BhForce

But on what basis do you so this? Don't take this in the wrong way. Just some friendly prodding to uncover stuff which I may not be aware of. Probably different? Based on history granths or just speculation? Very true. But the main point showed by Guru Nanak ji was rejection of parikarma of the "sacred" fire in favor of parikarma of sacred Gurbani. Yes, that may be the case.

Which museum was that?

According to the definition by the SGPC, you can call yourself a Sikh if you believe in the simple formulation above, so you don't have to be amritdhari by that definition. Of course, according to Guru Sahib, you're only a Sikh if you follow Guru ji's orders (which include Amrit). Well, at Hazur Sahib, yes. Among Punjabis, there's been so much decline, it would be so difficult to enforce that rule. Probably very few. Even if this were so, what would the big deal be about having to give up tobacco, alcohol, adultery, stealing, etc.? Would that be so bad? Would it be so bad to have to hear your own Guru's words every day early in the morning? Would you consider that some kind of hell? Really, that's stuff you should be doing anyway if you consider yourself a Sikh. No, bro, you're not a haramzada, relax. Taking amrit is Guru Nanak ji's Sikhi. It was called charanamrit back then administered by the Gurus personally, later changed by the 10th Guru to Khanda Amrit administered by Panj Piyare. The problem is just that our panth became so weak after we lost the Sikh Raaj that now we think it's OK to go your entire life without taking Amrit. Anyways, if you say you're parents do bhagti but aren't ready for Amrit, that's great. Keep doing that. And also avoid all the prohibitions that you can. And do all the bani you can. Basically, if you think you're not ready for Amrit, you should still live like an Amritdhari Sikh (except maybe the hair if you can't bring yourself to keep your hair just yet).

What? So you think Anand Karaj was just invented in the Singh Sabha period? Sikh history granths refence "anand" as a form of Sikh marriage prior to the arrival of the British. Sikh history relates that Guru Nanak ji married by doing parikarma of mul mantar (so, kind of like parikarma of Guru Granth Sahib). What's the essential difference? Finally, why do you say that (if Anand Karaj was invented in the 20th century), that it was created for Amritdharis?

OK, I agree he was a fool. He'll get his just reward. But, by having an Anand Karaj, he and his wife are "in the Sikh fold". Later, he has kids, and they'll grow up knowing that they are "Sikhs". They may not have much of an idea of what that's supposed to mean, but when they get older, they can google for "Sikh", and they'll find plenty of resources to get them started on their journey, if that's what they choose. If they're not even in the fold, that can never, ever happen. What would that be, bro? Waking up 30min late for Amrit Vela? Or scr*wing a woman other than your wife? The former can be easily forgiven. Why would you ever think of doing the latter, no matter if you had an Anand Karaj or a court wedding? Agreed, but what you do want? Only weddings allowed where not only both the bride and groom are wearing blue cholas, no makeup, and also the entire rest of the baraat also have to wear blue cholas? I don't really think you can make a rule about makeup, though you can preach to avoid excess.

The #1, big thing about Gursikhi is obeisance towards the Guru. And all those monas you're disparaging have that. And if they don't have "knowledge" about Sikhism, then teach that. The gurdwara can given them a short pamphlet on Sikhi, or they can even require the couple to take a 2-day course or whatever. That only applies to non-Sikhs claiming to be Sikhs. It doesn't apply to Sikhs stating they are Sikhs. Note that the definition of Sikh says nothing about whether you're following rehat or not. What would they be "getting away with"? They're stating they have faith in the 10 Gurus. They're not lying about being in rehit, because that question was not even asked. No, posing an Amritdhari without doing rehit/maryada is pakhand. Merely stating your belief in the Gurus is not pakhand.

There's a strange trend going on where when you don't agree with something, you don't reference Gurbani, Sikh history, theology, or Sikh saints. You just call it "Abrahamic", or alternatively "Brahministic". Again, said with no reference whatsoever. If you had bothered to read the excellent posts of @N30S1NGH here and here, you would realize that some Sikh saints believe Sachkhand to be a state, others a place. In the end, the only way you'll reach Sachkhand (the place or the state) is through Naam Simran (mediation). So what's the point of fighting?

Hmm, very good point, I haven't heard that expressed anywhere else, but it can be arguably thought to be absolutely true.

