Fanaticism And Modern Day Sikhs

[HSD1]

Now I dont want anyone to start any arguments or give people the chance to settle vendettas so please dont start if you get the urge.

My question is this: is fanatic a word that describes certain sikhs today? The word fanaticism actually was first used by the europeans to describe the akhalis of old, some of whom were very xenophobic. So are modern day fanatics bad or just presenting something in our genes that was always there? Also, how do we differentiate between fanatics who aim themselves at those outside the panth and those who feel they should purge our community of certain beliefs?

One other thing: I am relatively young, and I see that the sikhs younger than me who do martial arts, are involved in cadets etc, are very similar in outlook to the akhalis and also seem to move through their teenage years with more ease than those sikhs who try to fit in with other 'groups' in sikhi or become coconuts. Is their a positive side to being a fanatic?

Lastly, when the excrement metaphorically hits the fan, these 'fanatics' we look down on are usually the ones we hide behind. They fight and give their lives just so those who ridiculed them can live in peace. Is that unfair, or just the natural order of things?

Please discuss and say what you honestly think, without arguing, as I think this topic is an important one for us to discuss.

Edited October 15, 2009 by HSD

[dsd108]

The clean shaven or mona sikhs are more fanatic than amritdhari sikhs. Aurangzeb used these types to send the Khalsa fauj back into lakhi jungle.

[shaheediyan]

I don't think Akalis were xenophobic, they were simply wise and rightly untrusting of the British.

The fanatic part possibly comes from their open defiance of what they perceived as 'wrong', British were not used to seeing this crystal clear character and passion, hence they used the word fanatic.

Zealous would be a more accurate word to describe them.

[HSD1]

The clean shaven or mona sikhs are more fanatic than amritdhari sikhs. Aurangzeb used these types to send the Khalsa fauj back into lakhi jungle.

An interesting point. Personally, I think that moneh are more fanatical against non-sikhs, though in most cases this leads them to learn more about sikhi and they sought themselves out in the end. I have come across amritdhari fanatics who focus more on other sikhs, especially moneh. Maybe there is a link?

What do you mean by 'Aurangzeb used these types to send the Khalsa fauj back into lakhi jungle.'?

I don't think Akalis were xenophobic, they were simply wise and rightly untrusting of the British.

The fanatic part possibly comes from their open defiance of what they perceived as 'wrong', British were not used to seeing this crystal clear character and passion, hence they used the word fanatic.

Zealous would be a more accurate word to describe them.

But why were the akhalis untrusting? Its obvious the Akhalis didnt have an intelligence network across the subcontinent (or did they?).

The thing is as both of us are sikhs we will avoid using negative words to describe our ancestors. The truth is that the Akhalis were a mixture of Knights Templar/Waffen-SS/SAS, if we had to compare them to western equivalents. Now is that a bad thing they were fanatics? When I discuss with other sikhs why we won major wars against afghanistan when the whites cant, the consensus is always that our fanatics (Akhalis) were more fanatical than their fanatics (Mujahideen). Without them, we might not even be alive, or even worse we could be muslims (joke). Lets face it, most of the world's armies have special units filled with people that you wouldnt want to live near. In a time of war, however, the nation is grateful to them. Is that not accepted in sikhi?

Edited October 19, 2009 by HSD

[jaikaara]

I dont agree to the term 'fanatic' to be associated with Sikhi. Being religious doesnt mean to be fanatic. Wearing the Baana or keep flowing beards and 3 feet kirpaans are signs of wearing the religious pride.Fanatic the word itself contaradicts with Sikhi.

The dictionary states the meaning of 'fanatic' as

enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Devotee is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: a jazz devotee.

The more a person strongly follows Sikhi , the more in him will be a sense of pride for his religion and he will not hate anyone. Becoming a extremist sikh cannot be compared to 'kharkoo' activity. When Sikhi 'thyself' doesnt preach hatred or elimination of other religions, How will a staunch Sikh would want to do so ?

Edited October 19, 2009 by jaikaara

[shaheediyan]

Akalis were the pujaris of the main Guru Ghar, and Gurus laadli fauj, they were hardly the bezerkers! (excluding bhangar Nihangs, lol).

As I said, one only has to spend time at a Nihang chhawnee to see our devotional Akali Nihangs are, and how much seva they do - its superhuman.

