had no Hindu roots in me, I was a Chrisitian or w/e and I converted to Sikhism, would this mean I am automaticly accepting 2 religions? Festivals like Diwali and Holi are celebrated by a lot of people. People of diffrent religions celebrate Christmas, that dosen't mean its apart of their religion. -Elven6

You are a typical example of an uneducated Sikh who hasnt picked up a Hindu book in his life.....You only go by what you hear and u never actually take the time to read the actual Hindu teachings.........Can u tell me where it says Hindus are supposed to worship cows? Can u tell me where it says ur supposed to clean in Milk? Can u tell me where it says your supposed to believe in a caste system?....NO U CANT...U KNOW WHY?...CUZ U NEVER READ A HINDU BOOK IN YOUR LIFE....U ONLY GO BY WHAT U HEAR THATS IT.....So let me tell u how that feels....If I went by what I hear and saw....Then i could say the GUrus said drinking alcohol was a good thing cuz many Sikhs get drunk all day long.....I could say the Gurus taught that everyone should cut their hair cuz many Sikhs are clean shaven....I could say Sikhs believe in a caste system cuz many Sikhs sing songs about jatt this and jatt that HOI PUTTA JATTAN DEYYY LOL.......BUT THEIR IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE DO AND THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS....GET MY POINT?....OR U STILL WANNA SAY HINDUS WASH IN MILK? 71.107.54.199 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see alot of Sikhs here typing info saying that im wrong because SIkhism & Hinduism are different...And I dont have a problem with anyone who thinks Sikhism & Hinduism are different.....BUt I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO FORM THAT OPINION WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH!....For example I saw one guy on here write OOOO Hindus dont eat beef, they believe in idot worship, and they blah blah blah stuff like that....BUT DID THAT GUY BOTHER READING ANY OF THE HINDU SCRIPTURES?...NO!...HE ONLY GOES BY WHAT HE SEE'S AND HEAR'S.....Now IF I WENT BY WHAT I SAW AND HEARD about SIkhs, THEN I WOULD SAY SIKH PEOPLE EAT MEAT, DRINK, AND ARE CLEAN SHAVEN...CUZ THEIR ARE PLENTY OF SIKHS out in the world that are LIKE THAT...U GET MY POINT?...DONT GO BY WHAT U SEE....REEEEEEAD THE TEACHINGS THEN FORM AN OPINION!! 71.107.54.199 05:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is essentially this: A Hindu is a person who believes or follows the primary Hindu holy books. That is the Vedas, Smritis and Gita. Essentially, the Gurus believed that although they were "good books", they didn't represent the complete message of god. There was (in their opinion) something distinctly lacking. Some quotes:

Kabir - "I have searched all the Vedas, Puraanas and Simritees, but none of these can save anyone. " [5]

Guru Arjun Dev - "I have read all the Vedas, and yet the sense of separation in my mind still has not been removed; the five thieves of my house are not quieted, even for an instant. " [6]

Kabir - "The Vedas and the Scriptures are only make-believe, O Siblings of Destiny; they do not relieve the anxiety of the heart. " [7]

Guru Arjun Dev - "One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation." [8]

Guru Nanak Dev - "The Vedas and the Bible do not know the mystery of God. " [9]

However, I must say that the Hindu holy books are quote often quoted in a very postive sense:

Guru Ram Das - "The Shaastras, the Vedas and the Puraanas advise righteous actions, and the performance of the six religious rituals." [10]

Guru Nanak "No one obeys the Shaastras or the Vedas. Everyone worships himself. " (Saying it as a negative thing) - [11]

But alot of the opposition to the Vedas seems to come from Kabir and not the Gurus. However, the Gurus may have respected the Vedas but did not consider them any differently from other religious holy books. Essentially, if the Gurus themselves did not prescribe themselves to the Hindu holybooks any more than they did the Qu'ran or Bible, how can they or Sikhs be Hindus? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I did my research, the information I got was compared by a pundit on his site, I can post his site if your really want to see it and if I can find it again. -Elevan6

Ill tell u how....The Gurus believed in the foundation of Hinduism: Karma, Dharma, Reincarnation, being veggetarian, and reaching Nirvana to stop rebirth....The Gurus had HARDCORE RELIGOUS NAMES LIKE Har Krishan, Ram Das, Arjun Dev and one Guru even named his son RAM RAI....These are not regular average names like Manpreet or Sonu....When u have a name like HAR KRISHAN do u know what it means? Its respecct to KRISHNA...Who is Krishna? HINDU RELIGION.....AND IF THATS NOT ENOUGH most north Indian famlies in those days would remain Hindu while the eldest son is a SIKH....Look im not showing u a few small simliarties....Im showing u fact after fact after fact on how these religions are not seperate....Baba Nanak was not against HINDU teachings....He was against ORTHODOX HINDUISM AND THE CORRUPT BHRAMINS....Stuff like caste, throwing water to the sun, wife sacrafice, AND OTHER things is what he was against because this had NOTHING TO DO WITH HINDUISM....and this is the problem...People like u dont take the time to actually READ the HINDU writings...U live in this hardcore Punjabi world with everything being Sikh, and u have so much pride that u WANT IT TO BE SEPERATE....U GUYS DONT LEARN ABOUT HINDUISM FROM THE ACTUAL WRITINGS, U ONLY GO BY WHAT U HEAR, AND THEN U SAY O HINDUISM AND SIKHISM ARE DIFFERENT.....U asked me how can Sikhs be Hindus? I go to both Gurudwara and a Mandir...I believe in both sides....so which one am I? HINDU OR SIKH?...IM BOTH!.....All im saying is first learn about HInduism, not from white people or wikipedia, but from the actual writings and thennnn form an opinion! ARYAN818 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gurus believed in SOME principles that are in common with Hinduism and SOME principles that are in common with Islam. The Gurus were born into Hindu families and into a Hindu cultural sphere - they are bound to have had Hindu names.

I don't live in a hardcore Punjabi world where everything is Sikh and such an insinuation is frankly ignorant and insulting. You're more than welcome to consider yourself a Sikh and Hindu and worship in whatever way you please. The fact of the matter is that this article dicusses issues and similarities with Hinduism (quite indepth for a summary article too). Most Sikhs do not consider themselves Hindus and that is all that needs to be said on the matter.

I am a kind of agnostic-Sikh and I certainly have no hard feeling towards Hinduism nor to suggestions that Sikhism is a syncretic religion. However, when the majority of people who profess Sikhism say their religion does not form a part of Hinduism, then I tend to agree with that opinion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, their is a difference from what the people say & what the ACTUAL TEACHINGS SAY.....FOr example the majority of Christians say that if you dont believe in Jesus your gonna burn in hell but Jesus never said that....THe majority of Muslims say that killing innocent people is ok if its in war, but the Korana doesnt say that...THe Majority of HIndus worship idols but the Hindu scriptures dont say that....U GO BY THE TEACHINGS NOT THE PEOPLE.....USE YOUR COMMON SENSE....THe gurus believed in pretty much the same thing HIndus believed in (not in ISlamic teachings...and most families would remain Hindu while the eldest son was a SIkh...And they had names like HAR KRISHAN JI...DO U KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO NAME A CHILD HAR KRISHAN, RAM, OR ANYTHIGN LIKE THAT? THEY ARE NOT REGULAR NAMES LIKE JOE, ERIC, OR SATINDER LOL....USE YOUR COMMON SENSE ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Names have nothing to do with it! I could name my kid Joe that dosen't mean his Christian does it? Tom Cruise named his kid Suri which is not a casual name for a child, of course they would have Hindu names were do you think they CONVERTED FROM, if not them then their PARENTS. You belive what you want but its people who say things like what you are who are destroying the identity of Sikhism. Instead of regarding it as a religion people are calling it a "cult" due to people like you who can't move on. Of course we could have been Hindu im not denying that but we are not anymore, we are our own religion not one that has diffrent principles then ours. - Unsighned

I LOVE HOW YOU SAY NAMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT....DID YOU BOTHER READING MY PARAGRAPH WITH A LIGHT BULB ON? I CLEARLY SAID....THESE ARE NOT REGULAR NAMES....THEY ARE NOT LIKE JATIN, OR SUKHDEV, OR HARMANPREET....THESE ARE RELIGIOUS NAMES....WHEN U NAME A CHILD HAR KIRSHAN JI, RAM, HAR RAI, WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS? THEY DIDNT BELIEVE IN KRISHNA? IF I NAME MY SON "PRAISE JESUS" DO U THINK I BELIVE IN JESUS OR DONT U?....COMMON SENSE....U NAME CHILD HAR KRISHAN, HAR RAI, ARJUN DEV, IT MEANS YOU BELIVE IN KRISHNA, RAM, AND ARJUN DEV....DONT GIVE ME EXAMPLES LIKE JOE, OR ERIC, OR SOMETHING STUPID.....AND BY THE WAY...I DIDNT SAY NAMEESS ARE THE ONLY REASON THEY BELIEVED IN HINDUISM....DID U READ THE PART ABOUT FAMILIES BEING SIKH AND HINDU? AND WHAT ABOU THE TEACHIGNS? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I went to sites that were not just made by Sikhs, their is also the one their made by the Pundit and stuff. Why don'y you go to and ask Sikhs what they think? Ask them if they think they are Hindu or Sikh ok? - Unsighned

Many Sikhs and HIndus consider themselves the same what are u talking about?...Hindus in Northern India go to a Gurudwara....In Afghanistan Hindus & SIkhs have always gone to the same temple.....But I agree many Sikhs dont say their the same as Hindu.....WHY?....Because their brainwashed....They dont learn about HInduism period...THey think Hindus worship cows, bathe in milk, sucided the widow's, and blah blah blah all that crap....And as time goes, especially with so many sikhs living outside of India in an isolated Punjabi world, what do u think is gonna happen? Their gonna seperate!....THINK ABOUT IT...How come at the time of the Gurus most families would remain Hindu while the eldest son was a SIkh? Because they did not belive in seperation...BUT HOW COME TODAY ONLY KHATRI FAMILIES STILL PRACTICE THIS?....CUZ PEOPLE ARE UNEDUCATED...ill give u another example...How come many Jatts take pride in being a jatt even though their religion forbids caste? Why do so many clean shaven people call thsemlves SIKH? WHy does every PUnuabi SIkh drink til he drops and then says Waheguru ji khalsa?....BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE PRIDE THEN EDUCATION....THey call themself a SIKH wihtout LEARNING...This is what im trying to show u people....THE GURUS DIDNT WANT US TO SEPERATE...THEY WANTED US TO UNITE...WHY DONT U GET THAT? ITS IN THE GURBANI! ARYAN818 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism is officially considered a distinct religion in India, US and UK. Wikipedia cannot hold one explanation over another, and I think that the close links with Hindu philosophy, heritage, history and the present close relations between Hindu and Sikh communities are adequately described here.

