Talk:Sikhism

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh

Dearest Sikh Sangat, there is a grave missuse of the Monotheistic word, our religion is clearly described in the English Oxford Dictionary as one of the 5 Monolythic religions (Christian, Muslim,Jew, Bhai Faith and Sikh,) all talk to the same God (Ik-Oankaar.) as a Sikh it is not hard for me to see this and our own teachings, teach us that God appears in many places, can be a beggar or rich person. This may also correct the misconception why Sikhs touch the floor and touch their forehead, ( if Waheguru, God, My Lord, Allah ) what ever your religion calls him, in many different languages, there is only one GOD, and if he has been present in our Gurdwarra, I want to be blessed by the dust off his feet. This is the only dictionary that tells the truth about our sikh religion for me and all Sikhs the truth is paramount. The majority of world dictionaries I have checked, state that Sikhism is an off shoot of Hindu religion, this is a blatant spin by corruption to our God Fearing religions and a further dilution of Sikhism and where it belongs in the world. I have been fighting for many years to have these world dictionaries change and tell the truth. Please look at the British Oxford Dictionary, written before 1947 Angad Singh (Sikh Activist) Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh

Sikhism and women

As in many other religions Sikhism has no guidance for women, even though they do observe it of their own accord. I must enlighten my friends on this Wikipedia that Hinduism is often mistaken for Brahmanism, actually Hinduism is a much wider ideology and cannot be rated as a religion. I, by my studies, have come to a conclusion that Sikhism is a segment of Hinduism as other religions such as Jainism, Buddhism and Brahmanism and many more sects; we may deffer. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Its funny that the only people who think that Sikhs are Hindus are Hindus themselves. Sikhs are not Hindus, nor a segment of Hinduism, if we were we would call ourselves as such. (174.1.80.242 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC))

Monotheistic?

Dearest SadhSangat, It is to my humble understanding that the first line of this article is open to a heavy misconception. Firstly, when attempting to understand from Wikipedia's description of Theism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism, (read further by clicking the link to "personal god" in the second sentence of that article) It conflicts with my understanding of the teachings in Gurbani, We do not in any way believe in a "personal God", (Yes the word "God" and "Him" comes up in many English translations of Gurbani however in the original untranslated text, the word "God" or "Him" for that matter, is something that does not come up as far as I have searched) So how can Sikhism be a Mono-Theistic religion?, I see a conflict between the teachings in Gurbani and this definition. Again many of the words in English are open to a high level of misconceptions because they have been simplified and personified from their original Greek and Latin meanings (Which are much deeper), therefore care must be taken when using such words without elaborating. Also changing it to "Non-theistic" would still be open to misconception, so I believe it needs to be elaborated and points illustrated quoting Gurbani instead of leaving it to any "*theistic" definition.

Edit: I think "Pantheistic" may fit better, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Sat Sri Akal, SatveerSinghBhullar (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Let us take "Mul Mantra" where God is described as Beyond Time and Space and also as Truth. In other sections as mother, father, teacher, air , water. etc etc. If you are going to change it, get a reference to back it up. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sat Sri Akal. Actually I am quite new to Wikipedia (as you can see by this post being out of chronological order compared with the entire discussion :P), I'm not too sure about changing to article myself, I was just bringing this up so that the moderators (if any), and community who assisted in writing this article may change it. Can someone more experienced kindly help to change this.--SatveerSinghBhullar (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok leave it with me. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}}
Sikh and other religon relations must be added into the article for general knowledge and correct information. Wiki admistrators will be contacted to dispute and correct the article. Public demands that information on the following religons and relations should be provided as information in this article.

• Christianity
• Islam
• Hinduism

all information has been provided earlier in history. Requests have been made to revert information on all three religons and relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk)

N Not done - Your request is far too vague. Please either make the request again with specific changes to be made, or edit the article yourself - I unprotected the page as it has been semi-protected for a long time. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism website

I found a grest sikhism website www.sikhzone.net that provides information about sikhism, sikhism principles, sikh gurus, gurdwaras and also lets you download pdf gurbani. I think it's worth adding to External Links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The coool (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Questioned external links

I have removed a couple of external links that appear more to be resources for Sikhs than adding substantively to the article. I request the editors of the article to review these.

• SikhNet.com - community website
• GGSSC.org - Guru Gobind Singh Study Circle - non-profit organization

The Punjabi radio station and the site offering literature are, I believe, sufficiently far from adding content to the article to qualify for direct removal. Jackollie (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Last Guru Of Sikhs

