Can A 'mona' Ever Be Classed As As Sikh ?

[KHaNdA_NaTioN]

Just because someone is born into a Sikh family it does not necessarily mean that you are a Sikh. If someone cuts his/her hair he/she not considered a sikhs but is considered a Punjabi,etc... Thas why we shud keep our hair and be proud to be sikhs.

[KHaNdA_NaTioN]

but still the monay are learners and someday they will keep their hair too. Dont pick on monay, sahajdharis,etc... we are all learners. But to be considered a Sikh one should keep his/her hair. BUT to be considered a Khalsa and the Daughter or Son of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaaj one should take Amrit and be baptized to become an amritdahri. And Once you are an amiritdhari, follow the rules that Guru Ji set for you!

bhull chukk maaf

[Bijla Singh]

I would like to address the post by valli singh who has brought up some interesting points.

2. The letter was written to two persons who from their name are obviously not Singhs but with 'Chand' surname hence not amritdhari.

No doubt that they were not Amrtidharis but it doesn’t establish that they were monay. They had faith in Guru Sahib so it is reasonable to assume that they did not follow any other religion and were slowly becoming Sikhs. Probably they were from Hindu background living in the East since most Hukamnamas were written to the Sangat in East. There is no evidence that they were born in Amritdhari families and then cut their hair and still remained “Sehajdhari”. Term Sehajdhari was reserved for non-Sikhs who slowly adopted Sikhi. They were required to keep kesh and rehat. Diwan Kaura Mall was also a Sehajdhari but not a mona. Someone who trims/cuts hair and commits bajjar kurehat cannot be classified as a “sehajdhari” let alone a Sikh.

The most odd thing is that Guru ji clearly says "Tusi Mera Khalsa Ho" ie You are my Khalsa". This is unusual in the sense that it means Guruji was not reserving the term Khalsa only for Amritdharis but for some Sahejdhari Sikhs as well.

Word Khalsa has multiple meanings and is used differently depending on the context. Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji also used the same word in the same context and for the same meanings in their hukamnamas. In Persian, the word means someone who is pure (immersed in Naam) and lives truthful living. In Gurmat, this meaning is accepted for the Khalsa. In Arabic, the word was used for property, piece of land, certain group or an individual that was directly controlled by the supreme government. Any property whose tax was directly paid to the Delhi government (instead of local government official) was called Khalsa. Same applied to people. Guru Sahib was terminating Masand system and encouraging Sikhs to directly send their contributions or by using hundi. This establishes that in hukamnamas Arabic meaning is implied rather than Persian.

Further, Guru Sahib says “Tusi Mera Khalsa Ho” which clearly proves that they were directly under the control of Guru Sahib and responsible for giving contributions instead of going through masands. This word was not used for Amritdharis because Amrtidhari Khalsa is always referred to as Khalsa of Akal Purakh. Guru Sahib says that Khalsa is an army of Akal Purakh. Guru Sahib never called Amrtidharis “Mera Khalsa”. Hence, term Khalsa (in Persian context) is reserved for Amrtidharis. In Gurmat there is only one type of Khalsa and that is Amrtidharis or Guru-Wala. So whoever took charan pahul and Naam was also a Khalsa but the word was not is usage at the time. Sikh, Gursikh, Khalsa are the same. Outside of Gurmat this word can be used to imply different meanings. Bhagat Kabir Ji has used this word. Some scholars interpret it in the context of becoming free from rituals and karam kaand and coming under the direct control of Waheguru.

4. Guru ji appears to be more concerned about by-passing the Masands for remitting the offerings directly to Guru ji rather than anything such as urge them to get baptised.

5. In terms of physical appearance (such as kakkaars etc) again Guruji is more particular about the Sikhs arriving with weapons on their person rather than fomally being baptised and bearing "Singh" surname.

These are your opinions but without any concrete evidence. Guru Sahib started Khanday Ki Pahul as a requirement to become Guru-wala. He did not make it optional. How can one become a guru-wala without taking Amrit? True gursikhs are given the status of Guru’s image and only they have the right to be in Panj Pyare. Rehat is more important and keeping weapons is part of it. Guru Sahib did not prioritize the rehat and considered one thing more important than the other. Whatever Guru Sahib has said and told us to do bear an equal weight.

7. The rigid definition of a Khalsa that we are now given to accept does not seem to apply here. The main criteria for a Khalsa Guru ji appears to be emphasising is not to use the Masand channel to approach Guruji but to have direct connection with Guru ji. Indeed this is what the word "Khalisah" meant in the then existing usage of this term in the Mughal revenue administration of that time.

This is not the only definition. It was used by the Mughals to collect taxes from land and people. Would you say then a piece of land is also a Khalsa and equal to Amrtidharis who take part in Panj Pyare? Please don’t mix up the contexts. Many words like Amrit, Ved, Raam, Atma etc have multiple meanings and so does Khalsa. In Gurmat, only one definition is accepted that is the Persian one. Even if we apply the Arabic definition it would only mean that Khalsa is under the direct command of Akal Purakh (worships only Akal Purakh) which would mean that Guru Sahib couldn’t have called Amrtidhari Khalsa “Mera Khalsa” even in Arabic context. In hukamnamas, “Khalsa” is used in general political context rather than Gurmat context. Guru Rakha

[Papi]

I can't believe this (mostly) idiotic thread has not been close yet !

