Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences

[Poeticus]

The Sikhs in the Indian army are getting paid for their work and their fathers/grandfathers fought in WWI/WWII so are just following in their footsteps

How can you be sure that they are only doing it for money? How does Sikhs not liking India have anything to do with Sikhism & the SikhDIR?

Guru Gobind Singh fought till his last breath to defend the North Indian soil - which included non-Punjabi lands.

 

[Philomath]

The difference is that Sikhs seek and Hindu's find

 

[Vinayaka]

The difference is that Sikhs seek and Hindu's find

That would be Sikh's seek and Hindus hinder.

 

[ronki23]

How can you be sure that they are only doing it for money? How does Sikhs not liking India have anything to do with Sikhism & the SikhDIR?

Guru Gobind Singh fought till his last breath to defend the North Indian soil - which included non-Punjabi lands.

I'm not sure but Sikhs not liking India is about Sikh people and Sikh people= Sikh DIR

The separatists could claim North India= Khalistan

EDIT: Separatists today could call all of North India Khalistan/claim Hindus are ungrateful

 

[Poeticus]

The separatists could claim North India= Khalistan

EDIT: Separatists today could call all of North India Khalistan/claim Hindus are ungrateful

Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana are Hindu majorities [excluding Kashmir] and they are in North India. In fact, they are as "North India" as we can get.

The Indian state of Punjab pales in geographical comparison in terms of size. So, if Sikh Separatists want "all of North India", they will have to take over those four non-Sikh North Indian states.

Sikhs would end up fighting their own, especially if the Indian Army was involved. Why? Because, Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army also participated in 1984.

Furthermore, Sikh Separatism is not politically, economically, and socially sound. In fact, it's not practical at all. Yet, you still continue to worry about this problem. Why is that?

India has more important problems (no offense my Sikh brothers and sisters) to worry about, such as mass-poverty, gender inequality [Punjab has one of the highest infant mortality rates in India; google baby girl murders in Punjab], caste-discrimination [which is not restricted to Hindus*], political and economic corruption, rape-culture, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

*"The Sachar Committee report of 2006 revealed that scheduled castes and tribes of India are not limited to the religion of Hinduism." -retrieved from: Sachar, Rajindar (2006). "Minority Report" (PDF). Government of India. Retrieved 2008-09-27.

 

[ronki23]

Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana are Hindu majorities [excluding Kashmir] and they are in North India. In fact, they are as "North India" as we can get.

The Indian state of Punjab pales in geographical comparison in terms of size. So, if Sikh Separatists want "all of North India", they will have to take over those four non-Sikh North Indian states.

Sikhs would end up fighting their own, especially if the Indian Army was involved. Why? Because, Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army also participated in 1984.

Furthermore, Sikh Separatism is not politically, economically, and socially sound. In fact, it's not practical at all. Yet, you still continue to worry about this problem. Why is that?

India has more important problems (no offense my Sikh brothers and sisters) to worry about, such as mass-poverty, gender inequality [Punjab has one of the highest infant mortality rates in India; google baby girl murders in Punjab], caste-discrimination [which is not restricted to Hindus*], political and economic corruption, rape-culture, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

*"The Sachar Committee report of 2006 revealed that scheduled castes and tribes of India are not limited to the religion of Hinduism." -retrieved from: Sachar, Rajindar (2006). "Minority Report" (PDF). Government of India. Retrieved 2008-09-27.

Because I have yet to see Sikhs against Bhindranwale/their views on his '5000 Hindus' comment and I see many,many Sikhs still sore about 1984. Being pro Bhindranwale (not against him) and against Congress means you're not happy being Indian.

I haven't seen groups of Sikhs being proud Indians or supporting Congress. Heck, Sikhs hate Amitabh Bachachan

and as stated, the Sikhs could say the Hindus are ungrateful for the Gurus

 

[Poeticus]

Because I have yet to see Sikhs against Bhindranwale/their views on his '5000 Hindus' comment and I see many,many Sikhs still sore about 1984. Being pro Bhindranwale (not against him) and against Congress means you're not happy being Indian.

