Cliched Arguments - Part III

Clichéd Arguments Part III

Cliched arguments – Part I

Cliched arguments – Part II

Identity III

Clichéd argument 13: Khalsa Panth is nothing but a group of Hindus.

Reality: These anti-Sikh agenda-ist have spread so much litter on the Internet and in their books with almost all the non-existential proof and fake histories that their descendants are actually believing in that. I have but pity for them.

This’s been said by some ignorant person who learned history from the Internet. We are talking about all the clichéd arguments. Remember, no way we are having a count of people and then deciding if we’ve enough of them to have it on our clichéd argument list. No. Even if one tiny-brained person said it, we want to have it on our list, so that the future generations would know how the history was trying to be changed by some anti-Sikh apologists.

I think there’re countless examples to refute this statement.

Let’s check who’s Khalsa first according to gurbani and historical granths.

ਜਾਗਤ ਜੋਤ ਜਪੈ ਨਿਸਬਾਸੁਰ ਏਕ ਬਿਨਾ ਮਨ ਨੈਕ ਨ ਆਨੈ ॥
ਪੂਰਨ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤ ਸਜੈ ਬ੍ਰਤ ਗੋਰ ਮੜੀ ਮਟ ਭੂਲ ਨ ਮਾਨੈ ॥
ਤੀਰਥ ਦਾਨ ਦਇਆ ਤਪ ਸੰਜਮ ਏਕ ਬਿਨਾ ਨਹ ਏਕ ਪਛਾਨੈ ॥
ਪੂਰਨ ਜੋਤ ਜਗੈ ਘਟ ਮੈ ਤਬ ਖਾਲਸ ਤਾਹਿਨ ਖਾਲਸ ਜਾਨੈ ॥੧॥ - ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਕਬਿਤੁ
ਕੀਏ ਜਦ ਬਚਨਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਕਾਰਨ ਕਰਨ ਸਰਬ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਆਦਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਮੇਰਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ।
ਮਾਨੇਗਾ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਸੋ ਤੇ ਹੋਵੈਗਾ ਸਿਖ ਸਹੀ ਨਾ ਮਾਨੈਗਾ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਸੋ ਤੇ ਹੋਵੈਗਾ ਬਿਹਾਲਸਾ ।
ਪਾਂਚ ਕੀ ਕੁਸੰਗਤਿ ਤਜਿ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਸੌ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਯਾ ਔਰ ਧਰਮ ਧਾਰ ਤਿਆਗੇ ਸਬ ਲਾਲਸਾ ।
ਹੁੱਕਾ ਨ ਪੀਵੈ ਸੀਸ ਦਾੜ੍ਹੀ ਨ ਮੁੰਡਾਵੈ ਸੋ ਤੋ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ॥੩੦॥੧੪੬॥ – ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਸੋਭਾ – ੮੧

ਖਾਲਸਾ, ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਸੇ ਨਿਆਰਾ ਰਹੇ – ਭਾਈ ਚੌਪਾ ਸਿੰਘ
ਗੁਰੁ ਕਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਜੰਞੂ ਟਿੱਕੇ ਦੀ ਕਾਣ ਨਾ ਕਰੇ । – ਭਾਈ ਚੌਪਾ ਸਿੰਘ

ਤਤ੍ਵ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਕਾ ਜ਼ਾਹਰ
ਕਹਿਤ ਚੁਰਾਸੀ ਤੈਹੈ ਬਾਹਰ
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਧੇ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣੇ
ਸਿੰਘ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਸਭ ਤੈ ਸਿਆਣੇ
ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਹਿੰਦੁਨ ਤੈ ਨ੍ਯਾਰੀ
ਰੀਤਿ ਇਨੋ ਮੈਹੈ ਫਲ ਸਾਰੀ
ਬੁੱਤ ਪਰਸਤੀ ਨਾ ਇਹੁ ਕਰਹੈ
ਦੇਵੀ ਦੇਵ ਬਨਾਇ ਨ ਧਰਹੈ
ਪ੍ਰੇਤ ਪੀੜ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਪੀੜ ਨ ਮਾਨਤ
ਮੜੀ ਮਸਾਣੀ ਕੋ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਤ
ਗੰਗਾਦਿਕ ਤੀਰਥ ਨਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ
ਸੂਤਕ ਪਾਤਕ ਨਾਹਿ ਮਨਾਵੈ
ਜੰਞੂ ਤਿਲਕ ਨ ਛਾਪਾ ਧਾਰੈ
ਸ਼ਰਾ ਹਿੰਦੁਆਂ ਕੀ ਨਹਿ ਪਾਰੈ
ਬੋਦੀ ਧੋਤੀ ਤੁਲਸੀ ਮਾਲੈ
ਹੋਮ ਸ਼ਰਾਧ ਨ ਖ੍ਯਾਹਿ ਸੰਭਾਲੈਂ
ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਜ ਨਾਮ
ਰਾਖਤ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਸੈਂ ਕਾਮ – ਪੰਥ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼, ਅਧਿਆਇ ੭੪, ਗਿਆਨੀ ਗਿਆਨ ਸਿੰਘ