In the article it is written that it is believed that Guru Gobind Singh confered the title of Guru upon Guru Granth Sahib.And that this belief finds no mention in Adi Granth or Dasam Granth.I have some obections to the way it is written. firstly a 'belief' is something that is held to be true by a group of people and may or may not be true.That Guru gobind Singh installed Guru Granth Sahib as the eternal guru of sikhs is not just a belief,it is a perpetual truth.It has to be understood that the sikh gurus did not formulate a 'municiple law' or rules for conducting life and disputes among their followers. They left that on the sikhs to decide that by way of gurmatta according to time and changes.Thay were flexible on the approach towards living.Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings of Sikh Gurus and shows the path to salvation.It does not contains the laws or guidlines for Sikhs. secondly the term Guru Maaneyo Granth was composed by the hazuri singhs of Guru Gobind Singh after his departure from this earth.These hazuri singhs ( meaning one who is always in the presence of guru) were not ordinary mortals.They included the panj piaras and relatives of Guru Gobind Singh and sikhs who were dearer to him.They were highly learned men.Guru Granth Sahib Contains only the Hymns of Sikh Gurus.The work of sikhs is not included in it. thirdly Sikhism should not be viewed through the eyes of a Muslim or Jew or a Christian.people of these religions have a codified law contained in their religious text unlike sikhism whose religious text does not contain laws. A healthy debate is always good and removes many constraints.I hope the questionable sentences in the article are corrected sooner.Ajjay (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh There is no last Guru for the Sikhs. Guru Gobin Singh Sahib appointed our Sri Guru Granth Sahib as our living Guru this subject heading should be changed to accuratly tell the truth as we have a living Guru. Angad Singh Sikh activist Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.139.218 (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to add external link

I'd like to add this link http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/asia_features/sikhism/index.html to the article. Do you have any objections? These pages give a broad history of the Sikh faith and show lots of objects and art work associated with Sikhism. VAwebteam (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi protected

Wasn't the article semi-protected. What happened to that? I don't see the protected sign! Ajjay (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism

Shouldn't that be the title? JTBX (talk) -Undated

Edit warring

If you want to make any major edit, then please discuss before doing so. You have suddenly started doing edits based on your own point of view.Please refrain from doing so.Don't fill this article with names of people who do not belong here. you can add their names in their respective articles. Stop undue POV EDITS on this article.THANKS!!Ajjay (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of vandalism when you clearly do not even know what it is. I do not need to discuss an edit, when I'm rewriting the original POV that was in the article. The section was quite incomplete, as it did not even explain what Operation Blue Star was about. It also states that Operation Blue Star was initiated because of the government's accusations of inciting violence. This is not true. Blue Star was primarily based on the militant occupation in the Golden Temple. Also, your version only refers to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, but fails to mention other Hindu-Sikh conflicts, in which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus. There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Go and read some history books before writing on history facts.There was no hindu-sikh riots.Everyone knows that 1984 riots were congress sponsored. what makes you edit something you have no primary knowledge about. What are you sources - obviously some internet site.Wake up my friend.Face the reality.If you have any doubts about the reality than make sure that you visit the office of national human rights commission of india. You are welcome to re-write but without your additions. Your tweaks and minor edits are full of personal viewsAjjay (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard". This is your mentality. your feelings for sikhs.your idea of hindu-Sikh relations.I don't need to say more.A person like you, no matter how intelligent, doesn't belong on wiki. Ajjay (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When did I say I am not familiar with Operation Blue Star? Please, I have an extensive knowledge of Operation Blue Star. For crying out loud, I wrote the article on Bhindranwale! Also, you only referred to anti-Sikh riots, but there was also other Hindu-Sikh tensions, in which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus. You honestly think Sikhs didn't do anything in retaliation?? That's what I mentioned in the articles. It's one-sided to say that there were only anti-Sikh riots (and yes I know it was Congress-sponsored; it was backed by Gandhi's supporters), when there were also Sikh against Hindu violence. And please, my stuff comes from books. You can only find Sikh fundamentalist nonsense on the Internet, proclaiming that Bhindranwale was some hero. And don't make personal attacks. There was violence on both sides, but Hindu against Sikh violence was far more devastating. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you back up your claims with govt. sources. List the places where violence occured between sikhs and hindus.The number of incidents.Reports from Govt. investigating agencies.Where are you sources.Ajjay (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I never talked about violence in the article. I wrote that there were other Hindu-Sikh tensions, not including the anti-Sikh riots (which was not really orchestrated by Hindus, anyway...it was more political). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As for your Sikh against Hindu violence, see Global Terrorism by James and Brenda Lutz here. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me towards the link.But, going by it, the violence appears to be govt. sponsored.Also spellings of Indira Gandhi are wrong.It also fails to mention the exact year when hundereds of militant groups sprang up. which was after Bhindranwala. Also where did he make an explicit demand for khalistan. Things like these are best left for politicians. People like us get a bad mouth out of it, sometimes burns tooAjjay (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of sources spell Gandhi as "Ghandi". I don't know why, but that appears the case. Also, I pointed you to the link because it talks about the Sikh violence against Hindus after Operation Blue Star (how could you forget the airplane bombing?). As for Khalistan, I already removed that from the article. I know Bhindranwale's involvement with Khalistan is a bit clouded; it appears he endorsed it at one time, but he wasn't really the major proponent. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The airplane bombing was not against Hindus. It was directed against Govt. Also it was carried out by terrorists, and a terrorist does not belong to any religion. Also the canadian Govt. had questioned the role of RAW in that bombing. It is a vicious circle. i don't know if i can make an edit now or not. I will see and do waht i have to do tommorrow. I am tired. Good DayAjjay (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's a valid point. However, the book does state that there were tensions between the Sikh and Hindu communities. As for Air India Flight 182, the bombing was orchestrated by Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh terrorist group (to my knowledge, there doesn't appear to be any non-Sikhs in the group) that wants to form a separate state. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did the tensions occur.You cannot just provide a ref. from a book. Also the book is about global terrorism, and a clash which is communal in nature is not covered under it. The author is not speclialised on this subject.