Um, Hindus are also not happy with Congress Party (INC).

I haven't seen groups of Sikhs being proud Indians or supporting Congress. Heck, Sikhs hate Amitabh Bachachan

Well, I love Madhubala. Hang me.

and as stated, the Sikhs could say the Hindus are ungrateful for the Gurus

You mean North Indian Hindus that are ungrateful for the Gurus and their sacrifices for saving North Indian Hindus from Muslim iconoclasts and forceful conversions?

'Cause...Not all Hindus need to be grateful for/to the Gurus. Sikhism was heavily concentrated in the North. Hindus in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pardesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and a few other states don't need to be grateful for/to the Gurus nor to Sikhs. Why? Because, the Sikh Empire assisted Hindus in North/North Western India. Hindus in the other states that I mentioned protected themselves through their own means and efforts.

 

[ronki23]

Um, Hindus are also not happy with Congress Party (INC).



Well, I love Madhubala. Hang me.



You mean North Indian Hindus that are ungrateful for the Gurus and their sacrifices for saving North Indian Hindus from Muslim iconoclasts and forceful conversions?

'Cause...Not all Hindus need to be grateful for/to the Gurus. Sikhism was heavily concentrated in the North. Hindus in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pardesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and a few other states don't need to be grateful for/to the Gurus nor to Sikhs. Why? Because, the Sikh Empire assisted Hindus in North/North Western India. Hindus in the other states that I mentioned protected themselves through their own means and efforts.

I'm just saying that Separatist Sikhs will counter the argument that Sikhs protect Hindus and should respect them because the Gurus did so; they will say that the Hindus are ungrateful and will say that 1984 changed the respect they had for Hindus.

What do Sikhs (or you personally) have to say on the video link (which I posted earlier) that shows Bhindranwale threatening to kill 5000 Hindus if his demands are not met? Because from my point of view, that looks like something a terrorist would say (there's a huge difference between a 'freedom fighter' and someone who threatens to kill masses of people if his demands are not met).

From what I can see online, Sikhs in India seem to be equivalent to Arabs living in Israel or Muslims criticizing the American presence in Iraq; either they're not happy with what has happened (like Arabs in Israel) or they've been affected by it and hate what is happening (like Muslims criticizing America and getting slandered in the wake of 9/11) or dislike what is happening even if it's not to do with them (Muslim nations who have had no connection with 9/11 or the Arab-Israeli conflict criticizing America and Israel's foreign policy; i'm assuming Anglicized Sikhs born in the West are like this; I myself could align with these Sikhs in that I personally think those affected in 1984 be paid compensation).

And I think Bachachan is innocent until proven guilty

 

[Poeticus]

I'm just saying that Separatist Sikhs will counter the argument that Sikhs protect Hindus and should respect them because the Gurus did so; they will say that the Hindus are ungrateful and will say that 1984 changed the respect they had for Hindus.

Sikhs protect Hindus? Haha. Sure. Sikhs protect Hindus in North India. Sikhs have always protected Hindus in North India. This isn't a counterargument. This is a fact.

You also seem to not understand the other fact that I have been clearly trying to say:

The Sikhs and the Sikh Gurus were NOT responsible for saving millions of Hindus in NON-NORTH-INDIAN states/lands/regions.

How did the Sikhs save Hindus in Gujarat? in Tamil Nadu? in Kerala? in Madhya Pradesh? in Andhra Pradesh? in Karnataka? in Maharashtra?

What do Sikhs (or you personally) have to say on the video link (which I posted earlier) that shows Bhindranwale threatening to kill 5000 Hindus if his demands are not met? Because from my point of view, that looks like something a terrorist would say (there's a huge difference between a 'freedom fighter' and someone who threatens to kill masses of people if his demands are not met).

I could care less if he threatened to kill 5000 Crore Hindus. His demands were not met, and he did not carry out his threat.

