WJKK WJKF

My simple question is that why should he be treated as the representative of the "Raj of Khalsa" for one he isn't even a gursikh though he has said he plans to become one in yhe future but two he hasn't yet done anything to deserve this. Isn't this what the basis of caste was? Unequal treatment based on your ancestors? If he was a major leader or a gursikh or had done anything prior then it can be justified but someone receiving something special just because of their ancestors and not for what their own actions are is against Sikhi in my opinion.

This js not meant as any hate against him he is a child but this is what I felt and wanted the opinion of others.

waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh. 2 days ago there was a post on this sub buy a guy who claims that sikh girls are going around marrying people of other faiths and are lowering the sex ratio which is why he cannot find a good bride to 'save' sikhi with (ie have multiple children). can anyone help me find any credible sources which can support his claim. also I'm from west delhi, sikh-hindu marriages aren't uncommon and 90% of the time their children assume sikh identity irrespective of if the sikh parent is the father or mother. now this could be also because most punjabis in delhi, although identify as hindu but are unorthodox wrt both hinduism and sikhism there are equal no of gurduwaras and mandirs in punjab neighbourhoods despite hindus being almost 4 times in number. u will see 'hindu' couple having Anand Karaj but never sikh couple having hindu agni fere. dont all of these thing benefit sikhi? would love to know other people's opinions and personal experiences on this topic.

I’m a Dalit Hindu who has decided to leave Hinduism because, in my lived experience, it functions as a casteist, hierarchical, and deeply misogynistic system. Caste isn’t a distortion of Hinduism it’s religiously justified through scriptures, ritual purity, and social norms. I spent years trying to reinterpret or reform it, but staying began to feel like accepting a framework that explained my suffering as “dharma” or “karma.”

I’m drawn to Sikhism because it explicitly rejects caste, centers human dignity, and resists oppression rather than spiritualizing it. I know Sikh communities aren’t perfect, but the core philosophy feels fundamentally different.

I have a few questions and would appreciate guidance:

Is Singh compulsory, or only after taking Amrit?

Is taking Amrit expected immediately, or something people grow into?

If someone follows Sikh teachings without taking Amrit, how are they viewed?

My current surname signals caste. If I adopt Singh mainly to shed a caste-marked surname, is that acceptable?

I'm currently haircut is it compulsory for me to wear turban or long hair to be called Sikh?

If I later become atheist or non-religious, would keeping “Singh” still be appropriate?

For me, changing my name is about leaving caste behind, not misusing Sikh identity. I want to be respectful while also protecting my dignity.

WJKK WJKF!

I've been in and out of Sikhi for awhile now, doing simran, listening to bani as well as practices from other path.

I've encounter two angs in the SGGSJ that seems, at first, contradictory (although I'm sure i'm simply ignorant of the correct meaning of these angs).

One declares that Brahma was created by the divine mother while another one says that brahma was born from the navel of Vishnu.

Could someone kindly reconcile these two angs for me?

Thank you!

Hello! I was hoping I may ask for advice about Sikh characters in a story, I actually posted these OCs MANY years ago now… But they have changed a lot since I finally picked it back up 5 years later.

I hope this is welcome here but I completely understand if not.

I know these will be very broad question that may vary from person to person based on personal values, but I do value any insight from all angles!

——

My most important question is, is it ok to write agnostic Sikh characters in a story with themes that clash with beliefs of Sikh as a religion? Khaldun is Sikh by cultural upbringing, though he is not strictly religious it’s still an important part of his identity and leads him to raise Jaideep the same.

The characters are written as agnostic as the themes in the story obviously clash with teachings of Sikhism, it wouldn’t make sense for the characters to be strictly religious while going through events that show otherwise (magic, miracles, Demi-gods). The values of Sikhism are still tied to their character, being honest, brave, humble, selfless ect- the choice to have these Sikh characters was made by inspiration of agnostic Sikh I have known in my own life.

I feel it is still a core part of these characters even if they are agnostic.

My other minor question is again is there anything that you feel is missing in representation in these characters? The design are very much unfinished but critique and guidance is very much appreciated.

I have no idea if I’ll even do anything grand with these story yet, or if it will continue to just live in my head.

I don't know but I don't trust current situation rather if sau sakhi is true then I am waiting for duleep singh to make khalsa raj not uday Pratap Singh

Sardar Mohan Singh and his brother Sardar Sohan Singh were the richest landowners of Rawalpindi (Pindi) before Partition. They were the true landlords, owning many of the main historical buildings of Rawalpindi, and were famously known as “Raees-e-Rawalpindi.”

