Who Is A Sikh?

What does it take to become a Sikh? If my parents are Sikhs, does that make me a Sikh? If I have unsheathed hair and wear a turban, does that make me a Sikh? If I go to Gurdwara every week, does that make me a Sikh? So what does it take to become a Sikh?

Guru Nanak Dev Ji said this many times, and it was also repeated by all of the following Gurus. Well that was easy. There’s your answer: Pray, Share, and live an honest life. So is anybody who does these three things a Sikh? These are the basic principles of Sikhism, but there is much more required to become a Sikh. Along with these things, a Sikh must be pure of the five thieves, Kam (Lust), Krodh (Anger), Lobh (Greed), Moh (Attachment), Ahankar (Ego).
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/new-to-sikhism/15052-who-is-a-sikh.html

Guru Gobind Singh Ji said every Sikh must take amrit. So therefore everybody who takes amrit is now automatically a Sikh. In everyday when we see someone who has taken amrit we do assume that they are Sikhs. Usually they are, but we must realize there is more to becoming a Sikh than doing path and wearing the five K’s. One can take amrit, but still not be in control of the five temptations listed above. This is very possible, just look at the people around you. Is their anyone you know who has taken amrit, but is also greedy or lustful or attached to something or is angry or has a huge ego? You probably know some one who is, and do you refer to them as a Sikh? Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not say, If you take amrit you will become a Sikh. He said, if you want to become a Sikh you must also take amrit. There is a huge difference in the two. The latter implies there are other things you must also accomplish. So how do you become a Sikh?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052

Many Sikh scholars state, that in order to be considered a Sikh you must read gurbani and meditate on Nam. Following the general pattern here you can see, that there is going to be a catch. We all know people who read gurbani on a regular basis. We also know some people who do this but also sin on a regular basis. I know people who read gurbani and still cut their hair, people who still drink, people who still discriminate.
Do these people understand what they are reading? There is a difference in reading gurbani and studying gurbani. You have to be able to understand the meaning behind what is said. Yet, even after that, you must implement what you have learned in every decision you make. You must use what you have learned from the teachings of Gurbani on a daily basis. This will also help show people who Sikh’s truly are. Now we are close to discovering who a Sikh is.

The main problem to answering this question is that the Sikh society has become too loose. We have lost the strictness that many other religions still retain. So just because someone calls themselves a Sikh, do not believe them. I apologize if I being too frank, actually I will not apologize. This is an example of the leniency we must shed. We should not stop ourselves from informing our society just because we may insult someone whom we know personally. We have made too many levels of Sikhism: we have the Puran Sikhs, the Amritdhari Sikhs, the Gursikhs, and Sahjdhari Sikhs. I believe you are either a) Not a Sikh, b) a Sahjdhari Sikh, or c) a Sikh. Usually people consider themselves Sahjdhari Sikhs. Most of the time the people who refer to themselves as this, are not even Sahjdhari Sikhs. If you know something you are doing is said to be wrong in gurbani, but yet you continue doing it by making an excuse, then you are not a even a Sahjdhari Sikh. It is not wise to question whether what the guru’s said or did is right or wrong. The most common way people try to find a loophole around this is by misinterpreting a quote from gurbani. They will either take a quote out of context or they will give an incorrect translation because they do not know gurmukhi, the language gurbani is written in. This way they can indulge themselves in whatever unsikh practice they wish to partake in without any guilt. There are many issues in Sikhism today such as "Meat or Vegetarian" or "Photos of Guru’s or Not" or "Sit on Chair’s in Gurdwara or on the floor" or "Alcohol or Sobriety."

As a Sikh the answers to these questions lay in gurbani. The Guru Granth Sahib is very similar to the US Constitution in that they are very general. The answers to these questions are not specifically stated because the questions are endless. Therefore the Guru Granth Sahib gives general laws that can be used to answer any question. When people want to do something that is wrong they usually say "Show me in gurbani where it says I can not…." They must realize the answer will not be stated straightforward, but instead it will be found by deeper understanding of gurbani. Remember this, even if you some how manage to convince yourself it is correct, God still knows that you are sinning. A Sahjdhari Sikh is someone who as they learn what they are doing is against the rules of sikhi, immediately stops and try to become closer to god and prepare themselves to take amrit. Only after you have taken amrit and achieved a level of knowledge about Sikhism and gurbani are you prepared to correctly represent this religion? Here then is the answer a Sikh is person who has taken amrit and actually lives his life according to the teachings of gurbani.


