TheeTurbanator

The Masands were also going out and physically committing violence, which included rapes, murders, etc, it's not mere words or committing victimless crimes. I have already stated that when things get violent, then violence can be used, you are bringing up the masands as a strawman fallacy to muddy the waters. Saying that Sikhs should not assassinate people for victimless crimes and not answer non violence with violence is manmat? Can you show me of any Gurbani or History from the Guru that shows the Guru assassinating people for non physical, victimless crimes? People like you, who aren't willing to sit down and have an intellectual discussion, and just pull out a kirpan on those they disagree with are the problem in the panth. You can't just advocate violence against everyone you disagree with, you are very unreasonable. I formally challenge you to a debate to prove your argument using Gurbani and history from the Guru, will you accept?

My post wasn't showing how they are the victims, it was that a non-violent act should not be met with violence. There are other ways we can combat this than go out and assassinate people for victimless crimes. Of course they should face a punishment, however it should not be physical, let alone death. If someone changes a Khalsa practice, such as the Khand Di Phaul, then they should try to justify their views as per Gurmat, and if they fail. they should apologize, however even if they dont, they should not be killed, an excommunication and boycott is more than enough. If you are going to rebut an argument, you should at least read the entire thing in context. I am fully aware of the perpetrators of these actions, and I still agree they should not be KILLED, and in the worse case excommunicated, do you have a problem with that?

I cant read English Larivaar, can you please type your message properly so we can understand?

Am I too machinery for you?

I just learned about this issue, and I need to learn more about it before I offer my opinion.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Recently, there has been an assassination attempt on a man named "Kuldeep Singh" from Virginia, USA, over the desecration of the "Khand Di Phaul" Amrit Sanchaar ceremony of the Khalsa Panth. In May of 2016 a famous Sikh preacher named "Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale" was also faced with an assassination attempt, which was also carried out by not the Indian government or some external power, but by fellow Sikhs. Without going into the specific issues behind the motivation of their attempted assassinations or the issues themselves, I would like to discuss the very use of violence as per Sikhi. I have seen some Sikhs, as well as some users on this sub, who openly advocate for violence. I would just like to remind them that although from a Sikh point of view violence has historically been advocated and used, the context under which it was used is very important. Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself says: "ਚੁ ਕਾਰ ਅਜ਼ ਹਮਹ ਹੀਲਤੇ ਦਰ ਗੁਜ਼ਸ਼ਤ ॥ ਹਲਾਲ ਅਸਤ ਬੁਰਦਨ ਬ ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੀਰ ਦਸਤ ॥੨੨॥" "When all other methods fail, it is proper to hold the sword in hand. (22)" -Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Dasam Granth, Ang 1471 As anyone who can read can clearly see the Guru very specifically states that the sword (in this case symbolizing violence) must only be used when "all other methods fail", the Gurus message is very clear, yet its some of those who claim themselves to be Sikhs of the Guru who are having a hard time understanding what the Guru himself is saying. On the issue of those who manipulate or change Sikh practices, spread misinformation, and are disingenuous, the answer is not to go out and assassinate them or endorse physical violence against them, but to rather have an open dialogue and show them the errors of their ways, becuase dialogues are what really change peoples minds, not putting a bullet to their heads, becuase then their is no one to save. If you have to resort to violence in response to someones opinion, then you have already lost, becuase you have shown that you cannot win the battle of ideas, and thus must resort to your primal instincts. The problem with killing someone, is that you dont necessarily kill their ideas, and in some famous cases, killing someone can even act as a catalyst to spread the idea even further. A prime example of this is the Shaheedi of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, which inspired Sikhs to take up arms and fight back against the Mughal tyranny. This doesn't go to say that all people who are assassinated are morally correct, it just proves that killing someone can have the opposite intended effect. When you kill someone, you also take away their ability to later redeem themselves, and if after the fact you find out that they were innocent, you are not able to bring them back. It is only in the most dire of circumstances that physical violence should be used, becuase violence itself doesn't prove who is morally correct, only who is martially superior. Lets also not forget that when you "kill" someone, as per Sikhi, you aren't killing them but rather just their physical vessel. On a deeper philosophical level, according to Sikhi, everything and everyone is just another form of ੴ, which is ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ (Akaal murat), meaning essentially beyond, above, not subject to ("A" prefix), death, time, end (Kaal), "Image" personified (murat), so in essence, "you" aren't killing anything. The concept of Justice is often confused with Revenge. Revenge is one-sided, and motivated by self-interest, Justice is impartial. Revenge is more "An eye for an eye", while Justice provides a solution to the problem, and tries to resolve it. Revenge is often driven exclusively by emotion, while Justice is usually driven by logic and rationality. Often times people like to bring up the historical example of Guru Gobind Singh Ji ordering Banda Singh Bahadur to fight the Mughal forces. This was not done out of "revenge" for the brutal execution of the Chaar Sahibzaade, the 4 biological "sons" of the Guru (technically all Sikhs are his sons), but rather to deliver the long awaited Justice to the Mughals, to free people from their oppression, take back stolen land, and as a defense mechanism to prevent further conflict and oppression. Sikhi does not advocate the concept of revenge as many claim, however it does fully advocate Justice. "ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕੇ ਭਗਤ ਨਿਰਵੈਰ ॥" "The devotees of the Supreme Lord God are beyond hate and vengeance." -Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1145 One might ask, if unjustified violence and forms of revenge are not acceptable in Sikhi, then how should Sikhs deal with serious issues of those who attack Sikhs and Sikhi by manipulating traditions, spreading misinformation, being corrupt, etc? There are a verity of different ways Sikhs can deal with these issues: Education: The most effective, and tired and true method to change people has allways been education. If you disagree with someone, instead of trying to assassinate them, its a better idea to get to understand their point of view, and change it. Check out this article on how to change peoples minds. Ignoring: Oftentimes people just do stupid stuff for attention without having a hidden agenda or malicious intent, if this is the case, then just ignore them and deny them any attention. Check out this article on 10 tips to dealing with Trolls. Denunciations, boycotts, or even excommunication: In the worst case scenarios (aside from using physical violence), denunciations, boycotts, etc are to be used when the individual refuses to change their ways despite every other effort. This has historically been used by the Khalsa Panth and even the Guru himself, it is reffered to as "tankhiya". However, a tankhiya is not the end, and their is allways an option for redemption, but that is up to the Khalsa Panth and Guru to decide. These are just a few of many options, however the main idea is that there is a long list of protocols one must follow before physical violence can even be an option.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-worst-ever-child-grooming-12165527