What kinda lame argument is that? I cant belive ur argument is well their considered distinct in the US & UK so therefore it must be true....what is this a joke? ARYAN818 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Look im not saying u have to agree with me...If you dont agree with me thats fine...But all im saying is , what is wrong with settting up a 2 sentence paragraph that shows a link to another article which is ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA...People should have a choice to see that article because alot of the stuff in that article is NOT ON THIS ONE....BUT U BIAST KHALISTAN PEOPLE JUST DONT WANT IT DO U ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Rama's Arrow 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Think of it like this, you lok are saying Sikhism is like Hindusim because it drawns SOME aspects from it correct? Well if your idealogy is shared with the world then I guess we call every single religion in the world (Besides Hinduism) the same because it draws from and older one (forgot the name but its the oldest religion in the world, it only has a handful of followers now).

No their arent just SOME SOME SOME aspects....Its the same thing...Maybe u should try reading some Hindu scriptures before u form an opinion...See this is what tears me up...ALll u people on here who are fighting with me...NONE NONE NONE OF U HAVE ACTUALLY READ EVEN HALF THE HINDU STUFF....U ONLY GO BY WHAT U HEAR...HINDUS WORSHIP COWS...HINDU batHE IN MILK...HINDUS THINK THE EARTH IS A BULL HORN....AND THATS WHY U THINK SIKHISM IS DIFFERENT...Its really sad how u form opinons when u bearly read anything....One guy hear told me he went to a website written by a Pandit....come on ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If Sikhism draws from both Hinduism and Islam then why aren't we also saying its the same thing has the Islamic religion?

Cuz its not the same....HINDUS AND SIKHS SHARE UNIVERSAL TRUTHS...ISLAMIC RELIGION DOES NOT....Is this a joke? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Heres the definition of what Sikhism basicly is from wikipedia

Sikh:

The SGPC defines a Sikh in the Rehat Maryada as a person who believes in:

• One God
• Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
• The Guru Granth Sahib
• The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus
• The baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru (a Sikh does not need to be baptised to be a Sikh)

*Such a person is defined as a Sikh as long as said person does not owe allegiance to any other religion.

So by Sikhs saying they are also Hindu are saying their not Sikhs because their going against the basic principle by saying they are!

Your wrong cuz u can do all the things u mentioned & still call yourself Hindu or Sikh....U know ur amazing....u never picked up one Hindu book in ur life...U never did any research except go by what u heard, or go by a website....and u have the courage to come here on Wikipedia and say ooooo well Hindus do this & that so their for they are different....I love u people...none of u pic up any Hindu books and yet u all have amazing opinions lol....what a joke ARYAN818 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was born in a Hindu family and i believe in all the stuff u just wrote....I do seva at the Mandir & the Gurudwara...I believe in Ram & Krishna, just as much as I believe in Har Krishan and Ram Das....So by your definition....i am what? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Must be important to note that the SGPC does not really have the authority to define what a Sikh is afaik. There are plenty of Sikh sects that couldn't give a rats arse what the SGPC thought was a Sikh. The picture gets very complex when looking at Sikh sects that drift closer and closer to Hinduism. But, the point stands for MAINSTREAM Sikhism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So do you agree with me by saying its diffrent or with them by saying its basicly just Hinduism in a diffrent form?

Go to those links I posted at the top, youll see how your idealogy of it being the same are corrupting the youth and leading to death! So what if its made by Sikhs? Would you rather trust a site about Sikh histroy made by some White guy who probably knows nothing about Sikhs besides the fact that they wear turbans?

Also what was the point of Khalistan if were basiclly just Hindus? I guess all those people who died creating and protecting the faith known has Sikhism just died in vain to have people say the religion they died for is basicly just something else.

Elven6 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that GUru Nanak would say yes i want u all to hide bombs and weapons in a holy temple and fight against your brothers & sisters....u guys act like the "HINDU" people just sat around one day and said hey lets go attack a holy temple for no reason and kill innocent hindus & SIkhs....u act like all the SIKHs that were part of the army that invaded were all brainwashed....Ya the GUrus would be really proud of u...This is what they teach u eh....fight fight fight fight fight ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both and neither of you :) Certain sects of Sikhism come very to Hinduism. The extreme orthodox Sikhism which has prevailed in the last century certainly isn't a sect of Hinduism.

"idealogy of it being the same are corrupting the youth and leading to death" - lol. Yes, my idealogy is causing that.

"rather trust a site about Sikh histroy made by some White guy who" - what are you talking about now? I don't judge a site by the race of its creator.

"Also what was the point of Khalistan " - there was no point. Khalistan was a limited movement that never had the support of the Sikh Punjabi population. If it DID, there is no way that India could have prevented its independence. The whole events of that era are based solely on political **** stirring by Sikh politicians and the Congress party.

Basically one person here thinks that there is already too much about Hinduism in the article and another thinks there isn't enough. That's good enough for me to think that there is a perfect balance.  :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well now hold on....many Khalistan freaks say that the majority of the SIkhs suppport it but they are to scared to say anything...this is their argument...i mean come one they feel that m ost Sikhs want Khalistan....How do u explain that? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say their is NOT ENOUGH...are u a moron?....I said SOME of us belive these are not different religions and were never meant to be seperated...SO therefore , since an article about what i just said alread exists, why cant u be a nice person and allow a 2 sentence link to that article? ITS JUST A LINK! U DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IT! JUST ALLOW IT! GOD THIS IS WHY I HATE WIKIPEDIA...THEY ALLOW BRAINWASHED PEOPLE LIKE U TO DICTATE WHAT COMES AND GOES...ITS JUST A LINK UR MAJESTY! ONE SENETENCE LINK! ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

*Yawn* This is when I stop discussing the matter because I realise I'm talking to a bunch of children. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

U know Sukh u were the worst one of all...U couldnt even debate me properly...DO u know how a debate works?...One party gives his facts and the party gives his facts....Now Weather u agree with me or not is one thing....But look at all the info i typed....I gave way more facts then u did....Im not making it up...GO scroll up and see for yourself....I gave u fact after fact after fact after fact......and what did u do?....u said was opinions.....I mean your basic argument was that most SIkhs feel that they are different so that means Sikhism is different from Hinduism lol...THATS NOT AN ARGUMENT LOL.....So dont yawn me....U never did a good job in the first place...and please dont respond by saying u did....Ok scroll up and check out what i wrote compared to what u wrote....U dont know about HIn duism....Juuuust Sikhism ARYAN818 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT HINDUISM OK! GO MAKE A NEW ARTICLE ABOUT THIS MATTER BUT JUST DON'T LINK TO THIS ONE OR ANYTHING! IF PEOPLE ARE INTRESTED IN YOUR PHILOSPIHY THEY WILL GO AND LOOK FOR IT! THE PEOPLE HERE DO NOT WANT HINDUISM IN A SIKH ARTICLE ALRIGHT IT CONFUSES ALOT OF THINGS!.

Elven6 4 july UTC

Sikhism or Medieval Sikhism?

Why is this article not providing information on contemporary Sikh history? I added a link on the current situation in Punjab and it was removed. I think if the article cannot contain a section on the historical and contemporary Sikh issues, then allowance of links at the end (like books contain further reading sections) is the least that should be done. 138.49.98.53 20:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "situation" is not current. Again, Wikipedia is not a propaganda site, neither can it accept data from dubious, propaganda sources. Rama's Arrow 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The source you call dubious is used by professors at Harvard as a credible site with credible photographs. Nothing in humanities is really objective, but as long as it provides citations of sources is considered acceptable. You are welcome to list your own sites but this suppression of contemporary events is becoming a typical Hindutva thing to do these days. 138.49.98.53 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Sikhism as a whole and not specific events in history. The events of the 1980s are mentioned and they only form a small part of Sikh history (indeed, they form nothing of Sikhism as a religion). The links on this page are to sites that are relevant to the whole of Sikhism - not specific niche sites. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a weak argument. Sikhism is a living religion and according to its doctrine of miri-piri, one aspect cannot be seperated from the other. I am sure you would agree with this. Because this article does not provide specific information on contemporary events in its main body, it behoves its editors to provide links to other sections as well as to other sites.138.49.98.53 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not at all a weak argument. The events of the 1980s have had little (if any) effect on the tenets of Sikhism as laid down by the Gurus and enshrined in the Guru Granth Sahib. I'm not willing to get into a discussion about the events of 1980s, but the external link is not a general purpose link and is not suitable on this article. There are several article related to Sikh history that do contain quite detailed information on events that happened in the 1980s. They require little more than a mention on this page (we're already having trouble keeping the page size down as we try and get this article featured).

