Hey, I’ve learned about Islam, and Sikhism sounds like a very interesting religion. Also veryn pertinent to current events, what with Punjab being such an area of conflict and all.
Any one able to explain this faith to us teeming masses?
Try here
What? We’ve never had an “Ask the Sikh guy” thread?
If there were, I’d ask the Sikh guy why he’s allowed to cut his fingernails.
I happen to be a Sikh by birth, although I don’t follow any organized religions. But I’m pretty well-knowledged in Sikhism so I can try to answer some questions. But many might be beyond my scope.
The reason you are allowed to cut fingernails and not hair is because cutting fingernails is seen as a personal hygiene issue, such as brushing your teeth and taking a bath.
Cutting your hair or shaving, on the other hand, is not. There are two main reasons for this.
- Hair is a gift from God.
- Not cutting your hair, and wearing a turban and beard are seen as signs of identity. In India, where it is about 99% Hindu, this identity is important so Sikhism doesn’t just merge back into Hinduism.
Unfortunately, this showing of identity is also leading to attacks on Sikhs in America.
Here’s a good link which explains a lot of the tenets of Sikhism.
http://www.sikh.net/publications/View/roots.htm
It’s a pretty cool religion. If I had to choose one based on ideology, I’d probably choose Sikhism.
Yeah. I know a guy who got tired of the potbellied pig
he kept as a pet for a YEAR, cooked it and ATE IT.
If thats not a sick guy, I dont know what is!
Oh…wait…you said “sikh”.
My bad.
(Disclaimer: no offense to anyone-just my dorky attempt at humor! 
)
blackthought
Thanks for your stepping up to the plate. Two questions:
Guru Nanak created a religion that de-emphasised the importance of ritual and stressed equality, tolerance, good works, and the importance of developing a personal relationship with God, as the means to achieve samasara with its consequent union with God. How do these teaching coexist with the rituals emphasized and required subsequent to Gobind Singh? It seems to me that the rituals are more akin to tribal religious needs (ie the needs to maintain group identity and cohesiveness in the midst of threats by assimilation) than to the bridging expansiveness that I sense of early Sikh beliefs. Is this off base?
How does the Sikh desire for a homeland in Punjab play into the mix in the conflict over Kasmir, immediately to the North? Are they involved in it on either side? Punjab and Sikh independence have been not reported on much lately. Is this because the world is ignoring it, or because Sikhs have decided that the relatively pluralistic Indian government is preferrable to the threat of Islamic rule?
Thanks!
Excellent question. You seem to know your proverbial “shit”. Indeed, it was Guru Nanak who created Sikhism in the late 1400’s-early 1500’s, with the principles of universal love and acceptance and open distate for the caste system. Guru Nanak also was outspoken in the criticism of other religions, albeit always in a calm rational manner. I can recall one story where he questioned a Muslim’s act of praying toward Mecca by praying in an opposite direction toward his own “homeland”, just to point out the ridiculousness in the whole ritual.
In that time, Guru Nanak’s views were very radical. And as we have all seen, when someone starts to question the views of the majority by citing reason, the majority tends to go apeshit.
So the radical Sikh views led to widespread persecution of Sikhs throughout India. Unfortunately, the pacifistic (is that a word?) views of Guru Nanak had to be backed up with militance in order to keep Sikhism existant. So now we have the whole “warrior” aspect to being a Sikh, which is ingrained in the religion. Several of the latter Guru’s were known fighters.
Indeed it was Guru Gobind Singh, the last living Guru, who brought a more ritualistic and tribal nature to Sikhism. It was he who forbade Sikhs to cut their hair, amongst other things.
It is this which has created a sort of identity crisis in Sikhism. In a way, it is very similar to the Jerry Falwell vs. Joe Jesus-Lover problem, or even the current fundamental vs. conservative Islamic crisis. Just how far should one take it? Who is to say?
While the majority of American Sikhs are peaceful folk who function quite well in society and don’t carry around kirpans (symbolic daggers), there are others who are more militant about the whole thing. In a Sikh temple my parents used to go to, there was even a shooting that took place over conflicting viewpoints.
I don’t know if this answered your question. Perhaps you already knew all of this. How do the teachings co-exist, you ask? Well I guess they just manage. I don’t think they necessarily contradict. The whole one-ness with God thing can still apply with a strong sense of religious identity. As a child, I was taught the importance and significance of both teachings, and I think that most other Sikhs are also trying to find a balance.
If it was up to me, I’d just choose the teachings of Guru Nanak and forget about the rest. But then again, if it wasn’t for the militance of the latter gurus, perhaps Sikhism would have been quashed, and I would have never been exposed to the teachings of Guru Nanak to begin with.
**
Unfortunately, I can’t say too much about this due to lack of proper knowledge. Sikhs are definitely actively fighting in Kashmir, but I would think that there is generally not too much world interest into Sikh independence.
Great questions, by the way. I only wish I could give some more definitive answers.