Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gurbani[edit]

As this is a universal page on Prohibitions in Sikhism, references should be based upon religious text (Quotes from SGGS), rather than referencing the Rehat Maryada, as that is maintained by the SGPC, a questionable organization. All Sikhs, no matter what type, believe in the religious text. For the neutrality of this page, everything should be based off of Gurbani.

Gurbanivichar (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you must use cited refrences from verifiable sources. ISBN numbers. You must adhere to WP:NPOV, Thanks.--Sikh-History 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihangs[edit]

Forget POVS, the section on Nihangs is plain incorrect. Firstly, its not bhang its SUKHNIDHAAN/ SHAHEEDI DEGH, Nihangs never refer to it as bhang, in fact this would be insulting. Secondly, it is not an intoxicant, as made clear in the video given, just as much as a paracetamol is not an intoxicant. Thirdly, the article makes no mention of its PRIMARY use as a pain killer and protein drink. Finally, what on earth does "the HINDU god shiva", have to do here?

Also, what on earth was wrong with me categorising Kurehits and Bajjar Kurehits? I placed effort into that part, can you tell me how that broke any rules?

Also, in general about your Meat edits, as much as we may wish it, the SGPCs ruling on something does not automatically make that view 'mainstream', 'orthodox', or official. Although perhaps in a black and white world this would be the case, but it just isn't and as far as I am aware wikipedia is to INFORM on the REAL world. Yes, akj is a minority in sikhism, but the way it has been placed there to cover the vegetarian side of the argument, seriously blurs it making it very one sided.

Onetwothreeabc (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly wikipedia is an encylopedia. It is not the provisio or "ownership" of one person. It relies heavily on Good Faith and NPOV. Therefre I ask yet again, please assume good faith. If you have cited refrences with ISBN numbers then please presents them here and we will read them. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note this page was subject to a lot of vandalism and edit warring a year ago and consensual wording was agreed upon by all parties (on the meat issue). So my request is NOT to start the edit war again. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 K's, not eating meat, (see my argument below, this has nothing to do with Sikhism), no-intoxication are all the results from the formation of the khalsa which eseentially was a army of the people to protect the people from injustice and prejudice. They have NOTHING to do with the almighty and or beliefs. The true meaning of sikhism is found in the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev ji as they were the ones with the wisdom and philosphy of one mankind and one god. I have read many articles which places the practices and policies of the Khalsa as being Sikhism thus losing the real teachings. The Khalsa is not sikhism but a branch of sikhism more accurately the khalsa is a organisation of saint soldiers.

This is more evident if you break down the khalsa and its formation and rules and apply logic - 1st question why was khalsa formed? This is very simple due to the mughal rule of the time which did not allow religeous freedom and other religeons were being persecuted against and in such times the people needed protection, so the Guru Gobind Singh decided to form a peoples army to protect the people from mughal oppression. Now every army vows to serve either king or country, and the soldiers go through somesort of initiation a sign up procedure so to speak (this process is still the same to this day for all soldiers joining a army). However as the king and country itself is oppressing its people then the people turn to a higher force to serve in this case almighty God. As initiation a simple baptism (amrit) words to praise god (raag or kirtan) thats the initiation done. Next issue any army requires supplies and weapons. Your weapons Kirpan and kara, your uniform dont forget we are talking about poor people living in villages, simple loose fitting shorts for ease of moving - kashera. You will be fighting and staying in hills and jungles therefore no time to cut hair and shave etc keep a comb to look after yourself - kanga and not cutting your hair and beard also enables you to be indentified as a fellow khalsa saint soldier, and was a direct statement of defiance to the status quo (as having shorn cut hair was the mughal way) - kesh As meat and poultry is the first to go off (no frideges) and infected with bacteria so no meat stick to veg. And as you have to fight you have to about your wits so no drinking or drugs...the khalsa is very simple and logic.

there you have the five k's explained logically without the need for religion......i have so much else to say but my office is closing and i have to go home......we are losing the true teachings of sikhism because we are being blinded by extreme beliefs of a few who are putting the khalsa as the main doctrine of sikhism! when in fact it was a branch who's formation was required at the time as a means of self defence to fight opression.....but who are we fighting today??? i have known many khalsa sikhs who look down un non-amritdhari sikhs as if we are not sikhs, but isnt their ritualistic wearing of the 5 k's go against the philosophy of Guru Nanak dev ji (sikhs do not believe in rituals) is not the very notion of awaking and praying everyday and wearing the five k's become a ritual in it self!?...the end line is that sikhism esssentially is very simple and was meant to be, its in touch with the life and the world we live in. What we have done down the years is complicate something so simple and beautiful and in doing so we have lost the original message....oh well nobody will ever listen to what i have to say nobody will probably even read this and takje it seriously...but if you do and have some points or comments then please get in touch on no-1@hotmail.co.uk....lets have a good ole argument hahahaha!

