Jump to content
Mr Sardar

Can A Sikh Do Namaz?

Recommended Posts

I think there can be hindu-sikhs and muslim-sikhs but not hindu-singhs and muslim-singhs.. when one enters the khalsa panth one gives up ones previous religion and submits to the Guru.

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not looking for a yes or a no because as I was previously under the understanding there is no direct answer for this; Moreover I was looking for a discussion on the matter. As Amardeep said not everything is black and white. As humans we think under fuzzy logic not under binary logic- there are aspects of religion which have no right answer for instance choosing one evil over the other or good over the good - such as; is someone being punished (i.e. hands cut off) for stealing bread to feed his starving family Wrong, in a jury rulling the jury would have different verdicts of guilty or innocent so it depends upon the people there the factors are bigger- Or as a vegeterian would you eat a piece of chicken if someone told you he would kill another chicken if you do not hence leaving you with the burden of the death of another animal or the discussion of abortions and contraceptions. Within Khalsa panth such rullings come down to panj pyare, perhaps there maybe a rehat which forbids being a part of namaz which we could compare to fatwa rulings. These are discussions of a dillema which are not easy to answer. We in Sikhi do not need to limit ourselves to sharia ruling or haram/halal thinking the thinking of khalsa is greater- man neva mat uchi.

Amardeep from accounts of khalsa initiation we see that even Muslims took amrit so they must have had to abandon namaz and dhikr for nitnem and simran. But before Guru Gobind Singh would you say that it was the same case where upon initiation they must have abandoned the practice of namaz and if so why- Did the Gurus see it as being inferior to Nitnem?

Edited by sarbatdapala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before Guru Gobind Singh the Gurus administered charan ki pahul which brought about the saintly aspect in the individual. I do not think that the many hindu-sikh and muslim-sikhs took amrit as such from the Gurus as amrit would make them direct followers of Gurmat alone. I think that many hindus and muslims might have officially belonged to Hinduism and Islam but were very inspired by the teachings of the Gurus and did their path. Mian Mir for instance is said to have dne sukhmani sahib path in the morning yet he died as a muslim.

So the hindu-sikh muslim-sikh is a TEMPORARY STAGE towards taking amrit from the Guru.. its not a permanent stage. That is my take on it

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you say when it comes to what majority of the people who define themself sikh as are from hindu-sikh backgrounds who more specifically go with their caste such as ramgharia jatt khatri etc. because we find even hindu practices being inherent within these sub-categories, such as with ramgharias they do vishkarma pooja and vishkarma day polish tools etc. And with alot of Sikhs they openly conduct shivji pooja. Where would we put the limits on the khalsa panth then do we have to use niddar singh and sanatan Sikhis definitions of sampradis such as nihang, nimralas etc. and adding on damdami taksal as a purthan order. Why is it then heresy is conducted under these sub-orders, I ask this because if we take a look at a muslim-Sikh it may be possible to say namaz is heresy. I think to get a better take on this we would need to talk with muslim-sikhs such as those present in Afghan sangat- there are afghan sikhs who have been around since the times of Guru Nanak and openly admit to having descent from the same clans as those present in Muslims

as well as meeting Iranian and Iraqi Sikhs but majority would be descending from Khatri-Hindu-Sikh lineage where with afghans we find sikhs from kurd origin as well who are farsi/pashtun speaking mainly and some who are patwari speaking. Also could someone indicate a link to why amrit sanchar would be required in comparison to a sehajdhari practicing full rehat. Would you say any of the Gurus do namaz at all or refrain from it. How about Maharaja Ranjit Singh he had a mandir married a muslim women also purchased a quran which was made of Gold he was respected by Muslims is it possible he did namaz at all?

Edited by sarbatdapala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sdp

You asked about the rehat perspective. Found this from the Chaupa Singh rehat, note the very first few words:

post-3203-129178075911_thumb.png

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pir Sahib will not share the diary at present - his view is that Sikhs are not read for it/in a state to appreciate it.

Amardeep has made some good points and Bhen Harjas and Veer MJ - excellent posts.

SDP - the beautiful hukumnama you posted which you did ardaas for is absolutely amazing - all your questions are answered within.

Namely - being less concerned with rituals (namaaz) and more concerned with finding Sadhu Sangat (which is no easy task by any means - with the massive number of fakes out there today).

Your sad experience with Sikhs is not so uncommon - this is the most common reason the vast majority of our youth are disenchanted with Sikhi - because those in the game are so snobby - or because they see many that follow our rituals (simran, kirtan, nitnem) to still be full of vices - which makes them loose their interest/faith in Gurus path.