The name of Indira Gandhi or anybody does not belong in article of sikhism. Please remove it. It is enough to state her as prime minister at that time. You provide no govt. sources on alleged hindu-sikh clash. Only a govt. source would be acceptable. Or an eye-witness account. This article is about sikhism and not operation blue star. If you want to add lenghty observations , you can do that in Operation Blue Star or Anti Sikh Riots. This article is about the religion, Sikhism. Is any mention has to be made, it should be of a small nature.Ajjay (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Government source? Since when is the government the primary authority on any matter? Also, those actions (Blue Star and such) were of vital importance in modern Sikh history. My additions detail the conflict between Sikhs and Gandhi's Congress government. If this article is really about Sikhism only, then why do you have an entire section titled "Political advancement". My additions are perfectly legitimate in the scope of this article. Also, the book cited is reliable source. Each terrorist conflict was examined and thoroughly analyzed as a case study. Also note that the book cites a number of other authoritative sources, exclusively detailing these events. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To all editors: please refrain from making personal attacks. They are not pleasant to read, even if they are about another editor. I've removed the major attacks, and certain other incivil remarks that were made in this section of the talk page.

In terms of the dispute, looking at this recent-diff, While I agree with Nishkid64 that further explanation of Operation Blue Star is helpful, the referencing should be more aggressive. Even if the source is the same, almost every sentence should have a citation in this section. Alternatively, tightening the expression of the article would no doubt, help.

Despite all this, I'm not sure if this article currently qualifies as an FA, so might sooner or later, reassess this article just to be sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

thats it! That is why there are so many editors are going haywire to edit it. To get it off FA.Go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajjay (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User NishKid64 must answer this

• Why the govt. sources of a Democratic country like India are not trustable.
  • Read WP:RS. Scholarly works, like books, are clearly acceptable. I never said govt. sources are not unnacceptable. I only asked why you considered the government the primary source, when there's many scholarly works covered by noted historians and other individuals.
• Why is he using books and not The judicial process and police action, which is first handed.
  • Material on Wikipedia is usually attributed to books or other scholarly works. First hand accounts are fine, but they need to be relevant. There are no specific details of incidents in the article, so first hand accounts are not necessary.
• His claim regarding hindu-sikh riots is vague and does not cite the reports of Law enforcing Agencies, of the place where it occured.
  • I said there were Hindu-Sikh tensions. Tension means a strained relationship. This is definitely the case between the Sikhs and Hindus, after Blue Star and the Gandhi assassination. The book mentions these tensions, thus corroborating my statement.
• Is he stating that he has no faith in the Judicial Authority of India, and it has no value.
  • You have been misrepresenting everything I have said, and now you're making accusations. What does anything I say have to do with the Indian judicial system?
• He should provide the names of places and subsequent police reports , wherever the clashes occured.
  • Why? You said this article isn't supposed to go into specifics. Police reports and places of clashes are very specific.
• Why is he unduly lenghting the section when seperate aricles exist for the matter.
  • Why is length a problem? I am adding material that is neutral. The previous versions are either biased (glorifying Bhindranwale, for example) or they were incomplete (no explanation as to what caused Gandhi to order Operation Blue Star; you just stated that the govt. accused Bhindranwale of inciting violence). Nishkid64 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When he says that the article is about Sikhism and political advencement should not be there, he does not understand the nature of the article. He should not be making it unduly lenghty and include politics of Indira govt.Ajjay (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Politics of Gandhi's government? Blue Star is an army operation, which resulted in the anti-Sikh riots. Without this information, people are going to ask what cause these riots. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*In which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus
*There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard
*I have an extensive knowledge of Operation Blue Star
*(and yes I know it was Congress-sponsored; it was backed by Gandhi's supporters), 
*I never talked about violence in the article
*my stuff comes from books
*but Hindu against Sikh violence was far more devastating
*I wrote that there were other Hindu-Sikh tensions, not including the anti-Sikh riots (which   was not really orchestrated by Hindus, anyway...it was more political). 
*I know Bhindranwale's involvement with Khalistan is a bit clouded; it appears he endorsed it at one time, but he wasn't really the major proponent
*However, the book does state that there were tensions between the Sikh and Hindu communities
*Government source? Since when is the government the primary authority on any matter?
*My additions detail the conflict between Sikhs and Gandhi's Congress government
*Also note that the book cites a number of other authoritative sources, exclusively detailing these events

These are some of the obsevations by Nishkid. You can read and know who is right or wrong. i think there is a malicious move to get sikhism from FA as is corroborated by ( Ncmvocalist )

NishKid if you read my edits to the article ( where i sated that the present state is neutral) , you will find all the information.I don't know you motive and reason to harp on blue Star with lenghty mentions in Sikhism when the same can be done in Operation Blue Star, to which there is inter-wiki link.Ajjay (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*I never said govt. sources are not unnacceptable
*There are no specific details of incidents in the article, so first hand accounts are not necessary
*I said there were Hindu-Sikh tensions. Tension means a strained relationship
*Why? You said this article isn't supposed to go into specifics. Police reports and places of clashes are very specific
*you just stated that the govt. accused Bhindranwale of inciting violence). 
*Politics of Gandhi's government? Blue Star is an army operation