You are not what you identify as, just as I cant just identify as an Apache Attack Helicopter as my gender. There is a reason why the Guru himself put the definition of a "Sikh" in Gurbani, the Guru also excommunicated people and no longer declared them his Sikhs, so your argument comes from a point of ego and is not inline with Gurbani or History.

Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru the True Guru shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name. ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥ Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar. ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥ Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased. ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name. ਜੋ ਸਾਸਿ ਗਿਰਾਸਿ ਧਿਆਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥ One who meditates on my Lord, Har, Har, with every breath and every morsel of food - that GurSikh becomes pleasing to the Guru's Mind. ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਦਇਆਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਮੇਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਸੁਣਾਵੈ ॥ That person, unto whom my Lord and Master is kind and compassionate - upon that GurSikh, the Guru's Teachings are bestowed. ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਧੂੜਿ ਮੰਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਆਪਿ ਜਪੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥੨॥ Servant Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself chants the Naam, and inspires others to chant it. ||2||

But then if there is no free will, what’s the point of Dharam? I know that’s the “only Waheguru knows” question, but seriously. Also, in response to “ape beej ape khao” line, you said that: “if you do the actions with doership*/indentity/ego then cycle of karma ensues then you will get fruit based on those actions.” but using that logic, YOU are still DOING something, doesn’t that imply free will? Why would Gurbani constantly tell us to jaap Naam, etc if in the end everything is done by the one? Whats the point? Why would the One fool parts of himself into thinking they are separate?

Also, just a quick question for you since your already here: In regards to the concept of free will (or lack there of) how come in Japji Sahib it tells us that we reap what we sow (ape beej ape khao) but then a few tuks layer says that we do not have the “jor” or power to do anything. My friend thinks that humans have free will and that what separates them from animals is their intellect, however he interprets “hukam” as laws of nature (gravity, etc) and advocates the notion “we” have free will. How would you proceed with this?

Can you please link me to previous posts on this topic? Every time I search, I get 0 results for some reason. Also, I really don’t like the attitude a lot of posters have here, they don’t go into depth and deal with specific points, they just repeat what baba (insert name here) said and accept it as the 100% truth.

That makes no sense from a point of Gurmat. Just think about it, none of the Abrahamic texts or the Vedas were written by the founders. Also, since Sikhi is against a lot of stuff in their core beliefs anyways, why would it say to contemplate upon its teachings when the core concepts are against Gurmat? If you plant a bad seed, no matter how well you take care of it, you will get bad fruit. This is why when the Guru re-defines what a “true Muslim” is in Gurbani, god deffinition is fundamentally different from what is officially accepted by all the Islamic schools of thought today. There is a specific reason the path of the Sikh Dharma was re-established in Kal Yug by the form of the Guru known as Guru Nanak Dev Ji, otherwise the Guru could have just reformed any of the other faiths. The reason Sikhi came was because the fundamental bases that the others were built upon were not solid in acordance to Gurmat.

Again, no one is making that argument. You are literally taking my statement out of context and creating a strawman fallacy. If you properly read my original comment, I had already defined a "Kaur" by the action of receiving Khand Di Phaul, NOT by "what she wears on her head", this by itself is already enough to dispel your stupid strawman argument. Oh and by the way, "Kaur" doesn't mean princess, it means next in line for the thrown, its a gender neutral term, and there has been a Khalsa by the name of Akali Kaur Singh who used Kaur in his name, is he a princess too? You, and her both took that statement out of context, and dont understand the meaning behind it. I was specifically reffering to my personal observation that I have seen where those who Sikh women who do wear a Dastaar happen to allways be initiated. It cant be a stereotype or a lie becuase its my personal observation, im not stating its a fact that holds true for every single area around the world. You and her are both so disingenuous and are fighting over a strawman fallacy you created in your own minds. You dont have a valid argument so you have to deliberately change and misrepresent what the other person is saying to attack them. Im done wasting my time with you people.

