The Sikhs are at it too
It’s a competition and all religious nuts are invited! Too much time on your hands? Having problems getting laid? Mis-interpreted your religion and thought that rather than spreading peace and love, it may help you get over your penis-size insecurity? Thinking only you know the truth and everyone else has to be educated? Then we much be talking about you.
With Muslims and Hindu nuts grabbing all the limelight of late, we here at Pickled Politics thought it would only be prudent to let you know that the Sikhs brothas are not far behind.
A co-conspirator to our revolution sent me an email yesterday, saying he got this sent by email:
“Our eternal Guru (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) is being disrespected at the Ek Niwas institution in Wolvehampton, Ek Niwas is an institution that promotes so called unity of all faiths - although the main theme of the place is based upon Hindu concepts, parkash of Guru Ji takes place at this institution and alongside Guru Jis parkash pooja (rituals) of Hindu Gods take placeThe Akal Takht, the temporal authority for Sikhs worldwide, has already issued a Hukamnama (command), stating that no pooja/rituals of any other religion can take place in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
If this isnt enough - at an Ek Niwas function members of the institution do bhangra and giddha in the presence of Guru Ji - which is totally disrespectful!!!! This isn’t the first time this issue has arisin over Ek Niwas, it has been brought up many times over past years but Guru Jis disrespect is still happening today!!!
This is completely unacceptable and against the basic principles of Sikhism.
This issue of disrespect needs to be raised and stopped before we find ourselves in a much worse position in years to come. The following link shows footage of an Ek Niwas function whichs shows all of the above taking place.”
Yes, it is the return of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ‘rescue squad’.
Our informant adds:
“Now whilst I dont know much about this Ek Niwas centre it appears to be some sort of multi-faith centre where they have the Hindu scriptures as well as the Koran, Bible and the SGGS as well as Hindu ‘idols’.
Speaking frankly I’m quite against all these organised religions. Having said that I can’t see how this centre is doing any harm. It appears the presence of the SGGS together with these ‘idols’ has offended some Sikh groups and from what I’ve heard they plan some sort of “rescue mission”. I’m sure you will agree, after the Islamic cartoons episode and recently the MF Hussein paintings furore this kind of publicity is the last thing we want.
In light of this I was wondering if you could use your connections to find out more and possibly even do a write up on PP on this.
The topic is being discussed at http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=18012&st=48. Whilst this site does seem to be a meeting point for these internet warriors you may find it useful to get any info regarding if/when any “action” will be taken by these ‘twats’.”
—————–
So there we have it. Anyone know more about this venue or what the SGGS ‘rescue squad’ are up to these days? It may be worth contacting the venue and warning them.
Jay Singh wrote a great article for us a few months ago on these idiots bringing British Sikhs into disrepute.
What is there to do about this? Just intenecine squabbles amongst Sikhs. If you dont believe then why try and get involved in the debate between one sect of Sikhs and another? Religions are always squabbling and fighting internally. You’re not going to be able to make a contribution to this debate. Its just petty gurdwara politics.
Guranteed to bring about ~”unity of all faiths”: all together now- aone, a-two and a-three…
I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.
I’m opposed to it —
On general principles I’m opposed to it!
Chorus: He’s opposed to it!
In fact, in word, in deed,
He’s opposed to it!
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And I’ve kept yelling since I commenced it,
I’m against it!
I’d have an opinion, if I could be bothered to work out what he’s talking about.
Don’t mean to be facile, but I seriously doubt this guy has a girlfriend.
This Ek Niwas centre is a place of worship for the sect/cult of Baba Balaknath. These arn’t new issues between orthodox and non-orthodox Sikhs. A full description of the premises at Wolverhampton is available here (as well as a history of Baba Balanak followers):
http://www.art.man.ac.uk/CASAS/pdfpapers/skanda.pdf
I agree with Pali Kaur. This is an internal matter — if Sikh tenets do not allow the Sri Guru Granth Sahib to be installed in the presence of idols (which they don’t, considering that the SGGS represents the historical human Sikh Gurus who explicitly condemned idol-worship), then Sikhs have the right to remove it as per their religious beliefs, as long as they do not break the law while attempting to do so.
If they were demanding that the non-Sikh icons be removed then it would be a different matter, but this is not the case.
This particular “controversy” is a non-issue.
*SGGS represents the historical human Sikh Gurus
Not in the form of an idol — it contains their teachings in the form of hymns, which people are meant to refer to if they want to find out about the Gurus’ teachings directly, as per Guru Gobind Singh’s instructions shortly before his death.
“With Muslims and Hindu nuts grabbing all the limelight of late, we here at Pickled Politics thought it would only be prudent to let you know that the Sikhs brothas are not far behind”
And that’s not all!
Some of us are tired of people being rude about Moses too!
>then Sikhs have the right to remove it as per their religious beliefs, as long as they do not break the law while attempting to do so.
Very tricky for the Khalsa Sikhs, Jai, since there is no legal way they *can* enter someone else’s property and remove the granth. It is somewhat intolerant of the Khalsa sikhs to insist that only their possession of the SGGS/interpretation/practise is correct. Why put it on the net for a download(and any sort of potential abuse) if it is so important to preserve its physical sanctity? This reminds me of the ahmaddi persecution in many muslim countries: the orthodox denying the heterodox subgroup any shared religious identity or space. Btw the Ek niwas priest, a Jat Sikh, apparently already lives under police protection due to THREATS from the sikh groups in the area.
Thanks for posting that article Inders. The ek niwas fellas ,to me anyway, appear oddly endearing for their eclectic universalism and apparently mindboggling interior decor. Rather like the Malaysian teapot cult (again a liberal universalist breakway from mainstream sunni islam). Alas the giant concrete teapot is no more due to the rampages of the orthodox “faithful”.
…talking of eclectic universalism, the SGGS itself contains a substantial amount of compositions of Hindu bhaktas, Muslim divines, Sufi poets etc. Ironic or what?
The funny thing about this puerile spat is the utter un-Sikhness of it.
I mean,… I’m no ‘expert’ on the ins and outs of the Guru Granth Sahib (on the contrary: I know comparatively little about Sikhism vis-à-vis Islam, Christianity and Judaism), but it’s a well-known fact amongst ordinary folk such as myself that Sikhism does not discriminate on the basis of faith, gender, class, education, or caste (i.e. there are many paths to God). For example:
(1.) Anyone is allowed to come and visit the Gurdwara, just so long as they obey the religious etiquette and desist from hassling worshippers.
(2.) There is no priestly super-class, as there is in Catholicism or Shia Islam in Iran.
(3.) Being a ‘Sikh’ in itself is no guarantee of salvation. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and so forth have the same right to liberty as a Sikh – this is consistent with two other axioms: God’s spirit (i.e. His Will pervades all living creatures) and human equality (equality before the law).
On a micro level, these co-called ‘rescue squads’ are surrendering to one of the five thieves, anger (Kr’odh), which doesn’t bode well for the afterlife. Their loss, I suppose.
Amir
By ‘afterlife’, I mean ‘next life’ [correction]
Mirax,
There’s a certain etiquette that is meant to be adhered to when in the presence of the physical form of the scriptures (ie. not the “on-line” version, although some people have actually suggested that perhaps this should also apply to the latter). Remember that Guru Gobind Singh himself collated the finalised version of the scriptures, and left instructions with regards to how the book should be treated.
