Time Article On Sikhs

[Khaalis]

"Sikhi was meant to be a rainbow of wonder."

Vah Ji Vah...

Perfect.

[lodi_my_dodi]

The way I see it is that the term fundamentalist/ism is used too widely.

People who are part time Sikhs (and others) use that as a term to describe Amritdhari Siksh who wake up at amrit vela or who do hours of sewa in the Gurdwara. Even for people who refuse to remove their Kirpan under any circumstances. this to me is a devotion of faith fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles, and I dont see anything wrong with that. Why would our Guru Sahibs set out principles and a way of life, in Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj if they werent to be followed. Sikhi is not a missionary faith each Sikh should follow his/her faith as best they can, it is a purely personal experience. Whether some people call that fundamentalism is their problem.

[paradigm shifter]

Fundamental -forming a necessary base or core;of central importance. Perhaps we need to understand the deeper meaning of some words before we throw them around. There is nothing wrong in being fundamental, I believe God is fundamental i.e. of central importance.

[Wicked Warrior]

Fundamentalism now means something different to what it would or should mean.

Fundamentalism is about taking an ideal to an extreme and then trying to push that 'extreme thought' on to others, or at least trying to encourage that extreme thought.

Let's go back to alcohol.

The ideal is that you shouldn't drink alcohol has it can upset the balance of the mind, leading to further problems (addiction, gambling, poor judgement etc).

This becomes fundamentalist when you say all alcohol is bad, including methanol, propanolol, butanol etc - you've taken a message or ideal to the extreme, and then try to convince others that all 'alcohols' are bad.

This when you start to make rules of yes and no, allowed and not allowed etc. You start to judge people based on these things, leading to your own spiritual downfall. We should try and help others on this path, I agree. But we should not force out beliefs on others, even with other Sikhs.

This is completely different to having a grasp of the fundamentals of sikhi (japping Naam, earning honestly and sharing with others).

[HSD*^]

before people start jumping up and down in excitement at the fact we are now 'fundamentalists', let me remind you that we are not the only religion that does this. in the middle east, the fundamentalism that appeared a few centuries ago proceeded to turn arabia from a rich intelligent set of empires into a fractured, ignorant, backwards collection of states ruled by leaders who kept their citizens ignorant and fundamentalist in order to secure their own positions of power (see the similarities to the panth today anyone?).

in america christian fundamentalism is forcing school kids to learn about 'intelligent design' and other stupid biblical theories rather than proper science. this will affect the country as you cant do much with a pile of stupid graduates. if the yanks dont sort that out they will end up like the arabs.

as for sikh fundamentalism, i think these people want the exclusivity of being sad enough to use their ignorance to not understand their religion but to still seem pious by making up rituals and theories based on a ignorant (or should i say basic?!) understanding of bani. if these people want to be the brahmins of sikhi, let them. but dont expect any of us to wash your feet - actually you'll get the treatment that our ancestors should have given to the hindu brahmins.

[geo]

we cant eat meat on tuesdays,

I HATE! when people say that, if you eat it you eat it no point not eating it on certain days, just stupid

i strongly agree! i hate the stupidity of not eating meat on a certain day! either eat it or dont eat it. it is painfull to see how many people will not use their brains. we have been so lucky to have amazing intelligence and yet some people follow these silly traditions.

[Guest confusingh]

Sorry but there are so many uneducated kids in this forum... the people who are typing on here after looking up the definition of fundamentals,,, they don't understand that fundamentalism is infact an approach rather than 'fundamentals' the words differ quite alot..

The word used in the article is fundamentalism which in the context of religion means an individual takes every word within a sacred text literally, and so if we were to do so we wouldn't actually be Sikhs as obviously there is alot of symbolism and teachings by example in our Bani, there are certain parts we can't take literally but rather interpret...

If there are people on here saying its good to be fundamentalists, and they take every word of Bani literally they are complete hypocrites or just unbelievably uneducated, if we took every word of Bani literally we wouldn't live in capitalist societies nor would we work to gain or purchase luxury items, so please think before you speak...

Gurbani isn't for us a list of a couple of rules, rather our Spiritual teacher, our Guru to guide us on how to live a moral and Gurmat lifestyle.

Those children and uneducated adults who think its good to be a fundamentalist of religion I advise them to go and speak to the thousands of families ruined through extremist misinterpreted and incorrect beliefs, the millions of people needlessly killed across the world, young children, fathers mothers, sisters and brothers killed for ones interpretation of their 'religion'... then ask yourself if you are in fact a Guru ka Sikh or a person who enjoys projecting themselves to be 'proper' for selfish means...?

Fundamentalism is a belief in the literal interpretation of a particular doctrine.

Fundamentals are the basic components, to form a core of central importance....

Big differences in the word 'fundamental' and the approach of 'fundamentalism' in religious interpretation...