User NishKid is indeed very confused. He must also furnish the govt. report where Bhindranwala was found guilty of violence by a court of Law. Unless convicted by a court, he remains accused and according to Indian law , benefit of doubt goes to the accused.Ajjay (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to set matters straight, because it appears you fail to see the issues with your edit. Bhindranwale was arrested by police for his suspected involvement in Jagat Narain's death in 1981. Operation Blue Star came three years later, after Bhindranwale and his armed followers barricaded themselves inside the Golden Temple. It was not a result of the government's accusations of inciting violence. There is no transition to Gandhi's assassination. You mention Operation Blue Star and then you go straight to her assassination. Articles are supposed to be thorough. They should be clicking wikilinks to find more information about a particular subject, not because they are absolutely confused what the relevance of the subject is in the context. I provided a short description about Blue Star and the result. I then went to the assassination of Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. After that, I wrote that the chain of events led to the anti-Sikh riots and Hindu-Sikh conflicts (it's common knowledge that there have been tensions between Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab; these events just furthered these tensions). Nishkid64 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bhindranwale was arrested by police for his suspected involvement in Jagat Narain's death in 1981. Operation Blue Star came three years later, after Bhindranwale and his armed followers barricaded themselves inside the Golden Temple."

What happaned inbetween

The thoroughness can be explained in Operation Blue Star , not in Sikhism.

• Indira Gandhi's name should not be mentioned. Her role is also equally controversial. You can mention her as the prime minister of the country.
• The descriptive phrase is too long. It should be short and not long, as is in it's present state.
• Bhindranwale was arrested, but released by court.(no need to mention)
• He did not fortify Golden Temple because of this Murder.(-SAME-)
• He was accused / Suspected / charged by Govt. for violence in Punjab. (-SAME-)
• You can say there was army action against sikh extremists, who were held responsible for violence in punjab, resulting in operation blue Star followed by assassination of prime minister and anti sikh riots and unconfirmed reports of sikh Hindu clashes as aftermath.[1][2]

[3]

The issue is more complex than you think. And still going strong. An impartial detailed analysis would take a long time to come. Being an administrator you have more probable cause for deciding about an article than me, now it is upto you how to put it in article , which is about sikh Gurus and their religion.Ajjay (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I have said Ajjay. As the main member of the assessment team for WikiProject India, and with or without this edit warring, I could not automatically see (on a cursory look) how this article qualifies as an FA, unlike many other FAs. However, as there might be an error, I will reassess the article at a later date formally, to ensure that it is up to the standards of what FAs should be under this project. This does not necessarily mean that this article is not a FA, nor that the grade will be stripped. Please refrain from making any further misrepresentations, personal attacks, or the like against or about any editor at Wikipedia, as this may result in you being blocked from editing. I would suggest all editors on this talk page read and follow the tag that is placed at the top of the page about keeping a cool head. Best wishes in improving the article - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim

Somebody put up "Sikhism was made to kill Muslims" and "If it wasnt for Sikhs India would be known as Hindustan" --AlexanderTheGreatSikh (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) that my friend is NOT true. it isnt true because sikhism was made just like many other religion, because they believed another god. but it just ended up that the muslims and sikh's in than than sri guru gobind singh ji's time period that there was severe war.nothing else.:|--Manvirkaurcheema (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ISI propaganda

No there were no sikh-hindu clashes anywhere, all violence was between exteremists and govt forces Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Problem with reincarnation

See the page on 'reincarnation' for full article... it is quoted in this page under the Sikhism section: Sikhism "In Sikhism reincarnation is totally rejected.[11]" I am confused... because in this article it seems to be that reincarnation is a fundamnetal belief of Sikhism. Can anyone help? Hurleyc2008 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurleyc2008 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(conflicted) The frase has got a reference, so it may be real. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism rejects re-incarnation of God or of God in human form or any other manner. It believes in re-birth of humans, but that can be changed with grace of Guru, a person becomes free from all bondages of karma, destiny etc.Shalimer (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something is to be found here. Austerlitz -- 88.75.201.69 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with reincarnation

See the page on 'reincarnation' for full article... it is quoted in this page under the Sikhism section: Sikhism "In Sikhism reincarnation is totally rejected.[11]" I am confused... because in this article it seems to be that reincarnation is a fundamnetal belief of Sikhism. Can anyone help? Hurleyc2008 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurleyc2008 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(conflicted) The frase has got a reference, so it may be real. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism rejects re-incarnation of God or of God in human form or any other manner. It believes in re-birth of humans, but that can be changed with grace of Guru, a person becomes free from all bondages of karma, destiny etc.Shalimer (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something is to be found here. Austerlitz -- 88.75.201.69 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sikhs believe in nothing but (Lord)TRUTH ( encompassing all GOD/Allah / Crist etc).

Sayth Nanak1

The very first two lines of Adi Granth (Sti Gur Bani) outright reject Reincarnation.

• Ikk O Angkarrrrrrrrrrrr stinam krqa purkhu nirbhau nirvyyr.akal muurqi ajoni syyBhng gurprsadi. Jpu. aadi schu, jugadi schu, hyy bhee schu, nanak hose bhe schu (gurmukhi script using english alphabet)

An Eternal TRUTH Crafter's (TRUTH's) True profile is.....(TRUTH & followers of nothing but TRUTH has been defined here) 'Creative TRUTH & fearless friend of even enemies of TRUTH.Thou are TRUE Eternal Idol (made up of nothing but TRUTHs) never to reincarnate. Thou are Self Realised through Thy True Language of TRUTHs. Thy Name was, had been, is here & now at this very moment & will ever remain TRUTH.

