Sikhism is Polytheistic

[Cherub786 432]

A lot of you might be surprised to learn this, but according to Sikh theology, the ten gurus are human incarnations of God exactly how Christians believe Jesus Christ is a the human incarnation of God "the Son". Jagraj Singh, who died of cancer recently, associated with the Basics of Sikhi movement that engages in proselytism (which is rare for Sikhs), explained this in one of his discourses, citing verses from the Sikh scripture as proof. I uploaded the relevant part on to my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2XCJgWS1O0

I uploaded that video just over a year ago, and solicited a lot of comments, from Muslims and some non-Muslims thanking me for bringing this hidden reality to the surface, and exposing the reality of Sikhism. Most people, especially Muslims, are under the impression Sikhism is monotheistic like Islam, and thus have a soft corner for Sikhs and their religion. At the same time, I got a huge backlash from Sikhs, who came across as very emotionally distraught, in their comments to the video I uploaded. They accused me of spreading hate by "smearing" their religion. The truth is, many ordinary Sikhs are actually ignorant of the theology of their own religion (as Jagraj Singh points out in that clip). They sincerely believe the ten gurus were simply mortal teachers, akin to the Prophets عليهم السلام of our Semitic or Abrahamic tradition. Thus, they are genuinely shocked when they learn that the official teaching of their religion is that the ten gurus are divine beings who possess divinity, and are incarnations of God. It's not me who compared this belief to the Christian doctrine of divine incarnation, Jagraj Singh himself made that comparison, to clarify the reality of the Sikh doctrine.

Therefore, if any Muslim is seriously or may potentially be engaged with Da'wah to their Sikh friends or acquaintances, this material will prove highly beneficial in persuading them to re-evaluate their adherence to Sikhism, and consider Islam, the only truly monotheistic Religion in the world today.

Edited August 26 by Cherub786

[Cherub786 432]

Apologies for putting this in the wrong section (it should be moved to Atheism/Other Religions)

It is my thesis that Sikhism is not actually a world religion, and technically shouldn't be characterized as a religion. The definition of cult "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." Sikhism fits quite well into that definition of cult. It is actually a martial order that was given its present shape by their tenth guru, Gobind Singh, a petty warlord who engaged in dozens of battles, especially with the Mughals. The Five K's of Sikhism are all articles that make sense for a martial order, particularly the kirpan (dagger) kachcha (shorts). The Nihangs in particular have kept alive this tradition of Sikhism being primarily manifested as a martial order. Hence the concept of the Sant-Sipahi (saint warrior). The Nihangs have an especially bloody history, as they are largely responsible for participating with the most fanaticism in the genocide of Muslims of East Punjab in 1947.  

[THREE1THREE 378]

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

A lot of you might be surprised to learn this, but according to Sikh theology, the ten gurus are human incarnations of God exactly how Christians believe Jesus Christ is a the human incarnation of God "the Son"

That’s modalism to be exact but still that is shirk by making God equal to His creation. 

Edited August 26 by THREE1THREE

[Muhammed Ali 3,698]

14 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The definition of cult "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." 

Like Islam in the beginning? You need to find a better definition. 

[Cherub786 432]

1 minute ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Like Islam in the beginning? You need to find a better definition. 

Why is that? To me cult is a neutral term, I place no value judgment on it.

[Muhammed Ali 3,698]

So was Islam a cult in the beginning? 

[Cherub786 432]

1 minute ago, Muhammed Ali said:

So was Islam a cult in the beginning? 

I suppose it was, at least to the pagan Arabs (they likely viewed it as a "personality cult" to be precise). But it was not perceived as such to the rest of the world (Christians and Jews)

Edited August 26 by Cherub786

[Cherub786 432]

13 hours ago, THREE1THREE said:

That’s modalism to be exact but still that is shirk by making God equal to His creation. 