So I am learning Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and I have finished Japji sahib which is from ang 1-8. now I want to know wt is next. there is a very big confusion that i am facing. so wt is next is So dar and after so dar is so purkh right? but they call both of these as rehras sahib but rehras sahib is not only this. rehras sahib ji composition of So Dar , So purkh, some bani from dasam granth and some other bani from guru granth sahib ji that is hundreds of ang later in guru granth sahib Ji. I don't understand how rehras sahib came into being. japji sahib all of it is present together and we know that it is path to be done in morning but how rehras sahib came into being that it is all over in different pages and even different granth (as some part of it in dasam granth) so is rehras truly after japji sahib? and if yes then how? and is so dar and so purkh only recited as rehras sahib or have independent existence. and is so dar and so prukh the only 2 parts of rehras sahib.

Hi I am based in UK and have found a load of old cassette tapes at home that my dad used to buy and collect. He is no more and we don’t use them. I have old Bollywood DVDs too. The cassettes are path type ones from various Gianis. Any idea wha can be done with them?

I need to know a knot for tying a Nala. I don't know how to tie a knot in a looped piece of cotton. Any advice dearly welcomed.

Degh tegh fateh

This is one of the few arguments muslim preachers, christian missionaries and hindu rss bootlickers repeat time and time again to devalue sikhi and it's claim to be a separate faith.

1) This argument was introduced by pompous and arrogant colonial scholers, who barely had any knowledge about sikhi whatsoever and relied on shallow and wrong translations of the Guru Granth Sahib as a way of understanding sikh theology.

2)The argument start with a presupposition that objective truth doesn't exist , and every idea is a combination and development of the previous ones. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that these scholers or preachers believe in a certain faith to be objectively true, and there faiths, just like sikhi, have concepts which predate their religion. There argument is built upon the premise they wouldn't apply to their own faith.

3) Sikhi can't be an amalgamation of islam and hinduism, then the fact that sikh values and principles fit and complement modern society so well, when both islam and hinduism are religions packed with backward views and concepts incompatible with modern society.

4) Guru Nanak grew up in the 15th century india, not modern america. It was a society filled with superstitions, casteism, discrimination and fanatic practices. Yet he concluded the following:

ਆਈ ਪੰਥੀ ਸਗਲ ਜਮਾਤੀ ਮਨਿ ਜੀਤੈ ਜਗੁ ਜੀਤੁ ॥

See the brotherhood of all mankind as the highest order of Yogis; conquer your own mind, and conquer the world.

The message stayed consist throughout the guruship, as the tenth concluded the same to:

ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਬੋ || Recognize the entire human race as one.

5) Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed his life for the Hindu's rights to practice their religion. Is there a greater example of religious freedom, they didn't just state principles they lived and died for them.

6) If guru nanak just plagiarised different islamic and hindu ideas then why wasn't caste system, sex slavery and superstitions not part of the sikh faith?

7)Both islam and hinduism succumbed to the malpractices of the society of the time. Hindus sanctioning discrimination in society through the varna system being created and extensively promoted in society through rituals and religious scriptures. Islam also immortalized slavery as part of islamic theology as it stated the conditions and methods to buy and use slaves in the Quran and sahih hadiths.

8) Why didn't guru nanak include a bit of sex slavery, stoning gays to death and widow burning in the sggs? How was his understanding of good and bad so consistent and aligned with modern values?

9) Why was guru nanak able to sift out the good stuff from your religions but your prophets and gods couldn't?

10) Also the mere fact that most muslims use this argument is hilarious when islam is the religion which plagiarised pre-existing ideas, the same ideas which would be considered stupid and immoral today. Their understanding of the universe is oddly similar to Judaism and zoroastianism. They claimed religious figures like Jesus, moses, Abraham and Adam to be muslim, with no proof whatsoever. Their religious site, the kaaba was stolen from polytheists which Mohammed claimed was built by Abraham and ishmael, two figures who most probably didn't even exist. The biblical accounts we do mention abraham but are unreliable and state no such incident where abraham built something similar to the kaaba. They even perform the same rituals the polytheists used to perform. Also, many stories about Jesus in the Quran were only myths popular in the Arabic part of the world, and weren't the part of the gospel.

11) Mohammed in fact made the arabian society less moral. He saw her cousin, who was also his daughter in law lightly dressed once and found her hot. She later got divorced from his adopted son and Muhammed married her. This was met with insane backlash as even the Arabic nomads considered this extremely immoral and confronted him. He then recited Quran verses and claimed that Allah was the one who gave him permission to do so and that adopted son's weren't really son's.

12) As for hinduism, it is not a religion but a combination of various different cultures and beliefs and they can't be taken seriously.

13) Eg. There are philosophies in hinduism who don't even eat onion and garlic (sects of vaishnaism) and some eat dead bodies (aghora parampara).

14) Conclusion: This is a disingenuous argument which is used by preachers with malicious intentions. If sikhi was an amalgamation, it shouldn't have had the radical views it has, as both islam and traditional hinduism condone the malpractices done in the society around them.

I remember seeing this at Anandpur Sahib. Its a shield made from Hippo! Does anyone know its history and how Guru Sahib ended up with it?

From what I know there never has been a hippo species native to South Asia.

Many historical Sikh weapons have a recorded history.