truthseeker546

@Paapiman - Thanks for the quote - but is that from a rehit nama or is it a gurus words or is it from the author of the book. - I don't know who Guru Kian Saakhian is i'm afraid. I was looking for proof from the actual scripture or words of the Gurus themselves, especially Guru Nanak. @kdsingh80 : Thanks for the info - thats very interesting - exactly what I was getting at : why is the cow so revered as great provided or milk when - as you sau 80% of the milk is from a different animal. AND THIS IS IN PUNJAB ! There is obvious bias here - most likely due to an affinity to Hinduism against Islam ??? If this is then it rises many questions on the political influence on Sikki beliefs.

@kdsingh80 - " Punish them for giving us more milk than cows " ,Are you serious or joking ???

Thanks N3O Singh, Really appreciate the response. OK to answer your points ; 1. I would call it cow satva(pure) just as water not holiness. Holiness gives a spiritual status like hindus which we don't. We don't eat cows not for holiness but rather not eat cow for giving milk to humanity. Milk is consider satva (pure) food which in its relative context has its place when it comes to proper diet for spiritual (satva) pure mind. Not really just because there is no mentioning of cow protection does not meant prior to tenth guru there was none. So if cows are considered pure, simply due to them providing milk, what about goats, camels, buffalo's, etc are they also equally pure. Also what about chickens that give eggs ? I take from your responce there is no proof from the SGGS, so what other proof is there that there was cow protection prior to the 10th Guru by the first gurus? especially Guru Nanak ? 2. You are taking relative quote based on circumstances out of context. There is no confusion as such as message of mool mantar is clear and cut. Again who said about killing a human being over a cow. In the past, we defended cow slaughters usually on premises over challenge from mughals/muslims who were taking over a india, they were making a statement by killing a cow. We defended against cow killing by fascist muslism/mughals to set the record straight as they were making a statement. In nepal, there is cow slaughter ritual by hindus in india and in nepal there to their demi god. You don't see sikhs fighting them or giving up their life for it. Umm OK I'll allow you to elaborate on how I took the point out of context. - I might have missed something. The Idea that Muslims in the form of the Mughal empire were killing cows to make a point - to whom exactly ? Sikhs were very few in number - compared to the very large Mughal empire - and Muslims prior to the Mughals had ruled India for centuries before - under the Dehli sultanate and the 6 other Muslim sultanates that came after. Also Raja Rinjit Singh banned cow slaughter all over India, not just slaughter done for other then food purposes. Why? Yes Sikhs are not fighting Hindus in Nepal or in India probably because they couldn't. It would be interesting to see under Sikh rule what would law in Nepal be like - but we can't see that can we. Same reasons Sikhs are not fighting animal cruelty in the way beef is produced in the west - just have to see a few documentaries to see the level of cruelty. Simple reason is its not feasible - don't have the power to do so. 3. Your point is invalid as you are using historical examples or events to draw a broader conclusion OK - I thought I was giving historical evidence to enquire of the Sikhs relationship to the cow - and making an observation not coming to a conclusion. You yourself have just said it was because the cow is pure as it gives milk or sustenance. I'm simply asking would that logic work in other parts of the world were the cow is not the main animal that gives sustenance. In the desert the camel does - so do the same rules apply. If not, then why? 4. This is what happens when you take out historical account out of context then top of it draw our own narrative out of it. Classic example is infront of you - cow is slaughtered in massive amounts in nepal and also in india yet we don't impose our beleifs on them, those previous quotes from ugardanati along with sikhs have a given up their life for cows has to be properly contextualized, conceptualized within historical framework of mughal era where mughals were slaughtering cows to make clear statement as they were invading and we gave our lives stopping cows slaughter by fighting back with mughals. well please put it into context for me. I've not just based my observation on one particular incident alone. There were quite a few wars over cows I'm told by Sikhs. I've read many statements on this forum about how Sikhs regard cows to be holy or pure as you might say. And how cow slaughter - not cruelty - but simple slaughter for food - was banned by Sikhs that had the power to do so - in the past. Of course Sikhs didn't fight cow slaughter in Nepal, or China, or Turkey - because they couldn't. Of course now, most Sikhs don't even practice their faith like amritdaris do, especially in the west - so kind of pointless trying to stop non Sikhs from eaten cows. The only time Sikhs have had really political power is under Raja Ranjit Singh - although limited to 40 odd years, and riddled with corruption and controversy - he did ban cow slaughter all together. - not just that which was done out of malice or political reasons. Sikhs never had any real power after that or anywhere outside India - so can't give any other examples. Until Sikhs get Khalistan - I guess we are stuck with these examples aren't we.