And yes, the SGGS does include compositions by non-Sikh individuals; however, these were incorporated into the scriptures only if they were in line with the Gurus’ own teachings on spiritual matters. The Gurus supported freedom of religious worship for people of all religious affiliations as per any individual’s own beliefs and the right for an individual to have “freedom of conscience”, but not when this contradicted Sikh principles — for example, the Gurus actively defended the right of people of all faiths to live without unwarranted religious persecution (the 9th Guru even gave his life for this principle), but simultaneously they condemned practices such as sati, the caste system, idolatry, certain negative ways widows were treated, infanticide (especially of female babies), and so on. They did the same for practices in other organised religions which did not correspond with their own views on spirituality and human ethics.
Since the SGGS consists of the Gurus’ own teachings on what consists of appropriate religious conduct (amongst a range of other matters too), it is not correct to place the scriptures in a situation which contradicts what the Gurus taught in these matters and, indeed, which they did not allow within gurdwaras during their own lifetimes.
Amir,
=>”On a micro level, these co-called ‘rescue squads’ are surrendering to one of the five thieves, anger (Kr’odh),”
You’re making assumptions here. They may well be motivated purely by a desire to ensure that proper etiquette is adhered to, rather than any “anger” on their part.
This particular “controversy” is a non-issue.
Absolutely Jai, but it is still worthy of comment. I would respectfully suggest that a better use of the time these folk are spending on their rescue plans, would be to hang out in aforementioned community centre. They could talk to the people who ask them why, when everyone else has some kind of idol or symbol on show, they have a book. Then they might have an opportunity to tell some of those people what is in the book, and how they can expect to be treated by Sikhs as a result.
This looks like a classic case of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, being counter-productive. By their actions, this Rescue Force are portraying their faith as exclusivist and insular, which (as Amir points out) is the opposite of what Sikhism is supposed to be about.
Jai – fair cop.
But what about these guys?
I’m sure a few of these incendiaries are taking a keen interest in the aforementioned religious display. Non?
“The Gurus supported freedom of religious worship for people of all religious affiliations as per any individual’s own beliefs and the right for an individual to have “freedom of conscience”, but not when this contradicted Sikh principles — for example, the Gurus actively defended the right of people of all faiths to live without unwarranted religious persecution (the 9th Guru even gave his life for this principle), but simultaneously they condemned practices such as sati, the caste system, idolatry, certain negative ways widows were treated, infanticide (especially of female babies), and so on. They did the same for practices in other organised religions which did not correspond with their own views on spirituality and human ethics.”
Ah Jai, you finally managed to answer one of my questions on Sikhism, though obviously not by me, but by someone else, when your religious views were being taken to task, what goes around, comes around as they say. Allahu Akbar.
Ah, Ismaeel!
You’ve finally emerged from the bat cave – the catacombs of the MAC!
the bat cave??
Not exactly more like a pleasant countryside manor
though the MAC cave has a certain ring to it….
some more MAC-tastic news coming within the next week i do promise : )
Countryside manor?
Ah yes – of course. Silly me. It’s only the middle-classes who can indulge in religious propaganda and Ummah-identity-politics.
In VS Naipaul’s book ‘A Million Mutinies Now,’ the author interviews a young Hindu fanatic. The man explains his supremacist ideology, and then Naipaul asks the man’s father, who happens to be sitting there, what he thinks. The old man explains that he works at a factory from morning till night and doesn’t really have time for these kinds of ideas.
Extremist ideology is a leisure-time pursuit.
And by the way, I suggest that you learn a bit more about Islam before you start haranguing Jai for information.
Ismaeel
For PP’s pleasure, I have recited a few recent extracts from your now-notorious blog:
But i digress, I’m actually against the teaching of Britishness in schools…Foisting value systems and historical narratives on people will not help them integrate…religious tolerance, freedom of speech etc are not special magical British values.
Of all the unpatriotic, anti-British drivel you could possibly churn out, this is sky high on the multi-culti scale. For starters, nobody is saying that liberty and the rule of law possess some ‘magical’ transcendent power (?), but it is (historically speaking) unique to our British way-of-life. Liberty has existed in this great nation of ours before a single country acquired the vote. Starting with Magna Carta, and its magnanimous Clause 39 which provides the right to jury trial, moving to the Habeas Corpus Act and the 1689 Bill of Rights, these documents said ‘This is what government shall not do’. Why, then, should we not teach our children to respect the wisdom and forethought of our forefathers as encapsulated in these documents? And what about those brave men and women who perished during WWII defending this country, its history, its people, and the concept of ‘democracy’ itself from the scourge of Nazi imperialism? We require these prescient, historical narratives to realize the ideals and aspirations embedded in past experiences of our communities, seeing our efforts as being, in part, contributions to a common good. They provide a source of meaning and hope in peoples lives.
Your response…?
…religious pluralism, freedom of speech and debate, liberty in the private sphere, the rule of law, seperation of powers were all instituted in the Muslim world by the Prophet of Islam (SAWS) himself.
Yes, they were. In an ‘aqd (a contract) between the Caliph and ahl al-hall wa al’aqd (the people who have the power of contract), who give their bay’a (allegiance or consent): the Caliph received his bay’a in return for his promise to discharge the terms of contract. In the dominant paradigm, both ruler and ruled are God’s agents (khulafa’ Allah) in implementing the divine law (in spite of the fact that no sentient being has access to God’s consciousness). In a not-so-dissimilar way to Magna Carta, Islamic jurists discussed the limits to be placed on lawmaking power of the state, in part under the rubric of public interest (al-masalih al-mursalah) and blocking the means to illegality (sadd al-dhari’ah).
But guess what Ismaeel? These liberties have largely been eroded away! The Arab world is a political desert with no real political parties, no free press, few pathways for dissent. It is for this reason why the Mosque has become a haven for radical clerics and their supremacist ideologies. Importing foreign stuff – Cadillacs, Coca Cola and McDonald’s – is easy. Importing the inner stuffings of modern society – a free market, political parties, accountability and the rule of law – is difficult and dangerous. Nasser’s pan-Arabist dream fell flat on its heels. Socialism produced bureaucracy and stagnation. And rather than adjusting to the failures of central planning, the economies never really moved on. The republics calcified into dictatorships. Third World ‘nonalignment’ became pro-Soviet propaganda. Arab unity cracked and crumbled as countries discovered their own national interests and ‘totalitarian’ solutions.
Amir
How quickly we go off topic.
But hold on. We British like to claim Rule Of Law and ideas of Liberty, Freedom and A Sense of Humour as our very own. But that ain’t so, Amir… These concepts have been advanced just as far by other nations too. “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” etcetera. “We, The People” etcetera.
The truth is that the values we all hold dear have been advanced by many different people from all cultures throughout history. No one culture or country can claim ownership. We can take pride in the British contribution, but why not simply rejoice in a wider, human success?
Jai - you’re missing Mirax’s point, at least as I understand it. Whatever the rules within Sikhism about the treatment of the SGGS, by making it available publicly – for download but also for sale as a physical item – there has to be an acceptance that the purchaser/downloader will treat the SGGS in whatever way they please (within the law).
Presumably Ek Niwas acquired its copy of the SGGS in a legal way (eg it wasn’t stolen from a Gudwara). So they are entitled now to display the SGGS in their centre, and allow visitors to “do banghra” or whatever in its presence. It is of course the right of any Sikh (or anyone else) to protest and make any objection they wish to about the treatment of the SGGS – so long as they make their objections in a way which remains within the law. “Rescuing” the SGGS (eg removing it from the centre) without the express voluntary/uncoerced consent of Ek Niwas would as far as I can see be a simple act of theft, and thus a criminal offence.
If this story is confirmed, then it certainly looks worthy of adding to the growing litany of competitive victimhood which our “community leaders” seem intent on inflicting on us, and which PP should be highlighting and working against …
Roger – absolutely right. Britain has made a great contribution, but the values are universal. Otherwise, why else do people around the world keep choosing them whenever given a genuine choice?