I'm not sure if its modalism. The problem with Sikh theology is it is never clearly defined and explained. It was not developed by intelligent people, it is not systematic and it is often times contradictory. The fact that a large number of Sikhs are even unaware of their official belief that the ten gurus are divine incarnations is a testament to that. As a religion, Sikhism is quite undeveloped in terms of theology. But the Sikhs obviously believe the ten gurus were ten distinct individuals or persons, so how do you figure it's modalism? Looks like straight up decatheism or denitarianism to me.

Edited August 27 by Cherub786

[THREE1THREE 378]

On 8/26/2020 at 7:01 PM, Cherub786 said:

so how do you figure it's modalism? Looks like straight up decatheism or denitarianism to me.

Modalism is of two types. one, where God takes on modes by manifesting himself as a certain character and then at another point of time another character and so on and so forth.  Two, it’s where God manifests himself in all modes by while still being Himself. 

e.g some trinitarians full into the category of being modalists by saying God the father, exists in the the Father(himself), the Son and the Holy Spirit. And some others believe he takes on these modes at different times 

so Sikhs would fall into the category of modalists by claiming God manifesting himself (or exists) in these ten gurus’s. 

[Ashvazdanghe 7,977]

21 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Therefore, if any Muslim is seriously or may potentially be engaged with Da'wah to their Sikh friends or acquaintances, this material will prove highly beneficial in persuading them to re-evaluate their adherence to Sikhism, and consider Islam, the only truly monotheistic Religion in the world today.

Salam anyway we don't force the Salafi / Wahabi doctrine on them also Islam allows living them under protection of muslims until they don't try to wage a war against muslim or force muslims to convert their religion also we don't have force conversion in Islam although it happened by order of many so called sunni rulers during era of Ummayids & Abbasids & Ottomans even shia leaders like Safavid rulers made this mistake about forcing Zoroastrians to converting to Islam that nowadays Wahabist are wrongly claiming as forcing conversion of Sunnis to Shias in Iran , also your method in video is dirty as wahabists are using against Shias in anti shia channels & radical  shia grouplets are using against  Sunnis that said in holy Quran

Quote

 وَلَا تَسُبُّوا الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّـهِ فَيَسُبُّوا اللَّـهَ عَدْوًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ زَيَّنَّا لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ عَمَلَهُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِم مَّرْجِعُهُمْ فَيُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ ﴿١٠٨﴾

  And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do. (108) 

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/6:108

Dhimmī (Arabic: الذمّي), a non-Muslim among the People of the Book who lives under the protection of an Islamic government under special terms

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Dhimmi

 

21 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The Nihangs have an especially bloody history, as they are largely responsible for participating with the most fanaticism in the genocide of Muslims of East Punjab in 1947.  

this is also a one sided conclusion  because in reality the British colonizers were masterminds of this genocide that they turned  Muslims & Sikhs & Hindus against each other to reshape India subcontinent in designated  form  by British Empire that nowadays Israel & America  are doing in Palestine  & Syria & Lebanon but ignorant  people say that fighting  & defeating of ISIS /Daesh by coalition  of Shias & Sunnis " was " genocide of Sunnis  by Shias & Assad Force" but these ignorant people Justify presence  of Israel & genocide of Palestinians  by Zionists .   

[Cherub786 432]

3 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam anyway we don't force the Salafi / Wahabi doctrine on them also Islam allows living them under protection of muslims until they don't try to wage a war against muslim or force muslims to convert their religion also we don't have force conversion in Islam although it happened by order of many so called sunni rulers during era of Ummayids & Abbasids & Ottomans even shia leaders like Safavid rulers made this mistake about forcing Zoroastrians to converting to Islam that nowadays Wahabist are wrongly claiming as forcing conversion of Sunnis to Shias in Iran

Once again you attempt to derail the thread by throwing in non sequiturs. Who is talking about forcing anyone to convert? You read the word Da'wah and your mind went to forced conversion?