For anyone else who might know - ill ask the questions again: 1) I take it from the above quote that the cow protection/holiness came only during the time of the 10th Guru and then after - since no quote was given from the Adi granth - Am I correct in assuming that it's not in there ? 2) "Sikhs gave their lives for cows " - I'm a bit confused as to how far the relationship of the cow is in Sikhism. One one had God is in everyone - so why give more importance to a cow then a human being - doesn't make sense - you would kill a human to protect a cow. Unless like Hinus the belief was that cows are somehow divine. 3) does this mean again that Sikhism is fundamentally an India religion, that can't shake off its cultural tires with India. For instance if Sikhism had spread to an Arab country, there are no cows in the desert. They use Camels for Meat, Milk, travel, Clothes, trade etc. Would Sikhs then give the same value to Camels as they do cows. Or horses in Eastern Turkey - each geographical area has its own Animal of choice. 4) Also I can appreciate that Sikhs and Hindu due to their own religious beliefs hold the cow scared - but when that belief is imposed on others others that don't hold that belief - isn't that religious intolerance / oppression ? I though Guru Nanak was against forcing your beliefs on anther people ? Thanks

"Everything is given there ...if you read the posts again and if you are a Sikh enough you will be able to understand." Umm I'm not Sikh - hence why I come on this forum to learn about Sikhism. It written on my profile. I'm not asking because I want to know if I should eat beef or not. I trying to understand Sikki better. If you don't know the answer to my question then don't feel obliged to reply. Ps. Horses are given a high regard in Turkey as are camels in Arabia - but both can be eaten (although expensive). Especially now that horses are not used for war or travelling. Bu thats not what my post was about - if YOU would read my previous post properly.

Ok thanks for all that. Umm still a bit confused ... Jaikaara : you gave quote above but didn't mention where is came from. Can I have the reference please. "Sikhs gave their lives for cows " - I'm a bit confused as to how far the relationship of the cow is in Sikhism. One one had God is in everyone - so why give more importance to a cow then a human being - doesn't make sense - you would kill a human to protect a cow. Unless like Hinus the belief was that cows are somehow divine. And does this mean again that Sikhism is fundamentally an India religion, that can't shake off its cultural tires with India. For instance if Sikhism had spread to an Arab country, there are no cows in the desert. They use Camels for Meat, Milk, travel, Clothes, trade etc. Would Sikhs then give the same value to Camels as they do cows. Or horses in Eastern Turkey - each geographical area has its own Animal of choice. Also I can appreciate that Sikhs and Hindu due to their own religious beliefs hold the cow scared - but when that belief is imposed on others others that don't hold that belief - isn't that religious intolerance / oppression ? I though Guru Nanak was against forcing your beliefs on anther people ? a bit confused.

Thanks Jaikaara ! If you don't mind do you have quotes, I can't read Gurumukhi so is it possible to have the English translation also ? Uggardanti bani of Guru Gobindsingh, is this in the Dassam granth ?

The relationship between the cow and Sikhism has long since intrigued me. A recent post leads me to ask " what is the relationship between the sacredness of the cow and Sikhism? Did any of the Guru's or do any of the Sikh scripture promote the idea of sacredness to the cow? If so, can someone give me some proof? I know there were battles fought over protecting the cow - not sure how many, anyone have any idea? where there any during the time of the Gurus. What about other animals that are revered in Hinduism, I know the 24 incarnations mentions certain animals that are revered in the Hindu faith, Is it the same in Sikki? Thanks

OK I think I touched a nerve I never said Muslims haven't or didn't kill Hindus/Sikhs. I merely said in Malerkotla they did. I also understand if YOU don't consider the Namdhari Sikhs part of the faith, but non Sikhs like me and of course the Namgharis themselves do. History is subjective isn't it - depends on who's telling the story. I'm sure Hindu and Muslim survivors have their own horror stories to tell. As someone else wrote on another page on this forum, Sikhs also killed Muslims and raped women and forced people to convert. - I've heard first hand reports. - if don't want to accept that or try and sugar coat it by saying " they only did it in retaliation - then that's your choice.