No, no day is considered holy in itself. In Sikhism, any day or time period is considered holy in which you remember God: ਧੰਨੁ ਪਲੁ ਚਸਾ ਘੜੀ ਪਹਰ ਧੰਨੁ ਧੰਨੁ ਥਿਤਿ ਸੁ ਵਾਰ ਸਭਾਗੇ। Dhannu Palu Chasaa Gharhee Paharu Dhannu Dhannu Diti Su Vaar Sabhaagay | Blessed is the moment, the blinking time, the hour, the date, the day (during which you remember the Lord). ਧੰਨੁ ਧੰਨੁ ਦਿਹੁ ਰਾਤਿ ਹੈ ਪਖੁ ਮਾਹ ਰੁਤਿ ਸੰਮਤਿ ਜਾਗੇ। Dhannu Dhannu Dihu Raati Hai Pakhu Maah Ruti Sanmati Jaagay | Day, night, fortnight, months, season and the year are auspicious wherein mind tries to rise (to divinity). ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੬ ਪਉੜੀ ੧੭ ਪੰ. ੨ That said, it is considered a good thing to mark special events (such as the Gurus' births): ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਭਾਇ ਭਗਤਿ ਗੁਰਪੁਰਬ ਕਰੰਦੇ। Kurabaanee Tinhaan Gurasikhaan Bhaai Bhagati Gurapurab Karanday | I am sacrifice unto those Gursikhs who celebrate Guru’s anniversaries with full devotion. ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧੨ ਪਉੜੀ ੨ ਪੰ. ੭ Theoretically, all the 10 Gurus birth dates (prakash purab) would be open to celebration, but practically, most Gurdwaras only celebrate (to a major extent) the births of the 1st Guru Nanak Dev ji and the 10th Guru Gobind Singh ji. Other Gurus' dates might be marked by a few words during the normal morning congregation. Places that are specific to a certain Guru (like Goindal Sahib for the 3rd Guru) would usually celebrate that Guru in a major way (with an uninterrupted reading of the Sikh scriptures plus a hymn singing program). Additionally, there are Baisakhi, a farming festival celebrated as the birth of the Khalsa (order of initiated Sikhs), Divali (celebrated as the return of the 6th Guru Hargobind ji from prison). Hola Mohalla is celebrated at Anandpur Sahib as mock war practice. Dussehra is celebrated at Hazur Sahib. The installation of the first copy of Guru Granth Sahib is celebrated at Amritsar. Finally, there are the martyrdoms of 5th Guru Arjan Dev ji and 9th Guru Tegh Bahadur ji. Birth of Guru Nanak - November or so Birth of Guru Gobind Singh - December or January Hola Mohalla - March Baisakhi - Apr 13 or so Divali - October or so 5th Guru martyrdom - June 9th Guru martyrdom - November/December

Quite simple: You don't talk about "practicing Sikhs", rather about "believing Sikhs". The definition of Sikh in the SGPC rehat maryada does not say you're a Sikh only if you wake up at 1am in the morning, or have a beard and turban. It merely states that you believe in Akal Purakh, the 10 Gurus, their Bani, Guru Granth Sahib, and have no other religion. If you can state that (in a statement with your signature), then you're a Sikh. I agree that it's totally meaningless for someone who doesn't even believe in Guru Sahib to have an Anand Karaj. The requirement to state a belief in Guru Sahib will neatly rule out any marriages with non-Sikhs, such as Christians and Muslims. If a Gurdwara wants, they could even increase the strictness by requiring the marrying couple to take out an ad in the newspaper stating their declaration of faith, and that they are no longer believe in Jesus, Mohammad, or whoever.

No, otherwise it will just turn into an empty ritual. OK, so what's your definition of "practising Sikh"? One who carries a 3ft kirpan? Do you carry one? Even if you do, do you carry the other 4 shasters? If not, you are ineligible for an Anand Karaj, as you're not a practicing Sikh.

