D&D Religion's "Ask About Sikhism" Thread

Scroll to see replies

The Guru Granth Sahib is the "prophet" you are refering to, not a person.

Well a prophet by definition reveals prophecies. The Guru Granth sahib reveals prophecies, hence this wording is justified.

Although I should mention that this does not mean that the Guru Granth Sahib is worshipped in any way. God and the Gurus are distinctly separate, and this applies to the Guru Granth Sahib. The human Gurus were never worshipped, hence we should not worship the Guru Granth Sahib. If we did, then that would be bordering on idolatry, which we are forbidden to perfrom.

-Men and women given full and complete equality in every aspect of their lives (Sikhism is the only religion to do this)
-We do not undertake fasts
-We do not undertake pilgrimages
-We grow our hair (we're the only religion where most of the followers do this)
-We are not permitted to sacrifice animals for God/s
-We only have monogamous marriages

These are all new aspects that other religions at that time had not come up with. There are of course many other areas in which Sikhism deviates from other religions.

As I suspected. There is no new or revolutionary (theological) concept within Sikhism that previous religions haven't already come up with. Your belief of God and concept of God (monotheistic God, to be worshipped, send down messenger to show man the right way, etc etc) has been done before. The points you mention are comparatively trivial. Not cutting your hair or whatever is neither here nor there really - and certainly doesn't justify a whole new religion to be made. As I see it, Sikhism was a bit late to the whole new religion thing.

He came to spread religion in general. And by religion I mean monotheistic worship. His work with Muslims only involved clearing up hypocrisy and getting them to focus on their religion, rather than money etc. He did a lot more with Hindus, who were ruining themselves in idolatry.

Who were Guru Nanak followers? Before they converted to Sikhism, what were they?

It wasn't a personal attack, it's a fact.
Look at this

There will always be people who take it too far, and you know that as well as I do.

Maintaining your honour and dignity is very important to us. Over the years, Sikhs have gained a lot of respect for not shoving our religion into people's faces at any given opportunity. Many atheists have told me this. To lose that respect would be a set back for us.

In fact, I know many Muslims who disaprove of Naik's Qur'anic acrobatics. One of my Muslim friends went so far as to call him a Kafir (disbeliever). They say he is not quaified to interpret the Qur'an how he wills, as he is not really that great a scholar. He just makes a big show out of it to herd people into Islam They dislike his methods.

Again, I won't get into personal attacks because that's what it is. This thread is about Sikhism and not Naik. My point was: its nothing sort of absurd to say, "We don't want to spread our religion for fear of turning into Zakir Naik". Naik hasn't existed forever - what was your excuse for not spreading your 'message of truth' before him? Your argument seems to be, because of the chance we get it wrong, we won't attempt it at all - which is a pretty lame reason in all areas of life Im sure you'll agree.

Here's the bottom line- if you believe your religion is the right way to live your life, you would surely let the rest of humanity know about this? Or do you have too much pride in how others view you to preach?

I've already answered this. My answer will not change no matter how many times you ask me.

I didn't feel it was a satisfactory one. Maybe if you tell me what your Guru has to say on the subject, or what your scripture says on the matter of whether God wants his followers to spread the message of Sikhism?

This argument doesn't make sense. If all religions are like that (which is what you are saying), then what's your point? What's the alternative?

I think we should celebrate the fact that our religions have similarities, not fight over them.At least we have a common basis from which all our actions are based on. Wouldn't the world be terrible if all religions were completely at tangents to each other? They would be constant fighting and bloodshed.

And tbh with religion, you can't really break away from the crowd. All religions teach you not to steal etc. etc., therefore how different could Guru Nanak realistically be?

and I could say the same about any religious founder, incuding Muhammad. It doesn't say anything about that religion.

The similarities between the three Abrahamic religions can be explained by their common origins. I don't see how Sikhism fits into all this.

We have more proof than anyone else, so yes.

Then please explain how the following words would be the "unadultered words of God":

“Vaheguru gave me His Order to sing His Praises day and night. Vaheguru, my Lord and Master summoned me, His minstrel, to the True Mansion of His Presence. (Vaheguru,) the Image of True Praise and Glory, gave me the Siropaao, robe of honour. The spiritual-life giving Name, Amrit Naam, the True Name, which gives eternal spiritual life, has become my sustenance.”
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 150)

"O Lalo! As the Lord’s word comes to me so I deliver it."
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 722)

"I myself know not what to say; all I speak is what the Lord commands."
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 763)

These words do not seem like God/Vaheguru speaking to mankind - these seem like Guru Nanak speaking to man.

