Khushwant Singh And His Continuing Distortion Of Sikhism

[buddasingh]

Your logic is glaringly void of context,... based on living in a vacuum fallacy.

This clearly illustrates the harms in social constructs.

I guess you should abolish ALL social constructs?

Is the term muslim sikh also contradictory? What about indian sikh, british sikh, american sikh, human sikh, sikh human???

muslim sikh? yes, that's contradictory. one cannot follow two faiths at the same time. neither islam nor sikhi would allow this.

indian sikh, british sikh, american sikh... no, those are not contradictory. india, britain, and america are simply places. american sikh means a sikh from america. it does not indicate any rank or social standing, it's simply a descriptive term.

when one attaches the "caste" to the word sikh, it is only to try to show superiority/inferiority, which is contrary to gurmat and so yes, "jatt sikh" is contradictory.

i hope you can understand this, if not, feel free to ask questions.

-jasleen (american sikh, no caste thank you very much) kaur

What about those sikhs that don't follow a faith? Would a muslim follower of Guru Nanak be denied the right to be called a sikh? Did Gurus jis want people to deny their background to become their followers?

May I call Mardana and his descendents as muslim sikhs, or is this politicall incorrect? I do not follow the same notion and post-colonial construct of faith and religion as you.

So by calling myself jatt sikh, I am projecting myself as superior/inferior please explain how?

What if i said by calling yourself american sikh you are projecting yourself as inferior/superior?

How about if I called american a caste, do u like that? ))))

Do you see native american tribes such as sioux and aztecs as castes, or only north indian tribes such as jatts?

Does Guru Ji say it is important for a follower to call him/herself "sikh"? Are the terms disciple/follower/chella/murid/shishya valid?

[jasleen k]

What about those sikhs that don't follow a faith? Would a muslim follower of Guru Nanak be denied the right to be called a sikh? Did Gurus jis want people to deny their background to become their followers?

May I call Mardana and his descendents as muslim sikhs, or is this politicall incorrect? I do not follow the same notion and post-colonial construct of faith and religion as you.

So by calling myself jatt sikh, I am projecting myself as superior/inferior please explain how?

What if i said by calling yourself american sikh you are projecting yourself as inferior/superior?

How about if I called american a caste, do u like that? ))))

Do you see native american tribes such as sioux and aztecs as castes, or only north indian tribes such as jatts?

Does Guru Ji say it is important for a follower to call him/herself "sikh"? Are the terms disciple/follower/chella/murid/shishya valid?

someone who does not follow any faith is not a sikh. sikhism is a faith, followers of sikhism are called sikhs.

followers of islam are called muslims. one cannot follow islam and sikhism at the same time as there are many contradictions between the two, so no, one cannot be a muslim sikh. followers of Guru Nanak Dev ji were sikhs. the fact that they were born to another faith has nothing to do with it. one makes a conscious decision to follow Sikhi, we are not "born" into it like hindus.

no, "american" cannot be a caste, it denotes place of origin or residency. when you get your "jattistan", then jatt sikh will be acceptable as a regional moniker. until then, it's just a lable some sikhs like to use to make themselves feel superior, based on the obsurd british notion of "martial race". you do know that the britts just cooked up that term so they could keep dividing and conquering india, right?

the term sikh (or the sanskrit shishya) indicates a specific teacher/student relationship. we are not only students, we are students of our Guru. that is understood through the term sikh. it's also used frequently in Gurbani. if you prefer to be called "chella", i can accomodate that. if you're not ready to be called a Sikh, i understand, it's a huge and life changing decision.

i hope this helps clarify things for you.

[Guru_Da_Chella]

Your logic is glaringly void of context,... based on living in a vacuum fallacy.

a dyson perhaps?

[Guru_Da_Chella]

someone who does not follow any faith is not a sikh. sikhism is a faith, followers of sikhism are called sikhs.

What about those follow Guru Nanak or sikh panth, and this sikh"ism", can they be called sikhs, or perhaps you are talking about Sikhs? I do not know of Guru Nanak asking his sikhs to belong to a faith?

followers of islam are called muslims. one cannot follow islam and sikhism at the same time as there are many contradictions between the two, so no, one cannot be a muslim sikh. followers of Guru Nanak Dev ji were sikhs. the fact that they were born to another faith has nothing to do with it. one makes a conscious decision to follow Sikhi, we are not "born" into it like hindus.

A muslim can follow the Gurus, such as as Pir Nanak or uch ka pir Guru Gobind Singh. The fact is, not everyone is limited by relgious constructs, and before the british raaj, they definetly weren't. This abrahmic ideology of religion/faith doesn't apply to sikhs and hindus. A person doesn't need to belong to a religion to follow Guru Ji, religion is just like having a caste, and divides humans at a more global level than caste ever did.

no, "american" cannot be a caste, it denotes place of origin or residency. when you get your "jattistan", then jatt sikh will be acceptable as a regional moniker. until then, it's just a lable some sikhs like to use to make themselves feel superior, based on the obsurd british notion of "martial race". you do know that the britts just cooked up that term so they could keep dividing and conquering india, right?

well yes, I know british also used the martial race term to describe sikhs as well. I can use sikh as a label, so whats wrong with a sikh from a jatt background. It doesn't make me feel superior, its just being honest.

Would you like someone to come up with a loophole where you're not allowed to be called an american sikh?

I wonder how the native american tribes would feel if they were banned from using their tribal names?

the term sikh (or the sanskrit shishya) indicates a specific teacher/student relationship. we are not only students, we are students of our Guru. that is understood through the term sikh. it's also used frequently in Gurbani. if you prefer to be called "chella", i can accomodate that. if you're not ready to be called a Sikh, i understand, it's a huge and life changing decision.

Well if we are students of the Guru, then does that make it a religion, student"ism"? I do not see whether calling myself sikh or not changes being a follower of the Gurus. I maybe a sikh, but I'll never be a Sikh.

A sikh maybe a discple, but a Sikh is a division, which I don't really see any differently from caste.

i hope this helps clarify things for you.

Ditto :D

[jasleen k]

sorry, i didn't realize dhanna the jatt had changed his name.

nevermind veer, i know it's absolutely pointless to discuss anything with a "snatan" sikh.

[Guru_Da_Chella]

sorry, i didn't realize dhanna the jatt had changed his name.

at the request of the moderators

nevermind veer, i know it's absolutely pointless to discuss anything with a "snatan" sikh.

if you say so... :D

[Guru_Da_Chella]

sorry, i didn't realize dhanna the jatt had changed his name.

at the request of the moderators

nevermind veer, i know it's absolutely pointless to discuss anything with a "snatan" sikh.

if you say so... :D