From what I can see online, Sikhs in India seem to be equivalent to Arabs living in Israel or Muslims criticizing the American presence in Iraq; either they're not happy with what has happened (like Arabs in Israel) or they've been affected by it and hate what is happening (like Muslims criticizing America and getting slandered in the wake of 9/11) or dislike what is happening even if it's not to do with them (Muslim nations who have had no connection with 9/11 or the Arab-Israeli conflict criticizing America and Israel's foreign policy; i'm assuming Anglicized Sikhs born in the West are like this; I myself could align with these Sikhs in that I personally think those affected in 1984 be paid compensation).

Almost every intellectual on the subject knows that the perpetrators of 1984 were secularists. They were pro-Christian and pro-Muslim. But, they were anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh. You're literally beating a dead horse, along with the websites that contain anti-Hindu and pseudo-pro-Sikh-Seperatism.

It's time to put this matter to the side. Seriously.

And I think Bachachan is innocent until proven guilty

What does Amitabh Bachchan have to do with this? Can you explain that one?

 

[Poeticus]

they will say that the Hindus are ungrateful and will say that 1984 changed the respect they had for Hindus.

If that really and truly is the argument that you have encountered from pro-Khalistanis, then their argument doesn't make sense logically.

The pseudo-Hindus (who were actually anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh but pro-Christian and pro-Muslim) that participated in 1984 were majority Punjabis themselves, along with other North Indian ethnicities. There was no Gujarati, Tamilian, Keralite, Telugu, Marathi, Kannada involvement. So, if they want to blame the Hindus that did NOT even participate in 1984 nor ever heard of 1984, that's the problem of the pro-Khalistanis.

I myself could align with these Sikhs in that I personally think those affected in 1984 be paid compensation).

As long as Sikhs that participated in 1984 are brought to trial as well. Because, Sikhs also participated as perpetrators against their own religio-ethnic brothers in 1984. That's a [sad] fact.

 

[Treks]

A thread has been started about the Bhindranwale video here: Bhindranwale Speech - Threat to Kill 5000 Hindus?

Let's see what they have to say over there.

It's time to put this matter to the side. Seriously.

Yes, please!!! It's getting seriously old, Ronki.

 

[ronki23]

Sikhs protect Hindus? Haha. Sure. Sikhs protect Hindus in North India. Sikhs have always protected Hindus in North India. This isn't a counterargument. This is a fact.

You also seem to not understand the other fact that I have been clearly trying to say:
The Sikhs and the Sikh Gurus were NOT responsible for saving millions of Sikhs in NON-NORTH-INDIAN states/lands/regions.

How did the Sikhs save Hindus in Gujarat? in Tamil Nadu? in Kerala? in Madhya Pradesh? in Andhra Pradesh? in Karnataka? in Maharashtra?



I could care less if he threatened to kill 5000 Crore Hindus. His demands were not met, and he did not carry out his threat.



Almost every intellectual on the subject knows that the perpetrators of 1984 were secularists. They were pro-Christian and pro-Muslim. But, they were anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh. You're literally beating a dead horse, along with the websites that contain anti-Hindu and pseudo-pro-Sikh-Seperatism.

It's time to put this matter to the side. Seriously.



What does Amitabh Bachchan have to do with this? Can you explain that one?

The Sikh Gurus may not have saved the Hindus outside of North India but the Sikhs technically did when it came to WWI and WWII (moreso with the latter due to Japan); without the Sikhs India may have been overrun by the Japanese. Regardless of this, the Sikhs wanting justice for 1984/ pro Khalistan Sikhs have made fun of Hinduism and mocked Hindus; they have blacklisted all Hindus. Would their counter argument for the Gurus protecting North Indian Hindus be, 'That was then, this is now'?