Quote

your method in video is dirty as wahabists are using against Shias in anti shia channels & radical  shia grouplets are using against  Sunnis that said in holy Quran

My method is "dirty" simply because I uploaded a video of a Sikh where he explains his own theology and the theology of his religion? How is that "dirty"? It's not a dirty tactic at all. And you claim "Wahhabis" do the same thing to Shi'ah in their anti-Shi'ah channels. Well, I'm not sure what specific channel or video you are pointing to, but if it's a video of a Shi'i cleric, unedited with no commentary, how is that a "dirty" tactic? I think that's the most honest tactic to expose the reality of something.

Quote

this is also a one sided conclusion  because in reality the British colonizers were masterminds of this genocide that they turned  Muslims & Sikhs & Hindus against each other to reshape India subcontinent in designated  form  by British Empire that nowadays Israel & America  are doing in Palestine  & Syria & Lebanon but ignorant  people say that fighting  & defeating of ISIS /Daesh by coalition  of Shias & Sunnis " was " genocide of Sunnis  by Shias & Assad Force" but these ignorant people Justify presence  of Israel & genocide of Palestinians  by Zionists .   

You obviously have a political ax to grind, being a propagandist for the Mulla regime in Iran and all. However, history is quite different than what you are portraying it as. The British had no involvement whatsoever in the partition and communal violence leading up to the creation of Pakistan. If they were capable of it logistically, they would have prevented it, but it was beyond their capability. The Sikhs, under the leadership of Tara Singh, planned, coordinated and executed wholesale massacre of Muslims in East Punjab. It was a planned genocide without a doubt. The British were actually sympathetic toward the Muslims, in India, the British generally favored us Muslims over the Hindus. After all, it was the British who liberated Punjab from the tyranny of Ranjit Singh's successors in the Anglo-Sikh wars. They restored full religious liberty to the Muslims which was denied to them as a matter of policy under Sikh tyrannical rule.

It's laughable to describe the situation in Palestine as a "genocide". The Americans and the West in general are to be appreciated for imposing sanctions on Iran and the Baathist regime of Syria, which are guilty of unspeakable war crimes against their own people. They are to be appreciated for taking in literally millions of refugees. They are to be appreciated for launching regular attacks on terrorist groups like Hizbullah and other Iranian backed forces in Syria so they never become strong enough to spread more terror throughout the region.

[313_Waiter 751]

25 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Islam allows living them under protection of muslims until they don't try to wage a war against muslim

Salaam I don’t think non ahle kitab can practice their faith but please correct me

[313_Waiter 751]

11 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

They are to be appreciated for launching regular attacks on terrorist groups like Hizbullah and other Iranian backed forces in Syria so they never become strong enough to spread more terror throughout the region.

Do you have similar views against Isis, al Qaeda, Taliban, al Nusra etc.? 

Edited August 27 by Ejaz

[Ashvazdanghe 7,977]

6 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

Salaam I don’t think non ahle kitab can practice their faith but please correct me

In Iran Sikhs are only exception  that can practice their faith because  they are a peaceful  grouplet  & doesn't  try to convert muslims to their religion.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

My method is "dirty" simply because I uploaded a video of a Sikh where he explains his own theology and the theology of his religion? How is that "dirty"?

 

Edited August 27 by Ashvazdanghe

[Cherub786 432]

If British colonial policy was to sharpen communal differences in India, then I appreciate such a policy. It helped consolidate a strong Muslim identity in the subcontinent, and immunized most of us from the danger of Indian nationalism and participating in the so-called "freedom struggle" led by Gandhi and others. The British did a huge favor for Muslims in instituting this communalism into the political landscape, especially with the introduction of separate electorates in 1909. Muslims outside the Indian subcontinent simply fail to realize this. They grew up in societies which fed them this narrative since elementary school that the British were evil, and European colonialism was bad for the Muslims. Therefore, they are naturally inclined to see British colonialism in India as a bad thing. But by instituting a sharp colonial division in India, they planted the seeds for the eventual sprouting of the Pakistan movement that became a mass movement in the 1940s. This tendency also put an end to religious syncretism. Before this policy, a large number, maybe even the majority of Indian Muslims, were deeply rooted in their Hindu heritage, practiced elements of both Islam and Hinduism. The so-called "divide and conquer" policy served the interest of Islamic orthodoxy and purism in the sense that it forced Muslims to disassociate from Hindu practices that was obviously a corruption of the Religion.