If you are not prepared to become a Sikh than stop calling yourself a Sikh. It is truly better to not be a Sikh rather than a false Sikh. "But how is this, is Sikhism not the ultimate religion, will god not penalize me more if I do not call myself a Sikh?" NO, this is where Sikhism differs from every other religion. Every religion states we are all created equally, but at the proverbial "Judgement Day" god will only except you if you are part of this religion. In Sikhism we believe god created everyone equally, and no strings-attached. Yes it is possible to live during your physical existence as a member of some other religion or even no organized religion at all and still become one with God. Anybody can realize God by Truly loving him, but to become a Sikh you not only has to love God, you will also have to follow other rules laid down by our Gurus. God does not discriminate. Only God can judge whether what we do is right or wrong. Therefore we can not judge someone else’s beliefs or religion or actions due to the fact that we are not God.

-Harsimran Singh

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Well in that case, the Sikh community needs to stop taking credit of non-Sikhs like Shaheed Udham Singh and Shaheed Bhagat Singh. This also means that Sikhs never ruled Punjab since Maharaja Ranjit Singh wasn't a Sikh. And if you look at other religions, then you will realize their definition of who is what is must looser than the Sikh definition of who is a Sikh. Like Guru Nanak Ji said, “There is no hindu or muslim” well there is no Sikh either.

No offence but excluding people from the panth because of their laxness means there would be hardly anyone left!
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052

This would spell disaster to an already shrinking community.

Not saying people can do what they want but still. Remember in U.K. law Sikhs are considered to be both a religious group AND a race, like Jews are.

Let people progress deeper into their Sikhi at their own pace.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052

Just some thoughts

I agree with your point.


But on the other hand, quality or quantity.? For e.g:

Quote" The reason for the success of the Khalsa was their love for humanity and the protection they provided to the poor and helpless at the cost of their own lives. The high character of the Sikhs was so popular with the people that even a Muslim historian, Kazi Noor Mohammed, could not help recognizing it and recording it in his book.


Though he nursed and extreme hatred for the Sikhs and referred to them as Sugs (dog, in Persian) instead of Singh, he could not help admitting their high character. He writes:
In no case would they slay a coward, nor would they put an obstacle in the way of a fugitive. They do not plunder the wealth and ornaments of women, be she a well-to-do lady or a maidservant. There is no adultery among these dogs nor are these mischievous people given to thieving. Whether a woman is young or old, they call her a "buriya" and ask her to get out of the way.

(The word "buriya" in the Indian language means "an old lady"). There is no thief at all among these dogs nor is there any housebreaker born among these miscreants. They do not make friends with adulterers. Jang Nama PP 156-159."


How did most Sikhs of those times have such a high character?

They still had the idealism of Guru Gobind Singh Ji influencing them then. They were close to the fountain of inspiration. That piece by the Qazi was written in the mid 1700s, people who had been around the Guru would've still been around or at least the children of such people.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052

But regarding the quantity and qualiity argument. Pan Ji i feel we need both!

this topic that who is a sikh and who is not has nearly destroyed the sikh religion.religion is like a ladder some one is on first step and someone is on last step.when we call that other non sikh then we kill sikh identity in him/her.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052

SO ANYBODY WHO BELEIVES IN THE TEACHINGS OF 10 SIKH GURU'S AND GURU GRANTH SAHIB ITS LIVING GURU SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS SIKH.

Sangat Jio,

Why dont we start a new thread for all "New to Sikhi" or "are wondering on how one becomes a Sikh". Directions for anyone who wants to follow the Sikh way of life. Many people ask this questions and I think we should come up with a basic guide- list's.