With regards to the websites, they are 'normal' Sikh websites

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

Khalistan - Some Misconceptions - POLITICS | NEWS | FEEDBACK | BEADBI - The Voice of Sikhs

Khalistan? - Sikhism | Questions and Answers - SikhAwareness Forum

Should We Have Khalistan? What Do You Think? - WHAT'S HAPPENING? - The Voice of Sikhs

Sikh Freedom Home Page - Hindu Sikh Brotherhood

[youtube]v3wYGntwb-Y[/youtube]
Sikhs Support Pakistan Army - YouTube
[youtube]shAwtPmoRKc[/youtube]
Sikhs in pakistan are more secure than indian sikhs, says sikhs of Pakistan - YouTube

And Sikhs say in 1984 Amitabh Bachachan riled the other Indians into killing Sikhs as revenge for Gandhi's assasination, 'Blood for blood'

I tend to interlink the Bhindranwale viewpoints, 1984 riots and Khalistan into one group: Sikh separatism. If Bhindranwale wasn't killed the way he was, there'd have been no riots and no Khalistan sentiment. Anyway, did Bhindranwale get his revolver and motorcycle because you say he didn't

Anyway, all of this research into Sikhism has made me wonder, why do Hindus say Sikhism is a branch of Hinduism? I originally thought so due to the same festivals being celebrated yet I find Diwali is for a different reason, Rakhi is a new term, and Holi and Hola Mohalla are celebrated together for convenience sake. The theory of reincarnation,sin and karma are similar I guess.
There must be a huge common denominator (I guess geography) between Sikhism and Hinduism. What I find strange is why some Sikhs think others are bad for worshipping Hindu Gods and following rituals, yet Hindus do not mind the inverse

 

[Poeticus]

The Sikh Gurus may not have saved the Hindus outside of North India but the Sikhs technically did when it came to WWI and WWII (moreso with the latter due to Japan); without the Sikhs India may have been overrun by the Japanese. Regardless of this, the Sikhs wanting justice for 1984/ pro Khalistan Sikhs have made fun of Hinduism and mocked Hindus; they have blacklisted all Hindus. Would their counter argument for the Gurus protecting North Indian Hindus be, 'That was then, this is now'?

1. I don't know about Sikhs protecting Hindus in WWI.
2. Regarding WWII, Sikhs protecting Hindus is a misconception. It was the Gurkhas that kept the Japanese at bay (and a majority of Gurkhas are Hindus, if I'm not mistaken - not that it matters one iota).
3. A large majority of Sikh Soldiers of the British Raj during WWII were in the European Theatre of the war, and many of them were also in North Africa. They were practically fighting the war for the British.
4. When pro-Khalistanis say that Sikhs have defended Hindus, they mostly mean that Sikhs have protected Hindus from Muslims and forceful conversions. However, as I have clearly shown, that is not the case. And, I even used the Sikh Empire as an example, which was helpful in protecting Hindus in North India, not non-North-Indian states.

more secure than indian sikhs, says sikhs of Pakistan - YouTube

I know Pakistani Propaganda when I see it. And, unfortunately, that's Pakistani propaganda.

And Sikhs say in 1984 Amitabh Bachachan riled the other Indians into killing Sikhs as revenge for Gandhi's assasination, 'Blood for blood'

I have heard this conspiracy theory many times before. But, it lacks substantial evidence. And, hence: it remains a conspiracy theory for a reason.

I tend to interlink the Bhindranwale viewpoints, 1984 riots and Khalistan into one group: Sikh separatism. If Bhindranwale wasn't killed the way he was, there'd have been no riots and no Khalistan sentiment.

Riots after Bhindranwale was killed? Don't you mean riots after Indira was murdered?

Anyway, all of this research into Sikhism has made me wonder, why do Hindus say Sikhism is a branch of Hinduism? I originally thought so due to the same festivals being celebrated yet I find Diwali is for a different reason, Rakhi is a new term, and Holi and Hola Mohalla are celebrated together for convenience sake. The theory of reincarnation,sin and karma are similar I guess.
There must be a huge common denominator (I guess geography) between Sikhism and Hinduism. What I find strange is why some Sikhs think others are bad for worshipping Hindu Gods and following rituals, yet Hindus do not mind the inverse

Sikh Sabhas Demystified - Hindu Dharma Forums

 

[ronki23]

1. I don't know about Sikhs protecting Hindus in WWI.
2. Regarding WWII, Sikhs protecting Hindus is a misconception. It was the Gurkhas that kept the Japanese at bay (and a majority of Gurkhas are Hindus, if I'm not mistaken - not that it matters one iota).
3. A large majority of Sikh Soldiers of the British Raj during WWII were in the European Theatre of the war, and many of them were also in North Africa. They were practically fighting the war for the British.
4. When pro-Khalistanis say that Sikhs have defended Hindus, they mostly mean that Sikhs have protected Hindus from Muslims and forceful conversions. However, as I have clearly shown, that is not the case. And, I even used the Sikh Empire as an example, which was helpful in protecting Hindus in North India, not non-North-Indian states.