But as is true for all man - in all corners of the Earth, whatever their home maybe called - the true understanders and practitioners of 'Religion' are few. Vaheguru has created so many paths to test us. If there was one path - it would be easy for everyone. With so many paths - our fatih is tested to see if we stay on the one shown/given to us, if we are able to understand and practice tolerance, respect, compassion and universal brotherhood with those that are on other paths, if we are able to practice nimrata/control our hankaar by not shouting that 'ours is the only way' and all others are wrong. Sadly, the mainstream/large boy/present representatives of all faiths (inc) our seemed to have failed. Which makes us look at Gurbani for answers and all is made clear. The journey should not be based on others (of any chosen faith), but on our reading, understanding, practice, interaction, introspection. Once Gurus pavitar hand has been placed on our sinful heads - our world view will change - and all will be seen as one - all will be respected - but the differences will be appreciated and understood, rather than chastised.

Lastly - I agree with Amardeep - there have been/are/will be Muslim/Hindu Sikhs, (I have even met Buddist Sikhs) - in fact anyone from any denomination can be a Sikh - because Gurbani is Jagat Guru - and Gurus sweet words are the fragrance on any full glass of milk. But 'Singhs' have always strictly been followers of Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj only - as there job is to protect and promote the unadulterated message of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Edited by shaheediyan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there can be hindu-sikhs and muslim-sikhs but not hindu-singhs and muslim-singhs.. when one enters the khalsa panth one gives up ones previous religion and submits to the Guru.

I have a question here.How much responsibility Hindu-sikhs or muslims sikhs share toward sikhism? in 1947 we had not seen Muslim sikhs coming out and defending Gurdwara's or Guru granth sahib in west Punjab similarly in 1984 we had not seen Hindu-sikhs coming out and defending Gurdrwara's or Guru granth sahib.So are these Hindu -sikhs or muslim sikhs are people who only enjoy privilage in sikhism in peaceful times without sharing any responsibilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I'll make my response short...

1) Be careful of the spiritual masters you approach. A friend of mine who became a muslim felt that there was an innate spirituality lacking and he became sufi. Within 4-5 years he became very strict and was expected to focus on certain hadiths etc etc. He realised that it was very cult-like and in talking to others who were part of different orders....the trends were very much the same. It is akin to our 'dodgy' baba syndrome. Now, what he did make very clear to me was. Some...NOT ALL...Some Sufi path's don't focus on hadith's, but many do....and it is the fact that they bring in 'innovation' that puts them at odds with the mainstream.

2) Maharaja Ranjit Singh had many virtues and vices, as do we all. he wasn't literate....so reading namaz may not have been something he had memorized. I recall reading somewhere that he couldn't even recite mul mantar until he was 19-20. His biggest virtue was his respect for saadhu's/sants/pirs

3) My understanding of the history of 'religion' and how sikhi has fallen into this category really makes me wonder if we are even looking at sikhi properly. This, in no way, undermines more traditional paths/approaches.

My own experience has shown me that our 'sahib' is 'sada meherbaan'. If you are earnest in what you are looking for, it will come to you. If you meet someone who is the real deal....learn more from their nature and experience. Not everyone who looks the part, is playing the part......that applies to everyone everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please give a link to that series you talk about.

I have a question here.How much responsibility Hindu-sikhs or muslims sikhs share toward sikhism? in 1947 we had not seen Muslim sikhs coming out and defending Gurdwara's or Guru granth sahib in west Punjab similarly in 1984 we had not seen Hindu-sikhs coming out and defending Gurdrwara's or Guru granth sahib.So are these Hindu -sikhs or muslim sikhs are people who only enjoy privilage in sikhism in peaceful times without sharing any responsibilty?

This is conjecture. You dont know whether any of the hindu-sikhs or hindu-muslims came forward in 1947 and 1984 since you were not there and I doubt you've done extensive research interviewing eye witness accounts from back then. On the other hand its mainly the Khalsa Singhs who have vowed to give up their life for the Guru while the sehajdhari (whether sikh, hindu or muslim) have not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please give a link to that series you talk about.

This is conjecture. You dont know whether any of the hindu-sikhs or hindu-muslims came forward in 1947 and 1984 since you were not there and I doubt you've done extensive research interviewing eye witness accounts from back then. On the other hand its mainly the Khalsa Singhs who have vowed to give up their life for the Guru while the sehajdhari (whether sikh, hindu or muslim) have not.