ਲੈ ਆਇਸ ਗੁਰੁਦੇਵ ਕੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਖਾਲਸ ਮਹਾਰਾਜ
ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਕਰਯੋ ਜਗਿ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਹਿੰਦੁ ਤੁਰਕ ਸਿਰਤਾਜ ॥੧੨੩॥
ਝੂਠਿ ਪੰਥ ਸਭ ਤਿਯਾਗ ਕੈ ਏਕ ਪੰਥ ਦ੍ਰਿੜ ਕੀਨ
ਪ੍ਰਮ ਜੋਤ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਜਿਯੋ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਮੁਖੁ ਕਹਿ ਦੀਨ ॥੧੨੪॥ – ਗੁਰਬਿਲਾਸ ਪਾ: ੧੦, ਅਧਿਆਇ ੧੨, ਭਾਈ ਸੁੱਖਾ ਸਿੰਘ

So what we learned from these verses?

1.      Khalsa shouldn’t worship the idols and graves.

2.      Khalsa shouldn’t cut his beard and stay away from the intoxications like tobacco.

3.      Khalsa doesn’t believe in worshipping of the deities.

4.      Khalsa shouldn’t wear a janeu.

5.      Khalsa shouldn’t follow or get mixed with the Hindus and Muslims, means their rituals shouldn’t be followed.

On the basis of what these people claim the Khalsa to be a group of Hindus? Haven’t they learned anything apart from what is taught in the shakhas? There’re multiple sources available to learn about Sikhism and the meanings of gurbani and the Sikh history, but people are living inside the caves and are so afraid to see the blazing light of truth. They feel comfortable sitting at the same position because the propaganda has been so high that the truth doesn’t mean anything to them at all.

Not actually Khalsa, the whole Sikh Panth is not a Hindu group. Anyways, so far whatever we’ve covered it’s been, from their end, to prove Sikhs Hindus. And the expose is making them weak every day, that’s why they’ve started doing the character assassinations of some great Sikh scholars. When we’ve enough people on board on this platform, the days are not far BTW, the anti-Sikh Internet Warriors would declare us, Sikhs and Sikhi, some British-motivated people or some anti-Indian forces, or whatever the new terms they will be coining to have the people stopped exposing them, or at least take away some of the followers to minimize the effect of the truth that’s been shared so far by us or any Sikh organization which’s working hard to have the true Sikh history and gurbani’s meanings shared on the Internet or in the books.

In Bhai Sukha Singh’s gurbilas, he wrote that Guru Gobind Singh ji asked the Hindu Hill Chieftains to join Khalsa Panth, to that they said you have had everything under one group and all; and we can’t remove the janeu.

Those who say the Sikh Gurus wore janeu couldn’t answer why it’s said by the Hindu Hill Chieftains. But I am pretty sure their petty arguments that it’s changed/added at the time of British or Singh Sabha Movement would come. I just love these fake people, because I get to laugh at their knowledge and get to know their tiny brains and how they are structured to not grasp the truth.

The same type of story is there at the time of Guru Harkrishan ji in the sakhi of a pandit who’d ego of knowing everything and then Guru Sahib asked him to bring any person and he would be able to translate the religious scripture that the pandit believed in. He chose a mute person, and felt happy that the guru had given him the liberty to choose and this muted person couldn’t even speak, translating the verses was impossible. With guru’s grace, the muted person spoke up and gave all the answers to the questions that the pandit had. With that, he got shocked and removed his janeu and became a Sikh.