I can honestly say that aside from Baba Balbir Singh Seechewal and a few other singular personalities inc some academics, as a group, the most prem I experienced was from Nihangs, it was indescribable.

One Bajurg was so happy to see a young friend of my mine who was wearing a dhummalla (in Kalyug descended Delhi - as per local description) that he was insisting he take all his puratan shastar on his person (basically all that he owned)... it was really tear jerking - an old guard, happy to see some light in his fading days...

The British have made Akalis out to be crazed, brainwashed fanatics, dying to find an opportunity to kill someone, this is far from the truth, they only used these descriptions to justify why their war was hard one.

Other than that, its a friggin war, what do you want, someone to put a haar on you! In war - Singhs become Singhs!

I find it offensive to benchmark Akalis - Dasmesh Pitas Akaal Purkh ki Fauj with fallable man made organisations.

[HSD1]

The dictionary states the meaning of 'fanatic' as

enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Devotee is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: a jazz devotee.

The more a person strongly follows Sikhi , the more in him will be a sense of pride for his religion and he will not hate anyone. Becoming a extremist sikh cannot be compared to 'kharkoo' activity. When Sikhi 'thyself' doesnt preach hatred or elimination of other religions, How will a staunch Sikh would want to do so ?

The fact is you gave a definition of fanatic that is different to what you actually think the word means. Fanaticism does not always involve hate, but is also reactionary and wary of others. Like the Akalis who didnt necessarily hate the british or afghans but knew they were up to no good. Also, fanaticism is not fueled by an urge to eradicate other religions, but to protect ones own set of beliefs.

Could you also explain to me what you mean by an extremist and give examples? Unfortunately, in some sikh circles Kharkoos are considered bad and even criminal.

I dont agree to the term 'fanatic' to be associated with Sikhi. Being religious doesnt mean to be fanatic. Wearing the Baana or keep flowing beards and 3 feet kirpaans are signs of wearing the religious pride.Fanatic the word itself contaradicts with Sikhi.

No one said that a certain appearance makes you a fanatic. A few amritdharis like you described are very docile and lax when it comes to doing anything about anything. On the other hand, many moneh themselves are what I would call fanatics.

[HSD1]

Akalis were the pujaris of the main Guru Ghar, and Gurus laadli fauj, they were hardly the bezerkers!

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there at least 4 Akali Regiments in the sikh army before the Anglo-Sikh wars? If we had beaten the british at Mudki, they would have been at the vanguard of the sikh forces blitzing their way into british india.

As I said, one only has to spend time at a Nihang chhawnee to see our devotional Akali Nihangs are, and how much seva they do - its superhuman.

I can honestly say that aside from Baba Balbir Singh Seechewal and a few other singular personalities inc some academics, as a group, the most prem I experienced was from Nihangs, it was indescribable.

One Bajurg was so happy to see a young friend of my mine who was wearing a dhummalla (in Kalyug descended Delhi - as per local description) that he was insisting he take all his puratan shastar on his person (basically all that he owned)... it was really tear jerking - an old guard, happy to see some light in his fading days...

Like I said before, maybe it's something wrong with me, but I don't see the word 'fanatic' as derogatory. Anyway, what you mention is modern day stuff, in which case most of the sikh fanatics are in other parts of the nation.

The British have made Akalis out to be crazed, brainwashed fanatics, dying to find an opportunity to kill someone, this is far from the truth, they only used these descriptions to justify why their war was hard one.

Other than that, its a friggin war, what do you want, someone to put a haar on you! In war - Singhs become Singhs!

This isn't about what the british think. They portray people in many different lights, mainly as projections of things they see in themselves as well. As sikhs, we know that they were not crazed, brainwashed or psychopaths. But in the early 1800s, many of them probably had parents and grandparents who had been killed in the Holocaust the afghans inflicted on us. This obviously affected their outlook and even their motivation to become the crack troops of our army. Is that a bad thing? Many of the shaheeds of 84 and afterwards had suffered at the hands of the hindustani govt. Does that mean we cast doubt on why they fought? Of course not.

I find it offensive to benchmark Akalis - Dasmesh Pitas Akaal Purkh ki Fauj with fallable man made organisations.