Amardeep

I was born and raised in Delhi.I was barely 4 when riots happened.I have read and heard many stories about riots.There was not 1 but truck load of stories

about how hindu's gave shelter and saved lives of sikhs.but on the other hand their is hardly any story Whether Hindu-sikhs actually came forward to protect Gurdwara's or Guru granth sahib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There was not 1 but truck load of stories about how hindu's gave shelter and saved lives of sikhs.but on the other hand their is hardly any story Whether Hindu-sikhs actually came forward to protect Gurdwara's or Guru granth sahib."

If I saw an innocent human being in danger of harm, I would like to think I would have the dharma to act protectively on his behalf. If I saw a mob of hundreds or an Army surrounding and destroying any building, including mosque, mandir or gurdwara, I'm certain that I would not throw my life away in some misbegotten delusion that I alone could preserve it.

There is quite an overlap of political issues involved here. Under Indira's government and emergency, all kinds of abuses were happening to all kinds of people. Tell me, did Sikh-Sikhs stop the abuses of the Punjab Police or was that simply let to the khardkhus? now ask yourself WHY any family man would endanger his family to get involved in something well beyond his abilities to defend? But if it came to protecting the lives of his neighbors, this he would do.

Evil and injustices are part of this world. They are ugly and reprehensible. But you will find it to be an error to try and blame any one group or religion for all the evils and injustices. Good people there always will be, and bad people, and many gradations in-between. The fact that some Hindu's tried to save lives of some Sikhs during time when their own lives were at risk is something commendable. It shows that there will always be good people no matter what. But if you think the average person, Sikh or Hindu or Muslim wants to rush out and lay down his life and his families lives to protect the Bhindranwale movement staging itself against entire Indian Army, you will be disappointed. those who believed in what they were doing acted nobly according to their beliefs, and they died fighting. That much I will acknowledge. But I don't believe what they did was right, and had they not taken an anti-government stance, the attack and subsequent pogroms and gallughara would not have occurred.

I do not expect Sikhs in disapora to rush out and lay down their lives and their families lives to defend...say the Mexican nationals from the slaughter of the anti-drug wars. I do not expect average persons to risk their lives lightly in any dangerous political situations they are not directly involved with. WHY? because then I would be advocating suicide.

No one owes anyone anything, not even to risk their life to save a life. However, we are responsible to act with dharma. Sometimes to act with dharma means taking a desperate risk, especially against injustice. But generally, unless you are a soldier, it is not the general dharma. the Operation Bluestar was then and remains now, controversial, with average Indian citizen agreeing with the government that it was a secessionist movement in collusion with Pakistan and not unlike the Naxal rebellion. Why would average Indian citizen, however close to Sikhism, or even as a Sikh be expected to believe and agree with Sant Bhindranwale? Sympathy may have been there for the many injustices and problems, but not to such degree as to want to raise arms against own Army. And this is not to say that Operation bluestar was justified, it was clearly botched! It clearly reflected the extremism of Indira government. But the average person would have shut the doors tight and tried not to get involved. Up until Operation Bluestar the majority of Sikhs did not really support Sant Bhindranwale and so the militants alone were waging the battle, not the ordinary Sikhs, nor any Hindu-Sikhs or Muslim-Sikhs. After Operation Bluestar, the government pitched into a pogrom against Sikhs and there wasn't any choice.

Does that make the average person a bad person? I don't think so. The average person isn't some kind of television superhero. real bullets will severely wound and kill him. He is wise who values his life and uses discretion and caution. He is wise who acts with dharma when he has to, and not from arrogance or false belief in his own invincibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to add this:

If my relationship with Sikhi (be that as it is), was contingent on the behaviour, attitude and actions of Sikh people I have met in my life, I probably would have left it a long time ago.

Yes, we all have social needs - some more than others, but for me, my relationship with the faith is beyond that. This isn't directly about my relationship with people, it's more about my attempts at a relationship with that which has created me and everything around me.

Sarbatdabhala, you should focus on Sikhi - not Sikhs. Whilst this is going on, we all need to have a think about social issues in the panth. They are serious, and they do need a hell of a lot of work in my opinion. Years ago I read some gora account about us that referred to us as a 'prickly people', now I'm older I sort of agree with that analysis, what is sad is that we sometimes seem the most prickly when it comes to each other, and I'm no less guilty than the next man here in that respect.

It's just one of a bunch of issues we need to resolve urgently.

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Bhai Nand Lal Ji reffer to Guru Sahib as wali sometimes in his writings?