Edited August 27 by Cherub786

[Haji 2003 9,245]

22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

A lot of you might be surprised to learn this, but according to Sikh theology, the ten gurus are human incarnations of God

This may very well be true.

But all you have done is to present one person's views. We have no idea about how they stand in relation to those of other Sikhs. It's like someone putting up a video of a Muslim preacher and saying that he has lifted the lid on the entire religion.

[Cherub786 432]

7 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

Do you have similar views against Isis, al Qaeda, Taliban, al Nusra etc.? 

Yes, I am consistent in my position and not blinded by sectarianism or political agenda (unlike our friend Ashvazdanghe). However, as far as I know, the Taliban is not designated a terrorist organization by the United States, which recently concluded a positive peace deal with them. The Taliban are composed of disparate elements, some which are terrorist, but the core movement seems to be agreeable to the international conventions of war.

[Cherub786 432]

2 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

This may very well be true.

But all you have done is to present one person's views. We have no idea about how they stand in relation to those of other Sikhs. It's like someone putting up a video of a Muslim preacher and saying that he has lifted the lid on the entire religion.

Jagraj Singh has made a compelling case since he quotes extensively from the Sikh scripture. I am not aware of any major, orthodox Sikh religious figure who contradicts him on this point. This isn't some minor issue either, it's probably the most critical. The Basics of Sikhi movement represents normative, orthodox Akali Sikhism. Nonetheless, further research is required which I am in the process of doing, and will update this thread accordingly, in sha Allah

[Haji 2003 9,245]

On 8/27/2020 at 2:27 AM, Cherub786 said:

The British had no involvement whatsoever in the partition and communal violence leading up to the creation of Pakistan.

I take it that you see no contradiction between what you say above and what you have said below?

On 8/27/2020 at 2:44 AM, Cherub786 said:

The British did a huge favor for Muslims in instituting this communalism into the political landscape, especially with the introduction of separate electorates in 1909.

[Cherub786 432]

Just now, Haji 2003 said:

I take it that you see no contradiction between what you say above and what you have said below?

There's no contradiction. In the first quote, I am explaining to Ash that the British were not directly responsible for the specific violence during the actual Partition. It's not even a popular conspiracy theory that they were responsible for that violence.

In the second quote, I am speaking of British policy of creating political division in India along communal lines, which helped sharpen the identity of "Muslimness" among our people and contributed to decreasing religious syncretism.

[Cherub786 432]

From the perspective of Islam, Sikhism is an antagonistic entity as its historic function was to resist Muslim incursion into India, and the Islamization of India, religiously, socially and politically. This explains why Sikhs, till this day, have always viewed syncretic elements within the Muslims favorably, they also view the antinomian Sufis favorably, and they view the Shi'ah favorably. But they are fearful and opposed to ultra-orthodox, puritanical manifestations of Islam, like the Wahhabis.

During the Sikh tyranny in the Punjab during the early 19th century, Sayyid Ahmad of Rai Barailly رحمة الله عليه along with his lieutenant Shah Isma'il of Delhi رحمة الله عليه organized and waged a holy Jihad against the Sikhs. While they were campaigning in the heart of Hindustan (modern day Uttar Pradesh) to recruit Mujahidin for the cause of liberating the Punjab, it was asked why they do not fight an "enemy" closer to home, namely the British and their East India Tea company. Sayyid Ahmad responded that he had no issue with the British, as they were Ahl al-Kitab (Christians) and were not actively oppressing the Muslims, nor denying them their fundamental right to practice their Religion. But in the Punjab, Muslims were being crushed, even something as innocuous as cow sacrifice was a death penalty offense under the regime of Ranjit Singh and his successors.