By the way, anybody seen Nick Cohen’s article on the Asia House exhibition?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1784662,00.html
It doesn’t give credit to the debate that PP has stimulated.
the UK was the only main European country to have a legal system not based on Roman Law, but Common Law. This Common Law has now spread to the USA and other nations influenced by the UK.
this is really how it started:
”
Henry 2nd (ruled 1154-1189) established royal courts at Westminster and divided England into circuits, over which his judges travelled and tried the more important civil and criminal cases in county courts. The judges did not impose a law from above, but brought together the traditional law they found in the different parts of the country to create one law that was common for the whole nation. To establish what the law of a district was, the traditional practice of trial by a jury of local people was revived.
“
[...] Pickled Politics reports that a group of Sikhs are now trying to grab some of the offended-religionist limelight. [...]
“Too much time on your hands? Having problems getting laid? Mis-interpreted your religion and thought that rather than spreading peace and love, it may help you get over your penis-size insecurity? Thinking only you know the truth and everyone else has to be educated? Then we much be talking about you.”
Sounds exactly like someone I know.
“religious tolerance, freedom of speech etc are not special magical British values.”
I hope not. I hope that every country in the world would teach that they are absolute values. Unfortunately, not all do.
Ravi and Roger,
I vehemently disagree with you both on this woolly-headed ‘let’s celebrate the world’ nonsense (another example of the dominant Marxist narrative known as ‘political correctness’). We’re British. And we live in the United Kingdom. Thus: we learn about our own history – first and foremost: the good, bad, and the ugly. Lest we forget, a nation isn’t just a piece of populated turf. It’s a community of memory, and groups of strangers who share a morally-significant history. For how can we be grow up to be conscientious citizens if we haven’t a clue how Britain came to be what it is?
Of course, we can appeal to democracy, liberty, economic equality, and so forth by appealing to universal principles (cognitively and emotively). But that’s the preoccupation of a philosopher, not a historian in a British school.
If Tony Blair had paid a bit more respect to the wisdom and courage of our forefathers, then he might not have been so trigger-happy with his illiberal legislation. Courtesy of New Labour, we now have a Civil Contingencies Act that, once an emergency has been declared, gives the government the power to cancel existing laws, to order citizens to move or to stay where they are, in short, to act like a dictatorship. We have a succession of Terrorism Acts that give police officers enormous arbitrary authority they never had before, a power they have already begun to abuse. Meanwhile, a measure passed in 1986 in a wild attempt to curb bad behaviour at football matches, the Public Order Act, is increasingly being used to prosecute people whose public statements are thought by police officers to be likely to cause ‘offence’ to others. In several cases, objectors to homosexual equality laws have been prosecuted or threatened. And what about the impending inclusion of ID Cards? Or CCTV face-recognition? Or those insidious DNA-databases? And those silly, puerile quangos that Ken Livingstone and his multicultural brigade have installed to thwart the democratic process and subvert the will of the British people (irony of all ironies, even suspending Livingstone himself!).
Our British traditions are precious things, and it is very difficult to restore them once they are lost.
Amir
Amir,
i see in your rush to brand me as an extremist and promote yourself as a great patriotic progresssive liberal, you have enitrely missed the point of my piece.
I never claimed the concepts of rule of law etc still existed in the Muslim world, that is largely because all Muslim states follow un-Islamic ideologies including those claiming to live by the Shariah.
My point was that the historical narrative of why these freedoms are so important cannot be found in the history of the Muslim peoples because they didn’t need to have to go through centuries of warfare and political wrangling to get them. In other words it is patronising to lecture Muslim children about the great advances in liberty etc in Britain as though their religion doesn’t teach these things and they have to be educated in Britishness before they can understand them.
I also put foward a more workable way foward of reviving the concept of the social contract, but i know you’re not really interested in my ideas but rather more interested in proving how integrated you are and how extremist and disloyal i am….so so boring.
Amir
your last post is exactly what i was complaining about in the post on my blog you were attacking. You’re a strange chap really you are
Oh and Amir, when i said like a countryside manor, i meant like one, not actually one.
I’m not involved in Islamist politics, please please know what you’re talking about before you start hurling accusations about.
Amir:
“both ruler and ruled are God’s agents (khulafa’ Allah) in implementing the divine law (in spite of the fact that no sentient being has access to God’s consciousness). ”
and i have to learn more about Islam…seems you don’t even comprehend Prophethood or wilayat.
Amir,
In a sense you are over stating the power of Tony Blair.
As I have already stated the UK is partially “ruled” by COMMON LAW (literally 12 man/woman jury system).
Parliament can legislate new laws all it wants
but they find it difficult for any of these new laws to stick if they go against strongly ingrained common law, Judges simply throw the cases out.
John
Ismaeel
Great stuff – now that you’ve made your position clear, we can engage in a debate:
Statement I: I’m not involved in Islamist politics
Statement II: …it is patronising to lecture Muslim children about the great advances in liberty etc in Britain as though their religion doesn’t teach these things.
(I) and (II) are incommensurable. You say ‘I’m not an Islamist’, but conversely, and in an almost schizophrenic like manner, you scoff at the secular education of British children – accusing our curriculum of being ‘patronising’ to Moslems. In other words: you find national/local history in a semantically secular context (i.e. no theological tit-for-tat) repulsive. And why do you deem it necessary to ventriloquize our Moslem children? Is it not conceivable that young British Moslems might actually enjoy learning about British History?? Cos, ya know,… they have a huge part to play in our future.
Amir
Amir,
British History is already taught to school children, i’m not suggesting it shouldn’t be, nor did i say it was repulsive to learn it, i myself enjoyed learning it at school. What i was talking about was the introduction of a subject called Britishness where “British Values” were taught to all as values which are perculiarly british and which they need to learn to be part of this nation. Actually this was all pretty clear from my post, but sadly you have gone down the road of so many at PP at deciding what i actually am: an extremist radical Islamists, why? because i was involved in organising a protest against the Danish cartoons and suggesting a solution to the problem, and then reading everything i write through your pre-judicial lenses.
Sad…so sad.
It’s a competition and all asian liberal nuts are invited! Too much time on your hands? Having problems getting accepted? Mis-interpreted your ideology and thought that rather than spreading multiculturalism and free speech, it may help you get over your racial inferiority complex? Thinking only you know the truth and everyone else has to be educated? Then we must be talking about you.
My lenses are not muddied at all, Ismaeel.
I read your blog everyday (although there hasn’t been a post in quite a while).
I know exactly what you stand for.
But you persist in using these self-pitiful slight-of-hands (i.e. ‘so so sad’, ‘you’re so odd’, ‘Me? An extremist? Preposterous’, etc.) to smoothen your brazen politics. British history is taught at primary & secondary schools – yes. But it is only taught superficially, against chronology, and in a variety of unimaginative ways (i.e. reading textbooks and reciting boring facts). This whole debate about ‘British values’ has been radically misinterpreted and smeared by the politically-correct left-liberal elites. By ‘values’, Tony Blair was thinking more along the lines of the rule of law, fair play (i.e. trial by jury), liberty (freedom of assembly, free speech and expression, the right to own private property, the right to run for office, etc.), sympathy with the underdog (sociologists and anthropologists, for example, have shown that the British people are always challenging power and prodding authority-figures: this is a very healthy attitude), and the ‘privateness’ of British life (i.e. minimal state interference: read George Orwell’s famous essay on the English People).
What you and your ilk seem to forget is this: democracy isn’t just a piece of paper with a bunch of ‘rules’ written on it. Democracy is a culture: narratives, texts, symbols, and unconscious metaphors that describe the country we inhabit and our role in it. Without the culture, the rules are useless.