Well I dont mean to cause offense, but the Akhalis were man made. From the time of Guru Gobind's creation of the troop to the regiments garrisoned on the borders of the Khalsa Raj, the Akhalis were a group of people who changed as time went on. When the Lahore Durbar went to war, they were the first in. The goreh say that was because Maharaja Ranjit Singh wanted them dead. I dont agree with this as the British Govt sends the SAS in first and the americans send in the USMC, not because they want them dead but rather they are the best. Ultimately, the Akalis were fallible. Their headlong rush to fight the british, without knowing who or what tactics/troops/equipment they would be up against led them into numerous disastrous battles. Many of the Akali regiments perished in the death trap that was Sobroan. Of course some of them survive to this day, but they dont control many gurudwaras, field forces of sizeable strength or prevent interference in their own affairs from outsiders. If we ever have a Khalistan, we could try to restore them as guardians of gurudwaras and have crack Akhali Divisions in the Khalistani Army.

Edited October 20, 2009 by HSD

[dalsingh101]

No one said that a certain appearance makes you a fanatic. A few amritdharis like you described are very docile and lax when it comes to doing anything about anything. On the other hand, many moneh themselves are what I would call fanatics.

Although I can understand the statement made earlier about some moneh being more active in certain ways than bana wearing Sikhs, I think it is wrong to term them as fanatics.

I recall SP guys from about a decade ago who were like this. They were classed as fanatics by many people then but I know now that the truth was far from this. The truth is that some people like to hide behind the persona of Sikhi by using their external roop. Such people hide behind this but totally fail to have any real sense of what is going on in the world at ground level. Some of the most beautiful Sikhs I have met have been moneh (some of whom have taken Amrit later). The truth be told, some of the most corrupted, self centred Sikhs I have met have been the ones who like to flaunt their religiousity in others faces. Often they wear bana fanatically. Of course not all bana wearing Sikhs are like this. Just to bring us back to reality, this afternoon I saw two (nerdy looking) Sikh boys in school uniform, wearing pughs, sharing a spliff on an East london High Street.

Anyway, anyone that's ever seen action from the community in the UK has to admit that moneh are usually the majority at the forefront of street level battles that have taken place against anti Sikh elements.

Now, more than anytime, I realise that the moneh I met in the past were more circumspect about what is going on in regards to the far right, Islamic fundamentalists and even human rights abuses back home than anyone else. If these people are fanatics (a label I disagree with), then we need more of them and less of the other bullshit, sit at home, inactive types.

Another really important issue is that the term 'fanatic' itself is one that is used in a very loaded way. Often i think it is just a term used to vilify people who are essentially strongly holding an opposing position to western society, especially when religion is involved. Who is a fanatic exactly? Is it coincidence that the phrase is most often linked to those who potentially pose the greatest threat to western hegemony or ideals? Are the BNP not fanatics in the sense the word is used to describe others? What about the NF/Combat 18? I would say yes. But rarely are they referred to as "fanatics" but rather the less loaded term "far right" is used.

I think the term fanatic is essentially used by white men to identify and vilify those that scare them through their strong adherence and commitment to 'other' ideas or identities.

Edited October 21, 2009 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

Woah, calm down Dalsingh, I'm on your side. One of the reasons i started this thread was to 'unload' the word fanatic among us.

Lets face it these 'fanatic' qualities are what made us so hard to conquer, and able to form a Khalsa Raj. These feelings and attitudes are not to be ridiculed, but should be embraced and respected. Hippy fundamentalist sikhs are allowed to do what they want, so why cant the other side be allowed to do what is necessary? In the end we will all be grateful. Anyone can call me a fanatic, all I will do is laugh in their face. To me it shows they fear my faith and resolve, which makes me even more difficult to defeat. That may sound bad to some of you, but I am what I am, so are many of the youth today. You cant just ignore us or say we are wrong, nothing is achieved by not facing those who are your brothers.

Edited October 21, 2009 by HSD

[Matheen]

I hope to one day be a fanatic follower of Guru Ji's teachings.

[Mithar]

Woah, calm down Dalsingh, I'm on your side. One of the reasons i started this thread was to 'unload' the word fanatic among us.

Lets face it these 'fanatic' qualities are what made us so hard to conquer, and able to form a Khalsa Raj. These feelings and attitudes are not to be ridiculed, but should be embraced and respected. Hippy fundamentalist sikhs are allowed to do what they want, so why cant the other side be allowed to do what is necessary? In the end we will all be grateful. Anyone can call me a fanatic, all I will do is laugh in their face. To me it shows they fear my faith and resolve, which makes me even more difficult to defeat. That may sound bad to some of you, but I am what I am, so are many of the youth today. You cant just ignore us or say we are wrong, nothing is achieved by not facing those who are your brothers.

