Jump to content

SikhBusters: Destroying the Myths & Misconceptions about Sikhism


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, singhbj singh said:

This is the classic example of a mythbusting post creating its own misconceptions. Not saying that my effort to refute (some) of this points will be any better, but here goes:

First of all, the name seems kind of strange. Ghostbusters was a movie about busting ghosts, because ghosts are bad. Later, someone created a TV show called Mythbusters, because myths are bad, right? So what does Sikhbusters mean? Busting Sikhs ... because Sikhs are bad??

OK, the post is written by, it seems, some college student Reddit denizen who has now taken Amrit. It seems he tries his best to fit Sikhism into the modern Western framework. FYI, Reddit Sikh forum is a den of atheists, so by that standard simply expressing faith in Guru Granth Sahib would be radically conservative by that standard.

He seems to be quite full of himself:

Quote

 

Oh I'm sorry, my post is the dirt of the dirt. As a matter of fact, is so bad that even April fools posts are better than it. I hope you understand that when I use the term "quality post", I am reffering to well written, well researched, and focused posts that are related to Sikhi, help people learn, and create discussions. I put a lot of hard work into my posts, i'm not going to put it in the same category as most other posts on this sub.

 

Yet, he also talks in a number of places about subduing ego:

Quote

"O Nanak, he is a brave warrior, who conquers and subdues his vicious inner ego" - Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 86

Political correctness and western influence

He says Sikhs shouldn't be politically correct:

Quote

Sikhs should never water down Sikhi in order to appease someone else. The Guru himself exemplified this when he refused to sacrifice his beliefs even in the face of death. 

Yet he himself engages in promoting the politically correct 21st century Western worldview by promoting abortion, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, even homosexual Anand Karaj (!), interfaith marriage, no need to follow Rehit, women in Panj Piyare,  and railing about the "patriarchy".

And all this, despite saying about the name of our religion:

Quote

 

The name of the Sikh faith is not "Sikhism", its Sikhi. ...

Sikhi is the specific term given to Sikhs by the Guru himself to use, and we should use it instead of some bastardized colonial term that has no roots in our history and was labeled upon us. 

Got it. So we need to call our religion Sikhism to avoid the influence of the evil white man, while totally accepting the influence of the benevolent white man of the 21st century. Basically, as long as we call it by its Punjabi name, we're all clear to import any and all modern Western notions. /s

Patriarchy

I know some of you will disagree with this since you were indoctrinated from kindergarten to college by your feminist teachers against the "patriarchy", but:

A user named MahakaalAkali took it upon himself to refute this stuff:

Quote

 

"Sikhi supports the Patriarchy"

Sikhi in fact, is patriarchal and is equitable to women. This is the truth. Patriarchy doesn't mean we believe women should sit at home and make babies, it means there's a clear chain-of-command within the family unit.

pa·tri·arch·y

ˈpātrēˌärkē

noun

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

This is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about and I know there are others here that are knowledgeable enough and know this, but will choose to stay silent out of political correctness.

Unfortunately, he got sidetracked arguing with a another user about Khanda/Kirpan Amrit, which detracts from his main point, and which isn't accepted by traditional organizations in Punjab, even the ones he cites (such as Taksals of Punjab). I feel that at a time such as this, when even the basis of the Sikh religion, 5 banis, existence of God, etc., are being threatened, and 21st century Western worldview is being imported wholesale, it is not worthwhile to be upset at or start a fight regarding women wearing small turbans. He also said Babu Teja Singh Bhasauria created the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, which is incorrect. Again, I feel that such statements are counterproductive. It also would be pointless for Nihungs to fight with sants and taksals because they tell their sangat not to eat meat.

 

Quote

Drinking some sugar water, wearing a Turban, and walking around with a sword does not guarantee salvation

I feel this is a very irreverent way of referring to Amrit. Also referring to Guru Granth Sahib as an "it" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Quote

 

"Sikhs are no longer required to be warriors"

Sikhs will always required to be warriors.

 

Agree with this.

Quote

 

"Sikh values are [Insert name of country's] values"

Only Sikh values are Sikh values. It's true that a lot of other values overlap with Sikhi, however a lot of them dont, thus disproving the notion that Sikh values are other values. 

 

Agreed, but then he goes and puts forth 21st century Canadian leftist values as Sikh values (see section on Political Correctness above).