Also, it is believed by muslims that God sent 120,000 prophets to the nations of mankind before Muhammad, and predominantly those prophets were of Judaic/Arab decent. In the Qu'ran it states that Muhammad is the "seal" of the lineage of prophets, now my understanding is that he may be the seal for the Judaic/Arab nations but doesn't hold that position for faiths or nations around the world, hence allowing scope for the lineage of prophets to continue in the Indo traditions.

Its interesting however that most people believe that the line " la ilaha il allah muhammad ar rasool allah" is the opening of the Qu'ran, however that is not the case, the opening of the Qu'ran is Surah Al-Fatiha, which in my humble opinion is in line with Gurmat. May it be of significant note that the opening of any religious text is of paramount importance and in the opening text of the Qu'ran there is no mention of Muhammad, hence why I believe his prophethood does not apply to the Indo religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that had the original question of the topic poster been asked of a Sikh a decade ago the automatic answer would have been a NO and possibly followed by a rebuke to the questioner for asking such a question. Not offence to the original poster but that that is what would have happened a few years ago. But in the last decade Sikhi has been inundated by wishy washy liberal 'scholars' who are basically turning Sikhi into a mini version of Hinduism. Just as in Hinduism anything goes and there is no hard and set rule to define the identity of a Hindu so it will become for a Sikh. Already we have categories of 'Sikhs' being invented such as Hindu-Sikh and Muslim-Sikh! Categories such as Sehajdhari which have always been used for the first generation of Hindus or Muslims taking the first step towards taking the Rehat are now used for those who belong to Sikh families and basically can't be bothered to follow the faith yet want all the rights and privileges that come with the faith. The successor of Mian Mir who incidentally believes that Guru Nanak went to Mecca and Baghdad to seek religious guidance from the Muslim Sufis we are now told has a diary of which Sikhs aren't ready I assume spiritually for? I can't imagine a Sikh prior to a few years ago giving such a person the time of day let alone fawning over him. If such kuchay peelay Sikhs that fawn over that charlatan actually had any faith in Gurbani they would know that there has never been a belief let alone a debate by Sikhs whether Guru Nanak ever needed religious guidance from any tradition. Did Guru Nanak only become a Jagat Guru after a period of religious or spiritual guidance under various other traditions or faiths? I suggest that wishy washy Sikhs need to spend more time reading Gurbani and the first vaar of Bhai Gurdas rather than running after charlatans with an agenda from other religions. The way Sikhi is going soon a 'Sikh' will be able to do anything which goes against the Rehat probably short of murder and rape and still claim to be a Sikh. I can't even imagine a question like the one asked by the poster being asked by any Sikh from the time of Guru Nanak to a few years ago. I can't imagine any Sikh standing up and asking Guru Gobind Singh this question. If it wasn't asked before than maybe we need to consider why and then we will get the answer.

As for the poster who stated the Al Fatiha verse in the Quran as being in line with Gurmat, I give a similar reply, spend more time reading Gurbani and less time on 'interfaith' promotion. Al Fatiha states that the Jews have earned the anger of Allah and the Christians have been led astray. Hardly in line with Gurbani.

Edited by tonyhp32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL SAID TONYHP32.

A person asking this type of question would have get a swift chittar a few years ago, but instead we weak Sikhs fall over each other trying to prove how versed we are in other peoples faiths, how we pride ourselves that we know verse x y and z from the Quran, yet ask if we know Japji Sahib off by heart !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate it took a long time for us as people to move past religious extremism in the last decade throughout the media we have seen the extremes that religious extremism gets- 9/11 suicide bombings etc. For that on the whole many atheists took a swift hit at all major organised religions and the whole idea of God as well. Interfaith relations are just what is needed at this present moment because we have hit a point where the world is in danger, we as humans have technology to destroy this whole planet and its population i.e. nuclear bombs, atomic bombs, etc.

As terrorism is growing every religion is in danger, Islam is a big point of terrorism at this moment, where the roots of the issue are comming from the haddiths- To fight hatred with hatred will create more hatred- The only way to curb anger is with Love. Hence why interfaith relations are required.

At this point of time many muslims are offended with the way the media and general population go about things with racism and pledging hatred it is only going to grow the problem of terrorism. If we advocate interfaith we can come to terms in peace. Guru Gobind Singh himself states it is righteous to take the sword when all other means have failed. We have not exahusted other means yet, where Guru sahib wrote letters such as Zaffarnama. Our Gurus where well versed in other religions and there own, it is even there hukam to be;

"31)Doosrae mataa dae pustak, vidyaa parhni. Pur bhrosaa drirh Gurbani, Akal Purakh tae karnaa -

Study the books and knowledge of other faiths. But keep trust in Gurbani and Akal Purukh."