I seem to agree with HSD's view here. The term fanatic can mean many different things to different people. To the British and Pathans, the Akali Nihangs of olden times were the fanatics. That is also how they viewed other Sikh movements throughout Sikh history whether it be the Namdhari movement under Baba Ram Singh Jee or the Akali movement during the 20th century. Much of my communist influenced family in Amritsar viewed the Kharkoos of the 80s as fanatics while I view them as heroes even though I am not a Khalistani myself.

It seems some fanatics are really ultra conservatives who want to protect their traditions, identity or community/tribe/nation. These types are usually the first to get militant when their religion or nation is threatened. These types of fanatics are viewed negatively by not only outsiders but even by some of their own community who these fanatics are trying to protect.

Many of these so called fanatic groups do sober/cool down over time to the point where they are no longer perceived as dangerous or even fanatical. This is true for many Sikh groups who were once considered fanatics but are not longer perceived as fanatics.

[HarjasDevi]

"The truth is that the Akhalis were a mixture of Knights Templar/Waffen-SS/SAS, if we had to compare them to western equivalents. Now is that a bad thing they were fanatics?"

Wow. I find it pretty offensive that you would compare Akali Nihang Singhs with the Waffen SS. Thats about the most Adharmic group imaginable. Are you saying you really believe the Akali Nihang were like them?

Waffen SS cutting the beard of an elderly Jewish man.

The Waffen SS left a legacy of horror and repulsion by butchering millions. Are you saying fanatical intolerance is NOT a bad thing? How is this a good thing?

The problem with fanaticism is that it's blind. It's cultic, regimented, unthinking, unfeeling, blind obedience to evil authority creating unspeakable oppression. Is this what you think a sant-sipahi is? Someone who butchers entire racial and religious groups because they are different? Is that a quality of "strength?"

That's a very sad definition of strength. One of the greatest qualities of strength is it's ability to be gentle, to be just and fair and decent. Butchering people is an act of weakness, not strength. There is no military victory in atrocities.

"Fanaticism is the cause of most religious hatred."

Fanaticism

[singh2]

Wow. I find it pretty offensive that you would compare Akali Nihang Singhs with the Waffen SS. Thats about the most Adharmic group imaginable. Are you saying you really believe the Akali Nihang were like them?

Waffen SS cutting the beard of an elderly Jewish man.

The Waffen SS left a legacy of horror and repulsion by butchering millions. Are you saying fanatical intolerance is NOT a bad thing? How is this a good thing?

The problem with fanaticism is that it's blind. It's cultic, regimented, unthinking, unfeeling, blind obedience to evil authority creating unspeakable oppression. Is this what you think a sant-sipahi is? Someone who butchers entire racial and religious groups because they are different? Is that a quality of "strength?"

That's a very sad definition of strength. One of the greatest qualities of strength is it's ability to be gentle, to be just and fair and decent. Butchering people is an act of weakness, not strength. There is no military victory in atrocities.

"Fanaticism is the cause of most religious hatred."

Fanaticism

Welcome harjas kaur ji.It is good to have Harjas kaur ji on this website.

Akali Mihungs were the pride of khalsa army. They were true sikhs who sacrificed lives without

a question for expanding khalsa Raj. They were not receiving any pay for their services. They were always in charhdi kala. British called them famnatic ecause they were never ready for making a deal.

In 1984( especially after June) Indian Govt was calling amritdhari sikhs as fanatics. They were termed as dangerous in Indian army magazine " baat cheet" and to be kept under watch. Why so? The sole reason was that whereas akalis led by longoiwal for for sale damdami taksal led by bhindrewale was gainst any sell out. So those who do not compromise their principles are termed as fanatics by the forces that are in power.

[Only five]

Although I can understand the statement made earlier about some moneh being more active in certain ways than bana wearing Sikhs, I think it is wrong to term them as fanatics.

I recall SP guys from about a decade ago who were like this. They were classed as fanatics by many people then but I know now that the truth was far from this. The truth is that some people like to hide behind the persona of Sikhi by using their external roop. Such people hide behind this but totally fail to have any real sense of what is going on in the world at ground level. Some of the most beautiful Sikhs I have met have been moneh (some of whom have taken Amrit later). The truth be told, some of the most corrupted, self centred Sikhs I have met have been the ones who like to flaunt their religiousity in others faces. Often they wear bana fanatically. Of course not all bana wearing Sikhs are like this. Just to bring us back to reality, this afternoon I saw two (nerdy looking) Sikh boys in school uniform, wearing pughs, sharing a spliff on an East london High Street.