Thanks kdsingh8 ... I would on anther occasion give a detail response, but considering I started this tread in support of the Muslim-Sikh friendship in a time where Sikhs are being prosecuted by the Indian government, its maybe not the best thread to debate history. According to your own source you provided it states : " During the partition of 1947, when there were mass killings of Sikhs and Muslims in villages across the Punjab only Malerkotla saw no instances of such communal violence. Sikhs in anger over the loss of their loved ones murdered many of the Muslim villagers in the neighboring villages." - so Sikhs did kill Muslims but according to this not in this city. The Sikh killing of Muslim in Malerkotla happened during 1872, I believe Guru Ram Singh was involved in the incident, (the 12th Guru according to the Namdhari Sikh sect), the killers were apprehended by the British and Cowan had the killers executed by Canon fire - he also exiled Ram Singh from India - most Namdhari still believe he will one day return and reunite India under Sikhism. The incident is recorded by many historians, most notably by Sir Henry Cotton. Book titled : Indian and Home memories. I understand this can be very problematic for many Sikhs on a number of levels: 1) The normal narrative of Sikhs being the oppressed is ironically reversed, - Sikhs end up having the same issues as other religions have - religious extremism. 2) It also proves the conflict within Sikhism, the dichotomy between monotheism and polytheism. The sacredness of the cow proves that at least some sects/gurus had more affinity with Hindu beliefs. This obviously disproves Sikhism as a autonomous and individual religion. There are other historical events of Sikhs fighting to defend cows.

Oh - Thanks Ragmaala, I did try asking on another post why these protests are happening, no one really replied. I even came on chat but again not one came on. I assumed it was embarrassing it was various Sikh groups fighting each other, hence the silence. If it's the government then that's serious. Thanks for that.

Singed

A friend of mine sent me this article titled: Watch Muslims protecting Gurudwara Sahib in Malerkotla Link: http://www.punjabspectrum.news/2015/10/2652 The fighting as I understand it is between rival Sikh sects,and exacerbated by the Indian government with their heavy handed and tyrannical approach to dealing with minorities in India. I found this particularly interesting as this is happening in Malerkotla, the place where Muslims were killed by extreme Sikhs (lead by Sabah Singh Bedi) in the 1870s, over Muslims slaughtering cows for food. It nice to see how Muslims in the region have moved past that history and are helping their Sikh friends in protecting the Granth Sahib I'm sure such stories are present in all faiths and around the globe, I came across this recently - thought I'd share it.

online again - if anybody knows about this topic and don't mind talking - also about Khalistan then come to chat - Thanks :)

I'm in the chat room for 10 mins or so if anybody wants to talk ....

Thanks Satkirin, but I kind of new most of that as per my first post. I wanted to know why different people within Sikhism would burn/tear the SGGS ? One newspaper did mention a Sikh person who they thought was responsible for the incident? Is this a struggle between two groups ? What is the underlining cause behind these attacks ? Does anyone know?

what actually happened? why the protests? someone just told there have been issues between two groups within the Sikh community, one of which burned or tore up the SGGS. along with other similar incidents recently, which has lead up to this? is that true? Who are the two groups and why burn the SGGS, surely both believe in it?

HI all, I have seen some reports on social media about some fighting taking place in India, well Kashmir if I'm not mistaken. Indian government clamping down hard on peaceful protests. It wasn't made clear why they are protesting - at first I thought maybe it was maybe a pro khalistan type of demonstration, but I don't think it was. Someone has been burning copies of the SGGS or something like that? can anyone shed some light on this for me please?

@ chatanga1 Sorry missed your reply; Which successful religions are you using in your comparison? Those would be the ones with over a billion followers - namely Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, - I left out Hinduism simply because it failed to spread largely outside its country of origin esp. in the last 1000 years. you don't feel that status given to females or the lowcastes/kuffar being regarded as equal before Waheguru irrespective of their beleifs? Please see my above reply, the status given to women is at best theoretical. It seems to work in theory in India where women still play the obedient house wife role, however when tested in modern western countries, you soon realise that not everything is as it seems.