No one here, including myself, is advocating that external identity by itself without proper actions will work. Im literally just stating my observations. Its not a stereotype or a lie, its my observation as I clearly said at the top of my comment. As for Singhs, its obvious that 99% of Singhs regularly wear the Dastaar, whole the same cannot be said for Kaurs. My argument was never that every single Sikh man or Women wears a dastaar as a "fact", my observation was that out of Sikh women who wear a Dastaar, almost all of them happen to be initiated into the Khalsa Panth, this isnt the same as saying that out of those who are initiated almost all wear dastaars. You need to learn how to read and contemplate what other people are saying before you accuse others of stereotyping or lying.

You are full of EGO, the entire point of receiving Khand Di Phaul is to give your head to the Guru, and follow the Guru hukam, not your own. Amrit doesn't come from drinking out of an iron bowl, Amrit comes from living the message of Bani, which includes giving ones head to the Guru. Simply drinking sugar water will not give you salvation. Honestly, even if the Panj Pyare somehow allow you to receive Khand Di Phaul, the Guru will never bless you with Amrit as long as you are so full of Ego. You can fool mortals into initiating you, but you cant fool the Guru.

Historically speaking, Sikh women would very rarely wear a Dastaar, and about 150 to 200 years ago, Sikh women would also rarely by initiated using the Khand Di Phaul ceremony. Sikh women would historcualy tie a top knot, and cover it with a chunni. Some would wear a patka type of material. The key here is that Sikh women would almost allways cover their hair, especially in Public. The Dastaar was very popular for most Sikh men, and seen as a requirement for Singhs, those Sikh men who are initiated into the Khalsa Panth. Just notice the different standards for genders here. It seems that the rise of the dastaar for Sikh women is a recent phenomenon of women wanting to identity more with their Sikh roots, especially in the west I have noticed. The dastaar for women is also something thats really popular among the sect of the Khalsa Panth called the "AKJ", who generally believe that both genders should wear it, and even have a Keski as a Kakar. I studied in India for about 5-6 years, and almost never saw a Dastaar wearing Sikh women, or even Kaur. However in Canada, they are all over the place. I just recently came back from Punjab, and honestly, not much has changed, and you cant tell a Kaur apart from your average Hindu. The Kaurs, especially in India, dont have as strong as an identity as Singhs do. They dont even wear the same top knot style that Sikh women historically did.

If you give your head to the Guru, and dont want to represent the Khalsa identity by wearing a Dastaar , then thats your choice, im just stating what I have personally seen in my community where i live. I literally said at the top if my comment that its my observation, im not passing it off as face and saying my opinions are statistically factual or anything. What I have personalty noticed is that those Sikh women who wear a Dastaar are almost allways initiated into the Khalsa Panth: Kaur. I didnt state that ALL who are initiated wear Dastaars, just that in my expedience those who happen to wear one are initiated, you are conflating the two. Respect to your sister, you as a Kaur should try to do the same. In case you didnt pick up on it before in my comment, I define a Kaur as a Sikh women who has received Khand Di Phaul (Amrit). The entire point of a Sikh changing their last name to Singh or Kaur is that they go through a transformation to become initiated into the Khalsa Panth and become reborn into the Khalsa Family. Not even a single Guru, even Guru Gobind Singh Ji (who was previopusly known as Gobind Rai) was born with Singh or Kaur, it was only after the Guru received Khand Di Phaul and was the 6th person to be initated (first 5 were panj pyare) did he call himself a Singh. Sikhi, especially the Khalsa Sub tradition is not passed on through blood or culture, its earned through individual merit. Singh and Kaur was once an honorable title, when a Singh would get on a train, people would feel safe, now the once honorable Khalsa titles are diluted by Punjabi culture...but thats a story for another time.

My observation is that for every 10 Sikh man (may or may not be a Singh) wearing a Dastaar, there is 1 Sikh women (almost always a Kaur) who wears a Dastaar. The amount of women who wear Dastaars is and has always been lower than men, this is because historically and even today the dastaar is seen as more masculine by society. There is also the issue of higher beauty standards for women, that don’t affect men that much. Those women who do wear Dastaars, are always Kaur’s, Sikh women who have received Khand Di Phaul initiation into the Khalsa Panth.

@MrDoaba accept the True Guru: Siri Guru Granth Shaib Ji, and give up your cultist ways!

If this site is so bad, then why dont you make your own site and then we can criticize it. You attack this site, but fail to provide meaningful feedback on how they can improve, you are a part of the problem.

I would personalty not drag out this topic, but I wouldn’t infringe on the rights of those who wish to discuss it. It’s better to leave it than to censor conversation. Even if you censor this topic, more are bound to come up.

Please, if you do not have a proper understanding of Gurbani, and don’t even properly read my post, do not comment.

Did you even read the article that I posted? Did you even read anything I wrote in my post? I and the article have already addressed both these issues.