The problem is you didn't ask before you got married about these things. A lot of people just get married based on looks or money. Anyway, you're stuck where you are now. You can either choose to make the best of your situation or make a bad situation worse. A lotus flower is beautiful and unblemished, but it floats on dirty water: ਜੈਸੇ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਕਮਲੁ ਨਿਰਾਲਮੁ ਮੁਰਗਾਈ ਨੈ ਸਾਣੇ ॥ Jaisae Jal Mehi Kamal Niraalam Muragaaee Nai Saanae || The lotus flower floats untouched upon the surface of the water, and the duck swims through the stream; ਸੁਰਤਿ ਸਬਦਿ ਭਵ ਸਾਗਰੁ ਤਰੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਖਾਣੇ ॥ Surath Sabadh Bhav Saagar Thareeai Naanak Naam Vakhaanae || With one's consciousness focused on the Word of the Shabad, one crosses over the terrifying world-ocean. O Nanak, chant the Naam, the Name of the Lord. ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਗੋਸਟਿ (ਮਃ ੧) ੫:੨ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੯੩੮ ਪੰ. ੧੫ Raag Raamkali Guru Nanak Dev And that is how you'll have to be, floating on top of the worldly muck. As for your in-laws talk, you don't have to engage them in that. When men start talking politics, it's quite common for women not to take interest. Similarly, just don't engage them on that topic. Just talk about the weather, kids' schools, and so on. Finally, you can teach your own children love of Guru Sahib, teach them Gurmukhi and Bani, and read them Sakhis. There are many, many men who have given up alcohol after seeing their kids going the Sikh way. Just don't push it.

Excellent, balanced answer. You're coming along quite well in your Sikh walk.

Having 150 million Sikhs or not doesn't have to do with whether 1984 would have happened. The fact is governments rely on the fact that masses of people are usually cowed by a show of force. No one wants to be "that guy", the guy that gets mowed down with bullet fire. Of course, if even 50000 people were to step forward, forget 150 million, Indira's army couldn't have done a thing. They could have killed maybe 10000, but they'd probably run out of bullets after that. And then the other 40000 would overpower the remaining soldiers. But who wants to be among that first 10000? Nobody, that's why it doesn't matter if you had 150 million. In any case, the poorly written article wasn't claiming 150 million Sikhs in Punjab. It was referencing a claim about "forgotten Sikhs" in other states of India who aren't being properly counted as Sikhs.

Don't most restaurants (other than hip bars) play Muzak (background music)? Anyway, if you're skeptical about mainstream chain restaurants, you're right. Load yourself up on bad grease, high carbs, and stale ingredients, etc, from McDonalds, etc., and spend half your weekly salary on a coffee from Starbucks. Absolutely. The Gulf countries (whose airlines a lot of our people use to get into India) funded ISIS in Syria to fight moderate "Muslim" Bashar Assad. Oh, and another thing: The meat available in India (in restaurants) is almost always Halal, unless you find a Jhatka butcher, which is unlikely. So don't eat meat. (Would actually avoid restaurants that serve meat, period.)

Like followers of Ram Rai or Suraj Mal? Highly insignificant.

There are about 10,000 Sikhs in Nanded, out of a population of a half million.

Yeah, it's 2%, the same percentages as Sikhs are of all of India. The only reason you may have thought a huge amount of the local people were Sikhs was because you never ventured out beyond the lanes surrounding Hazur Sahib. 99% of Sikhs visiting Hazur Sahib go out and see the city of Nanded. It's kind of like saying, "the world is becoming Sikh" because you did a sample on the streets outside of the Darbar Sahib.

Atrocious article. Fails to give any detail whatsoever. While it is true that that "forgotten" Sikhs like Sikligars and Vanjaras aren't being counted as Sikh, that doesn't mean that the Punjabi Sikh population is actually larger than it is. The census does accurately reflect declining total fertility rate among Punjabi Sikhs.

No, they are not. Girls have to wear a pajami under the chola. That's fine, bro. They can do what they want. But they can't claim to be Nihungs. If you want to wear a kurta-pajama, go for it. You cannot be a Nihang and then also choose to hide your kachera. The chola is open on both sides plus the front. The kachera is meant to show. Among other things, it verifies you're wearing a proper kachera, not wearing briefs on the sly. re: swearing, I agree that we shouldn't swear and I agree he may have gotten a bit carried away, but I'd rather have that than have males afraid that someone will see their mini-kacheras.