Sayth Nanak2

5th Sikh Guru(Nanak) says in Aadi Granth( Sti Gur Bani / True Ideas' Language)

• "kirqam nam kthyy tyry jyhva stinam tyra bla purbla...." (Gurmukhi Script)

" This (currupt) tongue is habituated to parrot Thy false names.Thy One & only One True Name is TRUTH (all other are Thy False Names)"

Needless to say that imagining TRUTH(God) to reincarnate or otherwise is absurd.--AmiBalRaj (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Caste in Sikhism?

I am a punjabi living in Canada and the section about marriages within the Sikh community sparked my interest. Living within a large Sikh community I always thought that there is caste within Sikhism. Although all of the Gurus did not beleive in caste it does exist. There are jatts, khatris, darjis,ramghari, rajputs etc yet the article claims that "Sikhs marry when they are of a sufficient age (child marriage is taboo), and without regard for the future spouse's caste or descent." I know that Amrit Dhari Sikhs do not beleive in caste (as far as I know they maintain their last names as Singh) but for the rest of the Sikh population it seems like caste (although not as apparent as Hinduism) really does exist. Unity717 (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Spend some more time with you sikh friends who are not prejudiced. And jatts, khatris, darjis,ramghari, rajputs etc are ethnic groups and not caste groups.Shalimer (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, these are castes. Plain and simple. Even though Sikhism is against Caste, it is still practiced, nothing wrong in admitting what is happening even if its wrong. But to just deny it with a wrong statement and pourposely misguiding is wrong. Gorkhali (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides if you would like to go in theory, then only an amritdhari sikh is a [true] sikh. Rest are not [speaking theoretically], whatever they like to think. Shalimer (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed castes in the Sikh community. You are very much right correct. In fact, the caste system in India appears in all religions in some form or another. What we need to do now is to find reliable sources that can support this fact about Sikhism. You can be bold and remove that wrong statement yourself if you so desire. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The castes in some sikh communities is already mentioned, in the section, [Sikh People]. Shalimer (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Shalimer, I did not intend to portray my Sikh friends as "prejudiced" since they really aren't. In Hinduism khatris and darjis appear as part of the caste system. Ethnicity is something totally different...the wikipedia article about ethnicity claims that ethnicity is based upon ancestry or geneology whereas caste is not based on ethnicity rather on social status (wikipedia article on "caste"). Sikhism, though a different religion than Hinduism, really does have its roots in Hinduism so it is no surprise that some of the characteristics of Hinduism have carried on into Sikhism. Caste does exist in Sikhism although it might be to a lesser extent than in Hinduism. If it didn't exist in Sikhism, young Sikh people could marry anyone who fell under the category "Sikh" YET this does not happen. Also, your statement about Amritdhari Sikhs as "true" Sikhs is quite interesting as well...that is a judgmental statement that is incorrect and disrespectful to the "rest." Why is an Amritdhari Sikh better than the rest...even if it is theoretically? (Unity717 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

I started to conduct a search online about sikhism and caste and I found that even matrimonial sites list different groups of Sikhs. There seems to be quite a division between people who believe there is a caste system versus people who think there is no caste system. Why do people care about sub groups (a.k.a. caste) when they are about to get married? There must be some type of social implications for a Jatt marrying a non-Jatt for example...if there wasn't, people wouldn't specify which group they belonged to while skimming matrimonial sites. (Unity717 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Go and read some good books on Sikhism. I am not a preacher. Besides if you want to talk about hinduism and sikhism there is a seperate talk page Hinduism and Sikhism. When you talk about caste system in India, there is a seperate artcle as well Caste system in India . And you really amaze me when you say jatts and rajputs are not ethnic people, see Jat people Rajput. About matrimonial ads, they are about people who want to get married and not on Sikhisms practices, it is by a group of people, which does not apply to whole community. Besides prefference for getting maried to a particular ethnic group (caste??) is a matter of choice, not related to religion. When you talk of caste it goes deeper. Getting married according to choices wont make sikhism a caste based religion. For example, hinduism is also called varna ashram Dharam. Do you know what varna is see Varna_in_Hinduism and Jāti. And this time don't search online, read some good books such as [Encyclopedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh ISBN-10: 8173802041] Shalimer (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shalimer, since it seems as if you have alot of knowledge about ethnicity and caste within Sikhism could you hook me up with some other resources to check out? Although you may be correct in saying that jatt/rajputs are ethnic groups most mainstream Sikh people see these groups as caste groups. What we need to think about is that the theory behind Sikhism says one thing yet most Sikhs follow/do/believe another thing. Why the discrepency between theory and reality? Theoretically, won't reality eventually shape/change theory? If someone walks around Canada - especially high density areas like British Columbia (Surrey) and Ontario (Brampton)- the reality of what is being practiced is actually quite far from what the Gurus wanted. This topic is very interesting to me so thanks for the great convo! (Unity717 (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

I dont have a lot of knowledge, only some of it. If the theory is one and practise another, it means those have deviated from the path of gurus [mentioned in article in section {Sikh People} in end]. I would recommend 'The Sikhs in History' by Sangat Singh ISBN-10 8172052758. You might find the reason why there is a difference between theory and practise and whether it can really be considered as such and the reasons. Plus the book uses lot of references from previous historians. Shalimer (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In all of India different ethnic groups tend to also be different castes and vice versa. Within each ethnic group, there may be sub-castes, but that is another matter. Because there is a strong correlation between caste and ethnicity, they can almost be considered synonyms. It is also probably why all the non-Hindu religions still have the caste although to a lesser degree. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well an interesting fact that I know from real life experience is that particular Sikh castes would prefer marrying the same caste but Hindus than different Sikh caste. For example, Khatri Sikhs would prefer marrying to Khatri Hindus than to other Sikhs. Not sure is this phenomenon has been written about in any books though. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Information to be inserted?