Reply 741

Phantom Lord

Are Sikhs who don't wear the turban looked down upon in the community?

Reply 742

SMEGGGY

Original post by AkaJetson

Are Sikhs who don't wear the turban looked down upon in the community?

No.

Reply 743

SMEGGGY

Original post by nosaer

Did he refer to himself as a Prophet of God? If so, where?
And which prophecies?
If you say he is only human and shouldn't be worshipped or thought of as anything else, why did you agree with the above poster who said he [Guru] is a "living prophet" and will be alive in the future. Do humans now have immortality?

As I suspected. There is no new or revolutionary (theological) concept within Sikhism that previous religions haven't already come up with. Your belief of God and concept of God (monotheistic God, to be worshipped, send down messenger to show man the right way, etc etc) has been done before. The points you mention are comparatively trivial. Not cutting your hair or whatever is neither here nor there really - and certainly doesn't justify a whole new religion to be made. As I see it, Sikhism was a bit late to the whole new religion thing.

Who were Guru Nanak followers? Before they converted to Sikhism, what were they?

Again, I won't get into personal attacks because that's what it is. This thread is about Sikhism and not Naik. My point was: its nothing sort of absurd to say, "We don't want to spread our religion for fear of turning into Zakir Naik". Naik hasn't existed forever - what was your excuse for not spreading your 'message of truth' before him? Your argument seems to be, because of the chance we get it wrong, we won't attempt it at all - which is a pretty lame reason in all areas of life Im sure you'll agree.

Here's the bottom line- if you believe your religion is the right way to live your life, you would surely let the rest of humanity know about this? Or do you have too much pride in how others view you to preach?

I didn't feel it was a satisfactory one. Maybe if you tell me what your Guru has to say on the subject, or what your scripture says on the matter of whether God wants his followers to spread the message of Sikhism?

The similarities between the three Abrahamic religions can be explained by their common origins. I don't see how Sikhism fits into all this.

Then please explain how the following words would be the "unadultered words of God":

“Vaheguru gave me His Order to sing His Praises day and night. Vaheguru, my Lord and Master summoned me, His minstrel, to the True Mansion of His Presence. (Vaheguru,) the Image of True Praise and Glory, gave me the Siropaao, robe of honour. The spiritual-life giving Name, Amrit Naam, the True Name, which gives eternal spiritual life, has become my sustenance.”
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 150)

"O Lalo! As the Lord’s word comes to me so I deliver it."
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 722)

"I myself know not what to say; all I speak is what the Lord commands."
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 763)

These words do not seem like God/Vaheguru speaking to mankind - these seem like Guru Nanak speaking to man.

What you've typed is hypocritical. What was the need for Islam when Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity had already said what Mohammed had said?

Guru Nanak was the messenger of God sent during the turmoil of the age of darkness. Quran states Allah has sent Messengers before and after. Guru Nanak was divine and was one with God, He did not need Angels [Gabriel] etc to converse or use as a third party to relay the message of God.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji Dae Parkash Purab Dea Lakh Lakh Wadhayian

Sathguru Nanak pargateya miti dund jag chanan hoya||
With the emergence of the true Guru Nanak, the mist cleared and the light scattered all around.

Jiou(n) kar sooraj nikaliaa thaarae shhapae a(n)dhhaer paloaa||
As if at the sun rise the stars disappeared and the darkness dispelled.

Si(n)gh bukae miragaavalee bha(n)nee jaaeae n dhheer dhharoaa||
With the roar of the lion in the forest the flocks of escaping deer now cannot have endurance.

Jithhai baabaa pair dhharai poojaa aasan thhaapan soaa||
Wherever Baba put his feet, a religious place was erected and established.

Sidhh aasan sabh jagath dhae naanak aadh mathae jae koaa||
All the siddh-places now have been renamed on the name of Nanak.

Ghar ghar a(n)dhar dhharamasaal hovai keerathan sadhaa visoaa||
Everyhome has become a place of dharma where singing.

Baabae thaarae chaar chak na kha(n)dd prithhamee sachaa dtoaa||
Baba liberated all four directions and nine divisions of earth.

Guramukh kal vich paragatt hoaa ||aa||
Gurmukh (Guru Nanak) has emerged in this kaliyug, the dark age.

Sian Mian Mir, Peer Budhan Shah, Akhbar The Great, Peer Brahm and many other Muslim Saints acknowledged him to be the Wali of Allah. What you believe or don't believe has no relevance.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 744

Phantom Lord

Original post by SMEGGGY

No.

Not at all? Aren't they thought of as less religious?

