Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Would you call our moneh boys "sikhs" ?

Recommended Posts

Guest

A basic analysis : 

If you look at most religions worldwide , it is only the core priestly class which follows the tenets of religion to fullest. The laymen are either not required or not bothered. 

Sikh gurus were of the vision that the priest and common man should have the same spiritual opportunity. For this reason, Guru Gobind Singh ji gave  5 kakkars to all of us, not just the granthi.  He gave turbans to all of us , not just the political ruler.

This is in stark contrast to both hinduism and islam.

Most hindu men don't keep uncut hair or keep tilak , even though all rishis (who wrote vedas) did have uncut hair much like sikhs, the pandits do wear bodi and tilak. Some hindu communities require boys to pierce ears (one time childhood event).

Most muslim men don't wear turban or keep beard like the prophet, even though the imams of mosques do. Islam requires boys to be circumcised (one time childhood event).

Most hindu women are still expected to wear saree, sindoor, mangalsutar and other external signs of hinduism (life long)

Most muslim women are expected to wear hijab (life long).

So , as it is in both hinduism and islam, it is men who're let off lightly when it comes to religious discipline while women do have to carry the weight with them. Women are seen as flagbearers of culture.

Also islam and hinduism both believe in mutilation of some sort as noted above.

Sikhi on the other hand is so opposed to altering god's gifts that we don't even permitted to cut our hair .

Carrying religious articles in sikhi is opposite . Men wear turbans and keep beards (life long) , while women can do eyebrows and no one cares. If a boy however cut his hair , it raises eyes. In sikh communities, men are the flagbearers of culture. 

It seems many (some?) of our boys nowadays don't bother much about it. Somewhere in the 70s, we started going down the slippery slope where our boys started shedding hairs faster than we could cope. And once a guy cut his hair , his son also wouldn't keep it , and then sikhi goes off in that lineage. 

Today, we face a horde of young sikh men who don't look sikh . They keep really short hair like models and don't wear turbans. Kada is convenient , so its always there in hand. 

But the larger question is "Is such a man sikh ?" If not, then what is he ? 

Are we ultimately going to become like other communities , where only the priests keep religious articles while laymen don't ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't wear a turban? I believe documented history suggests he wore a 'seli-tioi' he also seemed to be in favour of dressing eclectically challenging the idea of uniformity? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I would disagree.. They not khalsa but they might be Sikh 

There are no might be Sikhs. You can either be a Sikh or not a Sikh. Choice is yours.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I would disagree.. They not khalsa but they might be Sikh 

Troll, you need to stop living off welfare checks and get a job.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were so many in the sangat of guru sahib who had not take amrit. They might have eventually taken it. Like for example Bhai Nand Lal ji. A lot of his writing is were written before he took amrit. So let's not start labeling everyone. they may eventually take amrit. Some people also start putting down other jathas by saying so they do not follow puratan maryada hence they are not true gursikhs. Just worry about yourself. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Preeet said:

Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa
Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh, ji

I don't think it's about being amritdhari.. I think it's about 'monehs' taking part in bujjar kurehits, hence they are not considered sikh by some. Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh

Look at this disgusting poster.  She argues on this forum to say Hindus are Sikhs but now tells us those who cut hair are not Sikhs. Even besharam people don't want to be seen with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Look at this disgusting poster.  She argues on this forum to say Hindus are Sikhs but now tells us those who cut hair are not Sikhs. Even besharam people don't want to be seen with you.

She's quite the confused character 😂 or just a very transparent "undercover Hindu."

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 5akaalsingh said:

Not acknowledging Sehajdharis as Sikhs would do more harm than good. We're gonna lose demographics just because of pointless discrimination. There are lots of monas who have immense respect for Guru Granth Sahib, more than many amritdharis.

Twisting the meaning of sehajdhari will be doing more harm than good individually and collectively.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Twisting the meaning of sehajdhari will be doing more harm than good individually and collectively.  

but hasn't it already...used to mean from non-sikh to sikh , not mona manmukh guilty of going against Guru ji's bachan.

As Christians say you cannot serve two masters (God and Mammon/maya) 

These guys need to drop the babey, murti puja, ganne, mardian masney, burre burre  and get straight with Guru ji

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Balkaar said:

What actual good is going to come of this question? There are 25 million Sikhs across the planet, as compared to the 1 billion+ adherents of Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism, all three of which harbor malicious designs against Gursikhi, and you actually wanna reduce the number of Sikhs even further?  

'Sikh' and 'Singh' were never even considered to be the same thing up until very recently. I'd encourage those members arguing otherwise to investigate historical accounts from the era of the Sikh confederacy/empire and base their judgement on these itihaasic facts rather than 20th century prejudices. In particular the distinction between 'Khalsa' and 'Khulasa' Sikhs. 

Just as Sikhs are being whitewashed out of the history of India, the contributions of Sehajdhari Sikhs are also being whitewashed out of the history of the qaum. 

maybe we should encourage their taking up sikhi proper, dastar and gurroop:

1. to protect our sisters, daughters, mothers from fakes

2. to maintain the trust of Guru ji and millions of ancestor who trod the path before us

3. to give something back to the community and to ensure continuity of the panth

 

for the girls :

1. to ensure our community grows and has a healthy egalatarian aspect

2. to create self-empowered gursikhs for the future

3. to create even more role models for up and coming generations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use