I know Pakistani Propaganda when I see it. And, unfortunately, that's Pakistani propaganda.



I have heard this conspiracy theory many times before. But, it lacks substantial evidence. And, hence: it remains a conspiracy theory for a reason.



Riots after Bhindranwale was killed? Don't you mean riots after Indira was murdered?



Sikh Sabhas Demystified - Hindu Dharma Forums

Well, I guess I forgot to put that 'step' into the 'equation'; if Bhindranwale wasn't killed by artillery that also claimed pilgrims, Indira Gandhi wouldn't have been killed by her Sikh bodyguards and there wouldn't have been a genocide (though only uncivilised and barbaric people would kill thousands of people based on their religion [this is coming from an Anglicised Gujarati Hindu] maybe Sir Winston Churchill was right all along)

Regarding point 4, the fact still stands; the Khalistani Sikhs would say Hindu Punjabis/North Indian Hindus were ungrateful for the Gurus helping protect them. They would blacklist all Hindus. Anyway, here are some more links that makes me think Sikhs are not-the first one in particular

[youtube]JmlKv55Hw-w[/youtube]
Sikh Muslim Brotherhood Agaisnt Evil Hindu India - YouTube

[youtube]DP6mzBsL5iI[/youtube]
Sikh explain Hindus Terrorism against Sikhs and Muslims in India (Punjabi) - YouTube

Though I do find it a little 'too' convenient that Hindus,Sikhs and Jains celebrate the same festivals at the same time but for different reasons. Is there anything wrong with Sikhs praying to Hindu Gods or partaking in Hindu rituals because Jains do this already. Sikhs criticise other Sikhs for doing this (again, i've not actually seen Sikhs doing a Laxmi Pujan,chanting Hare Krishna or carrying a Hanuman keyring around) yet they do not look inward at 'unorthodox' Sikhs who shave their beards, don't wear their turbans and go around drinking alcohol.

And i've said this before but I get along better with Sikhs than other Indians due to the Sikh hospitality. The only reason I don't become a Sikh are:
i) I believe in Hinduism from an agnostic perspective
ii) I don't let religion control me

 

[Poeticus]

Well, I guess I forgot to put that 'step' into the 'equation'; if Bhindranwale wasn't killed by artillery that also claimed pilgrims, Indira Gandhi wouldn't have been killed by her Sikh bodyguards and there wouldn't have been a genocide (though only uncivilised and barbaric people would kill thousands of people based on their religion [this is coming from an Anglicised Gujarati Hindu] maybe Sir Winston Churchill was right all along)

The British Raj and civilized in one sentence? Haha. Sure. Whatever floats your boats.

Regarding point 4, the fact still stands; the Khalistani Sikhs would say Hindu Punjabis/North Indian Hindus were ungrateful for the Gurus helping protect them. They would blacklist all Hindus.

Well, that's highly ignorant of pro-Khalistanis.

Though I do find it a little 'too' convenient that Hindus,Sikhs and Jains celebrate the same festivals at the same time but for different reasons. Is there anything wrong with Sikhs praying to Hindu Gods or partaking in Hindu rituals because Jains do this already.

Idk. Why don't you ask the noble Sikh members of the SikhDIR? They will be more than happy to help you. I can't answer this question because I am not well-acquainted with such amalgamation. However, I am sure that it may be more cultural than religious.

And i've said this before but I get along better with Sikhs than other Indians due to the Sikh hospitality. The only reason I don't become a Sikh are:
i) I believe in Hinduism from an agnostic perspective
ii) I don't let religion control me

I get along with African Americans. Not that it matters at all nor is it related to the subject matter of this thread.