Sadly, these two great holy warriors were martyred in Balakot because of the treachery of the Pathans. It was an object lesson regarding the potential fifth columnism of Muslim populations that are strongly attached to their ethnic and linguistic identities and have not thoroughly been Islamized in terms of identity and outlook. Today, this phenomenon is manifested in ethnic nationalist and separatist movements like the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), Awami National Party (ANP), Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM). These leftist, ethnic nationalist, and linguistic movements and political parties thrive among rural populations that have a weak attachment to their Muslim identity and to the practice of Islam.

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,144]

Sikhs are pantheists. They are not Ahle Kitab.

[Cherub786 432]

3 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Sikhs are pantheists. They are not Ahle Kitab.

Who said they were Ahl al-Kitab?

They are basically a militant sect of Hindus, even if they insist they are an independent religion

[Muhammed Ali 3,698]

  

On 8/27/2020 at 12:44 AM, Cherub786 said:

But it was not perceived as such to the rest of the world (Christians and Jews)

Where is your evidence? I.e. that it wasn't seen as a "strange or sinister" group by the majority that knew about it? I am sure it was at least seen as strange.

So to you the word cult is to be used purely subjectively? If 99% of people thought a small group was "strange or sinister" but a book about them was being written by someone from the 1% that didn't think so, then should they use the word cult to describe them? Because you are calling Sikhism a cult when most humans might not think it is "strange or sinister". Perhaps you should say it is a cult to you but not to the rest of us.

Quote

To me cult is a neutral term, I place no value judgment on it.

Then why did you use the term to disparage the Sikhs? If you didn't use it to disparage them, then why mention it at all?

 

Better definitions for cults: https://youtu.be/8bRBFhMEQFk?t=53

I believe Bret Weinstein has a more accurate definition: "A cult is the predatory version, it is tapping into people's natural tenancy to believe in what I call metaphorical truths, and it is using it to very often to extract resources from them". I think it should not be limited to groups that deal with "metaphorical truths". Even non-religious groups can be cults. But even that doesn't seem like the most precise definition. 

https://youtu.be/dqYdVrlbrHk?t=543

Edited August 28 by Muhammed Ali

[BleedKnee 82]

On 8/26/2020 at 6:44 PM, Cherub786 said:

I suppose it was, at least to the pagan Arabs (they likely viewed it as a "personality cult" to be precise). But it was not perceived as such to the rest of the world (Christians and Jews)

So I think you guys are going under the definition of a cult being “a social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices.”

Hard to really call Islam that, when what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was teaching contained within it content and stories that the pagan Arabs did know about, as well as the neighbouring Jews and Christians of course. 

Actually, the pagan Arabs used to follow Abrahamic tradition until they themselves deviated the path. And even then they recognized the Big God, they recognized the Kabah as the House of God that Abraham (عليه السلام) and Isaac (عليه السلام) built, and so on. All that Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was doing was really calling for the Arabs to go back to that tradition, rather than stay on the path of deviancy. 

[eThErEaL 2,925]

Actually a Sikh can school most of us on Tawhid 101.  (Especially Cherub)

Most Sikhs are intellectually advanced in such subjects.  
 

and they don’t have time to waste arguing against an uneducated, unsophisticated Muslim.  (I am saying this as a Muslim).

you gotta give some respect to Sikhs.  

[Cherub786 432]

6 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Then why did you use the term to disparage the Sikhs? If you didn't use it to disparage them, then why mention it at all?

For the purpose of accuracy. Nevertheless, there are alternative meanings of the word cult which signify it isn't a neutral term but a negative one. Sikhism can be described as a cult in that sense too: "a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents"

Edited August 28 by Cherub786

[Cherub786 432]

7 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Where is your evidence? I.e. that it wasn't seen as a "strange or sinister" group by the majority that knew about it? I am sure it was at least seen as strange.