ਸੁਨਿ ਦਿਜ ਨੇ ਗਰ ਸੂਤ ਉਤਾਰਾ । 'ਮੈਂ ਭਾ ਸਿੱਖ੍ਯ ਰਾਵਰੇ ਦ੍ਵਾਰਾ ।
ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾਤਿ ਕੋ ਮਦ ਮੁਝ ਰਹ੍ਯੋ । ਏਕ ਆਸਰੋ ਤੁਮਰੋ ਗਹ੍ਯੋ ॥੪੭॥

So it’s not that in the Khalsa Panth only when the janeu was removed, no. Before that also it’s not a symbolic representation of Sikhs, neither the Sikhs were asked to wear it but definitely told it holds no significance in Sikhi. We’ve also discussed that how people are trying to change the history of Sikhs by saying how Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Teg Bahadur ji or in general the Sikh Gurus wore the janeu. I but disgust these people who are just littering on the Internet.

We can see Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaar for that matter, that there’s no caste among Sikhs. All the people are same in Sikhi.

We also discussed some part of the rehatnaama. More we will see that in them it’s clearly stated that a Sikh should marry only to a Sikh. Not out of hatred, just want to say here because people sometimes take the whole discussion in a wrong way. We said the same in one of our videos on YouTube. People, some Hindus of course, say sometimes while debating that it’s common among Sikhs and Hindus to marry each other, and it’s been happening for a long time. Actually, people are out there who are not following Sikhi. Think a person who drinks and calls himself a Sikh, and there’re many out there, are we going to say that Sikhs are doing that so it’s part of the Code of Conduct?

Gurbani and the Code of Conduct are very clear on many matters which are raised by non-Sikhs and Sikhs. The thing is these misled youngsters, and some old brainless people, have never read any religious book of Sikhs or for that matter had been to any samparda where they got the very basic essence of Sikhi and lived their lives accordingly.

I can give one example of a friend of mine, who’s a Sikh, and got married to a Hindu. The whole love-in-the-young-age thing. I don’t hold any hatred against the couple because it’s their decision to get married and live together, but if someone is going to use that as an example to prove his point of interfaith marriages in Sikhi, then it’ll be wrong. Anyways, we’ll discuss more on that because it’ll be used by some apologist warriors on the internet. The clichéd argument.

Clichéd argument 14: Not all the Hindus worship the idols. There are many groups in Hinduism that don’t follow the Vedas, are they less Hindu? So when Guru Sahib said not to follow the Hindu rituals, he meant not to ritualize the life as many Hindus were following at that time. It doesn’t mean Sikhs/Khalsa are different from the Hindus. You are our part. We can’t be separated.

Reality: Boo … poor people. Actually, brainwashed fellows. The thing is it’s very hard to get a definition of Hindu. I don’t know how much it’s true but some Hindus that I have talked to on the Internet while debating raised this point that ‘you can be an atheist in Hinduism.’

Read that line again.

Please.

Read it.

Like I said few times that my take on Hinduism as a whole is that it’s a collection of religions like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc. It can’t work as one entity because there’re multiple contradictions that arise while talking about Hinduism. For example, Vaishnavism would say Vishnu is a great god, Shaivism would say Shivji is a great god; some will say you have to follow the Vedas and other scriptures of Hindus to learn about Hinduism or in general about life and God, others will say not to read anything you can be an atheist too in Hinduism, etc. Then they bring the lamest argument of all the lame arguments in the history of human kind: Hinduism is so complex, it can’t be understood easily.

Nope, it’s not complex. You’ve been taught wrongly.

Hinduism, like I said, is a collection of many groups, and some of them are totally opposite of each other, if not with respect to the way of living then the beliefs in God, that it becomes a culture rather than one religion.

One example that I gave to an online debater was that in Punjab there’re multiple religions, if we start calling Punjabism a religion, then you will see we will have everything that some people are claiming Hinduism to be. Those days will not be far when we say in Punjabism, as a religion not a culture, you can follow Vedas or Quran or Guru Granth Sahib ji, you can have one wife or multiple wives, you can believe in teetotalism or get drunk every day, you can worship idols or you can’t, you can get married or you can’t, you can eat Halal or you can eat Jhatka, you can eat beef or you can’t eat beef, you can believe in a god or you can’t believe in anything, you can be a womanizer or you can be faithful to your wife, etc., getting what I am saying?

And most importantly the history speaks itself that Khalsa is the third panth apart from Hinduism and Islam. Many people, as we’ve talked about them in the earlier points, say that Khalsa as Sikhism was started by Guru Gobind Singh ji, the earlier gurus were Hindu. This’s mainly claimed by the followers of AV; and it is incumbent on him to write all the falsehood stories about the Sikhs and the Sikh history and glorify his own religion with the new definitions because the old ones will not be followed by anyone. In simple words, he’s reviving Hinduism with the new definitions by mixing the terms like consciousness, energy, other mumbo-jumbo of science to make the readers believe that how it’s according to science. A chomu.