Also Guru Granth Sahib says;

"bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai.

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.

Say not that the Vedas and Muslim books are false. False is he, who reflects not on them.

Call not false the Vedas or the Semitic Texts : for, false is he who gives not thought to them." Sri Guru Granth Sahib ANG 1350

Radicalising a faith is not the answer to Sikhis problems. Guru Nanak message is summed from Sewa-Simran-Satsangat if we loose one of these we loose our flight of spirtuality in this day and age Satsangat is difficult to have- because Sikhs will leave another astray either to radicasation and doubting everything in ego, pride, hatred and lust or Sikhs will purse Lucian Freud's idea of act upon your desire - Eat drink be merry and sleep around-sharabi,kebabi-kanjar(i). Now the nature of the question is not pursuing something for today but something which will be a reality very soon if Gursikhi is not apparent. Many Sikhs are afraid of Gursikhs (dhari-wale) for how judgemental they can be hence why scholars have become wishy-washy there is no other way to instrength such spirituality without compromise.

In this present climate, the answer is for myself to become a true Sikh and show myself as an example, our recent history is full of bad role-models where if we go back to 500-200years there are great examples of role models on an international scale. Some gursikhs I met frankly strike me as still having the mentality of being pindu and have not understood the true sophisticated nature of there own religion yet, this is why such a "prinkly" nature exists. The whole reason of why you would resort to violence for such a question being asked shows how narrow minded and far behind such mentality leaves Sikhs as being a mass organised religion in the world that could spread- there are many people in the west who already agree with everything Sikhism says but they are not aware of the existence of such a religion because of how some of us have not even come in the lime light yet of the media as well as how the majority of so many Sikhs are not really Sikhs (either being hedonists or radical extremists) , this is additionally indicated by even our mistaken identity of being Muslim as many Sikhs share the same ethnicity as Muslims.

In my own opinion I would say we should not be afraid of asking questions in our sangat, where else can a Sikh turn in there time of curiosity or need, to Christianity? The sangat is supposed to support each other. The whole idea of calling someone veerji-paiji-bhenji is to understood the brotherhood/sisterhood in our religion if we do not act like that, then what religion do we even have- to help others is the whole idea of daya(compassion) and sewa(selfless service).

Additionally not to give pirsahib the time of day is a shame to us, our Gurus had satkar for pirs, what kind of Sikhs are we to disrespect figures from other religions especially those who played a role in our own religion. That pir sahib holds an integral piece of history and I think he is right we are not ready for such a piece of history, however I still believe we should plea to his sense of compassion to have a copy requested, photocopied, translated and uploaded onto the internet. However, out of the huge population of Sikhs there are, there are some real jems and diamonds of Gursikhs- so not all hope is lost, there is much hope for the future.

Edited by sarbatdapala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is not interfaith relations.

We need to see the Akaal jyote in all - Manus ki jaat subhey eke pehchan boe.

Our TRUE father wrote this then who are we to discriminate against any body.

Our TRUE father also wrote : Raam Reheem PURAN QUORAN eneke hey par eke naa janio. So what is the need for namaz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sinmrit Shaastra Bed sabhai bahu bhed kahai ham ek naa jaanyo|| Sri asipaan kripaa tumri kar mai na kahyo sabh tohe bakhaanyo||863||

Dohraa

Sagal duaar kau chhaad kai gahyo tuhaaro duaar|| Bahe gahe ki laaj as Gobind daas tuhaar||864||

I have left doors and come to your door God

Please correct me if I am wrong for the last translation- Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj is saying I have left all those religious books (i.e. the realms of worldly books) and have come to you God.

Now Guru Gobind Singh maharaj also says

-Deora Masit soi, Pooja namaz ohi (Temple and Mosque are the same, Hindu way of prayer and the muslim method of prayer are the same)

-Manas ki jaat sabhe ake pehchanbo (Recognise whole human race as of one caste)

Pooja on the whole is forbidden in Sikh maryada but nothing is said about namaz

Edited by sarbatdapala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pir Sahib will not share the diary at present - his view is that Sikhs are not read for it/in a state to appreciate it.

20 quid says that this pir's revelation about whatever it is he thinks Sikhs are not ready for will be the usual Muslim dawah bullshit about Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji really being a Muslim.

I feel sorry for the fools who look for secrets from pirs, sufis, saadhs, or whatever about our own Gurus when we as Sikhs have access to the sargun form of Akal Purakh in the roop of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

K.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...