On a side note, is this you Zafarnamah? :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please do not break the WP:3RR. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the points made by Sukh, let me point out that this site and claim of "genocide" are just propaganda and not good WP:SOURCE. Rama's Arrow 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

youngest of all the major world religions

I am wondering a bit about this claim. I know some people would list Mormonism as a major world religion and it is a lot younger. I suppose one coudl list it as a denomanation of christianity though in terms of beliefs it is clearly a distinct religion. Either way (and especially since I don't want to get in an argument about it) is there a source for that claim? Can it be added to the article? I am just intrested in reading the reasoning/definitions for major world reliogon etc. Also is there a list of religions by size anywhere about? The "5th largest" clame made me curious to see a list. Dalf | Talk 20:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism is the fifth largest organised religion in the world (it's bigger than Judaism which surprises many people, see Major religious groups).

The definition of a "major world religion" is rather subjective. However you'd have to have a large world geographic spread and a good few million followers to be classed as major. Also, is Mormonism distinct from Christianity? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Many people do not consider the Mormons to be Christians. Rangek 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the youngest claim because arguably Bahai's are a major world religion and they're newer. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks warning

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Violations of this policy may result in a block of your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Comment

Sikh , non-sikhs or anything else, please comment on the following. REMEMBER THIS IS JUST AN DISCUSSION NOT PROTEST OR POINTING OUT OF FAULTS OR CRITISISM. I am just an 18 year old boy who has no resources and want to discuss the following with responsible, intelligent people in a FRIENDLY manner. The Sikhism scene in punjab is quit worsening these days.I mean Sikhism was Made to remove all the flaws and meaningless rituals of the society then but now people are building more of these just by wrong interpretations.

REMEMBER ITS JUST A DISCUSSION

• Guru Nanak Dev ji made the whole religion to remove belives like IDOL WORSHIP . But i've heard gurudwaras that keep Datun (kinda toothbrush) near the Guru Granth Sahib, Bath the whole Book (and flow it in water when it gets old) and thousands of people bow down to the book with their head covered and do not turn their backs toward the book ( with all my respects) as if all the gurus are actually in it . TELL ME ISNT THIS IDOL WORSHIP ITSELF ? what else did guru nanakji proved when he moved the whole Mecca along as the muslims moved his feet . We are idol worshiping . GURU GOBIND SINGH JI says Guru maane Granth ( Guru = Granth - a holy book). Its a metaphor. You can evaluate it as if the Granth is the next and only guru. But their also lies a deeper meaning that Guru is as diverse , powerful and true as a granth

• Caste and groups have flourished to an unimaginable level. We now have diffrent types of sikhs - Jatt Sikh , Ravidasia Siikh etc etc. Even today in the rural punjab , its still unimaginable that a intercaste marriage occurs. Why is that happening. Instead of resolving the issue of caste we are impowering it by stating that Jatts are the real sikhs because they are brave or something like All minorities or low castes are the real sikhs because the Panj Piyare( the 5 chosen ones) were all those. Isnt this a strict violation to the sayings of the GURUS .

• I DEEPLY RESPECT PEOPLE KEEPING ALL THE K'S but Why do we only consider only Turban wearing men, who dont cut their hair , keep a kirpan , wear a kada ,etc etc to be a Full Sikh. Does the Guru Granth Sahib state somewhere that a sikh should do that? Did gurunankji or his followers said that ? Come on they were Saints and they had their lifestyle so as to appear a man of god (or saadhu,sage ,saint whatever you call it) to the public then.That is why their depiction in art resembles a sardaar. All the other people in the baani like Guru Kabeer Das and Guru Ravidas etc are not considered SIKH and their followers are Denied the facilities of SIKH COMMUNITY . We have Gurudwaras where the priest denies holy rituals (marriage , crimination ) just because the person is a MONNA ( dont keep the K's). That really is depressing. Have you Honestly seen any MONNA reading the guru granth sahib ? no right !! Why ? Because they are not allowed to .WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Is the Beard or the turban going to read the baani ? SIKHISM WAS CREATED TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION AND WE ARE ONLY PRODUCING IT MORE.

I know Guru Gobind Singh ordered that but it was then to make the KHAALSA , an army . These were so designed to make a strict code of Discipline in the infantry . I BELIEVE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIGION. Beside WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Guru Gobind Singh ji's Baani is not even in the Guru Granth Sahib , his baani is in Vichtra Natak and other similiar installments and he even goes to a point cursing everyone who calls him guru shall go to HELL. He only considered himself of being an army leader . So why a discrimination is a Sardaar and a Monna

• the purest thing i found in the granth was to get the essence of god through a guru in person. but we are neglecting this and we are bowing our heads to a book ( I dont want to hurt anyone , i state this with all my respects for other people's belives). No body needs to technically go to a gurudwara , you can have god right next to you when you are meditating with the purest devotion right in you home just with a help of a guru. But what are we doing. We are Making the golden temple more GOLDEN when the money could have flourished 1000s of poor poeple's home and doing all the Sharaahn (stuff in the outer world) . I mean out of 10 sikh people i meet only 0.5 know what a guru is and what meditation is.( but that can be true maybe in only my case and maybe i havent met the more of those people) . We are wearing a turban, keeping all the K's and doing every thing worldy while deep inside our hearts we are becoming more political, more corrupt and more proud and egoistic. Something has to be done about that. I and my fellow youth have the power to bring back the True meaning of the word SIKH - a student.

Anudeep Toora - A sikh only at the heart but a monna at the world

Comment 1

I'll quickly respond to your points. Remember, my response is only a quick one, so I may have missed some points. Anyhow, I'm not entirely certain that wikipedia is the best place to present a discussion of what you have mentioned (though I will give it a try) :

• Guru Nanak Dev ji made the whole religion to remove belives like IDOL WORSHIP . But i've heard gurudwaras that keep Datun (kinda toothbrush) near the Guru Granth Sahib, Bath the whole Book (and flow it in water when it gets old) and thousands of people bow down to the book with their head covered and do not turn their backs toward the book ( with all my respects) as if all the gurus are actually in it . TELL ME ISNT THIS IDOL WORSHIP ITSELF ? what else did guru nanakji proved when he moved the whole Mecca along as the muslims moved his feet . We are idol worshiping . GURU GOBIND SINGH JI says Guru maane Granth ( Guru = Granth - a holy book). Its a metaphor. You can evaluate it as if the Granth is the next and only guru. But their also lies a deeper meaning that Guru is as diverse , powerful and true as a granth

> I'm not sure if this is idol worship as such. Idols are usually statues and the like. According to Idolatry, it is important to realise that it is not merely sufficient for an idol to be present during worshipping in order to be labelled an idolator - one has to actually worship the idol itself. Now, it is an interesting issue as to whether Christians are committing idolatry when they attend mass/congregate in front of the bible, etc... However, you see my point - if people read a book so that they may worship God, this should not be labelled idolatry (though, if people don't understand the contents of the book, and therefore end up falling into the bad habit of idol worship, then this is a different matter - but, just as most Christians would say that they can read the bible and understand it, so might most Sikhs state that they can understand the read contents of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib).

• Caste and groups have flourished to an unimaginable level. We now have diffrent types of sikhs - Jatt Sikh , Ravidasia Siikh etc etc. Even today in the rural punjab , its still unimaginable that a intercaste marriage occurs. Why is that happening. Instead of resolving the issue of caste we are impowering it by stating that Jatts are the real sikhs because they are brave or something like All minorities or low castes are the real sikhs because the Panj Piyare( the 5 chosen ones) were all those. Isnt this a strict violation to the sayings of the GURUS .

> This is probably a completely random observation. I doubt that Sikhs will speciate into separate genus and separate racial groupings due to a lack of intermarriage (well, it takes a little time for that to occur). By what I understand, most groups already have something of a tendency to speciate and assortatively mate by their own natural inclinations anyhow (see, for example Intelligence Quotient or Eugenics). Still, your points above are an interesting observation. Are you saying that Jatt Sikhs have a higher IQ than all the other groups? : )

• I DEEPLY RESPECT PEOPLE KEEPING ALL THE K'S but Why do we only consider only Turban wearing men, who dont cut their hair , keep a kirpan , wear a kada ,etc etc to be a Full Sikh. Does the Guru Granth Sahib state somewhere that a sikh should do that? Did gurunankji or his followers said that ? Come on they were Saints and they had their lifestyle so as to appear a man of god (or saadhu,sage ,saint whatever you call it) to the public then.That is why their depiction in art resembles a sardaar. All the other people in the baani like Guru Kabeer Das and Guru Ravidas etc are not considered SIKH and their followers are Denied the facilities of SIKH COMMUNITY . We have Gurudwaras where the priest denies holy rituals (marriage , crimination ) just because the person is a MONNA ( dont keep the K's). That really is depressing. Have you Honestly seen any MONNA reading the guru granth sahib ? no right !! Why ? Because they are not allowed to .WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Is the Beard or the turban going to read the baani ? SIKHISM WAS CREATED TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION AND WE ARE ONLY PRODUCING IT MORE.

> It would help if you typed more coherently and avoided capitals. The part about being denied access to the facilities of the sikh community does sound quite bad. I'm sure that that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed and that you should complain to some official body somewhere (just send them an email or write them a CAREFULLY crafted letter, and everything should turn out just fine).