Amir
Mr Browne – point taken.
It’s nice to see another contributor with good historical insight and a respect for tradition. I salute you sir.
Amir,
my brazen politics…ho hum.
What Tony Blair was thinking about, now you have direct access to his consciousness because all i have read and see on tv was discussion of teaching the tradition of free speech, the value of liberty and of democracy.
Me and my ilk, who are my ilk pray tell? I never suggested democracy was a piece of paper with a bunch of rules written on it, i know exactly what democracy and it’s variants are on a global scale because strangely enough i actaully have a politics degree.
You can’t teach a culture to someone or force them to adopt it. Most children of immigrants take their parents culture from them as well as adopting some of British culture as well and mix the two in varying measures in a way which they feel comfortable with.
The origins of this debate in part are to do with integrating Muslims because of the fear of their alienation and involvement in terrorism. My point if you care to listen to it is this, Muslims who know the teachings of their religion and know about the culture of this country can solve the tensions these identitys can have through the concept of a social contract. Trying to ram British culture down their throat will not rectify these tensions but may instead create an either/or situation where young Muslims feel they have to choose between being Muslim and being British because values such as Free Speech and Liberty are portrayed as being perculiarly British.
Guys you are going hopelessly off topic.
Indeed, what i want to know is how Sikhism squares it’s religious tolerance whilst condemning individual practices and beliefs of other religions without saying your religion is wrong.
If Sikhism says you can achieve salvation or liberation by being a Hindu, but then say that Sati, Idoltry etc are wrong, does that mean that if you’re a Hindu who practices these things does that mean you won’t be liberated. What about Hindus who worshipping a number of gods and godessess, i presume Sikhism sees that as wrong as well.
Is it only a Sikhified form of Hinduism whose adherents can achieve Liberation, in that case why not just become a Sikh?????
Ravi4,
=>”Whatever the rules within Sikhism about the treatment of the SGGS, by making it available publicly – for download but also for sale as a physical item – there has to be an acceptance that the purchaser/downloader will treat the SGGS in whatever way they please (within the law).”
Correct, although obtaining an original Gurmukhi-language “hard copy” of the SGGS is not as easy as one may think so it does raise the question of exactly how this group got hold of one and who sold it to them (assuming it’s not a “loan” from someone). You can’t just walk into a shop in (for example) Southall, Birmingham, or Ilford and buy one off the shelf.
Regarding downloaded versions, your point is correct there too — indeed, one of the reasons many Sikh websites put English translations of the scriptures on their websites is so that the teachings are easily available for anyone interested in reading them. However, I believe that the “maryada” (etiquette/decorum) really applies only to the original, untranslated, hard-copy version in the traditional form.
An affiliated situation I have mentioned a couple of times here and on Sepia Mutiny is the way supposedly-Sikh (or Hindu Punjabi) fictional characters are sometimes shown on Indian TV serials praying towards paintings of Guru Nanak and referring to him as “Waheguru” (ie. God), actions which do not actually have anything to do with Sikh tenets and which were in fact explicitly condemned by the historical Gurus. However, since the sale of such paintings is fairly unregulated, this is an unfortunate consequence. I guess the same principle applies here as the points I previously made on the MF Husain threads, ie. one would hope that people obtaining such items would self-regulate their behaviour and exercise enough consideration to not behave towards the items in a manner contravening Sikh decorum. Human nature being the way it is, of course this unfortunately does not always happen.
However, as mentioned before, the sale and distribution of the SGGS in its traditional form is considerably more strictly regulated than this.
Amir,
=>”But what about these guys?
I’m sure a few of these incendiaries are taking a keen interest in the aforementioned religious display. Non?”
Probably, although I can’t really comment on those people. Using violence to remove the SGGS without even attempting to exhaust all other peaceful (and legal) avenues as per Robert’s example in post #14 would be totally against the principles of the religion.
Robert,
Re: post #14
=>”I would respectfully suggest that a better use of the time these folk are spending on their rescue plans, would be to hang out in aforementioned community centre. They could talk to the people who ask them why, when everyone else has some kind of idol or symbol on show, they have a book. Then they might have an opportunity to tell some of those people what is in the book, and how they can expect to be treated by Sikhs as a result.”
Well done, my friend — you’re absolutely spot-on. In fact, your suggestions are 100% in line with what would actually be the correct Sikh way to go about these things
Jai,
please explain to me whether the following is a Sikh belief: that when an individual becomes sufficiently enlightened he becomes one with God, both here and once liberated from earthly life.
I have been told this and I know of several Sikhs who attempt to worship certain Shaykhs that i know saying that they are gods because they have helped them with certain problems they were facing. Of course these Shaykhs prevent them, but the explanation given is the “Sikh belief” given above.
Ismaeel,
I’m going to try to answer your questions briefly because this is going too far off-topic, and also because I think neither one of us want another unnecessary altercation like last time. However, I think your motivations are sincere and you’re just trying to get an understanding of these concepts within Sikhism, and I actually don’t think you’re a malicious person at heart at all, so in the spirit of friendship and mutual understanding I will do my best to answer your queries (but briefly, again). Especially as you were kind enough to answer my Sufi-related questions so thoroughly, which I greatly appreciated.
=>”Indeed, what i want to know is how Sikhism squares it’s religious tolerance whilst condemning individual practices and beliefs of other religions without saying your religion is wrong.”
1. It leaves the final decision to the individual concerned as to whether they wish to continue their particular religious practice/belief, if the practice/belief is viewed as either having no spiritual benefit or (depending on the specific issue) is forcefully condemned.
2. …..Unless the practice/belief hurts an innocent third-party when put into action against that third-party. Infantice is one example of this. Attempting to force someone to convert to another faith is another example.
=>”If Sikhism says you can achieve salvation or liberation by being a Hindu, but then say that Sati, Idoltry etc are wrong, does that mean that if you’re a Hindu who practices these things does that mean you won’t be liberated.”
Yes (meaning “No, you won’t be liberated”). There are some basic conditions regarding one’s own conduct (and behaviour towards others) which are “mandatory” in the sense of facilitating spiritual awareness and potential liberation — some of these are just to do with our own personalities and behaviour in our day-to-day lives, but of course it can overlap with certain religious practices too. Sikhism regards this as being the “key” to acheiving liberation, rather than necessarily any specific religious path. Of course, different religions have different effects on different people, as per their own personalities and interpretation of their religion’s principles — with some people the effect can be positive, on others it can be negative. Different strokes for different folks. But the “core” personality traits, mental/emotional self-discipline, and ethical conduct are mandatory for genuine spirituality and to genuinely being to facilitate liberation, first and foremost, and regardless of everything else.
=>”What about Hindus who worshipping a number of gods and godessess, i presume Sikhism sees that as wrong as well.”
Well, wrong in the sense of being misguided (or “lower down the ladder of spiritual awareness”), rather than it being any grave sin. Being a malicious person or an arrogant jerk is regarded as far worse than polytheism (and having a far more detrimental effect on the person concerned), although of course both are misguided and counterproductive. It’s a matter of priorities.
=>”Is it only a Sikhified form of Hinduism whose adherents can achieve Liberation, in that case why not just become a Sikh?????”
Because of what I explained previously — it’s not necessarily one’s religious beliefs which will help or hinder one’s attempts to gain Liberation (although, again, it depends on the specific person as different religions have different effects on different people), but certain personality traits and general conduct in one’s life, especially with regards to how we treat other people. Let’s call this “X”; therefore a Hindu (or anyone of any religion — or none) who practices “X” will gain spiritual enlightenment and ultimately liberation (sooner or later, if not necessarily in this lifetime) regardless of their “outer” religious affiliation. As their spiritual awareness increases, they will automatically realise the futility of certain unnecessary/misguided religious practices and will end up seeing the same, identical “truth” in the end.