Yet another wannabe Nihung questioning Nihang maryada? Pathetic. First of all, read this rant from a true and proper Singh on what a man's kachera is supposed to look like. Basically, it has a wide ghera (circumference), so there are folds of cloth that prevent anybody from looking at your p#nis. Also, the man's kachera is full-length (down to your knees). It's not like a pair of form-fitting Hanes underwear. If you're wearing a proper kachera, so what if your chola flies up? You're not a girl, what does it matter? There's absolutely nothing wrong with a man being seen in his kachera. Guru Amardas ji bathed (wearing kachera) in plain sight of everyone, including his daughter. And this continues to this day (men bathe openly in front of the entire public at sarovars). So man up and don't be a sissy.

Well, do you mean that after Guru Gobind Singh ji, Sikhs started madly copying the Islamic designs? You should surely know that the Gurus themselves supervised the building of Gurdwaras, including Kartarpur Sahib, Taran Taaran, and Darbar Sahib. You've been to Amritsar, right? So is what you are really saying "Why did the Gurus copy the Muslims"? Finally, what does it really matter? I mean, are we supposed to purposely not do stuff just because "the Muslims do it"? So, if the Muslims use chairs, we can't use chairs. If the Muslims use paper and pen, we can't. If the Muslims ride horses, we can't. If the Muslims keep swords, we can't? BTW, the main purpose of the main dome is so that no one will walk over the place where Guru Sahib is prakashed.

Yeah, the article mentioned peoples' "Thai names". Thanks for elucidating on that. Strangely, the Sikhs of Thailand have made no effort to somewhat match up Sikh/Thai names phonetically. Like Dev/Dave, Hari/Harry, Pal/Paul. I would say, if they're having such a hard time of it, what's the point of living in Thailand? Just go back to India. I doubt Bangkok is better than Delhi (is it?).