ਕਬਿੱਤ
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਭਯੋ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੁ ਨੀਕਾ ਅਤਿ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤੇ ਸੋ ਬੁਲਾਈ ਹੈ ।
ਪੀਰ ਪਾਤਿਸ਼ਾਹ ਕਰਾਮਾਤੀ ਜੇ ਅਪਰ ਪੰਥ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਕਿ ਤੁਰਕ ਹੂੰ ਕੀ ਕਾਨ ਕੋ ਮਿਟਾਈ ਹੈ ।
ਤੀਸਰਾ ਮਜਬ ਜਗ ਦੇਖਿਕੇ ਅਜਬ ਮਹਾਂ ਬੈਰੀ ਕੇ ਗਜਬ ਪਰ੍ਯੋ ਛੀਨੈਂ ਠਕੁਰਾਈ ਹੈ ।
ਧਰਮ ਸਥਾਪਬੇ ਕੋ ਪਾਪਨ ਕੇ ਖਾਪਬੇ ਕੋ ਗੁਰੂ ਜਾਪਬੇ ਕੌ ਨਈ ਰੀਤਿ ਯੌਂ ਚਲਾਈ ਹੈ ॥੪੪॥ – ਸੂਰਜ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼, ਤੀਸਰੀ ਰੁੱਤ ਅਧਿਆਇ ਉਨੀਂਵਾਂ

I recalled the verses from Ratan Singh Bhangu’s writing that this panth is not like that it can be merged into something, or comes under something. No. This panth is conspicuous. It doesn’t need the support of any religion for its survival. I remember someone writing on Quora that Sikhism is an integral part of India; India can survive without Sikhs, but Sikhs can’t. A Sikh replied to that that in the earlier times when the Mughals were ruling India, when India didn’t have any existence as a whole nation but multiple nations, Sikhs survived then without any monarch or democracy or any external army. Although some treaties were there and all, but my point here is that the survival of the religion is not based on a country but the people practising the religion.

ਚੌਪਈ
ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪੰਥ ਕਬ ਲੁਕ ਛਿਪ ਹੋਯੋ । ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪੰਥ ਕਬ ਲੁਕੈ ਲੁਕੋਯੋ ।
ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪੰਥ ਜੁੱਧ ਕੋ ਭਇਓ । ਸਿੰਘਨ ਜਨਮ ਸੰਗ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਨ ਲਇਓ ।੭।
ਸਿੰਘਨ ਪਾਹੁਲ ਖੰਡੇ ਕੀ ਦਈ । ਸਿੰਘਨ ਗੁੜ੍ਹਤੀ ਖੰਡੇ ਕੀ ਲਈ ।
ਸਿਰ ਪਰ ਚੱਕਰ ਕਰਦੈਂ ਧਾਰੈਂ । ਕਦ ਵਹਿ ਲੁਕੈਂ ਜਿਮ ਸ਼ੇਰਨਖ ਵਾਰੈਂ ।੮।
ਪੰਥ ਰਚ੍ਯੋ ਇਮ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੇ । ਜੁੱਧੈ ਖਾਤਰ ਕਰਨ ਜਰੂਰੇ ।
ਬਿਨ ਜੁੱਧੈ ਕਬ ਪਯਤ ਪਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ । ਆਦ ਜੁੱਧੈ ਬਿਧ ਗੁਰੁ ਉਠਾਈ ।੯। - ਪੁਰਾਤਨ ਪੰਥ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼, ੧੬ ਅਧਿਆਇ

This was again some lame argument of a person not well aware of the history of the Sikhs. Their arguments are so fragile that they should sometimes think why we are not bringing some solid piece of statement to confuse the masses. Let me tell you a funny incident that happened while debating with an online struggler. While talking on this point, about the Khalsa Panth, he said when Guru Gobind Singh ji said the third panth, he meant a different one from Islam and Christianity. I laughed at him and showed him the verses from the translation that he’s using to solidify his lame argument. There it’s clearly mentioned different from Hinduism and Islam. Lame people.

And the same we’ve seen in the kabitt mentioned above.

