'shaheed'

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

How can a mona be shaheed in our religion when he can't even listen to our Sri Guru jis and be keshdari.. Think about that for a moment.

The definition of "Shaheed" isn't one who obeys the Gurus every command, it is one who gives his life in defence of religion. You need to drop this, don't even try putting down guys like Deepa Heranwala.

EDIT: LOL ^^

[proactive]

This has to be one of the most stupidest discussions ever on SS. While I agree that titles such as Mahanpurkh and Brahmgiani are thrown around without any care to whether the title is justified or not.

So those who think that Bhai Jashjeet Singh was not a shaheed then I suppose all those pilgrims that the Indian army murdered in Harmandir Sahib in 1984 were also not shaheeds. After all they were there just to worship and it was not a conscious choice they made to stay there, it was the army which did not allow them to come out. So how about the youth that the army murdered with their hand tied behind their backs? After all they did not chose to be shot, it was the army in their destroy all attitude that caused the murder of the youth. How about the innocent Sikh youth that the police and army murdered in operation Woodrose and after?

The definition of Shaheed in Sikhism is anyone who has lost his life solely for the reason that they were Sikhs or because they were identifiable as Sikhs. So this is why the pilgrims and youths at Harmandir Sahib were shaheed because they lost their lives because they were Sikhs and murdered because the army wanted to cause the maximum damage to Sikhism. Bhai Jashjeet Singh lost his life either because he was part of the protests or because he was clearly identifiable as a Sikh and the police man who murdered him wanted to cause harm to Sikhism by taking a Sikh life. Sikhism is different from other religions because it is well nigh impossible for a Sikh to deny that he is a Sikh in order to save his life. Therefore the very fact that one is a Sikh especially in an oppressive state like India, one has already made a conscious decision to give up your life for Sikhi which some of the posters state is a pre-requisitive for being considered a martyr.

For a mona to be shaheed he has to make a conscious decision to be identified as a Sikh at a time when being a Sikh is tantamount to having signed your own death warrant.. This is why even the mona Kharkoos are shaheeds because they made a conscious decision to fight for and identify with the Sikh fight for freedom.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

The title 'Shaheed' should be conferred upon only someone who knowingly and willingly lays down their life for Sikhi, i.e. a conscious decision to embrace a guaranteed death.

When it comes to high-pressure situations such as a protest and a march for a cause, I find the line becomes a bit blurred. In that situation you could argue you're taking your life into your own hands, but equally you don't wish to die, although there's a chance you might. In that situation I honestly don't know what those who lose their lives should be termed as.

What's Bhai Fauja Singh Ji to you?

[MisterrSingh]

What's Bhai Fauja Singh Ji to you?

That's what I was saying earlier. I'm erring towards Shaheed though, because of the situation they were in. Of course, looking at Bhai Fauja Singh's life beyond the incident that caused their death would tell you they were a remarkable individual and worthy of the honour of being labeled a Shaheed.

Some may call it semantics, but giving someone such a title should not be taken lightly IMO.

[Balkaar]

-

 

[Singhshaster]

In my Nana's Pind, Talhan, dist. Jalandhar, there is a Guru Ghar that was erected in memory of a bazurg Gursikh who was named a Shaheed after he met with an accident in a well whilst installing a pulley. His name was Baba Nihaal Singh. He was an upstanding Sikh, but to call him a martyr for dying whilst going about his daily profession really is extravagantly silly.

Its not just the term Shaheed that gets thrown around with careless abandon. Mahapurakh, Sant, Giani, Brahmgiani, all of these titles are administered too readily.

I've been there, it's the only place I've seen with so many Akhand Paaths going on at the same time. I never knew that was how he became 'shaheed'.

In my opinion to become shaheed is a very big honour. Only after doing lots of kamai in this life or past lives, one can become a shaheed. We can carry on giving titles or saying so and so is shaheed or not but only Guru Sahib knows who is a true shaheed.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

The normal definition of something is the definition that most people use. That's why it's called norm-al, or that which is prevailing.

Forget being dharmic, what you should really focus on Preeet is purchasing a dictionary.

I really want to know how Sikhi is normal by any means?

[Balkaar]

I really want to know how Sikhi is normal by any means?

Last time I remember, the Sikh dharmic def wasn't normal. I was talking based on a Sikh viewpoint, not in a normal view, since this is a Sikh website.

What in God's name are the two of you talking about? I wasn't saying Sikhi was normal, only that if an opinion is held by most Sikhs on a subject, such as the meaning of the word Shaheed, then it is by definition the normal view among Sikhs.

Are you determined to take objection to everything I write, ever?

[Balkaar]

More like the normal definition among Middle Easterns.. Remember that we aren't Middle Eastern and that we have different definitions to some words if they apply to something new. Such as, our religion?? If it's applied in a Sikh point of view, then the meaning can be different and only applied to our sangh, rather than the 'normal'.

Are we ever going to agree on ANYTHING?

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Are we ever going to agree on ANYTHING?

I don't think you and Preet will ever agree on anything.