I repeat, Who are you (we) to classify anyone as sikh or non-sikh !!!

Saarey guru baney firdey aa <_<

[Gurdaspuria E12]

Im a mona

I believe in everything about sikhism

I know when I cut my hair i am breaking my link with the guru

Moreover I feel I am not sikh (I emphasize that I believe in every single thingh in sikhism I have been on a journey and have made some steps next of which is to grow my hair when my family permits)

Take a look at this

Guru Gobind Singh told his Khalsa;

"This my order, listen my beloved.

Without Hair and Sword, do not come to me.

Without the rehit, do not call yourself a Sikh.

Without the rehit, you will be suffering."

The first rehit should be taken as being the taking of Amrit.

Therefore we mona do not deserve to have any voting rights in any panthic organisation unless we are baptised by the double edged sword.

Simple no need to over complicate

[Parm Singh]

I can't believe this (mostly) idiotic thread has not been close yet !

I repeat, Who are you (we) to classify anyone as sikh or non-sikh !!!

I agree, this thread is a FAIL and some of the people who replied aswell, funny how the whey and meat threads get closed down straight away. but the admins enjoy to keeping the mona bashing threads open, i guess they are enjoying it :rolleyes:

[Bijla Singh]

I repeat, Who are you (we) to classify anyone as sikh or non-sikh !!!

It is not we who determine who is a Sikh or not but Bani, Vaars and Rehat. One can easily use these references to determine who is a Sikh and who isn't. It isn't a very complicated thing. Gurmat is a path of salvation and those who don't follow it are not part of it. By the same argument who are we to determine who is a rapist, criminal, immoral and a corrupt person. Lets open up all the jails and let everyone go free because who are we to classify anyone. Right? Your argument should be applicable to everyone else otherwise it doesn't work. There are certain guidelines and principles that are used in every society, religion and culture. Sikhi also has its own guidelines which we call rehat which can be used to determine who is a Sikh and who isn't. If we didn't have this right then anyone would call themselves Sikh and Christians, Muslims and Brahmins would want to run our Gurdwaras and we all know how that turned out when British ruled India. Being a non-Sikh doesn't make anyone inferior or a bad person.

[Papi]

bani, vaars etc are meant as self reflection not to point fingers at others.

Anyways, keep on telling others they are not sikh and washing their karams :D I'm outta here

Bijla Singh, I had a lot of respect for you, but it seems to be going away day by day ....

[Only five]

I repeat, Who are you (we) to classify anyone as sikh or non-sikh !!!

It is not we who determine who is a Sikh or not but Bani, Vaars and Rehat. One can easily use these references to determine who is a Sikh and who isn't. It isn't a very complicated thing. Gurmat is a path of salvation and those who don't follow it are not part of it. By the same argument who are we to determine who is a rapist, criminal, immoral and a corrupt person. Lets open up all the jails and let everyone go free because who are we to classify anyone. Right? Your argument should be applicable to everyone else otherwise it doesn't work. There are certain guidelines and principles that are used in every society, religion and culture. Sikhi also has its own guidelines which we call rehat which can be used to determine who is a Sikh and who isn't. If we didn't have this right then anyone would call themselves Sikh and Christians, Muslims and Brahmins would want to run our Gurdwaras and we all know how that turned out when British ruled India. Being a non-Sikh doesn't make anyone inferior or a bad person.

:goodpost: :whs:

bani, vaars etc are meant as self reflection not to point fingers at others.

:homer

Not pointing fingers defining what a Sikh is, there is a difference here, let's see if you can spot it.

[Bijla Singh]

Anyways, keep on telling others they are not sikh and washing their karams I'm outta here

Karmas are washed by either naam or if someone does ninda. If I tell a Christian or a Muslim that he is not a Sikh, is that ninda? If I say hitler and Indira Gandhi weren't Sikhs, is that ninda? A non-Punjabi has to keep kesh and take Amrit in order to become a Sikh but Punjabis cut their hair and still remain a Sikh. Why? Keep in mind, I am not calling monay people bad or immoral. They are still people and humans. Being a non-Sikh doesn't make them inferior and it is not an insult. If I follow Gurbani, I am a Sikh. If I follow Quran I am a Muslim so on and so forth. If I cut my hair I am a mona (not a Sikh). Period.

Bijla Singh, I had a lot of respect for you, but it seems to be going away day by day ....

You do not have to respect me. If I have to turn against Gurbani to earn someone's respect then I rather not have it. At least show some respect to Gurbani by acknowledging what is written. Do not defy it by mixing your personal thoughts. A nigura person is not considered a Sikh in Gurbani.