So Khalsa Panth is no Hindu group. Khalsa Panth is different from Hinduism and Islam. I really hope they get a better education from the shakhas that they go in for their daily chorus. Some ignorant Brahmins (not using it to degrade all of them but mainly I saw them (all of the lamers were Sharma) only who come with lame reasoning and new terms) try to use their cleverness like they used in the earlier times to fool people; these days they do by using the terminology that different and distinct are different words. ‘So Sikhism is different from Hinduism but not distinct.’ See their reasoning. If you are saying Sikhi is different from other religions, they bring the terms to confuse you. This is how they survived so far. By fooling people with their lame reasoning.

Clichéd argument 15: Guru Gobind Singh ji mentioned in Bachitar Natak that his maternal uncle was a Chattri, which’s a Hindu clan group, so that meant the Sikh Gurus were Hindus.

ਤਹਾਂ ਮਾਤਲੇਯੰ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਲੰ ਕਰੁੱਧੰ ॥ ਛਕਿਯੋ ਛੋਭ ਛੱਤ੍ਰੀ ਕਰਯੋ ਜੁੱਧ ਸੁੱਧੰ ॥

Reality: This usually gets from those who translate Ram to Ramchandra whenever it’s referred to Waheguru. The definitions play an important role in every religion because without the proper definitions a commentary can be made by going directly opposite to correct meanings.

According to Hinduism, there’re mainly four groups/clans where a person can be filled into. But many times their definitions are not accepted in gurbani. According to gurbani, a Brahmin is someone who will remember Waheguru, not just a group that’s decided in Hinduism.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬਿੰਦੇ ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਕਹੀਐ ਜਿ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਏ ॥ – ਅੰਗ ੫੧੨
ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ॥ ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਕਹੀਅਤੁ ਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੈ ॥੪॥੭॥ – ਅੰਗ ੩੨੪

That’s why I think some Sikh preachers say that Sikhs are all. They remember Waheguru, they fight too, they do businesses too, and they do selfless services too. Here, the definitions are different than those which are accepted in Hinduism. According to them, a Brahmin will be a person who will wear a janeu and read the Vedas and Shastras. Not how gurbani defines them.

In the same way, the whole Khalsa Panth is chattri. It’s not some Hindu clan like mentioned by some fools. If we have to follow their definitions, then these foolish people will say this too that Waheguru is a Hindu because of the following verse.

ਕਿ ਛਤੰ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਹੈਂ ॥ – ਜਾਪੁ ਸਾਹਿਬ

Is Guru Gobind Singh ji saying that Waheguru is a Hindu? No, chattri is someone who fights in battlefield. And Waheguru is the Warrior of Warriors. There’s no bigger warrior than Him. So that’s why He’s called chattri.

By debating with many Hindus online, I feel that they’re still stuck in the early 20^th century, with all the clichéd arguments. They’re not bringing anything new as if this’s what all they got. And it’s tiresome for us to write everything again and again because they all have one thing in common. The clichéd arguments, whose answers have been given many times. But they are so ignorant of both the gurbani and the Sikh history that they will ask the same question again. So better have this space for them where all the clichés will be written, and no further explanation will be needed again and again, but in future we might be writing more examples and paragraphs if required.

The above verses were come into discussion when a Hindu was trying hard to prove Sikhs are Hindus, and he copied the translation of the verses from searchgurbani.com, not only the website had the wrong ang numbers of Dasam Guru Granth Sahib, but the clarification is also missing which leads to the wrong conclusions which are taken by the apologists. This’s another reason for us to have the translation of gurbani in English with proper clarifications and explanations, otherwise the fools are going to come and teach us Sikhs the wrong meanings of gurbani.

The same guy when asked to translate the verse of Jaap Sahib, he translated it using the word ‘warrior.’ Then why was it missing in the Bachitar Natak’s verse’s translation? Because they want to prove Sikhs Hindus. Simple.

Clichéd argument 16: All the Sikhs believe that Guru Nanak Dev ji’s parents were Hindus. But they don’t believe Guru Nanak Dev ji to be a Hindu even when he’s born in a Hindu family. If it is not true, why gurbani says:

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਕੈ ਘਰਿ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਆਵੈ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੯੫੧

Reality: These bots not even read the whole shabad before coming to the conclusions. Let me paste few more lines that they usually miss.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਕੈ ਘਰਿ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਆਵੈ ॥ ਸੂਤੁ ਜਨੇਊ ਪੜਿ ਗਲਿ ਪਾਵੈ ॥

ਸੂਤੁ ਪਾਇ ਕਰੇ ਬੁਰਿਆਈ ॥ ਨਾਤਾ ਧੋਤਾ ਥਾਇ ਨ ਪਾਈ ॥

Here Guru Nanak Dev ji says that in the house of a Hindu a Hindu, means a Brahmin, comes to put a thread on the body. And by doing this, calling themselves a Brahmin, they involve in nefarious acts and everything that they do is for nothing. The shabad doesn’t stop here but talks about Muslims and Yogis too.