I know Guru Gobind Singh ordered that but it was then to make the KHAALSA , an army . These were so designed to make a strict code of Discipline in the infantry . I BELIEVE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIGION. Beside WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Guru Gobind Singh ji's Baani is not even in the Guru Granth Sahib , his baani is in Vichtra Natak and other similiar installments and he even goes to a point cursing everyone who calls him guru shall go to HELL. He only considered himself of being an army leader . So why a discrimination is a Sardaar and a Monna

> Completely confused by what you have stated here. I reckon that, given that the 5 K's were introduced for the first functional Sikh army within that part of the world, there is probably an interesting link between religion and warfare - something about using the innate energies of religious conviction to make for a more potent fighting force. I think that the samurai were into that sort of thing. As was some German guy during the period of the 1940 who wanted to join religious conviction with the miltary powers of production of the state....Anyone remember his name?

• the purest thing i found in the granth was to get the essence of god through a guru in person. but we are neglecting this and we are bowing our heads to a book ( I dont want to hurt anyone , i state this with all my respects for other people's belives). No body needs to technically go to a gurudwara , you can have god right next to you when you are meditating with the purest devotion right in you home just with a help of a guru. But what are we doing. We are Making the golden temple more GOLDEN when the money could have flourished 1000s of poor poeple's home and doing all the Sharaahn (stuff in the outer world) . I mean out of 10 sikh people i meet only 0.5 know what a guru is and what meditation is.( but that can be true maybe in only my case and maybe i havent met the more of those people) . We are wearing a turban, keeping all the K's and doing every thing worldy while deep inside our hearts we are becoming more political, more corrupt and more proud and egoistic. Something has to be done about that. I and my fellow youth have the power to bring back the True meaning of the word SIKH - a student.

> Do you reckon that we need a link to a live English translation of the SGGS? Anyone out there know how to do this?

Anudeep Toora - A sikh only at the heart but a monna at the world

MrASingh 11:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ON THE MAIN ARTICLE, IN THE FIRST SECTION, THERE IS A DIRTY REFERENCE and I cannot figure out how to delete it. I tried to edit it out, but it is not in the area to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.144.40 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why less External links

I wonder that external links provided here are not of all the popular or useful site. I added 2 external links of 2 popular sikh matrimonials websites that provide free service, but someone removed them. I request you not to remove these, www.sikhmilan.com & Gurmat.com. They are very useful to sikhs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabhroo (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gabhroo such links are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please [Wikipedia is not] for some hints why adding such sites is not allowed. That aside, Sikh matrimonial side has nothing to do with Sikhism article. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The links do not belong in Wikipedia; external links should provide information, not a service. (It doesn't matter if the service is free.) Please read the policy on external links. --Bonadea (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What is Sexually Moral, and what is not Sexually Moral.

A quick perusal of Islam's commandments on sexual practice can be found within the below wiki articles. Islamic sexual jurisprudence, Sexuality in Islam and Islam and sexual techniques.

Apparently, that particular religion provides very clear, direct and unambiguous interpretations of what sexual morality is. It would only stand to reason that the SGGS also contains similar directions (as do other religions such as Christianity, Islam, etc...). MrASingh 11:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Geneology of the Gurus

Has anyone thought about doing something along these lines for the following Guru Wikis? : Guru Nanak Dev Guru Angad Dev Guru Amar Das Guru Ram Das Guru Arjan Dev Guru Har Gobind Guru Har Rai Guru Har Krishan Guru Teg Bahadur Guru Gobind Singh

Back to work.... MrASingh 21:30, 05 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism is a featured article

Well done everyone. Sikhism is now a featured article on the English Wikipedia! Now I'm trying to get it on the front page of Wikipedia. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to all those who worked on this! -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats indeed ! Gurm 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs More Sex

Apart from a few random mentions in the archives about how it's advisable for people to take off their Kirpans when making love, and some (ill-phrased, and ill-responded to) questions about sex, sexual ethics don't appears within this article at all! This seems to me to be highly unfortunate, I'm sure I remember it being in mentioned in the bible that bestiality (sex with animals) is pretty bad (I think they call it 'evil'), as is sex with one's siblings or relations (equally evil in sikhism I hope). Then there's the issue of positions to take (ever heard of the 'missionary' position? - the Christians invented that). And let's not forget that the Jews have some interesting genetically based dating agency (which allows them to direct genetically compatible sexual partners to one another in the event that they have something like Tay-Sachs disease), called 'Yor Sherom' (or something else like that). I even remember reading that a bunch of Nobel prize winners were selling their sperm for quite a low price (I'm sure that the Sikh elders in the Golden Temple would be happy to do this, but are there any Sikh Nobel prize winning sperm samples that can be catalogue ordered online?)

Let's face it, the Christians and Jews are currently way ahead of everyone else - do Sikhs have anything like what I'm mentioned (the dating agencies I know of don't carry out IQ tests, let along genetic tests).

Given the amount of sexual advice that Christians and Jews get (and how many more of them there are than there are Sikhs), there should be way more Sikhs on earth than a paltry 20 million....From the looks of the wiki site, Christians and Jews have to work with a whole lot more in the way of sexual ethical guidance and codes to make sure that they don't offend God, or partake in 'abominations'.

Basically, there's a massive hole in sexual ethics, and someone needs to fill it in (prefarably with God-faring morality). Then there are issues concerning sociobiology (yes, I've been thinking about Sikhism and Islam recently, and how, compared to a lot of other religions, they aren't that different in some senses). Particularly, the issue of women - within the Punjab region at least, women don't walk around quite the way that they do in Western countries (that is, in the significantly warmer climate of Punjab, women actually wear clothes).

Anyone got any constructive suggestions here?

Anthony- I don't see how having dating services for specific religions shows an advancement in society. As far as I'm concerened, Jews and Christian's just thrive on sucking money away from misinformed people, which should be considered a sin. Besides, since when was religion about being "better" than other reigions??

If you have any comments, let me know. antboy824@hotmail.com

Anthony- Sexual advice is needed for perverted and mentally imbalanced people. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have heavy code in their books about sexual behavior. These abrahimic religions force either complete veiling of women (as in islam) or no clothing at all (as in christianity). In either case, the nudity of christian women makes their men horny and veiling of women in islams make mullas deperate (Pakistan has largest traffic access to pronograhic sites in world). A balance is required in clothing and I am sure that people of punjab are adequately dressed to suit social and climatological needs of region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.20.81 (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sindhis and Sikhism

Does anyone have any information on Sindhis and Sikhism? I've been reading how a large portion of the Hindu Sindhi population revered Guru Nanak and how Sikhism was quite prominent in the Sindh prior to partition. Any further expansion on this could be good for the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is an interesting article relating to Sikhism and Hinduism. Now this is sourced, so it could be a good way to begin to find information for a paragraph in the article: [12]. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how having dating services for specific religions shows an advancement in society. As far as I'm concerened, Jews and Christian's just thrive on sucking money away from misinformed people, which should be considered a sin. Besides, since when was religion about being "better" than other reigions??

No section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one?

Im trying to understand something....THeir are many people in the past up til even today who dont believe that the Gurus were trying to seperate Indians into a HIndu & Sikh catagory...Meaning that HIndus and Sikhs are supposed to be united as ONE...NOw u people obviously dont agree...and thats your opinion...But why wont u allow for a one sentence link to the article that argues about what im saying....Its just one sentence....thats all it is....Their should be a link for those who are interested in learning about this....and one more thing.....Please do not respond to this message and say to me that the reason you are not allowing it is because I do not provide evidence...I mean I have been putting tons & tons of evidence for a few weeks now....and even if i didnt....WHICH I DID....But even if i didnt...ALl the evidence is on the page that I am talking about! The page that I am arguing for has all the evidence....So new excuse do u people have now? ARYAN818 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please don't be rude - even if you think other people have been.

Secondly, what is the sentence you would like included? Please type it out. Keep in mind that no assumptions (POV) should be borne. This Fire Burns.....Always 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please provide the sentence or sentences you wish to add to the page with suitable citation. If it doesn't have a citation and it goes along the lines of "some Hindus believe..." or "some Sikhs believe..." then it won't be included (see WP:WEASEL).

Secondly - and I'm not trying to have a go at you here - you may have noticed you've received a slightly hostile reception on Wikipedia. I think you should examine the tone that you use when discussing matters and try and understand why people can take things you say the wrong way. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link.....Hinduism and Sikh Panth.....And Sukh your getting the time frame wrong here....WHen I first debated u guys I was not sarcastic or mean in anyway....It was only AFTER people started calling me names and being sarcastic with me, that made me in turn act the same way....But what your doing is taking my comments out of context and saying "oooo look Aryan, maybe people are like this with you, becasue you act the same way with them...I know myself and I know what i typed....I didnt start it with them, they started it with me

You *cannot* use another Wikipedia page as a reference. You can link to it, but it's not a citation. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make what I asked clearer. All we need from you is: 1) The exact sentence or sentences you wish to add, with any wiki links you wish to add AND 2) A citation supporting the claims made in your sentence (preferably a book, but a reputable web site will do). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But the article has links...it has evidence...it has references...why am I going to put down references when the article already has them? Im not useing the article as a reference....IM just trying to make the page simple and easy to understand....so if someone clicks the Hinduism and Sikh Panth page then they can see the references for themselves!...What part dont u get? ARYAN818 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not be continuing this conversation any further unless you provide both the line or two you wish to add and a citation supporting any of your claims about Sikhism and Hinduism being one (there are authors who have wrote about stuff like this, so finding such a citation shouldn't even be difficult). The Hinduism and Sikh Panth article is a mess, and contains no inline citations to substantiate any of its claims. All you're doing now is wasting my time when I have better things to be doing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan, TELL US THE LINE YOU WANT TO INCORPORATE. Don't waste time talking about everything except that. This Fire Burns.....Always 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WAIT, the argument still stays, you said if someone dosen't belive that they are diffrent it wasen't up to me to remove it.