Anyway, anyone that's ever seen action from the community in the UK has to admit that moneh are usually the majority at the forefront of street level battles that have taken place against anti Sikh elements.

Now, more than anytime, I realise that the moneh I met in the past were more circumspect about what is going on in regards to the far right, Islamic fundamentalists and even human rights abuses back home than anyone else. If these people are fanatics (a label I disagree with), then we need more of them and less of the other bullshit, sit at home, inactive types.

Another really important issue is that the term 'fanatic' itself is one that is used in a very loaded way. Often i think it is just a term used to vilify people who are essentially strongly holding an opposing position to western society, especially when religion is involved. Who is a fanatic exactly? Is it coincidence that the phrase is most often linked to those who potentially pose the greatest threat to western hegemony or ideals? Are the BNP not fanatics in the sense the word is used to describe others? What about the NF/Combat 18? I would say yes. But rarely are they referred to as "fanatics" but rather the less loaded term "far right" is used.

I think the term fanatic is essentially used by white men to identify and vilify those that scare them through their strong adherence and commitment to 'other' ideas or identities.

Hey, Dal call me a fanatic. Call me crazy for Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. And I will sit home when I like and others will aswell. When moneh wanna open their mouth then they get a lesson in words and if that don't work then they get smashed. You don't wanna see this sit at home fanatic smash the moneh twice the size of him into bits. It's not a pretty site, and the word bullshit won't becoming out of your mouth. You'll be running the 8 mile.

NOW CALL ME FANATIC

[Only five]

For political reasons you don't want Sikhs to be labeled as Fanatics. The correct word be devoted Sikhs. Fanatic as a negative tone attached to it.

And if some other fooled mouth calls me fanatic, then you laugh in there face. Gotta love stubborn people.

[Guest]

Fanaticism is global problem is not bound to one religion. All fanatics be it - christians, islamic/muslims, buddhists, hindus, sikhs, jaini, communist, socialist, capitalist, atheist all are threat to this humanity...!!. They do not need to be jailed in Guantanamo bay nor killed, their hate parchar and form of recruit has to be rooted out from the seed if you want to save humanity from religious zealots/fanatics...!

Religious fanatics are cause for human suffering and bloody wars around the globe. For me twisted hate monger kharkhoo killing mona for not growing its kesh and taliban mullah beheading its people for not following sharia are one and same despite of difference in ratio.

[HSD1]

Wow. I find it pretty offensive that you would compare Akali Nihang Singhs with the Waffen SS. Thats about the most Adharmic group imaginable. Are you saying you really believe the Akali Nihang were like them?

Of course I am. I honestly believe that Akalis were blond haired, blue eyed germans who wore uniforms with the death's head on. They also all spoke fluent german, hated slavs and chatka'd wurst. They believed Hitler was their leader (forward thinking, eh?).*

*The above is an example of sarcasm.**

**By sarcasm I mean the proper definition of it, not some moronic notion of the word that some people who dont understand the meaning of anything will try to tar me with.

Seriously, people like you are idiotic. You honestly think I thought the bad things the Waffen SS did is what the Akalis had in common with them? Maybe it's my fault for thinking some of you actually have some brain cells, but I was actually referring to how the SS and Akhalis both fielded large military units. Both were also 'pure' in order to reflect what was perceived the pinnacle of each society's citizen.

Waffen SS cutting the beard of an elderly Jewish man.

Oh wow. How emotive. You really are a piece of work. Hindoos are renowned for being able to push people's buttons. Nothing like showing a beard being cut on a sikh forum to get people on your side. Unfortunately we saw through it.

The Waffen SS left a legacy of horror and repulsion by butchering millions. Are you saying fanatical intolerance is NOT a bad thing? How is this a good thing?

Fanatical intolerance? No I said Fanaticism. Get your facts right before you make yourself look stupid.

The problem with fanaticism is that it's blind. It's cultic, regimented, unthinking, unfeeling, blind obedience to evil authority creating unspeakable oppression. Is this what you think a sant-sipahi is? Someone who butchers entire racial and religious groups because they are different? Is that a quality of "strength?"