My comments are interspersed. "You" might refer either to you, or to the jihadi. This is a good effort by you. I have some quibbles and suggestions, below. A general question I have for you is: Are your responses meant to be your own personal take on things? Or a "consensus" view of the Sikhs? Because if it's the latter, you might have to include some loosely worded text that you might not strictly believe in. (Or couch it in the form of "many/most Sikhs believe X. Others believe Y") Well, in your religion, if you don't agree with the philosophy of a mosque, you just blow it up. All we have are strictly worded letters (Hukumnammas), a much weaker enforcement system. I agree that in one sense the Gurus weren't Khatri (because the word or shabad didn't have a caste). But, at the same time, God chose the Khatri line to put Satguru in. In the end, that's God's choice. Moreover, can you (the jihadi) state that why Mohammed was born into the highly-esteemed Quraishi tribe? Two can play at this game. If Allah wanted to show the equality of man, and that the meek and poor can become big, then why didn't he make some limbless, deaf, dumb, blind black orphan from Africa the Prophet? Explain with citations from multiple newspapers published from Heaven. (sarc) Additionally, there might be something to explore in the fact that, traditionally, avatars/religious leaders in India were from the Khatris, like Ram ji and Krishan ji. Perhaps the point was to underline the martial identity (Chatri ko poot ho, bahman ko nahi -- Pa: 10). While I suppose I might agree that there might not have been an explicit discussion of caste in regards to the marriage of the Gurus, I think it was well understood that when a match was needed for the Gurus, that meant a Khatri girl. The same way that vegetarian Sikhs will have a hard time totally excising meat from Sikh history, I think that we simply have to accept that Guru Sahiban married within the Khatri fold. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that either, as long as you're accepting of all people as people in a loving manner, which the Gurus manifestly did. I.e., you can marry whoever you want (such as a Khatri), you just can't discriminate against them in the Gurdwara or in other fields of life. There's a guy on this forum that likes to argue that the Mughals wrote into Sikh history that the Gurus married Khatris, but come on, that's a wacko conspiracy theory with no proof whatsoever, and we open ourselves up to ridicule if we go that route. Good answers, esp. about the actual successors having done good stuff in history. What did the other claimants (Dattu, Dassu, Pirthi Chand, Dhir mal, etc.) do? Also, did Mohammed not give power and influence to friends and relatives? Well, among other reasons, we don't go around "converting" people with the sword. In fact even if you want to become a Sikh, there's no guarantee the Panj Piyare will grant you initiation with Amrit. People have free will. This isn't a "heaven" with robots. If Islam is supreme why would people leave it? Oh, what's that you say? People don't leave it? I wonder if that might have anything to do with the fact that the punishment for leaving Islam is death. That's not merely theoretical, it's written into the law of Muslim countries. That's why you have the conceit of people leaving Sikhism while they don't dare to leave Islam (not publicly, anyway). What's the point of the question? How is it that the truth of Sikhism is supposed to be shown by having copycats, and that too only in the West? Why aren't there any Prophets with a similar message to Islam in the West? (Also a stupid question.) In any case, most Sikhs believe that Sikhism is basically the ancient dharam of all, with a few superficial differences in current Sikh practice. Certainly that's true for ancient Indian dharam. What's the point of asking "in the West"? None of the Abrahamic religions are from the West, so why would ask that of Sikhism? If you like something, you want to hear more of it. If you don't, you don't. Should be simple, why can't you understand that? Gurbani is not a bunch of stories or essays. It's poetry meant to be sung. But you wouldn't understand that, because your religion bans music. How could you possibly understand the beauty of celestial music (Ilahi bani)? Your answers are good, as well. Some Sikhs have taken the tack of denying our Gurus had multiple wives, to deal with the Christians. I think this is a mistake, because the facts of history are too well-established, so we're just setting ourselves up for failure. I do agree that the notion of Guru Har Rai ji's 7 wives is debatable (not firmly coming down on one side or the other). If you want to discard that, that's fine. However, the fact of Guru Hargobind ji's 3 wives and Guru Gobind Singh ji's 3 wives can simply not be reasonably questioned. It can be questioned, but not reasonably questioned, because you have to go out on a limb, and discard so much, and then you open yourself up to attack on the basis of all of Sikh history being totally unreliable. So I would advise against that. The fact is, just like (as you mentioned) the vast majority of Sikhs have no problem with the Dasam Granth, so too the vast majority of Sikhs have no problem with the latter Gurus having multiple wives. In fact, they like it, because they think it makes them seem kingly (I agree with them). The post that you mentioned has the same old statement that the idea of Guru Gobind Singh ji's multiple wives was created by writers unfamiliar with Punjabi culture. Which is ridiculous, because Kavi Santokh Singh was unfamiliar with Punjabi culture? See my detailed respons(es) here. Yeah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think an inclusive answer would be to state that some Sikhs don't eat meat at all, for those who chose to, there are certain rules for that. As for a "clear guideline" some Sikhs (esp. meat-eaters) think that the reason for not being such a guideline is that the Gurus didn't necessarily ban meat per se, but left that up to people's discretions. I might not even totally agree with that, but when you're dealing with an outsider, you'd probably want to provide an answer on the behalf of all Sikhs. Irony detector fail. As a jihadi from the land of fatwas and beheadings and roving morality police, you're asking why Sikhs are told not to ask questions? Seriously? Agreed. Also, most of this stuff is just sniping around the edges. The jihadis' approach to daawa is to paint a ridiculous picture of how Sikhism is supposed to be if it were the "True Religion". That is, if Sikhism were the "True Religion", then nobody would ever leave it, all Sikhs would have all of Guru Granth Sahib memorized, all Sikhs could do Raag kirtan in all 31 raags plus sub-raags--in puratan stringed instruments, all Sikhs would be filthy rich, all non-Sikhs (if any existed) would be beggars, the Sikhs would have nuclear weapons, quantum computing, and faster-than-light trips to Mars, and non-Sikhs would be living in the rainforest. Nothing more than strawmen. The real question is: Are humans better off as Sikhs or Muslims? Overwhelmingly the former.

OK, well, that would be find, I guess, but that's not what the article said. The article specifically said the young Sikhs of Thailand need someone to talk to them in English. Which is weird that you'd have the high-level English skills to be able to understand someone talking about theology in English, but no more Punjabi skills than to say "more Daal" in langar. Not all countries in SE Asia are like this. In some of those countries, the Sikhs have preserved Punjabi extremely well, so they don't need any translations. I have no idea what's wrong the Sikhs in Thailand. What is totally strange is the British never even ruled Thailand! Nor any other European power. Another words, it's not even a country with an English background like India with huge numbers of kale Angrez (brown Englishmen). That is to say, such English as is learned in Thailand is totally people just learning it off of books. So if people learn English that way, then why not Punjabi? Answer: Gadari.