Talk:Khalsa

Definition of Khalsa

https://sites.google.com/site/khalsastandardorganisation/ The opening Sentence of Holy Book 'Guru Granth Sahib' formally defines 'Khalsa' as Under :-

One WhoIsARelentlessPenpal^^^^, His(read God's)TrueName Writer, GentlemanTrueToHisName, FearlessLikeALion, FriendOfEvenFoes, Almighty's Living & NonIncarnatingIdol, Self Realised through the grace of TrueIdeas'Language and focused. --59.178.63.226 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Singh & Kaur

Sorry, not a sikhism expert, but i was wondering if it was true that the members of the Khalsa adopted the surname Singh if male, or the surname Kaur if female. (I read this in a world religions book) If so, should we mention it in this article? Matt White 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, just read the "singh" and "Kaur" articles. Matt White 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this coment into a proper section, also, yes they do. Superbun (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsens footnotes

It is quite obvious that you can’t continue to fight after decapitation. Such claims don’t belong in Wikipedia.

2007-02-20 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

are you catholic? Mauji 10:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i also have some doubts about this claim, yet i have read the history books and seen the temples in punjab reffering to baba deep singh ji and would also like to hear an explination that would be more realistic, but i also believe that not all thing are as easily explained!! just becouse it sounds ureal dosent meen it is!!!!

they say the allmighty moves in mysteriouse ways, who are we to correct age old history

inda singh london uk [[]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.149.34 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How would one explain the belief of Muslims in the wings of Gabriel, and the miraclous birth of Christ, by Catholic Christians.Religions are based on beliefs and faith, not logical conclusions.

The Khalsa fighting force under the command of Guru Gobind Singh fought many battles, in which they were heavily outnumbered.The battle of Chamkaur was fought by Sikhs who numbered only forty, pitched againest atleast a million combined soldiers of Mughals , hill Chiefs and provincial troops.Guru Gobind Singh has stated this fact in Zafarnama, a letter he sent to Mughal Emperor Aurangzab, " but for how long these starved forty sikhs, the bravest people on earth, could continue fighting a million soldiers".This is impossible from a reasonable point of view.But it is what actually happened.And the Guru escaped from un-harmed.

When Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa, he emerged from the tent with blood on his sword.There is no actual recored answer, in any official transcript, as to what happened in that tent. Some people think he slaughtered goats.But it cannot be assumed that he would start a religion on the basic foundation of a LIE.He fought all his life for truth and justice. The spies of Mughal goverenment were also present in that gathering.And in a report that was sent to authorities in Delhi, they mentioned that the Guru actually beheaded the persons, and later interchanged their heads and sewed the heads to bodies.But the firm belief of the Sikhs and their traditions state that the five people were first beheaded and then brought back to life.Ajjay (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is never claimed that the original Panj Pyare were actually beheaded. Even the stories say only that Guru Gobind Singh Ji emerged from the tent with a bloody sword and the Panj Pyare emerged intact later. The source of the blood is not defined as being that of the Panj Pyare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.33.179 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information by vandal: Maahaakal

Proper chronological usage of the term applied. 'Khalsa' is not a Farsi word, al-Khalisa is Arabic but does not have dual Middle-Eastern lexical derivations (Farsi, Arabic and Punjabi are distinct languages) hence removed POV

Please provide Farsi sources, not Sikh pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.2 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are around 119 books that say it is derived from Farsi [1]. And 73 say it is derived from Arabic [2]. A search for "Khalsa Origin" delivers about 775 results [3] and majority of the results associate Khalsa with "Sikhs" and trace the origin of the word to Arabic/Persian

Incase you didn't know, the term "Khalsa" was originally used to refer to lands directly under the control of the Emperor during Delhi Sultanate and Moghul rule. It has been in use in India since start of Muslim Rule. And Kabir was not reffering to Khalsa in his verse in this sense, for which it is used for Sikhs, as directly belonging to their Guru or God. Mahaakaal (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you show where I implied (directly or indirectly) that Kabir used the term in any other way? The term was used initially by Kabir before any Guru (as incorporated in the SGGS) BUT you have not provided any Farsi/Dari (Persian) derivative. It may have been used later (as in the definition as provided by Encyclopedia Britanica) but that's not the issue here.