Quote

Hypothetically, even if the Guruship was passed down based solely on Nepotism, I would have no problem with it becuase it is the Guru's decision and looking back at history and how each Guru lives his life, I can say the Guru made the perfect decision.

 

Nice of him to say, but it's undermined by the relentless leftist agenda above.

 

Quote

 

"The Dasam Granth & Sarbloh Granth are also the Guru"

Only the Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was given the Guruship. 

 

This is true, but who was confused about this? The same sources that confirm Guru Granth Sahib's guruship also confirm that Guru Gobind Singh ji was asked by the Singhs to add their bani to the Pothi Sahib (now Guru Granth Sahib), and Guru Sahib said that (Guru Granth Sahib) is the Guru, this (my Granth) is my khed (play).

At least I get the sense that if I were sitting with this guy, and happened to quote a line from Dasam Granth Sahib, he wouldn't freak out, which is good.

Quote

There are also certain cases in which abortion should not be allowed such as female infanticide. 

Female infanticide is horrific and should be banned. Male infanticide is just fine? I thought he said males and females should be treated equally.

Quote

 

"Sikhi says all religions lead to God"

This could not be more false. ... If all religions lead to God, when what would be the need for Sikhi? 

 

Nice of him to say, but it's a bit undermined by him claiming that Sikhs claiming Sikhism is the only way to God creates ego in us.


 

Quote

 

"That Sikhi is Monotheistic relgion, and believes God is some man in heaven watching over us"

Sikhs do not believe in the Abrahamic version of God. Sikhi teaches that "God" or Waheguru as we call him, is:

  • Omnipresent: present everywhere at the same time.

  • Omnipotent: having unlimited power, able to do anything.

  • Omniscient: all knowing.

 

  •  

Depends on definition of "monotheistic". His flippant phrase "man in heaven watching over us" is meant to denigrate Abrahamic religions, but ends up partially undermining ours. Agree that the Abrahamics don't believe God to be omnipresent, but they do accept that he is omnipotent and omniscient. 

I do believe that God is watching over us, that's even implied when he says God is omniscient. I also believe he resides in Sach Khand (but is also omnipresent). Finally he uses "man" jokingly, but the Mul Mantar that he invokes also uses the word "Purkh" (man) for God :).

Quote

 

"The Turban & 5k's can Never be removed"

Furthermore, is no edict specifically mandating Amritdhari Sikhs to wear the 5K's 24/7. 

 

Why does he say this? Even the SGPC's Sikh Rehit Maryada, cited by him, states plainly that kakkars are to be kept "ang-sang" (on your person).

Quote

 

There are some Sikhs who like to claim that the Kirpan must be made from "Sarbloh", which means Iron. ... The Guru doesn't care what you use, he cares what you use it for. 

 

If it's not to be of iron, what then? Is gold OK? How about a wooden "kirpan"? The whole point of iron is that it's not an expensive metal, like gold. And it's actually a weapon, not of wood. I also feel he dismisses the symbolic aspects of Sarbloh too fast.

Quote

 

"The Kirpan is only ceremonial"

The Kirpan, just like everything in Sikhi, is not only ceremonial, but has a practical purpose. The Kirpan is meant to be used, and isnt some ancient relic from the past that is only for show.

 

Agree with this.

Quote

 

"The Gun is the New Kirpan"

It should also be noted that Sikhs aren't restricted to only carrying the Kirpan, and are encouraged to stay up to date with technology.

The Kirpan is only a "minimum standard" because it is cheap, easy to use, easy to maintain, is legal in more countries, and unlike a Gun, the Kirpan doesn't require ammunition.

 

OK, but he undermines the above with this:

Quote

 

I would argue that moving on in the future, using the concept of Sikhi, even a Lightsaber could theoretically be considered a Kirpan.

 

If he acknowledges that guns were available during Guru's time, and Guru ji still mandated a kirpan, not a gun, then on what logic can he call a lightsaber a kirpan? Agreed that a Sikh could carry a lightsaber if he deemed it appropriate.

Apologies for any errors on my part. Thoughts?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BhForce said:

OK, the post is written by, it seems, some college student Reddit denizen who has now taken Amrit. It seems he tries his best to fit Sikhism into the modern Western framework. FYI, Reddit Sikh forum is a den of atheists, so by that standard simply expressing faith in Guru Granth Sahib would be radically conservative by that standard.

