I would like to thank both Aman Singh and aad0002 for two excellent posts (above). Infact, I would like to say that both pieces were inspired and both have taken a serious and thoughtful approach to the issues and problems that are faced, in a sense, by every religious community. I agree wholeheartedly that some members of the Sikh community, due to a broad range of historical and social factors, have had to insulate themselves from perceived threats, attacks and unjustifiable antagonism issuing from non-Sikhs, both in India itself and in the Western Diaspora. As a Muslim myself, similar problems have arisen - as we all know - from the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. My own view is that Sikhs, unlike Muslims, have also had to face additional problems on account of who they are - discrimination on account of the way they look but I believe many of them have overcome this with startling success. I understand that many assimilated Sikhs in the West and in India do not identify themselves as necessarily religious Sikhs and some have decided, for various reasons, not to wear the turban or a beard at all. It is not my job, in this forum, to question the validity of these different kinds of personal responses, as I am not a practising Sikh myself. However, as a non-Sikh who shares similar cultural values I know from first-hand experience that people who face the greatest challenges in life are often the best people. There is a famous saying: God tests those He Loves the most. As a non-Sikh one is always worried about making statements that might appear patronising or loosely sentimental and I assume that this may be one factor why some non-Sikhs simply do not participate in Forums like this altogether. In other words, some people are very sensitive about upsetting anyone, especially individuals from communities with whom they share a natural bond of affection and love. It is not everyday that one can find individuals who love other communities on the basis of their philosophical or spiritual values but people like this do exist. The case of Sikh Dharma is, in my own personal opinion, unique in this world on account of its attempt to bring people from communities as wide a field as Hindus and Muslims, together in love. To my mind - and I tend to be very critical about these things - interventions of this kind serve a much higher purpose than most people ordinarily imagine. The life and teachings of Baba Nanak-Ji constitute a very special insight into a world torn apart by hatred, deep animosity and suspicion. Sikhs are not alone in feeling insulated from the world outside – some Muslims and Hindus feel pretty much the same and automatically revert to this impulse. I agree that this automatic feeling is unhealthy and the root cause of many unsuspectingly serious internal and external problems.
I sometimes hear negative things issuing from the mouths of Muslims and Hindus towards each other including people who still entertain tragic memories of the Partitioning of India. In effect, the blame-game never ends in the minds of these individuals. My own personal response to dogmatic Muslims has been extremely severe even if it means having to always maintain what is called 'cognitive dissonance'. In a sense I refuse to inherit other people's prejudices no matter how close they are - even if - as in my own case, they happen to be an otherwise "friendly" uncle or an aunt. I say this from personal experience. So, the question is: why bother going against your own community or your own family? Why not simply keep quiet and allow different communities/families to live and die in their own prejudices? Well, for a start I am both geographically and historically removed from events in the past and consequently I am forced to adopt a much more critical stance in relation to the kind of information I am handed down. My family have sacrificed a lot to ensure that I receive a "proper education" and so, if I believe I am the beneficiary of a 'more enlightened' understanding than, say, my parents’ generation, I am obliged, by that very fact, to make full and proper use of that education. What that means in practice is that I must disengage from any dogmatic approaches that claim to represent the whole truth. That means I cannot just accept what people tell me about other faiths - I must go out and investigate these things for myself. I cannot look only at the behaviour of individuals, no matter how outrageous or contrary to my expectations. I must examine, as objectively as I can, the character of a community, its origins and formation in terms of its approach to metaphysics and then, in turn, to examine its theology, art, history, sociology etc.
In my book, apprehension and understanding are two very different things; I can apprehend an idea without understanding it fully. To give an obvious basic example, I apprehend that Sikhs are people who wear Turbans and Beards but I may not have yet understood fully why this may be the case as there may be an indefinite range of dimensions in Sikhism of which I am - as yet - unaware. The same would apply to my initial apprehension of Hindus or Buddhists. I cannot function properly in this world if, all I do is claim to understand when, in actuality, what I am really doing is simply apprehending ideas or images.
How would individuals in a "Muslim Philosophy Forum" or a "Hindu Philosophy Forum" react to a Sikh who wanted to contribute to their discussions? I think you will find some individuals who would be hostile but then you will also find some who would be very welcoming. My own view is that if the Forum is really about Philosophy and not simply Religion or primarily philosophical and secondarily religious, then no one should really object to the contributions made by people from other faiths or no faith. It may be that a person from a different faith or no faith is convinced by the nature of philosophical arguments and not on the basis of religious arguments. Philosophical arguments generally aim to provide a better view or take on the nature of reality itself and for many logical or philosophically minded people a sound argument carries much more weight than narrow theological or religious points of view. I am not suggesting that there are no religious philosophers or that you cannot combine both religion and philosophy; what I am saying is that for many people like myself a sound argument is always the best point of entry in trying to understand other philosophies and, by extension, faiths different from our own.