Stop putting words in my mouth. Is sikh-hindu unity about sikhs fighting all the hindu's wars and letting them kill us every time they want to riot? Oh and the part I put in bold above is an excellent description of hindustan. Couldnt have described it better myself.

That's a very sad definition of strength. One of the greatest qualities of strength is it's ability to be gentle, to be just and fair and decent. Butchering people is an act of weakness, not strength. There is no military victory in atrocities.

Not according to the Indian Army.

"Fanaticism is the cause of most religious hatred."Fanaticism

HAHAHAHA. At least you're good for a laugh. Now go on that link people. See how it gives definitions in black? And examples in blue? The examples themselves are just opinions. So there you go. What level of debauched machiavellian machinations that are at work in your mind is truly sickening. At least I can show others how people like you twist everything.

[HSD1]

And if some other fooled mouth calls me fanatic, then you laugh in there face. Gotta love stubborn people.

I am sure you can use your own mouth to laugh at them.

Dont start threatening moneh either.

[HSD1]

Fanaticism is global problem is not bound to one religion. All fanatics be it - christians, islamic/muslims, buddhists, hindus, sikhs, jaini, communist, socialist, capitalist, atheist all are threat to this humanity...!!. They do not need to be jailed in Guantanamo bay nor killed, their hate parchar and form of recruit has to be rooted out from the seed if you want to save humanity from religious zealots/fanatics...!

What makes you think that others (non-sikhs) want that? If we could get everyone to stop being a fanatic, I would be overjoyed. But others dont want that. They use and even love their fanatics. If you live in the west, what kind of person do you think is the foot soldier in your country's army? A reasonable chap? Or a psycho who has been told that killing in Britain is a crime, but killing Johnny Foreigner is patriotic?

How many hindus, christians and muslims are there? Billions? How many are fanatics? A small percentage.

How many sikhs are there? 24 million. How many are fanatics? A larger percentage than the others.

But do the number crunching. A small percentage of a billion is still a lot more than a fair percentage of 24 million. When two groups rub up against each other, its these people we need. Without them, the frontline moves to your doorstep. Are you ready for that? Being a hippy about what others want to do to us will do you no good in the end. At least have some respect for those who put their lives on the line for other sikhs and never look down on any of them, for they will fight for you Neo when no one else will.

Religious fanatics are cause for human suffering and bloody wars around the globe. For me twisted hate monger kharkhoo killing mona for not growing its kesh and taliban mullah beheading its people for not following sharia are one and same despite of difference in ratio.

A 'kharkoo' who kills moneh is a fundamentalist and not a sikh. I have made it clear what a fanatic is, and they are not fundamentalists. Anyone who fights the innocent, unprotected or other sikhs is an idiot and not a sikh. There are also a lot more causes of human suffering and wars than religious fundamentalism.

Edited October 22, 2009 by HSD

[dalsingh101]

Hey, Dal call me a fanatic. Call me crazy for Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. And I will sit home when I like and others will aswell. When moneh wanna open their mouth then they get a lesson in words and if that don't work then they get smashed. You don't wanna see this sit at home fanatic smash the moneh twice the size of him into bits. It's not a pretty site, and the word bullshit won't becoming out of your mouth. You'll be running the 8 mile.

NOW CALL ME FANATIC

Shame there aren't more like you then.

I wonder where you go when trouble starts from outsiders? Instead of making threats over the internet like a proper phudhoo, do something productive. Why you get so upset, the truth hurt huh?

How old are you by the way? 13?

[dalsingh101]

For political reasons you don't want Sikhs to be labeled as Fanatics. The correct word be devoted Sikhs. Fanatic as a negative tone attached to it.

And if some other fooled mouth calls me fanatic, then you laugh in there face. Gotta love stubborn people.

If you read what was posted earlier, the whole point was that the term fanatic is frequently used by westerners to vilify people. What is a fanatic to one community can often be a bulwark to the community he/she belongs to. (Look it up in an online dictionary if you need to!)

That is not saying that people should shut off brains and follow things like a blind lemming but that even reasonable people fighting for a just cause can easily be labelled and portrayed as a fanatic, especially by people who have a strong hold of the media.

I guess the crux of the matter is the fine line between a person passionately believing in a just cause and willing to make sacrifices for it to the small step to out and out mindless hate and destruction beyond reason. It is really easy to portray the former types as the latter.

Edited October 29, 2009 by dalsingh101