But the same could be said about you, if we don't buy it then why should you put it up? Besides your article is pretty one sided mabye you should equal it out so mabye we can put it up.

The article is one sided? Please explain to me what part of the article is not a fact...everything on their is a fact...no opinions...facts....anyway here is the sentence that i am trying to put up....It would say...."Their are a number of people that have always believed the Gurus were not trying to seperate people into a Hindu and Sikh catagory. They argue that Hinduism and Sikhism should be united and not seperated. For more information please see Hinduism and Sikh Panth"....NOw is that bad?...Doesnt take up room from SUKH's precious page...Doesnt say its fact or opinion...it just says if u want more information click this...why is that bad?? ARYAN818 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference which mentions that some Sikhs claim the religions are the same but the writer of the article is actually against the idea. [13]. It can be used as a source though there are probably better (I'm too lazy to look!) Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons are some of the dumbest I have seen, a name is no reason to claim their is a connection. A Christian family can name their son Pizzaro, so would that make them Spanish?

Same with your intermarriage claims, I could marry a white girl, would that mean my religion as a bond with hers? No (Your argument is about family values, not Sikh and Hindu familys in general!).

I have never seen or heard of a Sikh going to a Hindu mandir, show some PROOF! O focurse I have seen some HIndus coming to Gurdwaras when they need help. SHOW YOUR SOURCES FOR THESE CLAIMS

So if the son was Sikh and the family wasen't that means theirs a connection? WHERES THE PROOF?

Again this argument is on family values, how do you know those familys accepted it with open arms? Hey with that idealogy I guess I cam convert to into a Christian or what ever so 50 years after im gone people will look back and say my religion could possibly be linked to Sikhism!

12 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

Elven6, I must have asked you many many times - please sign your posts using ~~~~! This automatically converts to your name and the date/time you posted.

"I have never seen or heard of a Sikh going to a Hindu mandir" - I have. Plenty of Sikhs visit mandirs, especially in the Punjab. The situation outside of India is different, but inside India, Sikhs visit Gurdwaras, Mandirs and Sufi burial sites. Hindus too visit Gurdwaras and Sufi burial sites. Hindus and Sikhs get on *very* well in Punjab, contrary to what the media may say relating to the events of the 1980s and they still visit one another's places of worship.

Thank-you for posting a link DaGizza. I'll see if I can accommodate a line or two in the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's point is true On a visit last year to Bombay, I visited the Haji Ali Dargah and saw several Hindu and Sikh men and women paying their respects. This Fire Burns Always 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section "Relationship with Hinduism" in "Sikh people" (I'm not really sure where to put it). It's a bit rough at the moment. Please tell me what you think. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is only temporary. Please list your objections/comments so we can finalise the content, then we can mix the actual content in with the rest of the page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not saying that a name proves anything....it doesnt....BUT These are not regular names like CARLOS, JATIN, MIKE, OR JASPREET....THese are HARDCORE RELIGIOUS NAMES...When u name your son HAR KRISHAN...OR RAM DAS....OR RAM RAI....I mean come on thats pretty dam Hindu...Do u know what those names mean?....If ur a Guru and u name ur son HAR KRISHAN are u gonna say the Guru didn beleive in Krishna? If ur a Guru and u name ur son RAM are u gonna say the guru doesnt believe in Ram?....I mean this is not 2006 when u name ur son David....This is the time of the Gurus giving out hardcore religious names....Its like somebody naming their son PRAISE JESUS....are u gonna say the father didnt believe in Jesus?? ARYAN818 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think people pull names out of their rear ends? It was the time of course people would name their kids like that, after all their weren't many Sikh names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a FUNNY argument to make for someone whose username reflects a neo-Nazi symbol... This Fire Burns Always 06:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan, I think this is where you say 'touché'. Also, please don't ruin the indentation of posts. It makes them difficult to follow. Also, I'm reverting most of your changes [14]. This is a featured article and we don't appreciate controversial additions without citations. None of the present sources agree with what you have added. Also, you've changed a direct quote from Khushwant Singh - this is VERY misleading. Do not do this please. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sukh u are the worst....I mean u finally put up a link for Hinduism and sikhism as ONE...U ask everyone to help out on it , since its not 100% fixed....Then I come in and make the most minor of changes...and u erase it all...I its ok if u didnt think that i did the best job...But why would u erase everything? I Mean some of the changes that I made were just changes such as the structure of a sentence.....Thats it....I mean did u have to change EVERYTHING?....U know its people like u that make wikipeida soooo frustrating...Its like u own everything ARYAN818 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change *everything* you wrote. If you cannot see why changing a quote is wrong, or why adding comments such as "Scholars such as Singh argue that the Gurus never intended to seperate people into a Hindu and Sikh catagory. That they were instead trying to unite everyone under God. " without reference to a single scholar who said that is wrong, then I cannot help you.

I have mentioned to you time and time again that your additions need to be cited. If you cannot provide references, I WILL remove them. And no, I don't own the article, but you seem to be unable to take any constructive criticsm. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic is pointless, in my last post to remove this garbage you said we shoulden't remove it because I say so. Well guess what I think you shoulden't add it just because YOU want it here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To all concerned: The very premiss is extremely misleeding (i.e. that Shiksism and "Hindu"ism are one or different). The problem, like so many of todays problems, is in the terms. There is no Hinduism. A Hindu is an inhabitant of Hindustan. What I think you are refering to with this term is any or all of the polyglot religions of the Indian sub-continent, including Bhakti and other yoga's, Vaishnavism, Shiavism, Vedantic religion, Durgaism, the worship of Ganesha, etc. All of these religious traditions somewhat overlap to the outside viewer but be assured that the reason for this is the parlance and terminology of the continent. Many Chinese religions use the concept of Tao but to say Confucianism and Taoism are the same is ridiculous and the same holds true for India. The Vedantic religions of India would have absolutly no problem with accepting the Sihks as a wonderful path to truth, I cannot say where the Sihk stands on this, as it views all religions as a path to truth. To muddle the distinctions are not worth the effort as the reason for them are evident: to put a personal and a traditional spin on the truth. Thank you G-Money

My tuppence

I agree with This Fire Burns Always 's statement. As the "name" issue has been raked up, let me give some illustrations from the great Judaeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic tradition of the Middle East. It has been noted by theologians that the relationship between these three faiths is perhaps the most unique amongst organised religions of the world. Here is a list of figures common to the three:

1. Adam(Judaeo-Christian) and Aadam(Muslim)
2. Eve(J-C) and Havva(M)
3. Cain/Kane(J-C) and Cabin(M)
4. Avraham(Hebrew), Abraham(English) and Ibrahim(Arabic)
5. Lot(J-C) and Lut(M)
6. Ezekiel (J-C) and Dhul-Kifl(M)
7. Sarah(J-C) and Sara(M)
8. Hagar (J-C) and Hajra(M)
9. Isaac(J-C) and Ishaaq(Arabic)
10. Ishmael(J-C) and Ismail(M)
11. Jacob (J-C) and Yakub(M)
12. Rachel (J-C) and Raheel(M)
13. Joseph(J-C) and Yusuf(M)
14. Jethro(J-C) and Shoaib(M)
15. Jonah(J-C) and Yunus(M)
16. Job(J-C) and Ayub(M)
17. Moshe(Hebrew), Moses(English) and Musa(Arabic)
18. Aaron(J-C) and Haroon(M)
19. Joshua
20. Gideon
21. Caleb
22. Elijah(J-C) and Illyas(M)
23. David(J-C) and Dawood(M)
24. Solomon(J-C) amd Suleman/Sulayman(M)
25. Shimshon(Hebrew) and Samson(English)
26. Shimuel(Hebrew) and Samuel(English)
27. Gabriel(J-C) and Jibril(M)
28. Michael(J-C) and Mikaeel(M)
29. Alexander who is called Sikandar or Zulqernain in the Qu'ran
30. Daniel(J-C) and Danyal(M)
31. St. John the Baptist is Yahya in the Qu'ran
32. Mary(J-C) and Marium(M)
33. Jesus who is Isa-Ale-Salaam in the Qu'ran
34. Shimon(Hebrew) and Simon(English)
35. Zacharias (J-C) and Zakarya(M)

In spite of there being so many similarities, there is the paradox of the three: So intrinsically linked and yet so bitterly separated. Compared to these Abrahmic faiths, the relationship between their Dharmic counterparts (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism) has been much more peaceful.

As for the Hinduism-Sikhism controversy that has been raging on this page, here's my take:

Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, in their masterpiece, Freedom at Midnight have described Sikhism as:

"Sikhism was born from the impact of monotheistic Islam on polytheistic Hinduism on the warring frontiers of the Punjab, where the two faiths first collided."

I don't want to comment on the theological similarities between the two as I am not an expert. But being a Punjabi Hindu myself, and that too from the Arora and Khatri communities, I can very much say that socially the two were very close. No one can deny that. I myself had Sikh ancestors, though today my family is mostly Hindu. This Roti-Beti Ka Rishta is undeniable.