 

[Sb1995]

Lol @ Sikhs being safe in Pakistan. Lets be real, I guess the Christians are safe there as well? I hope you know anyone other than Muslims are treated like DOGS there and are dirt poor. Don't be surprised if these paki's put them on camera and pay them 5 rupees to say Pak>India. It's all propaganda. But I believe Hindus and Sikh's are brothers, waheguru.

 

[Sb1995]

Sikhs criticise other Sikhs for doing this (again, i've not actually seen Sikhs doing a Laxmi Pujan,chanting Hare Krishna or carrying a Hanuman keyring around) yet they do not look inward at 'unorthodox' Sikhs who shave their beards, don't wear their turbans and go around drinking alcohol.

I've seen many Sikh's in the temples and I know many Hindu's who go to the Gurdwara.

 

[ronki23]

Lol @ Sikhs being safe in Pakistan. Lets be real, I guess the Christians are safe there as well? I hope you know anyone other than Muslims are treated like DOGS there and are dirt poor. Don't be surprised if these paki's put them on camera and pay them 5 rupees to say Pak>India. It's all propaganda. But I believe Hindus and Sikh's are brothers, waheguru.

What I don't understand is why some Hindus put copies of the Guru Granth Sahib in their Mandirs and say Sikhism is the 5th Vedas. Sikhism rejects idol worship and personification of God.

I would however, pray to the Gurus individually and (if I owned a Mandir), do this :

Off-topic but who is standing behind Krishna? Is that Vishnu? What is the '3rd' face in the clouds-Brahman? Why 3 faces

 

[ranvirk]

I'm just saying you could argue each Yuga is CIVILISATION's remaining time/starts counting down when humans first appeared-so humans may still be in Kali Yug as they have less than 5 billion years before Earth is destroyed (2 billion if you consider the Solar temperature increase)

Still not convinced Sikhs like India though-they even find faults with Amitabh Bachachan as well as M.Gandhi and M.Singh-people who put India on the map. Some even support Pakistan even though they don't live there/were driven out and I have no answer for JSB '5000 Hindus' threat-a clear divide between the 2 religions that happened very,very recently

What would Sanathan Sikhs believe in? I believe Guru Nanak's son was one as he was a Sadhu? I could say I'm a Sanathan Sikh as I go to Gurudwara and admire the Gurus for defending Hindus from Islamification. But why would others use SGGS in the Mandir/call it the 5th Vedas?
What do other Sikhs think of books like Mahabharat from a metaphoric/agnostic view?

Sorry I am confused, can u please elaborate what you mean by "CIVILISATION's remaining time/starts counting down when humans first appeared", what do you mean by appeared? For your info, we didn't appear out of thin air, we have evolved for millions of years before becoming what we call humans.

Sikhi doesn't believe in Yugas and stuff. Period. You are happy to think what ever u want, but its doesn't change what Sikhi teach us and u can read my post above if its still not clear.

Now, put urself in a Sikh position who saw his family put burnt alive, female members of his family raped, who lost everything during 1984 riots. What that Sikh would atleast expect is JUSTICE from government and its constitution. 30 years from then, still not even a single person was held accountable. I think every Sikh who has gone through this has every right to be angry, really angry. If they think they have been let down by their own people then in my opinion they are absolutely right.
Btw, my real hero is Bhagat singh, sukhdev , Rajguru, shaheed udham singh etc who cared for India..not people like Ghandi and Nehru who were core politicians..

There is no such thing as Sanathan Sikh, And Sikh gurus didn't stop islmaification. They taught us the right way to live a life and protect against injustice.

And I have no idea what you mean by "But why would others use SGGS in the Mandir/call it the 5th Vedas?"

Regarding Mahabharata, Sikhs don't have any particular stand as it not important for us. Sure you can take teaching from it ( Respect elders, stand against injustice etc") in the same way you can learn from good books written even in this era. From Spirituality point of view, only thing that matters to Sikh is SGGS, period.