Sikhs should never deviate from true Sikhi and stray to fundamentalism, no good comes from fundamentalism look at history, interpretation is key to being a Gurmukh.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[hawk13]

First sikhs cannot be fundamentlist how can u call someone fundamentalist without knowing the facts about sikhi that writer have big ego problem and thinks higher of Guru ji .can a religion which believes in SARBAT DA BHALLA AND HAD 4 DOORS OPEN FOR ALL CASTES AND RELIGION BE A FUNDAMENTALIST? Fact remains in punjab gurdwaras only 10 lac people feed on LANGAR daily. We sikhs just have to follow DISPLINE LIKE ARMY should we be callled fanatics most of the people who takes langar r non sikhs, Writer of the article is like the persons mentined by GURU JI KOOR RAJA KOOR PRAJA the GURU ji describes such people who for conviance and personal benefits does behave like the ruling class or majourity people we have rajputs offerring their women to mughals for petty gains author belongs to that category. The author misinterprets thT SIKHS WORSHIOPS LIVING GURU ACCORGING TO CHAUPA SINGH JI REHAT BINA NA SIKH KAHAYE . SO AUTHOR SHOULD LEARN SIKHI THEN WRITE SOMETHING HE SHOULD NOT MAKE FOOL OF HIMSELF,

[hawk13]

before people start jumping up and down in excitement at the fact we are now 'fundamentalists', let me remind you that we are not the only religion that does this. in the middle east, the fundamentalism that appeared a few centuries ago proceeded to turn arabia from a rich intelligent set of empires into a fractured, ignorant, backwards collection of states ruled by leaders who kept their citizens ignorant and fundamentalist in order to secure their own positions of power (see the similarities to the panth today anyone?).

in america christian fundamentalism is forcing school kids to learn about 'intelligent design' and other stupid biblical theories rather than proper science. this will affect the country as you cant do much with a pile of stupid graduates. if the yanks dont sort that out they will end up like the arabs.

as for sikh fundamentalism, i think these people want the exclusivity of being sad enough to use their ignorance to not understand their religion but to still seem pious by making up rituals and theories based on a ignorant (or should i say basic?!) understanding of bani. if these people want to be the brahmins of sikhi, let them. but dont expect any of us to wash your feet - actually you'll get the treatment that our ancestors should have given to the hindu brahmins.

tHIS IS NOT PROBLEM WITH SIKHI BUT WITH PERSONS WITH SMALL KNOWLDGE REHAT MARYADA IS NOT RITUAL IT IS DISCPLINE IF U R NOT FOLLOWING IT U R OUT OF IT, MILLIONS OF NON SIKHS TAKE LANGAR IN GURDWARAS IF BECAUSE OF THIS REHAT MARYADA IF WE HAVE TO BECOME FANATICS WE COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT. LERAN MORE ABOUT SIKHI BEFORE JUMPING TO ANY CONCLUSIONS JUST LIKE THAT EGOSTIC AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE. WHEN SOME COMMUNISTS WERE CRTICING SIKHI A SPESKER JUST TOLD THEM TO FEED JUST 50 PEOPLE IN THEIR OFFICE FROM THEIR PARTY FUND DAILY THEN CRTICISE SIKHI AND SIKHISM . THEY JUST VANISHED

[SunSingh]

To have a productive discussion of this issue we need to first define the word 'fundamentalism'.

The word first came into popular use when it was used to define a resurgence in Christian back-to-roots movement that occurred long before we were born. In this sense, the word means to adhere strongly to the roots of a religion and follow them as we believe the founders wished us to. I think this is exactly what Sikhs should do, Amrit, the 5 kakaars, nitnem, are all clearly inalienable aspects of Sikh identity. No matter how technologically advanced the toys in modern society get.

The other meaning of the word is how it is used at present. This is the meaning we contend with. At present the media often use the word fundamentalist to describe narrow-minded religious zealots who wish to impose their faith onto others. It is often used in descriptions of Islamist groups that wish to impose sharia on others.

As you can see, the two different meanings of the word are worlds apart. I am an open minded, tolerant individual, who believes strongly in the requirement for Sikhs to accept Khande batte da Amrit, 5 kakkaars, nitnem etc. So if someone asks me if I am a fundamentalist, I always say NO, b/c I don't want to be defined by this highly malleable term which can easily be twisted to make us look bad.

The use of the term fundamentalist today is also used in an attempt by the media to create splits in the Sikh community. The word moderate is used to define those with shorn hair who follow more western values, the word fundamentalist for those who keep kesh and ostensibly follow non-western (and supremacist) values. The bias judgment from journalists is obvious - moderates are progressive, fundamentalists are backwards. Can't you guys see it's a trap to allow ourselves to be labelled fundamentalist??

We have to be careful in managing our image, we can't control it 100%, but we definitely can put our best foot forward (as a person might in a job interview). Sikh dharm taught that women are equal long before feminism began, that all races are equal long before the French and American revolutions. Wearing turbans, keeping unshorn hair, are in no way fundamentalist, I see rising above the $$$ sucking vagueries of fashion as extremely progressive.