Personally, I hold extremists on both sides as culpable for the 'great schism' that has occured between the two groups socially.

However, whatever has happened has happened. Khushwant Singh in the newer editions of his masterpiece, A history of the Sikhs has noted that though peace has returned to Punjab, the relationship between its two communities has drastically changed and will never be the same as before.

It is the Punjab which has suffered. The divide of Muslim and Non-Muslim in'47 and Hindu and Sikh in '84. Religion has been the biggest bane and scourge of our province as in other parts of the Subcontinent.

Rajatjghai 09:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rajat - I think you overrate the "extemists." The fact is that Indian political and religious groups do not represent the communities of India as much as the media likes to think. While living in Bombay, I witnessed the 1992 riots, the Ambedkar riots and several other disturbances - I discovered that over 95% of people do not associate themselves, nor support the people creating all the hooplah - this includes the poor. This is one of the reasons that life in Bombay is normal even after the recent bomb blasts - the other reason is that 18 million people cannot be asked to sit on their bums for a whole day. People have to eek out a living, come hell or high water.

The Hindu-Sikh riots were caused by the conflagration between the Congress and the Bhindranwale militia - they should be accurately termed the "Congress-Bhindranwale riots." 98% of Hindus and Sikhs did not condone it, nor associated themselves with the perpetrators. Obviously there was anger over Indira Gandhi's killing and the storming of the Golden Temple, but common people weren't prepared to kill over this.

The situation during partition was different because more than 20 million common people were displaced in violent and high-pressure circumstances. Bereft of their homes, heritage and homeland, people turned to violence. I don't blame them.

Cowardly mobs only attack unarmed civilians - if they attack police or each other, they'll find out the true meaning of violence. Common Hindus and Sikhs were distressed at what happened, and mostly people are anxious in these situations only because of fear of the mobs invading their neighbourhood. When raving lunatics parade through a street, the people in homes obviously get anxious. This Fire Burns Always 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sir, we can only hope and pray that what you say is true. Like Lincoln said after Appomattox, "We have won the war. Now we have to win the peace; the hearts and minds of the people."

Actually, by extremists I did not mean Bhindranwale and Co. and the Congress, who indeed would take the lion's share for the whole problem. I was hinting at the Arya Samaj (of which I am ironically a member), which on its formation in 1875 in Bombay by Swami Dayanand, became immensely popular among Hindus of the Punjab and the United Provinces.

Swami Dayanand fired the first salvo, by calling Nanak a dambhi(hypocrite). To him, only the Vedas were the Supreme Truth. His followers followed suit and attacked the other Gurus and the Granth as well. Dayanand in his book , "Satyarth Prakash" also attacked the persons of Jesus and the Prophet. The Arya Samaj followed all this with an aggressive Shuddhi campaign across the province.

Phir Kya tha. The hawks on the Sikh side joined in the party. The coming years would see the formation of the Singh Sabhas, the Chief Khalsa Diwan, revival of interest in the Punjabi language and the Gurmukhi script, the rise of eminent authors such as Bhai Vir Singh who saw language and script as being cognate to religion and of course that watershed work by Bhai Kahan Singh of Nabha - "Hum Hindu Nahin."

This of course was the first phase of the division. The second phase came during Partition. Demands for a sovereign Sikh state were first floated because some felt that, "The Hindus got Hindustan and the Muslims got Pakistan. But what did we Sikhs get out of it?" However, Nehru and the Congress Party assured the Sikh leadership of equal rights for the community in an independent India and hence the demand stayed as it was. But not for long.

The Sikh leadership wanted a state with a Sikh majority. When it was decided to reorganize the Indian map on a linguistic basis, the leadership first floated the idea of a "Punjabi Suba" to be carved out of erstwhile East Punjab which comprised of Haryana, today's Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Himachal separated in the '50s while Haryana came into being in '66.

But the most negative fallout - Yeah, you guessed it right. Language being co-related with religion. Punjabi Hindus, coaxed by Arya Samaj leaders like Lala Jagat Narain (by sheer coincidence, a distant relative of mine), declared Hindi rather than Punjabi to be their mother tongue in the '51 and '61 Census so that the Punjabi Suba which would be a Sikh majority state did not come into being. This caused great heartburn to the Sikhs, who considered it as an outright betrayal.

And later came the Green Revolution with its prosperity, which in turn led to many Sikhs giving up the external emblems of their faith - their hair and beards and taking to smoking and drinking.

There was also the sensitive issue of being a minority group in an overwhelmingly Hindu majority country. The fear of being "reabsorbed", the question of identity -whatever you choose to call it.

The problem of the Sant Nirankaris, who had recognized a living person as their Guru and thus violated the most basic commandment of the faith.

The bickering between the Congress (read Mrs. Gandhi) and the Akalis - leading to the row over sharing of river waters, the issue of Chandigarh and transfer of Punjabi-speaking areas in Haryana back to Punjab.

And in the midst of all this, appeared a lean, tall rustic preacher by the name of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale from the village of Rode, who had studied from the seminary of Damdami Taksal.

You had it all. Only a spark was needed. That came in the form of the beheading of Baba Gurbachan Singh, the Guru of the Sant Nirankaris in '78 or '79 (I don't remember exactly). But since that day, the whole state saw and bathed in red.

There is still a lot of resentment in the minds and hearts of certain members of the Sikh community. It may not appear on the surface but it still simmers underneath. All of us who hold the interests of the Punjab and India dear, can only wish that never again should such a vicissitude be perpetrated on us Punjabis, who have been at the receiving end for over five millenia.

As it is, the state is today completely reabsorbed into the national mainstream. Now is the time for a redressal of other pressing social problems: a skewed sex-ratio, large scale-migration from the Hindi belt, which some believe could cause a demographic change and lastly, farmers' suicides (Yeah, I am sure all know that farmers even in the country's breadbasket are killing themselves like their counterparts in the Deccan). Rajatjghai 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And the lack of industrialisation of the state, the infrastructure mess ( Haryana learned from Chandigarh, even villages in Haryana have better roads, sectors and bus stands than the towns in Punjab.Huda is now ensuring that even smaller towns of 50000 + population are planned, and people cannot make houses arbitrarily but have to follow guidelines) One should see the condition of the main bus stands in Ludhiana, Jalndhar or Amritsar. Or the lack of planning and roads in all of these towns. This for a state that was the first to take roads and electricity till the village level. Apart from Pratap Singh Kairon none of the Chief Ministers have built infrastructure in Punjab. Haphar 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Also alongside the agricultural sector, you have Gurgoan and Faridabad, satellite towns of the National Capital allright but BPO hubs nonetheless. So you already have a nascent Services sector in the making in Haryana.

What's more Hooda recently made a master-stroke by inviting Mukesh Ambani to set up shop and SEZs in the state.

Compare this with Punjab. The manufacturing (Hoisery and others) sector is in doldrums. Services have appeared. But only in Chandigarh's satellite town of Mohali. Proximity to Chandigarh rather than individual enterprise is the cause.

And finally, the agricultural sector - I don't need to speak more about it.Rajatjghai 12:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hinduization of Sikhism

Ok so I decided to let the guy put his article up, if he could put one up about how the two are the same then could I put one up about the Hinduization of Sikhism? Their both contoversial topics that are threating the Sikh way of life.

Elven6 July 14 2006 UTC

Some general notes

In my opinion the Wikipedia article on Sikhism should only be about religion and not about community, politics, or people. Hence, please consider moving sections such as Growth of Sikh Community, Political Advancement, and Sikh People into a separate Wikipedia article titled Sikhs. These topics have nothing to do with religion hence, they should be moved out. By including such topics, this article is become confusing, unclear, and opens a can of worms by inviting extraneous debates like "Hinduism and Sikhism are same."

Also, the last sentence of the Political Advancement section reads: The Akali Dal started a non-violent movement for Sikh and Punjabi rights, but was brutally suppressed by India. If nothing else, PLEASE be factually accurate. Khalistan movement was anything BUT peaceful. In any case, since this article is mainly about religion, please move this to some other article.

About relationship on Hinduism and Sikhism. They are separate faiths. However, there is a common history together; hence, a section on History of Sikhism religious movement with respect to Hinduism and Islam would be nice to see. One could address issues such as "Hinduism and Sikhism being one" and "Sikhism being a protector of Hinduism" in appropriate language and tone under such a section. These are common day debates and hence should be properly addressed. For references, please see: 1) http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/dec/20varsha.htm 2) http://www.kashmir-information.com/ConvertedKashmir/Chapter14.html

The links to Sikh Gurus under the section The ten gurus and religious authority should be replaced by a brief biography of each guru giving a brief summary of their life and works and then including a reference for further information. Just including the links doesn't do justice.

Please consider keeping this article purely religious by moving non-religious issues out of this article. Thank you for creating and maintaining an excellent (besides reservations pointed out above) writeup on Sikhism.

24.5.120.23 07:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism Wikiproject

Hi,

If there is enough support, I'm thinking of starting a Wikiproject for Sikhism. If you are interested in joining, please say so below! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Rajatjghai 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
2. This Fire Burns Always 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (as per nom!)
4. Haphar 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
5. ARYAN818 Id love to help out all the people who never read Hindu scriptures & yet have opinions about Hinduism!