• SikhSangat :Austerlitz -- 88.72.3.48 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this image inappropriate?

OneBlood30 has twice removed this image: [[Image:Sikh Family cropped.jpg|thumb|A Sikh family, the boys wearing the traditional [[Dastar]]]] (see image) from the article, claiming that it was not approved, and then that it was not appropriate. The copyright tags appear to be in order, and I do not see what could be considered inappropriate about it. I do not know much abut Sikhism, is it somehow offensive to Sikhs in a way that is not apparent to non-Sikhs? Because the reasoning is not clear, it needs to be discussed instead of just removed. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

I have made minor changes in 'philosophy and teachings' section. If there is a problem please respond here first. Turniplp (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Killing muslims

Someone put sikhism was for killing muslims. That is not true. I am a sikh and I love muslims. Matigues (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Someone please correct this appalling act of vandalism (on Sikhism): "..Diwali (also known as bandī chōḍ divas).." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasvinde (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed for article on Sikh Rajputs

Someone put a tag on "Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs. Thanks Atulsnischal (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

• "Realisation of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is truthful living".
• "Realization of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is truthful living".

In English, it is more common to use the spelling latter spelling of realization. I AM PROUD TO BR SIKH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.1.128 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done, as detailed at WP:ENGVAR Wikipedia does not have a preference between American English (-ize) and British English (-ise) for topics like this that don't have any particular tie to either country - we simply keep it consistent within the article, and don't swap between the two. This article seems to be entirely written in British English (barring one instance of an -ize word which I shall change shortly for consistency) so I think we should leave it as "Realisation". Thanks for the suggestion anyway! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism does have a particular tie to India, which uses British English.—Chowbok ☠ 09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Guru-da-Gaddi

Someone may want to take a look at the new Guru-da-Gaddi article and see if it can be clarified. Not sure if it should be mentioned in this article. Also, I'm not sure the dates match up with what's in other articles. —KCinDC (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That article is wrong, I'm going to see if it can be deleted--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol

All my googling tells me that adherents to Sikhism must avoid the drinking of alcohol. I can't find a reference to this in the article (unless "find" isn't working). Is it true? Can someone who knows please add it? Kayman1uk (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) mlwr bwxI Bgq rivdws jI kI]

Malaar, The Word Of The Devotee Ravi Daas Jee: < siqgur pRswid ] An Upright PenPallllllllllll Now writes further through the grace of SatiGurBani

nwgr jnW myrI jwiq ibiKAwq cMmwrM ]]

O humble townspeople, I am obviously just a shoemaker.

irdY rwm goibMd gun swrM ]1] rhwau ]]

In my heart I cherish the Glories of the Lord, the Lord of the Universe. ||1||Pause||

sursrI sll ik(r)q bwrunI ry sMq jn krq nhI pwnµ ]]

Even if wine is made from the water of the Ganges, O Saints, do not drink it.

surw ApivqR nq Avr jl ry sursrI imlq nih hoie Awnµ ]1]

This wine, and any other polluted water which mixes with the Ganges, is not separate from it. ||1||

qr qwir ApivqR kir mwnIAY ry jYsy kwgrw krq bIcwrM ]]

The palmyra palm tree is considered impure, and so its leaves are considered impure as well.

Bgiq Bwgauqu ilKIAY iqh aUpry pUjIAY kir nmskwrM ]2]]

But if devotional prayers are written on paper made from its leaves, then people bow in reverence and worship before it. ||2||1296

myrI jwiq kut bWFlw For FovMqw inqih bwnwrsI Aws pwsw ]]

It is my occupation to prepare and cut leather; each day, I carry the carcasses out of the city.1297

Ab ibpR prDwn iqih krih fMfauiq qyry nwm srxwie rivdwsu dwsw ]3]1]]

Now, the important Brahmins of the city bow down before me; Ravi Daas, Your slave, seeks the Sanctuary of Your Name. ||3||1|| —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmiBalRaj (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Across the World

Sikhs lived in India but have spread across the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.230.131 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

why the animosity?