Somehow if the translation has to bend, then does it mean the child who’s born in the family will put the threads around other people/Hindus’ bodies? Wait, what?

Clichéd arguments 17: Interfaith marriages between Sikhs and Hindus is a widely known fact. That proves Sikhs are Hindus.

Reality: Actually, according to Sikhi, a Sikh should marry to a Sikh. The reason behind that is if you’re following a religion, I mean you literally are following it, then you have to disagree with other religious people … politely. Especially their way of worshipping.

A Sikh will never agree to a Hindu to worship the idols or believe in the worshipping of the trinity of the deities, nor will he agree to all the teachings of Islam; that distinction will make a line between the groups to distinguish them on the basis of their beliefs, their way of worshipping God, and in general following the rules. However, it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be any interactions between the different religions. The society will not survive if we lose the spectrum of all the different rays. To drive the lives of the human beings, a dissent will exist among the religions. And we all should respect that. Variety of thoughts, as the beliefs, in the society should be respected rather than holding the grudges against them.

As we are living in the houses, without no war, with good food and health, we are going far from the teachings of Sikhism. I remember a Sikh preacher saying that Sikhs were better when they’re sleeping on the horses because then they were living their lives according to Sikhism. These days it’s become the habit of many Sikhs to twist everything to make the rules according to them. They do not want to live the life according to Sikhi. They want to redefine the rules and let the whole community follow them. It doesn’t work in that way in Sikhism. Code of Conduct is defined on the basis of the teachings of the Sikh Gurus – history and gurbani. We can’t just ignore that because of our own interests.

I’ve known young Sikhs, boys and girls both, who fell in ‘love’ in a very young age with the persons from other religion and then put every effort to change the minds of their parents to agree on their wedding. Sometimes the parents give in, sometimes don’t. I remember in my city a person first doing his wedding ceremonies according to Sikhism and then Christianity. This is ‘love’ that changes them to leave everything for the partner they want to live with.

It will make more sense if it’s said that both the persons don’t believe in any religion and want to get married. Saying you follow a community and want to get married to a person from another religion … well, you didn’t follow it then. Your ‘following’ was limited to going to gurudwara sahib and then come back, or sometimes doing the dishes there. That’s it. It’s not Sikhi. People are just changing every single thing that they don’t want to follow. Instead of saying I don’t follow it, they say it’s not according to the principles of the Sikh religion. They will bring the reasoning. Explanation. Examples from the past.

These set of people will be used as examples in the future by the BHs to prove their point. Some incidents in the western countries about this whole interfaith marriage, where in one part a Sikh is available, triggered the debate among the Sikhs regarding this. The Code of Conduct is very clear on this.

ਨਾਤਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਨਾਲ ਕਰੇ । - ਰਹਿਤਨਾਮਾ ਭਾਈ ਚੌਪਾ ਸਿੰਘ

ਕੰਨਯਾ ਕੋ ਮਾਰੇ ਮੋਨੇ ਕੋ ਕੰਨਯਾ ਦੇਵੇ ਸੋ ਤਨਖਾਹੀਆ ਹੈ ।
ਸਿੱਖ ਕੋ ਸਿੱਖ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਦਈ ਸੁਧਾ ਸੁਧਾ ਮਿਲ ਜਾਇ ।
ਦਈ ਭਾਦਣੀ ਕੋ ਸੁਤਾ ਅਹਿ ਮੁਖ ਅਮੀ ਚੁਆਇ । - ਰਹਿਤਨਾਮਾ ਭਾਈ ਦੇਸਾ ਸਿੰਘ

If the Sikhs want to follow it or not it’s upto them, but let it be there in the minds of BHs that in Sikhi there’s no space for interfaith marriages. I said it on Quora too and the ‘liberal’-minded Hindu kind of made fun of it.

In the history, you can see many Hindu kings getting married to the women of some other religions or vice versa. It can be Chandragupta, Rana Udaipur, etc., how many times you see people claiming Muslims to be Hindus or Hindus to be Muslims just because there’re some interfaith marriages between both the religions?