   Aryan818's original comment was "Id love to join my Khalistan friends!" [15]. You're welcome to join this WikiProject, but if you wish to "help out all the people who never read Hindu scriptures & yet have opinions about Hinduism!" then it's probably best you join the Hinduism WikiProject. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

   Prime example on why I have a problem with Wikipedia members like SUKH...Yes I did orignally type in the Khalistan comment (which im probably right about anyway)...But then I realized it was wrong for me to put that, so right away I erasesd it and changed my comment....I basically did the RIGHT THING...But SUKH decides that he has to tell the whole world that my orginal comment was about Khalistan....See why I have a problem with users like SUKH? ARYAN818 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'm glad you considered that comment was wrong. But you should be sure about a comment before you commit it. Once it has been committed, if you later retract that comment, you can strike it out using <s> like this. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Elven6 July 15 2006 (UTC) Sure im up for it, Aryan its not a Hindu wiki project!

Right, I've set up the basic framework at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism. More coming soon! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Take me off of the Wiki project, their are too many Pricks and trolls on the Sikhism wiki pages like Ramas arrow.

Elven6 July UTC

Pls check history for Aryan818's original comment

+ a lot of Assumptions made in both the comments. Haphar 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything wrong, care to enlighten us?

16 July 2006 Elven6

Elven6 the reference was to what Sukh subsequently pointed out above. [16] When I put the remark in, sukh had not put it on the discussion page. Haphar 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

2 highly questionable statements

I have merely perused this article and will read it more in depth when I have time, but two statements jump out at me, one as wildly implausible and the other as biased.

1) Sikh religious philosophy has roots in the religious traditions of Northern India.[3] While Sikhism has been viewed as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam, Sikhs maintain that their religion was directly revealed by God. Many historians and scholars agree that such a description of syncretism is incorrect.

2) Sikhism is professed to be a more difficult personal pursuit than Bhakti.[4]

statement #1 is fine until the last sentence which is both unsourced and implausible. the syncretic hypothesis is, I believe, well supported by the majority of historians and scholars who are not themselvess sikh devotees. INTERRUPTION! by rgree002@ucr.edu The 'syncretic' conception of Sikhism is an aged idea and is only propogated by those who employ such texts. The syncretic conception of Sikhism has been well refuted by Eleanor Nesbitt, W. Owen Cole, W. H. McLeod, Gurinder Mann Singh and Pashaura Singh. Resonances between faiths does not mean a causal or historical relationship (Nesbitt, 27, Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction). Furthermore, simply because one is non-Sikh doesn't make their analysis worthwhile. eat it. END

statement #2 is seriously problematic. first of all, what criteria are being used to judge difficulty. second, sikhism is "professed" to be more difficult ? professed by who ? Perhaps I might be brought around to agree with this statement if more argument and support are given, but as it is, clocking in at just one short sentence, all I see is bias.

merc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merc misfire (talk • contribs)

You make some valid points. I will remove the first statement because it's difficult to prove that either way.

I'll see if Rama's Arrow can clarify the second point.

If there's anything else you find that is questionable, please do state it. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The second statement means that Nanak demanded strong discipline and spiritual genuinity, not to be substituted/replaced by outwardly practises like idol worship, ceremonies, singing and dancing. This Fire Burns Always 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not know if there is anything against "dancing". But singing is definitely not banned like idol worship. In fact even in Guru Nanak's time there was Mardana, . In fact Gurbani is still sung by raagi's and it is called kirtan. Haphar 09:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Guru Nanak did not ban or depreciate the arts - his emphasis was that a true Sikh must practise intense spiritual devotion and not be comfortable with just outwardly observances. This Fire Burns Always 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Understand that, (in fact I think the very things he preached against are part of the "ceremony" in the gurudwara's now, in the name of maryada a lot of ceremony are there in a gurudwara now, but that is besides the point). Overall was just saying that kirtan somehow seemed to be a part of reaching spiritual devotion. Not proscribed like idol worship and ceremony, not prescribed either but it seemed to be something he was comfortable with.

Racism

I hate to point fingers but I have read what ARYAN818 has said (e.g. calling Sikhs "Khalistanis" and then following up that comment with "I know you probably all are"), he is obviously racist against Sikhs (and is probably a member of those RSS idiots.) Sandeep S K 19:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandeep - whatever issues ARYAN818 may have, you must definitely not take the same path. Please go through WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I don't think you should speak of the RSS as "idiots" or accuse somebody of being "racist." If his comments are prejudiced, he's already been reprimanded for that. This Fire Burns Always 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This Fire Burns Always is right. I said the wrong thing which may have offended other users and I have broken the rules that you pointed out. For that, I would like to apologize to you and anyone else that I may have offended (including ARYAN818 and the RSS). I would also like to retract the whole sentence of "and is probably a member of those RSS idiots" as it was out of line.

Sandeep S K 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem - most users here have and still make this mistake quite often. I still lose my cool a lot frequently than I would like. Think no more about this - happy editing! This Fire Burns Always 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Im racist against all SIkhs?...I never said all Sikhs...I said that for the people who are obviously biast on Sikhism and Hinduism...These guys have done little or no reading on Hindu scripture and yet form opinions...and most people who do this are people who want Khalistan...thats a fact....but hey I said sorry and i apologized....and by the way...i go to Gurudwara so please dont say im racist against sikhs...read everything i type instead of picking apart a few sentences ARYAN818 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know of anyone on this page who wants Khalistan. And the accusation was made when Sukh, Rama's Arrow and myself had enrolled on the Sikhism project. So as per Aryan all or some of us are "Khalistani's". The comments on not reading scriptures and having an opinion- that can be applied to a lot of people who have an opinion on Sikhism and Islam too. Haphar 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding of Islam relationship section

In Sikhism the influence of Muslim Saints such Kabir and Farid are considered great enough for their works and teachings to added into the holy Guru granth Sahib. I'm going to add this below, it has all be sourced and can be checked in the Guru Granth Sahib. --Sikh historian 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with Islam

Sikhism's relationship with Islam is also both long and complex. The Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings, philosophies and beliefs of Islamic saints. The first Guru of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, was deeply influenced by the teachings of Kabir and Shaikh Ibrahim Farid a descendent of the renowned Sufi saint Shaikh Fariduddin Shakarganj of Pak Pattan whose works were integrated into the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikh religious philosophy shares some and strongly rejects other Islamic religious philosophy [17].

First off - Kabir is NOT Muslim (nor particularly Hindu...). Secondly, I don't think this article can accurately claim that Sikhism explicits accepts or rejects elements of Hinduism/Islam becoz - (1) the info on that is sketchy and (2) most Sikhs see their faith as a divinely revealed faith with its own foundation - Sikhism is not entirely syncretic nor is it different, it is linked to the Sant Mat, Bhakti Hinduism and some elements of Sufism. So the "shares some and strongly rejects other" perspective of this data is inaccurate, especially when the Quran/Shariat are one set of teachings. Thirdly, the history of animosity between Muslim kings/clerics and Sikhism is quite well documented - it is not thus fair to say that Sufism played an unduly major role, becoz it didn't. Unlike in Hinduism and Sant Mat, take some/leave some wasn't/isn't appreciated by most Muslims. This Fire Burns Always 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I strongly disagree with the idea of such subsections because it overrates and convulutes the question/data - too much of history, politics and theology are put together to hodge-podge a sketchy issue. If there is a particular Hindu or Sufi influence, just state it as a matter of fact and avoid making generalizations about one religion or another's influence on Sikhism - these 2 proposed sections sound like Hinduism/Islam is trying to claim ownership. Plus, why are Sikhism/Hinduism and Sikhism/Islam to be placed as sub-sections of "Sikh people"? This Fire Burns Always 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Guru Nanak was born in a Hindu family, when Guru Nanak started preaching, he did not preach a different religion, but against "customs" that he felt did not neccecarily get one closer to God. So he rejected the sacred thread, idol worship, he even spoke against praying facing a particular direction. He accepted the "good" non custom way of any prevalent religion. His constant companion was Mardana a Muslim. It was later that he got followers and then with a 2nd Guru a "sect" started. His son wanting the Guru's gaddi, and not getting it started his own sect ( Dehradun has a "dehra by this sect)which remains Hindu in it's outlook.

The granth was really collated by the 5th Guru ( Guru Arjan )at which time the Sufi influence was strong. Kabir was born a muslim and known to be a sufi- and he his words have a strong presence in the granth. Till the 5th Guru's execution by the Mughals, there were islamic and sufi influences on Sikhism, and some Mughal emperors, or claimants to the throne ( Dara Shikoh ?) did visit the gurus. Sikhism really came into being a religion by the time of the 10th Guru when they took on a different look ( the 5 K's) and fought for survival against the Mughals. At that stage the Hindu involvement increased and the Muslim decreased. So there is an influence and early Sikhism was more a sect with sufi influence than a seperate religion.Haphar 09:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to face facts that a lot of the Gurus and subsequent Sikh leaders said and did different things. No doubt I think that Guru Nanak, just like the Buddha, Christ and Mahavira wasn't trying to found a new religion. Thus neither Nanak nor anyone else really got involved in identity politics. The Sikh faith and community have changed a lot and come a long way since Nanak, and it is not the goal of Wikipedia to resolve this identity issue, but simply state the facts with minimal assumptions. This Fire Burns Always 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of relationships sections

I strongly agree with Rama's Arrow, about the Sub-section relationships with being unnecessary. As a Sikh I feel proud to have a fellow human being defend the Sikh faith's unique identity.

Frankly I strongly disagree with the idea of such subsections because it overrates and convulutes the question/data - too much of history, politics and theology are put together to hodge-podge a sketchy issue. If there is a particular Hindu or Sufi influence, just state it as a matter of fact and avoid making generalizations about one religion or another's influence on Sikhism - these 2 proposed sections sound like Hinduism/Islam is trying to claim ownership.