E.g.
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/new-to...ming-sikh.html

We are always muddling up terms and times. Sikhs of old were mostly illiterate paindoos, with good measure of sense of 'izzat' and 'badla', mixed with a sense of spiritual acceptance and fair play, and that is what made them great. They were tough, worked long days in the harsh sun, could ride horses saddleless for days, go without food and water and still had the courage (or fatality?) to fight, and fight to the end. It has been said of the Sikhs, and of the Juts, that what separates them from most is their tenacity and that they did not know when they were beaten, i.e. they kept on going in the face of irrational odds. Well, that is fine by me. They also had a good store of lore imbibing them with no little love for the muslim rulers of india nor of the Afghan invaders. In this context, no matter what the talk of justice for the sake of justice, there still was a lot of payback at issue.

I think it is clear, what was a Sikh in appearance and action in the historical past is no longer so. The language he or she spoke is radically changed, our habits altered, our prosperity far advanced, our physical toughness diminished, our cultural cocoons in Punjab shattered by partition and all the affluence of modernity and the pressing weight of the offal, crass and cannabilistic greed and shamelessness of modern indian norms, language and values. How could any community (hardly one which can not even rule itself or produce leaders of quality now) face such a challenge and succeed?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15052

The "sikh" way of life is now of that of an idealist, realist, and passive. Do you really think the sikhs of old were that accepting and benign? They were rough, aggressive, militant, martial and sometimes, high on bhang and alcohol. The often gave better then they got. And now? History speaks for itself. I am sure the vast majority of Sikhs used to first associate with one another based on some degree of sikhism, with equal measure for the value of the brotherhood of punjabi speakers, or of those of rural and frugal background (and let us not say it too loud, but yes, of their own caaassstttee....with whom they shared links of name, clan, history and geography).

This topic is so broad and in some ways so senseless it is pathetic. Someone here saying, "that is not sikh". Someone saying, "We are all sikh". He is saying "That form of Sikhism is wrong", the other reciting verses and hymns fit for an ascetic under the tree while people all around are too busy, too stressed, too far removed from any form or sense of Sikhism to make any contribution to it other than to say "I am a Sikh".

Just my ravings on a topic, while important, I feel highlights the sad reality of modern religion. While every othe major religious group can afford such schizms and fractures because they are so large, we as Sikhs will suffer greatly if we can not at least agree to respect and learn about our history, language, culture and identity as the Sikhs of the Punjab, then who will?

A couple of points regarding your post Badmash.

I don't dispute this. A large part of early Sikh success could be put down to this spirit of Panjab but it is too simplistic to put it all down to this. What Sikhism did do was discipline and give a sense of unity to Panjabis. but it was also very inclusive, look at where the panj piaray came from, some of them were from what is now called South India. Banda wasn't Panjabi either.

Kaur made a good point with her post about the character of Sikhs of those times. From what I understand Juts were/are not known for the type of behavior mentioned in her quote by the Qazi. Countless older women from back home told me that it was considered dangerous to wander alone past the "khet" lest some lecherous farmer got hold of you. Contrast this behaviour with what Qazi is saying. The theme of Jat Balatkaar versus the noble Jat was even the theme of EVERY Panjabi film produced in the 1980s. Sikhism made such people restrain themselves. Plus Juts are always known for interclan infighting and Sikhism provided a mechanism for them to overcome this. You really need to read Jagjit Singh's book The Sikh Revolution, he explains this in detail.

Yep I agree, some even made Muslim converts eat pork to test their sincerity. Others put boars blood in the amrit and made the converts wear boars tusks as an amulet. Bhang and opium wasn't unknown to them and you are right, they weren't hippy types but coarse, hardened fighters. They had to be to survive and fight against the odds they did. What you get now is a white wash which attempts to paint our ancestors in a seriously unrealistic light.

I do however subscribe to the position that kds1980 records on this thread. i remember a few years ago when the Pak-Sikh thing was going full strength. Back then amrit dharis/kesh dharis weren't complaining about the Sikhs who had cut hair and drank. These people was at the forefront of most of the fighting that went on.

Accept Sikhs without too much judgement. Of course this doesn't mean that anything is allowed but still......if our ancestors were taking bhang, opium and hunting and still being Singhs it shows that back then people were more accepting..

We are not in a position to start pointing fingers and saying who is Sikh and who not.....as long as you believe in the 10 human Gurus, the current Maharaj and have no other religion you are Sikh....it is true that some may be well ahead of you in their Sikhi or some miles below, still.....no need to get funny about it