I was reading this article today and I think it has been edited quite well but I wonder why it is such a big deal to make a connection between sikhism and hinduism and islam? Sikhism began with Guru Nanakji - he was born a hindu so it is obvious that some of his beliefs would be linked with his upbringing. Most religions originate and begin by a person or a group of people who choose a different path. Why is it so hard to understand that Sikhism also has roots from another religion or religions? Understanding this doesn't mean that Sikhism is any less of a religion. It is a great religion that is unique but shares qualities with other religions as well. Unity717 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its called insecurity. Any proud and knowlegable Sikh knows that its obvious that Sikhsim will have links and origins within Hinduism since that was the ancestral faith of all the Gurus, however, unlike the Christians who have no problem accepting Jewish roots and influences from the ancient religions of Europe, it will only come with time that people in India will realize that there is nothing wrong with accepting connections with an older religion or your ancestral religion, and neither does it lessen the importance of the religion that has stemmed out of it. Its just plain and simple insecurity and ignorance, and also political agendas with no regard for the Gurus teachings or their history. Makes you wonder why its called Har-Mandir, or the Gurus call themselves Gurus....etc etc etc....nothing wrong with having ancient roots, however some people will never realize the wisdom.

Gorkhali (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir,

• Sikhism does not believe in any xyz Religion. It believes in nothing but One religion (Lord)TRUTH for all humans. Sikh faith encompasses the universe & the universes beyond. e.g. Sikhs will support beard because beard is a (Lord)TRUTH given Truth.

• Nothing but 'Language of True Thoughts' leading to 'TRUTH alias True God alias True Guru alias True Mother alias True Father alias True Relatives alias True Friends alias True Politicians alias All True objects alias every True thing ....is the Religion Sikhs believe in.

• True Language of True Thoughts leading to Lord (TRUTH) was, had been, is here & now at this very moment & will ever remain the faith of Khalsa (Sikhs). The Term 'Khalsa' itself means Flawless Human being who dwells in the realm of (Lord)TRUTH reflecting & radiating Thy virtues for Humanity to emulate.

Seeing Sikhism through the prism of non Sikh faiths makes no relevant sense no where. There is One & Only One way of Understanding 'Sikhi' (That is how Sikhs would like their faith to be socially known, in stead of through the anglicized term 'Sikhism'. It rhymes with Nazism & may be with some more ‘isms’, not really in good taste) .It is by becoming a Sikh by Publicly Owning Thy Name……..

...Khalsa ‘Jpu’ Singh....

Trying to establish links between any entities in a traditional scholarly way in context of ‘Sikhi’ is futile.

Ordains True Thoughts’ Language

• Never ever get entangled in fruitless discussions.

• Do not do things which need not be done.

• Listen to everyone but speak nothing but Thy Name (True Thoughts)

• Believe in nothing but 'Language of True Thoughts' which leads one to True Humans.

Unlike non Sikh faiths there is nothing really to understand about Sikhi. Sikhi has to be lived through to understand it. It is not possible otherwise. Grammar of True Thoughts' Language formally documented in One & Only One Scripture of Sikhs is popularly addressed by Sikhs as 'Stigur Granth Sahib'. The Language of Humanity alias (Lord) TRUTH need to be learned, Like any language by rigrious practice through Thinking, Speaking, Singing, Listening to, Believing in, Discussing, Sharing & Finally Documenting for generations to catch on to it with ease.

Through the grace of Thy True Thoughts' Language this trivia bit PenPal has tried to humbly submit Thy (not my) thoughts & share them with humanity. Since yours Truly owns nothing but Thy Name, the onus of slipups in this writing goes to non one but Thou (TRUTH)... ha! ha! ha! .

Hope this helps !

An Upright PenPalllllllllllllll Creative Khalsa --AmiBalRaj (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Singh NirV”r ‘Jpu’

Current events in Punjab and Austria.

A user, user talk:Morbid Fairy, whose posting reminds me strongly of user talk:Satanoid, made this change at Sikh extremism.

Murder in Austria, Riots in Punjab.

While it needs a copyedit, it might be worth including in Wikipedia, but it does not have a place in the article about Sikh separatist extremism.- sinneed (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fifth-largest religion?

Is Sikhism definitely the fifth-largest religion in the world? If you click on "fifth-largest" you're then taken the Major religious groups page which looks as though it's suggesting that Judaism is bigger with 10-20 vs. 12-25 million. I appreciate that the range leaves room for ambiguity; with a top estimate value for Sikhism and bottom estimate for Judaism, Sikhism would be bigger (as the source suggests), but with such ambiguity should it be explicitly stated that it is the fifth-biggest? Especially on a feature-quality page. Perhaps the figures on that page just need altering or perhaps it should be reworded such as "is widely regarded as the fifth-largest organized religion in the world". Gul e (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• US CIA "world fact book" (caveat)- "Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)"
• Wisconsin State Journal 2001
• "The Book Report" 2002 Looks like 5th.- sinneed (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA) 2001
• Dallas Morning News 1999
• Newsweek 2008

Reality is all numbers about religions are extremely blurry, as they rely on opinions... if nothing else they rely on the claims of the individual.- sinneed (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be semi-protected???

This page along with other pages like sikh and List of famous sikhs were tried to be vandalised in past few weeks by unregistered users. Many honerable users reverted the edits. So can this page be put on semi-protection??--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Holidays...

...are not mentioned on this page. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't their be a section that explains the links and relationship with Hinduism?

