Time Article On Sikhs

[Guest confusingh]

I agree with alot you are saying veer SunSingh ji...

Ultimately the word fundamentalist is a negative one as it means one who interprets something in a completely literal sense....

A book is interpreted in a literal sense...

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not simply a book, Maharaj ji was written with great great passion and knowledge its not a fact-based book as one you may study from, rather our Guru, our spiritual teacher

The teachings of principles and the poetic value of Guru ji is absolutely beautiful, by discrediting this and interpreting Guru ji as a literal 'book' is this not beadbi?... Fundamentalism in the context of religion cannot be applied to Sikhism, those who do it are often misguided individuals.

Nothing in Maharaj ji is meant to be for literal interpretation, remember our Gurus were amazing poets with amazing writing skills... Symbolism and poetic values are present throughout the whole of Bani, A part of Bani which gives one person a meaning and strength may give another person a different strength... for example one person may read bani because they failed their driving test and think they cannot pass it, they then find a part of Bani which encourages them to try harder next time, another person may read that same part of Bani and gain encouragement to stop driving and ride a bike like they've always wanted to ... just an example but Bani isn't conclusive and doesn't say to these people 'Try harder for your driving test next time' or ' Ride a bike instead' ... I know its a strange example but do you get my point?

FUNDAMENTALISM IN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION IS IN REGARDS TO A PERSON INTERPRETING THEIR SACRED TEXT IN A LITERAL SENSE...

lets not confuse this with fundamentals...

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[HSD*^]

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

wow. and people said ignorance is bliss. obviously not in your case. now i'll wait for your blood pressure to drop or for you to go to the toilet as its obvious something is wrong.

firstly, there is a difference between a fanatic and a fundamentalist. fanatics tend to know what they're on about, thats why they stick to their guns. fundamentalists tend to be stupid and have no real sense of reasoning, and also follow a bizarre logic that is very basic yet illogical to anyone with an ounce of sense.

secondly, you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. i gave clear examples and reasoning in my previous posts. i'm sure my explanation isnt always perfect and sometimes i dont get my point across. but its better than just shouting stuff because its what you believe. any proof that i jumped to conclusions? i also discredited this author at the top of the page. you see i have read some of his autobiography/novel and so know something about how he thinks. you on the other hand scream the first thing that comes into your head. now thats the difference between fanaticism and fundamentalism.

thirdly, what does this have to do with langar? i'm beginning to see the eratic nature of fundamentalism in your lots reasoning. as i said before, look around you, see what fundamentalism does to others.

also, you mention the rehat maryada. but arent there different maryada followed by different groups? who's right? who's wrong? what if someone grows up not following any rehat maryada but then chooses one? or those who go the other way? or those who follow bits and pieces?

do you see what i mean? fundamentalism looks at religion in a simplistic way and then tries to force reality to conform to that simple view. but the real world is not like that. if you think it is, your going to be in for a rude shock.

[HSD*^]

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 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??

christian fundamentalism is not a back to roots movement like singh sabha back in the last century. christian fundamentalism is a peculiar american phenomenon were people take the bible literally. all of it. whether its jesus being the son of god or eve being made out of adam's rib or the world being made in 6 days. if we do this with gurbani it will cause problems. who here has seen the messenger/angel of death club someones face in till they die? also, the 5 ks werent adhered to by the early gurus..........what do fundamentalists have to say about that? i too think the 5 ks are important and necessary, but i wont use stupid reasoning or half lies to convince myself or others to believe the same.

also, i dont think the majority of the western media gives two s**** about what we do or dont do. its mainly coconuts and snowflakes playing the race/religion card to get themselves noticed.

on a side note, the french and american revolutions did not believe in equality for all men. just white ones.

[hawk13]

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

wow. and people said ignorance is bliss. obviously not in your case. now i'll wait for your blood pressure to drop or for you to go to the toilet as its obvious something is wrong.

firstly, there is a difference between a fanatic and a fundamentalist. fanatics tend to know what they're on about, thats why they stick to their guns. fundamentalists tend to be stupid and have no real sense of reasoning, and also follow a bizarre logic that is very basic yet illogical to anyone with an ounce of sense.

secondly, you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. i gave clear examples and reasoning in my previous posts. i'm sure my explanation isnt always perfect and sometimes i dont get my point across. but its better than just shouting stuff because its what you believe. any proof that i jumped to conclusions? i also discredited this author at the top of the page. you see i have read some of his autobiography/novel and so know something about how he thinks. you on the other hand scream the first thing that comes into your head. now thats the difference between fanaticism and fundamentalism.

thirdly, what does this have to do with langar? i'm beginning to see the eratic nature of fundamentalism in your lots reasoning. as i said before, look around you, see what fundamentalism does to others.

also, you mention the rehat maryada. but arent there different maryada followed by different groups? who's right? who's wrong? what if someone grows up not following any rehat maryada but then chooses one? or those who go the other way? or those who follow bits and pieces?

do you see what i mean? fundamentalism looks at religion in a simplistic way and then tries to force reality to conform to that simple view. but the real world is not like that. if you think it is, your going to be in for a rude shock.