Reply 745

SMEGGGY

Original post by AkaJetson

Not at all? Aren't they thought of as less religious?

Not really. It would be good if they took the form of a Gursikh, but they come under the Sehajdhari [progresses]

Reply 746

okapobcfc08

Original post by nosaer

Last time I looked it was impossible to kill holy scriptures? Also, please enlighten us with your Sikh knowledge. I would perhaps arrogantly suggest that you know very little apart from the these "wide-ranging theories" about the legtimacy or the legality of Sikhism. Are you even religious?

Yeah yeah, reply with the old rubbish about "replying with your heart and not with your head", tbf I will find it a bit insulting if you dont even know the simple basics of Sikhism, yet come on this thread, as not a "q and a person" but a "i wanna pick as many holes as possible and see if I can take advantage".

It was God's choice to make Sikhism mate. Are you saying he made a mistake or what? If God wants to make Sikhism, he will, end of?

The one thing that I do agree with you, is your point about Sikhism following other religions in terms of its formation (God>Messenger>Message>Followers). But thats not what Sikhs pride Sikhism about. We pride our history, the path that our prophets gave us, the message, the concept of life, the importance of principles, that kind of stuff. It is these core principles where you find the difference between Sikhism and other religions.

Your fighting an embrassingly losing battle here mate. Theres thousands of non-Sikhs who are proud of our religion, but theres you who doesnt even want to accept it.

Reply 747

okapobcfc08

Original post by AkaJetson

Are Sikhs who don't wear the turban looked down upon in the community?

theres two kinds of non-hair or non-turban sikhs. Theres the cut hair Sikhs who love Sikhism as many as uncut hair, and theres the idiots who couldnt give a f either way. Its the idiots that deserve to get looked down at I think, ok im not one to judge, but 50inch kara in one hand and glass of johnnie walker in the other is enough to rile any principled person

Reply 748

SMEGGGY

Original post by nosaer

"We don't want to spread our religion for fear of turning into Zakir Naik". Naik hasn't existed forever - what was your excuse for not spreading your 'message of truth' before him? Your argument seems to be, because of the chance we get it wrong, we won't attempt it at all - which is a pretty lame reason in all areas of life Im sure you'll agree.

Here's the bottom line- if you believe your religion is the right way to live your life, you would surely let the rest of humanity know about this? Or do you have too much pride in how others view you to preach?

Jews don't actively seek converts, what does that portray in your world? Sikhs know that God has made the 5/6 Religions, in which he sent Messengers to give his message, if you believe Allah is one and does as he pleases then you'd not question him and what he does or doesn't do. There are thousands of Sikh converts, you just have to look on the net or watch The Sikh Channel on Sky you'll see German converts, Africans, Chinese, American, etc etc.

Here are a few pictures to wet your thirsty appetite.

Reply 749

SaintSoldier

Original post by AkaJetson

Are Sikhs who don't wear the turban looked down upon in the community?

Not really tbh. What matters is what's inside your heart :smile:

Ideally they should take the Khalsa Roop (the image of the khalsa), but as long as they are Sehajdhari (progressing) then it's fine by me.

Not everyone is ready to take Sikhism full on, so it's ok if people just do what they can.

It'd be worse if a Keshdhari (with hair) Sikh went around drinking etc., because that would give us a bad name.

Reply 750

SaintSoldier

Original post by nosaer

Did he refer to himself as a Prophet of God? If so, where?

Why do you keep refering to the Guru Granth Sahib as a "he"? You do realise that that is our scripture, don't you? :lolwut:

And which prophecies?

Amongst others, this is one,

[INDENT]“Coming in seventy-eight (1521 C.E.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1540 C.E.), and then another brave man will rise up. Nanak speaks the Word of Truth; he proclaims the Truth at this for it is now the time for truth ||2||3||5||”
(Guru Granth Sahib, And 723)[/INDENT]

The coming of Babar (the Mughal invader) and the eventual defeat of the Mughals is prophesied by Guru Nanak and proven to have been absolutely correct.

If you say he is only human and shouldn't be worshipped or thought of as anything else, why did you agree with the above poster who said he [Guru] is a "living prophet" and will be alive in the future. Do humans now have immortality?

What?

It seems you ask all the questions, but don't want to hear the answers.

All of the features I posted are new. No religion before ours had those tenets.

Who were Guru Nanak followers? Before they converted to Sikhism, what were they?

Well that is like me asking you, "who were Muhammad's followers?" Guru Nanak had many followers. I guess you mean the more prominent ones.