This is what Sebeos, a 7th century Armenian bishop, said about the rise of Islam:

"Twelve peoples representing all the tribes of the Jews assembled at the city of Edessa. When they saw that the Persian troops had departed leaving the city in peace, they closed the gates and fortified themselves. They refused entry to troops of the Roman lordship. Thus Heraclius, emperor of the Byzantines, gave the order to besiege it. When the Jews realized that they could not militarily resist him, they promised to make peace. Opening the city gates, they went before him, and Heraclius ordered that they should go and stay in their own place. So they departed, taking the road through the desert to Tachkastan Arabia to the sons of Ishmael. The Jews called the Arabs to their aid and familiarized them with the relationship they had through the books of the Old Testament. Although the Arabs were convinced of their close relationship, they were unable to get a consensus from their multitude, for they were divided from each other by religion. In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Mahmed, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God’s command, was revealed to them, and Mahmed taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from on High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father–Abraham. Mahmed legislated that they were not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: “God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when God loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."

[Cherub786 432]

Now having quoted what a Christian religious leader thought of Islam during the emergence and early days of the latter, let us likewise examine what a great Islamic religious leader, Mujaddid Alf Thani, Imam Rabbani, Ahmad Sirhindi رحمة الله عليه said about the last Sikh guru (Gobind Singh), which reveals the attitude of orthodox Sunni Muslims toward Sikhism:

"The killing of the accursed kafir Gobind and his children was very good. This was the means of a great defeat for the contemptible Hindus. Regardless of whatever intention he was killed for, and for whatever purpose, it was the means of humiliating the kuffar and advancing the cause of the people of Islam. Before that kafir was killed, I had a dream in which I saw the current king break the skull of shirk. He (Gobind) was truly the leader of the idolatrous people of Shirk. May Allah humiliate them." (Maktubat Imam Rabbani; Maktub #193):

Edited August 28 by Cherub786

[Cherub786 432]

On 8/28/2020 at 12:05 PM, eThErEaL said:

Actually a Sikh can school most of us on Tawhid 101.  (Especially Cherub)

Well then, why don't you invite one of your Sikh friends to debate me here on SC? Let's see if he is able to school me. If he's anything like the Sikhs I encountered in my YouTube channel comment section, I highly doubt he'll be able to school me. Those guys became so frustrated when I exposed their polytheistic theology they began abusing and cursing. It was pathetic.

[eThErEaL 2,925]

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Well then, why don't you invite one of your Sikh friends to debate me here on SC? Let's see if he is able to school me. If he's anything like the Sikhs I encountered in my YouTube channel comment section, I highly doubt he'll be able to school me. Those guys became so frustrated when I exposed their polytheistic theology they began abusing and cursing. It was pathetic.

You already lost as soon as you opened this thread.  Good bye

[Cherub786 432]

2 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

You already lost as soon as you opened this thread.  Good bye

What an escape!

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,144]

On 8/28/2020 at 1:05 PM, eThErEaL said:

Actually a Sikh can school most of us on Tawhid 101.  (Especially Cherub)

22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

which reveals the attitude of orthodox Sunni Muslims toward Sikhism

8 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

What an escape!

For the record, eThErEal is also Sunni Muslim. @Cherub786

[Cherub786 432]

1 minute ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

For the record, eThErEal is also Sunni Muslim. @Cherub786

What difference does that make?

[eThErEaL 2,925]

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

What difference does that make?

The doctrine is usually misunderstood.  It should not be taken literally that the guru or the master or the perfect person is God in man.

So, I don't mean to paint the picture that all sikhs know what they are talking about.  I don;t know who the guy in the video is, but if he is involved in proselytizing, then chances are, he is doing more of a disservice.  He probably has a political agenda or some kind of social agenda up his sleeve because the nature of such doctrines, in order for it to be properly understood, must be taught in certain contexts and for people who have a certain receptivity towards it.  The average person is NOT going to understand the doctrine and will easily interpret it in a way that contradicts the Oneness of God.  It will be interpreted in a literal way. 

Only Allah is perfect, and He alone is worthy of praise.