Simply being a Sikh is not enough to achieve liberation. However, it is regarded as being an “accelerated” path — but only for those who practice it properly and with sincere intentions.
I hope this helps
Ismaeel,
=>”the following is a Sikh belief: that when an individual becomes sufficiently enlightened he becomes one with God, both here and once liberated from earthly life.”
Yes, but not in the sense of actually becoming God. This is an important distinction. It just means that the person’s soul no longer experiences spiritual “separation” from God — in the sense of being fully aware of God’s presence and Will within them and in the universe, and in the sense of this perception/awareness no longer being clouded by the person’s own ego etc.
The term used is “Akal” — loosely translates as “immortal”. Metaphorically, the person “dies whilst still alive” and is as immersed in — and as aware of — the reality of God as they would be if they actually died (ie. in the afterlife).
=>”I know of several Sikhs who attempt to worship certain Shaykhs that i know saying that they are gods because they have helped them with certain problems they were facing.”
I’m afraid these people are wrong. A Sikh is supposed to worship the One, Formless, Immortal God and absolutely no-one else — and certainly not other human beings, dead or living.
If Sikhism says you can achieve salvation or liberation by being a Hindu, but then say that Sati, Idoltry etc are wrong, does that mean that if you’re a Hindu who practices these things does that mean you won’t be liberated. What about Hindus who worshipping a number of gods and godessess, i presume Sikhism sees that as wrong as well.
Ismaeel, funny attempt at trying to turn things around when you know perfectly well that Islam also condemns worshipping idols.
A quick theological distinction for yourself and others before it turns into a religion slagging match.
Sikhism does not condemn Hinduism but idol worship - and the two are different. Hindus are not obliged to worship idols, and many sects don’t (and in the Bhagwad Geeta I believe Krishna says you should eventually move on from idols anyway since they’re there purely to focus your thoughts).
What Sikh Gurus condemned was a move towards rituals, superstition and idol worship in a way that includes these idiots attempting to “rescue” the SGGS. The book has become an idol to them and thus to them it cannot be put in a place along with idols, which might as well make it a big statue of Guru Nanak. But of course they won’t get it.
This is not a non-issue Jai because it comes down to those same issues of tolerance and understanding. the SGGS is openly available to buy in India and I don’t see why people are allowed to interpret it and use it and place it where they want to. It is not “owned” by a self-styled group of keyboard warriors.
=>”Infantice is one example of this.”
Apologies, typo in post#46 : should have said “InfantiCIDE”.
Ismaeel,
(I) You can’t teach a culture to someone or force them to adopt it. Most children of immigrants take their parents culture from them as well as adopting some of British culture as well and mix the two in varying measures in a way which they feel comfortable with.
Yes – precisely! It’s all about inter-pollination. But you need a common and credible national identity to “pollinate with” in the first place (thus binding everyone together in the public sphere). All of us here possess a heterogeneity of identities: one day I’m a local boxer, the next day I’m playing football with my mates (or cricket if it’s good weather), the next day I’m reading Michael Oakeshott (my conservative political identity). The reason I describe myself as anti-multicultural is that I urge the state to promote a national culture. We have every right to practice our chosen/given faith, wear exotic clothing, practice indigenous etiquette, etc., just so long as we share some things in common (language, history, public spaces, sport, some values). There’s no compulsion to be patriotic, but it should (nevertheless) be actively encouraged by the state. If people do not ‘share’ things in common, then they do not see themselves as fellow citizens. If we do not see ourselves as fellow citizens, then we do not care for each other’s welfare. If we do not care for each other’s welfare, the state must increase its power to protect us. This is happening already.
(II) Trying to ram British culture down their throat will not rectify these tensions
What nonsense. Who said anything about ‘ramming’? Teaching a national history is not ‘ramming’. It’s teaching.
(III) …feel they have to choose between being Muslim and being British because values such as Free Speech and Liberty are portrayed as being perculiarly British.
This is the type of pro-multiculturalist spiel I despise. No intention whatsoever to integrate: religion trumps national identity (instead of co-existing in harmony). The only reason you call yourself ‘anti-multicultural’ Ismaeel is because you’re an Islamic absolutist and you despise the secular state.
(IV) Me and my ilk, who are my ilk pray tell?
Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Amir
Just look at that picture of Amir Khan next to the PP logo (when it pops up)
For me, Amir Khan is the embodiment of British patriotism.
And this lady too.
Religious tolerance is quite an interesting subject from the point of view of Christians.
From near the beginning, European Christianity was about the most intolerant religion. Now, IMHO, its evolved into becoming the most tolerant religion.
So how did this evolution occur?
John
John – read Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
European christianity ?
More to do with Europe, less to do with Christianity.
feel they have to choose between being Muslim and being British
There’s no need to choose, people can be both. Anyway, can Amir and Ismaeel please finish the off-topic discussion, because its distracting from this issue.
Yes.. all groups have their deviants.
There is no need to choose between being Muslim and being British because if you are both then that is that. Each will have different levels of importance in given situations depending on the choices of the individual.
Though im also wondering what “european christianity is”?
When discussing Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism, I wish people would stop hurling around Semitic-like words like idolatry, polytheism and the like. These words cannot be perfectly equated to the Hindu’s own sense of why and how and what they worship and they cannot be merely grafted on to another tradition. Those are the perjorative words (from the viewpoint of the people who use them) of people who cannot or do not want to completely understand belief systems different to their “exclusionist”, “narrow” view of the world. There’s nothing wrong with idol worship, polytheism etc., but there is when you describe it as “idol worship” “polytheism” “rituals” etc. From the ancient Egyptians, the Incas, the Mayas to Hindus, Shintos, animists and others -none of them ever saw or described themselves in these terms or with these words in the sense that those who think these are “wrong” mean them.
The dictionary describes idolatry as an excessive devotion to something, someone or some way. Seems to me all religions are then “idolatrous” and “ritualistic.” Oops!
Jamal,
Can you also be British and gay, or should that be illegal (in your opinion)?
Oh wait, your homophobic blog is listed on Sunny Hundal’s ‘Comrades’?
[Objecting to homosexuality on religious grounds is one thing, but using (/abusing) state power to ban their marches is quite another. Tut, tut.]
Tut, tut for linking to him.
“Tut, tut for linking to him”
Amir, this is the second time you’ve complained about Sunny linking to another site. Has all the anti-censorship stuff we’ve been talking about recently gone over your head? Cut it out. The fact that both Harry’s Place and Lenin’s tomb are linked here should show you that Sunny links to a wide spectrum of views. I certainly despise some sites on the list, for instance the (IMO) bigoted ‘Sepia Mutiny’, but I’m not trying to get it deleted from here. Chill out. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
Gay marchers beaten up by skinheads, tear-gassed and dragged off by cops and militia. To regard someone who gloats at that as a comrade is indeed a wide spectrum.
Amir was raising a point, not urging censorship, certainly not of the ‘respect me or else’ variety we have been discussing.
Does this sound familiar?
‘On one side stand all the bigots who hate, despise and look down on others based on their race, religion, caste, sexuality and nationality. And there are others who choose to reject that hatred. Whose side do you want to be on?’
Amir
Of course YOU can be British and Gay, you dont need my permission.
Marches are banned, restricted and regulated for many reasons, as was the gay one you refer too. article
Ill let you know that ive been posting on sunnys sites for some time, and as Raz said, its is the variety of views that is pertinent. If it was not, then this discussion would be over already.
Don, why be a drama queen. The facist element was one aspect of the situation, which occured after the fact. The march had already been ban. They went ahead anyhow. Would you be so diplomatic if it had been ‘another’ group?