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) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you belive that the article you mentioned shouldnt be deleted, then discuss it with the person who put the deltion tag on it, don't post about it on another talk page, as the article in question has nothing to do with this article Superbun (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Claiming Dasam Granth is written by Guru Gobind Singh factually incorrect

I've tagged the claim "...Guru Gobind Singh in his book, Dasam Granth" as dubious as the current form of "Dasam Granth" is a collection of incoherent work and there is no certain content which can be called "Dasam Granth". The books circulating around today with this name have several different versions and have gone through several name changes over the period of history. Several notable historians and researchers have show there existed no such book before 18th century and this name and book his highly controversial. As such any such claim that this book is written by Guru Gobind Singh is wrong and extra-ordinary claim. The burden of providing extra-ordinary references and proofs of this extra-ordinary claim lies on the editor who introduces this claim on wikipedia. In some days, this content (marked dubious today) will be removed from wikipedia. If you feel otherwise, please express your views here so that we may discuss the matter further. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of divine powers by Guru Gobind Singh to cut and join heads

The article claims that the Guru cut the heads of "Panj Pyare" and then joined them using divine powers. There is no such consensus among Sikh historians and researchers. Many historians/researchers have mentioned that non of the Sikh gurus ever used any divine powers and their focus was on living a human and hard working life. Use of divine or supernatural powers is against the tenents of Sikhism. Even the Gurus were not beyond these tenents. All such stories circulating today are hearsay without any verifiability. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a completely unfounded statement. It was never implied that Guru Gobind Singh Ji (or any of the Sikh Gurus for that matter) had any "divine powers." Such a claim defies the basic beliefs of Sikhism. Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself said the following: "...whosoever regards me as Lord shall be damned and destroyed…I am but the servant of God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.33.179 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have stated it better myself. Reminds me of how people say that Guru Gobind hunted animals to liberate them, but didn't other sikhs hunt as well? Were they also liberating the animals. Something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.62.220 (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "Khalsa" (it is Arabic)

In the article it says that the word "khalsa" comes from Persian. But the root word is Arabic, khalis,khalas,ikhlas,mukhlis are some derivations. The meaning of khalis is pure, purified, freed, gained salvation, detached etc...

But that's sure that it must have been passed through Persian.

Ryesiloglu (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)User:ryesiloglu

Unencyclopedic tone

I have removed unsourced and unencyclopedic sentences from the article intro - these are completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Some examples:

• "the pinnacle of the Sikhism"
• "only at the will of the Guru"
• "by the grace of the Guru"
• "mere reflection of free ocean inside"
• "free inside, be contained by wordly fears of death!"

Also, removing verse by Guru Gobind Singh, which doesn't even mention the word Khalsa - it clearly talks about all Sikhs. The entire article is full of WP:MOS violations, containing honorifics like "ji" and using poetic descriptions. utcursch | talk 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

the Poem was "Khalsa Mera Roop Hay Kaas" in the transliteration 'them' is used instead of Khalsa, in the real Punjabi shaabad Khalsa is being mentioned in every line! The poem was clearly quoted. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of that, a poem doesn't belong in the lead section. A line of two is OK in the rest of the article body, but Wikiquote/Wikisource is the correct place for long quotations. utcursch | talk 16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Vickle1777 is hell-bent on adding this back, I have tagged the articles. Please don't remove the tags until the matter is resolved. Here is the rationale:

• {{original research}}: The following paragraph, among others, is completely unsourced and full of POV/unencyclopedic tone: "The Khalsa is also the pinnacle of the Sikhism. An individual is commissioned into the Khalsa only at the will of the Guru which means the individual has already, by the grace of the Guru, overcome the inside-evils and therefore is free. The political sovereignty is a mere reflection of free ocean inside a Singh/Kaur. In other words, how could an individual, who is free inside, be contained by wordly fears of death! This is possible only when the Guru accepts an individual as Singh/Kaur by granting the "Amrit" or nectar of immortality. One should be ware that soldiery of Singh/Kaur arises out of Sainthood which is reciprocal of Amrit. Thence a Singh/Kaur is a "soldier like saint" rather than a "saint like soldier"."
• {{over-quotation}}: An 18-line poem in the lead section is not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: this section is meant for defining and summarizing the topic.
• {{citation needed}}: What is the source for "Khalsa is the final temporal Guru"? Guru Gobind Singh declared SGGS to be the eleventh guru.
• {{clarification needed}}: "represented by the five beloved-ones" - unsourced statements, and the non-Sikhs don't know about Panj Piare.

utcursch | talk 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Utcursch is hell bent upon degrading the Khalsa's Guru Status. I am including the following link from the SGPC website. The content clearly defines the Guru's temporal authority bestowed upon the Khalsa and thence the Guru Khalsa. The same content also defines the Guru Granth Sahib's authority. This shall cease your doubts: http://sgpc.net/sikhism/sikhism4.asp Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

For non-sikhs to know about Panj-Payare, they simply need to click on it and they shall know it..

It is very important/significant to have a poem here or somewhere because, this poem has been composed by the very being who constituted the Khalsa. For further reading, refer to "Khalsa Mahima" in Dasam Granth.. Guru Gobind Singh uses words like "true-Guru", "beloved-hero" "breath of life" and other praises for the Khalsa. Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't find a statement on that page which says Khalsa is "the final temporal Guru" (which implies it is the sole Guru). Here is the relevant text: "The Khalsa was given a position equal to that of the Guru. The Guru consists of two parts : the body and the Name. The Guru nominated the Khalsa, as his body and Guru Granth Sahib as the embodiment the Name. That is why we use the title of Guru-Khalsa." It's SGPC's interpretation which should be used with an attribution, unless you have a direct source (like the one at Guru Granth Sahib#Elevation_of_Adi_Granth_to_Guru_Granth_Sahib) which says Khalsa is "the final temporal Guru".

As for "represented by the five beloved-ones", how would the non-Sikhs go to "Panj-Pyare"? No link, and that article is about five men who are dead. How does the statement make sense to someone who has no idea of the concept? Wikipedia is written for global audience, not Indians, Punjabis or Sikhs alone.

As for the poem, I have already mentioned what the lead section is for - you can read the manual of style page. You can have a sentence like "In a poem, Guru Gobind Singh credits Khalsa with all his victories, ....". But it is highly unencyclopedic to put 18 lines in the intro.

utcursch | talk 14:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Utcursch: It seems like your knowledge on case of Sikhs is very limited or superficial. First of all, you agree that Guru Gobind Singh transferred his authority to dual agency of Body and Name. And at the same time you have a problem with "the final temporal Guru". It gives an impression of bias. Because Body is temporal (or temporary and perishes with time) therefore, the word 'temporal' has been deliberatly used. So, I don't see any problem with this.

In case of "Panj Payare", even though the original ones died 300 years ago, the institution still prevails and therefore, it is a valid and significant information. Your point can be considered and the page for "Panj Payare" can be improved.

Also, it is not unencyclopedic to write the thought of the Guru Gobind Singh to give a first hand reference. Also, SGPC being elected body of Sikh politics to manage the Gurdwaras would meen their interpretation presented above carries some weight and therefore can't be neglected. Of Teacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, did you even read the version that you undid? It mentions that SGPC considers Khalsa a Guru, and also mentions Panj Piare. As for the wording, you did not even address my argument above, which was that Khalsa is not the Guru. The rest of what you say is original research - find a source that directly supports your statement.

Secondly, please stop reverting the whole bunch of changes, if you have problem with one change.

Also see WP:SOCK. utcursch | talk 13:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Utcursch: It is not nice of you to do the same that you preach to others. I have been watching you very closely since last tens of edits. And you don't have any point to make apart from asking references. And the changes you make, it can be smelled that your intention is not good. Even if you are a qualified wiki admin, i would strongly suggest you to not mis-use your powers. As you are an Indian, I would suggest you to take care of India rather than the Khalsa. Of Teacher (talk)