I will make it more clear:


ਭੈਰਉ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
Bẖairo mėhlā 5.
Bhairao, Fifth Mehl:

ਵਰਤ ਨ ਰਹਉ ਨ ਮਹ ਰਮਦਾਨਾ ॥
varaṯ na raha▫o na mah ramḏānā.
I do not keep fasts, nor do I observe the month of Ramadaan.

ਤਿਸੁ ਸੇਵੀ ਜੋ ਰਖੈ ਨਿਦਾਨਾ ॥੧॥
Ŧis sevī jo rakẖai niḏānā. ||1||
I serve only the One, who will protect me in the end. ||1||

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥
Ėk gusā▫ī alhu merā.
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Hinḏū ṯurak ḏuhāʼn neberā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
He administers justice to both Hindus and Muslims. ||1||Pause||

ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥
Haj kābai jā▫o na ṯirath pūjā.
I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines.

ਏਕੋ ਸੇਵੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ॥੨॥
Ėko sevī avar na ḏūjā. ||2||
I serve the One Lord, and not any other. ||2||

ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਉ ਨ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਉ ॥
Pūjā kara▫o na nivāj gujāra▫o.
I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers.

ਏਕ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਉ ॥੩॥
Ėk nirankār le riḏai namaskāra▫o. ||3||
I have taken the One Formless Lord into my heart; I humbly worship Him there. ||3||

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥
Nā ham hinḏū na musalmān.
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.

ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥
Alah rām ke pind parān. ||4||
My body and breath of life belong to Allah - to Raam - the God of both. ||4||

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹੁ ਕੀਆ ਵਖਾਨਾ ॥
Kaho Kabīr ih kī▫ā vakẖānā.
Says Kabeer, this is what I say:

ਗੁਰ ਪੀਰ ਮਿਲਿ ਖੁਦਿ ਖਸਮੁ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥੫॥੩॥
Gur pīr mil kẖuḏ kẖasam pacẖẖānā. ||5||3||
meeting with the Guru, my Spiritual Teacher, I realize God, my Lord and Master. ||5||3||



Some quotes to make clear what Raam states for in SGGS:

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
Kabīr rām kahan mėh bẖeḏ hai ṯā mėh ek bicẖār.
Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider.

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
So▫ī rām sabẖai kahėh so▫ī ka▫uṯakhār. ||190||
Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. ||190||

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
Kabīr rāmai rām kaho kahibe māhi bibek.
Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction.

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
Ėk anekėh mil ga▫i▫ā ek samānā ek. ||191||
One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself. ||191||

The same applies to Krishna or anyone else.

Below should make it very clear:

ਸ੝ਵੈਯਾ ॥
ਪਾਂਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤ੝ਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਿਯੋ ॥
ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪ੝ਰਾਨ ਕ੝ਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤਿ ਝਕ ਨ ਮਾਨਿਯੋ ॥
ਸਿੰਮ੝ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੝ਰ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹ੝ ਭੇਦ ਕਹੈ ਹਮ ਝਕ ਨ ਜਾਨਿਯੋ ॥
ਸ੝ਰੀ ਅਸਿਪਾਨਿ ਕ੝ਰਿਪਾ ਤ੝ਮਰੀ ਕਰਿ ਮੈ ਨ ਕਹਿਯੋ ਸਭ ਤੋਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਿਯੋ ॥੮੬੩॥
SWAYYA
O God ! the day when I caught hold of your feet, I do not bring anyone else under my sight; none other is liked by me now.
The Puranas and the Quran try to know Thee by the names of Ram and Rahim and talk about you through several stories, but I do not accept any of their opinions;
The Simritis, Shastras and Vedas describe several mysteries of yours, but I do not agree with any of them. O sword-wielder God!
This all has been described by Thy Grace, what power can I have to write all this?. (863)

 

[Treks]

I need a bigger facepalm smiley.

Ronki, Sikhs don't pray to their Gurus. By all means go ahead but you'll get just as far by praying to your refrigerator.

Sikhi is a distinct and unique religion. Drawing make-believe pictures of make-believe Gurus with as many Hindu deities around them and Sanatan symbols like OM will not morph it into Sanatan Dharma. Pick ONE, don't try to turn Sikhi into something it isn't.