Raz,
If these ‘comrades’ are designed to represent a multiplicity of views, then why doesn’t this site link up to StormFront, the Branch Davidian Waco Cult, or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh?
Simple: because ‘comrade’ doesn’t mean ‘multiplicity of views’ – it means ‘comrade’. I have every right to know why a respected journalist and writer is associating with such people (In one of his questionnaires, Jamal gives his conspiracy-mad audience a choice between ‘Islam’, ‘Zionism’, ‘Oil’, and ‘New World Order’ as causes for the Iraq War; just below that there’s a handy link to a 9/11 MOSSAD/CIA conspiracy site. Jamal also has a banner with Ahmedinejad’s ‘A World Without Zionism’ logo. Says it all really.) Aren’t these the sort of individuals we’re meant to be fighting/challenging/competing with, but, paradoxically, giving them the respectable status of ‘comrade’? Forget Lenin’s Tomb (the guy isn’t that harmless anyway, … he’s well-intentioned, but uninformed), this Jamal character is explicitly supporting an apartheid status for homosexuals. Let me re-direct you to the ‘mission’ of this blog:
On one side stand all the bigots who hate, despise and look down on others based on their race, religion, caste, sexuality and nationality. And there are others who choose to reject that hatred. Whose side do you want to be on?
My questions, therefore, occupy a legitimate area of discussion, since, as you can see, they pertain to the very meaning of Pickled Politics.
And before you tell me to ‘cut it out’, reconsider the stance you are taking: preaching to me about the dangers of self-censorship (incidentally: I have no control whatsoever over the content of this site: I am merely lobbying), but telling me to shut up at the same time????
[Thank you Don,…]
Jamal
Marches are banned, restricted and regulated for many reasons
What, coz the protestors are batty boys?? Wow, yes, of course, that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to ban a march. I mean, we wouldn’t want those ‘drama queens’ exercising their equal right to protest/speak/express themselves, now would we?
You don’t have to like what homosexuals do or how they feel about other men, but there’s a line crossed when you explicitly deny their basic human rights.
Replace the word ‘Gay’ with ‘Hindu’, and I can guarantee you that there’d be an absolute uproar (and rightly so) from Hindus who visit this sight.
Period.
Jamal,
‘Drama queen’?
‘Would you be so diplomatic if it had been ‘another’ group?’
Yes. Next question.
Jai and Sunny
thanks for your answers, your concept of akmal is similar to the Sufi concept of Fana wal Baqa (extinction in Allah and subsisting through Allah )
Sunny,
yes i know Islam condemns idol worship, wasn’t for a second suggesting it wasn’t.
Amir,
I don’t know much about Amir Khan so i won’t comment on him, as for Saira Khan, she has all but in name turned her back on Islam, so if that’s what your view of an integrated Muslim is, you mean it is one where the Islam is taken out.
As for religion being more important that nationality, of course it is, it defines our relationship with Allah (SWT) and with humanity at large, rather than with a few myths and traditions which loosely hold a large diverse population together in a common spirit of jingoism.
I didn’t say Muslims have to choose between Islam and being British i said that the policies of this government are pushing them towards it. Please remember that it was Adolf Hitler who was the first to introduce citizenship classes and we all know where that ended up.
What’s more all this discussion of Britishness is typically unbritish, a sense of British culutre does exist and as i said people pick and choose from it what they want including indigenous white people who are COE or agnostic. Inventing a set of principles which are “British” thus is both arrogant in asserting that these principles are some special British domain when in fact many if not all are universal and also exclusive in implying that if you don’t accept all of these values or if you feel being British is something else or more than these that you are not properly British.
To put it simply you cannot codify culture it is something in continual development and changes with time, each new set of immigrants brings something new to the table and changes the mix. Look at certain parts of our major cities.
My ilk are HT are they, lol, i cannot even be bothered to refute this one AGAIN!
as for Saira Khan, she has all but in name turned her back on Islam
How do you know… is she a personal relation? I might think that you’re attempting to pass judgement on someone else’s piety here Ismaeel, given Saira openly sees herself as British Muslim. And we all know what is said about “brothers” who decide they’re knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on others.
On Jamal - by linking his blog I’m not saying I agree with all his views, as is the case with HP, Lenin and plenty of others. We here at PP have our own views and ideology, and you guys are more than welcome to point fingers when we don’t follow our own declared rules and values. Needless to say though, I don’t agree with Jamal and neither do I think he’s really thought through his idea of being against opression fully.
Sunny,
i have read interviews with Saira Khan, where she is quite open about how she views her faith, she calls herself British Muslim, as she views herself as a cultural Muslim, another good example of this phenomenon is your journalist colleuge Safraz Manzoor who has several times in the Guardian disavowed any Islamic faith but still calls himself a British Muslim.
Ismaeel,
You are of course right that it is ludicrous to attempt to set up exclusively British ‘values’ (although I’m not sure who suggested that these values be exclusive, rather than widely held values to which Britain, in general, subscribes.)
One key British value (but not exclusively British) to which I subscribe is that no bugger gets to tell me how to be British.
But the Hitler line is never helpful, it’s been heard too often as any easy sound-bite on anti-smoking, vegetarianism, etc. Unless you are actually making a comparison (which I’m sure you’re not) it just winds things up.
xyz,
so let me get this straight , a Muslim can’t say that Hindus who perform Idol worship are idol worshippers or polytheists, which in arabic is the same thing: Mushrik- one who attributes partners to Allah (SWT), because that’s not how Hindus view their practices and beliefs but then it’s quite alright for non-Muslims to call Muslims fanatics, Islamists, fundamentalists despite the fact that Muslims don’t view their practices and beliefs as such.
Whether idols in Hinduism were originally meant to be just a place of focus or not is irrelevant, most Hindus I have encountered and indeed many Sri Lankan Buddhists and as i have mentioned even some Sikhs have mistaken the means for the goal and ended up worshipping the idol itself. Yes Sunny i am aware many Hindu sects do not worship idols, i in fact mentioned that myself on this site a few days ago.
Don,
unlike Hitler’s vegetarianism, painting etc, citizenship classes were part of his political programme, so i think it is slightly more relevant.
Also the fact that this country is creeping towards a very scary form of authoritarianism has been commented on by many recently, so i don’t think the Hitler comparison is inapt.
Sunny,
Needless to say though, I don’t agree with Jamal and neither do I think he’s really thought through his idea of being against opression fully.
Which begs the question: why do you link to him in the first place? I, personally, would never tolerate a ‘comrade’ who takes schadenfreude in the banning of a Gay Rights March (and explicitly approving of it). On your mission statement you also say:
On a macro level it has become a closed system dominated by community leaders, so-called representatives, ‘race relations experts’ and self-serving politicians.
Jamal (and you can check for yourselves) has hyperlinks to the anti-Semitic MPACUK and the Muslim Association of Britain [MAC], an auxiliary of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Horrifyingly, he even endorses the Web Site(IslamOnline.net) of anti-Semitic, pro-female-circumcision, pro-gay-stoning, pro-suicide-terrorism Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
If you guys at PP have your ‘own ideology’ (so to speak), I’d like to know whether this fits in with your general worldview?
Amir
disavowed any Islamic faith but still calls himself a British Muslim.
It is for them to call themselves what they want and for god to judge them, not you. I thought that is what the religion taught, and I thought this is what you said earlier that you do.
The danger, as you’ve seen on your own blog, is that when you start becoming condescending of people and intolerant towards their views - you’ll attract nutters who will make the same accusations towards you.
Ismaeel the chameleon, someone called you right? The intolerance you show towards others will bite you in the butt sooner or later because someone (more pious) who does not share your views will also happily call you all sorts of names you call others. It is a slippery road my friend.