Bibi Nanaki, the first Sikh and Guru Nanak's sister, was a Hindu

Mardana, who was Guru Nanak's lifelong companion, was a Muslim. He accompanied Guru Nanak on his Udasi (journies) and played the Rebab for Guru Nanak.

Bala (who wrote the Janamsakhis, like hadiths) was a Hindu

Bhai Lehna, who later became Guru Angad, was a Hindu

They were mostly Hindus and Muslims, but some were other religions found in India at that time eg. Zoroastrian.

[INDENT]
"Practice this yourself, and teach others"
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 185)

"The virtuous accumulate virtue, and teach others."
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 755)

"The Guru's Sikh, and the Sikh's Guru, are one and the same; both spread the Guru's Teachings"
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 444)

“Slave Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself repeats Naam, and inspires others to repeat it. ||2||”
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 306)

“Repeat Naam yourself, and inspire others to repeat it as well.”
(Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 290)[/INDENT]

The similarities between the three Abrahamic religions can be explained by their common origins.

Why is it that they all borrow from Samarian and Egyptian mythology then?

Read Surah Al-Fatiha. Does that sound like Allah speaking or Muhammad?

Reply 751

nosaer

Original post by SaintSoldier

Why do you keep refering to the Guru Granth Sahib as a "he"? You do realise that that is our scripture, don't you? :lolwut:

The term prophet generally denotes a person, not a scripture, which is why I assume the other poster was referring to a person when he said "it [Sikhism] is the only religion which has a living prophet". Either he considers a scripture to be a 'living prophet' which is patently absurd, or that there exists a present day prophet living amongst us??

Not really convincing tbh. But these things rarely are.

It seems you ask all the questions, but don't want to hear the answers.

All of the features I posted are new. No religion before ours had those tenets.

You misunderstand. Those things are relatively trivial, and in any case are not part of the core dogma of the religion. That's what I'm asking - what Sikh dogma sets it apart?

Well that is like me asking you, "who were Muhammad's followers?" Guru Nanak had many followers. I guess you mean the more prominent ones.

My point is, Guru Nanak must have converted people if we are to see the Sikh religion and its adherents as we do today. They were principally Muslims and Hindus who converted to Guru Nanaks teachings of Sikhism right? Ergo, it doesn't sound like he came to "spread monotheistic worship" (Muslims already were monothestic) but rather came to convert people to Sikhism?

Thanks. However, its still no clearer on what Sikhism requires of its followers regarding spreading and preaching.

Why is it that they all borrow from Samarian and Egyptian mythology then?

I don't know that they do. But that's besides the point we are talking about here, which is Sikhism.

Read Surah Al-Fatiha. Does that sound like Allah speaking or Muhammad?

I don't think the two are comparable at all. It's an invocation to God so it certainly wouldn't make any sense if it were to say something like "All praise is due to me" when these verses are required to be recited in prayer. Still doesn't answer my question though. I've shown you clearly the verses you quoted to me, which are Guru Nanak talking to us about God are they not? The verse "Vaheguru gave me His Order to sing His Praises day and night" is pretty clear who is talking to who about who is it not? Thus, how can this be the "unadultered word of God"?

Reply 752

SaintSoldier

Original post by nosaer

It's just a term that Sikhs like to use, that's all. Don't take everything to be literal.

And the fact that the Singh said that it woudl be true in infinity years time shows you that it is not a human prophet we are refering to, otherwise s/he would die.

Not really convincing tbh. But these things rarely are.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You asked the question, so I answered. Why are you so defensive?

You misunderstand. Those things are relatively trivial, and in any case are not part of the core dogma of the religion. That's what I'm asking - what Sikh dogma sets it apart?

How are they trivial? They affect your entire life, hence I wouldn't class them as trivial.

All of our rites of passages are completely different from Hinduism and Islam. from the naming ceremony, to initiation, do marriage, to funerals - everything is different.

However, its still no clearer on what Sikhism requires of its followers regarding spreading and preaching.

how so?

In short, Sikhs used to preach. We're supposed to. However, due to culturural reasons, we don't in this day and age. That is nothing to do with the Gurus, and is entirely our responsibility.

I don't know that they do. But that's besides the point we are talking about here, which is Sikhism.

Google is your best friend :smile:

The is true for the Guru Granth Sahib

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 753

P.Kaur

Original post by SaintSoldier

In short, Sikhs used to preach. We're supposed to. However, due to culturural reasons, we don't in this day and age. That is nothing to do with the Gurus, and is entirely our responsibility.