I do not think that your surmise of not using meat is a very good one. If you study the Mongol's and what their field rations were, they comprised of meat. This is the case in many standing armies. There are many historical accounts of Sikhs eating meat. I am a vegetarian, not because I believe the Sikh faith or brotherhood forbids it, but my own conscience will not allow it. I did not become baptised and then gave meat, but did not eat well before that. The beauty it Sikhism it allows for people who do and do not eat meat to sit together and not let that be a factor to affect their spirtuality. The Akal Takht realised this and ruled on this. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the section about Nihangs and 'bhang' due to inaccuracy. Firstly Nihangs do not consume bhang, but Sukhnidhan, a non-intoxicating protein and medicinal drink, to have any such drink which was intoxicating would not constitute as sukhnihdan but as an abuse*. Furthermore Nihangs do not believe it is a meditative tool, and no offence but the reference to Shiva is completely irrelevent.

Onetwothreeabc (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLease discuss edits and do not add POV. I have checked that youtube video and it does not back up what you have claimed. Regards.--Sikh-history (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page can't be right[edit]

Im not saying I agree or don't agree. But this page CONTRADCITS other pages about Sikh teachings (Vegetarian, being a priest etc.).

108.23.228.249 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean. This contracdicts nothing? SH 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Permastub and Sometimes Misleading[edit]

I agree with many of the above comments regarding contradictions in this article and with the generally accepted principles of Sikhism.

  1. Many feel Gurus never created universal, rigid laws or prohibitions. And feel Sikhism is based on broad wide ranging principals to guide followers. This makes it difficult to find enough verifiable, reliable sources that address the topic directly see WP:SIGCOV.
  2. All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles
  3. There is little more important to say/add about the subject making it a candidate for permastub status. see WP:PERMASTUB
  4. I believe the suggestion above regarding use of Gurbani was made as the editor above was trying to suggest SGGS is more widely accepted by Sikhs.
  5. The article should not be too heavily based on primary sources. SGGS and Rehat Maryada are primary sources see WP:PRIMARY.
  6. Some referencing is dubious and misleading:
  • "According to the Sikh clergy, "the fad among youth to shed the pagri" is being observed" - The article is contradicting itself with reagrd to clergy. This can be confusing. Also this reference is a news article in which one individual is quoted as making this statement yet the sentence implies that Sikh clergy as a whole has reached this consensus.
  1. The article is very biased. For example:
  • "Not all people calling themselves Sikh subscribe to these prohibitions" - This implies the auther is deciding who can and cannot call themselves Sikh. It is irrelevant if they can or cannot call themselves Sikh. We should always write in an uninterested and neutral/academic tone. i.e. Who thinks these people should not be called Sikhs and can said statement be verified.
  • "Intoxicants are strictly forbidden for a Sikh." - The use of "Strictly" introduce a level of Non-NPOV. The use of "a Sikh" Implies this rule is accepted and followed by all Sikhs".
A better way to write is. "removing hair from any body part is strictly forbidden for Sikhs by the Sikh Temple governing board" - In this case the editor makes it clear the label "Strict" is applied by "the Sikh Temple governing board". I accept that in the first case a reference points to Rehat Maryada which is controlled by Temple government, however this is misleading and takes away from neutrality.


With regards to point 1 (Prohibition is not an absolutely accepted principle in Sikhism WP:SIGCOV). Point 2 (Overlap with larger Sikh Articles) and Point 3 (Permanstub status WP:PERMASTUB). I would like to propose discussion to either delete this stub article or merger of it with Sikhism.

In any case i feel we shoudl address some of the non-NPOV statements and misleading comments in the article. Tindy1986 (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prohibitions in Sikhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prohibitions in Sikhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prohibitions_in_Sikhism&oldid=1217268913"