If you guys at PP have your ‘own ideology’ (so to speak), I’d like to know whether this fits in with your general worldview?
Short answer - no. But similarly I do not share views by Melanie Phillips, Scott Burgess and many others linked by leftie blogs.
Sunny,
yes it will be for Allah (SWT) to judge but the Prophet (PBUH) has left criteria for us to determine who is and who is not considered a Muslim.
I have only condescended and been intolerant to views that are too bigoted for words. Otherwise i have merely disagreed and stated the reasons why.
Also i haven’t called anyone any names.
Amir said “Our British traditions are precious things, and it is very difficult to restore them once they are lost.”
Some of our British traditions are precious things. Others deserve to be lost completely. Some contradict one another. I’ve said elsewhere that we need to learn our own history- “how we got here”, but one of the reasons we got here was as a result of the dominant philosophies- conscious or unconscious- of the past.
To take examples “democracy, liberty, economic equality” are valuable and- it can be argued, except perhaps for the last- longstanding british traditions. On the other hand they are mutually contradictory aspirations- if you increase one you have to decrease one of the others. Eighteenth century England wasn’t regarded as a haven of liberty because it was a democracy for example but because no-one interfered with other peoples’ behaviour unless it directly impinged on themselves.
Equally, the rsetrictive acts being introduced now are part of the long tradition of coercive acts passed to deal with alleged threats to the nation. Look at the acts passed by Elizabeth against catholics, the acts of the Stuarts, the varius acts in the Napoleonoc wars, the Official Secret acts, the Defence of the Realm Acts- all part of the Great British Tradition of hastily passing laws in alleged emergencies and finding them so useful that they are retained long after the emergency ends.
“As for nationality being more important that religion, of course it is, it defines our relationship with our neighbours and with humanity at large, rather than with a few myths and traditions which loosely hold a large diverse population together in a common spirit of bigotry.”
“If you guys at PP have your ‘own ideology’ (so to speak), I’d like to know whether this fits in with your general worldview?”
Perhaps it’s better to have a negative ideology- decide and define what is not acceptable, not what is. It’s also useful to have access to the more appalling opinions actually. It’s easy to think that you’re exaggerating or misunderstanding what people think until you find out that, yes, those are their actual opinions.
Amir
“If we do not see ourselves as fellow citizens, then we do not care for each other’s welfare. If we do not care for each other’s welfare, the state must increase its power to protect us.”
Exactly that’s why i was positing the idea of a new social contract, an idea which you do not wish to examine.
“The only reason you call yourself ‘anti-multicultural’ Ismaeel is because you’re an Islamic absolutist and you despise the secular state.”
I don’t know what you mean by Islamic absolutist, i don’t despise the secular state, though i’d prefer a truly Islamic state, until one emerges then Britain is one of the best options open to me. I’m anti-muticulturalist in the sense of it being government enforced ideology, i’m not against a multicultural and multifaith society and neither is Islam.
Nationality defines your relationship with your neighbours and humanity at large? does it really? That’ll explain all the nationalist wars fought since the inception of the nation state mainly between people who were genuinely neighbours until these false notions of constructed nationhood were thrust on people.
“a Muslim can’t say that Hindus who perform Idol worship are idol worshippers or polytheists, which in arabic is the same thing: Mushrik- one who attributes partners to Allah (SWT), because that’s not how Hindus view their practices and beliefs but then it’s quite alright for non-Muslims to call Muslims fanatics, Islamists, fundamentalists despite the fact that Muslims don’t view their practices and beliefs as such.”
If Arabic cannot distinguish between idol-worship and polytheism, so much the worse for Arabic. You use English, Ismaeel, and can distinguish between them, so it would be better to do so rather than pretending you can’t. You also make a false analogy when you compare this with describing muslims as “fanatics, Islamists, fundamentalists”. Not all muslims follow those practises and so are not so described and, equally, many other muslims do regard muslims who are particularly enthusiastic about following the more strict interpretations of islam as “fanatics, Islamists, fundamentalists”. You can certainly describe hindus who say that hinduism teaches intolerance of other religions and forces behaviour on other people as fanatics, bigots and fundamentalists and any other offensive and accurate terms you want to use.
Finally, whatever your and other muslims opinion of polytheism and idol worship you have chosen to live in a country that does not object to either [especially if what is worshipped is the queen's head on pieces of metal] and have to behave accordingly, regardless of the orders you allegedly received from god.
Religion defines your relationship with your neighbours and humanity at large? does it really? That’ll explain all the religious wars fought since the inception of religion mainly between people who were genuinely neighbours until these false notions of religion were thrust on people.
Roger
“Not all muslims follow those practises and so are not so described”
err what practices would they be then???
“and, equally, many other muslims do regard muslims who are particularly enthusiastic about following the more strict interpretations of islam as “fanatics, Islamists, fundamentalists”.”
It’s important that you explain what you are talking about.
” You can certainly describe hindus who say that hinduism teaches intolerance of other religions and forces behaviour on other people as fanatics, bigots and fundamentalists and any other offensive and accurate terms you want to use.”
Oh thank you very much, but i’ll pass.
“Finally, whatever your and other muslims opinion of polytheism and idol worship you have chosen to live in a country that does not object to either [especially if what is worshipped is the queen’s head on pieces of metal] and have to behave accordingly, regardless of the orders you allegedly received from god.”
Oh thanks for telling me that Roger, there i was just about to go off and bomb neasden temple. I was actually born in this country, i didn’t come on a boat or a plane. I as an english man have the liberty to object to idol worship just as you have to object to my faith. However i would advise doing so with some civility.
Roger
“Religion defines your relationship with your neighbours and humanity at large? does it really? That’ll explain all the religious wars fought since the inception of religion mainly between people who were genuinely neighbours until these false notions of religion were thrust on people.”
Actually history will tell you that there have been far fewer genuinely relgious wars than nationalist/tribal/racial and ideological wars and that the latter have undoubtadly been far more damaging in terms of body counts and general destruction.
Sunny,
I’m sorry, mate!
But you’ve dug yourself a deep hole here, and I’m not going to offer you a ladder (just yet):
But similarly I do not share views by Melanie Phillips, Scott Burgess and many others linked by leftie blogs.
If you drew some sort of moral equivalence between the MPAC and the Mafdal Party, for example, you wouldn’t be exaggerating.
If you compared Yusuf al-Qaradawi to Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, you wouldn’t be far off…
But to compare these lunatic asylums to Melanie Phillips and Scott Burgess is so off-the-mark it beggars belief.
Since when has the ‘Daily Ablution’ supported female genital mutilation, wife-beating, the execution of homosexuals, destruction of the Jewish people, suicide bombing of innocent civilians, and the punishment of rape victims who do not dress with sufficient modesty?
Amir
“there have been far fewer genuinely relgious wars than nationalist/tribal/racial and ideological wars”
As distinct from superficially religious wars?
“It’s important that you explain what you are talking about.”
I’m talking about the kind of behaviour that gets people accurately described as fanatics, Islamists and fundamentalists.
“Oh thank you very much, but i’ll pass [describing hindu fanatics, bigots and fundamentalists as fanatics, bigots and fundamentalists].”
Why? Do you prefer to describe all hindus as idol-worshippers even though not all hindus regard thenmselves as idol-worshippers?
“Oh thanks for telling me that Roger, there i was just about to go off and bomb neasden temple. I was actually born in this country, i didn’t come on a boat or a plane. I as an english man have the liberty to object to idol worship just as you have to object to my faith. However i would advise doing so with some civility.”
I’m a very kindly chap, Ishmaeel.