I think there should be discussion on whether the relationship sections should be taken off and just state it as a matter of fact. --Sikh historian 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My original intention for including the section was to appease Aryan818. However, when I added it, I made the following comment: "This paragraph is only temporary. Please list your objections/comments so we can finalise the content, then we can mix the actual content in with the rest of the page"

As I don't want a revert war to start on the main page, I've removed the subheading. We need to come to an agreement as to how much emphasis we want to place on the relationship with Hinduism (and *equally* Islam) in an article that is frankly about Sikhism. Essentially my opinion is that we need a single line that links to an article that can discuss these similarities. Please give your views. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In dealing with this matter, I suggest that we avoid making generalized comments about the connection of Sikhism with Hinduism and other religious traditions. We can't be faulted for choosing grey over black-and-white, becoz the reality is in grey. But a statement like "many scholars believe Sikhs are Hindus" needs to be substantiated by a really credible source. We need to know if Khushwant Singh's opinion is indeed a credible, alternative explanation (which I know it is).

When talking of philosophical, historical, ceremonial and social connections, I think its best to distribute the facts in respective sections instead of sub-sections like "Sikhism's relationship with Hinduism." Nanak's attitude should be discussed in the history or philosophy section. What Ranjit Singh or Tara Singh said or did needs to go in the gurus and history sections, while the social relations obviously goes to "Sikh people." This Fire Burns Always 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally 100% agree with Sukh and Rama's Arrow. However, we need to make sure that the new article is not politicised by groups who want to make religions into 'political footballs' for their politics. The article should just sticks to the religious philosophical similarities and differences. We want to make it positively educational to the viewer.--Sikh historian 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Haphar 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we alter the sentence "While Sikhism has been viewed as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam,..." by linking Hinduism and Islam to Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and Islam and the Sikh Panth respectively? Full theological discussions about such things are not relevant on this page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to stay away from saying its syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam. While, Sikhism respects, admires, and values the contributions Islam and Hinduism have made to Sikhism. There is a huge proportion which is uniquely Sikh.--Sikh historian 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the excellent guiding principle that Rama’s Arrow gave, which I thought was very good.

In dealing with this matter, I suggest that we avoid making generalized comments about the connection of Sikhism with Hinduism and other religious traditions. We can't be faulted for choosing grey over black-and-white, becoz the reality is in grey.--Sikh historian 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The article itself does *not* claim that Sikhism is a syncretic religion. In fact, it even says that generally Sikhs do not believe this and may find it offensive. However, it is imperative that we mention that it has been viewed as a syncretic religion because there are several sources that do write about Sikhism this way. I believe if this isn't mentioned, we would be failing to adhere to a neutral point of view.

Indeed, looking from an atheist's POV (which I'm not, by the way), all religions have been influenced by previous beliefs. Sikhism just happens to be a religion that arose in an area where there was a history of Islamic-Hindu rivalry.

Syncretism is a way of reconciling previously conflicting ideologies. To say that Sikhism doesn't do this in terms of Islam and Hinduism would, in my opinion, by incorrect. For example, the Mughals often detested Hinduism because they believed it was a Pagan religion - Sikhism believes in one God. Hindus on the other hand disliked the singular, Muslim or infidel approach of Islam - Sikhism has a much more 'many paths to God' approach that fits well with other Dharmic religions.

We don't have to debate whether or not Sikhism is syncretic (and we'd be here forever if we did), but the possibility that it is needs to be mentioned.Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Sukh, what we could do is quote or give the official view of the Supreme Governing body of Sikhism, in the world, at Amritsar. I think that they would have email contact addresses. Then have a small complementary outside unofficial view. I think this has the contact details http://www.sgpc.net/the-sgpc/index.asp http://www.sgpc.net/index.html --Sikh historian 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection to any official correspondence from the Akal Takht (or the SGPC), and I'm pretty certain I know roughly what they'll say. But, I'm not sure how we could use that to expand on the statement that already exists: "Sikhs maintain that their religion was directly revealed by God; the notion that Sikhism is a syncretic religion is considered offensive by many Sikhs."? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if we put the official view first, then maybe put something like "Sikhism is regarded as revealed faith from God. However, there are elements in it that could be classed as syncretic in origin"--Sikh historian 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel uneasy giving the SGPC's view as "official", especially when in essence it's meant to be little more than a Gurdwara management committee. However, we can use the SGPC's opinion as a reference (like the other numbers).

I think your objection stems from the sentence "While Sikhism has been viewed as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam, " being too strong. How about "Some scholars have presented Sikhism as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam..." and then continue with Sikhs don't believe that (and why) and may find it offensive? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think problem is that the statement sounds like Sikhism is just a mixture of Islam and Hinduism, without any new originality (unique) or any major new religious input, exclusive of Islam or Hinduism, unique beliefs and philosphies that they don't have.--Sikh historian 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I don't think syncretism necessarily means that, although I suppose it implies that. How about "Some scholars have presented Sikhism as a syncretic religion which combines some elements of Hinduism and Islam..."? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine but can we put "Some scholars have viewed Sikhism as a unique religion and a syncretic religion which combines some elements of Hinduism and Islam"--Sikh historian 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How about :) "Scholars have presented Sikhism as both a distinct faith and a syncretic religion which combines elements of Hinduism and Islam." That way we can say that people have written about Sikhism being a syncretic religion and how other writers have written that that is a simplification presented by people who don't understand Sikhism properly. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! However one small change, "Scholars have presented Sikhism as both a distinct faith and a syncretic religion which combines some elements of Hinduism and Islam."--Sikh historian 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's fine with me. We got there in the end! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sukh did you know the, SGPC is also called Parliament of the Sikh Nation.--Sikh historian 00:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it's been seen as that - although I've never heard anyone actually call it that. I'm not a big fan of the SGPC personally - all I see is politicians, everywhere! :) Anyway, it's late here so I must go to bed. Good night! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do partially agree, it certainly isn't the same as when the Gurus were there. Good night, as well.--Sikh historian 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to add more fire to the furnace, but I thought that I should make the following points about the issue of syncretism, which, arguably are points about religion in general :

1) What defines a particular religion? Surely, at the end of the day, for the purposes of administration and logical settling of disputes and other such complex issues, there much a standard, deterministic text (so that there is a strict notion of law and order that can't be re-interpreted - kind of like a constitution for the religion). Christians have the Bible (which different denominations may interpret in their own ways, but, when restricted to a particular denomination, is consistent with the texts that that particular deonomination will outline as being the primary texts upon which their religious denomination is founded). Here, essentially, the issue of whether or not Sikhism is syncretic is surely covered in the Guru Granth Sahib (yes, there are parts where it states, vaguely, 'that there are no Hindus, no Islamists [even no Sikhs!?]' - but, surely, the books states outright what rituals practicing Sikhs should follow. If the religion were syncretic, it is not enough, I feel to *state* that it is syncretic due to how it is practised (for then, one would have several different definitions of Christianity, Islam, etc.... - each person practicising the religion in their own way). It is necessary to refer to the *objectively defined text* and determine whether or not it states that the religion is syncretic (note here, it is not enough for *some* rituals to be shared by Hinduism and Islam - a very real proportion of them should be!).

2) What is syncretism? How can one religion be said to blend the beliefs of another if that religion requires a totally separate and different text for its religion and relies upon a direct reveltion by God that is not accepted and does not occur within the other religions. Granted, the 'that there are no Hindus, no Islamists [even no Sikhs!?]' remark was possibily a pragmatic remark used in order to preserver humane conditions at the time at which it was made, but a direct revelation by God (which, BTW should be described) would very much necessitate the idea that a different religion is indeed being proscribed.

3) What is religion? As I understand the first line given within the Guru Granth Sahib : "There is One God, He is the supreme truth, He, the Creator, is without fear and without hate. He, the omnipresent, pervades the universe. He is not born, nor does he die again to be reborn. By His grace shalt thou worship Him." Defines the basis of a religious philosophy quite unambiguously and deterministically. There is no real room for a re-interpretation of the rules presented within the book - so that should go against any notions of *religious syncretism*. It may be that people practice something different to that proscribed within text (and, therefore, are not *practicising Sikhs* - and arguably, therefore, not Sikhs at all), but that does not mean that this should reflect upon the religion itself (just as there are probably many beef-eating 'Hindus', that does not mean that Hinduism advocates the eating of Beef, etc...). Thus, the religion may not be syncretic - though the practices that have become entwined within it (the very self-same practices, which, may I add, are specifically prohibited by the Guru Granth Sahib itself!) are conceivably syncretic.

4) The above point can be made in regards to the history and politics of Sikhism also - the history may have been 'syncretic' in that, for example, Sikhs were ruled by Mughals, et al. during their history - but to say that, for example, the Jews became Muslims/Christians when enslaved by the Egyptions, would be very erroneous. Pragmatic conditions set forth for survival (such as the peaceful coexistence with other religious/political groups) do not imply religious syncretism - merely a form of pragmatism (that most people of most religions have had to show at some point or other during history, though, for the apolitical and the righteous, this has only been done when absolutely necessary).

There are plenty more points worth making. Essentially, I am moving to removed the word 'syncretism', at least religious syncertism (which, given that this is an article about religion, would warrant the complete removal of the word from this article) and replace it with a more neutral word (is similar to in certain aspects......has gained inspiration from......, etc....).

MrASingh 17:28, 06 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a paragraph or so about relationships with other religions would be valuable and then it could link up with other articles that are more detailed. Whatever we might think about the matter there is a lot of scholarly and popular thought about Sikhism's relationships with other religions, and perhaps there could be some room for talk about communal tensions or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)