It is ur need to to know better about sikhi IAM NOT SHOUTING BUT PUTTING ACROSS MESSAGE OF UR SMALL KNOWLDGE THERE IS NO DIFFERENT REHAT MARYADA THERE IS ONE REHAT MARYADA BASED UPON THE REHATNAMAS AND DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY GURUS DO U KNOW THE THE MEANING OF REHATNAMAS THE ANSWER IS NO FIRST GO THRUGH THE RECORD MIND IT NO PERSONAL COMMENTS AND IT IS U WHO WILL NEED TO GO TO TOILET FREQUENTLY.The langar tradition u nothing about it is not just food it is symbol of equality it . Bhai PARLAD SINGH JI REHAT NAMA ,BHAI CHUPA SINGH REHATNAMA SAYS WITHOUT REHAT ONE CANNOT BE SIKH GURU JI BACCHAN REHAT PYARI MUGH KO SIKH PYARA NAHIN. u R LIKE A ARYA SAMAJI OR LEFTIST FANATIC sikhs can never be intolerant. Different groups follow their selfmade MARYADA NOT THE REAL REHAT MARYADA CONTAINED IN REHAT NAMA U HAVE NO KNOWLDGE THAT RECENTLY PUNJAB AND HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN LEGAL STATUS TO REHAT MARYADA R THE JUDGES FUNDAMENTLISTS.? EVEN KIRPAN BILL IS RECOGINITION OF REHAT MARYADA GO READ REHATNAMAS DO NO FOOL AROUND UR SELF THEN WRITE POSTS

[HSD*^]

seriously mate, what the hell are you on about? did you call me a lefty as well, lol? its now obvious that being incoherent and borderline retarded is part of pan-religious fundamentalism.

answer me this: do you use chemical compounds that contain the alcohol function group?

[Wicked Warrior]

First sikhs cannot be fundamentlist. .can a religion... BE A FUNDAMENTALIST?

You are incorrect. No religion is fundamentalist. People are fundamentalist. A Sikh who tells others to avoid products with the word 'alcohol' is being fundamentalist.

We sikhs just have to follow DISPLINE LIKE ARMY

Discipline and fundamentalism are two completely different things. Discipline is following a set of rules (whether set by others or by oneself). This turns into fundamentalism when one fails to understand not the rules but why they are set. Saying 'alcohol' is bad without knowing why is fundamentalism.

Knowing that drinking alcohol in the form of ethanol-containing beverages because it leads to an imbalance in the state of mind, and therefore abstaining is discipline.

It is ur need to to know better about sikhi IAM NOT SHOUTING BUT PUTTING ACROSS MESSAGE OF UR SMALL KNOWLDGE

Shouting in this situation resolves nothing. All you do is make it more difficult to understand your message. This is something you should try to avoid as it can lead to misunderstanding.

In essence, I would state that fundamentalism is following the rules without interpretation or correct use of the rules.

[hawk13]

First sikhs cannot be fundamentlist. .can a religion... BE A FUNDAMENTALIST?

You are incorrect. No religion is fundamentalist. People are fundamentalist. A Sikh who tells others to avoid products with the word 'alcohol' is being fundamentalist.

We sikhs just have to follow DISPLINE LIKE ARMY

Discipline and fundamentalism are two completely different things. Discipline is following a set of rules (whether set by others or by oneself). This turns into fundamentalism when one fails to understand not the rules but why they are set. Saying 'alcohol' is bad without knowing why is fundamentalism.

Knowing that drinking alcohol in the form of ethanol-containing beverages because it leads to an imbalance in the state of mind, and therefore abstaining is discipline.

It is ur need to to know better about sikhi IAM NOT SHOUTING BUT PUTTING ACROSS MESSAGE OF UR SMALL KNOWLDGE

Shouting in this situation resolves nothing. All you do is make it more difficult to understand your message. This is something you should try to avoid as it can lead to misunderstanding.Fundamentlists r those who force other people to follow their line they all means even nonreligious people can do it as happened in China in 1969-72 period the socalled cultral revolution when red guard raised by Mao clashed with local people leading to 6 million deaths later army removed mao. Another example is of soviet union where stalin was was resonsible for 70 million deaths when kgb removed him only india gave shelter to his family in mubai still living. The excesses of taliban r nothing as compared to excesses commited by fanatic lleftists. After grand son of GREAT ASOKA WAS killed by hindu general and himself became king he got killed 80 lac buddhists and destroyed their religious places. But we know nothing of this kind during sikh rule period even during medival times. So sikh can never be fundamentlist.

In essence, I would state that fundamentalism is following the rules without interpretation or correct use of the rules.