Well yes I do, from personal observation and from the empirical experience of other Sikhs that I have spoken to. Also from my study of the faith scripture. Now I did say, "there are many religious Sikhs that are deeply religious because of their faith" so I'm not doubting that there are religious Sikhs. However on the majority I see a cultural affinity and a one sided arbitrary historical narrative that gives some credence towards an religious "identity". There is an "idealism" of Sikhism that is taught but Sikhs in practice terms fall short of this. To give you an recent example I witnessed myself. Sikhism promotes gender equality and prides itself on being the most equal gender faiths. A few days ago I was invited to a Sikh wedding, the groom was not a Sikh. Being aware of the issues this was going to cause some problems, the wedding was not held in a Ghudwara. Most of the relatives of the bride were not religious - nor were most of the guests - however there was a lot of hostility from "religious" Sikhs who were arguing with the brides family. Eventually the wedding went ahead but with a slight bad taste in the air. I heard many statements from young Sikh girls on how hypocritical religious Sikhs were, "it wouldn't have been an issue if the girl was non-sikh". From my own studies of Sikhism, I find these kinds of issues and a lot others you can find on the forum (Sex in Sikhism, homosexuality, place of women, marriage, etc) due the fact that there are too many contradictions in early Sikhism. The 10 Gurus were all different, some vastly. As a result the scriptures have contracting verses which can't seem to answer fundamental questions relating to Sikh ethos - ie. were the Gurus born naturally or without sexual intervention. A lot of mixed theology mixed with Indian culture is what in reality what Sikhism, in its current form, is. Hence such issues. For young people that are more analytical minded - especially University graduates, understanding an analysing faith is a fundamental aspect of developing ones identity. Don't question it and just follow it might work for India but falls short in other countries. And it's why Sikhism fails to inspire and spread. Ps- I don't wish to get into a long debate about this, these are just my personal musings. I may be wrong.

This is an interesting topic. Simply from a anthropological perspective. As a non Sikh, simply looking at it this historical angle, and how religions spread I would state the following in regards in Sikhism. 1) From a theological perspective, Sikhism didn't offer anything radically different. In a country with a vast Hindu and Muslim populous - Sikhism (for the first 3 centuries) tries to combine Sufi Islamic mysticism with aspects of Hindu beliefs. The Hindu influence can be seen from the later Gurus - this dichotomy causes schisms within the tradition. Thus hinders rapid growth that is indicative in other world faiths, ie. Islam, Christianity, - Also the infighting between the guru families/ "apostles" and emerging sects didn't help. I could also mention here that there were issues with conflicting dogmas within Sikhism - monotheism and aspects of polytheism, (I've mentioned some in previous posts so won't elaborate here) this may not have been a problem for say the trinity in Christianity, for spreading in Europe. As Europe was largely primitively pagan and a more advanced beliefs system that incorporated aspects of previous beliefs AND MAKES MORE SENSE only made it more palatable to the locals. Sikhism was up against Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism - all advanced in theology - thus a new ethos would have to disprove older systems and as it were make more sense for the more educated class to accept. Which it obviously didn't. 2) Christianity, Islam, Buddhism all produced to higher morals for large civilisations/empires. They all in their own way inspired art, culture, theology, etc (more true for Christianity and Islam) that attracted hordes of people towards their faiths. Outside the 10 Gurus, Sikhism only has Raja Ranjeet Singh to name as a suspenseful Sikh leader. Who exactly follow the teachings of the Gurus himself, or inspire future generations to expand his cause. His successors very quickly made sure any Sikhs empire would not flourish. Most of its culture, art, architecture etc is borrowed from Islam or Hinduism. - thus not giving it a strong independent identity. 3) Sikhism lacks the ability to inspire religious practice. - This might seem harsh but I'm not disputing there are many religious Sikhs that are deeply religious because of their faith. But compared to more successful religions, Sikhism falls short. This is more true in the modern world, where Sikhism is struggling to keep it's current members within the faith let alone acquire new ones. My comments are not meant to offend anyone, just my perspective. I may be wrong, but that's what I think it is.

Thanks all for the advice. Wedding was interesting and really fun - apart from a few "hiccups" for the bride and groom . Met some interesting characters, and some really friendly people. :)

humm thanks Satkirin. Think ill just give cash, I don't know if they'll like the restaurant I'd pick. Ps. I don't think they are that religious. My colleagues has enjoyed many meet feast pizza with our buddies :) ps. Someone just told me I have to do bangra dance - not sure how to do that exactly - I don't to join with that do I? I'm assuming this is a cultural thing - not a religious one.

Also is there anything particular I need to say? congrats in Punjabi - I think they would be impressed it I managed that. :)

how much money do you think I should give?