Questioner

WJKK WJKF

sangat ji, i'm in desperate need of an amrit sanchar this weekend (may 28/9) but can't find one anywhere in the uk. i would even call up sevadars and beg them to try to arrange one if i had the contacts.

please can anyone help?

Questioner - thankyou I will make an account unless you wish to give a fake email here ? I will do it from the computer - thankyou

Email here penji

Nope. I'm asking when did Guruji Maharaj specifically state women must not get rid of any facial hair.

I've already answered your question! There was no need to be gender specific, since the Rehat of the Khalsa applies equally to men and women. In this context, kesh forms a Kakkar and the keeping of kesh occupies such a place that it is a bujjar kurehat to remove it. It's quite simple really.

Why would Guru Sahib specify that women must not "remove facial hair"? I'm not sure you realise how ludicrous that sounds, not only insofar as the latter is the most unnatural and superficial of actions centered around a modern archetype which the brainwashed ceaselessly chase. Sikhi is much higher than the latter - you leave this petty bull at the door to follow Gurmat. Were Sikh women so preoccupied with pulling the hair from their faces that they needed to be told not to do so? Was the injunction of the Khalsa not clear enough for these feeble creatures to understand?

So, before you ask me again, Guru Sahib has not told Sikh women to "keep facial hair"; the idea is unnecessary and laughable. The Guru created one Khalsa which adheres to the same injunction. Or are you here with an agenda to imply that Guru Sahib was sexist - that their words, their Khalsa, and their Rehat was only for the likes of males? Will you have difficulty understanding how on God's green earth the Guru could have possibly accepted women in their natural form, hair and all?

Arguing for gender equality on this forum is getting tiresome, Maharaj help us. I think this will be my last contribution.

Where is this written?

I'm assuming you're asking about where the requirement to keep kesh as part of the Panj Kakkar is written. Various rehatname.

To the OP @Sikh Woman

May I humbly ask, did Guruji Maharaj specifically request that women also must keep their facial hair? To the best of my knowledge the requirement is only for men.

There is no need to make gender specific requests; Guru Sahib has instructed that an Amritdhari Sikh keep his or her hair. Men and women of the Khalsa Panth are expected to adhere to the same Rehat Maryada and keep their Panj Kakkar, one of which is kesh.

Bring your sources with quoted writing used from credible sources.

You want me to look through books that I no longer possess and write out the quotes for you, when you could run a simple Google search? I interpret this as your way of avoiding the crux of the discussion.

If you do want to look into it, check out:

Page 40 of Jhutti, J. (2011) Sikhism Today. London: Continuum Press.

Page 137 of Pruthi, R. and Sharm, B. R. (1995) Sikhism and women. Delhi: Amnol Publications.

Or go onto Google Books, type in "Sikhism menstruation" and go from there.

no one said to u to keep your facial hair, kes mean's hair on the head- amritdhari women everywhere know this. Sometimes u have to intuitively understand what the Gurus were trying to say instead of taking the twisted translations as law.

excessive facial hair on women is unnatural. in no picture or painting of the gurus time are women shown with facial hair. don't waste ur life on doing things that will only lead u to be insecure and angry.

There are many things wrong with this comment, but I just have to point out that the OP has clearly stated that she likes her hair and wanted to keep it. She said she accepts herself and feels free. Your comments about what is "unnatural" or whether she (or, actuallyy, all women - thanks for that) should keep her hair are totally irrelevant... did you even read her post?

Any updates sister? We hope you're well!

You have confused heterosexual with gender. Guru Sahib has said marriage 8s between a man and a woman. He didn't say it should be based on sexual inclinations. By your logic the Gurus made an error for saying one man for one woman because bisexuals are inclined towards both. Why should they be deprived of marrying one of their sexual inclinations? I bring this point up to present how you and company are advocating for homosexuals to be married by the anand karaj, because they are sexually inclined toward the same gender and if they were forced to marry the opposite gender, they would be in a love less marriage and it would end badly. Your whole logic of anand karaj is based on sexual feelings. Point to us here where the Guru based marriage on sexual feelings?

Let me know how you want to please the bisexual people through the anand karaj.

What? I'm not confusing gender with sexuality, nor talking about bisexuality or sexual inclinations.

The point I'm making is that there are plenty of people who fall biologically outside of the male/ female category. By the logic that an Anand Karaj should only and in every case be between a man and a woman, those people are also restricted through no fault of their own.

Accordingly, I would be unable to have an Anand Karaj with a Gursikh hemraphrodite because they would not wholly fit the "male" category, but nor do they fit the "female" category. Do you see what I'm saying? Vaheguru has made something more than male and female, the picture is not black and white and there's more to life than one's genitals.

Yeah but you are making the normal day to day working lives of your wives far more difficult by insisting they grow facial hair, they have to face the public not you.

In the UK at least.

AKJ seems good to me.

Eduardo, your concern is valid in that no woman should be made to keep her body hair by the insistence of men. (Although ironically in this society they are encouraged to remove it by the insistence of men - that is what you should be protesting). But you seem to be implying that the only reason a Kaur would do so is due to the latter and not because she's exercising her own free choice. No, that's demeaning and paints us (women) in a bad light. A Sikh woman will be as hairy or hairless as she wishes on account of her own choice.

Women will do or not do as they wish with their bodies. The poster asked whether laser before Amrit was permissible on Sikhi grounds, and it's not. It can never suddenly be. I think people know that even whilst they decide to do it. But nonetheless, people will do as they wish with their bodies - and nobody is stopping them, but Sikhi does not change because of it.

Do any of those people even read Gurbani? They clearly don't believe or accept what the Guru says, only keeping kes after Amrit to tick an imaginary box.

That is not love, that is not the way of the slave. It's the way of a person who wants to follow their mind.

What's more is that they think they are above the Guru, that they can somehow get around Maharaj's will. In reality theyre mere pawns in the Guru's hands.

bahuth siaanap aagal bhaaraa ||

Through clever tricks, the weight is only piled on more and more.

It may seem worth it, but it won't be. If you stop walking in the will of Guru Sahib for something else, that thing can never be fruitful. The call is to give up your clever ways and completely leave your life at the feet of the Guru - whatever will be will be, pehila maran kabool jeevan kee shad aas. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for those of us who have are own desires like marriage, but in the end what we want is subordinated to what Maharaj wants for us...

I'm saying this a sister who expects the same thing that you're going through. And you have every right to be angry at the "Sikh" men about their hypocrisy, but the way I see it is I wouldn't want to be with anything less than a Gursikh anyway (eg. one who lives and breathes Gurmat - not just one who looks the part - andarau choote paij baahur duniya andhar fail).

Cor blimey, why do you need to ask? Why do you need permission?

Go fourth and use your judgement and be your own person.

I would like to add that most people know nothing about feminism. But I can't be bothered with this.

Why do we stand during Ardaas? (Particularly personal Ardaas).

He says that to him it's "just sex". He says that he couldn't be with you because of your son. If I heard this about any man, I could say unequivocally that he does NOT sound worth it.