Who said you were going to bomb Neasden Temple? No doubt some of your more fanatical, Islamist and fundamental co-religionists would like to do so, however. Whether or not you were born in this country you and they are still obliged to obey its laws, even if you think that islamic laws governing the treatment of polytheists and/or idol-worshippers- real or according to Arabic linguistic deficiencies- are preferable. Why does your definition of civility allow you to call hindus idol-worshippers or polytheists, even if it isn’t true, whereas it doesn’t allow me to call muslims fanatics, Islamists and fundamentalists even if it is true?
Hi,
I posted that I thought European Christianity had become the most tollerant religion of all.
I was going to explain why I thought that, but unfortunately its such a long reason it would take pages and pages (every thing from Black Death to Karl Marx) that instead I’ll give a few hints to my thinking.
1. Marriage and Family.
Romantic Love/Sex V Arranged Mariage
and childcare.
Europe always had the edge here, long before Jesus.
The only Sikh woman I knew to talk to, fled from one end of the country to the other as she was very scared of her husband and her and his family. I’m sure her fear was related to culture and religion (there was a Sikh play recently about violence to women that had Sikhs up in arms ). Forced marriage (a form of rape) is still common in asia, cultural marriages to keep family fortunes together (eg marrying cousins) is also relatively common. All these things make an intollerant home life. Circumcision is a force put on a child by an adult (a form of repression - lack of tollerance to let the child think for itself).
2. Racism.
This in fact is the bad face of early Christianity. It relates to early saxon heroism - all standing together and dying together (eg Hastings, Harolds men stood by and died with him). The flip side to this heroism is an intollerance to others who are different. This form of racism took a huge knock at the battle of the Somme in World War 1 and was destroyed by the Japanese in world war 2 and Hitlers antics.
Modern Christianity arose on the battle fields of the Somme and in the home.
Joh
Roger,
if people worship many gods they are polytheists, if they worship idols, they are idol-worshipers, many Hindus do both. Nowhere have i said that all Hindus are polytheists or idol-worshippers.
No-one said i didn’t have to follow the law of this country, what i objected to your condescending statement that i and others chose to live in this country, we did not, we were born here and it is our home of birth.
My definition of civility can be found in the proclamation of global civility on http://www.globalcivility.com
Roger
i also note that you have not defined what amounts to a Muslim being rightly labelled a fanatic, extremeist or fundamentalist or islamist for that reason.
Dear John,
How exactly is the battle of Hastings related to:
a> racism?
b> early christianity?
c> this issue?
Or how can you even discuss modern liberal Europe exclusivly concentrating on religion ? It seems to me that modern liberalism is more to do with a lack of religious faith rather then any reformation of it. Starting with the end of devine right in the magna carta and the english bill of rights, carrying onto various revolutions on mainland europe, and the declining power of the catholic church in europe.
Sunny,
back to an earlier point you made about the SGGS, respecting one’s holy book does not mean you have made it an idol.
As a Muslim i regard the Qur’aan with much reverance and it usually remains on the highest shelf in my room when it is not being read. As a Muslim i have to read the Qur’aan in a state of ritual purity (wudu) and not leave it near my feet or on the floor. It would certainly not be acceptable for it to be in a place where idols are worshipped or a rave was happening.
So although i am not a Sikh and i do not agree with the Sikh religion, i do understand their being upset at disrespect being shown to the SGGS.
Idoltry from an Islamic understanding and it is the understanding i am using is to worship something other than Allah (SWT) in other words devoting one’s life and actions towards something other than him. I don’t believe this is what Sikhs are doing with respect to the SGGS, rather they are showing respect for it as their final Guru, as Muslims show respect for their Prophets(AS), Awliya, the Qur’aan and hadith.
Ismaeel
Your so-called ‘Proclamation of Global Civility’ (a shady euphemism for ‘do as we say’) is a sinister attempt to curtail freedom of speech. It basically says: If you use bad language, draw offensive cartoons, or defame our religion,… you should, as a matter of ‘principle’, be silenced, censured, fined, or thrown in jail. It’s explicitly Stalinist.
Amir
Ismaeel
“Your so-called ‘Proclamation of Global Civility’ (a shady euphemism for ‘do as we say’) is a sinister attempt to curtail freedom of speech. It basically says: If you use bad language, draw offensive cartoons, or defame our religion,… you should, as a matter of ‘principle’, be silenced, censured, fined, or thrown in jail. It’s explicitly Stalinist. ”
Amir you made this same stupid unsubstantiated accusation before and as before i challenge you to show me where in the text of the proclamation or in any of the literature, press statements, interviews etc on this issue, you draw this inference.
Ismaeel,
My point is that the Semitic idea of polytheism, idolatry as you see it does not really explain or adequately account for the practices it attempts to describe. Centuries ago if you had encountered a Mayan or an Incan and called them a polytheist or an idolator, they would have given you a blank stare or just laughed at the incomprehension on your part. Muslims are free to interpret their faith as they see fit, in and of themselves and debate amongst themselves, but trying to tell everyone else (non-Muslims) that that is the only way is intolerant to me, even if it is a central tenet of your faith. I don’t call them fanatics or extremists unless they apply those beliefs to everyone (and I would do the same with Hindus). The Dalai Lama preaches Buddhism in the West, but he never encourages people to convert to Buddhism. In fact, quite the opposite. This is very different from the historical attitude of say Islam or Christianity.
So I guess in the end, maybe you’re right. Go ahead and call Hindus idolators or whatever and look down on it, that’s ok if you see it that way. Fair enough. They (Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos etc.) generally (with some exceptions) are not interested in getting others to worship like them or believe that theirs is the only way. But by the same token I can find religions that do this and have a belief in only one “savior” exclusionist, narrow-minded and bigoted. Throughout history they have been more obsessed and inclined with getting others to worship like them or believe as they do. If you read Jonathan Kirsch’s “God Against the Gods” , I come down firmly on the side of the latter. To me it doesn’t matter if the idol becomes the final object of worship or is the final object of worship. The divine is everywhere and in everything. And if a person wants to make that the final object of worship, who is anyone to tell him that’s wrong? The very act of worshipping it invests it with whatever their concept of divinity is. I also personally feel that Islam and Christianity and all religions are indeed idol worshipping religions full of ritual. The only difference is that some feel their idol and their rituals should be the standard over others.
I realize now that you can never wrap your head around the ideas and philosophies etc. that find expression in idol worship or polytheism or animism or whatever you want to call it. Likewise, I can never wrap my head around any strictly monotheistic (in the Semitic sense) faith or practices such as strictly forbidding images. To me that’s unnatural. So I shall retract my earlier post as I see now that it was really pointless in the context of this discussion and unnecessary. Thanks.
xyz
i perfectly understand Hindu concepts of worshipping God in everything and viewing the world as illusory etc. However Islam regards those beliefs as misguided and as the Sufis have explained when one reaches a certain spiritual state then it is possible to see everything having the involvement of the Divine in it, but that it is important to distinguish between this concept and the idea of everything being part of the Divine. For this very reason Allah (SWT) has forbidden the creation of images of animate living things to prevent one investing divine properties to created matter.
Islam is a religion that seeks to invite everyone to accept the creed that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) but it does not accept forcing people to do so.
Blimey, I’m almost afraid to look at this thread, you’re all being so rude to each other.
I appreciate that I am not a member of any of the religions under discussion and will probably be told to go away because I don’t understand, but shouldn’t it be possible to discuss these issues without descending into arguing over whose religion is better? Or is the lesson that we’re learning from this thread that the answer to that question is no?
Ismaeel,
I guess we agree to understand each other’s belief sytems but both find certain tenets in each other’s belief systems misguided. Thanks.