I tried putting that and it got taken away. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:22, 22

January 2010 (UTC)

And no one is helping here on this. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ther are links to other articles. Regards--Sikh-History 08:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question in Second Paragraph

• Does anyone know why the word "MAYA" appears in parentheses in the second paragraph? Is this a term of art that perhaps could be defined or cross-linked? Or, is this misplaced vandalism? Context does not provide any clues. Thanks. Saebvn (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed defined, and an important concept in Sikhism; see Māyā. Not vandalism, but perhaps the "ALL CAPS" confused things. I've fixed it, although because it seems to me that it would be awkward for the next mention of the term not to be wikified, I've left both instances as links. I think it works better that way, but if anyone thinks that is a problem, I'm certainly not offended by further efforts to copyedit. Steveozone (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Two last gurus?

In the opening two paragraphs: Paragraph 1 states that the last of ten successive sikh gurus was Guru Granth Sahib. Paragraph 2 indirectly states that there were ten sikh gurus, and that Guru Gobind Singh was the tenth. Are there 11 gurus, or 10? And if we are saying there are 11, why do we say "six of the ten gurus" in paragraph 2? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.78.9 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh Veer Ji Please contact me Angad Singh a.buck.singh@gmail.com Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh== SIKH PERSECUTION !!!! ==

I don't know and I can't understand - why there is no separate article on wikipedia regarding the persecution of Sikhs.Sikh Community has faced persecution during Mughal era , British era ,In Independent India and also in different countries for Multiple reasons.It is not surprising to see that there are separate articles of persecution of EVERY major religious group like HINDUS ,JEWS,CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS,BUDDHISTS ,ZOROASTRIANS, Bahá'ís and Even NON religious people ,There are articles of ethnic persecutions as well.There are even sections for persecution of HOMOSEXUALS. But it does amaze me that there is no article related to persecution of the Sikh community which has faced and survived ATROCITIES , OPPRESSION,INJUSTICE,DISCRIMINATION ,HOLOCAUSTS ,GENOCIDES, MASSACRES throughout their history from different Rulers ,Governments, Terrorists, Extremists , Fanatics ,Imperialists and what not? Is this Subject dealt in the PERSECUTION OF HINDUS THEN? AS MANY PEOPLE THESE DAYS SAY THAT SIKHS ARE HINDUS.I think there should be a new section dealing with this Subject in this article and there should be a separate article dealing with the details, timeline ,history and eras of Sikh persecution and a link of that Main article provided in this one.I REQUEST ALL THE People Who Have KNOWLEDGE of SIKH HISTORY And Who Want THE WORLD To Know THE SACRIFICES AND STRUGGLES OF SIKHS, TO CREATE A PAGE WITH THE HEADING "PERSECUTION OF SIKHS". If you (Whoever monitors and protects the contents of this article) think there should be no Article regarding this then please tell me the reason.WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceboy499 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This webpage is repeatedly being edited by miscreants and should be locked. Offensive and derogatory statements against the Gurus, calling the faith "pagan", "terrorist" and "militant", etc. The article is being edited with these highly offensive terms to cause tensions between communities. Please remove these offensive terms and make sure these people are blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.77.121 (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism?

Why are this page and the Sikh page linked to vegetarianism? Sikhism in general has nothing to do with vegetarianism, consumption of meat is allowed. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_religion#Sikhism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.195.236 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you read the article, in order to have WP:Balance we have included for the fact their are some vociforous and loud (although small in number), sects that wish to make Sikhism into a Vegetarian offshoot of Vaishnavism. You are correct, that Vegetariansim really has nothing to do with Sikhism. I have changed the template to Diet in Sikhism Thanks --Sikh-History 08:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental Connections With Islamic Teachings

One can see under the heading "Philosophy and Teachings" that the contents are predominantly similar to the intrinsic teachings of Islam, that is, the attributes of God (eternal, indescribable, all knowing, one). I have read that the cloak of Guru Nanak (at Dera Baba Nanak) was inscribed with verses from the Holy Quran and several Arabic prayers. The following passages are quoted from the third edition of Bala Sahib's Janam Sakhi, printed by the press, Anarkali, Lahore in the early part of this century. The book Janam Sakhi of Bala Sahib is an authoritative source of Sikhism. Bala was Nanak's constant companion and he accompanied his Master for twenty years during his travels. It is true that in Janam Sakhi one finds much fiction mixed with facts. Bala was a Hindu and after Nanak's death, estrangemant of Sikhism from Islam had started. As such any statement contained in Janam Sakhi in favour of Islam has the weight of a hostile witness. On page 134 of Janam Sakhi by Bala Sahib, we read, The Quran is divided into thirty sections, proclaim thou, this Quran in the four comers of this world. Declare the glory of one name only for none other is an associate with me. Nanak proclaims the word of God that came to him, thou hast been granted the rank of Sheikh, so thou shouldst abolish the worship of gods and goddesses and the old Hindu idol - temples. The fundamental article of the Islamic faith, the Kalima, has been given the greatest stress in Janam Sakhi. A few Shaloks (verses) from this Sakhi read: I have repeated one Kalima, there is none other. I have repeated one Kalima, there is none other. Those who repeat the Kalima and are not devoid of the faith, shall not be burned on fire. Repeat the Holy Kalima of the Prophet, it shall cleanse thee of all sins. By repeating the Kalima, the punishment of this world, as well as the next is averted.

For further details, and if you can read Urdu, please read the Book "Sat Bachan" by HAzrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (A.S.). Here is the link (it is a collection of his books, you'll find Sat Bachan from the table of contents) : http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/Ruhani-Khazain-Vol-10.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.131.168 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)