I don't believe that to be true but perhaps that's just the way you interpret the quotations you posted above, which is fine. There's a difference between inspiring others to become Sikhs, teaching Sikhism (which can both be done without the intention of converting someone), and actively seeking to convert people through preaching to them. The latter is just not the way of the Sikh, we're simply not a religion of missionaries. And thank goodness for that.

Reply 754

SaintSoldier

Original post by P.Kaur

It depends on how far you take it.

If you look at how Christianity was spread, it was done through economic and military deals. For example, a Christian state would pressurise a non-Christian state by offering them canons etc in exchange for conversion to Christianity. This is clearly against Sikhism.

And of course, forced conversions are strictly prohibited.

And also knocking on people's doors like the Jehovah's witnesses do is just irritating, and should not be undetaken by any Sikh.

But I think it's our duty to tell people, if they want to know, what our way of life involved, and to lead them away from fruitless practices.

We should not take it too far as to become like some religions today; jumping and laughing like hyenas at every miracle they can find, almost begging people to convert. That leads to dishonour, which is not a position that a Sikh should be in.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 755

P.Kaur

Original post by SaintSoldier

But I think it's our duty to tell people, if they want to know, what our way of life involved, and to lead them away from fruitless practices.

We should not take it too far as to become like some religions today; jumping and laughing like hyenas at every miracle they can find, almost begging people to convert. That leads to dishonour, which is not a position that a Sikh should be in.

Agreed, teaching those who question is fine. Yes, with Sikhism it's not a numbers game, trying to bring in as many converts as possible by bashing other religions or knocking on people's doors telling them to believe what we believe.

Reply 756

SMEGGGY

Original post by P.Kaur

Shahi Guru Nanak Dev Ji wasn't a missionary then? :confused:

Reply 757

P.Kaur

Original post by SMEGGGY

Shahi Guru Nanak Dev Ji wasn't a missionary then? :confused:

It's already been said that Guru Nanak didn't travel in order to get people to convert to a religion called "Sikhism"- while he may have spread his belief he also encouraged people to follow their own religions properly, which is not exactly the outlook of a missionary attempting to convert.

Reply 758

SaintSoldier

Original post by SMEGGGY

Shahi Guru Nanak Dev Ji wasn't a missionary then? :confused:

He wasn't a missionary in the modern sense of the word.

He never shoved the religion down people's throats.

He never told them, "You're wrong and I'm right"

He always used to preach in a logical manner. He used to give is listeners puzzles, in order to that they themselves would come to the conclusion that what they were doing was false. For example, there is a well known Sakhi in which Guru Nanak came across some Hindu pilgrims in the Ganges river. They were throwing water towards the east, because they thought that their ancestors were in the east. So, Guru Nanak got into the water and started throwing it towards the west (the opposite direction). The Hindu pilgrims accused him of blasphemy, and ordered him to stop. Guru Nanak calmly replied, "If your water can get all the way to your ancestors, then why can't my water reach my farm in Punjab, which is much closer than your ancestors?" The pilgrims immediately saw the foolishness of their ways, and desisted from the practise.

The main attraction of Guru Nanak was his character. He was honest and truthful, and everyone admired him.

He could be termed a missionary, but he was not the same sort of missionary as the ones we are used to today.

Reply 759

nosaer

Original post by SaintSoldier

He referred to 'it' as a living prophet.

I don't want to keep repeating myself. Im concerned with sikh dogma, not rituals like how long you ought to keep your beard. What is sikh dogma?

They heard about Guru Nanak's teachings and, after meeting with him, decided to convert of their own accord. What is your issue with that?

You don't have to preach to get people to follow a religion. Some people do it because they hear about it and like it.

how so?

In short, Sikhs used to preach. We're supposed to. However, due to culturural reasons, we don't in this day and age. That is nothing to do with the Gurus, and is entirely our responsibility.

Few questions:
Did Guru Nanak come to start a religion called "Sikhism"?
Did he seek to gain followers?

If on the one hand you are saying Sikhs are commanded to preach and spread Sikhism, why do you appear to be proud of the fact that Sikhs don't preach nowadays?

Google is your best friend :smile:

Not that its related to the thread or my questions in any way whatsoever, but what's the site? Hope its a respected one - after all, Im sure you wouldn't appreciate people going to any crooked site for info on Sikhism right?

The is true for the Guru Granth Sahib

Except it clearly isn't. Nowhere in the Quran does Muhammad refer to himself as I or me.

In the Sikh scripture we have Guru Nanak referring to himself:
"I myself know not what to say; all I speak is what the Lord commands."

So again, how can this be the unadultered word of God? Sounds like the word of Guru Nanak to me.