That's exactly what's going on. It's the 21st century equivalent of Dhir Mal's on-the-fly rewriting of Sikh theology to quell dissent from a hostile crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH DEAR! Homosexual n Sikh? SIGH! A few years ago when Cameron gave the go- ahead of same sex marriage in Church, I KNEW it would have been in favour of yes. Remember end of 2012 = end of world??

I knew it meant end of certain kaljug and now kaljug has increased a few folds more. However, I also believe Sikh plus gay will not be a major issue in our times. It'll take a couple more 1000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Singh1989 said:

OH DEAR! Homosexual n Sikh? SIGH! A few years ago when Cameron gave the go- ahead of same sex marriage in Church, I KNEW it would have been in favour of yes. Remember end of 2012 = end of world??

I knew it meant end of certain kaljug and now kaljug has increased a few folds more. However, I also believe Sikh plus gay will not be a major issue in our times. It'll take a couple more 1000 years.

You've been brainwashed by your leftist teachers and professors, and also by watching Hollywood and Pinewood propaganda (TV & movies) uncritically.

If Nanak and Gobind Singh (*) had any omniscience, they would have had homosexual weddings during their lifetimes. Why didn't they? Don't say because the culture wasn't able to accept it.

Was the culture able to accept abolition of Sati? Widow remarriage? Control of manjis by women? They didn't care what the culture was, they promoted an ideal society. Why indeed did they not promote homosexuality? If you say that they were ignorant, why do you bother calling yourself a Singh?

 

* Note: I am not attaching "Guru" to their names because if they weren't omniscient, they're not worth following as Gurus. I, on the other hand, along with almost every Sikh from Guru Nanak Dev ji's time up to now believe they were omniscient (trai-kal darsi), and were the True Guru.

I ask you: Do you accept Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Gobind SIngh ji as Satguru?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BhForce said:

You've been brainwashed by your leftist teachers and professors, and also by watching Hollywood and Pinewood propaganda (TV & movies) uncritically.

If Nanak and Gobind Singh (*) had any omniscience, they would have had homosexual weddings during their lifetimes. Why didn't they? Don't say because the culture wasn't able to accept it.

Was the culture able to accept abolition of Sati? Widow remarriage? Control of manjis by women? They didn't care what the culture was, they promoted an ideal society. Why indeed did they not promote homosexuality? If you say that they were ignorant, why do you bother calling yourself a Singh?

 

* Note: I am not attaching "Guru" to their names because if they weren't omniscient, they're not worth following as Gurus. I, on the other hand, along with almost every Sikh from Guru Nanak Dev ji's time up to now believe they were omniscient (trai-kal darsi), and were the True Guru.

I ask you: Do you accept Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Gobind SIngh ji as Satguru?

WHA! Whas up with you? Yes they are Satgurus. I am NOT promoting gay or anything but it's just a fear of gay Anand karj. Thing is, first it's only talks then it actually becomes a reality for one reason or another. They did not promote gay marriage because it's not right in my views. The Guru's were also against jath path and killing of girls. How many of our mai bhai's are still stuck in that? Has jath path been abolished completely? and killing of baby girls by Sikhs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck i just read :/

 

Quote

 

"The Turban, Beard, 5Ks are a requirement to be a Sikh"

This is a big misconception that is often caused by confusing the Code of Conduct that is a guideline for Amritdhari Sikhs, who are initiated into the Khalsa, and applying those high standards to everyone. This unfortunately turns a lot of people away from Sikhi who would otherwise be interested, but are told that such a strict physical requirement is necessary to be a Sikh, or to experience the universal feeling of God.

Sikhi is first and foremost about the internal, and the external is a reflection of the internal. There is no physical requirement in order to be defined as a Sikh. The Turban, Beard, 5Ks, on their own mean nothing, and are simply just tools to help us in this temporary life. You dont need them to be a Sikh, and are specifically meant for Amritdharis, however a lot of Non-Amritdhari Sikhs like to wear them for cultural, traditional, or semi-religious reasons.

Officially under the Sikh Rehat Maryada, the definition of a "Sikh" is anyone who *faithfully believes" in:

 

 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use